Fraud prevention desk
How is a fraud analyst's decision judged?
Does your call fit the evidence you opened? Did you check what was worth checking, and weigh the innocent explanation fairly? What would a wrong call have cost? And could a stranger re-decide the case from the reason you wrote?
- Each line below restates an item in the Fraud prevention desk's own rubric, which scores each part out of five from a checklist the grader reads your written work against.
- 5 graded areas, each one below
Graded area 1
Whether your decision fits the evidence you saw
Names the one signal that separates this case from an innocent one, not just every signal that fired.
Quotes at least two signals by their values in the case file, at least one from a panel you opened.
Keeps apart what the risk score or rule says and what the evidence shows.
The action follows from the reasoning, and nothing you cite contradicts it.
"High risk score" as the whole reason.
A decline that cites a fact which, read properly, points the other way.
Graded area 2
Whether you checked the evidence worth checking
Says which signals a fraudster controls and which they cannot.
Asks how the case would look if someone had built it on purpose.
Where a ring or a card-testing pattern is plausible, treats this order as one part of it.
Writes down a standard check you skipped, and why.
Treating a clean check (address match, CVV match, a passed liveness test) as proof of innocence, when stolen or made-up details would pass it too.
For a suspected stolen card or account takeover, contacting the phone or email on file before deciding: those may be the fraudster's.
Graded area 3
How well your confidence matched the evidence
Names the closest innocent explanation (or, for an approval, the closest guilty one).
Says how that explanation was tested, or that it could not be.
Says what evidence would have changed the decision.
A certain-sounding call with no alternative considered.
Graded area 4
What a wrong call would have cost the business
Weighs both mistakes. Declining a good customer and approving a fraud both cost money, in different amounts. The grade counts what your call would have cost if it were wrong.
When the case is past your authority, escalates it with the question, the evidence, any clock that is running, and a recommended action.
Handing a case up with a shrug instead of a recommendation.
Graded area 5
The reason you wrote down
Records the signals in the order you examined them, the action, and a reason code that matches it.
Labels what the customer or a third party said as their claim, not as a checked fact.
Holds everything a stranger would need to re-decide the case without opening it.
Speaks to the customer in checking language, not accusation, and states the next step and its timing honestly.
Citing evidence the case trail shows you never opened.
Telling a suspected fraudster which signal triggered the review.
Promising the customer a refund the rules do not require.
Questions
Asked about this desk
Is a correct decision enough?
No. The decision is one part. A right call with a reason that cites nothing, or cites evidence you never opened, still loses marks, because on a real team the next person has to be able to check it.
How does the AI fit in?
You make your call first, then judge the AI's. Agreeing with the AI is not a reason; the evidence is.
See it on the desk itself: the Fraud prevention desk, or work a real one free. Every guide is listed on the guides index, and if something here is wrong or unclear, tell us.
Free to start · no card
You do the work. We hand you the record.
Real tickets and cases, with AI at your side. Your first ticket is free and graded on the core checks. Every shift after it is reviewed part by part.