# Payment exceptions and investigations

> Payment exceptions and investigations: Why a payment failed or is queried; the action Checked: proven by code. Produces resolved cases, replies to counterparties.

Source: https://www.sumarity.ai/library/payment-exceptions-and-investigations/

Banking and payments 

# Payment exceptions and investigations

Reads payment messages (pacs, camt, MT), the ledger, investigation requests. Produces resolved cases, replies to counterparties. Code works out every figure, the Judgement Engine answers the narrow questions, and whatever stays uncertain goes to a person.

Proven by codeClaims, disputes and exceptions
Start from this workflowMore for banking  

What it decides

## Narrow questions, each with a check behind it.

Why a payment failed or is queried; the action
Proven by code: message chain, camt/pacs, ledger. Code proves the answer from the data itself: totals tie, a match is exact, the quote is on the document. Most of these judgements settle without a person.

| Reads | Payment messages (pacs, camt, MT), the ledger, investigation requests 
| Produces | Resolved cases, replies to counterparties 
| Who signs | A person on your team, with every figure traced to its document and every call on record 
| Process | Claims, disputes and exceptions 
| Industry | Banking and payments    

See it run

## Every line, decided where it's safest.

An example run. Each stage lights up as a line is decided there; pick a stage to see its lines.

ReadsPayment messages (pacs, camt, MT), the ledger, investigation requestsCodeReads, matches, ties out and works out every figure.JudgementWhy a payment failed or is queried; the action. Settles only when it clears the cutoff and code proves it.A personGets whatever stays uncertain, with the evidence. Their ruling tunes the next run.ProducesResolved cases, replies to counterparties  
Payment exceptions and investigations · example run Example run  

| Ref | Item | Value | Decided by  
| INV-551 | pacs.004 return, AC04Account closed: return matches the original | 12,000.00 | Code · matched 
| INV-552 | Beneficiary says not receivedCredited 02.09 per camt.054 · 0.96 | 8,450.00 | Engine · proven 
| INV-553 | Duplicate MT103Same reference and amount 3 minutes apart · 0.94 | 25,000.00 | Engine · proven 
| INV-554 | Charges dispute OUR/SHACorrespondent charged twice? Unclear | 45.00 | To a person 
| INV-555 | Wrong beneficiary nameName mismatch: recall needed | 3,200.00 | To a person  
|  

Settled 3 To a person 2 Settled wrong 0      Illustrative lines. Amber rows are the Judgement Engine's calls; each settles only above its cutoff and when its check agrees.    

What it could save

## Your volumes in. Your hours out.

In our tests, between 24% and 42% of items still went to a person after tuning. Set your own share; a pilot measures it on your data.

Items per run 
Runs per month 
Minutes per item by hand 
Cost per hour

Share of items that still need a person: 30%  

By hand today80 ha month 
With Sumarity24 ha month, for the items people decide 
Saved56 hCHF 53,760 a year    

Related

## Start from what's closest.

### Claims, disputes and exceptions in other work

Finance

### Customer deductions and short-pay disputes

Valid deduction (promotion, damage) or not

Proven by codeBanking

### Card disputes and chargebacks

Network reason code; evidence enough to fight

Cross-checkedBanking

### Customer complaints handling (UK FCA)

Complaint category, redress due

Cross-checked

### More for banking

### Card disputes and chargebacks

Network reason code; evidence enough to fight

Cross-checked

### Nostro and vostro reconciliation

Which statement line matches which booking

Proven by code

### Corporate KYC onboarding

Beneficial owners, documents complete, risk

Cross-checked  

Questions

## What buyers ask

What happens when Sumarity isn't sure?

Nothing settles below the cutoff, or when the check disagrees. The item goes to a person in the inbox with what the engine saw, its best answer and the runner-up. The person's ruling is kept and tunes the next run.

How are its judgements checked?

Code proves the answer from the data itself: totals tie, a match is exact, the quote is on the document. Most of these judgements settle without a person.

Can we change it to fit how we work?

Yes. Start from this workflow and describe your differences in plain words. The design assistant revises it, the validator checks it, your expert reviews it on the canvas, and your admin publishes it.

Does it read our files as they are?

Yes: spreadsheets and CSV in any layout, PDFs, bank formats and e-mail attachments. Sumarity suggests how each column maps, proves the mapping on a sample and remembers it once a person confirms it.

Where does our data go?

Sumarity runs in Zurich. Your data, backups and logs are stored in Switzerland.

How does it get better?

Your team's rulings become an answer key. Better questions and cutoffs are proposed, tested on data they haven't seen, and published only when your admin approves. It improves itself, with permission.

## Start from this workflow. Run it on your data.

A pilot runs alongside your own process for a few weeks, at our cost, and ends in a line-by-line comparison.

Talk to usBack to the library