Payment system integrations and transaction monitoring tools
Payment requests are forwarded to the providers and their responses are returned to the channels used. The employee sees if the operation has been executed, rejected, or is still subject to verification.
The request, network response and subsequent events are not linked by a consistent transaction history. The client is shown the incorrect status of the operation, and the employee risks repeating an action that has already occurred.
How the solution works
- The payment platform used provides the identified request, the results of the checks and the agreed executor.
- Integration transmits the request according to the provider interface and repeat rules.
- The answers of the principal and subsequent reports are linked to the same operation.
- If the outcome of the payment is unclear, it is checked in the provider's system or passed on to the specialist responsible.
- Service channels receive a confirmed payment status. Subsequent returns and corrections are linked to the original transaction.
Key challenges
- It is unclear whether the payment was made and registered
Solution capabilities
Operation recognition by common code
The client request is linked to the platform and executor identifiers used. Retransmission is checked against provider-supported protection against duplication.
Results of the checks
Results are obtained from responsible sources of authentication, risk, and other checks. Integration does not change their rules or the necessary approvals.
Transmission to the agreed principal
The request is transmitted through the contractually provided payment platform interface. If the result is unclear, it is checked before re-sending whether the provider has already executed the payment.
Status History
The provider's messages are linked to the operation, recognizing duplicated and non-ordered events. Authorization, write-down and settlement are not comparable to a single state.
Payments with result not yet confirmed
An unclear response is checked against a status request supported by the provider or forwarded to the employee. The return or cancellation request is executed by the responsible payment provider.
Business context
- It is unclear whether the payment was made and registered
- The request, network response and subsequent events are not linked by a consistent transaction history. The client is shown the incorrect status of the operation, and the employee risks repeating an action that has already occurred.
- The buyer knows if the settlement has succeeded
- The uncertain outcome of the payment raises doubts as to whether the action can be repeated and whether the order will be executed. A reliable status transfer allows the merchant to continue the proper order progress. The service team can explain the specific payment by reducing the likelihood of double billing and unjustified cancellation of the order.
Core features
- Operation recognition by common code
- Results of the checks
- Transmission to the agreed principal
- Status History
- Payments with result not yet confirmed
Key integrations
- The payment platform used and its implementers
- Operation acceptance, agreed execution path, supported requests, statuses, and subsequent notifications.
- Sources of Risk and Authentication
- The results of the checks applied and the limits on their use have been confirmed.
- Financial reconciliation and accounting processes
- Actual settlement data, corrections and unresolved differences responses.
- Partner and Customer Service Channels
- The request has been properly identified and the recipient understands the status of the approved operation.
Potential impact (%)
The ranges indicate an illustrative relative change in the metric under the stated assumptions. Results depend on the starting position and actual use of the solution. Percentages for different metrics must not be added together.
Due to integration error rate of failed payment requests
12–42%Decreasing
This illustrative scenario assumes that 30-60% of errors can be addressed through the data and rule checks described. That share is assumed to fall by 40-70%. Company data is needed to verify both the addressable share and the resulting change.
The number of unsuccessful queries assigned to an approved integration error is divided by all requests transmitted of the same type and multiplied by 1,000. Provider disruptions and business rule rejections are marked separately.
Time to find out the uncertain outcome of the payment
12–36%Decreasing
This illustrative scenario assumes that 30-60% of manual data entry and handover work can be addressed. That share is assumed to fall by 40-60%. Company data is needed to verify both the addressable workload and the resulting change.
The minutes from the observed uncertain payment status to the provider's confirmed result are measured.
Losses of purchases due to payment transfer disruptions
9–36%Decreasing
The sample scenario affects 30-60% of the indicator associated with the problem being described. This proportion is assumed to be reduced by 30-60%. Company data checks both the volume and the change achieved.
Linking payment and order data; evaluating purchases not completed due to an approved integration problem, excluding other reasons for rejection.
Conditional calculation scenarios. The assumptions have not been validated against client measurements.
When this solution is relevant
- After a connection error, employees are unable to reliably determine the payment status.
- Notifications from different payment providers need to be linked to the same order and properly communicated to other systems.
Implementation requirements
For payment integrations, the platform interfaces used, provider states and response values are compatible. Repetition of requests, delayed events and returns are checked according to the rules of a specific executor. Access and responsibility are determined so that an uncertain result reaches the responsible specialist.
Further development options
- Additional providers or payment types are connected by checking their maintained states, identifier connections, and retransmission rules.