[
  {
    "status": "complete",
    "domain": "settlement",
    "ref": "INV-1785852160813-1539",
    "n": 1,
    "expected": "reconciliation exception 5.1 or 5.2 (unmatched dump record or late/missing dump match) for this RRN",
    "question": "A merchant is asking about transaction RRN 651938381622 (TID S1234567) \u2014 did it settle? Investigate.",
    "confidence": "high",
    "finding": "The transaction RRN 651938381622 (TID S1234567) did not settle because it is on exception hold due to reconciliation, marked with exception_type '5.2'. There is no settlement or payout record, and core system status is 'exception_hold.' No additional risk or reversal is recorded. The transaction type (VOID_SALE) may be relevant, but no systemic risk pattern for this merchant/transaction type is present.",
    "score": "correct"
  },
  {
    "status": "complete",
    "domain": "settlement",
    "ref": "INV-1785852178320-1603",
    "n": 2,
    "expected": "reconciliation exception 5.1 \u2014 dump record present but never matched to a core_transaction",
    "question": "Trace RRN 278660500006, TID 39360312 \u2014 the merchant says it's missing from their settlement report.",
    "confidence": "high",
    "finding": "The transaction with RRN 278660500006 and TID 39360312 is missing from the merchant's settlement report because it did not enter the core_transaction system, and it is currently on reconciliation hold (exception_type '5.1') with no record of payout or batch inclusion. This means it was never processed for settlement due to the exception hold.",
    "score": "correct"
  },
  {
    "status": "complete",
    "domain": "settlement",
    "ref": "INV-1785852213991-1667",
    "n": 3,
    "expected": "reconciliation exception 5.2 \u2014 in core_transactions but no matching dump record within 30 days",
    "question": "Why did RRN 274278668792 (TID 24218864) never settle?",
    "confidence": "high",
    "finding": "RRN 274278668792 (TID 24218864) never settled because the transaction was held under exception_type '5.2' in the reconciliation_exception table, with settlement_status 'exception_hold', resulting in a break in the settlement chain. The transaction was approved at the switch, not reversed, and no terminal parameter/status issues contributed.",
    "score": "correct"
  },
  {
    "status": "complete",
    "domain": "settlement",
    "ref": "INV-1785852235698-1763",
    "n": 4,
    "expected": "reconciliation exception 5.2 \u2014 in core_transactions but no matching dump record within 30 days",
    "question": "Trace RRN 483622452163, TID 24218864 \u2014 where did it break in settlement?",
    "confidence": "high",
    "finding": "The transaction with RRN 483622452163 and TID 24218864 broke in settlement at the exception hold stage due to a reconciliation exception flagged as type 5.2. The transaction reached both the switch and core transaction layers successfully, but no payout batch or payout item was created, and a hold was placed on the settlement.",
    "score": "correct"
  },
  {
    "status": "complete",
    "domain": "settlement",
    "ref": "INV-1785852255425-1795",
    "n": 5,
    "expected": "reconciliation exception 5.2 \u2014 in core_transactions but no matching dump record within 30 days",
    "question": "RRN 83738612226 (TID 24218864) is stuck \u2014 investigate why it hasn't reached payout.",
    "confidence": "high",
    "finding": "[RE-VERIFIED 2026-08-04 after trace_transaction fix] The transaction with RRN 83738612226 (TID 24218864) is stuck because it is on an exception hold (type '5.2'), blocking further settlement and payout. There is no record of payout initiation or settlement completion. The merchant KYC is fully approved and there are no risk holds or known merchant-level compliance blocks. This is purely a system-driven hold based on reconciliation exception type 5.2.",
    "score": "correct",
    "note": "Originally confidently_wrong due to a real trace_transaction bug (RRN collation mismatch), not a model error \u2014 see the fix commit. Re-run after the fix: correct."
  },
  {
    "status": "complete",
    "domain": "settlement",
    "ref": "INV-1785852278841-1859",
    "n": 6,
    "expected": "reconciliation exception 5.2 \u2014 in core_transactions but no matching dump record within 30 days",
    "question": "Trace RRN 759875655752, TID 24218864 for merchant 123451234512345 \u2014 is this transaction held up in reconciliation?",
    "confidence": "high",
    "finding": "This transaction (RRN 759875655752, TID 24218864) is being held in reconciliation due to a manual risk hold, triggered by risk rule 'manual-Test Hold' (exception_type 5.2). The reconciliation_exception record confirms the amount on hold, and both payout and batch creation for this transaction are absent. Merchant KYC is complete, so compliance is not the reason for the hold. There is no agent override or release action recorded.",
    "score": "correct"
  },
  {
    "status": "complete",
    "domain": "settlement",
    "ref": "INV-1785852314931-1923",
    "n": 7,
    "expected": "reconciliation exception 5.2 \u2014 in core_transactions but no matching dump record within 30 days",
    "question": "Why hasn't RRN 71259276459 (TID 39360312, merchant 285414480000000) settled yet?",
    "confidence": "high",
    "finding": "[RE-VERIFIED 2026-08-04 after trace_transaction fix] Settlement for RRN 71259276459 (TID 39360312, merchant 285414480000000) is on hold due to a reconciliation exception of type '5.2' at the core-transaction stage. No risk, KYC, or compliance holds are present. The transaction was successful at the switch, but the settlement process identified an exception, preventing payout.",
    "score": "correct",
    "note": "Originally confidently_wrong due to a real trace_transaction bug (RRN collation mismatch), not a model error \u2014 see the fix commit. Re-run after the fix: correct."
  },
  {
    "n": 8,
    "domain": "settlement",
    "question": "RRN 38185602240 (TID 08991412) was on a settlement hold that's since been released \u2014 what was the original hold about?",
    "expected": "reconciliation exception 5.2, since released \u2014 in core_transactions but no matching dump record within 30 days",
    "status": "complete",
    "confidence": "medium_high",
    "finding": "The original settlement hold on RRN 38185602240 (TID 08991412) was due to a technical issue: the transaction reached the switch but did not enter the core transaction system or downstream settlement hops, resulting in an automatic hold pending reconciliation (E4). There is no evidence of risk rule triggers (E1), merchant KYC/risk actions (E2, E3), or special MDR/threshold hold policies (E5).",
    "score": "correct"
  },
  {
    "status": "complete",
    "domain": "risk",
    "ref": "INV-1785852920388-4770",
    "n": 9,
    "expected": "AML - International transaction higher than 100K",
    "question": "Why was POS transaction 1614 held by risk?",
    "confidence": "high",
    "finding": "POS transaction 1614 was held by risk because it triggered two Category A risk rules for international transactions over 25,000 and over 100,000, with the latter directly causing the 'Hold' status. Both rules were specifically related to AML (Anti-Money Laundering) controls on high-value international POS transactions. [E1]",
    "score": "correct"
  },
  {
    "n": 10,
    "domain": "risk",
    "question": "POS transaction 1620 got a risk alert \u2014 what triggered it?",
    "expected": "AML - International transaction higher than 25K",
    "status": "complete",
    "confidence": "low",
    "finding": "There is no evidence of a risk alert being triggered for POS transaction 1620 in the queried risk event records (E1). Therefore, it cannot be determined what triggered the alleged risk alert for this transaction based on currently available evidence.",
    "score": "undetermined_hedged"
  },
  {
    "status": "complete",
    "domain": "risk",
    "ref": "INV-1785852947397-4866",
    "n": 11,
    "expected": "AML - Local transaction higher than 100K",
    "question": "What risk rule flagged POS transaction 1612?",
    "confidence": "high",
    "finding": "POS transaction 1612 was flagged because the transaction amount (110,000 AED) exceeded the 100,000 AED threshold stated in the risk rule 'AML - Local transaction higher than 100K.'",
    "score": "correct"
  },
  {
    "n": 12,
    "domain": "risk",
    "question": "POS transaction 1613 is on hold \u2014 why?",
    "expected": "AML - Local transaction higher than 400K",
    "status": "complete",
    "confidence": "low",
    "finding": "It is undetermined why POS transaction 1613 is on hold. Both a STAN-based and an RRN-based lookup for transaction 1613 returned no results, indicating that transaction 1613 could not be identified in the available switch transaction records.",
    "score": "undetermined_hedged"
  },
  {
    "status": "complete",
    "domain": "risk",
    "ref": "INV-1785852986708-5058",
    "n": 13,
    "expected": "Dormant Merchant",
    "question": "Why was POS transaction 1460 put on hold by the risk engine?",
    "confidence": "high",
    "finding": "POS transaction 1460 was put on hold by the risk engine because it matched the 'Dormant Merchant' rule, indicating the merchant had a period of inactivity and then processed a transaction, which triggered a risk hold (E1).",
    "score": "correct"
  },
  {
    "status": "complete",
    "domain": "risk",
    "ref": "INV-1785853021387-5282",
    "n": 14,
    "expected": "High Amount of Aggregative Refunds",
    "question": "POS transaction 1653 triggered a risk alert \u2014 what was the reason?",
    "confidence": "high",
    "finding": "POS transaction 1653 triggered a risk alert because it exceeded thresholds for both the count (11, threshold 10) and total amount (5500, threshold 5000) of aggregated refunds, as per the 'High Amount of Aggregative Refunds' rule.",
    "score": "correct"
  },
  {
    "status": "complete",
    "domain": "risk",
    "ref": "INV-1785853062713-5474",
    "n": 15,
    "expected": "High Transactions Decline Rate Merchant's",
    "question": "Why is POS transaction 1656 on hold in risk review?",
    "confidence": "high",
    "finding": "POS transaction 1656 is on hold in risk review because it triggered an automated risk rule: the merchant's 30-day card transaction decline rate exceeded 20% (actual 20.33%, 75 out of 369 transactions), which flagged the transaction for review per risk rule 415. No evidence of manual intervention or KYC issues was found.",
    "score": "correct"
  },
  {
    "status": "complete",
    "domain": "risk",
    "ref": "INV-1785853089919-5570",
    "n": 16,
    "expected": "Suspicious-Abnormal Time transaction",
    "question": "POS transaction 1471 is on hold \u2014 what risk rule caused it?",
    "confidence": "medium",
    "finding": "No risk rule caused POS transaction 1471 to be placed on hold; no risk rule hits are recorded for this transaction.",
    "score": "undetermined_hedged"
  },
  {
    "status": "failed",
    "domain": "config",
    "ref": "INV-1785853717967-387",
    "n": 17,
    "expected": "device NAKs with \"Unknown command: UPDATE_PARAMS\" (also a separate download-connect failure to demo.ctrmv.com)",
    "question": "Why does terminal 98251226730001's parameter config push keep failing?",
    "confidence": "low",
    "finding": "Investigation failed: {:http_error, 429, %{\"error\" => %{\"code\" => \"rate_limit_exceeded\", \"message\" => \"Request too large for gpt-4.1 in organization org-kjUeEqFPSJwc9qesOIYXiGR7 on tokens per min (TPM): Limit 30000, Requested 31506. The input or output tokens must be reduced in order to run successfully. Visit https://platform.openai.com/account/rate-limits to learn more.\", \"param\" => nil, \"type\" => \"tokens\"}}}",
    "score": "infra_blocked"
  },
  {
    "status": "complete",
    "domain": "config",
    "ref": "INV-1785853556756-4802",
    "n": 18,
    "expected": "device NAKs with \"Unknown command: UPDATE_L3_CONFIG\"",
    "question": "Terminal 98251226730001's EMV (L3) config push is failing \u2014 why?",
    "confidence": "high",
    "finding": "The EMV (L3) config push is failing for terminal 98251226730001 because the terminal does not recognize the push commands ('Unknown command: UPDATE_L3_CONFIG', etc.), indicating either a configuration/template incompatibility or that the terminal's firmware/software does not support the commands required for this push.",
    "score": "correct"
  },
  {
    "status": "complete",
    "domain": "config",
    "ref": "INV-1785853609639-4930",
    "n": 19,
    "expected": "device NAKs with \"Unknown command: UPDATE_L3_CONFIG\"",
    "question": "Why is terminal 98251226730002 failing its EMV config push?",
    "confidence": "high",
    "finding": "Terminal 98251226730002 is failing EMV config push attempts because it does not recognize the UPDATE_L3_CONFIG command, rejecting it as 'Unknown command'. This strongly suggests a mismatch between the server's expected protocol/command set and the firmware on this terminal. This issue is not observed on other terminals of the same model/vendor, indicating it is either specific to this terminal or to the particular configuration being sent.",
    "score": "correct"
  },
  {
    "status": "complete",
    "domain": "config",
    "ref": "INV-1785853767543-483",
    "n": 20,
    "expected": "download failed connecting to demo.ctrmv.com:4019",
    "question": "Terminal 98251226730001 had a parameter config download failure \u2014 what happened?",
    "confidence": "high",
    "finding": "Terminal 98251226730001 experienced a parameter config download failure because it was offline and unable to connect to the server at the time the update was pushed. All recent push attempts failed with connection errors, and terminal registry shows a persistent offline status. Some secondary errors ('Unknown command: UPDATE_PARAMS') suggest possible incompatibility with pushed commands, but the dominant and immediate cause is terminal offline status.",
    "score": "correct"
  }
]