Solution by workflow

Control customer service actions before they affect accounts or transactions.

An agent may understand a conversation and still propose an action that targets the wrong transaction, changes the wrong record, or exceeds the customer's request.

Illustrative use cases for customer service & contact centers workflows.

Explore a Pilot
Customer Service & Contact Centers: illustrative runtime control flow
01Proposed actionRefunds / service
A
Axtor Control EngineScope · Intent · Evidence · Policy · Authority · Risk
01

Refunds / service

02

Account / delivery

03

Customer-requested transaction actions

ALLOWBLOCKCLARIFYAPPROVAL

Where runtime control matters

An AI action can need more than technical permission.

An agent can have access to a tool while targeting the wrong transaction, scope, record, privilege, or business outcome.

Refunds and service concessions

Distinguish a transaction refund from a goodwill or service concession before changing the balance.

Account and delivery updates

Determine whether the request applies to one order or the permanent account profile.

Customer-requested transaction actions

Identify the transaction and requested remedy from the conversation and prior resolutions.

Requests requiring additional context

Ask for the missing target, evidence, or remedy rather than inferring the next action.

Illustrative scenario

Follow one proposed action through the Axtor Control Engine.

This fictional example shows how a request, relevant context, and six control dimensions shape a runtime outcome. It is not a customer deployment or legal conclusion.

01Human request
“Sort out the charge from when the service was down.”
02Agent proposed action

Refund the $750 subscription charge.

03Human context
  • Customer conversation
  • Requested remedy
03Enterprise context
  • $750 subscription charge
  • $140 outage charge
  • $50 prior credit
03External context
  • Applicable service terms
04Axtor Control Engine

Six control dimensions

Scope
Refund workflow
Intent
Ambiguous
Evidence
Different charge indicated
Policy
Refund permitted
Authority
Within limit
Risk
Financial adjustment
Runtime outcomeCLARIFY

The evidence points to a different charge, so the intended transaction must be confirmed.

Explore another scenario in the Axtor Playground

Decision context

Context Axtor uses

Axtor uses only the relevant records and constraints supplied or retrieved through agreed integrations for the proposed action.

Human context

  • Customer conversation
  • Requested remedy

Enterprise context

  • $750 subscription charge
  • $140 outage charge
  • $50 prior credit

External context

  • Applicable service terms

Same capability. Different runtime decision.

Context changes the control outcome.

The same tool or API can be available in each case. The action may still require a different runtime decision.

01

Named duplicate charge

A named duplicate charge can be sufficiently specific.

02

General complaint

A general complaint may not identify the intended remedy.

03

Service concession

A service concession can differ from reversing a transaction.

Start with one action

Have an action like this?

Bring us one AI action your team wants to control before execution.

Explore an Axtor Pilot