# Representment and evidence (https://docs.chargeflow.io/docs/reference/concepts/representment-and-evidence)



**Representment** is the merchant's formal response to a chargeback. When a cardholder disputes a charge and the issuer reverses it, the merchant can "re-present" the transaction to the issuer along with evidence that the charge was valid. The issuer reviews the evidence and either returns the funds to the merchant or lets the reversal stand. Representment is the merchant's main opportunity to recover disputed revenue.

## How representment works [#how-representment-works]

<Steps>
  <Step>
    ### A chargeback arrives [#a-chargeback-arrives]

    The issuer posts a provisional reversal and the acquirer or PSP notifies the merchant. The dispute enters the `needs_response` status. See [Dispute state machine](https://docs.chargeflow.io/docs/reference/concepts/dispute-state-machine).
  </Step>

  <Step>
    ### Evidence is gathered [#evidence-is-gathered]

    The merchant collects the records that prove the transaction was legitimate and that the cardholder's claim does not hold. The right evidence depends on the reason category. See [Reason codes](https://docs.chargeflow.io/docs/reference/concepts/reason-codes).
  </Step>

  <Step>
    ### A rebuttal is built [#a-rebuttal-is-built]

    The evidence is organized into a clear, factual narrative, often called a rebuttal letter, that ties each document directly to the dispute reason. A focused, well-structured rebuttal beats a large pile of unrelated files.
  </Step>

  <Step>
    ### The response is submitted [#the-response-is-submitted]

    The rebuttal and evidence are submitted to the acquirer or PSP within the network response window, which forwards them to the issuer. The dispute moves to `under_review`. See [Network timelines](https://docs.chargeflow.io/docs/reference/concepts/network-timelines).
  </Step>

  <Step>
    ### The issuer decides [#the-issuer-decides]

    The issuer weighs the evidence and rules `won` or `lost`. If network rules allow, a lost case may escalate to pre-arbitration.
  </Step>
</Steps>

## Evidence categories [#evidence-categories]

Evidence falls into a handful of categories. The strongest rebuttals draw from several of them and match the evidence to the dispute reason.

| Category                      | Examples                                                                                                     | Strongest against                                    |
| ----------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------- |
| Transaction and authorization | Authorization records, AVS and CVV results, 3-D Secure authentication logs, device and IP data.              | `fraud`                                              |
| Customer identity             | Account login history, prior purchase history, matching billing and shipping details, customer profile data. | `fraud`, `canceled_recurring_billing`                |
| Fulfillment and delivery      | Tracking numbers, carrier confirmation, signed delivery proof, digital download or access logs.              | `not_received`                                       |
| Product and service           | Product descriptions, photos, service records, usage logs, terms of service the customer accepted.           | `not_as_described`                                   |
| Communications                | Email and chat threads, support tickets, order confirmations, cancellation and refund records.               | `credit_not_processed`, `canceled_recurring_billing` |
| Refund and credit             | Refund receipts, credit memos, proof a credit was already issued.                                            | `credit_not_processed`, `duplicate_charge`           |

<Callout type="idea" title="Match evidence to the reason">
  Submitting delivery proof against a `fraud` dispute does little. Submitting authentication logs
  and prior-transaction history against the same dispute can win it. Always lead with the evidence
  that directly answers the cardholder's claim.
</Callout>

## How Chargeflow handles representment [#how-chargeflow-handles-representment]

Chargeflow automates the representment process. It ingests the dispute, enriches it with case-relevant signals, and selects the evidence that fits the reason category and historical outcomes. Its agents then compose a coherent rebuttal and submit it to your PSP within the response window. You can strengthen any case by adding targeted evidence. See [Dispute automation engine](https://docs.chargeflow.io/docs/reference/concepts/dispute-automation) for how enrichment works.

For step-by-step instructions on adding your own evidence to a dispute, see the [Upload evidence guide](https://docs.chargeflow.io/docs/merchants/automation/upload-evidence).

## Next steps [#next-steps]

<Cards>
  <Card title="Upload evidence guide" href="/docs/merchants/automation/upload-evidence">
    Add targeted evidence to a dispute.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Dispute automation engine" href="/docs/reference/concepts/dispute-automation">
    How Chargeflow enriches and builds rebuttals.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Reason codes" href="/docs/reference/concepts/reason-codes">
    Match evidence to the dispute reason.
  </Card>

  <Card title="CE 3.0 eligibility" href="/docs/reference/concepts/ce-3.0-eligibility">
    The prior-transaction evidence that wins fraud disputes.
  </Card>
</Cards>
