Pega Smart Dispute for Acquirers provides several enhancements to the application
including but not limited to, Visa, Mastercard and AMEX association specific updates and
country specific regulations as applicable. For detailed information about the product,
see Smart Dispute for Issuersproduct page. This
release includes fixes for the Incidents received (INCs), and application
bugs.
- Application: Smart Dispute for Issuers and Acquirers
- Schemes Impact: Visa, Mastercard, AMEX
Pega Smart Dispute for Acquirers
Release Notes
Resolved issues in Pega Smart Dispute for Acquirers 8.7.4
This table describes issues resolved in this release that are of the most interest to
and likely to have the most impact on the Pega user and developer community.
The following ID references are used:
- Reference numbers beginning with “BUG-” refer to entries logged in the Pega
issue-tracking system.
- Reference numbers beginning with “SR-” refer to corresponding Support Requests
logged in My
Support Portal.
- Reference numbers beginning with “US-” refer to internally driven development
items.
Resolved issues
Ticket # or ID # | Title and Description |
INC-A28434 | MCOM - Initiate Representment validation error |
INC-A25474 | MCOM – Get Claim API - Date formats corrected in Simulate
Data transform |
INC-A21103 | MCOM - LoadCBData API - Response mappings are absent for 2
properties |
INC-A25475 | MCOM - Correct status display for Resolved-CardHolderLiable
in Dispute validations screen |
INC-A20735 | MCOM - RejectedByMCom flag is not reset causing infinite loop
in the Chargeback Rejection flows |
US-583001 | MCOM - FNS Counter -Authorization Date to be fetched from
Banknet Date from GetAuthdetails API response |
INC-A22424 | MCOM – Straight Trough Processing Issue - Data Integrity
Monitoring Program Validation |
INC-A14825 | MCOM - Incorrect/Old authorizationdateandtime” is mapped on
Transaction selection screen |
US-575206 | Visa - 10.4 Other card Absent Dispute Validation – 35
Disputes |
INC-A24953 | Visa - Associated Transaction Selection Operation API – Stale
VROL ID sent in Service Request |
INC-A22812 | Visa - SubmitContactMessageResponseOperation API - Response
mapping issue |
INC-A19041 | Visa - Duplicates-Questionnaire not in sync with
IES23.2 |
INC-27035 | Visa - Accounting tab table alignment format mismatch |
INC-A18403 | Claim level Bulk processing – Accounting Issue - Last dispute
case accounting data is copied to the other disputes in the
Claim |
Mastercard/MCOM issues addressed in this release
The following is a list of Mastercard/MCOM issues that have been resolved in this
release that are of most interest and likely to have the most impact on the Pega
user and developer community.
MCOM - Initiate Representment validation error
Issue details
Application | Smart Dispute for Acquirers |
Scheme Impact | MCOM |
Scheme Reference | NA |
Dispute Reason | NA |
Functional Category | MCOM Representment |
Effective Date | NA |
Reported Issue | Smart Dispute for Acquirers application is displaying
validation errors on submit of the Initiate representment screen
for the reason code RC4807 and RC4812 |
Smart Dispute Implementation | - In the ValidateRC4807 validate
rule, the validations related to below properties are
removed:
- In the ValidateRC4812 validate
rule, the validations related to below properties are
removed:
- .RepresentmentData.EnrolledChipLiabilityShift
- .RepresentmentData.EMVChipCard
- .RepresentmentData.POITerminal
-
.RepresentmentData.CardSignatureDocAttached
Added a new validation related to the
.RepresentmentData.DoesTransSatisfyAllRepreConditions
property when value is set to No/false.
|
How to test the functionality | - Process a Mastercard charge back with reason code 4807
and 4812 in the Smart Dispute for Acquirer
application.
- On the Review inbound chargeback
screen select representment as the further
processing.
- On the Initiate representment screen, choose the
dropdown value for the Initiate Representment as
Chip Liability Shift, provide
valid values for all the mandatory questions and submit
the case.
- Verify if the application does not display any
validation when Yes is selected for the question
Does the transaction satisfy ALL the
below mentioned Representment
conditions?
- Verify if the application displays validation error for
an invalid Representment when No is selected for the
question Does the transaction satisfy ALL the
below mentioned Representment
conditions?
|
MCOM – Get Claim API - Date formats corrected in Simulate Data transform
Issue details
Application | Smart Dispute for Issuers and Acquirers |
Scheme Impact | MCOM |
Scheme Reference | NA |
Dispute Reason | NA |
Functional Category | MCOM API |
Effective Date | NA |
Reported Issue | Date formats in the Simulate_GetClaim
data transform are incorrect |
Smart Dispute Implementation | In the Simulate_GetClaim data transform,
applicable date fields are updated with addToDate function and
all the date fields are updated with the DateFormat function to
show the MCOM simulated GetClaim response to the actual MCOM
GetClaim response in the format of YYYY-MM-DD. |
How to test the functionality | - Verify if simulation is enabled for Mastercard.
- Create a Mastercard dispute from the Smart Dispute for
Issuers application.
- Process the applicable early resolution stages (if
any).
- Process the Qualify Dispute screen.
- Process the Answer ancillary screen by responding to the
questions.
- Submit the Chargeback to Mastercard.
- Proceed further with the Awaiting Acquirer response
screen.
- Now under the MCOM_GetClaim page, all the date fields
should be visible in the format of YYYY-MM-DD.
|
MCOM - LoadCBData API - Response mappings are absent for 2 properties
Issue details
Application | Smart Dispute for Issuers |
Scheme Impact | MCOM |
Scheme Reference | NA |
Dispute Reason | NA |
Functional Category | MCOM API |
Effective Date | NA |
Reported Issue | The LoadCBData API response is not
mapped to the clipboard when the API returned the success
response. |
Smart Dispute Implementation | - In the LoadCBData Connect-Rest
rule, request header and body are included.
- In the LoadCBDataResponsePOST data
transform, mapping of the API response back to the
clipboard is included.
|
How to test the functionality | - Currently, the LoadCBData API is
not invoked in the Smart Dispute for Issuers
application. The implementation of the
LoadCBData API invocation can
be in one of the upcoming releases.
- For testing purpose, invoke the
LoadCBData API in the flow rule
after the TransClrDetail API and
check the response that is mapped to the clipboard.
|
MCOM - Correct status display for Resolved-CardHolderLiable in Dispute
validations screen
Issue details
Application | Smart Dispute for Issuers |
Scheme Impact | MCOM |
Scheme Reference | NA |
Dispute Reason | NA |
Functional Category | Resolution Status |
Effective Date | NA |
Reported Issue | When a dispute is resolved as card holder liable from the
dispute validations assignment, the case status should reflect
the status as
Resolved-CardHolderLiable as it
does in all the other flows and scenarios with no space in the
pyStatusWork and not as Resolved-CardHolder
Liable. |
Smart Dispute Implementation | - Updated pyStatusWork in the flow
CHLiableAcctg to
Resolved-CardHolderLiable.
- Deprecated pyStatusWork
Resolved-CardHolderLiable.
Note: A utility needs to be created at the
implementation layer to get the status updated for the old
cases. |
How to test the functionality | - Create a MasterCard case.
- Process the applicable early resolution stages (if
any).
- Process the Qualify Dispute screen.
- Process the Answer ancillary screen by responding to the
questions and submit the dispute case.
- Resolve the case as cardholder liable in Dispute
validations screen and submit the dispute case.
- Verify that the case resolution status is
Resolved-CardHolder
Liable.
|
MCOM - RejectedByMCom flag is not reset causing infinite loop in the Chargeback
Rejection flows
Issue details
Application | Smart Dispute for Issuers |
Scheme Impact | MCOM |
Scheme Reference | NA |
Dispute Reason | NA |
Functional Category | MCOM Chargeback – Rejection Response |
Effective Date | NA |
Reported Issue | When a chargeback is submitted to Mastercard and subsequently
the Acquirer rejects the Collaboration request, then Issuer
application should read the reject reason 5000 and Acquirer
response code so that the case is routed to the appropriate
assignment.- If Acquirer response code is 'C' and refund details are
not available after 5 days (SLA expiry), the dispute
should be routed to Awaiting Acquirer
Response screen, considering the
Collaboration Request as rejected and the flag
RejectedByMCom is not reset to false.
- If the Acquirer Response Code is 'E' (5000 E), then the
case moves into Awaiting Acquirer Response considering
the collaboration request as rejected and the flag
RejectedByMCom is not reset to false.
In both the scenarios, as the flag is not reset, the
dispute is in an infinite loop. |
Smart Dispute Implementation | In the MCFirstChargeback flow, the
RejectedByMCom flag is reset to false in the outgoing connector
named Reject Collaboration of First CB rejected
subprocess. |
How to test the functionality | - Create a MasterCard case.
- Process the applicable early resolution stages (if
any).
- Process the Qualify Dispute screen.
- Process the Answer ancillary screen by responding to the
questions.
- Submit the chargeback to Mastercard.
- Upon receiving the Acquirer response code as E, the
dispute should be routed to Awaiting
Acquirer Response assignment.
- Verify the RejectedByMCom property
reset to false in the clipboard.
- Upon receiving the Acquirer response code as C, dispute
should be routed to the Awaiting refund
information from Acquirer assignment
with SLA of 5 days.
- After SLA expiry, the dispute should be routed to
Awaiting Acquirer Response screen, considering the
Collaboration Request as rejected.
- Verify the RejectedByMCom property
reset to false in the clipboard.
|
MCOM - FNS Counter -Authorization Date to be fetched from Banknet Date from
GetAuthdetails API response
Issue details
Application | Smart Dispute for Issuers |
Scheme Impact | MCOM |
Scheme Reference | AN 7207 Article from MasterCard |
Dispute Reason | NA |
Functional Category | Fraud Notification Service |
Effective Date | NA |
Reported Issue | Mastercard confirmed to use BanknetDate from
GetAuthdetails service as authorization
date for FNS Counter validation. |
Smart Dispute Implementation | BanknetDate from the GetAuthdetails
service is used as authorization date for FNS Counter validation
in the When condition
IsFraudAuthDateAfterCutoff. |
How to test the functionality | - Create a Mastercard fraud case.
- Process the applicable early resolution stages (if
any).
- Process the Qualify Fraud Dispute screen.
- Process the Answer ancillary screen by responding to the
questions and submit the dispute case.
- The outcome of the applicable dispute validation will
be determined depending on the below criteria, when
authorization date is before Nov 6, 2023:
- If the number of Fraud-Related Chargebacks on
the account is less than 15, dispute validation
outcome will be Pass.
OR - If the number of Fraud-Related Chargebacks on
the account is more than or equal to 15, dispute
validation outcome will be
Fail.
Dispute Validation: For transactions that
are authorized on or before Nov 6, 2023: FNS Counter
Exceeds 15 Fraud-Related Chargebacks. The Issuer
submitted more than 15 chargebacks in aggregate
involving the same account (as defined above) for
message reason codes 4837, 4840, 4870, or 4871.
Message reason code 4863 first chargebacks will be
included in the FNS count once the FNS fraud
chargeback count is two or greater - The outcome of the applicable dispute validation will be
determined depending on the below criteria, when
authorization date is after Nov 6, 2023:
- If the number of Fraud-Related Chargebacks on
the account is less than 35, dispute validation
outcome will be Pass.
OR - If the number of Fraud-Related Chargebacks on
the account is more than or equal to 35, dispute
validation outcome will be
Fail.
Dispute validation: For transactions that
are authorized on or after Nov 7, 2023: FNS Counter
Exceeds 35 Fraud-Related Chargebacks. The issuer
submitted more than 35 chargebacks in aggregate
involving the same account (as defined above) for
message reason codes 4837, 4840, 4870, or 4871.
Message reason code 4863 first chargebacks will be
included in the FNS count once the FNS fraud
chargeback count is two or greater.
|
MCOM – Straight Trough Processing Issue - Data Integrity Monitoring Program
Validation
Issue details
Application | Smart Dispute for Issuers |
Scheme Impact | MCOM |
Scheme Reference | NA |
Dispute Reason | NA |
Functional Category | Straight Trough Processing |
Effective Date | NA |
Reported Issue | - As a part of data integrity program, Edit 1 and Edit 2
validations have been introduced for Fraud/Non-Fraud
disputes.
- When any of these validations are true, an information
message is displayed on screen at Answer ancillary
questions assignment for the user to be compliant.
- In a STP scenario, as this assignment is processed in
the background, user does not get a chance to see these
messages which is not the correct application
behaviour
|
Smart Dispute Implementation | - Added data integrity check in the STP process.
- When any of the data integrity validations are evaluated
to be true, the STP process halts and land on the
Answer Ancillary
Questions assignment.
|
How to test the functionality | - Create a Mastercard Claim with multiple dispute cases
via web self-service API.
- Make sure any of the data integrity validations is
true.
- Verify STP process halts and land on the
Answer Ancillary
Questions assignment
|
MCOM - Incorrect/Old authorizationdateandtime is mapped on Transaction selection
screen
Issue details
Application | Smart Dispute for Issuers |
Scheme Impact | MCOM |
Scheme Reference | NA |
Dispute Reason | NA |
Functional Category | Transaction selection |
Effective Date | NA |
Reported Issue | Incorrect/Old authorizationdateandtime is mapped on
Transaction selection screen. |
Smart Dispute Implementation | Updated the banknetDate for authorizationDateAndTime in the
PreMCTranSelection data transform at
line number 4.1.2. |
How to test the functionality | - Create a Mastercard Non-Fraud dispute case with an ARN
that has multiple records.
- Process the applicable early resolution stages (if
any).
- Process the Qualify Dispute screen and submit the
dispute case.
- Verify if the user navigates on Transaction selection
screen.
- Verify if the authorization date column shows correct
authorization date values.
|
Visa/VCR issues addressed in this release
The following is a list of Visa/VCR issues that have been resolved in this release
that are of most interest and likely to have the most impact on the Pega user and
developer community.
Visa - 10.4 Other card Absent Dispute Validation – 35 Disputes
Issue details
Application | Smart Dispute for Issuers |
Scheme Impact | Visa |
Scheme Reference | NA |
Dispute Reason | Fraud 10.4 – Card Absent Environment |
Functional Category | Fraud |
Effective Date | NA |
Reported Issue | Individual transactions should contain Multiple Clearing
Sequence Numbers that result from the same authorization are
treated as one Transaction towards the 35 Fraud Transaction
limit under Fraud 10.4 – Card Absent Environment. |
Smart Dispute Implementation | - In the D_GetpastDisputes data page
one more source is added to fetch the number of dispute
transactions towards the 35 transaction limit for 10.4
dispute category condition.
- The
GetPastDisputesForOtherCardAbsentDisputes
report definition is created to fetch the number of
dispute transactions towards the 35 transaction limit
for 10.4 dispute category condition as a source for the
D_GetpastDisputes data
page.
- The
GetPastDisputesForOtherCardAbsentDisputes
response data transform is created to convert the
individual transactions that contain a multiple clearing
sequence number that result from the same authorization
are treated as one transaction toward the 35 transaction
limit for 10.4 dispute category condition.
- The WhenCardAbsentOtherDisputes
when rule created to check the dispute category
condition as 10.4 used in the
D_GetpastDisputes data
page
|
How to test the functionality | - Identify an account in Smart Dispute for Issuer
application for which the Issuer has already submit 34
Disputes within 120 days under 10.4 dispute
category.
- Now set up the test data in system of records for 3
transactions with same Transaction ID and Multiple
Clearing Sequence number (MCSN) Example
:13452617282726101, 13452617282726102,
13452617282726103
- Verify the TransactionID should have 17 digits. The
first 15 digits are Transaction ID, and last 2 digits
are Multiple Clearing Sequence Number (MCSN)
- Create fraud disputes for the above 3 selected
transactions.
- Validate the dispute validation A
Transaction on an Account Number for which the
Issuer has initiated more than 35 Disputes within
the previous 120 calendar days is
pass for the three transactions.
|
Visa - Associated Transaction Selection Operation API – Stale VROL ID sent in
Service Request
Issue details
Application | Smart Dispute for Issuers |
Scheme Impact | Visa |
Scheme Reference | NA |
Dispute Reason | NA |
Functional Category | Visa API |
Effective Date | NA |
Reported Issue | - Visa is returning the Error
E-900000004 for the
AssociatedTranSelectionOperation
service response due to stale/old VROL ID sent in
service request.
- In Associated Transaction flow after the
AssociatedTranList service is
invoked, the case waits at the View
transaction and order details screen.
- The AssociatedTranList service is
invoked again when the 10 days SLA expires.
- A new VROL ID is appended to the existing list and not
clearing the existing old data.
- Due to above reason the next service call
AssociatedTranSelectionOperation
is failing with above mentioned error.
|
Smart Dispute Implementation | In the data transform
SetInfoPostGetAssocTransService steps
have been added from 5 to Step 8 to remove the properties on
Association data.- ATRListWithMS100MP1
- ATRListWithMS100MP2
- ATRListForSelection
- ATRListOfAuthTxns
|
How to test the functionality | - Create a Visa dispute case.
- Process Potential duplicates assignment (if any).
- Process the Qualify dispute screen by selecting a
dispute reason and corresponding questionnaire.
- Verify if the service
AssociatedTranList service is
invoked and the case waits in the View
transaction and order details
screen.
- Wait till the SLA is expired on the assignment.
- Verify if the AssociatedTranList
service is invoked again.
- Submit the assignment and observe that the
AssociatedTranSelectionOperationservice
is invoked.
- Validate that the service request should contain the
latest VROL ID sent to Visa.
|
Visa - SubmitContactMessageResponseOperation API - Response mapping issue
Issue details
Application | Smart Dispute for Issuers |
Scheme Impact | Visa |
Scheme Reference | NA |
Dispute Reason | NA |
Functional Category | Visa API |
Effective Date | NA |
Reported Issue | - ContactMessageId and ContactMessageResponseId properties
in AssociationData page is not mapped.
- The Contact Message ID and Contact Message Response ID
are not shown in audit tab because of the above
mentioned reason.
|
Smart Dispute Implementation | Updated the MapRESTResponse Data
Transform to include a response mapping for the
SubmitContactMessageResponseOperation API
to populate pyTempResponsePage holding the ContactMessageId
& ContactMessageResponseId. |
How to test the functionality | - Create a Visa dispute.
- Process the applicable early resolution stages (if
any).
- Process the Qualify Dispute screen.
- Process the Dispute Questionnaire by responding to the
questions.
- Submit for dispute case.
- Submit Review Inbound Pre-Arbitration & Process
Inbound Pre-Arbitration assignments.
- Submit Visa dispute for Pre-Arbitration so that the case
lands to wait for contact message & Review Inbound
Arbitration details.
- Submit Wait for contact message assignment.
- Now submit Respond to case filing contact message
assignment where the API -
SubmitContactMessageResponseOperation
is invoked.
- ContactMessageId and
ContactMessageResponseId
properties should be visible in audits tab with
appropriate value.
|
Visa - Duplicates-Questionnaire not in sync with IES23.2
Issue details
Application | Smart Dispute for Issuers |
Scheme Impact | Visa |
Scheme Reference | NA |
Dispute Reason | I was charged/credited incorrectly |
Functional Category | Dispute Questionnaire - Processing Errors |
Effective Date | NA |
Reported Issue | Below mentioned field should not be displayed for Processing
Errors -> Duplicates- Dispute reason: I was charged/credited
incorrectly.
- Sub dispute reason: I was charged more than
once.
- Field: Is the other transaction for the same
merchant and on a different Visa Card owned by the
same Issuer/Cardholder?
This field is not valid for Duplicates and should not be
displayed. |
Smart Dispute Implementation | In the section rule DorPQuestionnaire
the visibility condition in layout 1.1,
.WhatIncorrectAboutTransaction == ”D” has been
removed. |
How to test the functionality | - Create a Visa Dispute case.
- Process the applicable early resolution stages (if
any).
- On the Qualify Dispute screen, select Dispute Reason as
I was charged/credited
incorrectly and Sub dispute reason as
I was charged more than
once.
- Select the Are both transactions for the same
merchant and on the same card? field as
No.
- Verify if the field Is the other transaction
for the same merchant and on a different Visa Card
owned by the same Issuer/Cardholder is
not visible.
|
Visa - Accounting tab table alignment format mismatch
Issue details
Application | Smart Dispute for Issuers |
Scheme Impact | Visa |
Scheme Reference | NA |
Dispute Reason | NA |
Functional Category | User Interface |
Effective Date | NA |
Reported Issue | Alignment and format issues are observed under the
Accountingtab for the Adjustment details
and Suspense details tables. |
Smart Dispute Implementation | Section Rules changes:- AccountingDetails -
Class-PegaCard-Sd-Claim: Updated the
layout for Adjustments and updated the Suspense details
embedded section to refer the
SuspenseDetails section
rule.
- AdjustmentDetails - Class
-PegaAcct-Step-: Updated
presentation tab and added collapsible header.
- Adjustments - Class
-PegaCard-Sd-Dispute: Updated
the layout to repeating dynamic layout and called the
embedded section to refer the
AdjustmentDetails.
- SuspenseDetails - Class -PegaCard-Sd-Claim:
Updated the layout to repeating dynamic
layout and called the embedded section
SuspenseTransactionDetails.
- SuspenseDetails - Class
-PegaCard-Sd-Dispute: Updated
the layout to repeating dynamic layout and called the
embedded section
SuspenseTransactionDetails.
- SuspenseTransactionDetails - Class- PegaAcct-Step-:
Updated presentation tab and added collapsible
header.
Field value changes: pyCaption Documents – New
field value added in PegaCardSd
ruleset. |
How to test the functionality | - Create a Visa Dispute case.
- Process the applicable early resolution stages (if
any).
- On the Qualify Dispute screen, select any Dispute Reason
and proceed on the screen.
- Continue dispute and land on the Pending
Acquirer Response screen.
- Scroll to the Accounting tab under case overview and
verify the Adjustments
table.
|
Base issues addressed in this release
The following is a list of common issues across schemes that have been resolved in
this release that are of most interest and likely to have the most impact on the
Pega user and developer community.
Claim level Bulk processing – Accounting Issue - Last dispute case accounting
data is copied to the other disputes in the Claim
Issue details
Application | Smart Dispute for Issuers |
Scheme Impact | Visa, MCOM and Amex |
Scheme Reference | NA |
Dispute Reason | NA |
Functional Category | Claim Level Bulk Processing |
Effective Date | NA |
Reported Issue | - In a DMT (dispute multiple transactions under one claim)
scenario, when a provisional credit is provided, or
partial write-off is performed on the last dispute in
the list processing them individually.
- At claim level, processing the Dispute questionnaire
(for Visa)/Answer Ancillary questions (for
MCOM)/Processing chargeback (for Amex).
- The accounting data of the last dispute case is copied
to the other disputes in the list those are under the
same claim case.
|
Smart Dispute Implementation | Added the CopyQuesAfterBulkDQAQAndPrcCB
activity to copy the dispute data to individual disputes without
overriding the dispute's accounting data for each dispute and
called from the ProcessSelectedDispute
activity |
How to test the functionality | - Create a Visa/MasterCard/Amex Claim with multiple
dispute cases.
- Complete the applicable early resolution stages (if
any).
- Proceed till the Dispute questionnaire (for Visa)/Answer
Ancillary questions (for MCOM)/Processing chargeback
(for Amex).
- On the last dispute, either perform a partial write-off
or provide provisional credit.
- Perform a claim level processing for all the disputes by
completing the Dispute questionnaire (for Visa)/Answer
Ancillary questions (for MCOM)/Processing chargeback
(for Amex) assignment from the local actions.
- Verify if the accounting information of last dispute is
not copied to the other disputes of the claim.
|