Contract integrity & program intelligence for loyalty programs
Your contract says one thing. Your points engine does another.
We recalculate every transaction against the contract itself — and show you the gap.
…the Issuer shall accrue points at ten (10) points per USD 100 of Net Eligible Spend, provided the effective accrual shall not exceed fourteen (14) points per USD 100 in any calendar month. Tier multipliers apply to Base Earn only, and promotional accrual is excluded from the cap in Clause 4.2…
Rules extracted
Base earn10 pts / USD 100 Cap14 pts / USD 100, monthly Multiplier scopeBase earn only ExclusionPromotional accrualThe problem
Nobody compares the document to the data.
Commercial signs the contract. A vendor builds the rules. Finance pays the invoice. No one holds both ends.
The annual audit checks a few hundred. We check all of them.
A misimplemented rule is not an error — it is a consistent difference applied to every transaction it touches. Sampling cannot find it. It shows up as divergence.
Sec 3.3 — Points rounded down to the whole pointIssuance engine rounds up on 100% of fractional rows, zero exceptions
Issuer
0
0
Every month, every categorySchedule A — Qualifying dining at 2.0 pts per USDOne of four merchant codes paid at half rate from April onward
Cardholders
0
0
310,828 transactions, April to DecemberSec 4.6 and 4.2 — Annual price cap and tier selectionPrices above the ceiling all year; one month billed a tier late as a knock-on
Issuer
0
0
All three tiers, twelve of twelve months$0 found — and that is the floor, not the total.
Two of these findings are almost certainly larger. The price cap was measured against the 3% ceiling because the inflation series wasn’t in the file, and a fourth clause — the one that reprices the whole year when a volume tier is crossed — couldn’t be priced at all, because the settlement worksheet was never supplied.
So it flagged the breach, named the missing document, and stopped.
A number you can hand an auditor, and a silence you can trust.
Where the complexity lives
The difficulty is not the arithmetic. It is the count.
Every rate, cap, tier and exclusion below is contractually defined — and implemented by hand, once, years ago.
Bank co-brand
One agreement, deep clause structure. Caps, tier multipliers, promotional overlays, funding rates.
1 partner × 60+ clausesAirline and hotel
One currency sold to many partners at many prices, with liability carried on your balance sheet.
1 currency × 20+ rate cardsCoalition
Every partner both issues and redeems. Obligations run in both directions and net against each other.
12 partners × 132 positionsProgram platforms
Operators running the same infrastructure across many bank programs, each on its own contract.
1 platform × 20+ programsBuilt for bank co-brand, coalition, airline, hotel and retail programs — and the platforms that operate them. Wherever a contract sets the rate and a system does the issuing, the two can diverge.
Divergence
A variance is an error. A trend is a term you no longer have.
Both parties are losing money, in opposite directions, and neither is made whole by the other. Through the first quarter the gap is about $6K a month. In April a category mapping changes and the lines pull apart. By December they are a quarter of a million dollars apart — nine months after the first invoice that would have shown it. Tier I measures and projects it.
Drift
What the contract requires against what the system issued, period over period. No model and no assumptions — it falls out of the document and the transaction file.
Breakage
Points that will never be redeemed, estimated from your own history rather than carried at a flat assumed rate. Needs data, not just the contract.
What we build
Two tiers. The second earns the first.
Nothing in the outer ring can be sold without the ring inside it. That is the constraint, not the pitch.
Conformance and drift
Your contract becomes rules. Every transaction is recalculated against them.
- Full population — no sampling
- Every variance traced to its clause
- Monthly files. No integration
Program intelligence
Questions that need your history, not just your contract.
- Breakage and liability, modelled
- Margin leak and partner benchmarking
- Campaign checks before launch
The first engagement
One contract. Four to six weeks.
Send one live contract and the transaction history for the period it governs. You get the rederivation and the divergence read.
- You provide
- One contract, under NDA
- And
- Transaction files
- Duration
- Four to six weeks
- Integration
- None
- Live access
- None
- Your engineering time
- None