Optimize receivables intervention policy

What it's for

Allocates scarce collections capacity where it improves cash after cost, customer-relationship impact and downside—without turning Gitrevio into a person-level credit engine.

What you give it

Inputs split into evidence read from your connected systems, calibration your team owns, and numerical controls that affect precision but never the result's meaning.

{
  "actions": [
    {
      "capacity_units_per_account": 0.1,
      "cost_per_account": 0.1,
      "default_probability_delta": 0,
      "dispute_probability_delta": 0,
      "eligible_states": [
        "open"
      ],
      "evidence_verified": true,
      "fixed_cost": 1,
      "id": "aggregate-reminder",
      "payment_probability_delta": 0.2,
      "relationship_value_loss_per_account": 0
    },
    {
      "capacity_units_per_account": 0.2,
      "cost_per_account": 0.2,
      "default_probability_delta": -0.05,
      "dispute_probability_delta": 0,
      "eligible_states": [
        "disputed"
      ],
      "evidence_verified": true,
      "fixed_cost": 1,
      "id": "aggregate-resolution",
      "payment_probability_delta": 0.3,
      "relationship_value_loss_per_account": 0.1
    }
  ],
  "horizon_periods": 3,
  "intervention_budget": 10,
  "intervention_capacity_units": 10,
  "receivable_segments": [
    {
      "account_count": 10,
      "base_default_probability": 0.05,
      "base_dispute_probability": 0.05,
      "base_payment_probability": 0.2,
      "evidence_verified": true,
      "face_amount": 100,
      "id": "open-segment",
      "state": "open"

What you get back

This is the actual output of running the example above — computed by the same function the platform calls, not an illustration.

{
  "decision": "receivables_intervention_policy_supported",
  "failed_gates": [],
  "guardrails": [
    "Policies operate only on lawful aggregate receivable segments, never named customers or inferred personal creditworthiness.",
    "Action effects require prospective validation; coercive, discriminatory or legally unavailable interventions are outside the action set.",
    "Exactness is finite-model exactness; beam search withholds global optimality and every policy requires finance/legal approval."
  ],
  "method": "aggregate_receivables_markov_multiple_choice_cvar_policy_search",
  "scenario_diagnostics": [
    {
      "collected_cash": 112.5394,
      "minimum_unrestricted_cash": 96,
      "probability": 0.7,
      "scenario_id": "base",
      "terminal_net_value": 108.0394
    },
    {
      "collected_cash": 96.6465,
      "minimum_unrestricted_cash": 96,
      "probability": 0.3,
      "scenario_id": "tight",
      "terminal_net_value": 92.1465
    }
  ],
  "selected_actions": [
    {
      "action_id": "aggregate-resolution",
      "segment_id": "disputed-segment",
      "state": "disputed"
    },
    {
      "action_id": "aggregate-reminder",
      "segment_id": "open-segment",
      "state": "open"
    }
  ],
  "solver": {
    "evaluated_policy_count": 4,
    "global_optimality_certificate": true,
    "method": "exact_enumeration",
    "policy_space_size": 4
  },
  "summary": {

How it works

Constrained optimization — Pick the best feasible option under real limits — budget, headcount, dependencies, capacity — rather than ranking a list and hoping it fits.

1. 1 Freeze aggregate receivable segments, base Markov transitions, executable state-eligible actions with prospectively validated transition effects and complete cost/capacity/relationship impact, plus common scenarios and finance risk gates.
2. 2 Enumerate one passive-or-action choice per segment inside the exact boundary; otherwise build a deterministic beam and explicitly withhold global optimality.
3. 3 Advance the entire portfolio chronologically by period in every scenario, applying fixed cash flow once per period, collecting full paid cash and governed default recovery, then calculate liquidity breach, collection target, net value and weighted CVaR before comparing with the all-passive policy.

Before you trust it

Every tool in the catalog ships with the conditions under which its answer is meaningful — and the conditions under which it should abstain instead of guessing.

Calibrating it to your org

Calibration workflow

1. 1 Define the management decision, target outcome, aggregate unit, privacy boundary, cadence, and prediction/intervention horizon for this organization.
2. 2 Build a tenant-scoped historical cohort using only information available before each prediction or decision; preserve zero periods, censoring, assignment probabilities, and unresolved outcomes when the method requires them.
3. 3 Estimate statistical parameters on training history, but obtain costs, utilities, risk tolerance, practical-effect thresholds, capacity, and policy constraints from accountable decision owners.
4. 4 Validate on later time windows or held-out aggregate units at the deployment grain, against a simple baseline and the function-specific validation strategy.
5. 5 Deploy only if the returned decision clears evidence, overlap, calibration, robustness, and guardrail checks; warning, unsupported, schema-gap, and fallback decisions are abstentions.
6. 6 Monitor realized outcomes, data drift, coverage, and decision regret; recalibrate at a governed cadence or after a detected regime/definition change, never merely because a stakeholder dislikes the result.

Call it from your AI

You don't wire up 388 tools in your MCP client. The GitRevio MCP server exposes 18 tools, three of which let an agent search the catalog, read a tool's schema, and run it — so the assistant finds this one on its own.

gitrevio_capabilities_search
  { "q": "choose at most one evidencebacked action" }
  → finds "optimize_receivables_intervention_policy"

gitrevio_capability_describe
  { "capability_id": "optimize_receivables_intervention_policy" }
  → returns the input schema and agent guidance shown on this page

gitrevio_capability_run
  { "capability_id": "optimize_receivables_intervention_policy", "arguments": { ... } }
  → returns the result shown above

Works in Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor, Cline, Continue.dev, Goose and Aider. See the MCP server.

Related tools

See every tool in Finance & unit economics →