Three-way reconciliation report

ConclusionThe order (ORD4055) confirms gross = 750.00 and the fee rule tool confirms fee = 0 for UPI, yet the net field is recorded as 760.00 — 10.00 more than gross with no deductions. The settlement (setl_0001) is internally consistent across 15 members, so the error is isolated to the net field of pay_000056 itself.

ConclusionThe order and gateway both confirm gross = 499.00, and check_fee_against_rule confirms fee = 0 is correct for UPI (delta = 0 paise). With fee and GST both at zero, the net must equal 499.00, but the ledger reports net = 509.00 — a surplus of exactly 10.00 that no tool result accounts for. The settlement composition for setl_0008 is internally consistent across its 14 members, so the error is isolated to the net field of this single transaction record.

Conclusioncheck_balance_continuity confirmed a gap of 722729 paise (₹7227.29) immediately before BNK000014. search_settlements_by_amount identified settlement setl_0010 for exactly that amount with a payout date of 2026-08-21, which check_payout_window confirmed is within the plausible working-day window. check_settlement_composition verified that setl_0010's 9 member transactions correctly sum to 722729 paise — meaning the settlement is internally sound but its corresponding bank credit row is absent from the statement.

Conclusionget_order confirmed ORD4088 is a paid card transaction for ₹750.00. find_related_transactions returned one captured payment (pay_000089). check_fee_against_rule confirmed the actual fee of ₹20.00 exceeds the card rule fee of ₹15.00 by ₹5.00 (500 paise), which is not rounding noise.

ConclusionORD4026 is marked 'paid' in the ledger for ₹349.00 via UPI, but find_related_transactions returned zero gateway rows referencing it. search_settlements_by_amount also found no settlement matching ₹349.00. While find_subset_summing_to identified a UPI transaction pay_000115 of exactly ₹349.00 in the same date window (with a correctly applied zero UPI fee), no tool has confirmed that pay_000115 is linked to ORD4026 — it could belong to a different order entirely.

Conclusionget_order and find_related_transactions confirm ORD4034 is a single captured netbanking payment of ₹349.50 (txn pay_000035, settlement setl_0003). check_fee_against_rule definitively confirmed that the actual fee of ₹13.50 (1350 paise) exceeds the contracted netbanking rule fee of ₹12.00 (1200 paise) by exactly ₹1.50 — this is a genuine overcharge, not rounding noise.

Conclusionget_order confirmed ORD4051 is a paid UPI transaction for ₹199.00. find_related_transactions identified a single captured payment (pay_000052) settled under setl_0006. check_fee_against_rule confirmed that the UPI fee rule mandates ₹0.00, but ₹2.25 (225 paise) was actually charged — a delta of 225 paise with no ambiguity.

ConclusionORD4054 is confirmed in the ledger with status 'paid' for ₹3999.00 via UPI, but find_related_transactions returned no gateway rows whatsoever. Additionally, search_settlements_by_amount found no settlement matching this amount (±₹5), and find_subset_summing_to found no combination of transactions in the surrounding 3-day window that accounts for the amount — meaning no gateway or settlement record exists, despite the order being marked paid.

Conclusionget_order confirmed ORD4089 is a paid card transaction for ₹299.99, linked to a single captured payment pay_000090 in settlement setl_0007. check_fee_against_rule confirmed that the actual fee charged was ₹8.25 (825 paise) against a card rule ceiling of ₹6.00 (600 paise), yielding an excess of ₹2.25 (225 paise) — consistent with the automated tier alert and well above any rounding threshold.

Conclusionget_order and find_related_transactions confirm ORD4038 is a captured netbanking payment of ₹899.00 via transaction pay_000039 (settlement setl_0008). check_fee_against_rule definitively confirmed that the actual fee of ₹17.00 exceeds the contracted netbanking rule of ₹12.00 by ₹5.00 — this is a genuine fee overcharge, not rounding drift.

Conclusionsearch_settlements_by_amount returned zero matches for ₹4200.00 (±₹2), so no registered settlement corresponds to this bank credit. The description reference 'RZP879978972' does not resolve to any known order. find_subset_summing_to identified 5 transactions (pay_000120, pay_000032, pay_000064, pay_000060, pay_000054) that sum exactly to ₹4200.00, but find_related_transactions returned no gateway rows for pay_000120, suggesting these are not a formally settled batch — the grouping is not confirmed by the ledger. Balance continuity is intact, confirming the bank row itself is real and not a dup

Conclusionsearch_settlements_by_amount returned 0 matches for ₹2750.00 (±₹5.00), confirming no settlement record corresponds to this bank credit. check_balance_continuity confirmed the bank row BNK000006 is genuine (gap_paise = 0, no missing statement line). find_subset_summing_to identified three transactions (pay_000060, pay_000068, pay_000079 summing exactly to ₹2750.00) that appear to have been grouped and paid out together, but no settlement entity exists in the ledger to link them — the credit arrived in the bank without a corresponding settlement record.

The reconciliation processed 141 entities in total, of which 128 were resolved, giving a resolution rate of 90.8%. Of the resolved records, 97 were classified as clean, while the remaining resolved records fell into categories such as refund (6), failed payment (5), fee mismatch (5), unsettled (6), partial refund (4), rounding noise (4), chargeback (3), duplicate (3), missing payment (2), net arithmetic error (2), orphan bank credit (2), settlement not in bank (1), and missing bank row (1). Confidence-wise, the vast majority of records, 124, landed in Tier 1 (high confidence), with just 4 in Tier 2. Overall, the reconciliation went quite well, with a strong resolution rate and most records coming in at the highest confidence level.

Across all 107 payments in this batch, you paid a total of INR 1770.20 in Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) fees and INR 1770.00 in chargeback penalties as separate charges. Looking at MDR alone, card is your most expensive method in absolute terms at INR 1356.94 (effective rate 2.37%), followed by wallet at INR 319.53 (2.12%), netbanking at INR 91.46 (2.82%), and UPI at just INR 2.27 (effectively 0.00%). However, if you consider the effective rate rather than the absolute amount, netbanking is actually the costliest at 2.82%, though it processes far fewer transactions than card.

The system flagged 13 records across six classifications that it could not resolve. There are 5 fee mismatches where the charged fee exceeded the expected fee (deltas ranging from INR 1.50 to INR 5.00 across card, netbanking, and UPI transactions), 2 net arithmetic errors where the gross minus fees does not equal the stated net (for pay_000056 and pay_000042), 2 missing payments where orders exist in the ledger but have no corresponding gateway record (ORD4026 and ORD4054), 2 orphan bank credits with no matching settlement (INR 4200.00 on 2026-08-13 and INR 2750.00 on 2026-08-16), 1 missing bank row representing a balance gap of INR 7227.29 before BNK000014, and 1 settlement not found in the bank statement (setl_0010, a payout of INR 7227.29 due 2026-08-21). Separately, there is INR 3264.48 across 6 captured transactions that has not yet been paid out, though the system notes this is expected and not considered an error.

There are 6 transactions that have been captured but not yet paid out, with a total unsettled value of INR 3264.48. As noted in the data, this is expected and is not an error.

Yes, there were losses to both refunds and chargebacks in this batch. There were 13 total incidents — 10 refunds and 3 chargebacks — with a combined total value of INR 23446.49 returned to customers. On top of that, the 3 chargebacks attracted penalty fees of INR 1770.00, so the chargeback penalties are an additional cost beyond the reversed transaction amounts themselves.