Are you investing in intelligence, or just adding in more noise?
Fraud teams today are surrounded by opportunity. New data sources, be that device signals or behavioural analytics, all promise sharper detection and fewer false positives. But with every new feed comes a familiar question: Will this actually improve outcomes?
In reality, many institutions still rely on instinct and vendor promise when evaluating new intelligence. They commit to contracts before seeing real-world impact for their portfolio. They deploy new feeds without knowing how the insight complements or contradicts their existing rules. This can result in finding themselves locked into expensive solutions that add complexity, not clarity.
It’s time to rethink how we test, validate, and invest in fraud intelligence.
Fraud leaders are continually under pressure to innovate, do more with less, and justify every pound of spend – be that across technology, operational costs or fraud losses. However, traditional evaluation methods can be expensive, slow to provide answers, and often don’t solve the questions that need to be answered.
The tried and tested approach of sandbox testing and pilot deployments are commonplace, but they often arrive with severe limitations:
Collectively, these can create uncertainty. This uncertainty results in institutions either over-investing in unproven intelligence or missing opportunities due to a lack of evidence. Both scenarios undermine the goal of doing more with less.
Across the industry, there is growing recognition that fraud detection must evolvefrom reactive rule deployment to proactive intelligence validation. However, the approaches for this vary.
Some institutions rely on vendor-led pilots, which can lack transparency and fail to isolate the true impact of the new data. Business cases for investment often require internal validation of external analysis.
Others attempt internal A/B testing, but can struggle with tooling, governance and the ability to simulate at scale.
Some leading banks are building internal simulation environments, but these are often costly, resource-intensive and don’t fully replicate the live environment of decisioning.
What is consistent across all approaches is the need for following fundamental principles:
| Explainability Regulators and internal governance teams demand clarity on how decisions are made | Efficiency Intelligence must deliver measurable uplift in detection and operational performance | Evidence Investment decisions must be backed by real-world outcomes, not assumptions or vendor claims |
The Optimised Decision Engine (ODE) is Sopra Steria’s proprietary simulation and calibration tool designed to help financial institutions validate new fraud intelligence before integration. It enables structured, explainable testing of new data sources against historical fraud patterns, allowing smarter investment decisions and reducing the risk of costly, ineffective deployments
At Sopra Steria, we believe there is a better way to approach this challenge. This is why we built ODE (Optimised Decision Engine) to help institutions simulate the impact of new intelligence before making long-term commercial commitments.
ODE enables a phased, structured approach to intelligence validation. It’s not about saying no to innovation, rather is it saying yes to the right innovation
| Phase 1 |
| Baseline Performance Assessment |
ODE begins by analysing the current fraud detection environment:
This creates a clear picture of where improvements are needed—and where new intelligence might help.
Objective:Establish a clear performance benchmark to identify where new intelligence can drive improvement
| Phase 2 |
| Attribute Simulation and Calibration |
Once the bank appends the proposed data points to its historical transaction and fraud-labelled datasets, ODE can be re-run to simulate performance. This enables a true A vs. B comparison:
This side-by-side simulation allows institutions to:
But simulation alone isn’t enough. The real challenge lies in calibrating new data alongside existing attributes. Many institutions struggle to determine:
ODE addresses this by modelling multi-variable interactions, helping fraud teams understand not just the value of new data, but how to use it effectively.
Objective:Quantify the real-world impact of new data and calibrate it for optimal use within existing logic
| Phase 3 |
| Incremental Rule Optimisation |
Rather than deploying wholesale changes, ODE supports incremental rule refinement:
This allows fraud teams to build confidence, gradually validating each step before scaling.
Objective: Enable controlled, explainable enhancements to detection logic without disrupting operations
| Phase 4 |
| Strategic Decisioning |
With simulation results in hand, institutions can make informed decisions:
This phase transforms procurement from speculative to strategic decision making.
Objective: Transform procurement into a data-driven process, ensuring only proven intelligence is adopted
In today’s environment of maximising the value in fraud prevention, fraud teams must be both innovative and accountable. Every new feed, new signal, new solution must be justified – not just in the promise of value but in the actual performance.
ODE empowers institutions to:
This is not about rejecting new intelligence. It’s about validating it before it becomes part of your fraud strategy.
Fraud prevention is no longer just about detection. Key metrics are around precision, efficiency and trust. With ODE, institutions can move beyond gut feel and vendor hype, towards a model of intelligence validation that’s grounded in evidence and aligned to outcomes.
Don’t just add data. Prove its value and calibrate it wisely.
Find out how ODE can help strengthen your fraud defences, reduce false positives and respond faster to new threats.
Originally posted here