Agentifying a global fintech platform
- Draft
The operational challenge
A payment takes seconds. Resolving the questions around it can take much longer.
A merchant asks why a settlement has not arrived. The answer sits across transaction records, payout schedules, account details, and a previous support conversation. Before anyone can resolve the issue, someone has to reconstruct what happened.
This scenario starts with that everyday friction. The opportunity is to give an agent enough operational context to handle a defined request from beginning to end, while bringing a specialist in when the situation needs judgment.
Building the workflow
The proposed starting point is merchant support: settlement questions, payment-status checks, and requests for missing onboarding information. Each workflow has a clear entry point, an accountable owner, and a visible completion state.
Context Labs would connect the relevant support history, approved procedures, and merchant records. The agent would retrieve the evidence for the specific case, identify the applicable procedure, and prepare the next permitted step. Access would follow the merchant and operator permissions already in place.
The first rollout would focus on retrieving information and drafting responses. Changes to sensitive account details, fund movements, and consequential decisions would remain with authorized people. Broader action would follow only after the team had reviewed the evidence from the initial workflow.
From question to resolution
Consider a merchant asking about a delayed payout. After the required identity checks, the agent would look up the payout state, compare it with the applicable schedule, and review any related support case. Its response would explain what the records actually show.
If the available evidence cannot explain the delay, the agent would prepare an escalation with the transaction reference, relevant timeline, and unresolved question. The specialist would receive a case ready to investigate, without asking the merchant to repeat the conversation.
Reviewed corrections would become inputs to future workflow improvements. A newly approved procedure could then guide the next similar case, with its source and revision preserved.
What success would look like
The pilot would be measured against a baseline collected before launch. These are proposed measures, not reported results:
- Resolution: more eligible requests completed without a second handoff or a reopened ticket.
- Handling time: less time spent gathering records and reconstructing prior conversations.
- Quality: responses supported by current evidence, with exceptions escalated correctly.
- Merchant experience: fewer repeated questions and clearer explanations of the next step.
The team would review completed cases alongside failures. Faster responses would count as progress only if accuracy and the merchant experience held up.
Expanding with confidence
A successful first workflow would provide the foundation for adjacent work, such as preparing reconciliation exceptions or gathering evidence for a dispute. Each extension would need its own permissions, review points, and acceptance criteria.
The ambition for this scenario is straightforward: help the operation carry its knowledge into every new request. Start with a bounded problem, make the evidence available, and expand when the results support it.
