Connect a received record to an outcome, an owner, and a next action.
MY CONTRIBUTION
Problem discovery · data investigation · business framing · operational follow-through
WHO IT SERVES
Claims operations, data teams, support, and business leaders
THE PRODUCT VISION
Make exceptions visible and actionable across a complex processing journey.
An anonymized experience narrative. Demonstrations use reconstructed flows and invented inputs; internal metrics and artifacts are excluded.
01 / THE STORY
A use case worth solving.
RECONSTRUCTED SCENARIO
An operations reviewer sees that an incoming record has no obvious processing outcome. It may still need attention, or it may have been handled through another channel. A recovery action without that distinction could create duplicate work.
Context
Claims processing spans systems and teams. A dashboard for one stage cannot by itself establish what happened across the entire journey. My work connected received records, processing results, alternative handling paths, and the actions needed to resolve a difference.
What I owned
I owned investigation and impact framing, worked through reconciliation logic, and connected findings with a correction process and operational monitoring. Communicating the issue to leadership meant explaining both the business significance and the path to a durable change.
THE STARTING CHALLENGE
An isolated status view
A record is visible only within the system or channel currently being inspected.
→
THE PRODUCT DIRECTION
A reconciled outcome
The process connects receipt, handling, and resolution across the journey.
02 / THE DECISIONS
The reasoning behind the product.
DECISION 01
Reconcile end to end
Compare incoming records with the outcomes the organization can account for.
The tradeoff
A component-level success measure can miss work that never reaches that component.
DECISION 02
Check alternate handling
Distinguish truly outstanding records from work completed through another path.
The tradeoff
An unmatched record is a signal to investigate, not proof that the work has never been done.
DECISION 03
Design the response
Give exceptions an owner, a resolution path, and ongoing monitoring.
The tradeoff
A count or a one-time correction does not establish what happens the next time the condition appears.
03 / EXPLORE THE FLOW
Follow a use case through the decisions.
The example records and branches below are invented to explain the reasoning. They do not reproduce a workplace incident.
Enable JavaScript to play the synthetic scenarios and inspect the decision flow.
04 / TEST THE PRODUCT THINKING
What would convince us it works?
A reconstructed evaluation plan showing the questions I would make explicit. These are evaluation criteria, not reported test results.
Use case
Expected behavior
Evidence to inspect
Known outcome
Match the record without generating unnecessary work.
Reconciliation coverage; false exceptions.
Handled through another channel
Link the existing outcome before any recovery action.
Duplicate prevention; traceability of the match.
No accounted-for outcome
Create an actionable exception with context and ownership.
The work improved visibility and linked corrective action with ongoing monitoring. Incident specifics, financial exposure, and internal architecture are intentionally excluded. The portfolio demonstrates the investigative approach and the design of an accountable operating process.
WHAT I WOULD CARRY FORWARD
I would treat reconciliation as a product capability from the beginning. It answers a question every operating team eventually needs to ask: can we account for the work we received?