As a system, the clearing and authorization record should be evaluated to record the MOTO indicator.

1. When MOTO is blank on the authorization record but has a value on the clearing record, the when rule evaluating the MOTO indicator returns true.
2. When MOTO has a value on the authorization record but is blank on the clearing record, the when rule evaluating the MOTO indicator returns true.

Updated logic for checking MOTO flags to evaluate both clearing and authorization data retuned from Visa. 

Currently the logic for the fraud reporting date is taking the local transaction date time and with time zone conversions when the orginal transaction took place in another country it can cause the rule to not work as expected.  The system needs to leverage the transmission date time instead of local transaction date time.

1. The Visa Clearing Record Local Transaction Date Time is used to compare recovery rights to determine if the transaction was approved after Fraud Reporting was confirmed.
2. (regression) If Visa Clearing Record Local Transaction Date Time is not available the recovery right is set to indeterminate 
3. (regression) When disputing a Visa Fraud case for (10.3 or 10.4) the system will not allow a fraud transaction to be disputed that posted after a fraud report has been filed on the same card.

Modified the logic of this check to look at the clearing data local transaction date time instead of the authorization data because of a timezone discrepancy when the transaction took place internationally.  

Summary: When the user selects Balance Review as the recovery option on an ATM dispute, QFD pends the assignment for 10 days to allow for a response to be recorded. In every example I reviewed (and more sitting in Prod), the deadline hit, but nothing happened. Looking at the PendingBalanceReviewResponse SLA, it does absolutely nothing. Goal is set to 10 days, Deadline at 14. There is no urgency increase and no action taken at the SLA. It just sits in the basket until a user happens to stumble over it. This is a Product gap.

Expected Result: When SLA is reached a user assignment is created

Actual Result: SLA hits and nothing happens, users are having to force the pending assignment to completion to get the user assignment.

Additional Info such as screenshots, error logs, etc.:

1. When a user selects Balance Review as a recovery option for an ATM dispute, the PendingBalanceReviewResponse SLA is set to 10 days, deadline at 14 days.
2. When the SLA is reached the pending assignment is completed and a user assignment at disposition is created. 

Resolved an issue where when a user selects Balance Review as the recovery option on an ATM dispute, QFD sets a pends assignment for 10 days to allow for a response to be recorded, however when the SLA is reached the case is not resumed. 

As a system, when a user performs an Accept All from the MC Review Representment assignment and has Deny Justifications enabled, all selected Deny Justifications should appear in the letter as expected.   

1. When a user performs an Accept All from the MC Review Representment assignment, all expected Deny Reasons are available to the user.
2. When a user performs an Accept All from the MC Review Representment assignment and has Deny justifications enabled, the user is not able to proceed with the letter unless the required number of deny justification are selected.
3. When a user performs an Accept All from the MC Review Representment assignment and has Deny justifications enabled, the selected Deny Justifications appear in the letter as expected.
4. (regression) When a user performs a Do Not Pursue Recovery For All and denies the claim, deny reason and deny justifications are required to process the assignment 
5. When a user performs process liability for all in process liability, all expected Deny Reasons are available to the user.
6. When a user performs process liability for all in process liability and has Deny justifications enabled, the selected Deny Justifications appear in the letter as expected.
7. Regression Test Cases
   1. When a Partial Merchant Credit is applied over one disputed transaction that has no Credit Applied (PC), the Partial Letter generated must display correctly the New Disputed Amount. 
   2. When a Partial Merchant Credit is applied over one disputed transaction that has a Credit Applied (PC), the Partial Letter generated must display correctly the New Disputed Amount. 
   3. When a second Partial Merchant Credit is applied over the same dispute - at a different moment than the first Credit - a New Partial Letter is generated. If there was NO PC applied previously, no verbiage reference to reverse will be displayed, The Letter must display correctly the New Disputed Amount. 
   4. When a second Partial Merchant Credit is applied over the same dispute - at a different moment than the first Credit - a New Partial Letter is generated. If there was PC applied previously, a verbiage reference to reverse will be displayed, The Letter must display correctly the New Disputed Amount. 
   5. When more than one Merchant Credit is applied at the same time over one disputed transaction, one New Partial Letter is generated that contains the disputed transaction with the list of Credits Applied.
      1. The Letter must display correctly the New Disputed Amount. 
      2. If there is a PC previously applied, the reversal paragraph should be displayed.
   6. When more than one Merchant Credit is applied at the same time over one disputed transaction, one New Partial Letter is generated that contains the disputed transaction with the list of Credits Applied.
      1. The Letter must display correctly the New Disputed Amount. 
      2. If there is NO PC previously applied, the reversal paragraph should NOT be displayed.
   7. When a claim an acquirer partial accepts a chargeback and PC has been issued to the claim, the remaining dispute amount is being denied for no error, the Resolved Partial Deny letter should address the PC reversal amount and should not state the accepted amount is being issued as a permanent credit. 
   8. The Deny Justifications appear as expected on the Resolve Partial Deny No Error letter.

Resolved an issue where Deny Justifications were not appearing in a denial letter where the user performed an Accept All from the Mastercard Review Representment assignment. This fix ensures that all selected Deny Justification will display on the letter even when performing a bulk Accept All action from the Mastercard Review Representment assignment

As a system, when a user performs an Accept All from the MC Review Representment assignment and has Deny Justifications enabled, all selected Deny Justifications should appear in the letter as expected.   

1. When a user performs an Accept All from the MC Review Representment assignment, all expected Deny Reasons are available to the user.
2. When a user performs an Accept All from the MC Review Representment assignment and has Deny justifications enabled, the user is not able to proceed with the letter unless the required number of deny justification are selected.
3. When a user performs an Accept All from the MC Review Representment assignment and has Deny justifications enabled, the selected Deny Justifications appear in the letter as expected.
4. (regression) When a user performs a Do Not Pursue Recovery For All and denies the claim, deny reason and deny justifications are required to process the assignment 
5. When a user performs process liability for all in process liability, all expected Deny Reasons are available to the user.
6. When a user performs process liability for all in process liability and has Deny justifications enabled, the selected Deny Justifications appear in the letter as expected.

Resolved an issue where Deny Justifications were not appearing in a denial letter where the user performed an Accept All from the Mastercard Review Representment assignment. This fix ensures that all selected Deny Justification will display on the letter even when performing a bulk Accept All action from the Mastercard Review Representment assignment

In the ClaimCreationConfirmation letter, when an ACH claim is granted PC at intake, it results in conflicting bullet points in the What Happens Next section of the letter.

• If you have provided all required documentation and we are unable to make a decision within the next 10 business days, we will provisionally credit your account for the transactions disputed and any associated fees while we continue to investigate.
• We are issuing a credit to your account in the amount of $278.75 that will post to your account within 1 business day.

Additionally, even if you've already provided the WSUD during intake, we show the first bullet.

See 2212220023C in Oberon

1. When the Initial Interaction Decision for an ACH claim is to grant PC, the confirmation letter does not include the bullet " If you have provided all required documentation and we are unable to make a decision within the next 10 business days,...."
2. When the Initial Interaction Decision for an ACH claim is Auto Pay, the confirmation letter does not include the bullet " If you have provided all required documentation and we are unable to make a decision within the next 10 business days,...."
3. When the IID for ACH is set to Auto-pay and the "attempt recovery after paying" is enabled, the statement "please complete the Written statement..." is displayed.
4. When the IID for ACH is set to Auto-pay and the "attempt recovery after paying" is disabled, the statement "please complete the Written statement..." is not displayed.
5. When a transaction is added to an existing ACH claim, and the IID is to grant PC, the Added Transaction letter does not include the bullets  " If you have provided all required documentation and we are unable to make a decision within the next 10 business days,...."
6. When a transaction is added to an existing ACH claim, and the IID is Autopay, the Added Transaction letter does not include the bullets  " If you have provided all required documentation and we are unable to make a decision within the next 10 business days,...."
7. When a transaction is added to an existing ACH claim, and the IID for ACH is set to Auto-pay and the "attempt recovery after paying" is enabled, the statement "please complete the Written statement..." is displayed.
   1. When a transaction is added to an existing ACH claim, and the "attempt recovery after paying" is disabled, the statement "please complete the Written statement..." is not displayed.

When provisional credit was granted during intake on an ACH claim and the Claim Creation Confirmation Letter displayed conflicting information. The letter addressed the provisional credit was provided, but also reflected that if the account holder had provided the written statement and the investigation went past 10 business days credit would be issued as the investigation continues.  

This fix ensures that if provisional credit is granted during intake the bullet "If you have provided all required documentation and we are unable to make a decision within the next ten business days we will provisionally credit your account for the transactions disputed and any associated fees while we continue to investigate."