Instant-Payment Dispute Platform Recovery Leader — Retail Banking

The mandate

The payment-resolution head resigned after customers received inconsistent status and provisional-credit treatment for the same instant-payment failure across mobile, contact-centre and branch channels. Scheme messages, core postings, beneficiary-bank responses and fraud holds were individually available, but case state could not be reconstructed reliably after reversals crossed day-end. A regulator-directed review now has a fixed completion date.

The interim must join Mumbai within two weeks for ten months, holding executive authority through cohort review, platform remediation, two peak periods and permanent succession. Search starts after the first sixty-day control baseline. Five weeks of overlap are reserved; extension is possible only if an externally controlled scheme review moves, not because case backlog or platform work remains unfinished.

Handover requires every disputed payment to resolve to instruction, scheme state, debit, credit, reversal, fraud action, communication and final case decision at effective time; the affected cohort must be dispositioned; and two peak simulations plus three monthly reconciliations must meet targets. The successor will command an unseen cross-midnight failure and accept remaining counterparty and archive obligations.

The interim may stop resolution releases, impose conservative case states, redirect the sanctioned ₹145 crore remediation and appoint temporary control leaders. Customer redress policy, scheme liability, permanent hiring, material accounting treatment and spending above budget require accountable Operations, Risk or committee approval. The seat may control evidence and workflow but cannot adjudicate individual legal liability beyond existing delegation.

Payment-rail replacement, fraud-strategy redesign and branch-service transformation are outside this assignment. The leader may require dependable interfaces and case evidence but does not own pricing, credit policy or historic complaints unrelated to affected flows. Recovery must focus on consistent resolution, timely communication and auditable financial disposition rather than a broad customer-service rebuild.

Why this seat is open

The incident exposed a customer-resolution platform organised around system messages rather than the complete payment and remedy journey. Resignation removed executive authority while the regulatory clock continued. A temporary leader must reconcile affected cases, stabilise live disputes and leave permanent ownership capable of explaining every status and financial action across channels.

What you will own

• Reconstruct affected cases through instruction, authorisation, scheme response, ledger posting, reversal, fraud intervention, communication and closure decision.
• Define canonical dispute states, effective transitions, authoritative evidence, ageing, correction and channel presentation for each payment scenario.
• Decide which automated resolutions may continue, require conservative pause, need manual review or must be withdrawn pending counterparty evidence.
• Direct peak and cross-midnight exercises covering duplicate debit, beneficiary timeout, delayed reversal, fraud hold and inconsistent scheme update.
• Reconcile customer, operational and accounting views daily while preserving disputed liability until accountable functions decide it.
• Govern remediation against corrected cohorts, response deadlines, channel consistency, financial reconciliation and reduced manual case reconstruction.
• Transfer authority through an unseen case exercise, monthly close and successor acceptance of counterparty, archive and automation debt.

Candidate qualifications

• Held executive payment-operations or resolution-platform authority in a high-volume regulated bank, wallet or payment processor.
• Reconstructed instant-payment disputes across scheme, ledger, fraud, counterparty and customer-channel evidence after asynchronous reversal.
• Designed case-state machines that preserved effective history and consistent communication across branch, contact-centre and digital channels.
• Led regulator-visible cohort review and customer remediation while keeping evidence analysis separate from legal liability judgement.
• Stopped automated resolution when source or counterparty evidence could not support fair and financially reconciled outcomes.
• Handed a recovered disputes function to permanent leadership through live peak operation and independently repeated complex cases.

Non-negotiables

• Available within two weeks for exclusive Mumbai service, including incident command during payment peaks and cross-day reconciliation.
• Has personally governed instant-payment disputes at material scale; card-only chargeback or generic case-platform work is insufficient.
• No undisclosed interest in payment processors, scheme-service vendors, dispute platforms or assurance providers in scope.
• Will preserve fair customer treatment and complete regulatory evidence even when cohort size exceeds initial management estimates.

1. 49 words maximum. State your Mumbai availability and one instant-payment dispute cohort you reconstructed across scheme and ledger states.
2. 49 words maximum. How did you preserve a customer’s effective case history after a reversal crossed financial day-end?
3. 49 words maximum. Which unseen dispute scenario would qualify a permanent successor to own the platform?