Illustrative scenarioHuman judgement required
APP reimbursement review
- Trigger
- Bank impersonation report
- Evidence state
- Incomplete and contested
- Decision state
- Unresolved
For APP fraud reimbursement teams
Make reimbursement decisions
easier to explain.
Build MeshQu into your reimbursement workflow to connect the policy applied, the evidence checked and the reviewer’s judgement. Keep a clear basis for explaining the decision.
Why teams struggle
Why reviews get complicated.
Facts arrive incomplete
Reports and payment evidence can be incomplete or conflicting.
Responsibility needs to be clear
The right person needs clear authority to judge.
The explanation gets rebuilt later
The reasons behind a decision should be easy to find.
Accountability in practice
Clear checks. Accountable judgement.
Evaluate the case deterministically against the reimbursement policy in force. Make missing evidence and required human judgement explicit at decision time.
MeshQu evaluates a reimbursement case against the approved policy and returns an assessment with a signed Decision Receipt. Material judgement stays with an authorised reimbursement reviewer. For example: Checks complete, Evidence missing, Human judgement required.
Reimbursement caseEvaluate against policyYour applicationRoutes checks and review
Policy assessment + signed Decision Receipt
For example
Where material judgement is required
Authorised reimbursement reviewerEvaluate at decision time.
MeshQu applies deterministic rules against the policy version in force, returning a verdict and a signed record of the assessment.
Keep judgement accountable.
Connect missing or contested evidence to an authorised reviewer. Keep their judgement and reasons alongside the policy assessment.
An example in practice
A reported scam. A judgement to make.
A customer reports an £8,000 transfer to a caller posing as their bank. The evidence is incomplete. An authorised reviewer owns the reimbursement judgement.
Bank impersonation reported. Evidence is incomplete and contested.
Required reviewerHuman judgement requiredAwaiting authorised judgement
MeshQu flags the evidence gap.
Material facts incomplete; human review required
A person owns the next decision.
Authorised reimbursement reviewer
Unresolved in this illustrative scenario
The recorded basis
The policy, finding and required authority stay connected. The reviewer’s judgement is recorded alongside when made.
Inspect the record and responsibilities
- Policy
- Reimbursement policy · fictional version 4.2
- MeshQu policy assessment
- Material facts incomplete; human review required
- Decision authority
- Authorised reimbursement reviewer
- Evidence references
- Customer report, payment event and contact evidence
- Result
- Unresolved in this illustrative scenario
Scope and limits
- This scenario is fictional and does not show a customer result.
- MeshQu does not make a legal entitlement judgement.
- Availability, integration and pilot scope must be agreed for the organisation’s workflow.
Who does what?
Responsibility boundaries
Keep each role explicit.
Responsibility boundaries
Keep each role explicit.
Policy owner
Approves the decision basis
Owns the reimbursement policy, its version and escalation boundaries.
Application
Assembles and checks
Collects referenced facts, applies bounded checks and routes unresolved judgement.
Authorised reviewer
Owns material judgement
Considers the evidence and decides the organisational response within their authority.
What supports the record?
Evidence and limits
Inspect the basis without overstating the outcome.
Evidence and limits
Inspect the basis without overstating the outcome.
Policy
Exact basis
Link the decision to the version and requirements applied.
Evidence
Referenced inputs
Show the information used, missing or contested at the time.
Limits
Bounded claim
The examples are illustrative. Availability, integrations and measured results require separate validation.
Published explanation
Decision Receipts: what the record contains
A Decision Receipt is a signed record of a policy assessment. It connects the result to the policy version and information used. With the necessary verification material and trusted keys, a reviewer can check the signed record and replay the assessment. It does not prove that the inputs were true, that the decision was correct or that the action was carried out.
Read the source explanationThis explains the record structure; it does not verify this illustrative workflow.
Start with one workflow
What’s challenging your reimbursement team?
We’ll look at one reimbursement review, the accountability or evidence gap, and where MeshQu could fit.
One or two sentences is enough. You don’t need a finished brief.
Prefer the technical detail? Explore the docs.
Before we talk
Frequently asked questions.
Can we start with our existing policy?
That is the starting point: one policy and one decision workflow. We’ll explore how its requirements, responsibilities and evidence fit together.
Can we build our own solution with MeshQu?
Yes. MeshQu is infrastructure your team can build on. A commercial agreement with MeshQu lets you implement it around your own workflows and user experience. We’ll scope the integration around how you intend to use it.
How would MeshQu fit our current systems?
We’ll map where the decision happens and what needs to connect. The integration approach is scoped around your workflow.
What happens when we get in touch?
We start with the review you want to improve, who owns it and what a useful first step would look like. You don’t need a finished brief.
One workflow, a challenge or a question is enough.