Main site

Telecom AI agent · Revenue assurance

Billing & Revenue-Assurance Reconciliation AI Agent

Reconcile rating, mediation and billing records, assemble each discrepancy with the evidence behind it, and hold every case for the named assurance analyst, who decides whether a bill moves at all.

Typical delivery
4–6 weeks
Deployment
Your stack
Analyst decides
Evidence first
After launch
Agent Care

What this agent does

Finds the discrepancy, not the right to charge

In

  1. 01

    Ingesting rated events, mediation output and billed charges from supported billing, mediation or warehouse sources.

  2. 02

    Normalising identifiers, periods and units, and carrying each record forward with the system it came from.

Reason

  1. 03

    Matching rated usage against mediation output, and both against what the bill actually charged.

  2. 04

    Applying the rating, discount and tax rules configured for that service type and market.

  3. 05

    Assembling each discrepancy with the records that produced it, and marking what the data leaves ambiguous.

Decide

  1. 06

    Classifying direction, the period covered and age against the backbilling window that applies.

  2. 07

    Routing every case to the named assurance analyst, and halting on any charge the subscriber has disputed.

Out

  1. 08

    Retaining the source records, the rule that fired, the case and the analyst's decision against the account.

  2. 09

    Executing write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.

Product statement

The agent proposes a correction; the assurance analyst decides whether a bill moves, and an upward correction needs the subscriber's authorisation first.

Example workflow

One discrepancy, records to decision

  1. 1Records receivedRated event files, mediation output, billed charges or a raised dispute
  2. 2Case assembledRated usage, mediation records and billed charges, each with the period it covers
  3. 3Discrepancy proposedDirection, period, amount and confidence
  4. 4Controls appliedDirection split, backbilling-window checks, dispute-flag checks and confidence threshold

No human action required

Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and no bill moves at any of them — the agent is assembling a case, and the analyst's lane opens at the confidence gate.

5DecisionBranches at the confidence threshold
High confidence

Goes to the assurance analyst to decide.

Low confidence

Adds a billing-controls read first.

Analyst decision

The case is held with its source records, its direction and the confidence.

Approve · Amend · Send to billing review

Approved — released to the billing team

  1. 6Billing systems updatedOnly where write access and approval policy allow it
  2. 7Outcome evaluatedAnalyst amendments, dispute outcomes, authorisation evidence and later reversals

Amendments

Every analyst amendment is counted in the evaluation.

What should not run autonomously

Human approval stays in control

Outside the boundary — human approval required

8 items

  • Posting any adjustment to a customer's account.
    • Recovering an amount found to be under-billed.
    • Charging anything without authorisation evidence.
    • Deciding the backbilling window for a correction.

  • Automation boundary

    Agent acts unaided

    • ✓Reconcile records across rating, mediation and billing.
    • ✓Assemble each discrepancy with the source records behind it.
    • ✓Classify the direction, the period and the age of each one for the named owner.
    • ✓Hold every case for the named analyst, and post nothing.

    Any write happens inside the boundaries agreed at implementation, never ahead of the analyst's authorisation.

    • Changing a rating, mediation or discount rule.
    • Deciding whether a subscriber authorised a charge.
    • Referring a disputed charge onward to collections.
  • Changes to thresholds or the assurance rule set.

Example output

One discrepancy, annotated

The case the agent proposes is shown with the records it was found in.

Reconciliation output · single case

Illustrative example
Account
Post-paid mobile
Discrepancy found
Rated usage present in mediation and absent from the billed charge
Period covered
One billing cycle
Source of record
Mediation output
Confidence
93%
Direction
Under-billed — held for authorisation

As received

Taken from the rated-event and mediation records — nothing on this side is computed by the agent.

Records used

  • Rated event file
  • Mediation output
  • Billed charge line

Why it is held

It points upward — that needs the subscriber's authorisation, not only the analyst's.

What the score decides

Below the configured threshold the case picks up a billing-controls read before it.

Action

ApproveAmendSend to billing review

Value

Where AI adds value

The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.

Where the value lands

Value 01 – 04

Every rated event

From the billing records

03Reconciliation

Match against the records

Draw on the rated events, the mediation output and the rules configured for that service type.

01Approved path

Find it, and prove it

Routine matches reconcile without an analyst reading them.

02Human review

Send review to the cases

Upward cases, disputed accounts and low-confidence matches are marked, so the analyst's read starts where the exposure sits.

04

Build an evidence trail

The discrepancy, the records it was found in and the analyst who signed it stay on the case.

Integrations

Typical integrations

Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.

  • Billing and charging

    • Amdocs
    • Netcracker
    • CSG
    • Optiva
    • Ericsson BSS

  • Mediation and rating

    • Network mediation platforms
    • CDR and event pipelines

  • Data and reporting

    • Snowflake
    • Databricks
    • Finance and general ledger

Agent

Billing reconciliation

  • Reads the records
  • Assembles the case
  • Holds for the analyst

  • Cases and workflow

    • ServiceNow
    • Jira
    • Adjustment and dispute queues

  • Observability & evaluation

    • OpenTelemetry
    • Langfuse
    • Supported monitoring/evaluation sources

Integration availability depends on the client's existing systems and API access.

Agent controls

Six layers between the model and the bill

Each control wraps the one inside it. What a layer does not catch is named in the map below it.

L6 · Outermost — last line of defence

Inward → L1 · closest to the model

L6Rollback / safe modeRevert the agent to reporting-only when evaluation or production signals degrade.Roll back
L5Version monitoringTrack model, prompt, rule-set and jurisdiction-configuration changes.Track
L4TraceabilityRecord the source records, the rule that fired, the case and the decision time.Record
L3Analyst authorisationHold cases for the named analyst; it governs release, not whether the case was read correctly.Gate
L2Adjustment guardrailsTest cases against the backbilling window, the dispute flag and the rule set configured for that service type and market; a failure returns the case.Restrict
L1Confidence thresholdsRoute low-confidence cases to a billing-controls read before the analyst sees them.Require review
Model coreCase assembled — direction, period, amount, records and confidence
L1 – L2
Test whether a case may stand
L3
Puts the decision in an analyst's hands
L4 – L5
Keep the discrepancy and the records behind it
L6
Reverts to reporting-only when signals degrade

How Nestack evaluates it

Evaluate the whole reconciliation — not only the discrepancy at the end.

Coverage runs the whole depth of the workflow, and every layer is cut by slice.

Surface — the case the analyst reads

  1. E1Final-output evaluationDid the discrepancy hold up against the records behind it?
  2. E2Step-level evaluationDid the agent use the right records, rules and period?
  3. E3Tool evaluationDid it read and write the correct account and the correct field?
  4. E4Confidence calibrationDo low-confidence cases actually attract more analyst amendments?
  5. E5Slice evaluationHow does performance change across specific revenue streams?
  6. E6Business outcomeHow many cases needed an amendment, or a reversal after the bill moved?

Floor — the outcome the carrier answers for

Failure modes

Where each failure originates in the agent

Seven failure modes, placed at the stage each one originates.

Agent lifecycle

Direction of processing →

  1. 01 · Retrieval

    1 mode

    • KX-03

      Superseded rate table

      Charges compared against a rate table no longer in force.

    Stage gathers

    Rated events, mediation output, billed charges and rules

  2. 02 · Reasoning

    2 modes

    • KX-04

      Direction misread

      An over-billing is assembled as an under-billing.

    • KX-06

      Window miscounted

      A case is raised outside the backbilling limit that applies.

    Stage proposes

    Direction, period, amount and confidence

  3. 03 · Tool / write

    2 modes

    • KX-02

      Evidence not attached

      A case reaches the analyst without the records behind it.

    • KX-05

      Duplicate case raised

      The same discrepancy is raised twice in one cycle.

    Stage writes

    Only where write access and approval policy allow it

  4. 04 · Output

    1 mode

    • KX-01

      Phantom discrepancy

      A timing difference is reported as a billing error.

    Stage returns

    The case the analyst reads and decides on

  5. 05 · Change / Version

    1 mode

    • KX-07

      Silent rule drift

      A model or rule change widens what the agent will raise.

    Stage tracks

    Model, prompt, rule set and threshold config

  • Sev-1 · an adjustment outside the boundary
  • Sev-2 · a wrong case reaches the bill
  • Sev-3 · records degrade, case routes to review
See the complete Telecom failure-mode catalogue

Affected slices

The aggregate is not where the risk sits

The slice the aggregate hides here is interconnect and roaming: it carries most of the rework while the portfolio rate holds steady. Nestack reports by slice, and against your baseline — never an industry figure.

Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregate

Illustrative example
SliceFailure rateLiftLift vs. thresholdStatus
Interconnect and roaming records6.8%3.9×Review
Promotional and discount plans5.4%3.1×Review
Prorated mid-cycle changes3.5%2.0×Watch
Steady-state post-paid lines1.6%0.9×Normal

Bar: analyst-amendment-rate lift vs. the steady-state baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold

2 of 4 slices over threshold

Evidence-linked improvement

The loop closes on a regression case

A cycle closes when the failure is a regression case the next release has to pass. That suite is what the next discrepancy raised is measured against.

Improvement cycle · five stages

Switchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn

  1. 01

    Detect

    Analyst-amendment rate rises in a revenue stream.

  2. 02

    Diagnose

    The case file is the unit of diagnosis: an analyst reads its records until the cause narrows to one.

  3. 03

    Improve

    The change ships against a version, with the cases that exposed it attached.

  4. 04

    Verify

    Release is blocked until the affected regression cases pass again.

  5. 05

    Learn

    The case joins the permanent suite and the assurance playbook.

  6. Learn → Detect

    The return edge. The next detection is measured against a suite one case longer.

Typical build scope

Twelve workstreams across six weeks

The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, sources, reconciliation workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.

Workstream

Week 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6

  1. 01Assurance workflow discovery and boundary definition.Week 1
  2. 02Billing, mediation and rating assessment.Week 1, Week 2
  3. 03Rating, discount and backbilling-window rule mapping.Week 1, Week 2
  4. 04Record ingestion and normalisation.Week 2
  5. 05Matching logic and evidence binding.Week 2, Week 3
  6. 06Confidence scoring and case routing.Week 3
  7. 07Analyst authorisation workflow.Week 3, Week 4
  8. 08Billing and mediation integration.Week 5
  9. 09Authorisation-evidence cases.Week 4, Week 5
  10. 10Guardrails and adjustment controls.Week 4
  11. 11Case-trail instrumentation.Week 5, Week 6
  12. 12Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover.Week 6

12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallel

Final scope and sequence confirmed in discovery

Engagement tiers

What each tier includes

Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.

Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tierPilotOne revenue stream, one entityProductionProduction billing systemsAdvancedMultiple entities / markets
Introduced at Pilot
Reconciliation and case assembly✓✓✓
Analyst authorisation✓✓✓
Discrepancy-quality baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by revenue stream—✓✓
Approval workflow in your systems—✓✓
Write-back after authorisation—✓✓
Mediation-stack integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-jurisdiction rule sets——✓
Multi-stage assurance approvals——✓
High event volume——✓
Multi-entity assurance controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build price
Confirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, transaction volume, approval controls and deployment requirements.
Separate from build
Build pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.

What we need from you

What you bring, and what we build with it

Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.

  1. 01Your rated-event and mediation extracts

    Record ingestion and field mapping

    Week 1

  2. 02Representative discrepancies and their outcomes

    Matching baseline, rule extraction and evidence binding

    Week 2

  3. 03Your rating, discount and backbilling rules

    Rating, discount and backbilling-window rule mapping

    Week 1

  4. 04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports

    Billing, mediation and rating assessment, then integration setup

    Week 2

  5. 05Adjustments you would not want posted

    Evidence cases and the evaluation suite

    Week 4

  6. 06What must reach an analyst before a bill moves

    Confidence scoring, case routing, guardrails and approval controls

    Week 3

  7. 07Named assurance analysts to decide cases

    Analyst authorisation workflow, then pilot and production validation

    Weeks 5–6

Nothing else is required

Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.

Delivery timeline

Four phases across six weeks

Each phase sits on the weeks it actually occupies, and week 5 carries both evaluation and launch work.

Phase

W1

W2

W3

W4

W5

W6

  1. DiscoveryW1
  2. BuildW2 – W3
  3. EvaluateW4 – W5
  4. Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6

Week focus

W1Assurance workflow discovery, rule mapping and the automation boundary

W2Billing and mediation integration and the matching baseline

W3Reconciliation workflow, confidence logic and authorisation controls

W4Evaluation suite, backbilling-window checks and failure-mode testing

W5Rating-source integration, pilot cases and targeted corrections

W6One billing cycle reconciled under the assurance team, then handover

Reading the band
A bar covers the weeks its work is named in, and nothing else. The fifth week genuinely carries two kinds of work.
At the end of W6
Validation closes on a live cycle, and Agent Care picks up monitoring.
Duration
Six-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.

Next step · Telecom AI agent

Build a revenue-assurance agent around your billing records.

Show us how a bill is built. You need to bring three things: the rated-event and mediation extracts, the rules that price them, and the analyst who signs a correction off.

Typical delivery
4–6 weeks
Deployment
Your billing stack
Analyst decides
Evidence first
After launch
Agent Care available

Nestack Agents · Billing reconciliation

AGT-TL-12 · Agent Care available after launch

Build a revenue-assurance agent

Four questions so the call starts from your actual setup — then pick a time that suits you.

About you
Your billing

No obligation. We’ll map the workflow, name the automation boundary and tell you if an agent is the wrong answer.