One merchant. Two views of risk.
Reconcile the programme count, then address its different causes.
You work at Northbank Pay, a fictional PSP supporting an EU acquirer. Brightwater Tickets has a rising fraud-and-dispute monitoring ratio. The acquirer requests a written response. All figures and internal escalation levels below are synthetic; the exercise is not a live scheme eligibility determination.
Fictional scenario · Synthetic data · No real customer records- exercise October ratio
- 1.30%
- internal escalation level
- 1.50%
- included events
- 2,340
What would
you look at?
Open at least two files before making a decision. You can read every file.
0 of 3 files opened
A useful definition01 / Programme arithmeticMonthly ratio+
The exercise acquirer supplies a reconciled October extract: 1,260 included fraud-report events and 1,080 included dispute events against 180,000 settled card-absent transactions. The result is 2,340 / 180,000 = 1.30%. Comparable prior extracts were 0.80% and 1.05%. The acquirer’s fictional internal escalation level is 1.50%; its review considers the trend before that level is reached. These are event counts, not necessarily distinct fraudulent purchases.
Visa’s public VAMP fact sheet describes a count-based TC40-plus-TC15 ratio over TC05 and exclusions dependent on extraction timing. For this exercise the acquirer has already reconciled the included events. A monitoring ratio is not the same as a fraud loss rate or a count of unique harmed customers.
02 / Dispute breakdownComposition+
Of the 1,080 included dispute events, 380 concern service not provided and relate to a cancelled festival with customer refunds still queued. Another 410 are fraud disputes concentrated in orders above €150 without recorded 3DS authentication; 290 concern other reasons. Fraud-report events also concentrate in the higher-value segment. The merchant has not yet assessed a pre-dispute resolution service with its acquirer.
The evidence suggests separate operational and fraud-control workstreams. It does not prove that authentication would have stopped every disputed payment, or that adding a resolution service would remove disputes already filed.
03 / Acquirer viewPortfolio & tools+
The fictional portfolio extract contains 24,800 included events on 6,200,000 settled transactions: 0.40%. Brightwater contributes 9.4% of included events and 2.9% of transaction volume. The contract permits a negotiated remediation plan. Reserve changes require contractual and credit approval; termination is a separate decision. The acquirer will confirm applicable scheme rules, exclusions and any consequences rather than relying on a fee summary.
Merchant and portfolio views answer different questions. The public programme framework is a reference, not a substitute for current account-specific confirmation. Removing an event from a monitoring count, where permitted, also does not undo an underlying loss or service failure.
Make the call.
Leave your reasoning.
Choose what you would do under this scenario’s assumptions. Your notes stay in this browser. Do not enter real customer information.
The trade-off
Still unknown
How many additional events relate to the cancellation, whether targeted controls improve outcomes, and how the applicable current programme treats each event in the actual extraction period.
A useful handoff
Record the reconciled counting definitions, separate causes, customer-remediation owner, fraud-control experiment, weekly acquirer review and month-end decision. Confirm actual scheme scope and consequences directly before communicating them as facts.
Completion records participation, not competence or certification. You can change your answer and compare again.
Further reading
Visa · VAMP public fact sheet; exercise escalation level is fictionalReference checked 5 November 2026. The scenario, runbook and debrief are original Antifrog teaching material; the source does not endorse them.