Case Study: Customer Service¶
Reducing refund fraud by 94% while maintaining customer satisfaction
Company Profile¶
| Attribute | Details |
|---|---|
| Industry | E-commerce |
| Agent Type | Customer Service Chatbot |
| Scale | 8 agents, 12,000+ interactions/day |
| Conformance Level | Standard |
| ACL Tier | ACL-2 (Standard Oversight) |
The Challenge¶
The company's AI-powered customer service agents were authorized to:
- Issue refunds up to $500
- Apply discount codes
- Escalate complex issues to humans
However, the system was being exploited:
- Social engineering: Users learned to phrase requests in ways that bypassed safeguards
- Refund stacking: Multiple small refunds that individually looked legitimate
- Discount abuse: Creative requests for "loyalty discounts" without purchase history
The Problem (Pre-ACGP)¶
In the 6 months before ACGP implementation:
- $150,000 in unauthorized refunds
- $45,000 in excessive discounts
- 23% of escalations were unnecessary (human time wasted)
- Customer satisfaction: 4.⅕ (frustrated by inconsistent responses)
The Solution¶
ACL-2 Configuration¶
from acgp import GovernanceSteward, guard
@guard(
acl_tier="ACL-2",
blueprint="customer-service-v1",
tripwires={
"max_refund": 500,
"max_discount_percent": 20,
"daily_user_refund_limit": 750
}
)
def process_customer_request(request, user_context):
# Agent logic here
pass
Key Tripwires¶
tripwires:
# Per-transaction limits
max_refund: 500
max_discount_percent: 20
# Per-user rolling limits
daily_user_refund_limit: 750
weekly_user_refund_limit: 1500
# Pattern detection
refund_frequency_threshold: 3 # Max 3 refunds per user per week
# Behavioral signals
sentiment_shift_threshold: 0.4 # Detect manipulation attempts
Intervention Logic¶
| Scenario | Intervention | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Normal request within limits | OK | Process automatically |
| Near limit (>80%) | NUDGE | Log + suggest verification |
| Unusual pattern detected | FLAG | Process + queue for review |
| Exceeds limit | BLOCK | Reject, offer human escalation |
| Suspected fraud | ESCALATE | Immediate human review |
The Result¶
6 Months After Implementation¶
| Metric | Before ACGP | After ACGP | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fraudulent refunds | $150,000 | $8,500 | -94% |
| Excessive discounts | $45,000 | $12,000 | -73% |
| Unnecessary escalations | 23% | 7% | -70% |
| Customer satisfaction | 4.⅕ | 4.⅘ | +7% |
| Average response time | 2.3s | 2.5s | +9% |
Example Intervention¶
Scenario: User requests third refund in a week
User: "This product also arrived damaged. I need another refund."
Agent reasoning: "User has valid complaint. Previous refunds were
processed for similar reasons. Pattern suggests possible abuse."
ACGP Evaluation:
- CTQ Score: 0.72 (reasoning is sound but pattern is concerning)
- Tripwire: refund_frequency_threshold triggered
- Trust Score: 0.65 (declining due to pattern)
Intervention: ESCALATE
Message: "I understand your frustration. Due to the unusual
number of recent issues, I'm connecting you with a specialist
who can help resolve this more thoroughly."
Unexpected Benefits¶
1. Improved Training Data¶
ACGP logs provided clean examples of: - Legitimate vs. fraudulent patterns - Effective reasoning traces - Edge cases for agent improvement
2. Faster Human Review¶
When escalations did occur, agents included: - Full reasoning trace - CTQ scores - Trust history - Recommended actions
Human reviewers could make decisions 60% faster.
3. Customer Trust¶
Customers actually appreciated the verification:
"I was initially annoyed when the bot asked for more details, but it made me feel like they actually check things. Better than companies that just say no."
Implementation Timeline¶
| Week | Activity |
|---|---|
| 1 | Blueprint design, tripwire configuration |
| 2 | Shadow mode deployment (logging only) |
| 3 | Analysis of shadow logs, threshold tuning |
| 4 | Enforcement mode with human fallback |
| 5-6 | Monitoring and optimization |
Key Lessons¶
- Rolling limits catch stacking - Daily and weekly limits caught patterns that per-transaction limits missed
- Trust scores predict problems - Users with declining trust scores had 8x higher fraud rate
- Nudges are data - Nudge frequency correlated with future blocks; useful for early warning
- Customer satisfaction improved - Consistent, fair policies actually increased satisfaction
Get Started¶
Ready to implement ACGP for customer service?