BA case study
Resolve the identity once.
Show nothing the Bank does not need.
Never gate a branch on someone else’s uptime.
Customer identification and CRM integration · epic for the squad, spec for the Bank
The problem
The advisor starts blind
Right now, when an advisor starts a financing case in Oper, they begin from a blank screen. They cannot see whether the person in front of them is already a customer of the Bank.
Blank screen
Every case starts from scratch.
Duplicates in the CRM
The same person, twice.
No guard, no log
Nothing checks flags, nothing is kept.
Current state
Today
3 flows, 6 gaps
Two defensible answers each
The three judgement calls
Branch scoping
Decision
Other branches stay invisible to the advisor at go-live.
Why
An existence signal is a disclosure; the unscoped match at push still stops duplicates.
CRM unavailable
Decision
Typing continues in a draft marked identification pending; nothing can be submitted.
Why
An outage that stops every branch is the incident that ends the pilot.
Purge timing
Decision
Stamp a delete-after date from go-live; the nightly purge job is phase two.
Why
The stamp cannot be reconstructed later; the job has runway.
Target state
After the epic
36 nodes · 16 new · 10 assumptions, each with its question · 5 phase two
Live map: walk it hop by hop →Twelve stories
What the squad builds
Phase rule (D12): phase one only if, without it, an advisor cannot identify the person, or go-live creates wrong, duplicated or non-compliant customer data.
One story in full
S1 · Look up the customer first
As an advisor, I want an unskippable lookup, so that re-typing stops.
- Given any unresolved party, when the case moves to the next configured step, then progression refuses; typing continues.
- Given a customer number or IBAN, or name and date of birth, optionally place of birth, when the advisor submits the form, then 1 search runs.
- Given break-glass, when an advisor tries, then refused; only the named bypass role passes.
Assumption: the case model holds several applicants with roles; each party resolves separately (Oper platform team); the CRM search takes IBAN as an exact key and the CRM holds place of birth (CRM team, CRM question 11); the legal basis is pre-contractual steps at the person’s request, not consent, no consent screen (Bank DPO, Bank question 1).
Three calls
Integration in one picture
Read, read, then a single idempotent create at the milestone. Oper never updates an existing customer.
Designed for the bad day
Failure modes
| Failure | Advisor sees | System does |
|---|---|---|
| CRM down an hour | Lookup unavailable, keep typing | Degraded capture, lookup re-runs later, gate holds |
| 429 rate limited | Short wait, then results | Retry-After honoured, else base 1 s doubling to 30 s, jitter, 5 attempts |
| Out-of-scope record | Nothing renders | Dropped, alerted without name or number |
| Unknown flag value | Contact back office | Fails closed, mapped within 1 working day |
| Create times out | Finishing, do not retype | Search by key, wait 60 s, search again, then queue |
Phase two waits for a reason
Priorities and triggers
| Phase two story | Trigger that pulls it forward |
|---|---|
| S8 · Search by ID document number | CRM question 11 answered yes for at least one key, or advisors hit the refine wall on hit-rate data |
| S9 · Signal existence elsewhere | A written DPO yes |
| S10 · Purge due prospects | First stamped date nears, or legal sets under 3 months |
| S11 · Route corrections back | Field ownership agreed, CRM question 9 yes |
| S12 · Resolve portal sign-ups | Borrower portal enters a go-live |
Phase rule (D12): anything that only makes the path faster or richer is phase two.
Nothing filled in by a model
Assumptions and questions
assumptions, each with an owner
questions for the CRM team
questions for the Bank
- CRM 1Is branch scope taken from the credential or from a request parameter?CRM team
- CRM 5Are deceased and blocked on the search hit or only on detail?CRM team
- Bank 2Retention period for a non-converted prospect and for an abandoned draft.Bank
Part B
How this was produced
- 1The brief went in verbatim; every note was read for the need behind it.
- 214 decisions were answered blind by three AI lenses: delivery, the Bank, the architect.
- 311 answers were unanimous; a human decided the three splits on branch-day scenarios.
- 4Every artefact passed a conformance review by a fresh reviewer, blind to the author.
- 5Three hostile reviewers attacked 55 acceptance criteria: 115 findings, 64 fixed, 5 escalated.
- 6Where AI was not trusted: every gap is a labelled assumption with an owner, never a guess.
Every assumption is labelled. Every decision has a why. The rest is yours to push on.