A fraud system that raises too many alerts is almost as weak as one that raises too few. Analysts tire, real cases wait, and new typologies slip past rules written for yesterday's fraud.
We review the rules, scores and workflows in your monitoring system across cards, mada, SARIE, instant payments and digital channels. We measure what each rule catches, retire what no longer earns its place, and add coverage for current typologies such as authorized push payment fraud, account takeover and mule activity.
The result is a tuned rule set with the reasoning behind every change, a baseline of alert-quality metrics, and procedures your team can follow.
Why it matters
Rule and scenario effectiveness review
False-positive reduction
Coverage of new fraud typologies, including APP and account-takeover fraud
Alert handling workflow and SLAs
How the engagement runs
- 1MeasureAlert volumes, hit rates and losses by rule
- 2AnalyzeGaps against current typologies and channels
- 3TuneThresholds, logic and new scenarios, tested on history
- 4EmbedProcedures, metrics and handover
What you receive
- Detection coverage map
- Tuned rule set with rationale
- Alert quality metrics baseline
- Operating procedures for the fraud team
Questions
Which fraud systems do you work with?
Any rule-based or score-based system; we work with your vendor where configuration access is restricted.
Will tuning increase our losses?
Every change is back-tested on your history first, and false-positive reductions are balanced against detection.
