Sample Chargeback Leakage Review
Northstar Digital Goods (fictional) · northstar.example.test ·
Window 2026-05-09 .. 2026-08-07
1. Executive summary
This synthetic example reviews a 90-day window of sanitized data for a fictional digital goods merchant. All numbers below are synthetic and are used only to demonstrate report structure.
The sample shows 12 disputes on 48 settled transactions (25% by count), 3 missed response deadlines, 5 disputes with incomplete evidence, 3 pairs of possible duplicate refunds, and 4 cases where an alert and a dispute overlap on the same transaction. None of these represent any real client.
2. Scope and assumptions
Window: 2026-05-09 to 2026-08-07 (synthetic).
Data used: transactions.csv, refunds.csv, disputes.csv, alerts.csv from data/synthetic-client.
Assumption: amounts are shown in USD; the fictional merchant uses PSP-A and PSP-B.
Limitation: this skeleton uses preset demo values from ground_truth.json; it is not the output of an automated analysis engine.
3. KPI baseline
All KPIs below are synthetic.
| KPI | Value | Definition |
| Settled transactions | 48 | Transactions with status settled |
| Dispute count rate | 12 / 48 = 25.0% | Disputes / settled transactions |
| Dispute amount rate | USD 9,600 / USD 38,204 = 25.1% | Disputed amount / settled amount |
| Representment submission rate | 8 / 12 = 66.7% | Disputes with a response submitted |
| Outcome win rate | 2 / 8 = 25.0% | Won / decided disputes (open excluded) |
| Missed deadline count | 3 | Deadline passed without response |
| Evidence incomplete | 5 | Disputes with evidence_complete = false |
4. Top findings
F1: 3 pairs of possible duplicate refunds within 7 days on T-008, T-017 and T-033.
F2: 4 alert/dispute overlaps (T-005, T-011, T-022, T-041) - an alert was received and a dispute later opened on the same transaction.
F2b: 2 refund-before-dispute overlaps on T-014 and T-029 - a refund was issued and a dispute still opened.
F3: 3 missed response deadlines, concentrated in June.
F4: 5 responded disputes lacked complete evidence; all 5 were decided as lost.
F5: 83% of volume sits on PSP-A (40 of 48), a concentration risk for a single provider.
5. Leakage map
Illustrative leak categories in the synthetic sample.
| Leak type | Count | Illustrative note |
| Possible duplicate refunds | 3 pairs | Refund issued twice on T-008, T-017, T-033 |
| Refund before dispute | 2 | Refunded, dispute still opened on T-014, T-029 |
| Missed deadlines | 3 | No response submitted in time |
| Evidence gaps | 5 | evidence_complete = false |
| Alert/dispute overlap | 4 | Alert action and dispute on same transaction |
6. Operational gaps
G1: No single view of alert, refund and dispute records per transaction.
G2: Deadline tracking is manual; 3 cases missed the response window.
G3: Evidence checklist is not enforced before submission.
G4: Refund and dispute teams operate without shared case ownership.
7. 7-day actions
Priority actions for the first week.
| Action | Owner | Synthetic impact note |
| Reconcile the 3 duplicate refund pairs and stop repeat refunds | Refund ops | Example only |
| Build a per-transaction alert/refund/dispute lookup | Ops lead | Example only |
| Set up deadline alerts for open disputes | Ops lead | Example only |
| Define the evidence checklist for representment | Ops lead | Example only |
8. 30-day actions
Process changes within 30 days.
| Action | Owner | Synthetic impact note |
| Enforce evidence completeness before submission | Dispute team | Example only |
| Define alert action policy per provider to avoid overlap | Ops lead | Example only |
| Monthly KPI review with fixed denominators | Ops lead | Example only |
9. 90-day automation roadmap
Candidate automation steps; none are promised outcomes.
| Step | Scope | Gate |
| Unified case state machine | Data model + statuses | Design review |
| Deadline/SLA tracking | Rules + notifications | Design review |
| Evidence checklist enforcement | Workflow rule | Process sign-off |
| Provider interface plan | API/webhook/file | Vendor review |
10. Appendix and metric definitions
Dispute count rate = disputes / settled transactions (same window).
Dispute amount rate = disputed amount / settled amount (USD).
Outcome win rate = won / decided disputes; open disputes are excluded and the denominator is stated.
Missed deadline = deadline_at passed with no response_submitted_at.
Evidence incomplete = evidence_complete = false among responded disputes.
Possible duplicate refund = two refunds on the same transaction within 7 days with the same amount.
Alert/dispute overlap = alert and dispute reference the same transaction.
All values in this report are synthetic and were preset for demonstration.