Resources · Readiness

Make your first fraud-operations conversation useful.

Four topics to prepare—or work through with us.

Use this canvas to organise the events, data, people and evaluation questions that matter. It is a preparation aid, not an entrance exam. Bring the unanswered questions to a session.

Owner before tooling
Events and data before proof
Work through unanswered questions together

Book a Session → Find your operating model

Four topics that move the conversation forward.

Four practical topics. Print this page, copy the prompts into a working document, or walk through them with your team.

01 · Owners

Who is accountable

Can you name the person who owns fraud/risk outcomes — and who will own day-to-day configuration depth?

Identify who can make the commercial decision, who will review exceptions and who will manage configuration. These may be different people—or one lean team.

Accountable owner for outcomes is named
Day-to-day configurator (or SENTR.Tower guided owner) is named
Technical contact can help confirm sources and field mapping

02 · Events

What you can emit today

Which registration, login, payment, payout, refund, promo or domain events can you actually produce?

List the events available today and the ones you would like to add. That gives the integration conversation a clear starting scope.

Primary events to protect
Events available now and those that need instrumentation
Systems and teams that can supply the data

03 · Data

Identifiers, history, path

Which identifiers connect your events, and what history is available? Share a redacted schema, not credentials or personal data.

Stable identifiers and useful history support connected investigations. Mark unknowns so engineering can address them in the integration plan.

Entity identifiers you can join are known
History / backfill needs are visible
Ingestion path (file, API, webhook, DB, stream) is plausible

04 · Proof

What you want to learn

What would make this evaluation useful: finding a pattern, reducing friction, improving a review or testing an integration?

A product walkthrough, a guided SENTR.Tower start and a qualified SENTR.Citadel Shadow evaluation answer different questions. We can help choose the right next step.

The key question you want the product demonstration or evaluation to answer
Production write-back is understood as a later decision
Operating-model scope and production price discussed

Start from where you are.

If disputes are part of the problem, name the owner of filing and resolution and the outcomes available for feedback. SENTR’s current casework and exports support that existing process; automated dispute filing and settlement are not current capabilities. Explore payment-fraud prevention and dispute evidence →

Ready to explore the integration

Named owner, mappable events, technical contact

Bring your fraud owner and technical contact, a short list of events and the main question you want answered. We can work through the relevant controls and integration path together.

Named fraud owner
Technical contact
Event shortlist
Main question

Response: Architecture Session turns those inputs into a scoped plan
Evidence: Controls and integration path worked through with your team

An Architecture Session can turn those inputs into a scoped plan.

Still shaping the problem

You do not need a finished brief to speak with us

If accountability is unclear, events cannot be emitted, or a single provider’s included controls still cover a simple payment-only problem, bring those questions to Discovery—or review whether your existing controls already meet the need.

Unclear ownership?
Events not ready?
Provider still enough?
Discovery

Response: Start with Discovery to understand the options
Evidence: A Shadow evaluation comes later if it answers the right question

Start with Discovery to understand the options. A Shadow evaluation comes later if it answers the right question.

Provider-native vs independent layer → · Data & integrations → · Shadow Mode →

Bring what you know. We will work through the rest.

A clear problem is a useful starting point. Bring the context you have; we will help identify the next questions and the right evaluation path.