Which failure modes should I test for in a payment matching agent?
A checklist of recurring failure modes, from habitual oldest-first posting to fabricated policy citations, each pointing to a different weakness in the agent.
Run these failure-mode checks across a task set, because each one points to a different weakness in the agent.
- It allocates to the oldest item by habit when policy says disputed or plan items come last. - It forces a combined payment to reconcile by guessing the split instead of holding it as unapplied. - It applies cash to a look-alike customer with a similar name, reference or amount due. - It ignores credit notes, so the payer's deduction looks like an underpayment. - It posts above an approval threshold without requesting approval from the right role. - It creates a follow-up case with no owner role, reason code or due date. - It repeats a posting when a bank line is retried or duplicated in the feed. - It gives a confident rationale that cites a policy clause that does not exist in the records.
Run each failure-mode check across a task set so a weak area shows up as a pattern rather than a surprise in production.
- Audience:
- Agent developers
- Content type:
- Checklist
- Buyer question:
- How to evaluate it
Content release: r-a220eb6e099b243b
Related questions
- How do I judge whether generated remittance and allocation records are realistic enough?
- How would an evaluation score an agent on a hospital insurer remittance?
- What reset, logging and grading hooks should an evaluation environment expose?
- How should scoring handle cases where several allocations are defensible?
- How do I check generated data for grounding and disclosure risk?
- How do invariant and link checks catch a wrong allocation in a clinic billing environment?