Understand the disputed payment.
Bring the customer’s account together with matching bank records. Keep an unrelated debit outside the confirmed dispute.
Payment-scam response, grounded in evidence
The whole case.
A justified first response.
Customer reports, bank matches and the money trail—connected in one analyst workspace. Understand what is known, resolve what is missing and review the next action.
Source-linked evidenceHuman-reviewed actionsSynthetic practice case
✓CaseProof Studio/Practice case
Interactive illustrationAS
Payment-scam response
Asha’s report
Reported claims, bank-supported facts and a reviewed next action.
Confirmed disputed₹56,000
Additional debitSeparate review
Click to explore the workflow
Money Trail
4 accounts · 3 transfers · Illustrative assessment
Origin · customer
Hop 1
Hop 2
₹56,00011:10 IST₹33,60011:25 IST₹5,60011:28 IST
Source-linked assessmentThe first question is
The first question is
what the evidence supports.
A customer reports being deceived into sending ₹56,000. A matching bank debit supports the payment amount. A separate ₹10,500 debit remains outside the confirmed dispute pending clarification.
Inspect a source
Select a citation to see the distinction between customer-reported information and a bank-supported fact.
Confirmed disputed₹56,000Bank matched
A separate question
Was the additional debit part of the scam?
Ask the customer. Do not automatically add it to confirmed loss.
Clarification requiredNext supported action
Send a focused request.
A useful answer should change the investigation’s next step.
Human reviewA handoff with
A handoff with
a reason behind it.
Review evidence, resolve relevant gaps and approve only the current assessment. The original approved packet stays inspectable after later observations.
RV
Authorised reviewer
✓Decision, rationale and assessment revision retained.
Illustrative handoff record
✓CFCFRMS update simulatorAcknowledged
✓Bank case-system simulatorAcknowledged
Assigned owner & next actionFollow-up open
Delivery is a handoff. It does not confirm a freeze, refund or closed investigation.
Built around the analyst’s decision.
From first report to a justified next action.
A clear brief.
A supported next action.
↗Traceable
source citations
source citations
◎Distinct
facts and uncertainty
facts and uncertainty
✓Explicit
human approval
human approval
The work behind the first responseA payment record is a starting point.
A payment record is a starting point.
The investigation needs context.
See where the evidence leads.
Follow observed transfers and inspect the original sources. Keep gaps and uncertain availability in view.
Make the next action reviewable.
Give the reviewer the brief, current assessment and rationale. Carry the handoff forward with an owner and next step.
The first responseOne report.
One report.
A connected investigation.
From a customer’s first account to a reviewed handoff, each step carries its evidence and unanswered questions forward.
✓Customer reporting portal01 / 04
Good intake starts with the right payment, not a pre-filled case.
The analyst workspaceA brief is only useful
A brief is only useful
when you can question it.
Go from a statement to its source. Inspect the original receipt, see extracted text in context and distinguish what was reported from what the bank supports.
From statement to source.
Inspect the original evidence behind a cited statement. Reported information remains separate from bank matches.
A trail with context.
View linked bank observations and transfers. Unknown availability stays visible; an observation is not a freeze.
A decision you can revisit.
Keep rationale, approvals and the delivered packet alongside the case’s continuing history.
Designed for the decisionContext in the brief.
Context in the brief.
Accountability in the handoff.
The analyst’s output is more than a summary. It is a supported next action that another person can inspect.
Investigation briefIllustrative assessment · r6
The report says one thing.
The bank confirms another.
Keep both sources visible. Let the difference guide the next question.
C1Customer account“I was told to move my money.”Reported
B1Matched bank record₹56,000 outgoing transferBank matched
?Separate additional debit₹10,500 · needs clarificationOpen question
Review & handoffHuman decision
Send a reviewed packet.
Retain the reason.
Approval binds to the current assessment. A delivery acknowledgement starts the follow-up.
RV
Authorised reviewerCurrent assessment and rationale
✓Evidence & revisionReviewed
Two simulator receiversAcknowledged
Follow-up ownershipRetained
Illustrative record. Acknowledgement does not confirm a freeze or refund.
Evidence before promisesInspect the proof
Inspect the proof
behind the product.
CaseProof is in local evaluation with synthetic bank data. The evidence available today is a tested workflow you can inspect.
2Fresh complaint journeys
completed locally
completed locally
30Browser acceptance
assertions passed
assertions passed
39Frontend unit/component
tests passed
tests passed
i
Local validation on 17 October 2026. These are engineering checks, not customer adoption, recovered funds or production-readiness measures.
A practice journeySynthetic data · local validation
A receipt. A question.
A reviewed response.
Follow a case from the first receipt to an acknowledged handoff.
Explore the illustrative caseStart with ₹56,000, not every debit.
A customer reports a suspicious transfer and uploads a receipt. A separate debit is kept apart until clarified.
Turn a gap into a focused question.
The analyst inspects source citations and bank matches. A scoped customer reply informs a new assessment revision.
Send the packet. Keep the owner.
An authorised reviewer approves the current content. Both local receivers acknowledge the packet; follow-up stays open.
i
This illustrative story reflects locally tested workflows with synthetic bank data. It is not a customer testimonial, recovery result or live institutional filing.
Built on evidenceConfidence needs
Confidence needs
a reason.
CaseProof supports an analyst’s judgment with a visible chain of evidence and decisions.
Questions before you evaluate?Sources stay attached.
Inspect the original evidence and bank context behind a claim. Missing or contradictory information remains visible.
People approve the next action.
Reviewer decisions bind to the current revision. A later assessment requires its own consideration.
Limits stay explicit.
Delivery does not imply recovered money. Local processing is labelled accurately; live cloud and institutional integrations still need verification.
Evaluation & pricingEvaluate the workflow.
Evaluate the workflow.
Price the scope.
Start with an inspectable practice case. Pilot and rollout terms would depend on your users, evidence, integrations and operating requirements.
Guided evaluation
See how evidence becomes a reviewable first response.
Walk through the product- Synthetic customer report
- Source-linked investigation
- Review and follow-up journey
Scoped pilot
Define the cases, people and measures that would establish fit.
Scope-based proposal- Agreed workflow and success criteria
- Data and access requirements
- Integration-readiness review
Institutional rollout
Map the operational requirements of your environment.
Terms to be agreed- Identity and system integrations
- Security and deployment review
- Ownership and operating model
What defines a proposal?Users & responsibilitiesEvidence & case scopeSystem integrationsOperating requirements
Proposed engagement model. Commercial scope and terms remain to be agreed.
Before you beginGood questions.
Good questions.
Clear answers.
Understand where CaseProof fits—and where human judgment remains essential.
Does CaseProof replace the analyst?
No. It organises evidence and surfaces supported next actions. Staff review the material and an authorised reviewer approves supported handoffs.
Does a delivered packet mean money is frozen?
No. Acknowledgement records delivery. It does not establish a hold, freeze, refund, regulatory filing or closed investigation.
Will this work with our existing bank systems?
CaseProof’s local workflow demonstrates the case lifecycle with bank data and simulator endpoints. A real rollout would require agreed interfaces, staff identity, delivery contracts and operational validation. Compatibility with a specific bank has not been established.
What does the customer see?
A guided reporting journey, evidence upload, report status and focused clarification requests through scoped reply links.
Is this connected to live banks or Google?
Our deployed staging workflow uses Google Document AI and Vertex AI Gemini for evidence processing. Practice bank records and receiving endpoints are synthetic. Each assessment identifies its processing provider. Institutional bank connections and staff sign-in are separate integrations; a practice identity does not establish production access.
Can I test a fresh complaint?
The integrated local Studio supports fresh practice sessions and new supported complaints. Choose Explore a practice case to open the live reporting journey. The illustration above remains a labelled example.
How would pilot pricing work?
Commercial terms have not been published. Scope would need agreement around evaluation goals, users, data, integration work and operational requirements.
CaseProof
A clearer case.
A better-informed next step.
Explore the evidence, the trail and the review.
Decide whether the workflow fits your team.