Fraud Decisions / 5 min read / 2026-07-19

Designing Event Monitoring Rules That Stay Explainable

How to structure events, rules, and review decisions so fraud teams can understand why Naiza flagged an action.

Explainable fraud decisions start with consistent event data. A rule engine can only produce useful evidence when every login, payment, signup, and account update carries stable identifiers and domain-specific metadata.

What to Send

  • Use consistent eventName values such as user.login or payment.completed.
  • Send customer, device, IP, session, and amount context on the first API call.
  • Keep rule names human-readable because they appear in review workflows.
  • Reserve BLOCK for high-confidence cases and REVIEW for signals that need human context.
{
  "eventName": "payment.completed",
  "customer": { "externalId": "user_123456" },
  "device": { "externalId": "device_abc123" },
  "ip": "203.0.113.42",
  "sessionId": "session_xyz789",
  "metadata": { "amount": 500, "currency": "SAR" }
}

Make Decisions Auditable

Store correlationIds.eventId beside your product transaction id. That gives support, risk, and engineering a shared key when a customer asks why a payment was reviewed.

Read the event monitoring guide for the complete event-to-decision flow.