Definition and responsibility
A transaction dispute is a case challenging a specific financial event. Chargeback is a contracted network process for contesting that event. A service complaint may initiate the case, but neither the complaint nor the dispute itself proves a refund.How it differs from related modules
Read the module comparison map for the whole platform and the glossary for shared terms.
Planned operating duties: Customer; dispute officer; network specialist; finance approver. Access to these duties requires the approved institution permission matrix. The bank or authorised regulated entity owns product policy and financial outcomes. Platform operators receive no automatic customer-data, fund-movement or issuer authority.
Worked Indian example
Use the four stages below to distinguish the initial facts, the action to test, confirmed completion and the alternate result. This example exercises this module’s responsibility; related modules still own the handoffs listed above. Fictional requirements illustration, not seeded data or approved banking policy. Reference: DISP-001 / disputed INR 600.00 purchase.
No real customer, regulator approval, provider connection or bank operation is asserted. Illustrative amounts have currency INR and scale 2; actual economics/authority must be supplied by the institution.
Module flow diagrams
Read each flow from top to bottom. Rectangles are actions or recorded outcomes; diamonds are decisions; labelled arrows show the next permitted route. The denial route stops the operation. The pending/unknown route keeps the original reference for investigation instead of claiming success. Each diagram corresponds to the numbered journey below. Planned workflows are shown below. Execution depends on confirmed institution policy and interface contracts.Flow 1: Report transaction to close with explanation
Flow 2: Provisional credit granted to reconcile case and ledger
Required features
Planned functionality is listed below. Implementation requires confirmed field definitions, permissions, state transitions and product economics for the selected offering.Required configuration
Reason codes; evidence; deadlines; provisional-credit policy; representment and write-off authority. Store approved values in versioned, effective-dated product/programme policy. Capture the exact configuration version used by an instruction. Missing mandatory configuration blocks the dependent action; enabling a menu cannot grant legal authority.End-to-end journey 1
Report transaction → verify standing and original transaction → classify → collect evidence → submit authorised dispute → track outcome → settle adjustment → close with explanation. The journey ends only when its authoritative result, customer/staff-visible result and related book or case history agree. A saved request, queue entry or HTTP acknowledgement is an intermediate state.End-to-end journey 2
Provisional credit granted → dispute lost or won → apply approved final adjustment → notify → reconcile case and ledger. Every transition needs an authorised actor, original version and recorded reason where required. Cancellation or client disconnection does not prove server rollback. Financial corrections retain their original reference and use linked reversal/adjustment entries rather than deleting history.Interfaces and data dependencies
Network dispute rules/status; original transaction; evidence store; adjustment journals. Agree stable institution, product, party and operation references; source version; as-of time; completeness; status/finality; retry rules and correction handling. Where no financial posting occurs, record the administrative/case outcome instead of inventing a journal. All channel requests use server-verified identity and institution scope. Partner, branch and customer access is narrower than institution membership. Lists, details, search, exports, callbacks and files must enforce the same boundary.Current implementation and reuse
New Banking project: proposed, not built. No financial disputes or chargeback module exists. General support is only a partial case foundation. Reviewed legacy feature boundaries:service-requests (non-financial General support only). See the source inventory on the gap page. Legacy feature presence is a reuse candidate, not acceptance or deployment evidence for this module.
Acceptance criteria and exception scenarios
Explicit cases: Duplicate dispute; deadline approaching; original refund already received; credit recovery after case loss.- Allowed success: confirm saved/output values, authoritative status and the exact approved actor/channel.
- Denial: reject foreign institution, unauthorised branch/customer/programme and revoked or expired access without information leakage.
- Reliability: prove stale-version rejection and concurrency behaviour; retryable commands apply one economic effect; unknown financial outcomes are reconciled by original reference.
- Records and usability: preserve redacted audit, monetary precision and document integrity; verify keyboard/mobile, direct links, expired sessions, Back/Forward and return navigation. Internal web navigation preserves its workspace.