A dispute gives you days to prove a stranger's claim wrong. You cannot gather that proof after the fact — so the platform already captures it before anyone asks.
The bank takes the money back immediately and adds a fee. You get a short window to respond with evidence. Miss it, or send something thin, and the decision stands.
The window opens the moment the bank files it, whether or not anyone has noticed.
The order is in one system, the delivery email in another, the usage in a third.
Assemble the pack automatically from records that already exist, the day the dispute lands.
The specific difficulty with an eSIM: there is no parcel and no signature. “I never received it” cannot be answered with a courier tracking number — so delivery has to be evidenced a different way.
This is why the workflow is possible at all. None of the following was built for disputes — but all of it is exactly what a dispute response needs.
Charge, payment method, card fingerprint and the Radar decision that let it through — all mirrored into our own database.
The QR code and invoice are emailed within seconds of payment, and that send is recorded against the order.
Call and data records show the eSIM was installed and used — the strongest possible answer to “I never got it”.
Published terms, the plan bought, and — for a renewal — the exact date and time the renewal began.
A deliberate example: when a customer cancels after a renewal has already started, the exact renewal date and time is written into the event log and the internal email — specifically so it is on record if that payment is disputed later.
Steps 1–2: the deadline is a tracked field, not something someone remembers.
Steps 3–4: the pack is gathered by tools in minutes, not by three people in three systems.
Steps 5–7: a deliberate choice to contest or concede, and the outcome recorded to sharpen the next one.
Card details, country and fingerprint for the payment intent, and whether the same card has bought before.
The order, plan, price and currency, with the line it created.
The QR and invoice email, sent within seconds of payment, with its timestamp.
Data and call records against that line — installation and consumption, with dates.
The published terms and cancellation policy in force on the day of purchase.
The support thread, if there is one, including any refund already offered.
“Not received” and “not as described” are the common claims on a digital product, and both are answered by the same thing: a record showing the eSIM was installed on a handset and carried traffic.
That record exists because every line's usage is already collected for billing. The dispute workflow does not create it — it just knows where to look.
Contesting costs time and does not refund the fee if you lose. The workflow's job is to make that call quickly and consistently, with the evidence already in front of you.
Delivery is evidenced and the line shows real usage. The facts are on our side and the pack proves it.
Delivered but never used. Arguable — submit the delivery evidence and the terms, and expect a split result.
A genuine service failure, or a payment that fraud screening flagged at the time. Accept it and fix the cause.
Every dispute is tagged back to a cause — fraud, confusion over renewals, or a support failure — so the pattern is fixable.
The strategic point: a dispute caused by a customer not understanding a renewal is not a fraud problem — it is a wording problem. Counting them by cause is what turns a cost into a fix.
A fixed procedure: match the charge to an order, pull each exhibit in turn, classify the claim, recommend contest or concede with the reason written out.
getcarddetails runsql getcdrsbynumber getrelatedcustomers createfile sendfileviaapi
The pack is uploaded to Stripe and attached to the dispute through the same gateway every other payment call goes through.
Card lookup, usage records, order history, file creation and upload all exist as audited tools. Nothing new has to be invented to gather the evidence.
A dispute record with its deadline, the automatic match from charge to order, the assembled pack, and the outcome log that closes the loop.
● Nothing invented — every exhibit cites a record, or it is left out
● Gaps are stated — “no usage recorded” is reported, not hidden
● Customer data stays minimal — only what the claim actually requires
● Submitted once — a response cannot be filed twice by two people
● A person submits — the pack is assembled automatically, the response is approved by a human
● Never label a customer a fraudster — refunds are never filed under a fraud reason
● Deadline beats perfection — a good pack filed in time beats a perfect one filed late
● Losses are recorded too — a workflow that only counts wins teaches you nothing
Why a person still presses send: a dispute response is a legal statement about a customer. The gathering is mechanical and should be automated; the assertion is not, and should not be.