Before vs After — real structural difference
What a reviewer sees.
One version stops them. One lets them decide.
Not sales copy. Structural differences between what most people send and what a reviewer needs to act without asking for more.
Situation 1 — WooCommerce chargeback / DNR
Customer claims they never received the order. You have proof they did.
Reviewer's first question: "Where is the delivery confirmation with a timestamp? I need to see when it was delivered and by whom."
✗ What most merchants send
Screenshot of tracking page — no timestamp visible, carrier name cut off
Email thread with customer — 3 separate threads, no clear timeline
Order confirmation PDF — shows purchase, nothing after
"Please see attached" — no summary, no ask, no explanation of what each file proves
Reviewer: "I need to reconstruct what happened from 4 separate files. I'll send a follow-up request." → Case delayed, window may close.
✓ What Vraimony produces
PASS: Delivery confirmation — timestamp 14:32 March 9, signature captured, carrier: DHL
PASS: Communication log — ordered, dated, customer's dispute message + your reply
PASS: Order timeline — purchase → shipped → delivered → dispute filed (5 days after delivery)
Clear ask: "Confirm delivery was completed per attached proof and chargeback reason is invalid."
Reviewer: "Delivery confirmed at 14:32 with signature. Chargeback filed 5 days later. Case is clear." → Decides without asking for more.
Situation 2 — Agency invoice dispute
Client disputes the invoice. You delivered everything agreed — you have the emails.
Reviewer's first question: "What was originally agreed? I need a baseline to assess whether delivery matched it."
✗ What most agencies send
Original proposal PDF — 12 pages, buried in email attachment
Email chain showing "client said yes" — 47 emails, approval is in email #23
Deliverables folder — 8 files with no explanation of which phase they belong to
Invoice — correct, but no connection to agreement or delivery evidence
Reviewer: "I need a summary of what was agreed, what was delivered, and what the dispute is specifically about." → Sends follow-up. Case stalls.
✓ What Vraimony produces
PASS: Scope agreement — signed March 1, 3 deliverables, $3,400 agreed
PASS: Approval record — client confirmed Phase 1 + 2 delivery on March 12 (email excerpt)
PASS: Delivery timeline — Phase 1 (Mar 5), Phase 2 (Mar 10), Phase 3 (Mar 14), invoice sent Mar 15
Clear ask: "Confirm scope was delivered per agreement and $3,400 invoice is valid."
Reviewer: "Scope agreed, delivery confirmed, invoice matches. Can proceed." → No follow-up needed.
Situation 3 — War risk cancellation response (broker)
P&I club cancels coverage. You need to respond within 48 hours.
Underwriter's first question: "Show me the vessel position at the time of cancellation and the advisory that predates your deviation."
✗ What most brokers send
Forwarded cancellation email — no analysis, no response structure
"Please find attached" — 4 files, no explanation of what each proves
AIS screenshot — timestamp unclear, vessel name partially visible
Request for alternative cover — no supporting documentation
Underwriter: "I need the advisory reference and vessel position in the correct format before I can proceed." → 48h window at risk.
✓ What Vraimony produces
PASS: Cancellation notice — GARD ref, effective time: 2026-03-05 18:00 UTC
PASS: JWC advisory ref — JWC-HORMUZ-2026-03, dated 2026-03-04 (predates deviation)
Declared: Vessel position — en route, rerouting via Cape of Good Hope per master's order
Clear ask: "Please confirm buyback terms for alternative war risk cover effective 2026-03-05."
Underwriter: "Advisory predates deviation, vessel position declared, ask is clear. Can respond immediately." → Responds within hours.
← Understand why this happens in the first place
The structural difference is the product
Check if your file has the gaps that stop reviewers.
Free. 5 questions. 90 seconds. Each "No" shows you the exact gap and how to fix it.
◎ We improve review-readiness. We do not control the reviewer's decision.