Main site

Telecom AI agent · Wholesale settlement

Wholesale Settlement & Dispute AI Agent

Reconcile a partner's records against the agreement you signed, assemble the evidence behind each discrepancy, and surface every configured dispute window with the time left — a named settlement manager decides what is filed.

Typical delivery
4–6 weeks
Deployment
Your stack
Manager approval
Window-tracked
After launch
Agent Care

What this agent does

Reconciles the claim, does not file it

In

  1. 01

    Ingesting partner statements, usage records and rate schedules from supported settlement, mediation or file sources.

  2. 02

    Normalising record identity across the two sides, and carrying each line forward with the file it came from.

Reason

  1. 03

    Matching the partner's records against your own for the same period, route and trunk group.

  2. 04

    Applying the rates, effective dates and settlement terms configured from that one agreement.

  3. 05

    Calculating what the agreement says is owed, and showing the arithmetic behind each line.

Decide

  1. 06

    Assembling the evidence pack for a discrepancy, with the records and versions it rests on.

  2. 07

    Surfacing each dispute, notice and audit window with the time left before it closes.

Out

  1. 08

    Retaining the reconciliation, the evidence, the manager's decision and the outcome against the settlement.

  2. 09

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

Product statement

The agent reconciles and evidences; a named settlement manager decides what is filed, withdrawn or settled, and the carrier stays the party to the agreement.

Example workflow

One settlement period, end to end

  1. 1Partner statement receivedSettlement statement, usage records, or a wholesale-billing extract
  2. 2Records matchedUsage detail, route and trunk group, rate schedule and agreement version, each with its source
  3. 3Discrepancy proposedAmount, evidence, window and confidence
  4. 4Controls appliedAgreement-version checks, bilateral data scope, window arithmetic and confidence threshold

No human action required

Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing is filed at any of them — the agent is reconciling, and the manager's lane opens at the confidence gate.

5DecisionBranches at the confidence threshold
High confidence

Goes to the settlement manager to decide.

Low confidence

Adds a wholesale analyst read first.

Manager approval

The discrepancy is held with its evidence, its window and the confidence.

Approve · Amend · Send to analyst review

Approved — released to file

  1. 6Settlement systems updatedOnly where write access and approval policy allow it
  2. 7Outcome evaluatedDispute outcome, evidence sufficiency, window margin and amounts recovered

Amendments

Every amendment a manager makes is counted in the evaluation.

What should not run autonomously

Human approval stays in control

Outside the boundary — human approval required

8 items

  • Filing, withdrawing or settling a dispute claim.
    • Agreeing a rate or a commercial term with a partner.
    • Characterising traffic, jurisdiction or usage factors.
    • Withholding or suspending payment of a billed amount.

  • Automation boundary

    Agent acts unaided

    • ✓Reconcile the partner's records against the agreement on file.
    • ✓Calculate what that agreement says is owed, line by line.
    • ✓Assemble the evidence pack for a discrepancy, with its sources.
    • ✓Surface every configured window with the time left on it.

    Any write happens inside the boundaries agreed at implementation, never ahead of approval.

    • Writing off, waiving or crediting an open claim.
    • Declaring a partner an access-stimulating carrier.
    • Using data from outside your own agreements and records.
  • Changes to agreement, rate or window configuration.

Example output

One disputed line, annotated

Everything the agent proposes is attached to the records it was drawn from.

Reconciliation output · single line

Illustrative example
Partner
Regional interconnect
Disputed line
Tandem switching billed on transit minutes
Amount claimed
$18,400.00
Agreement version
ICA amendment 7
Confidence
91%
Window status
Open — flagged before expiry

As received

Taken from both carriers' records and the agreement on file — nothing on this side is inferred by the agent.

Records used

  • Partner statement line
  • Your own usage records
  • Rate schedule in force

Why this is disputed

The agreement's rate for that trunk group is not the rate billed.

What the score decides

Below the configured threshold the discrepancy picks up an analyst read before it.

Action

ApproveAmendSend to analyst 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 billed line

From both carriers' records

03Reconciliation

Match against the agreement

Draw on your own records and the rates, terms and windows configured from that one agreement — never another partner's.

01Approved path

Reconcile, and watch the window

Routine matching across statements and usage records arrives already done.

02Human review

A missed window cannot be reopened

Once a dispute window closes the claim is extinguished, not reduced — so the time left is put in front of the manager.

04

Build an evidence trail

The dispute, the records it rests on and the manager who filed it stay on the settlement.

Integrations

Typical integrations

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

  • Settlement and wholesale billing

    • Amdocs
    • CSG
    • Netcracker
    • wholesale billing APIs

  • Mediation and records

    • Usage records
    • file drops
    • Mediation platforms
    • exchange feeds

  • Agreements

    • Interconnection
    • roaming
    • Rate schedules
    • amendments

Agent

Wholesale settlement and dispute

  • Reads both sides
  • Reconciles the period
  • Holds for approval

  • Workflow

    • Email
    • ticketing
    • Dispute and approval systems

  • 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 dispute

Each control encloses the last. Whatever slips past all of them is named below.

L6 · Outermost — last line of defence

Inward → L1 · closest to the model

L6Rollback / safe modePull the agent back to reconciliation reporting when evaluation or production signals degrade.Roll back
L5Version monitoringTrack model, prompt, rate-table and agreement-configuration changes.Track
L4TraceabilityRecord the records used, the calculation, the evidence and the filing decision.Record
L3Manager approvalHold discrepancies for the named manager; it governs filing, not whether the claim is right.Gate
L2Policy guardrailsTest each output against the bilateral data scope and the agreement's own terms; a failure returns the line.Restrict
L1Confidence thresholdsRoute low-confidence discrepancies to an analyst read before the manager sees them.Require review
Model coreDiscrepancy proposed — amount, evidence, window and confidence
L1 – L2
Test whether a discrepancy may stand
L3
Puts the filing in a manager's hands
L4 – L5
Keep the dispute and the records behind it
L6
Cuts back to reconciliation reporting when signals degrade

How Nestack evaluates it

Evaluate the whole settlement run — not only the closing figure.

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

Surface — the claim the partner sees

  1. E1Final-output evaluationDid the calculated amount follow the agreement on file?
  2. E2Step-level evaluationDid the agent use the right agreement version, rate schedule and period?
  3. E3Tool evaluationDid it read and write the correct settlement account and record?
  4. E4Confidence calibrationDo low-confidence discrepancies actually attract more manager amendments?
  5. E5Slice evaluationHow does performance change across settlement regimes and partners?
  6. E6Business outcomeHow many claims were amended after filing, or withdrawn by a manager?

Floor — what survives the dispute window

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

    • UX-03

      Superseded rate schedule

      A rate read from an amendment no longer in force.

    Stage gathers

    Statements, usage records, rate schedules and windows

  2. 02 · Reasoning

    2 modes

    • UX-04

      Traffic mischaracterised

      A record is treated as access when the agreement says otherwise.

    • UX-06

      Cross-partner leakage

      One partner's rate data reaches another partner's reconciliation.

    Stage proposes

    Amount, evidence, window and confidence

  3. 03 · Tool / write

    2 modes

    • UX-02

      Window mis-dated

      A window is counted from the wrong trigger date.

    • UX-05

      Duplicate record matching

      Late-arriving records are counted twice in one period.

    Stage writes

    Only where write access and approval policy allow it

  4. 04 · Output

    1 mode

    • UX-01

      Discrepancy overstated

      A claimed amount exceeds what the agreement supports.

    Stage returns

    The discrepancy the manager files and the partner receives

  5. 05 · Change / Version

    1 mode

    • UX-07

      Silent rate-table regression

      A model or table change shifts what the agent will claim.

    Stage tracks

    Model, prompt, rate tables and agreement config

  • Sev-1 · acts outside the boundary
  • Sev-2 · a wrong claim reaches the partner
  • Sev-3 · records degrade, line routes to review
See the complete Telecom failure-mode catalogue

Affected slices

A healthy total can hide one settlement type

An aggregate amendment rate is one number covering every agreement at once; the slice view is where a single settlement type shows up carrying most of the rework. Nestack reports the manager-amendment rate by slice, not only in total.

Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregate

Illustrative example
SliceFailure rateLiftLift vs. thresholdStatus
International settlement7.2%3.7×Review
Roaming usage records4.5%2.3×Review
Transit and tandem billing2.7%1.4×Watch
Domestic reciprocal compensation1.8%0.9×Normal

Bar: amendment-rate lift vs. the domestic reciprocal-compensation 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 test, not a memo

The cycle does not end in a post-mortem. It ends in a case the next release has to clear, and that suite is what the next settlement run is measured against.

Improvement cycle · five stages

Switchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn

  1. 01

    Detect

    Manager-amendment rate rises in a settlement slice.

  2. 02

    Diagnose

    Read the two record sets and the agreement behind them until the cause narrows to one.

  3. 03

    Improve

    Each change carries a version and the disputes that forced it.

  4. 04

    Verify

    Release waits on the affected cases going green again.

  5. 05

    Learn

    The case is kept for good, and the dispute playbook is rewritten.

  6. Learn → Detect

    The return edge. The next run is detected 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, records, reconciliation workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.

Workstream

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

  1. 01Settlement workflow discovery and boundary definition.Week 1
  2. 02Record and rate-source assessment.Week 1, Week 2
  3. 03Agreement, rate-schedule and dispute-window mapping.Week 1, Week 2
  4. 04Record ingestion and normalisation.Week 2
  5. 05Reconciliation and evidence logic.Week 2, Week 3
  6. 06Confidence scoring and window routing.Week 3
  7. 07Manager approval workflow.Week 3, Week 4
  8. 08Settlement-system integration.Week 5
  9. 09Dispute-window regression cases.Week 4, Week 5
  10. 10Guardrails and filing controls.Week 4
  11. 11Settlement-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 partner, one agreementProductionProduction settlement systemsAdvancedMultiple partners / regimes
Introduced at Pilot
Reconciliation to your agreement✓✓✓
Manager approval✓✓✓
Reconciliation-quality baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by partner and route—✓✓
Dispute workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved write-back—✓✓
Settlement-system integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-regime settlement rules——✓
Multi-stage wholesale approvals——✓
High settlement volume——✓
Multi-agreement settlement 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 interconnection and roaming agreements

    Agreement, rate-schedule and window mapping

    Week 1

  2. 02Representative settlement periods

    Record ingestion, normalisation and the reconciliation baseline

    Week 2

  3. 03Your dispute process and escalation ladder

    Dispute-process mapping and automation-boundary definition

    Week 1

  4. 04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports

    Record and rate-source assessment, then integration setup

    Week 2

  5. 05Disputes you would not want filed

    Window cases and the evaluation suite

    Week 4

  6. 06What must reach a manager before a claim is filed

    Confidence scoring, window routing, guardrails and approval controls

    Week 3

  7. 07Named settlement managers to review claims

    Manager approval 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

The bands sit on the weeks the work occupies, which is why the fifth carries two kinds at once.

Phase

W1

W2

W3

W4

W5

W6

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

Week focus

W1Settlement workflow discovery, agreement mapping and the automation boundary

W2Record and rate-source integration and the reconciliation baseline

W3Reconciliation workflow, confidence logic and approval controls

W4Evaluation suite, window cases and failure-mode testing

W5Settlement-system integration, pilot partners and targeted corrections

W6One settlement cycle reconciled under the wholesale desk, then handover

Reading the band
A bar covers the weeks its work is named in, and nothing else. The week 5 overlap is real, not padding.
At the end of W6
The cycle closes the validation and Agent Care takes over monitoring.
Duration
Six-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.

Next step · Telecom AI agent

Build a settlement agent around your wholesale agreements.

A settlement agent is only as accurate as the agreements behind it. You bring the agreements, the rate schedules and the dispute windows; we map the reconciliation workflow and name what the manager keeps.

Typical delivery
4–6 weeks
Deployment
Your settlement stack
Manager approval
Window-tracked
After launch
Agent Care available

Nestack Agents · Wholesale settlement and dispute

AGT-TL-16 · Agent Care available after launch

Build a settlement agent

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

About you
Your settlements

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