Screening Hits Are Inevitable. Ignored Tickets Aren't.
Why your payout provider pilot should test the exception path, not just the happy path.
Every payout provider deals with OFAC false positives. Sanctions screening is built to be cautious, so a common name or a partial match will stop a payment. That part is normal. What matters is what happens next.
In this week's video, I shared an onboarding that taught me to look past the happy path when evaluating a provider.
A Ticket With Nowhere to Go
When I was at a payout provider, I managed the onboarding of a marketplace client doing billions in annual volume. They were running a pilot with us.
Merchants on their platform who got hit with false positives submitted support tickets, and none of those tickets were routing to any support queue. Weeks went by with no response, SLAs were missed, and the product fix didn't move quickly.
The Part That Stuck With Me
My smaller clients had been running into the same issue. It never went anywhere. It only got real attention when a client of that size felt it.
Providers prioritize. Issues raised by their largest clients tend to move first. If you're not one of them, your problem can sit behind someone else's.
What to Test During a Pilot
Most pilots confirm that money moves. Few check what happens to the payments that don't. Before you sign, or before you scale a pilot, ask your provider to walk you through four things:
Where a screening ticket goes. Which queue receives it, and is someone actually monitoring it?
Who owns resolving it. A named team with the authority to clear it, not a general support inbox.
On what SLA. How long a false positive should take to clear, and what happens when it doesn't.
How issues get prioritized for a client your size. If a product bug affects you, how does it get escalated, and how fast does it move?
The Takeaway
Screening hits are inevitable. Tickets nobody's working aren't. A pilot is the cheapest time to find out which kind of provider you're dealing with.
Comments