Gradual decision erosion under long-term investment pressure
No single transfer looks wrong. The trajectory does.
Sustained external advisor influence
Justifications increasingly externalized
Defensive tone when questioned
Escalating amounts to the same new payee
How the Decision Integrity Score is derived. Weights below are illustrative and tuned with each institution during the pilot.
External authority & pressure pattern
Decision autonomy & answer consistency
Stress trajectory during confirmation
Beneficiary / timing anomaly vs baseline
Small amount, clean fraud profile.
Amounts rising to the same new payee.
Externalized justifications increase (DIS 85 → 52).
Care call before the next escalation (DIS 38).
Trigger a customer-care call on a safe channel and review the full transfer sequence, not a single payment.
Action escalates with decision risk — friction stays proportional and hard blocks are the last resort.
Shadow-mode log only, no customer friction.
SMS / in-app reconfirmation on a safer channel.
Customer-care callback on a safe channel.
Hold transfer and notify a trusted contact.
Block and route to fraud operations.
Synthetic demo only. No real customer data is used in this dashboard preview.
Coercion-like decision risk detected despite clean fraud status.
Hard block not recommended; start with soft pause and safer-channel reconfirmation.
Review 3-5 anonymized or synthetic journeys with fraud, compliance, and customer care teams.