TracewiseCase ConsoleFraud Investigation Agent
all cases

HHG-013

uncertainOpen

card not present new device

Case HHG-013 resulted in an uncertain verdict with a fraud probability of 0.27, as the investigation reached its maximum depth limit and the step-up authentication request expired unanswered. Key evidence included a $35.66 online transaction on card C07671-K2 from a new device, supported by mixed precedent signals from cases CC-0707, CC-0446, and CC-0046 confirming fraud versus CC-0526 and CC-0726 clearing as legitimate. The agent's attempt to expand the investigation to the shared-device neighborhood was refused because the proposed device_id_15 was identified as a raw dataset column name rather than a valid entity ID. Consequently, the final action was set to MONITOR_CARD (auto, R0: policy default, below case-creation threshold) because the expired authentication response raised the probability from 0.23 to 0.27, leaving the case below the threshold for more severe intervention.

exposure
$35.66
affected txns
1
connected cards
0
prior cases cited
5
uncertain
fraud probability
0.150.300.700.85

stop_reason — Evidence request settled the question: probability reached 0.27 (uncertain); further steps are unlikely to change the decision.

recommendation historyrevised after evidence

Initial recommendation

before · on the evidence gathered so far
  1. VERIFY_WITH_CUSTOMERAutoR1
  2. STEP_UP_AUTHAutoR1

Evidence requested

ask · 1 request
  • step up authafter step 3

    Step-up authentication request expired unanswered within the window.

Revised recommendation

after · after the response came back
  1. MONITOR_CARDAutonewR0: policy default, below case-creation threshold
  • VERIFY_WITH_CUSTOMERwithdrawn
  • STEP_UP_AUTHwithdrawn

The assumed step up auth response (Step-up authentication request expired unanswered within the window.) raised fraud probability from 0.23 to 0.27, changing the recommended actions.

entity neighbourhood1 cards · 0 devices
HHG-013-CARD
shared devicecard under investigationflaggedconnected card
policy trace · R1–R100 of 10 predicates fired

Every rule below is a deterministic predicate evaluated against this case’s evidence — not a model’s assertion of an outcome. The engine checks all ten; most do not apply here, and that is shown deliberately.

R1
did not fire
Single signal only, fraud probability below 0.70 — must precede any block.
R2
did not fire
Customer was asked to validate and denied the charge.
R3
did not fire
Customer confirmed the charge as their own.
R4
did not fire
No customer reply within 24 hours.
R5
did not fire
3+ sub-$5 online authorizations within an hour on one card, then a larger purchase.
R6
did not fire
Device profile, billing region, or recipient email shared across multiple cards in one window.
R7
did not fire
Disputed charge matches the customer's own recurring pattern — merchant, amount, monthly.
R8
did not fire
Verdict uncertain with exposure over $500, or evidence conflicts.
R9
did not fire
Fits none of the five documented patterns, and abuse is coordinated or repeated across customers.
R10
did not fire
BLOCK_ALL_CARDS was proposed — requires 2+ cards confirmed fraud or confirmed compromised credentials, else downgrades to a single-card BLOCK_CARD.
precedent retrieval · graphRAG5 cases retrieved

The closed-case history runs 4,665 confirmed fraud to 900 cleared — a single merged ranking over that history returns almost nothing but incriminating cases and pushes every verdict toward blocking. Retrieval runs as two separate pools, confirming and exonerating, so that imbalance cannot silently decide the case.

Confirming precedent(3)

  • CC-0707
  • CC-0446
  • CC-0046

Exonerating precedent(2)

  • CC-0526
  • CC-0726

Drawn from 5,565 closed investigations.

evidence ledger · 10 itemsprovenance & signals

  • 1 online transaction(s) on card C07671-K2 -- T3526826 ($35.66) -- came from a device first marked 'New' for this account (id_15=New)

    Graph
    query:card_window(card_id=C07671-K2)T3526826

  • Precedent (confirming): CC-0707 (confirmed fraud, $35.06 exposure): semantically similar analyst notes (cosine distance 0.27), no direct structural overlap

    Graph
    query:prior_case_candidates(case=CC-0707)CC-0707

  • Precedent (confirming): CC-0446 (confirmed fraud, $16.86 exposure): semantically similar analyst notes (cosine distance 0.27), no direct structural overlap

    Graph
    query:prior_case_candidates(case=CC-0446)CC-0446

  • Precedent (confirming): CC-0046 (confirmed fraud, $10.04 exposure): semantically similar analyst notes (cosine distance 0.28), no direct structural overlap

    Graph
    query:prior_case_candidates(case=CC-0046)CC-0046

  • Precedent (disconfirming): CC-0526 (cleared as legitimate): semantically similar analyst notes (cosine distance 0.23), no direct structural overlap

    Graph
    query:prior_case_candidates(case=CC-0526)CC-0526

  • Precedent (disconfirming): CC-0726 (cleared as legitimate): semantically similar analyst notes (cosine distance 0.24), no direct structural overlap

    Graph
    query:prior_case_candidates(case=CC-0726)CC-0726

  • Agent elected to expand the investigation to the shared-device neighbourhood. Reasoning: YES The new device marker suggests a potential shared device that could be linked to other compromised cards or customers.

    Graph
    llm_decision:expand_device_neighbourhood(case=HHG-013)C07671-K2

  • Agent proposed device_neighbors(device_id=device_id_15), refused: that looks like a raw dataset column name, not a real entity id -- running it would waste a query rather than gather evidence. Full params: {'device_id': 'device_id_15', 'anchor': '2016-12-09 05:39:29', 'hours': 720}

    Graph
    llm_plan:rejected(column_as_id, depth=1)

  • Agent proposed device_neighbors(device_id=device_id_15), refused: that looks like a raw dataset column name, not a real entity id -- running it would waste a query rather than gather evidence. Full params: {'device_id': 'device_id_15', 'anchor': '2016-12-09 05:39:29', 'hours': 720}

    Graph
    llm_plan:rejected(column_as_id, depth=2)

  • Confidence check on gathered evidence: medium -- The investigation has reached its maximum depth limit (3 of 3). The evidence presents a mixed signal: a high real-time risk score (0.76) and a new device marker are concerning, but the transaction amount is low ($35.66) and the precedent cases are split (3 confirming fraud, 2 disconfirming/legitimate) with no direct structural overlap. The attempt to investigate the device neighborhood was blocked due to invalid entity IDs, preventing further clarification on whether the device is shared or compromised. Given the depth limit and the contradictory nature of the precedent signals, the evidence is sufficient to hand off to the policy engine, which will weigh the risk score against the transaction context and precedents to make the final determination.

    Graph
    llm_decision:confidence_gate(case=HHG-013, depth=3)
prior cases · memory5 cited

Confirming precedent

  • CC-0707Supports fraud
  • CC-0446Supports fraud
  • CC-0046Supports fraud

Disconfirming precedent

  • CC-0526Exonerates
  • CC-0726Exonerates
Stop reasonEvidence request settled the question: probability reached 0.27 (uncertain); further steps are unlikely to change the decision.
Tool calls0
Tokens0
Latency0.0s