Ninety days. Agreed evidence. A go, revise or stop decision.
Start by agreeing a hypothesis, one decision journey, source systems, owners and an evidence gate. The posture may remain synthetic, shadow/read-only or a bounded exercise; any production pilot requires separate diligence, contract and explicit approval.
The proposed evaluation sequence
Frame & map
Mutual diligence, contractual assumptions, source mapping, role ownership, hypothesis and evidence purpose.
Connect & validate
Use sandbox or read-only access to validate required data contracts, interfaces, controls and acceptance tests.
Run the agreed posture
Exercise only the approved synthetic, shadow, bounded or separately authorized production scope; record exceptions and decisions.
Evidence decision
Review the agreed measures and evidence gate, then decide to scale, revise or stop without assuming a positive outcome.
Candidate day-90 gates—to agree, not pre-promise
- Approval behavior measured against an agreed baseline; no uplift is promised
- Dispute ratio assessed in the agreed scheme and PSP context
- Fraud and false-decline trade-off measured on the approved dataset
- Manual-review demand and ownership measured without a preset outcome
- Decision-record and evidence-pack completeness assessed within the selected journey
- Data-separation and security test evidence reviewed for the scoped environment
What you receive
- Agreed baseline, hypothesis and measurement map
- Versioned test rules or routing configuration where in scope
- Evaluation dashboard or report for the agreed measures
- Sample evidence-pack template and escalation paths
- End-of-evaluation report with scale, revise or stop options
What we need from you
- One technical owner and one risk/compliance owner
- Payment logs (auth/decline codes) and dispute data
- Sandbox accounts with your PSPs, or test credentials
- An approved risk appetite: step-up vs block vs review
- Product scope confirmation — jurisdictions and content types
Illustrative arithmetic—not an outcome
For a DEMO model only: on $100M annual attempted GMV, a hypothetical change from 70% to 85% approvals equals $15M of sales volume, or $1.5M at a 10% gross margin; a hypothetical dispute change from 2.0% to 0.5% equals $1.5M. These are not customer results, forecasts or targets. A scoped evaluation would first validate definitions, baseline and causality.
What would TrustStack move for you?
Drag the sliders to your numbers. The arithmetic is the brochure's: approval uplift captures sales, dispute reduction cuts losses. Indicative and segment-dependent — the 90-day pilot replaces this model with your measured data.
Model, not a quote: dispute savings assume the <0.5% target; actuals depend on vertical, traffic mix and existing controls. KPI targets are agreed per segment in the pilot Statement of Work.
Possible decisions after evaluation—not commitments
Phase 1 — Evaluate
- One bounded journey and named stakeholders
- Diligence, data protection and agreed service objectives
- Only the relevant ORION domains scoped—not presumed integrated
Phase 2 — Validate expansion
- Re-test tenant isolation for any wider scope
- Add connectors only after provider and data-contract validation
- Agree reporting cadence and acceptance evidence
Phase 3 — Scale or stop
- Scale only the journeys that pass the agreed gate
- Validate every additional jurisdiction and tax basis
- Contract provider redundancy before presenting it as available
The first conversation is thirty minutes.
If appropriate, bring a minimized sample of decline-code and dispute definitions. We will use it to frame baseline questions and candidate measures—not to promise a segment outcome.