Pega Smart Dispute for Issuers 8.7.1
This section provides release notes for the Pega Smart Dispute for Issuers 8.7.1 patch release. Pega Smart Dispute for Issuers 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 Issuers product page. This patch release includes Compliance updates released post Smart Dispute for Issuers and Acquirers 8.7 general available release, fixes for the Incidents received (INCs), and application bugs listed below.
22.2 Compliance and 23.1 Compliance release documentation is available in
.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.
Resolved issues in Pega Smart Dispute for Issuers and Acquirers 8.7.1
Ticket # or ID# | Title and Description |
INC-267185 | MCOM – Creation of Collaboration cases |
INC-270948 | MCOM – Collaboration layer updates for Acquirer response code ‘Initiating Refund (C)’ |
BUG-766254 | MCOM – Process Liability options at Initiate Compliance screen |
BUG-791274 | MCOM – Pre-Compliance Supporting Documents |
INC-266059 | MCOM – Pre-Compliance questionnaire for violation type ‘Same Day Processing of Chargeback Reversal and Second Presentment’ |
INC-270182 | MCOM – Pre-Arbitration fixes |
INC-266649 | MCOM – Disable fraud types 55 and 56 |
INC-259103 | MCOM – Timeframes for Credit Not Processed |
INC-261723 | Visa – INCOMING_BQ_ACCEPTANCES_RECEIVED queue processing for disputes resolved through Rapid Dispute Resolution (RDR) |
INC-269605 | Visa – Transaction inquiry fixes |
INC-268037 | Visa – Pre-Arbitration fixes for Remedy – Prior Undisputed Non-Fraud transactions |
INC-260715 | Visa – Pre-Compliance fixes |
INC-269208 | Visa – Update to Pre-Compliance Response instructions |
INC-270216 | Visa – Cancelled Recurring Transaction questionnaire |
INC-269717 | Visa – Other Fraud – Card Absent Environment (10.4) dispute validation for fully authenticated U.S. domestic token transactions |
INC-261191 | Visa – Slowness in opening cases with huge attachments |
BUG-797644 | AMEX – Pre-Compliance response fixes |
INC-268885 | Ethoca – Transaction amount and currency mapping |
INC-267269 | On-Us eligibility for Fraud disputes |
INC-265368 | Currency code mapping for EUR |
INC-227919 | MCOM – Audit history |
INC-228042/INC-228555/INC-233580/INC-234749 | MCOM – Exception handling for Gateway Exceptions/MCOM Outages |
INC-227091/INC-226641/INC-223314/INC-223578 | MCOM - Cases moving to Process Liability |
INC-220566/BUG-713358 | MCOM - EBDR Form Fixes |
INC-213047 | MCOM - Label change on pre-arbitration |
INC-218558 | MCOM - Exception Handling Changes |
INC-221188 | MCOM - Provisional Credit Reversal Changes |
INC-210780 | MCOM - Validation on attachment sent to Mastercard |
INC-218921 | MCOM - Documents not getting deleted |
INC-224611 | MCOM - Questionnaire Fixes |
INC-222309 | MCOM – 4834CC3 ATM Dispute Changes |
US-480529 | AN 5211 Revised chargeback standards for AFD transactions |
BUG-694571 | MCOM - Acquirer Pre-compliance timeframes |
BUG742439/BUG732119 | MCOM – Accounting fixes |
INC-226464 | Visa – Incorrect mapping of Dispute Stage at Pre-arbitration |
INC-231437/INC-235852 | Visa – Allowed formats for Supporting Documents |
INC-226767 | Visa – Pre-Arbitration details in VCR tab |
INC-230325 | Visa – Manage Associated Transactions |
INC-233913 | Visa – Pre-Compliance Response Details in VCR Tab |
INC-232855 | Visa – Dispute Response Details in VCR Tab |
INC-222088 | Visa – Manual Case Fixes |
INC-222089 | Visa – Case status fixes |
INC-219270 | Visa – Auto populate amounts on Process Liability |
INC-225008 | Visa – Field values for Brazil and Colombia |
US-483974 | Visa – EMV Liability Updates |
US-473347 | Visa – Information Message on attaching documents |
US-483978 | Visa – 10.3 Dispute validations update |
BUG-729510 | AMEX – Multiprong Option is not available in the Final Chargeback |
US-488875 | AMEX: Accounting for Pre-compliance |
INC-218554 | Regulation E evaluations for DST to DMT claim conversion |
INC-229346 | Regulation E eligibility |
INC-233437 | Process Liability for Regulation E disputes |
INC-229341 | ATM Questionnaire |
INC-231153 | Claim resolution through Ethoca – Third Party Resolution |
INC-226861 | RegE Dates Evaluation |
INC-223384 | Partial Amount received for ATM Disputes |
INC-223886 | Task Status displayed in French |
INC-218094 | HND – Claim Status fixes |
INC-214871 | ATM flow for Manual Case |
INC-216996 | WSS – Work object not deleted |
INC-214605 | Verifi – Authorization Code addition |
INC-221841 | AMEX – Questionnaire fixes |
BUG-715395 | CSFS – Account Search error |
INC-238315 | Visa - Appeal final ruling |
INC-231738 | MCOM – Chargeback Timeframes for Goods or Services Not Provided (4853-2) |
INC-232929 | Visa – Reset of flag ‘isChagebackProcessed |
INC-236381 | Visa – Arbitration Association Ruling |
INC-236680 | Visa – Compliance Association Ruling |
INC-239221 | WSS – Attachments deleted for disputes created through any channel, cases getting corrupted because of assignments deletion |
BUG-748714 | Visa – Review inbound Cancelled Merchandise/Services dispute |
INC-241302 | Visa – Cancelled Merchandise/Service Questionnaire |
US-499744 | MCOM – AN 5803 Revised Standards for Merchant Surcharging at the Point-of-Interaction in the Canada Region |
US-501666 | MCOM – CVM limit updates |
US-501679 | MCOM – AN 4655 Inclusion of Acquirers in the Mastercom Collaboration Process |
INC-239822 | MCOM – C86 validation at Choose a reason code screen |
US-500993 | MCOM – Point of Interaction Error questionnaire for ATM disputes |
INC-240054 | MCOM – Transaction Selection Fixes for Force Post transactions |
INC-242849 | Visa – Mapping of Pre-Compliance violation code for ‘Compliance Right for Improperly Assessed Surcharge’ |
INC-240524 | Visa – Mapping of IsChargeBackProcessed flag |
INC-243033 | Visa – Cancelled Merchandise/Services Dispute Questionnaire |
INC-236121 | Visa – Batch Queue fixes for pxUpdateDateTime property when cases are resolved as ‘Resolved-AcqAccepted’ |
INC-243776 | Visa – Information message in Supporting Documents section |
INC-233322 | Visa – Audit history fixes |
INC-242640 | Visa – Batch Queue fixes |
INC-240231 | Visa – Dispute response supporting documents for Paid by Other Means/Duplicate Processing |
INC-240449 | Visa – Enabling Multipart message structure for Contact Message Response |
INC-240050 | Regulation E fixes when Cardholder is made liable |
INC-238943 | Legacy rule fixes |
INC-240934/INC244193 | Visa – Acquirer Transaction Inquiry |
INC-246176 | MCOM – ‘Acquirer Case Filing Retrieve Documents’ agent not resuming Pre-Arbitration cases that are waiting for documents |
INC-243229 | MCOM – ‘Acquirer Inbound documents’ agent not resuming PreArbitration cases that are waiting for documents |
INC-241388 | Commit issues while performing Cardholder liable action from bulk actions |
INC-243219 | Visa – Mapping of Outstanding amount in VCR tab |
INC-243800 | MCOM – Fixes for Service Exceptions |
INC-240063 | Regulation-E eligibility evaluation |
BUG-766445 | MCOM – Association Decision not processed |
BUG-767599 | Visa – Validation on Pre-Compliance Amount |
INC-247191 | C86 Regulation Evaluation |
INC-244193 | Visa – Batch Queue fixes (Other Queue) |
INC-248736 | Visa – Mapping of Transaction details after receiving Pre-arbitration Response |
INC-247512 | Visa – Inbound dispute questionnaire for Duplicate Processing (12.6) and Merchandise/Services Not Received (13.1) |
BUG-763654 | MCOM – CreateClaim API Failure |
INC-247345 | Visa – Audit tab fixes for Pre-Compliance |
INC-244192 | MCOM – Flow not resumed after first Chargeback SLA expiry |
INC-250465 | MCOM – Dispute Validations for 4837 |
BUG-761975 | MCOM – Reason code description in Mastercom First Chargeback footer tab |
INC-245993 | MCOM – Mismatch in the work status after Process Liability |
INC-246872 | Visa – Appeal final ruling |
INC-244277 | Visa – Incorrect API name in Third party tab |
BUG-766336 | Visa – Process Acquirer Liability screen fixes |
BUG-760818 | Visa – VCR Configurations - Batch Queue Debug tool is inaccessible |
INC-242239 | Visa – Error Handling - Display previous Assignment is not removed from dispute |
INC-245026 | Visa – Past disputes counter-based validation for Fraud disputes is not working properly when concurrent disputes are processed |
INC-256121 | MCOM – Withdraw Case Filing |
INC-255126 | MCOM – Case Filing API fixes |
INC-256127/INC-260032 | MCOM – EBDR fixes |
INC-253690 | MCOM – New cases are created when Pre-Compliance is received for existing dispute |
US-527749 | MCOM – Addition of Mastercard Fraud Types 55 and 56 |
INC-254167 | Visa – Process Liability amount in Audit history |
BUG-781161 | Visa – Cancelled Merchandise/Services Questionnaire |
INC-255406 | Visa – Audit history update |
INC-255606 | Visa – Fraud Report |
INC-256093 | Visa – Appeal case filing amount |
INC-257271 | Claim level Pulse Gadget |
INC-258585/INC-259004/INC-261088/INC-258775 | Regulation-E fixes |
INC-247088 | Timeframe expiry fixes |
US-530741 | MCOM – AN 7077 Revised Chargeback Standards for Currency Errors |
INC-253403 | MCOM – Case filing batch queue fixes |
INC-264178/ INC-264741 | Visa – Cancelled Recurring Transaction Questionnaire |
US-530736 | Visa – Other Fraud – Card Absent Environment (10.4) dispute validation for fully authenticated U.S. domestic token transactions |
BUG-787321 | Visa – Pre-Arbitration: Remedy – Prior Undisputed Non-Fraud Transactions questionnaireUI fixes |
INC-248089 | Visa – Minimum dispute amount dispute validation for Travel and Entertainment transactions |
INC-246534/ INC-263073 | Visa – Refine Transaction Selection Criteria |
INC-266786 | Visa – Cancelled Merchandise/Services Questionnaire |
US-536339 | Visa – Supporting documentation for Incorrect Amount disputes |
US-536297 | Regulation-E eligibility criteria |
Mastercard/MCOM issues
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.
Creation of Collaboration casesMCOM - Creation of collaboration cases (INC-267185)
Application | Smart Dispute for Acquirers |
Scheme Impact | MCOM |
Functional Category | MCOM Collaboration for Acquirers |
Reported Issue | As an Acquirer operator, I’m not able to see the inbound collaboration cases created through batch queue agent for Acquirer Collaboration Unworked queue as standardclaims property is not available in case of collaboration requests |
Smart Dispute Implementation | The activity rule CaseCreationFromQueue is modified to add step 11. Property value for Param.MComClaimID is updated in steps 12 and 15. |
How to test the functionality | Verify inbound collaboration cases are created through batch queue agent for ‘Acquirer Collaboration Unworked’ queue. |
MCOM – Collaboration layer updates for Acquirer response code ‘Initiating Refund (C)’ (INC-270948)
Application | Smart Dispute for Issuers and Acquirers |
Scheme Impact | MCOM |
Functional Category | MCOM Collaboration Layer for Issuers and Acquirers |
Reported Issue |
|
Smart Dispute Implementation |
|
How to test the functionality | Acquirer:
|
Issuer:
|
MCOM – Process liability options at Initiate Compliance screen (BUG-766254)
Application | Smart Dispute for Acquirers |
Scheme Impact | VISA |
Functional Category | Pre-compliance |
Reported Issue | In the Initiate Compliance screen, if Process liability option is selected from other actions, then Cardholder liable option is displayed instead of Merchant liable option. |
Smart Dispute Implementation | Updated local action in PegaCard-Sd-DisputeAcq-MC InitiateCompliance flow from "ProcessLiabilityatAQScreen" to "AcqPartialProcessLiability" on Initiate Compliance assignment. |
How to test the functionality |
|
MCOM – Pre-Compliance supporting documents (BUG-791274)
Application | Smart Dispute for Issuers |
Scheme Impact | MCOM |
Functional Category | Pre-compliance |
Reported Issue | When the Pre-compliance violation type is selected as “All Other Rules Violations - Third-Party Processed Transactions”, under ‘Supporting documents’ section, ‘Other’ document is displayed as optional instead of mandatory. |
Smart Dispute Implementation | In ‘CheckIfPreCompDocForViolationMandatory’, added “All Other Rules Violations - Third-Party Processed Transactions” violation type. |
How to test the functionality |
|
MCOM – Pre-Compliance questionnaire for violation type ‘Same Day Processing of Chargeback Reversal and Second Presentment’ (INC-266059)
Application | Smart Dispute for Issuers |
Scheme Impact | MCOM |
Functional Category | Pre-compliance |
Reported Issue | When an issuing operator is trying to submit Pre-compliance with violation type "Same Day Processing of Chargeback Reversal and Second Presentment", MCOM is throwing an error that PrimaryAcountNum is not getting initialized. In Create Filing API request, application is not passing the primary account number when the chargeback reference number (.chargebackRefNum) is entered in the Pre-compliance questionnaire. |
Smart Dispute Implementation | Chargeback reference number in Pre-compliance questionnaire is
mapped to a new property .CBRefNumber instead of using existing
property .chargebackRefNum. .CBRefNumber is mapped to field .memo in
CreateFiling API request. In section InitiatePreCoplianceForMCOM, property name in dynamic layout 1.1.3 is updated to CBRefNumber. In the data transform CreateFilingForPreCompliance, steps 25, 26 are added to set memo using decision table SetSenderMemoPrecomp. |
How to test the functionality |
|
MCOM – Pre-arbitration fixes (INC-270182)
Application | Smart Dispute for Issuers |
Scheme Impact | MCOM |
Dispute Reason | 4837 – No Cardholder Authorization |
Functional Category | Pre-arbitration |
Reported Issue | For 4837-No Cardholder Authorization disputes, if Issuer initiates Pre-Arbitration with reason as "Compelling Evidence for Airline, Recurring, Installment-based Repayment, ECommerce, and MO/TO Transactions", Pre-Arbitration memo text area is not pre-populated with default value. |
Smart Dispute Implementation | In decision table PopulatePreArbCommentsForArbReason, arbitration reason column has been updated. |
How to test the functionality |
|
MCOM – Disable fraud types 55 and 56 (INC-266649)
Application | Smart Dispute for Issuers |
Scheme Impact | MCOM |
Functional Category | Fraud |
Reported Issue | In Smart Dispute for Issuers application, when Fraud disputes are
created and submitted, application automatically submits fraud
report using createFraud MCOM API. MCOM is throwing the below error
when Fraud Types 55 (Modification of Payment Order) & 56
(Manipulation of Cardholder) are submitted: "INVALID_INPUT_VALUE"
error for fraud types 55 & 56. As per latest update from Mastercard, Issuers cannot report Fraud Types 55 or 56 using Mastercom API as the current version of Mastercom does not support Fraud Types 55 or 56. Fraud types 55 and 56 should not be displayed in Smart Dispute for Issuers application until the changes are effective in MCOM. |
Smart Dispute Implementation | The data transform rules MapFraudTypeForSafeReport, PopulateFraudTypeAppMCOMList, PopulateFraudTypeMCOMList are updated to disable fraud types ‘Modification of Payment Order’ (55) & ‘Manipulation of Cardholder’ (56). |
How to test the functionality |
|
MCOM – Timeframes for Credit Not Processed (INC-259103)
Application | Smart Dispute for Issuers |
Scheme Impact | MCOM |
Scheme Reference | Pages 71-75 of Chargeback guide |
Dispute Reason | 4853-5 Credit Not Processed |
Functional Category | Chargeback Timeframes |
Reported Issue | As an issuing bank operator, if I create a ‘Credit Not Processed’
dispute, application is considering the dispute timeframe as expired
and routing the dispute to Process liability for transactions with
central processing date older than 540 days from current date. But
as per chargeback guide, timeframes are defined as: Non-travel transactions in all regions except China domestic 120 days from the date on the credit documentation, or the date the service was cancelled, or the goods were returned. Non-travel China domestic transactions 90 days from the date on the credit documentation, or the date the service was cancelled, or the goods were returned. |
Smart Dispute Implementation | Data transform PegaCard-Sd-Dispute-MC- SetTimelinesForDisputeTimeFrameExpiry is updated as mentioned below: Step 14: Maximum limit for dispute timeframes is not set if Param.ConditionCode=="5” Step 38: Timeframe property is set as 90 for China domestic non-travel transactions. |
How to test the functionality |
|
MCOM – Chargeback Timeframes for Goods or Services Not Provided (4853- 2) (INC-231738)
For China
domestic transactions The chargeback time
frame for ‘Delayed delivery of goods or services - Delivery
date was specified’ is 90 days from the expected delivery
date of the goods or services. The chargeback time frame for
cases ‘Involving the purchase of a merchant-branded prepaid
gift card with an expiration date printed on the card and
that merchant subsequently goes out of business’ is 120-
calendar days from the expiration date printed on the card.
Other transactions The chargeback time frame
for ‘Delayed delivery of goods or services - Delivery date
was specified’ is 120 days from the expected delivery date
of the goods or services. The chargeback time frame
for cases ‘Involving the purchase of a merchant-branded
prepaid gift card with an expiration date printed on the
card and that merchant subsequently goes out of business’ is
120- calendar days from the expiration date printed on the
card.Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact MCOM Scheme Reference Chargeback Guide Dispute Reason Goods or Services Not Provided (4853-2) Functional Category Dispute Questionnaire Reported Issue When a chargeback is initiated with reason code Goods or
Services Not Provided (4853-2), application is evaluating the
maximum time frame limit as 540 days from central processing
date for the below scenarios but as per chargeback guide the 540
days maximum time frame limit is not applicable. Smart Dispute Implementation For reason code 4853-2, the data transform
SetTimelinesForDisputeTimeFrameExpiry
is updated such that the maximum time frame limit of 540 days
from Central Processing Date is applicable only when the date
properties ExpectedReceiptDate or ExpirationDate are not
available. How to test the functionality
MCOM – AN 5803 Revised Standards for Merchant Surcharging at the Point-of-Interaction in the Canada Region (US-499744)
Effective October 6th, 2022, Issuers can dispute a
Canada domestic transaction under dispute reason code:
Improper Merchant Surcharge: 4834-8.Application Smart Dispute for Issuers and Acquirers Scheme Impact MCOM Scheme Reference MCOM – AN 5803 Revised Standards for Merchant Surcharging at
the Point-of-Interaction in the Canada Region Dispute Reason Improper Merchant Surcharge (4834-8) Functional Category Dispute Questionnaire Reported Issue As per Mastercard bulletin, “AN 5803 Revised Standards for
Merchant Surcharging at the Point-ofInteraction in the Canada
Region”, Issuers could raise chargeback under 4834 - Improper
Merchant Surcharge for Canada domestic transactions if the
merchant applied improper surcharge to the total transaction
amount. Smart Dispute Implementation Updated decision table FilterReasonCodes_MasterCard to add
WhenCanadaDomesticTxn rule in return
value for 4834-8. Updated data transform
SetTimelinesForDisputeTimeFrameExpiry to add step 40 for 4834-8
timeframes How to test the functionality
MCOM – CVM limit updates (US-501666)
AN 6907
Revised Standards for CVM Limits in Sri Lanka AN 6857
Revised Standards for CVM Limits in Select Countries in the
Latin America and the Caribbean Region AN 6907 Revised Standards for CVM Limits in Sri
Lanka: November 1st, 2022 In the decision table rule
PegaCard-SdDispute-MC-
PayPassAmntsForOtherMCC, below countries are
added: Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact MCOM Scheme Reference AN 6908 Revised Standards for CVM Limits in Nepal Dispute Reason 4808, 4837, 4870, 4871 Functional Category CVM Limits Effective Date AN 6908 Revised Standards for CVM Limits in Nepal: November
1st, 2022 Reported Issue This change is as part of Mastercard guidelines and CVM limit
updates are made to be in compliant with the scheme changes.
Smart Dispute Implementation In the decision table rule PegaCard-SdDispute-MC-
PayPassAmounts, transaction amount is updated as
below: How to test the functionality
MCOM – AN 4655 Inclusion of Acquirers in the Mastercom Collaboration Process (US-501679)
The MCOM queues
Issuer Collaboration Unworked and Acquirer Collaboration
Unworked are not live in production and hence should not be
used. The MCOM queues Issuer RR Unworked and Acquirer RR
Unworked must be used to process Collaboration
Requests/Retrieval Requests for US health care transactions.
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers and Acquirers Scheme Impact MCOM Scheme Reference AN 4655 Inclusion of Acquirers in the Mastercom Collaboration
Process Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Mastercom Collaboration Process for Acquirers Effective Date NA Reported Issue As per recent Mastercard scheme update, Acquirer
Collaboration Layer Process is deferred but the changes for
Acquirer Collaboration Requests were already delivered as part
of April Smart Dispute Maintenance Release. As the changes are
available in production, the agents for Collaboration Requests
in the Issuer and Acquirer applications must be updated such
that only Collaboration Requests (Retrieval Requests) for US
health care transactions are processed. Smart Dispute Implementation Updated data transform
PrepareMComQueueList to process "Issuer
RR Unworked" and “Acquirer RR Unworked” instead of “Issuer
Collaboration Unworked” & “Acquirer Collaboration Unworked”
queues in Smart Disputes Issuer and Acquirer applications. How to test the functionality
MCOM – C86 validation at Choose a reason code screen (INC-239822)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact MCOM Scheme Reference NA Dispute Reason Fraud Functional Category Canada (C86) Regulations Effective Date NA Reported Issue In ‘Choose a reason code’ screen, when the operator answers
C86 related questionnaire and saves the questionnaire, the
operator is unable to make the Cardholder as liable through
‘Process Liability’ option because of validations related to
C86. Smart Dispute Implementation C86 related validations are only applicable after submitting
‘Choose a reason code’ screen. Hence, call to the activity
ValidateC86Regulation is removed from
PostProcessliabilityatAQScreen activity. How to test the functionality
MCOM – Point of Interaction Error questionnaire for ATM disputes (US-500993)
Created
SetDisputeAmtForRC4843CC3 data
transform to update dispute amount based on access fee and
called this data transform in PostPickReasonCodeForMCom
activity.Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact MCOM Scheme Reference NA Dispute Reason Point of Interaction Error – ATM Disputes Functional Category Dispute Questionnaire Effective Date NA Reported Issue In the Qualify dispute screen, when ‘I did not receive
cash/received partial cash at ATM’ is selected as the dispute
reason and the Issuer enters access fee, application is not
adding the access fee to the dispute amount for domestic
transactions. Smart Dispute Implementation Updated PrePickReasonCodeForMCom
pre-processing data transform for dispute amount calculations
based on access fee. How to test the functionality
MCOM – Transaction Selection Fixes for Force Post transactions (INC-240054)
A new
validation has been added to prevent users from choosing a
Reversal transaction in Transaction Selection screen.Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact MCOM Scheme Reference NA Dispute Reason All Functional Category Transaction Selection Effective Date NA Reported Issue For Force Post transactions that require Transaction
Selection, when user selects a transaction, the selected
clearing transaction is copied into ‘.TransactionAuthDetails’
page. Later, in GetTransactionAuthDetails activity, system
overwrites ‘.TransactionAuthDetails’ using TranSearch API
response data, i.e. .MCOM_TranSearch.authorizationSummary(1).
Eventually CreateClaim API is invoked using wrong transaction
id. Smart Dispute Implementation In GetTransactionAuthDetails activity, conditions to evaluate
if .TransactionAuthDetails page is loaded already are incomplete
for Force Post transactions. Additional conditions have been
added to account for Force Post transactions. How to test the functionality
MCOM – ‘Acquirer Case Filing Retrieve Documents’ agent not resuming Pre-Arbitration cases that are waiting for documents (INC-246176)
Application Smart Dispute for Acquirers Scheme Impact MCOM Scheme Reference NA Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Batch Queues Effective Date NA Reported Issue When the Acquirer receives an Inbound Pre-Arbitration and the
Acquirer case routes to ‘Waiting for docs’ assignment with
status as ‘Pending-DocAtCaseFiling’, the agent ‘Acquirer Case
Filing Retrieve Documents’ is not resuming the case after the
documents are received. Smart Dispute Implementation How to test the functionality
MCOM – ‘Acquirer Inbound documents’ agent not resuming Pre-Arbitration cases that are waiting for documents (INC-243229)
When the Acquirer receives an Inbound
chargeback and the Acquirer case routes to ‘Waiting for
docs’ assignment with status as ‘PendingDocumentation’, the
agent ‘Acquirer Inbound documents’ is not resuming the case
after receiving the documents. Issue 2:
When the Acquirer receives an Inbound chargeback
and the Acquirer case is at ‘Waiting for docs’ assignment,
GetCBStatus MCOM API is invoked in the flow
PegaCard-Sd-DisputeAcq-MC WaitingForDocuments. In case of
any service exceptions and user attempts to retry the API
call, the retry attempts are failing. In the data transform
PegaCard-Sd-DisputeAcq-MC
GetCBStatus, step 3.1 is modified to verify
if MCOM_GetClaim.claimId!="" . Issue
2: In the data transform
PegaCard-Sd-DisputeAcq-MC
GetCBStatus, step 2 is added. In case of any
exceptions, when the operator retries the API call,
DisputeListByMComCaseStatus page should exist for successful
retry attempt. If the page does not exist, then
PreparePageforGetCBStatus data transform is invoked to
populate the page DisputeListByMComCaseStatus. In the Report
Definition PegaCard-Sd-DisputeAcq-MC
GetDisputeByMComCaseStatus, the checkbox ‘Display
unoptimized’ is unchecked in Data Access Tab. In the
activity
PegaCard-Sd-Dispute-MCProcessGetCBStatusResponse,
the value for parameter SkipPostResumeWO is passed as ‘true’
in step 5.1.Application Smart Dispute for Acquirers Scheme Impact MCOM Scheme Reference NA Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Batch Queues Effective Date NA Reported Issue Issue 1: Smart Dispute Implementation Issue 1: How to test the functionality
MCOM – Fixes for Service Exceptions (INC-243800)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact MCOM Scheme Reference NA Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Service Exceptions Effective Date NA Reported Issue When a fraud dispute is submitted after Answer ancillary
questions, application invokes MCOM API CreateFraud to report
the Fraud. When there is any service exception during the
invocation of CreateFraud API, application routes the dispute to
MCOM Service Exception assignment. If the operator clicks on
Back button in the assignment, then the application should route
back to previous assignment, but the dispute case does not
contain any open assignments. Smart Dispute Implementation In the when rule IsLocalActionServiceError, another condition
is added to check if CreateFraud API is invoked through local
action. The property CreateFraudLocal is used to check if the
call is being made through the local action. In the activity
PostReportTransToSAFEAtClaim, the property CreateFraudLocal is
set to ‘true’ in step 8.2. How to test the functionality
MCOM – Association Decision not processed (BUG-766445)
Application Smart Dispute for Acquirers Scheme Impact MCOM Scheme Reference NA Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Case filing Effective Date NA Reported Issue When Acquirer receives either Inbound Compliance or
Arbitration and the case is waiting at the assignment Awaiting
Association Decision, then the case is not getting resumed
further after the association decision is received. Smart Dispute Implementation In the flow, PegaCard-Sd-DisputeAcq-MC
AcqArbAssociationReviewForMCOM, a new Service Level Agreement
(SLA) PegaCard-Sd-DisputeAcqMCAwaitingAssociationRespSLA is
configured for the assignment Awaiting Association
Decision How to test the functionality
MCOM – CreateClaim API Failure (BUG-763654)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact MCOM Scheme Reference NA Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Create Claim Effective Date NA Reported Issue MCOM API CreateClaim service call is failing Smart Dispute Implementation In the data page D_CreateClaim, the checkbox Pass current
parameter page is selected for the connector rule. How to test the functionality
MCOM – Flow not resumed after first Chargeback SLA expiry (INC-244192)
Application Smart Dispute for Acquirers Scheme Impact MCOM Scheme Reference NA Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Inbound chargeback Effective Date NA Reported Issue When an Acquirer fails to respond to an inbound chargeback
within timelines, the Acquirer case is not resumed to Process
liability screen. Smart Dispute Implementation Updated the data transform rule SetCBSLAExpiryDefault to add
step 3 for setting ‘.ReasonCode.ConditionCode’ value. How to test the functionality
MCOM – Dispute Validations for 4837 (INC-250465)
In Smart
Dispute for Issuers application, when a chargeback is
submitted with reason code ‘No Cardholder Authorization –
4837’, there is no validation to check whether the terminal
is attended or not. Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact MCOM Scheme Reference Page 97, Fraud-related Chargebacks, MCOM Chargeback guide
October 2022 Dispute Reason No Cardholder Authorization - 4837 Functional Category Dispute validations Effective Date NA Reported Issue No Cardholder Authorization (4837) chargeback is invalid for
a face-to-face transaction at an attended terminal with
card-read (not key-entered) account information. Smart Dispute Implementation When rule CardPresentAndNonManualPANEntry is updated to add
conditions F & F1 for evaluation of attended
terminal. How to test the functionality
MCOM – Reason code description in Mastercom First Chargeback footer tab (BUG-761975)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact MCOM Scheme Reference NA Dispute Reason Point of Interaction Error - 4834 Functional Category Dispute Questionnaire Effective Date NA Reported Issue When a Point of Interaction Error – 4834 chargeback is
submitted with condition code Improper Merchant Surcharge-8, the
reason code description is displayed as incorrectly as Improper
Merchant Surcharge - 4834 instead of Point of Interaction Error
- 4834 in ‘Mastercom First Chargeback’ footer tab. Smart Dispute Implementation Updated description for dispute reason code rules 4834-6,
4834-8, 4834-9 to ‘Point of Interaction Error’. How to test the functionality
MCOM – Mismatch in the work status after Process Liability (INC-245993)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact MCOM Scheme Reference NA Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Regulation-E Effective Date NA Reported Issue For a Regulation-E eligible dispute, if a split liability of
Write-off and Cardholder-liable is chosen in Process Liability
screen, then post completion of Reverse Provisional Credit
assignment, the dispute case is getting resolved as
Resolved-CardholderLiabile instead of Resolved-SplitLiability
Smart Dispute Implementation In PegaCard-Sd-Debit-MC RegEEligibleReversePC flow, the
utilities CheckIfAnyOpenAssignmentExists and UpdateStatus are
removed. In SetDisputeStatustoCHLiableOrSplitLiability data
transform, steps 1, 3 are added and step 4.1.2 is updated.
How to test the functionality
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 – INCOMING_BQ_ACCEPTANCES_RECEIVED queue processing for disputes resolved through Rapid Dispute Resolution (RDR) (INC-261723)
Application | Smart Dispute for Issuers |
Scheme Impact | VISA |
Functional Category | Batch Queues |
Reported Issue | As an issuing disputes operator, when I create a dispute on a
transaction which is eligible for Rapid Dispute Resolution (RDR),
application routes the dispute to Awaiting- Visa RDR Credit
assignment when merchant accepts to provide RDR credit. Disputes
will be resolved if the Issuer confirms receival of RDR credit or if
the Issuer does not take an action for 3 days. In Smart Dispute for Issuers application, INCOMING_BQ_ACCEPTANCES_RECEIVED queue is used to process the disputes that are accepted by Acquirer at various stages of dispute life cycle. But all RDR disputes that are accepted by the merchant are also placed by Visa in INCOMING_BQ_ACCEPTANCES_RECEIVED queue. Application is trying to resume flow action Awaiting Acquirer Response for RDR disputes and throwing error as the RDR disputes will either be at Awaiting-Visa RDR Credit assignment or in a resolved state. |
Smart Dispute Implementation | Activity VCR_BatchQueueProcessing is updated to add steps 4.7 and 4.8 in order to skip processing of RDR disputes. |
How to test the functionality |
|
Visa – Transaction inquiry fixes (INC-269605)
Application | Smart Dispute for Issuers |
Scheme Impact | VISA |
Functional Category | Transaction Inquiry |
Reported Issue | In Smart Dispute for Issuers application, after a dispute is
qualified, SubmitTransactionInquiryOperation API is invoked to
retrieve the VROL transaction details. When the RTSI service returns multiple results, the system routes the dispute to Transaction selection assignment. Operators must manually review the transactions, select an appropriate transaction, and submit. System will use the ROLTransactionId of the selected transaction for further processing. The results are displayed until the goal time of the assignment (3 days or dispute timeframe expiry whichever is earliest). When the goal time is reached, the system hides the transaction results and displays the message “Deadline to select a transaction has passed. Refine the criteria and proceed further.”, indicating that Transaction Inquiry results have expired, and operators must manually retry Transaction Inquiry again using the alternate action Refine criteria. Upon retry, if multiple results are found, the system routes back to the Transaction selection assignment and displays the latest results retrieved. After 23.1 Test hotfix, despite manual retry, the latest transaction results were not displayed. |
Smart Dispute Implementation | Smart Dispute for Issuers application leverages the flag
TranSelectionDeadlineReached to determine if the Transaction Inquiry
results have expired or not. After the first expiry,
TranSelectionDeadlineReached is initialized to ‘Y’. But the flag was
not reset when the operator manually retried using alternate action
Refine criteria. RemoveRolTransactionId data transform is updated to reset the flag TranSelectionDeadlineReached appropriately. |
How to test the functionality |
|
Visa – Pre-Arbitration fixes for Remedy – Prior Undisputed Non-Fraud transactions (INC-268037)
Application | Smart Dispute for Issuers |
Scheme Impact | VISA |
Dispute Reason | Other Fraud – Card Absent Environment (10.4) |
Functional Category | Pre-arbitration |
Reported Issue | When an acquiring disputes operator is initiating a
pre-arbitration using the reason Remedy – Prior Undisputed Non-Fraud
Transactions for an inbound 10.4 (Other Fraud – Card Absent
Environment) dispute, Smart Dispute provides the following two
capabilities to find and add the historical transactions.
|
Smart Dispute Implementation | In the data transform CreatePreArbRequestForRE, currency is
directly mapped from the case without converting the alphabetic
currency code to numeric code. Data transform is updated to convert the 3-character alphabetic currency code to 3-digit numeric currency code using the existing Map Value rule CurrencyTypeMapping. |
How to test the functionality |
|
Visa – Pre-Compliance fixes (INC-260715)
Application | Smart Dispute for Issuers |
Scheme Impact | VISA |
Scheme Reference | IES for Release 23.1_Pub 12.16.22, Sheet - Dispute; RTSI Function: SICreateDisputePreCompRequest |
Functional Category | Pre-compliance |
Reported Issue | Issue 1: An Acquirer may receive an inbound dispute with
dispute amount different from the actual transaction amount. This
can happen due to:
Issue 2: When Pre-compliance amount is different from the dispute amount, system displays multi-pronged options prompting the user to record liabilities for the remaining amount. When the amounts entered do not balance against the dispute amount, system throws the error Total multi-pronged amount should be equal to the dispute amount. This error message is incorrect. |
Smart Dispute Implementation |
|
How to test the functionality |
|
Visa – Update to Pre-Compliance Response instructions (INC-269208)
Application | Smart Dispute for Issuers |
Scheme Impact | VISA |
Functional Category | Pre-compliance Response |
Reported Issue | In Smart Dispute for Acquirers application, when Acquirer receives inbound Pre-compliance response, the instructions for Process pre-compliance response assignment are incorrectly displayed as Assigned to VCR Acquirer to ‘dgdfgdg’. |
Smart Dispute Implementation | Updated flow ProcessPreCompResp to add proper instructions on 'Process Pre-compliance response' assignment. |
How to test the functionality |
|
Visa – Cancelled Recurring Transaction questionnaire (INC-270216)
Application | Smart Dispute for Issuers |
Scheme Impact | VISA |
Scheme Reference | IES for Release 23.1_Pub 12.16.22 |
Dispute Reason | Cancelled Recurring Transaction |
Functional Category | Dispute Questionnaire |
Reported Issue | As part of 23.1 Compliance, in Cancelled Recurring transaction questionnaire, ‘Cancellation date’ label was updated to "Date cardholder withdrew permission to charge the payment credentials" for all jurisdictions. However, this change is only applicable for jurisdictions other than Europe. |
Smart Dispute Implementation | Created the below rules to update label, information message and
validation message: EnterCancelOrAcctClosureDateForVE – Message CancelDateWhenVEDomestic – Field value CancelOrAcctClosureDateForVEDomestic – Field value Updated above rules in CustomerDisputeQuestionnaireCR section and ValidateCRQuestionnaire validate rule. |
How to test the functionality |
|
Visa – Other Fraud – Card Absent Environment (10.4) dispute validation for fully authenticated U.S. domestic token transactions (INC-269717)
Application | Smart Dispute for Issuers |
Scheme Impact | VISA |
Scheme Reference | U.S. Domestic Token Transactions in High-Risk MCCs Will Continue to Have Issuer Fraud Dispute Rights, Regardless of ECI Classification |
Dispute Reason | Other Fraud – Card Absent Environment (10.4) |
Functional Category | Dispute Validations |
Reported Issue | As per Visa guidelines, Issuers will have dispute rights under
‘Other Fraud – Card Absent Environment (10.4)’ dispute sub-category
for fully authenticated U.S. domestic token transactions
irrespective of electronic commerce indicator (ECMOTO) value in case
of high-risk merchants. The below merchant category codes (MCCs) are
considered as high-risk merchants: 4829, 5967, 6051, 6540, 7801,
7802, 7995. For non-US transactions, irrespective of merchant category code, the dispute validation outcome should evaluate to ‘Fail’ when ECMOTO value is 5. |
Smart Dispute Implementation | In when rule Eval_104_7, the logic string is updated such that the rule returns true for non-US transactions with ECMOTO value as 5. |
How to test the functionality |
|
Visa – Slowness in opening cases with huge attachments (INC-261191)
Application | Smart Dispute for Issuers and Acquirers |
Scheme Impact | VISA |
Reported Issue | As an Issuer/Acquirer, when I open a claim case containing
multiple disputes with attachments, it is observed that a
considerable amount of time is taken for the case to load. This is because, when I am trying to submit documents to Visa using SOAP services, Smart Dispute creates temporary pages to hold the attachment details. These pages are not cleared after the related data has been pushed to the respective APIs. As these temporary pages are not being removed in case of SOAP services, the attachment stream related data is getting pushed to BLOB and when user tries to load the case, it takes considerable amount of time which is leading to performance issues. |
Smart Dispute Implementation | The existing code base was referring the embedded page
“DisputeAttachmentDescriptor” without prefix “.” As part of fix in the Smart Dispute application, below change has been made: Reference of “DisputeAttachmentDescriptor” embedded page in the API response data transforms are prefixed with “.” to remove “.DisputeAttachmentDescriptor” page. |
How to test the functionality |
|
Visa – Arbitration Association Ruling (INC-236381)
Application Smart Dispute for Acquirers Scheme Impact VISA Functional Category Arbitration Association Ruling Reported Issue In Smart Dispute for Acquirers application, when the Acquirer
receives inbound Arbitration from Issuer, application waits at
assignment ‘Review Inbound Arbitration’. When the association
ruling is received from Visa, application should proceed further
and wait at ‘Process Association ruling’. But the application is
not resuming the assignment ‘Review Inbound Arbitration’ Smart Dispute Implementation In the activity GetInboundArbResponse,when condition in Step
9 is updated to ‘AssociationRuleGiven’. How to test the functionality
Visa – Compliance Association Ruling (INC-236680)
Application Smart Dispute for Acquirers Scheme Impact VISA Functional Category Compliance Association Ruling Reported Issue In Smart Dispute for Acquirers application, when the Acquirer
initiates Compliance, application waits at assignment ‘Awaiting
Final decision by Visa’. When the association ruling is received
from Visa, application should proceed further and wait at
‘Process Compliance ruling’. But the application is not resuming
the assignment ‘Awaiting Final decision by Visa’. Smart Dispute Implementation In the flow ComplianceAssociationDecision, the SLA on the
assignment ‘Awaiting Final decision by Visa’ is updated to
‘SLAForVCRComplianceRuling’. Created new SLA rule
SLAForVCRComplianceRulingand new escalation activity rule
GetComplianceFinalDecision. The activity
GetComplianceFinalDecision resumes the flow action
AwaitingAssociationRulingFromVisawhen the association ruling is
received. How to test the functionality
Visa – Appeal Final Ruling (INC-238315)
Application Smart Dispute for Acquirers Scheme Impact VISA Functional Category Appeal final ruling Reported Issue In Smart Dispute for Acquirers application, when the
Arbitration final ruling is received in favor of the Acquirer,
application should wait for Inbound Appeal from Issuer. The flow
is not getting resumed when Issuer appeals for Arbitration final
ruling as the passed deadline is not properly configured on the
‘Awaiting Issuer response’ assignment SLA. Smart Dispute Implementation Updated time interval as 1 Day for passed deadline in
ArbRulingForIssuerLiable SLA How to test the functionality
Visa – Review inbound Cancelled Merchandise/Services dispute (BUG-748714)
Application Smart Dispute for Acquirers Scheme Impact VISA Dispute Reason Cancelled Merchandise or Services Functional Category Inbound Dispute Questionnaire Reported Issue In Smart Dispute for Acquirers application, when the Acquirer
receives inbound Cancelled Merchandiseor Services dispute, ‘Did
cardholder cancel before ship date?’question is not displayed in
‘Process incoming dispute’ screen. Smart Dispute Implementation Updated GetDisputeDetailsResponse_CD_CSdata transform to map
DidCardholderCancelBeforeShipping property. How to test the functionality
Visa – Reset of flag ‘isChagebackProcessed’ (INC-232929)
Application Smart Dispute for Acquirers Scheme Impact VISA Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Compliance Association Ruling Reported Issue Post dispute submission to Visa, if a multi-prong action of
Write-off or Cardholder liable is taken at any stage later, the
flag isChagebackProcessed is reset to blank. This is impacting
reports referring to isChagebackProcessed flag. Smart Dispute Implementation In SetTimelinesForDisputeTimeFrameExpiry data transform,
mapping of property isChagebackProcessed is removed. The step
isChagebackProcessed==”’ is commented in the data transforms
SetCHLAmount and SetWOAmount. How to test the functionality
Visa – Cancelled Merchandise/Service Questionnaire (INC-241302)
What was purchased? - Merchandise
Did the cardholder receive the merchandise? - Yes
Was a cancellation policy provided? – Blank (optional
field) E-200100002 One or
more required fields are missing. Please correct the
following errors: CancellationPolicyProvidedInd Created when rule IsCancellationPolicyIndReq, to add
required when condition for “Was a cancellation policy
provided?” field in CancellationRelatedQuestions section.
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers and Acquirers Scheme Impact VISA Dispute Reason Cancelled Merchandise/Service Functional Category Dispute Questionnaire Reported Issue When a “Consumer Disputes-Cancelled Merchandise/Service”
dispute is submitted to Visa with the below questionnaire, Visa
is throwing error that 'Was a cancellation policy provided?'
field is mandatory. Smart Dispute Implementation “Was a cancellation policy provided?” field is displayed as
optional when “Did the cardholder cancel?” is answered as ‘Yes’
& “Did cardholder cancel before ship date?” is answered as
‘No’. Otherwise, this field is displayed as mandatory.
How to test the functionality
Visa – Mapping of Pre-Compliance violation code for ‘Compliance Right for Improperly Assessed Surcharge’ (INC-242849)
“E-121005201: Member submitted one or more invalid
RuleViolatedCodes for the case jurisdiction and the supplied
NetworkID. Please correct and resubmit.”Application Smart Dispute for Issuers and Acquirers Scheme Impact VISA Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Pre-Compliance Reported Issue In Smart Dispute for Issuers application, Issuer is unable to
submit Pre-Compliance with violation type ‘Compliance Right for
Improperly Assessed Surcharge’ as Visa throws below RTSI
error: Smart Dispute Implementation Updated violation code from ‘C135’ to ‘C027’ for violation
type ‘Compliance Right for Improperly Assessed Surcharge’ in
MapViolationSource map value. How to test the functionality
Visa – Mapping of IsChargeBackProcessed flag (INC-240524)
Issuer is unable to process
the disputes in bulk when the Issuer is re-routed to Dispute
questionnaire screen to review delta associated transactions
or to provide chip card information. Updated UpdatedATRsExistatDQ and
GetUpdatedAssocTrans activities to map
DisputeQuestionnaireStage and DisputeInitStage property
values for bulk dispute processing.Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact VISA Dispute Reason NA Functional Category NA Reported Issue In Smart Dispute for Issuers application,
IsChargeBackProcessed flag is incorrectly set as ‘Y’ before
dispute submission is successful. Smart Dispute Implementation Updated DisputeCreationFlow flow, SetDispCreationDetails data
transform to set IsChargeBackProcessed flag as ‘Y’ after
chargeback submission. How to test the functionality
Visa – Cancelled Merchandise/Services Dispute Questionnaire (INC-243033)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact VISA Dispute Reason Cancelled Merchandise/Services Functional Category Dispute Questionnaire Reported Issue In Dispute Questionnaire screen, when user changes the
dispute reason from Cancelled Merchandise/Services to any other
reason, “Was a cancellation policy provided?” field is not
reset. Smart Dispute Implementation ClearVCRCancelledProps has been updated to remove following
properties: CancellationPolicyProvidedInd,
DidCardholderCancelBeforeShipping,
CardholderReceiveMerchandiseInd. How to test the functionality
Visa – Batch Queue fixes for pxUpdateDateTime property when cases are resolved as ‘Resolved-AcqAccepted’ (INC-236121)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact VISA Dispute Reason Cancelled Merchandise/Services Functional Category Batch Queue Processing – Acquirer Acceptance Reported Issue When dispute cases are resolved as ‘ResolvedAcqAccepted’,
pxUpdateDateTime property is not updated correctly. Smart Dispute Implementation Defer save in ResumeVCRFlow activity is modified to use OOTB
activity RecalculateAndSave instead of ‘Obj-Save’ method so that
all relevant OOTB system properties (such as pxUpdateOperator,
pxUpdateSystemID etc.) are initialized appropriately. How to test the functionality Dispute Scenario VROL Case Status Chargeback for Processing Error Processing Error Dispute - Accepted by Acq
Chargeback for Consumer Dispute Consumer Dispute - Accepted by Acq Pre-Arb for Processing Error Processing Error Dispute - Pre-Arb Accepted
by Acq Pre-Arb for Consumer Dispute Consumer Dispute - PreArb Accepted by
Acq Pre-Comp Iss Pre-Comp - Accepted by Acq Fraud Chargeback Fraud Dispute - Accepted by Acq Authorization Dispute Chargeback Authorization Dispute - Accepted by
Acq Pre-Arb response for Fraud Disputes Fraud Dispute - Pre-Arb Response Accepted
by Acq Pre-Arb response for Authorization disputes Authorization Dispute - Pre-Arb Response
Accepted by Acq
Visa – Information message in Supporting Documents section (INC-243776)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact VISA Scheme Reference Page 42, Visa Resolve Online (VROL) Real Time Systems
Interface Development Guide for Release 22.2 Functional Category Supporting Documents Reported Issue For Visa Debit disputes, the message displayed under
Supporting Documents is “Attachments with PDF,JPEG and TIFF
formats are only supported” instead of “Attachments with JPEG
and TIFF formats are only supported up to 10 MB file size.
Attachment with PDF format is only supported up to 2 MB file
size.” Smart Dispute Implementation VCRAttachments section in Visa Debit class layer has been
updated to use the latest field value pyCaption •
DisplayValidVisaAttachmentMessage. How to test the functionality
Visa – Audit history fixes (INC-233322)
Step
2: To capture Dispute Stage into a Param Steps 6 and
7: Sets Param.TempFilingType based on the Service invoked
(Arbitration / Compliance).Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact VISA Scheme Reference NA Functional Category Arbitration – Audit History Reported Issue In Smart Dispute Issuers application, when Issuer submit a
Visa case and performs Arbitration, in the audit history
‘DisputeFilingItemId’ is not mapped. However, this works for
Compliance. Smart Dispute Implementation In the data transform ‘PegaCard-Sd-Dispute-Visa
SubmitDisputeFilingResponse’, the below steps are added: How to test the functionality
Visa – Batch Queue fixes (INC-242640)
Application Smart Dispute for Acquirers Scheme Impact VISA Scheme Reference NA Functional Category Inbound dispute for Acquirers Reported Issue For inbound dispute cases created through Acquirer batch
queue agents, Goal and Deadline values are not getting set in
disputes, at Case level “Overview” tab. Smart Dispute Implementation Added steps 1 and 2 in CreateAcquirerCase activity where
“pyWorkPage.pySLAName” property is assigned to ‘DisputeMainFlow’
SLA in first step and ‘DefineSLATimes’ activity is invoked in
second step to execute SLA. How to test the functionality Review inbound Acquirer cases created through Acquirer agents
and observe that Goal and Deadline values are displayed in
‘Overview’ tab of the Acquirer case.
Visa – Dispute response supporting documents for Paid by Other Means/Duplicate Processing (INC-240231)
Application Smart Dispute for Acquirers Scheme Impact VISA Dispute Reason Paid by Other Means/Duplicate Processing Functional Category Supporting Documents Reported Issue When Acquirer accepts full liability on an inbound ‘Paid by
Other Means’ or ‘Duplicate Processing’ dispute, application is
displaying mandatory supporting documents. Smart Dispute Implementation The logic in the when rule
VCRConfig_Acquirer_DisputeResponse_Reason_ID is modified as
below: ((A && B) && ((C || D || E || G)
&& M) || ((J && M) && (K || L) ))
How to test the functionality
Visa – Enabling Multipart message structure for Contact Message Response (INC-240449)
"E-300100000 : Internal system error has occurred. Please
contact your regional ROL Help Desk.
SubmitContactMessageResponseOperation is not
supported for multipart message structure in the OOTB
application. As per Visa, attachments must be sent as part
of multipart request. Application Smart Dispute for Issuers and Acquirers Scheme Impact MCOM Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Contact Message Reported Issue SubmitContactMessageResponseOperation REST service when
invoked with/without attachments errors out as shown below.
Smart Dispute Implementation "SubmitContactMessageResponseOperation" is added as a
condition in the when rule “SendMultiPartRequest” of class
“@baseclass”. How to test the functionality
Visa – Acquirer Transaction Inquiry (INC-240934/INC-244193)
In the Acquirer case, when the operator
clicks on ‘More details’ link in ‘Transaction’ tab, Visa
transaction inquiry RTSI service
SubmitDisputeQuestionnaireOperation is invoked. If the
response from Visa is asynchronous, i.e., if TIEventID is
received, then application creates a parallel assignment
‘Retry’ which automatically triggers RTSI services
GetTransInquiryResultsOperation and GetTransDetailsOperation
to fetch the transaction inquiry results upon the assignment
deadline expiry. The SLA AsyncTIWaitDateTimeSLA on the
‘Retry’ assignment is not advancing the flow action when the
deadline is passed. The transaction
inquiry details received from Visa are not getting persisted
in the Acquirer case.Application Smart Dispute for Acquirers Scheme Impact VISA Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Transaction Inquiry Reported Issue Issue 1: Smart Dispute Implementation The activity PegaCard-Sd-DisputeAcq InvokeAcquirerTI is
updated to remove steps related to Property-Set of
‘.InvokedAcquirerTI’, ‘.AcquirerTISuccessful’. Steps 5, 6 and 7
are newly added. How to test the functionality
Visa – Mapping of Outstanding amount in VCR tab (INC-243219)
In the data transform
SetAmountOutstandingPreCompResponse, step 1 is added to
check Param.PreCompAmount ==””.Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact VISA Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Pre-Compliance Reported Issue In the VCR tab, under ‘Pre-compliance response details’
section, ‘AmountOutstanding’ is displayed as a negative value
when the Pre-Compliance is partially accepted by the Acquirer.
Smart Dispute Implementation In the data transform GetDispPreCompRespDetRes,
Param.PreCompAmount is set in step 3 and current parameter page
is passed in step 4. How to test the functionality
Visa – Validation on Pre-Compliance Amount (BUG-767599)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact VISA Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Pre-Compliance Reported Issue When Pre-Compliance amount is entered as zero in Initiate
Pre-Compliance screen, then application is throwing invalid
error as ‘Total multi-pronged amount should be equal to the
dispute amount. Smart Dispute Implementation In the activity PegaCard-Sd-DisputeVisa-
PostSubmitInitiatePreComplianceVCRIssuer, step 1 is added to set
page-set message ‘PreCompAmountZeroErrMsg’ when the
Pre-Compliance amount is zero. How to test the functionality
Visa – Batch Queue fixes (Other Queue) (INC-244193)
In such cases, the Acquirer is unable to open
the Acquirer cases because the DATA-ADMIN-DB-TABLE for
OtherQueue class is missing in the Acquirer
application. DATA-ADMIN-DB-TABLE PEGACARD-INT-VISAOTHERQUEUETYPE
DATA-ADMIN-DB-TABLE
PEGACARD-INTERFACE-MC-MCOMCM-RETRIEVERECONREPORT The
data transform MapDQueueItems is updated to map the
properties Jurisdiction and Dispute amount
properly.Application Smart Dispute for Acquirers Scheme Impact VISA Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Batch Queues Reported Issue As an Acquirer, when the Acquirer case is waiting at any
stage for inbound response from Issuer and the case status
received in the GetBatchQueueOperation for the Acquirer/Dispute
case does not match with the case statuses configured in Smart
Dispute for Acquirers application, then the cases are routed to
‘Other queue’. Smart Dispute Implementation The below rules are added in the package:
How to test the functionality Observe that the batch queue records are moved to Other queue
table when the incoming case status in the batch queue item does
not match with the status values configured in the decision
table ‘CheckIfQueueCanBeProcessedInSDForAcquirer.
Visa – Mapping of Transaction details after receiving Pre-arbitration Response (INC-248736)
Application Smart Dispute for Acquirers Scheme Impact VISA Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Pre-arbitration Reported Issue When the Pre-arbitration response is received, the
transaction data on pyWorkPage.AssociationData is
erased. Smart Dispute Implementation In the data transform
PegaCard-Sd-Dispute-VisaGetDisputePreArbResponseDetailsResponse,
Param.SourcePage is updated from steps 1.13 to 1.17. How to test the functionality
Visa – Inbound dispute questionnaire for Duplicate Processing(12.6) and Merchandise/Services Not Received(13.1) (INC-247512)
In ‘Process incoming dispute’ screen, the
below questionnaire element is not visible for Duplicate
Processing (12.6) disputes even though the details are
received in RTSI response of GetDisputeDetailsOperation: Is
the other transaction for the same merchant and on a
different Visa Card owned by the same
Issuer/Cardholder? Issue 2: In the
‘Process incoming dispute’ screen, the below questionnaire
element is not visible for Merchandise/Services Not Received
(13.1) disputes even though the details are received in RTSI
response of GetDisputeDetailsOperation: Explanation
of dispute initiated prior to the expected delivery
date When rule
PegaCard-Sd-Dispute-VisaWhenExpectedReceiptDateIsInFuture is
updated. ‘Is the other transaction for the same
merchant and on a different Visa Card owned by the
same Issuer/Cardholder?’ is displayed.
Scenario 2: ‘Explanation of dispute initiated prior to the
expected delivery date’ is displayed.Application Smart Dispute for Acquirers Scheme Impact VISA Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Inbound Dispute Questionnaire Reported Issue Issue 1: Smart Dispute Implementation In section rule PegaCard-Sd-Dispute-VisaDorPQuestionnaire,
the visibility condition in dynamic layout 1.1 is updated.
How to test the functionality Scenario 1:
Visa – Audit tab fixes for Pre-Compliance (INC-247345)
Application Smart Dispute for Acquirers Scheme Impact VISA Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Pre-Compliance Reported Issue When Acquirer receives inbound Pre-compliance response, the
instructions for ‘Process pre-compliance response’ assignment
are incorrectly displayed as Assigned to VCR Acquirer to
‘dgdfgdg’ in audit history. Smart Dispute Implementation Updated flow ‘ProcessPreCompResp’ to add proper instructions
on 'Process Pre-compliance response' assignment. How to test the functionality
Visa – Appeal final ruling (INC-246872)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers and Acquirers Scheme Impact VISA Dispute Reason NA Functional Category NA Reported Issue When a VCR Issuer dispute case waits at 'Awaiting Final
decision by Visa’ assignment, the SLA configured on the
assignment verifies if final decision ruling is received from
Visa or not. If the appeal final ruling is received, then the
RTSI service GetDisputeFilingDetailsOperation is invoked.
DisputeFilingItemID parameter is incorrectly passed in the
request Smart Dispute Implementation Added new 2,4 & 6 steps in ‘GetFinalDecision’ activity to
set latest ‘DisputeFilingItemID’ and removed existing 8 & 9
steps How to test the functionality
Visa – Incorrect API name in Third party tab (INC-244277)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact VISA Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Associated transactions at Dispute Questionnaire Reported Issue When delta associated transactions are available at Dispute
Questionnaire and user selects “Manage Associated Transactions”
from other actions, the thirdparty tab shows incorrect service
name. AssociatedTranSelectionOperation service is displayed
instead of GetAssociatedTransactionListOperation service Smart Dispute Implementation In VCRConnector activity, added 1st step to set ServiceKey
property value based on parameter param.servicekey. How to test the functionality
Visa – Process Acquirer Liability screen fixes (BUG-766336)
In
ResponseByAcq section, visible when condition is added in
2.2 dynamic layout and added layout 2.4.Application Smart Dispute for Acquirers Scheme Impact VISA Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Pre-Arbitration Reported Issue When an Acquirer case is at Inbound Pre-Arbitration screen,
if the SLA expires, the case should route to Process Acquirer
Liability screen. Acceptance amount is displayed as zero in the
Process Acquirer Liability screen Smart Dispute Implementation In AcquirerVCRPreArbFlow flow, FinReceivableOpenSTP sub-flow
is added. PreArbAcceptanceAmount and AccountingAmount properties
are set at the leading connector of SLA Breach decision shape
that is after Record Pre-Arb response assignment. How to test the functionality
Visa – Error Handling - Display previous Assignment is not removed from dispute (INC-242239)
In a Visa dispute, when a technical exception is encountered
while invoking Visa RTSI APIs, the case is routed to
ProblemFlowWorkBasket. Upon retry when a business exception
is encountered in the API, system creates a Display Previous
Assignment instead of automatically routing the dispute to a
valid previous assignment.Application Smart Dispute for Issuers and Acquirers Scheme Impact VISA Dispute Reason NA Functional Category VCR – Exception handling Reported Issue Smart Dispute Implementation DisplayPreviousAssignment assignment in
VCRRESTConnectionProblem and VCRSOAPConnectionProblem exception
handling flows is configured as an auto-process assignment. The
flow action resumed is DisplayPreviousAssignment which uses
GoToPreviousTask GUI API as the post processing activity. The
explicit commit performed in the GoToPreviousTask resulted in
failure of flow level commit implicitly issued by Pega Platform,
consequently resulting in Rollback and unexpected
behaviour How to test the functionality
Visa – Past disputes counter-based validation for Fraud disputes is not working properly when concurrent disputes are processed (INC-245026)
When multiple 10.4 fraud disputes are processed concurrently,
either through bulk processing from Claim or through STP
from Web Self Service(WSS) API, the past disputes counter
(DisputesLimit) is stale resulting in incorrect outcomes for
the below dispute validation: A Transaction on an Account Number for which the Issuer has
initiated more than 35 Disputes within the previous 120
calendar days In addition, when
a dispute awaits in an assignment on or after Dispute
Validations but before SubmitDisputeQuestionnaire API is
successful, other disputes for the same customer account
could be submitted to chargeback resulting in counter
exceeding the threshold. In such cases where the updated
counter makes the dispute ineligible for chargeback will
have to be reviewed by the user. This is handled by
reverifying such dispute validations that have the potential
to become stale over time. This reverification is performed
immediately after Dispute Validations and before
SubmitDisputeQuestionnaire API invocation using the new
utility ReverifyStaleDisputeValidations.Application Smart Dispute for Issuers and Acquirers Scheme Impact VISA Scheme Reference Visa Core Rules and Visa Product and Service Rules (October
2022) - Table 11-28: Dispute Condition 10.4: Other Fraud –
Card-Absent Environment – Invalid Disputes Pg. 952 Dispute Reason Other Fraud – Card Absent Environment (10.4) Functional Category Dispute Validations Reported Issue Smart Dispute Implementation This counter-based validation was performed only once in the
dispute lifecycle in EvaluateDisputeValidations utility.
However, when disputes were submitted to association
concurrently within a single interaction (bulk processing from
Claim or STP through WSS API), D_GetpastDisputes was not
reloaded resulting in incorrect counter. This scenario is
handled by reloading the data page for every dispute in
SetFlagsBasedOnPastDisputes data transform. How to test the functionality
Visa – VCR Configurations - Batch Queue Debug tool is inaccessible (BUG-760818)
The data transform has been corrected to
PreVCRConfigurations.Application Smart Dispute for Issuers and Acquirers Scheme Impact VISA Scheme Reference NA Dispute Reason All Functional Category VCR configurations Reported Issue In the VCR Configurations landing page, VCR Batch Queue Debug
Tool is showing a blank page. Smart Dispute Implementation The page context to render Batch Queue Debug tool section is
not loaded due to incorrect loading data transform for VCR
Configuration option in SmartDisputeConfigurations navigation
rule. How to test the functionality
AMEX issues addressed in this release
The following is a list of AMEX 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.
AMEX – Pre-Compliance response fixes (BUG-797644)
Application | Smart Dispute for Issuers and Acquirers |
Scheme Impact | AMEX |
Reported Issue | In Record Pre-Compliance Response screen, when the Issuer selects
acquirer response as ‘Reject’ and action code as ‘Write-off’,
application is throwing the below error: “Case has been resolved as Write-Off” is too long maximum length allowed is 32. |
Smart Dispute Implementation | In the flow rule PegaCard-Sd-Dispute-AMEX- OutboundWriteOff , the utility ‘Update Status’ is updated with the below parameter values: Param.ConfirmationNote==”Case has been resolved as Write-Off” Param.StatusWork=="Resolved-WriteOff" . |
How to test the functionality |
|
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.
Ethoca – Transaction amount and currency mapping (INC-268885)
Application | Smart Dispute for Issuers |
Scheme Impact | Ethoca |
Functional Category | Ethoca dispute processing |
Reported Issue | As an issuing disputes operator, when I submit a dispute eligible for Ethoca (third party dispute resolution network), transaction amount and transaction currency fields in CreateEthocaCase API are incorrectly mapped to posted amount and currency respectively. |
Smart Dispute Implementation | In data transform PegaCard-Sd-Dispute- InitiateCreateEthocaCase,
steps 1 and 4 have been updated with values: Param.amount = @(Pega-RULES:String).trim(.AccountTransaction.TransactionAmount) Param.currency = @(Pega-RULES:String).trim(.AccountTransaction.TransactionCurrencyDesc). |
How to test the functionality |
|
On-Us eligibility for Fraud disputes (INC-267269)
Application | Smart Dispute for Issuers |
Scheme Impact | VISA, MCOM |
Functional Category | On-Us |
Reported Issue | On-Us processing eligibility is applicable when DSS EnableOnUS is enabled. However, even On-Us processing is disabled in the DSS rule EnableOnUS, application is routing Fraud cases to On-Us processing after submitting Qualify fraud dispute screen. |
Smart Dispute Implementation | In PostQualifyFraudDisputes data transform, removed CheckCaseLock
activity check and updated when condition as below :
(@Default.PageExists("pyWorkCover")) && pyWorkCover.OnUsTransaction==true |
How to test the functionality |
|
Currency code mapping for EUR (INC-265368)
Application | Smart Dispute for Issuers |
Scheme Impact | All |
Reported Issue | In Smart Dispute for Issuers application, Europe currency code is incorrectly mapped in CurrencyTypeMapping. |
Smart Dispute Implementation | In PegaCard-Sd-Dispute- CurrencyTypeMapping map value rule, the numeric currency code for EUR is updated. |
How to test the functionality |
|
Regulation E fixes when Cardholder is made liable (INC-240050)
When reverse provisional credit is initiated for
Cardholder liable scenarios, application should not make the
provisional credit as final. Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact All Functional Category Regulation E Reported Issue When Reverse Provisional Credit assignment SLA is 3 days and
Wait for Reg E Final 45/90 assignment SLA is 2 Days, application
sends Final Credit Letter after completing “Wait for Reg E Final
45/90” assignment by stating that the provisional credit is
final. However, post completion of Reverse Provisional Credit
assignment, application sends another communication that the
provisional credit will be reversed for ACH transactions.
Smart Dispute Implementation Updated ‘PegaCard-Sd-Debit WaitForRegEFinal45’ ,
“PegaCard-Sd-Debit WaitForRegEFinal90” flow rues and
“MakeProvisionalCreditFinalForDispute” activity so that the
provisional credit is not made final when Reverse Provisional
credit assignment is available in the dispute case. How to test the functionality
Legacy rule fixes (INC-238943)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact All Functional Category NA Reported Issue When the user runs application validation, system throws
error for legacy rules which are not used in the
application. Smart Dispute Implementation Provided fix for invalid rules as part of this fix and
withdrawn few of the legacy rules which are not being used in
Smart Disputes 8.7 application. How to test the functionality
MCOM – Audit history (INC-227919)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact MCOM Functional Category Audit Reported Issue In Review Dispute validations screen, when the operator
selects Write-off or Cardholder Liable option and resolves the
case, then application is displaying the below audit entries
twice: Status changed to Resolved-CardHolder Liable Status
changed to Resolved-WriteOff Smart Dispute Implementation Modified the flows CHLiableAcctg and WriteOffAcctg to remove
the audit note in SetConfirmationNote How to test the functionality
MCOM – Exception handling for Gateway Exceptions/MCOM Outages (INC-228042/INC-228555/INC-234749)
When there is a Gateway error in any MCOM
services, the response payload did not comply with the
structure used for parsing. Hence, system threw an
exception. When this issue is encountered for TranSearch
API, Smart Dispute showed the exception to end user and MCOM
Service Error assignment was not created. When such gateway error was returned due to MCOM Outage
for other scenarios such as Create Chargeback, Get Claim
etc., the API response processing abruptly exited without
completing the error handling steps. Existing logic is such
that, if the response does not indicate failure, then it is
treated as Success and case continues processing. This
resulted in the APIs taking the success path although the
response was not processed. As part of the fix, the response parsing
structure has been updated in the data transform
MapJSONErrorToPage. The logic to find API
errors has been made more robust by relying on the HTTP
Response Code and the status returned by the MasterCom APIs.
Also contrary to existing logic, when the response does not
indicate success, it is evaluated to Fail scenario to ensure
users are always kept aware in the event of any error(s).
The users can examine the errors and take necessary actions
to resume the dispute.Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact MCOM Functional Category Mastercom API Connectivity – Exception handling Reported Issue Issue 1: Smart Dispute Implementation Issue 1: How to test the functionality
MCOM – Cases moving to Process Liability (INC-227091/INC-226641/INC-223578)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact MCOM Scheme Reference AN 5483 Revised Chargeback Standards for Travel or
Entertainment Services Not Provided Functional Category Timeframes Reported Issue With the latest implementation of AN 5483 as part of 22.1
compliance, the 4853CC2 (Not as described) cases are moving to
process liability even though the timeframes have not expired.
This happens for transactions which are not US/Canada/China
domestic transactions. Smart Dispute Implementation Updated data transform
‘SetTimelinesForDisputeTimeFrameExpiry’ to evaluate the
timeframes for T&E transactions initiated after 22.1
correctly. How to test the functionality
MCOM – EBDR Form Fixes (INC-220566/BUG-713358)
Updated data transform
‘PrePickReasonCodeForMCom’ to add steps from 7.4.4 to 7.4.7.
Updated activity ‘GetLongDesc’ to get rid of USD as default
currency.Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact MCOM Dispute Reason All Functional Category EBDR Reported Issue For pending transaction, the EBDR Form generated have dispute
amount as blank and currency as USD for all cases. EBDR is also
missing details when a fraud is converted to non-Fraud . Smart Dispute Implementation Updated data transform ‘GetConditionCodeForMCOM’ to add steps
2.5.1.4 & 2.5.1.5. How to test the functionality
MCOM – Label change on pre-arbitration screen (INC-213047)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact MCOM Dispute Reason All Functional Category Pre-Arbitration Reported Issue The ‘Due Date’ field on pre-arbitration screen does not give
a significant description of the information needed. Smart Dispute Implementation The Label is updated to ‘Pre-arbitration response expected
by’ to indicate the field indicating the date by when the issuer
is expecting to receive a response or raise arbitration. Created
a field value rule ‘PreArbDueDate’ to display the date field as
‘Prearbitration response expected by’. How to test the functionality
MCOM – Exception Handling Changes (INC-218558)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact MCOM Dispute Reason All Functional Category Exception Handling Reported Issue In MCOM application, when a service exception occurs on
optional actions of Ancillary questionnaire like Create Fraud an
exception handling assignment is created. When user clicks on
back button on the exception assignment the ancillary
questionnaire is going back to qualify dispute which is
incorrect. Smart Dispute Implementation Updated the current exception handling to delete the
exception handling assignment for optional actions. How to test the functionality
MCOM – Provisional Credit Reversal Changes (INC-221188)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact MCOM Dispute Reason All Functional Category Provisional Credit Reported Issue For a Debit card disputes, the cardholder is been debited
immediately when a credit is found in the merchant credit
scenario. Smart Dispute Implementation Updated AccountingforMerchantCredits flow for PC
reversal.. How to test the functionality
MCOM – Validation on attachment sent to Mastercard (INC-210780)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact MCOM Scheme References Mastercom User Guide, March 1st, 2022, Page 15 Dispute Reason All Functional Category Supporting Documents Reported Issue As per the Mastercom user guide, the attached document should
not exceed 300 PPI. But SD system is allowing them under
supporting documents due to which they’re being rejected by
Mastercom. Smart Dispute Implementation Updated field value rule ‘AttachmentsValidFormat’ to display
the appropriate information message ‘Attachments with PDF, JPEG
and TIFF formats up to 300 PPI resolution are only supported.’
under supporting documents. How to test the functionality
MCOM – Documents not getting deleted (INC-218921)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact MCOM Dispute Reason All Functional Category Supporting Documents Reported Issue User is unable to delete the documents added when user
decides to change the reason code. Smart Dispute Implementation Updated GetMCOMDocs Data Transform to enable deletion of user
attached documents. How to test the functionality
MCOM – Questionnaire Fixes (INC-224611)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact MCOM Dispute Reason All Functional Category Qualify Dispute Reported Issue When user selects, I do not recognize the transaction to
qualify the dispute and answers the question 'Does this help you
recognize the transaction?' as Yes, the case does not proceed
forward even when the reason code is changed . Smart Dispute Implementation Updated Data transform SetRCForDQ to clean up unnecessary
values on clipboard. How to test the functionality
MCOM – 4834CC3 ATM Dispute Changes (INC-222309)
For some of the
missing currencies like COP, updated Map Value rule
‘ConvertNumericCurrCodeToAlphabetic’ to accommodate all the
valid currencies.Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact MCOM Dispute Reason 4834 CC3 Functional Category Chargeback Reported Issue When user initiates a chargeback with 4834CC3 – ATM disputes,
there is an option to also chargeback an access fee. However,
when access fee is entered the dispute amount calculation is
incorrect. Smart Dispute Implementation Provided an option for users to select the access fee
currency in case of cross currency scenarios. Updated data
transform ‘PrePickReasonCodeForMCom’ to calculate the dispute
amount correctly when access fee is entered. How to test the functionality
MCOM – AN 5211 Revised chargeback standards for AFD transactions (US-480529)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact MCOM Scheme Reference AN 5211 Revised Chargeback Standards for Automated Fuel
Dispenser in U.S. Region Dispute Reason 4808 CC1 Functional Category Dispute validations Reported Issue As part of AN 5211, Mastercard has updated the amounts for
4808CC1 – Authorization not obtained chargebacks for AFD
transactions. Smart Dispute Implementation Updated 4808 1 rule, created MCC5542TxmAmtLT175
MCC5542TxmAmtLT500 when rules for new dispute validations on AFD
transactions. How to test the functionality
MCOM – Acquirer Pre-compliance timeframes (BUG-694571)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact MCOM Dispute Reason All Functional Category Pre-Compliance Reported Issue For Initiate Pre-Compliance, case does not go to process
liability when time frame expires. Smart Dispute Implementation Updated PreCompOutboundForMCOMAcq Flow for timeliness check.
How to test the functionality
MCOM – Accounting fixes (BUG-742439/BUG-732119)
When Cardholder liable option is selected
in Process liability, accounting steps are missing in the
‘Accounting’ tab. When Cardholder
liable option is selected in multipronged actions at Review
second representment, the accounting steps are missing in
the ‘Accounting’ tab. Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact MCOM Dispute Reason All Functional Category Accounting Reported Issue Issue 1: Smart Dispute Implementation Updated accounting parameter for LowerDrCHCrR subflow (from
DrCardHolderCrReceivableLower to LowerDrCardHolderCrReceivable )
in ‘DrCardHolderCrReceivableLowerFlow’ flow. How to test the functionality
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 – Third Party Audit for Transaction Inquiry Service Call
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact VISA Dispute Reason I do not recognize this transaction (DNR) Functional Category Third Party Audit Reported Issue At Qualify Dispute screen, when the dispute reason is
selected as ‘I do not recognize this transaction’ and
transaction details are retrieved, the service name for
Transaction Inquiry Service is blank in ‘Third Party’ audit tab
after dispute submission. Smart Dispute Implementation Updated activity PegaCard-Sd-Dispute- .VCRConnector to set
ServiceKey property value so that service name is displayed
correctly in the Third Party audit tab. How to test the functionality
Visa – Incorrect mapping of Dispute Stage at Pre-arbitration (INC-226464)
When the
dispute is at the review harness of Inbound Pre-arbitration
assignment, the dispute stage is DisputeInit and when the
assignment is opened, the dispute stage is
PrearbRespIssuerInit. The VCRDisputeStage value should be
consistent at any dispute stage. Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact VISA Functional Category Pre-arbitration Reported Issue When the Issuer receives inbound Pre-Arbitration from
Acquirer, the VCRDisputeStage is not mapped properly. Smart Dispute Implementation Updated the data transforms SetInitPreArbRespSLA and
SetInboundPreArbResponseProperties to set VCRDisputeStage as
‘PrearbRespIssuerInit’. How to test the functionality
Visa – Allowed formats for Supporting Documents (INC-231437/INC-235852)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact VISA Functional Category Supporting Documents Reported Issue Following message under Supporting documents is confusing for
PDF files: "Attachments with PDF, JPEG and TIFF formats are only
supported up to 10 MB file size. Attachment with PDF format is
only supported up to 2 MB file size". Smart Dispute Implementation The message has been updated to "Attachments with JPEG and
TIFF formats are only supported up to 10 MB file size.
Attachment with PDF format is only supported up to 2 MB file
size". How to test the functionality
Visa – Pre-Arbitration details in VCR tab (INC-226767)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact VISA Functional Category Pre-Arbitration Reported Issue Application is displaying Pre-arbitration details in VCR tab
before Pre-arbitration is submitted. Smart Dispute Implementation Updated Activity ‘PostPreArbitrationQuestionnaire’ to
validate sum of IssliabMPCHAmt and IssliabMPWOAmt to
DisputeAmount before setting PreArbInitStage property
value. How to test the functionality
Visa – Manage Associated Transactions (INC-230325)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact VISA Functional Category Delta Associated Transactions at Dispute
Questionnaire Reported Issue When delta associated transactions are available at Dispute
Questionnaire and user selects on Manage Associated Transactions
from Other Actions, the user is unable to select credit
transaction with Matching Score 100 and Match Pass 1 as the
checkbox is disabled. Smart Dispute Implementation Updated when rule ATR_Disable to disable checkbox for
authorization transactions. Authorization transactions are
evaluated using when rule WhenAuthTran. How to test the functionality
Visa – Pre-Compliance Response Details in VCR Tab (INC-233913)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact VISA Functional Category Pre-Compliance Response Reported Issue When the Issuer receives inbound Pre-Compliance response with
partial acceptance and the Issuer initiates Compliance for the
remaining dispute amount, Issuer Liable Amount under
Pre-Compliance response section of VCR tab is getting updated.
Smart Dispute Implementation Updated data transform GetDispPreCompRespDetRes to set
outstanding amount and acceptance amount. The amounts are mapped
in SetAmountOutstandingPreCompResponse data transform. Updated
section PreCompRespByAcqVCRTab to add
AmountOutstandingPreCompRes instead of
IssuerLiableAmount. How to test the functionality
Visa – Dispute Response Details in VCR Tab (INC-232855)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact VISA Functional Category Dispute Response in VCR tab Reported Issue When the Issuer receives Dispute Response as Accept Full, the
dispute response details in the VCR tab are displayed
twice. Smart Dispute Implementation Updated visibility conditions for Dispute Response in section
VCRTab_Dispute. How to test the functionality
Visa – Manual Case Fixes (INC-222088)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact VISA Functional Category Manual Case Reported Issue When user creates manual case and proceeds without attaching
a transaction just by validating the details manually the visa
service is failing as currency format is incorrect. Smart Dispute Implementation Updated ValidateAndProceedWithManualCase Activity, for manual
cases posted currency is converted to numeric value. Instructions to Customer Complete Manual case operation should be used only in
exception cases. Transaction data manually entered by operators
is error prone and cannot be validated against the original
transaction. How to test the functionality
Visa – Case status fixes (INC-222089)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact VISA Functional Category Case Status Reported Issue When the case is on dispute validations, the status captured
in audit is incorrect. Smart Dispute Implementation Open-ReviewValidations Field Value status is
modified. How to test the functionality
Visa – Auto populate amounts on Process Liability (INC-219270)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact VISA Functional Category Process Liability Reported Issue The liability amount is not populated when write-off/
cardholder liable is selected in Process liability screen for
Visa disputes. Smart Dispute Implementation Updated Data transforms SetWOCHAmounts &
ClearProcessLiabilityProps to populate the respective liability
amounts for Write-off/ Cardholder liable. How to test the functionality
Visa – Field values for Brazil and Colombia (INC-225008)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact VISA Functional Category Case Creation Reported Issue While initializing Cardholder work party, if country code is
not defined as pyCountry field value, system throws an error and
acquirer dispute is not created. Smart Dispute Implementation Created pyCountry Field Values for Brazil and Colombia
countries How to test the functionality Verify Visa Acquirer case is created successfully for a
Brazil or Colombia transaction.
Visa – EMV Liability Updates (US-483974)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact VISA Scheme Reference Visa Core Rules, April 2022, Page 182 Dispute Reason 10.1 and 10.2 Functional Category Fraud Reported Issue Effective December 2021, Indonesia domestic ATM transactions
are not exempted from EMV evaluation and hence should be removed
from EMV exemptions. Smart Dispute Implementation Conditions applied for Indonesia ATM transactions in When
rules EMVExemptions and EMVExemptions_DV have been removed.
Hence, Indonesia ATM transaction related disputes will also be
evaluated against EMV Liability Shift related
validations. How to test the functionality
Visa – Information Message on attaching documents (US-473347)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact VISA Scheme Reference RTSI Dev Guide, Page 43 Dispute Reason All Functional Category Supporting Documents Reported Issue As per the Visa RTSI guide, the attached pdf document should
not exceed 2 mb. The system is allowing them under supporting
documents, and they are rejected by Visa. Smart Dispute Implementation Updated the field value ‘DisplayValidVisaAttachmentMessage’
to ‘Attachments with PDF, JPEG and TIFF formats are only
supported up to 10 MB file size. Attachment with PDF format is
only supported up to 2 MB file size.’ to display the appropriate
message under supporting documents. How to test the functionality
Visa – 10.3 Dispute validations update (US-483978)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact VISA Scheme Reference Visa Core Rules, April 2022, Page 930 Dispute Reason 10.3 Functional Category Dispute Validations Reported Issue Visa has added a new condition under Invalid disputes for
10.3. Dispute is invalid if the transaction is an automated fuel
dispenser transaction that occurred at a chip-reading device and
merchant is in the U.S region. Smart Dispute Implementation A new Dispute validation rule using When rule Eval_103_13 has
been defined under VCR Configurations > Dispute Validations for
dispute category, Fraud and dispute sub-category, Other Fraud -
Card Present Environment. How to test the functionality
AMEX issues addressed in this release
The following is a list of AMEX 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.
AMEX – Multiprong Option is not available in the Final Chargeback (BUG-729510)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact AMEX Dispute Reason Goods and Services Not Received – 4554-3 Functional Category Final Chargeback Reported Issue When the user is trying to process final chargeback and
reason code is changed to “Goods and Services Not Received -
4554”, Multiprong option is not available, and the user is
unable to submit the chargeback. Smart Dispute Implementation Updated MultiProngDisplayFinalChargeback
decision table to add Svdf funds category as ‘False’ for 4554
reason code and 3 condition code. Within Section
PegaCard-Sd-Dispute-AMEX-. RC4554CC3, for the radio button field
.SVDFFundsCategory under the Actions tab for Click event, added
‘Refresh-Other Section’ as PegaCard-Sd-Dispute-AMEX-.
FinalChargeBack. How to test the functionality
AMEX: Accounting for Pre-compliance (US-488875)
When user initiates Pre-Compliance before
giving the credit to the cardholder, Accounting is being
performed for provisional credit on submit initiate
PreCompliance screen. Issue 2: When user
enters Pre-Compliance amount less than dispute amount, there
is no accounting for multiprong actions even user entered
the write off or cardholder liable amounts in the initiate
Pre-Compliance screen in all scenarios (Credit given or not
given scenarios). Issue 3: After
submitting the Pre-Compliance from issuer side, when user
records the pre-Compliance response that he gets from
Acquirer, and selected Acquirer response as Accept
Partially, There is no accounting for Accepted
Amount.Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact AMEX Dispute Reason All Functional Category Outbound Pre-Compliance Reported Issue Issue 1: Smart Dispute Implementation How to test the functionality
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.
Regulation E evaluations for DST to DMT claim conversion (INC-218554)
When a new dispute is added to an existing claim with single
dispute, Regulation E (Reg E) evaluations are not
happening. When a new dispute is added to a DST claim, since
the Reg E assignments for the existing dispute are already
created at dispute level, the Reg E assignments for the new
dispute are also created at the dispute level. Application
will not create any claim level Reg E assignments in case of
conversion of DST to DMT claims. Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact All Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Regulation E Reported Issue Smart Dispute Implementation Regulation E evaluations for claims with multiple disputes
(DMT – Dispute Multiple Transactions) are performed in the claim
level and Reg E assignments are created in claim level whereas
for claims with single dispute (DST – Dispute Single
Transaction), the Reg E assignments are created in dispute
level. How to test the functionality
Regulation E eligibility (INC-229346)
As per Regulation E guidelines, a transaction is Reg E
eligible if the transaction falls within 60 calendar days
from the last statement date (the date when the statement
was made available to the cardholder). Application is
evaluating the limit as 2 months instead of 60 calendar
days.Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact All Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Regulation E Reported Issue Smart Dispute Implementation Function GetSecondLastStatementDate is updated. How to test the functionality
Process Liability for Regulation E disputes (INC-233437)
Liability processing date field is displayed in Process
Liability screen when Cardholder Liable option is selected
for disputes without Provisional Credit. This field should
be displayed only for disputes where Provisional Credit is
already given. Liability processing date indicates that the
given Provisional Credit will be reversed on that date.
Hence, the field is not applicable for disputes without
provisional credit. Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact All Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Regulation E Reported Issue Smart Dispute Implementation In the when rules starting with
‘ShowLiabilityProcessingDate’, a condition is added to check
whether Provisional Credit is given or not. How to test the functionality
ATM Questionnaire (INC-229341)
In Partial Amount Received questionnaire, when ‘Did the ATM
machine dispense the wrong amount of cash’ is answered as
‘Yes’ initially and then updated to ‘No’ without entering
the amount, application is throwing error ‘ATM Dispensed
amount: value should be greater than 0’ upon submitting the
questionnaire screen.Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact All Dispute Reason Partial Amount Received Functional Category ATM Dispute Questionnaire Reported Issue Smart Dispute Implementation Updated validate rule ‘ValidateATMDetails’, for “Value should
be greater than 0” row, we have added one more check to throw
the error only when the question ‘Did the ATM machine dispense
the wrong amount of cash’ has value ‘Yes’. How to test the functionality
Claim resolution through Ethoca – Third Party Resolution (INC-231153)
The status for Claim is shown as 'Resolved-Credit' though it
has open disputes in progress when processed through Ethoca
flow.Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact All Dispute Reason All Functional Category Third party resolution network Reported Issue Smart Dispute Implementation Updated Activity ‘AutoResolveDisputeCase’, removed
UpdateStatus activity (Step #2). Claim case resolution is
handled as part of first step. How to test the functionality
RegE Dates Evaluation (INC-226861)
RegE dates are getting set for all cases created from CSR
even if the case does not fall under RegE conditions.Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact All Dispute Reason All Functional Category RegE Reported Issue Smart Dispute Implementation Updated CheckCSRDisputeReasonsValidation activity to set the
dates only when the case is RegE Eligible. How to test the functionality
Partial Amount received for ATM Disputes (INC-223384)
Smart Dispute supports ATM network disputes. The process is
just limited to chargeback. When multiple ATM transactions
are disputed, user is unable to see the ‘partial amount
received’ reason.Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact ATM Dispute Reason All Functional Category ATM Reported Issue Smart Dispute Implementation Updated Data transform PopulateReturnCodeCategoryForATM to
add step 4.5.1 How to test the functionality
Task Status displayed in French (INC-223886)
For On-Us cases, the work status is displayed in French as
Attente-OnUsDisputes instead of English.Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact All Dispute Reason All Functional Category On-Us Reported Issue Smart Dispute Implementation For On-Us transactions, the status in clipboard is properly
set in English. However, the status display was localized in
French. As a fix, pyStatusLabel • Pending- OnUsDisputes field
value has been updated to PendingOnUsDisputes in English.
How to test the functionality
HND – Claim Status fixes (INC-218094)
In Smart disputes for Issuer application, when the HND cases
are created the Claim status is displayed as New whereas it
should be Open. Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact All Dispute Reason Fraud Functional Category HND Reported Issue Smart Dispute Implementation Created SetHNDClaimStatus data transform & updated
CreateDisputeCasesByAgent and UpdateStatus activities to set the
HND Claim status as Open once the disputes are created. How to test the functionality
ATM flow for Manual Case (INC-214871)
When a Manual case is created for an ATM transaction, the
cases are getting tagged to Visa class. Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact ATM Dispute Reason NA Functional Category ATM Reported Issue Smart Dispute Implementation Updated Data transform ‘SetWorkObjectClassForManualCase’ to
map the correct work object class for ATM disputes during manual
submission. How to test the functionality
WSS – Work object not deleted (INC-216996)
When cases are created through WSS API and an exception
occurs, the claim work object is deleted but the dispute
work objects are not deleted.Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact All Dispute Reason All Functional Category WSS Reported Issue Smart Dispute Implementation Created new activity DeleteDisputes to delete disputes which
is referenced in activity svcMapRespForTechExcep at step
4. How to test the functionality
Verifi – Authorization Code addition (INC-214605)
In Smart Disputes Issuers Application, there is no mapping of
Authorization Code in the request for CreateVerifiCase API.
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact All Dispute Reason All Functional Category Verifi Reported Issue Smart Dispute Implementation Updated Data transform ‘CCRequestPOST’, added mapping for
AuthorizationCode to send in the request for CreateVerifiCase
API. How to test the functionality
AMEX – Questionnaire fixes (INC-221841)
When an AMEX dispute is created with dispute reason as ‘I
have returned/cancelled the item and haven’t been credited’
and on submit of qualify dispute the application is throwing
an error.Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact AMEX Dispute Reason I have returned/cancelled the item Functional Category AMEX Reported Issue Smart Dispute Implementation Changed the existing when rules IsExpectedDateRequired,
IsMerchantDishonourVoucher, IsVoucherExpirationDateRequired
which are used in common sections of MCOM and AMEX to be
evaluated for MCOM only. How to test the functionality
CSFS – Account Search error (BUG-715395)
When Smart Dispute is used along with Customer Service for
Financial Services (CSFS), operator is not able to search
for accounts tagged as premier account type.Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact All Dispute Reason NA Functional Category CSFS Reported Issue Smart Dispute Implementation When rule ‘IsAccountTypeChecking’ in class
‘PegaFS-DataAccountRef’ is provided as extension to configure
the necessary account types. How to test the functionality This is only for clients using CSFS with Smart Dispute.
WSS – Attachments deleted for disputes created through any channel, cases getting corrupted because of assignments deletion (INC-239221)
When cases are created through WSS API and a technical
exception occurs in claim creation, the claim work object is
deleted along with the associated disputes. When application
is deleting the underlying disputes of an exception claim,
in step 1 of DeleteDisputes activity, if any item in
pxCoveredInsKeys value list happens to be blank due to an
undetermined reason, Obj-Browse method in step 1.1 is
fetching incorrect disputes. The attachments and assignments
routed to workbaskets of the fetched disputes are being
deleted resulting in corruption of the dispute cases. In
step 1.7, as the Param.InsKey is blank, there are no dispute
work objects for deletion. Attachments, assignments routed to workbaskets are getting
deleted for random disputes retrieved in step 1.1. DeleteDisputes was invoked in the
activity svcMapErrorResponseMessage. In DeleteDisputes
activity, there is no blank check on Param.InsKey in step
1.1 and hence Obj-Browse is fetching incorrect results. This
is resulting in inappropriate deletion of attachments and
assignments. The changes delivered in June maintenance
release in PegaCard-Sd-.svcMapErrorResponseMessage are
reverted. The rule is resaved from the version before June
release. Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact All Dispute Reason NA Functional Category WSS Reported Issue Smart Dispute Implementation As part of June maintenance release, DeleteDisputes activity
was created to delete the disputes of a claim, when there is any
issue in WSS claim creation. How to test the functionality
C86 Regulation Evaluation (INC-247191)
DisplayC86Questionnaire when rule is
saved in the class PegaCard-Sd- and ruleset
PegaCardSd In the activity
PegaCard-Sd-Dispute-MCPostProcessliabilityatAQScreen, step 4
has been added. Does
the fraud transaction qualify to be a result of
gross negligence by cardholder?Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact Visa, Mastercard Dispute Reason Fraud Functional Category C86 Regulation Reported Issue C86 Regulations evaluation is not happening for Visa fraud
disputes that were created before C86 Regulations patch release
and processed after C86 Regulations patch release. For all such
inflight cases, the C86 questionnaire is not displayed in the
Dispute Questionnaire assignment. Smart Dispute Implementation Dynamic layout 1.6 is updated with when rule
DisplayC86Questionnaire in the section rule
PegaCardSd-Dispute-Visa-
FraudQuestionnaire How to test the functionality
Commit issues while performing Cardholder liable action from bulk actions (INC-241388)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact Visa, Mastercard Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Bulk actions – Cardholder liable Reported Issue As an Issuer, when I perform Cardholder liable action in bulk
(claim level actions) for multiple debit disputes, Smart Dispute
for Issuers application is throwing a commit error: . Save,
Delete or Commit has failed because lock "PEGACARD-SD-CLAIM
C-*****" is not held. Smart Dispute Implementation In the Activity PegaCard-Sd-Claim PostCustomerLiableAction,
added step 3 to acquire the lock on claim page which will be
lost in the previous steps. Unchecked the Commit check box in
Step 2.3.2 and added step 4 for exceptional handling. How to test the functionality
Regulation-E eligibility evaluation (INC-240063)
The
decision table PegaCard-Sd-Debit
RegEEligible is updated with request date in
the last column instead of transaction date. When rule
PegaCard-Sd-Debit IsRegECreditRequired is updated with
request date.Application Smart Dispute for Issuers and Acquirers Scheme Impact Visa, Mastercard Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Regulations-E Reported Issue As per Regulations, a dispute is eligible for Regulation-E if
the dispute is initiated by the cardholder no later than 60 days
after the institution sends the periodic statement or provides
the passbook documentation, on which the alleged error is first
reflected. Smart Dispute Implementation A new data transform rule PegaCard-Sd-Debit
EvaluateNoREGECreditDate is created. The data
transform PegaCard-Sd-Debit
SetNoREGECreditDate to call the data transform
EvaluateNoREGECreditDate and removed
the function call ‘Get Second last statement date’. How to test the functionality
MCOM – Withdraw Case Filing (INC-256121)
Similarly, in Smart Dispute for
Acquirers application, if the Acquirer withdraws the case
filing, UpdateFiling API action is sent as ’REJECT’ instead
of ‘WITHDRAW’. In GetClaim data transform, step 4 is added to
set CaseFilingType.Application Smart Dispute for Issuers and Acquirers Scheme Impact MCOM Dispute Reason All Functional Category Withdraw Case Filing Reported Issue In Smart Dispute for Issuers application, if the Issuer files
Arbitration and dispute reaches final ruling stage for
association review, the Issuer is unable to Withdraw the case
filing. In UpdateFiling API, the action is sent as ’REJECT’
instead of ‘WITHDRAW’. Smart Dispute Implementation In all case filing flows, the data transform
SetActiontoWithdraw is invoked before withdrawing the case
filing to set the property .CaseFilingResponse as
‘WITHDRAW’. How to test the functionality
MCOM – Case Filing API fixes (INC-255126)
As per confirmation from Mastercard,
acquirerId from GetClaim API must be passed to
filedAgainstIcafield instead of acquiringInstitutionIdCode
from GetAuth API.Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact MCOM Dispute Reason All Functional Category Case Filing Reported Issue In CreateFiling MCOM API Request, filedAgainstIcafield is
mapped to acquiringInstitutionIdCode from GetAuth API but
acquiringInstitutionIdCode can be blank in certain scenarios. In
such cases, CreateFiling API is failing because of empty value
in filedAgainstIcafield. Error: 'Unable to validate Chargeback
Reference data' . Smart Dispute Implementation In PreArbDetailsScreen, removed default value of
FiledAgnstICA and updated with MCOM_GetClaim.acquirerId. In
InitiatePreComplianceForMCOMSection, removed default value of
FiledAgnstICA and updated with MCOM_GetClaim.acquirerId. In
InitiateComplianceForMCOM section, removed default value of
FiledAgnstICA and updated with MCOM_GetClaim.acquirerId. How to test the functionality
MCOM – EBDR fixes (INC-256127/INC-260032)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact MCOM Dispute Reason All Functional Category EBDR Reported Issue If the reason code is updated in the Answer Ancillary
Questionnaire screen from 4853 to 4834, and questionnaire is
answered, the updated comments are not populated in the EBDR
form. Smart Dispute Implementation In SetRCByDisputeReasondata transform, the property
MCOMQualifyQuestionnaire.CBKDispDetails is removed. In
ClearConditionCodes data transform, the property
FirstCBRCInfo.CBKDispDetails is removed. In
SetRCByDisputeReasonNoParam data transform, the property
FirstCBRCInfo.CBKDispDetails is removed. In
ClearAllConditionCodePropsdata transform, the property
PreArbRCInfo.CBKDispDetails is removed. In
SetMComRCQuestionnairedata transform, the property
PreArbRCInfo.CBKDispDetails is removed. How to test the functionality
MCOM – New cases are created when Pre-Compliance is received for existing dispute (INC-253690)
This has been
corrected to use standardclaims property.Application Smart Dispute for Acquirers Scheme Impact MCOM Dispute Reason All Functional Category Inbound Pre-Compliance Reported Issue As an Acquirer, when Pre-Compliance is received, Smart Dispute Implementation In Smart Dispute for Acquirers, the agent Inbound PreComp -
Receiver Case Filing is used to retrieve all inbound
pre-compliances and create cases for those items that do not
have existing disputes. CaseCreationFromQueue activity is used
for this purpose. The logic to identify existing dispute cases
must use standardclaimsproperty, especially for prefiling and
filing scenarios. However, the activity was using claimId
property in steps 11 and 14 resulting in errors. How to test the functionality
MCOM – Addition of Mastercard Fraud Types 55 and 56 (US-527749)
In Smart Dispute
for Issuers application, the new fraud types must be
available in the Qualify fraud questionnaire
screen.Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact MCOM Scheme Reference AN 6917 Revised Standards for Global Expansion of Fraud Types
55 and 56 and Guidance Update Dispute Reason Fraud Functional Category Fraud questionnaire Effective Date November 2022 Reported Issue As per Mastercard article AN 6917, Issuer can report fraud
transaction with fraud types ‘Modification of Payment Order -
55’ and ‘Manipulation of Cardholder - 56’. Smart Dispute Implementation As per Mastercard article AN 6917, Issuer can report fraud
transaction with fraud types ‘Modification of Payment Order -
55’ and ‘Manipulation of Cardholder - 56’. In Smart Dispute for
Issuers application, the new fraud types must be available in
the Qualify fraud questionnaire screen. How to test the functionality
Visa – Process Liability amount in Audit history (INC-254167)
“.VCRDQMPWriteoffAmt =
@If(.VCRDQMPWriteoffAmt=="",0,.VCRDQMPWriteoffAmt)”
“.VCRDQMPCHAmt =
@If(.VCRDQMPCHAmt=="",0,.VCRDQMPCHAmt)” “Dispute amount processed using
multi-pronged options. Write-off amount : 849.50/USD
Cardholder liable amount : 0.00/USD Dispute amount :
849.50/USD”Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact VISA Scheme Reference NA Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Process Liability Reported Issue In the Dispute Questionnaire screen, when Process Liability
action is performed through ‘Other Actions’ and Write-off is
selected, then Cardholder Liable amount is displayed as blank
(--) instead of 0.00/<Currency>. Smart Dispute Implementation In the activity PostProcessliabilityatDQScreen, steps 12 and
13 are modified. How to test the functionality
Visa – Cancelled Merchandise/Services Questionnaire (BUG-781161)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact VISA Scheme Reference NA Dispute Reason Cancelled Merchandise/Services Functional Category Dispute Questionnaire Reported Issue In Cancelled Merchandise/Services questionnaire screen, when
the operator answers, ‘What was purchased’ as ‘Services’, ‘Type
of service’ as ‘Time share’ and enters a future date in ‘Date of
the timeshare, or the date the contract or related documents
were received’ field, then application is displaying property
level error message that future value is not allowed but is
accepting future date when the questionnaire is submitted. There
is no future date post validation on the time share date after
questionnaire submission. Smart Dispute Implementation In the activity ValidateCSQuestionnaire/
ValidateCSRCustomerCancelled, step 2 is added to invoke
Obj-validate rule ValidateTimeShareDate. How to test the functionality
Visa – Audit history update (INC-255406)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact VISA Scheme Reference NA Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Audit history Reported Issue In the audit tab, when the timeframes are executed, the audit
history is displayed as “validating the dispute time limit
check.”’ instead of “Validating the dispute time limit check.”.
Smart Dispute Implementation In InvokeVCRProcessing Flow, audit note
"validating the dispute time limit check" on TimeFrameCheck
Utility shape is replaced with ValidatingDisputeTimeLimitCheck
field value. How to test the functionality
Visa – Fraud Report (INC-255606)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact VISA Scheme Reference NA Dispute Reason Fraud : Application Fraud (FRAPP) Functional Category Fraud Report Reported Issue In Qualify fraud dispute questionnaire screen, if the Issuer
selects fraud type as ‘Application Fraud (FRAPP)’, then
application is trying to submit fraud report by triggering RTSI
SubmitFraudReportwith blank fraud type and hence Visa is
throwing an error. ‘Application Fraud (FRAPP)’ is not a Visa
defined Fraud type but is used for internal investigation by the
Issuers and hence fraud report should not be submitted to
Visa. Smart Dispute Implementation In PegaCard-Sd-Dispute-Visa- SubmitFraudReportAndEFL flow,
before invoking SubmitFraudReport sub flow, condition is updated
to check if .FraudTypeVisa exists and has a value(using when
rule IsFraudTypeVisaAvailable). How to test the functionality
Visa – Appeal case filing amount (INC-256093)
. Similarly, verify case filing amount for Acquirer
Outbound Compliance: .Application Smart Dispute for Acquirers Scheme Impact VISA Scheme Reference NA Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Appeal Case filing Reported Issue As an Acquiring dispute operator, when I submit appeal for
full or partial case filing amount, the case filing amount must
be properly mapped in the request of RTSI
SubmitDisputeFilingOperation. Smart Dispute Implementation In the data transform,
SubmitDisputeFilingRequest, under
Compliance page, if .AppealInd=="true",the mapping of
.CaseFilingAmount.value is replaced from
.CompAppealInitiationAmount to .AssociationData.FilingAmount and
a step is added to map .CaseFilingAmount.currency to
.AccountTransaction.PostedCurrency. How to test the functionality Acquirer Inbound Compliance Flow:
Claim level Pulse Gadget (INC-257271)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact All Scheme Reference NA Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Pulse gadget Reported Issue In Smart Dispute for Issuers application, when a claim case
is created, issuing operators are unable to attach documents in
the pulse gadget. Smart Dispute Implementation Removed pxPulseGadgetfrom pyCaseAssets section and added
pyCaseFeed to pyCaseBody section. How to test the functionality
Regulation-E fixes (INC-258585/INC-259004/INC-261088/INC-258775)
Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact All Scheme Reference NA Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Regulation E Reported Issue When a dispute is created on a non-US deposit account
transaction, application is throwing runtime exception of
incorrect date format after Qualify dispute stage. In Reg-E
dateevaluations, billing cycle value is used to
calculateNoRegECreditDate in the data transform rule
SetNoRegECreditDate.If the billing
cycle value is blank , then application is throwing date format
error. Clients who do not have Billing Cycle value in their
system of records are facing this issue. Smart Dispute Implementation In PegaCard-Sd-DebitREGEFlowFlow, ‘Is US Deposit
Account’decision shape is added before ‘RegE Eligible’ Decision
shape. .IsRegEEligible flag is set as ‘false’ if when rule
IsUSDepAccount evaluates to false. In the activities
InvokeRegEforDST,
PostInvokeReturnCodeAdvisor,
CheckCSRDisputeReasonsValidation, when
condition IsUsDepAccountis added before
invoking SetNoRegECreditDatedata transform.
Updated IsUsDepAccount when rule in PegaCard-SdDebit class and
created IsUsDepAccount rule in PegaCard-Sd-to validate account
type and country code in both pyWorkpage.AccountDetails and
pyWorkCover.AccountDetails. How to test the functionality
Timeframe expiry fixes (INC-247088)
“Thank you for your
inquiry. Your reference number is DXXXX. “Thank
you for your inquiry. This case, D-XXXX, is resolved.” In
the flow rules ReviewCustomerInitiatedDispute, added
decision shape after TimeFrameExpiry sub process to verify
whether the case status is resolved or not.Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact All Scheme Reference NA Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Timeframe expiry in CSR channel Reported Issue As a CSR operator, when I create a dispute with a dispute
reason requiring supporting documentation and if the transaction
eventually goes to timeframe expiry, application displays below
two confirmation messages when Cardholder liable option is
selected in the timeframe expiry screen. Smart Dispute Implementation In the section ConfirmMessage, added when condition to the
dynamic layout 1 to display appropriate confirm message. How to test the functionality
MCOM – AN 7077 Revised Chargeback Standards for Currency Errors (US-530741)
The currency
exchange rate in effect on the date of the transaction must
be used to calculate the partial amount. Labels for
the options in the drop down Select the condition for
chargeback are updated to follows. New question to capture the correct amount in posted
currency is added.Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact MCOM Scheme Reference AN 7077 Revised Chargeback Standards for Currency Errors
Dispute Reason Point of Interaction Error – Currency Errors (4834-6) Functional Category Answer Ancillary Questionnaire Effective Date April 15th 2023 Reported Issue As per article AN 7077, Issuers can initiate a chargeback
with reason code Point of Interaction Error4834 only for the
difference between the transaction amount and the transaction
amount claimed by the cardholder, excluding any amount related
to the Issuer's conversion of the transaction. Smart Dispute Implementation As per the revised standards, dispute questionnaire is
updated for the dispute reason code – Point of Interaction Error
(4834). These changes apply to the condition code – 6, for which
condition code label is updated to Currency Errors. How to test the functionality
MCOM – Case filing batch queue fixes (INC-253403)
The case filing
action remains as “createcase” until the Acquirer
accepts/rejects the pre-arbitration. Above two
circumstances resulted in the same items to be processed by
the Batch queue agent multiple number of times until
Acquirer accepted or rejected the Pre-Arbitration. In
addition, by default OOTB settings, the batch queue agents
will process “newest” 500 queue items per execution. When
queue items of the above-described nature accumulate more
than 500, older records are not processed in a timely
manner.Application Smart Dispute for Issuers and Acquirers Scheme Impact MCOM Scheme Reference NA Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Batch Queue Processing Reported Issue After Issuer files a Pre-Arbitration, a queue item appears in
Sender Case Filing queue immediately within next few hours
although Acquirer did not respond to the Pre-Arbitration. For
such queue items, in GetClaim API response, latest case filing
action is “createcase” and so the batch queue processing agent
does not update isProcessed flag to “Y”. Smart Dispute Implementation How to test the functionality
Visa – Cancelled Recurring TransactionQuestionnaire (INC -264178/INC-264741)
As part of 23.1 Compliance, a new checkbox
labelled Contact method with merchant was introduced. During
MTE2 testing, it was observed that Visa returned the
following error when user did not check the checkbox. In
SubmitDisputeQuestionnaireOperation,
it was observed that the value passed to the
ContactMethodWithMerchantIndattribute is false. It is
inferred from the error that Visa expects this value to be
true always Issue 2: As part of 23.1
Compliance, contact method related 23.1 questionnaire is
applicable for all regions other than Europe regional or
domestic. For Europe inter-regional transactions where the
Issuer is in Europe and the merchant is not in Europe, the
new questionnaire is not displayed.Application Smart Dispute for Issuers and Acquirers Scheme Impact VISA Scheme Reference IES for Release 23.1_Pub 12.16.22 Dispute Reason Cancelled Recurring Transaction Functional Category Dispute Questionnaire Reported Issue Issue 1: Smart Dispute Implementation Validations for Web Self Service (WSS) and Questionnaire
screens are updated to ensure that the value of
ContactMethodWithMerchantInd is true. Updated visibility
condition for 2.4 Dynamic layout in
CustomerDisputeQuestionnaireCR section. How to test the functionality
Visa – Other Fraud – Card Absent Environment (10.4) dispute validation for fully authenticated U.S. domestic token transactions (US-530736)
The below merchant
category codes (MCCs) are considered as high-risk merchants:
4829, 5967, 6051, 6540, 7801, 7802, 7995 “A Secure Electronic Commerce Transaction processed with
Electronic Commerce Indicator value 5 in the Authorization
Request with exception of U.S domestic transactions
conducted with high risk merchants (MCC-4829, 5967, 6051,
6540, 7801, 7802, 7995)”Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact VISA Scheme Reference U.S. Domestic Token Transactions in High-Risk MCCs Will
Continue to Have Issuer Fraud Dispute Rights, Regardless of ECI
Classification Dispute Reason Other Fraud – Card Absent Environment (10.4) Functional Category Dispute Validations Effective Date April 15th 2023 Reported Issue As per Visa guidelines, Issuers will have dispute rights
under Other Fraud – Card Absent Environment (10.4) dispute
sub-category for fully authenticated U.S. domestic token
transactions irrespective of the electronic commerce indicator
value in case of highrisk merchants. Smart Dispute Implementation Eval_104_7when rule is modified to include when rules
WhenUSDomesticTxnand CheckHighRiskMCCsForUS. How to test the functionality
Visa – Pre-Arbitration: Remedy – Prior Undisputed Non-Fraud Transactions questionnaire UI fixes (BUG-787321)
Application Smart Dispute for Acquirers Scheme Impact VISA Scheme Reference IES for Release 23.1_Pub 12.16.22 Dispute Reason Other Fraud – Card Absent Environment (10.4) Functional Category Pre-Arbitration Questionnaire Effective Date April 15, 2023 Reported Issue In Pre-Arbitration questionnaire, when ‘Add undisputed
transactions’ is selected, Filter by merchant checkbox is
displayed above Search button although it is not used to perform
transaction inquiry. This is misleading and might result in
users performing multiple transaction search to filter or not
filter by merchant. Smart Dispute Implementation Filter by merchant checkbox is moved below Search button and
is conditionally displayed only when the transaction search has
yielded results. How to test the functionality
Visa – Minimum dispute amount dispute validation for Travel and Entertainment transactions (INC-248089)
Merchant category codes (MCCs) for travel and
entertainment transactions: 4112, 4411, 4722, 4511, 7011,
7512, 7513 Dispute
category: Consumer Disputes Dispute SubCategory: Not
as Described / Damaged or Defective / Quality
Validation Details: Minimum dispute amount validation
for TE transaction The above dispute validation can
alternatively be removed by deleting the pzinskey
‘PEGACARDINTERFACE-ADMIN-DISPUTEVALIDATIONS NOT AS DESCRIBED
/ DAMAGED OR DEFECTIVE / QUALITY!CONSDISP!
ISTETXNWITHAMNTLESSTHANMINDISPUTEAMNT’ from the instances of
PegaCard-Interface-Admin-Dispute Validations class. In
TETransactionFilter_DV when rule, 4722 merchant category
code is added.Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact VISA Scheme Reference Visa Core Rules and Visa Product and Service Rules, 15th
October 2022 Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Dispute Validations Effective Date NA Reported Issue As an Issuing bank operator, if a dispute is raised on a
travel and entertainment transaction and the transaction amount
is less than 25 USD (or equivalent local currency), then
application should consider the dispute as invalid for all
dispute conditions except for (10.1, 10.5, 13.3, 13.8 and
13.9). Smart Dispute Implementation The dispute validation ‘Minimum dispute amount validation for
TE transaction’must be manually deleted by accessing . Filter the dispute validations as:How to test the functionality
Visa – Refine Transaction Selection Criteria (INC-246534/INC-263073)
After a user performs Qualify Dispute,
Smart dispute uses the RTSI API
SubmitTransactionInquiryOperation to retrieve details of the
disputed transaction from VROL (Visa Resolve Online) system.
This API uses the following search criteria to find the
matching transaction: Start Date, End Date and ARN or
Transaction ID. If no transactions are found, Smart
Dispute routes the dispute to Transaction selection
assignment with an action for the user to manually refine
the criteria and then search the transaction. If user does
not perform a refined search, Smart Dispute will
automatically perform a retry on every third day or
timeframe expiry day, whichever is earlier, to find the
matching transaction. If no transactions are found during
retry, system routes the case again to Transaction selection
assignment and the cycle continues until a matching
transaction is found. If the timeframe expires for a
dispute in Transaction selection assignment, system retries
the transaction search on the timeframe expiry date. If
still no transactions are found, it is routed back to
Transaction selection. Since timeframe expiry date is in the
past, the dispute becomes eligible for a retry immediately.
System again retries, finds no matching transactions, and
routes the dispute to Transaction selection. This results in
an endless loop of transaction search retries.
Issue 2: If Visa responds to the
transaction search with a TIEventID, then the transaction
search follows an asynchronous flow. This means Visa cannot
fulfil the search request immediately, but the results can
be retrieved using the TIEventID later using
GetTransInquiryResultsOperation API. In this scenario, Smart
Dispute employs an automated mechanism to retrieve the
results. Smart Dispute invokes the API every 1 minute until
the results are ready for 1 entire day. The frequency of 1
minute for this automated job is deemed impractical due to
high usage of resources. Given that SubmitTransactionInquiryOperation
API is chargeable, Smart Dispute has strategically decided
that the system will perform an automated retry only once on
the third day or timeframe expiry day, whichever is earlier.
When the dispute waits in Transaction selection indefinitely
and timeframe expires, system will route the dispute to
Process Liability assignment. Clients must train operators
to proactively refine the search criteria manually and
submit the assignment to find the matching transaction and
continue with the dispute. Failing to do so will result in
timeframe expiry and loss of dispute rights Fix
2: The frequency to invoke
GetTransInquiryResultsOperation API
is configured in the DSS setting PegaCardInt •
AsyncTIWaitTimeInMinutes. The DSS value is updated from “1”
to “30” minutes.Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact VISA Scheme Reference NA Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Transaction Inquiry Effective Date NA Reported Issue Issue 1: Smart Dispute Implementation Fix 1: How to test the functionality
Visa – Cancelled Merchandise/Services Questionnaire (INC-266786)
Visa throws the below error message after submitting the
dispute: One or more required fields are missing.
Please correct the following
errors:AttemptToResolveProhLocalLaw’ When:
.CardholderAttemptToResolve=="N" Set :
.AttemptToResolveProhLocalLaw==
.AttemptToResolveProhLocalLawApplication Smart Dispute for Issuers and Acquirers Scheme Impact VISA Scheme Reference IES for Release 23.1_Pub 12.16.22 Dispute Reason Cancelled Merchandise/Services (13.7) Functional Category Dispute Questionnaire Effective Date April 15, 2023 Reported Issue For a VCR dispute, at the Qualify dispute screen, when an
Issuing operator selects dispute reason as ‘I cancelled the
merchandise/service’ and answers the below questions as
indicated below : Smart Dispute Implementation Added step 5.1.3 in the data transform
SubmitDisputeQuestionnaireOperationReq_CD_CS: How to test the functionality
Visa – Supporting documentation for Incorrect Amount disputes (US-536339)
As per
the recent mandate published by Visa in the article AI12852,
the supporting document requirement for 12.5 disputes is
postponed to 23.2 Compliance. Copy of Transaction Receipt or
other record with the correct Transaction amount is not
required as supporting document for Incorrect Amount
disputes. Select Dispute category as Consumer Disputes,
Dispute stage as Submit Questionnaire and remove row with
Condition as VCRCONFIG_ISSUER_PE_IA. The decision
table
doComplianceChangeImpactDisputeCategory
is updated such that dispute condition codes having
mandatory updates in 23.1 Compliance (CS and CR) are set as
true and other dispute condition codes are set as
false.Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact VISA Scheme Reference AI12852 12.5 Incorrect Amount Delay Dispute Reason Incorrect Amount (12.5) Functional Category Dispute Validations Effective Date April 15, 2023 Reported Issue As part of the 23.1 Compliance requirement, Copy of
Transaction Receipt or other record with the correct Transaction
amount is required as a supporting document for disputes
submitted with condition code Incorrect Amount (12.5). Smart Dispute Implementation In , the below supporting document, must be manually
deleted:How to test the functionality
Regulation-E eligibility criteria (US -536297)
Disputes for
transactions which are more than 60 days old from the
statement date are evaluated as eligible for Reg E which is
incorrect. Billing Cycle value is not passed on to
EvaluateNoRegECreditDate from
SetNoRegECreditDate data transform.
This resulted in empty statement date and consequently,
Reg-E cut-off date always being 60 days after current
date. SetNoRegECreditDate has
been updated to pass Billing Cycle parameter value to
EvaluateNoRegECreditDate.Application Smart Dispute for Issuers Scheme Impact VISA Scheme Reference NA Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Regulation E Effective Date NA Reported Issue For a dispute to be eligible for Regulation E (Reg E), the
disputed transaction must be within 60 days from the date of the
statement containing the disputed transaction. Smart Dispute Implementation EvaluateNoRegECreditDate data transform
uses Billing Cycle to calculate the statement date and the Reg-E
cutoff date. How to test the functionality Bill Cycle Transaction Date Statement Date Dispute Request Date Reg E eligible? 25 10-Mar-23 25-Mar-23 <= 60th day 24-May-23 Y 25 10-Mar-23 25-Mar-23 > 60th day 24-May-23 N 25 29-Mar-23 25-Apr-23 <= 60th day 24-Jun-23 Y 25 29-Mar-23 25-Apr-23 > 60th day 24-Jun-23 N
Fix for dispute amount rounding off issue
However,
in the custom implementation layer of clients,
GetTransactionDetails activity may
be customized or replaced with another custom activity to
retrieve the transactions list. In such cases, clients are
expected to initialize PostedCurrencyExponent by invoking
the OOTB map value GetCurrencyExponent at an appropriate
step in the customized activity. However, as a
pre-cautionary measure, Smart Dispute now initializes the
PostedCurrencyExponent property
wherever rounding off is performed. PostedCurrencyExponent
is initialized by calling the map value
GetCurrencyExponent. Also, if PostedCurrencyExponent
is blank, rounding off will not be performed.Application Smart Dispute for Issuers amd Acquirers Scheme Impact All Scheme Reference NA Dispute Reason NA Functional Category Dispute Creation Effective Date NA Reported Issue As an Issuer, create a new claim and search for transactions.
Select transaction(s) in non-ISK currency and create the claim.
It is observed that for some of the clients, the dispute amount
having decimal digits is rounded off in the dispute(s) created.
Smart Dispute Implementation Value in PostedCurrencyExponent property
is used to round of the dispute amounts. This property is
initialized in GetTransactionDetails OOTB activity. How to test the functionality
Previous topic Patch release notes Next topic Pega Smart Dispute for Issuers 8.7.2