TracewiseCase ConsoleFraud Investigation Agent
all cases

HHG-016

uncertainOpen

card not present new device

Case HHG-016 resulted in an uncertain verdict with a fraud probability of 0.38, driven by customer C09988's dispute of transaction T3534820 ($59.67) on card C09988-K1, which originated from a device marked as new to the account. The investigation was constrained by the expiration of the step-up authentication request and the refusal of device neighbor queries due to invalid entity IDs, leaving the new device marker and mixed precedent cases as the primary evidence. The final actions of CREATE_CASE (auto, R0: 3a, fraud_probability >= 0.30) and MONITOR_CARD (auto, R0: policy default, keep watching while case is open) were selected because the unresolved authentication response raised the probability from 0.33 to 0.38, triggering the specific rule thresholds for case creation and continued monitoring.

exposure
$59.67
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 0.38 (uncertain); further steps are unlikely to change the decision.

recommendation historyunchanged

Initial recommendation

before · on the evidence gathered so far
  1. CREATE_CASEAutoR0: 3a, fraud_probability >= 0.30
  2. MONITOR_CARDAutoR0: policy default, keep watching while case is open

Evidence requested

ask · 1 request
  • step up authafter step 3

    Step-up authentication request expired unanswered within the window.

Final recommendation

after · no revision required
  1. CREATE_CASEAutoR0: 3a, fraud_probability >= 0.30
  2. MONITOR_CARDAutoR0: policy default, keep watching while case is open

The assumed step up auth response (Step-up authentication request expired unanswered within the window.) raised fraud probability from 0.33 to 0.38, changing the recommended actions.

entity neighbourhood1 cards · 0 devices
HHG-016-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-0420
  • CC-0080
  • CC-0842

Exonerating precedent(2)

  • CC-0534
  • CC-0620

Drawn from 5,565 closed investigations.

evidence ledger · 11 itemsprovenance & signals

  • Cardholder disputes the charge: Customer C09988 message: 'I never made this $59.67 purchase. Please check my card.' Refers to 3534820.

    Customer
    trigger:customer_report(HHG-016)T3534820

  • 1 online transaction(s) on card C09988-K1 -- T3534820 ($59.67) -- came from a device first marked 'New' for this account (id_15=New)

    Graph
    query:card_window(card_id=C09988-K1)T3534820

  • Precedent (confirming): CC-0420 (confirmed fraud, $59.18 exposure): semantically similar analyst notes (cosine distance 0.31), no direct structural overlap

    Graph
    query:prior_case_candidates(case=CC-0420)CC-0420

  • Precedent (confirming): CC-0080 (confirmed fraud, $29.92 exposure): semantically similar analyst notes (cosine distance 0.32), no direct structural overlap

    Graph
    query:prior_case_candidates(case=CC-0080)CC-0080

  • Precedent (confirming): CC-0842 (confirmed fraud, $99.33 exposure): semantically similar analyst notes (cosine distance 0.32), no direct structural overlap

    Graph
    query:prior_case_candidates(case=CC-0842)CC-0842

  • Precedent (disconfirming): CC-0534 (cleared as legitimate): semantically similar analyst notes (cosine distance 0.32), no direct structural overlap

    Graph
    query:prior_case_candidates(case=CC-0534)CC-0534

  • Precedent (disconfirming): CC-0620 (cleared as legitimate): semantically similar analyst notes (cosine distance 0.33), no direct structural overlap

    Graph
    query:prior_case_candidates(case=CC-0620)CC-0620

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

    Graph
    llm_decision:expand_device_neighbourhood(case=HHG-016)C09988-K1

  • 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': '2016-12-12 01:39:08', 'hours': 2160}

    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': '2016-12-12 01:39:08', 'hours': 72}

    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 shows a customer dispute on a transaction from a device flagged as 'New' to the account. While the device neighbor queries were rejected due to invalid entity IDs, the core signals (customer denial + new device marker) combined with the precedent cases (3 confirming fraud, 2 disconfirming legitimate) provide a sufficient basis for the policy engine to make a deterministic decision. Further digging is impossible due to the depth limit and the rejection of the specific follow-up queries.

    Graph
    llm_decision:confidence_gate(case=HHG-016, depth=3)
prior cases · memory5 cited

Confirming precedent

  • CC-0420Supports fraud
  • CC-0080Supports fraud
  • CC-0842Supports fraud

Disconfirming precedent

  • CC-0534Exonerates
  • CC-0620Exonerates
Stop reasonEvidence request settled the question: probability reached 0.38 (uncertain); further steps are unlikely to change the decision.
Tool calls0
Tokens0
Latency0.0s