‹ All decisionslive
d_a619893f
INTERVENE2026-08-10 08:01:50 UTC · partner demo · threshold profile balanced · source live
Reasoning
Repeated deposits of near-identical size with funds leaving within two minutes to a brand-new one-off wallet matches the routine payment-processing pattern of a money mule rather than a coached victim, and the low idle-gap and tab-switch counts do not rule that out. The user's exposure here is legal rather than financial, so the intervention should address unknowing involvement in moving someone else's funds.
flat non-escalating deposits [1900, 2100, 2000]minutes_to_outbound = 2destination_type fresh_eoa + destination_first_seen_days 3low idle_gaps/tab_switches
Signal vector, as received
| Signal | Value | Contributed |
|---|---|---|
| account_age_days | 14 | — |
| is_first_purchase | false | — |
| amount_eur | 2000 | — |
| amount_vs_median | 1 | — |
| funding_method | bank_transfer | — |
| minutes_to_outbound | 2 | yes |
| destination_first_seen_days | 3 | yes |
| destination_type | fresh_eoa | yes |
| declined_attempts | 0 | — |
| address_entry_method | pasted | — |
| idle_gaps_over_60s | 1 | — |
| tab_switches | 1 | yes |
| deposit_escalation | [1900, 2100, 2000] | — |
| kyc_retries | 0 | — |
| merchant_verified | null | — |
Amount
€2,000
User outcome
Not recorded
Model
claude-opus-5
Prompt fingerprint
pattern:b3378cbeb7e8 probe:8f9e2db8c06c verdict:2aaed03b60a9