Before: 100 minutes
After: 12 minutes
88% reduction across 6 case types.
6 realistic WooCommerce example cases
Every chargeback type.
Same pattern every time.
These cases were tested against the Verdict Engine on 2026-03-31. All 6 passed (SEALED_WITH_FLAGS — engine operational). Names and order numbers are fictional. The gaps, timelines, and metrics reflect how real disputes actually fail.
DNRSNADFriendly FraudVolumeHard caseTested: Verdict Engine
For developers: JSON records at
/examples/cases/ are ready for POST /v1/ga/request.
Engine: Rules Registry v2026-03-26-v4 · All 4 layers tested (Structural ✓ Integrity ✓ Policy ✓ Readiness ✓)
Engine test — 2026-03-31
6/6 cases tested. Engine operational.
6/6
Cases passed
88/100
Avg verdict score
4/4
Layers operational
SEALED_WITH_FLAGS
All 6 verdicts
SEALED_WITH_FLAGS (not SEALED) because local test environment uses verify_url placeholder — not a failure. All 4 layers pass. On production server with real verify URLs, expect SEALED on W1/W3/W4/W5.
All 6 cases
Click any case to see the full before/after.
CASE W1
DNRSEALED_WITH_FLAGS 88/100
Clean DNR — all evidence PASS
Order delivered with signature. Customer claims non-receipt 5 days later. All 3 evidence items PASS.
95→12
Minutes
2→0
Follow-ups
3 PASS
Evidence
✗ Timestamp not visible on tracking screenshot
✗ Comm log scattered across 2 threads
✓ After: DHL POD timestamped, log ordered, ask explicit
CASE W2
DNRSEALED_WITH_FLAGS 88/100
Proof exists, poorly structured
Carrier shows DELIVERED but no signed POD. Low-degree evidence items. Flags raised.
110→15
Minutes
3→1
Follow-ups
1 PASS
Evidence
✗ Delivery proof degree: 5 (below PASS threshold)
✗ 3 email threads, unordered
✓ After: gaps surfaced before reviewer sees them
CASE W3
SNADSEALED_WITH_FLAGS 88/100
Item not as described — SNAD
Customer claims SNAD 5 days after delivery. Pre-dispatch photo and archived listing prove item matched.
120→14
Minutes
2→0
Follow-ups
3 PASS
Evidence
✗ Archived listing not linked to dispute
✗ Pre-dispatch photo existed but not referenced
✓ After: listing + photo + delivery in one structured record
CASE W4
Friendly FraudSEALED_WITH_FLAGS 88/100
Used product — then disputed
Delivered 5 Mar. Customer emailed support 7 Mar. Chargeback filed 17 Mar. 12-day gap contradicts DNR.
85→10
Minutes
1→0
Follow-ups
3 PASS
Evidence
✗ Support email not linked to dispute timeline
✗ 12-day gap between delivery and chargeback not highlighted
✓ After: contradiction evidence structured and explicit
CASE W5
VolumeSEALED_WITH_FLAGS 88/100
3 orders — only the largest disputed
£85, £212, £445. First two completed. Third disputed. Prior delivery pattern at same address.
130→16
Minutes
2→0
Follow-ups
3 PASS
Evidence
✗ Prior order history not assembled as evidence
✗ Pattern evidence missing from original response
✓ After: prior deliveries + current delivery = one pattern record
CASE W6 — Hard
Missing ProofSEALED_WITH_FLAGS 88/100
Genuinely missing delivery proof
Carrier: IN_TRANSIT. No POD. Merchant cannot prove delivery. Engine seals — reviewer sees the gap explicitly.
60→8
Minutes
2→1
Follow-ups
1 PASS
Evidence
✗ Delivery proof: absent (not an organisation problem)
✓ After: gap surfaced explicitly — reviewer sees Declared, degree 3
⚑ Engine note: SEALED_WITH_FLAGS = correct. No silent pass.
The pattern across all 6 cases
Same problem. Different wrapper. Same fix.
Before: avg 2.2 follow-ups
After: avg 0.3
Cases W1, W3, W4, W5: zero follow-ups.
Evidence existed in 5 of 6 cases. The problem was not missing evidence — it was evidence that was too scattered, unordered, or unlabelled for a reviewer to act on.
Case W6 had genuinely missing proof. Vraimony did not pretend otherwise. SEALED_WITH_FLAGS — gap visible to reviewer. That is the correct behaviour.
Check your own case
Which of these is your situation?
◎ We improve review-readiness. We do not guarantee dispute outcomes.