Vice President, Fraud Analytics and Decisioning

The mandate

The Vice President will permanently own quantitative fraud decisioning as a connected system of detection, intervention, customer consequence and learning. The role must optimise neither prevented loss nor approval speed in isolation. It will set the analytical standards by which signals become decisions, feedback becomes model evidence and control changes remain proportionate to shifting behaviour.

In the first hundred days, the appointee will map decision pathways from event eligibility through scores, rules, review and confirmed outcome. The assessment will test label delay, selection bias, duplicate signal, case capacity, override, adversarial adaptation and harm caused by false intervention. No client channel, volume or technical stack is published; the method must be portable across confidential facts.

The VP may approve analytical guardrails, authorise controlled challengers, require threshold or rule correction and restrict models that breach performance or fairness tolerances. Loss appetite, customer policy, investigations and individual case decisions retain named owners. Suspected misconduct or legal concerns enter their formal routes rather than remaining an analytics exercise.

By month six, outcome labelling, decision decomposition and challenger governance should operate with explicit uncertainty. At one year, performance monitoring should reveal drift by relevant cohort and attack pattern, false-positive consequences should be measured, and decisions should respond faster to adversarial change without bypassing review.

The enduring leadership task is to unite quantitative rigour with operational reality. Researchers must understand case and customer consequences; operational owners must understand threshold trade-offs; governance must see what remains unknown. The VP will develop deputies able to lead model, decision and outcome reviews independently.

What you will own

• Define a fraud decision architecture linking eligible event, signal, model, rule, review, intervention and confirmed outcome.
• Establish label-quality standards that address delay, selection, investigation bias, duplicate events and unresolved cases.
• Monitor discrimination, calibration, capture, false intervention, operational capacity and downstream customer consequence together.
• Design champion-challenger tests with loss, experience, workload and control guardrails before scaled release.
• Decompose override and referral outcomes to determine whether model, policy, threshold or execution needs correction.
• Detect adversarial drift through behaviour and cohort analysis rather than relying solely on aggregate performance.
• Restrict unsafe analytical components and maintain an approved fallback decision route.
• Build senior quantitative leaders through cross-functional reviews and ownership of adverse-outcome learning.

Candidate qualifications

• Demonstrate executive fraud-analytics leadership from model evidence through operational and customer outcome.
• Describe a detection improvement rejected because its false-intervention or capacity consequence outweighed apparent lift.
• Show how you corrected labels affected by investigation selection or delayed confirmation.
• Evidence a challenger that captured a new pattern without breaching control or experience guardrails.
• Explain how override analysis separated expert value from inconsistent execution or weak policy.
• Provide a drift indicator that found adversarial adaptation before aggregate loss measures moved.
• Show development of quantitative leaders credible with operations, investigations and executive risk governance.

Working terms and boundaries

• This full-time permanent appointment carries delegated analytical standards and model-restriction authority.
• Loss appetite, customer policy, investigations and case disposition remain with separate accountable leaders.
• Incentives balance prevented loss, false intervention, durability and team strength rather than rewarding one metric.
• Hybrid attendance is expected for model decisions, sensitive outcome reviews and senior governance.
• Data-source, investigation-provider and relevant financial conflicts require declaration before restricted access.

Application

Applications for this mandate are received in one way only: through the India Board Terminal's application process. It is automated end to end. Your Executive Passport travels to the mandate holder in its confidential form, your answers to the three questions below are read before anything else in your file, and every stage that follows is recorded on your applications page.

There is no address to write to and no intermediary to call. The mandate holder reads what the Terminal delivers and nothing else, which is what keeps the process the same for every applicant and keeps your name out of it until you release it. Applications close on 9 October 2026. Mandate reference QNT-PER-2026-SAO-13.