Evidence generation
How Chargeflow builds a dispute response: written from scratch by multiple specialised agents rather than filled into templates, QA'd by an AI agent, aligned to card scheme rules, and tuned by the outcome of every win and loss.
Chargeflow writes each dispute response from scratch. There is no template with blanks in it.
That is the difference worth understanding before you evaluate any dispute vendor, because it decides what happens on the disputes that are not typical, and those are the ones you lose.
How it is built
| Stage | What happens |
|---|---|
| Structure first | The evidence structure is chosen for the reason code and the scheme before any prose exists. |
| Specialised agents | Agents trained per dispute type, per vertical, and per data-collection type each write the part of the claim they own. |
| Composition | A final agent composes and refines the parts into one coherent claim rather than a stack of sections. |
| BIN-driven optimisation | The issuer's BIN informs how the case is presented, because issuers do not all weigh evidence the same way. |
| QA by an AI agent | Facts, card-scheme rules, and structure are checked before submission. See How our AI works. |
| Feedback-driven | Wins and losses are A/B fed back, so the approach for each reason code keeps moving. |
Multi-language support means the claim can be produced in the language the issuer works in.
Chargeflow versus template-based tools
| Chargeflow | Template-based providers | |
|---|---|---|
| How the claim is written | From scratch by multiple agents | Pre-written template, AI fills the blanks |
| Adapts to the dispute | Yes, per reason code, vertical, and available data | Limited to what the template anticipated |
| Quality control | AI QA agent checks facts, rules, and structure | Usually none beyond validation |
| Scheme alignment | A dedicated component aligns to card scheme regulations | Static, updated when the vendor updates the template |
| Improves over time | Every win and loss feeds back | Only when someone rewrites the template |
The bottom line: each case is unique and the output mimics what a chargeback analyst would produce, rather than what a form letter produces.
What this means for you
Send the data, not the argument. Your job is context: the order, the conversation, the usage, the fulfilment record. Deciding which of it wins this particular dispute is the engine's job. Send everything you have; the enrichment engine evaluates what strengthens the case and leaves out what does not. See Enrich a dispute.
Unusual disputes are the point. Any tool handles a clean "item not received" with a tracking number. Value shows up on the dispute where the tracking number is missing but the customer's account history, IP, and support thread together make the case.
You can still review. Platforms can run co-pilot, where evidence is generated and a human approves before submission. See Platforms overview.
Next step
Background reading: Representment and evidence for the mechanics of a representment, and How recovery works for where generation sits in the pipeline.