API Portfolio Prioritization

RICE Framework Analysis for DDA Modernization API Requests

A progressive disclosure briefing that applies the Reach × Impact × Confidence ÷ Effort model to three fraud-focused API requests. Explore why Prevention Desktop can move immediately, why Mastercard auto-chargeback needs validation, and why digital wallet token work should wait for CDP-powered V4.

RICE Model Fraud Operations API Modernization Progressive Disclosure UX

RICE Formula

Score = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) ÷ Effort. High scores surface work that touches many users, delivers meaningful outcomes, and can ship with certainty using the least effort.

Portfolio Snapshot

Three requests target fraud prevention and operational efficiency across CDFO teams, with confidence levels ranging from 40–75% and implementation effort spanning 6–12 person-months.

Prioritization Outcome

Prevention Desktop (162.5) leads. Mastercard Auto-Chargeback (1.7) requires data validation. Digital Wallet Token controls (1.2) remain blocked until CDP integration unlocks V4 support.

Request 1 · ID 43040 RICE Score 1.2 Status: Must Wait

Digital Wallet Token Fraud Prevention

Stop fraudsters from reusing wallet tokens after card replacement by surfacing Token Requestor IDs and Token Numbers to CDFO fraud teams.

Tap to toggle full analysis

Business Context

Objective: Prevent repeat fraud by automatically deactivating compromised digital wallet tokens once cards are replaced.

Monthly reach of 8 high-impact fraud cases grounded in Chase’s debit transaction scale and manual case history.

Confidence Risks (60%)

Token data consistency between pending SOR and posted ODS systems is unproven.

CDP platform integration requires architectural validation before ingestion can start.

Assumed effectiveness mirrors manual fraud workflows that have yet to be automated.

Implementation Load (12 person-months)

Requires Chase Debit Platform integration and complex pending transaction derivation logic.

Token formatting needs extensive validation across authorization and settlement systems before production rollout.

Reach 8 Estimated monthly digital wallet fraud cases prevented.
Impact 3 · Massive 100 FTE benefit via token deactivation and customer fraud protection.
Confidence 60% Awaiting CDP validation and token reconciliation proof.
Effort 12 Integration blocked until CDP onboarding completes.

Why it must wait

CDP integration is not yet available, preventing access to required fields:

  • tokenRequestorIdentifier
  • tokenNumber

Strategic value remains high, but execution should align with V4’s enhanced token support once the CDP dependency clears.

Request 2 · ID 48837 RICE Score 162.5 Status: Can Proceed with Conditions

Prevention Desktop Fraud Investigation

Collapse four-to-five tools into a single Prevention Desktop interface by onboarding ETU API data for every CDFO specialist.

Tap to open workflow plan

Business Context

Objective: Centralize fraud specialist workflows, eliminating tool toggling and reducing investigation time.

Reach: Direct impact on 1,300 fraud specialists operating inside CDFO today.

Confidence Drivers (75%)

Most ETU fields are confirmed, with statement start date as the only gap.

Standard API onboarding motions, plus a clearly defined user base, support adoption.

Implementation Effort (6 person-months)

Client team commits to managing IDAHO, ADFS, API Gateway, and RSAM independently.

Requires alternative solution for the missing statement start date.

Reach 1,300 All fraud specialists adopt the unified desktop.
Impact 1 · Medium Improved efficiency, training reduction, and data consistency.
Confidence 75% Field readiness, user demand, and standard onboarding.
Effort 6 Standard integration with moderate discovery.

Key ETU V3 Field Coverage

Field API Field Status
Transaction Status transactionStatusName ✅ Available
Posted Date/Time transactionPostDate ✅ Available
Card Number cardLast4DigitsNumber ✅ Last 4 digits only
Customer ID Input parameters ✅ Available
Statement Start Date N/A ❌ Not available

Go-forward requirements: lock in team self-sufficiency, validate low TPS (10–20), and define a substitute for the missing statement start date.

Request 3 · ID 37661 RICE Score 1.7 Status: Needs Validation

Mastercard Auto-Chargeback Automation

Automate chargeback processing for Mastercard debit by exposing network identifiers (CIRR/PULS) and reducing 17 FTEs of manual effort.

Tap to review investigation steps

Business Context

Objective: Deliver real-time chargeback automation by surfacing network IDs that currently require manual lookup.

Reach: Automates 17 full-time equivalent roles in fraud operations.

Confidence Constraints (40%)

Unclear if CIRR/PULS network identifiers exist in CMM data today.

Integration requires CMM modifications plus ETU enhancements, creating timeline risk for March 2025.

Implementation Effort (8 person-months)

Moderate CMM engineering to expose new fields, API changes to surface them, and end-to-end testing with CCS-UI.

Reach 17 Direct automation of manual chargeback positions.
Impact 2 · High Cost savings, fewer errors, faster processing.
Confidence 40% Data availability and integration risk remain open.
Effort 8 CMM exposure, ETU enhancement, CCS-UI validation.

Validation work ahead

Confirm the following before prioritizing:

  • Validate presence of CIRR/PULS identifiers and terminal FIID within current CMM datasets.
  • Assess engineering complexity to expose the fields and update ETU.
  • Re-evaluate the March 2025 deadline against dependency timelines.

Until the data question is answered, keep the initiative in investigation mode.

Decision Matrix Summary

This roll-up keeps the prioritization debate grounded: Prevention Desktop advances immediately, Mastercard automation enters validation, and token fraud mitigation waits for platform readiness.

Request RICE Score Implementation Status Priority Level
Prevention Desktop (ID 48837) 162.5 ✅ Can Proceed with conditions High
Mastercard Auto-Chargeback (ID 37661) 1.7 🔍 Needs validation Medium
Digital Wallet Token Fraud Prevention (ID 43040) 1.2 ⏸️ Must wait Low (timing)
Implementation Recommendations

Roadmap Sequencing Guidance

Open each track to see what must be true to greenlight development.

Tap to expand each track

Immediate Action · V3 API

Prevention Desktop (ID 48837) can proceed now:

  • TPS of 10–20 aligns with V3 onboarding guidelines.
  • Standard integration path with a self-sufficient client team.
  • Only dependency is an agreed alternative to statement start date.

Validation Required

Mastercard Auto-Chargeback (ID 37661) needs pre-work:

  1. Run a data availability check for CIRR/PULS fields in CMM.
  2. Estimate CMM integration effort alongside ETU changes.
  3. Stress-test the March 2025 target across dependencies.

Strategic Delay · V4 API

Digital Wallet Tokens (ID 43040) waits for richer capabilities:

  • CDP integration must land before token controls can be delivered.
  • V4 will offer enhanced token support that maximizes long-term value.
  • Real-time deactivation should launch once the architecture is ready.
Migration Planning

Preparing for V3 → V4 Transition

Inventory usage, map dependencies, and articulate the upside of V4 before timelines accelerate.

Tap to view migration checklist

Assess Current V3 Usage

  • Catalog active integrations by team, TPS, and field utilization.
  • Document integration complexity, including custom data transformations.
  • Define compatibility requirements to ensure V4 parity.
  • Align support timelines, factoring V3 deprecation and V4 adoption milestones.

V4 Strategic Advantages

  • Native CDP integration unlocks enhanced token support.
  • Projected 50% mainframe reduction improves performance.
  • Richer data model surfaces additional fraud-relevant fields.
  • Modern architecture scales with future fraud prevention growth.
DST Intake Preparation

Discovery Questions to Confirm

Answer these prompts during DST assessment to accelerate gating decisions.

Tap to reveal question sets

For All Requests

  1. What are the actual peak and average TPS requirements?
  2. Can the requesting team own IDAHO, ADFS, API Gateway, and RSAM onboarding?
  3. Is the team willing to wait for V4 (mid-2026) for enhanced capabilities?
  4. What interim solutions exist if API integration slips?

Prevention Desktop

  • How will the team handle the missing statement start date?
  • Can transaction date ranges substitute for statement cycle context?
  • Which fraud detection patterns demand pending versus posted status?

Mastercard Auto-Chargeback

  • Have CIRR/PULS identifiers been confirmed in CMM data?
  • What is the fallback if the March 2025 deadline slips?
  • How much cost is saved by automating 17 FTEs?

Digital Wallet Tokens

  • Can token data be reconciled between authorization and settlement systems?
  • What is the business impact of waiting for CDP versus building workarounds?
  • How critical is real-time deactivation compared with batch alternatives?
V3 Intake Guardrails

Decision Criteria for API Onboarding

Use these filters to determine whether work stays on V3, shifts to V4, or must be declined.

Tap to view guardrails

✅ Approve for V3 when…

  • Peak TPS ≤ 50 and integration remains standard.
  • Required data fields already exist in V3.
  • Requesting team can drive onboarding independently.
  • Timelines align with current capacity.

⏸️ Defer to V4 when…

  • Peak TPS exceeds 50 or requires complex transformations.
  • Critical fields are missing from V3 payloads.
  • Enhanced capabilities in V4 better support strategic outcomes.

❌ Cannot support when…

  • Timelines are unrealistic relative to dependencies.
  • Teams lack resources for onboarding commitments.
  • Architectural conflicts or security concerns block compliance.

Align on the next API move

Use this RICE brief to brief executives, unblock DST discussions, and plan the V3 to V4 transition. When you are ready to move, sync with the modernization team to confirm dependencies and timelines.

Coordinate with Chris →