Payment

Payment reference identifiers and their correlation

A single economic payment carries several distinct references: one assigned by the initiating party, one assigned by the debtor agent, one or more assigned by clearing systems, and an end-to-end reference intended to survive every hop. Operator rules make an end-to-end transaction reference mandatory on value messages and check its format but not its uniqueness, so identity resolution must be explicit about which reference is authoritative and which are merely correlating.

1. Which single identifier is the authoritative master reference for this payment, and which system of record assigns it? identity
2. How are initiating-party, instructing-agent, clearing-system and end-to-end references held distinct while remaining correlatable? relationship
3. Who verifies that the end-to-end reference is unique, and what happens when uniqueness is only format-checked? validation
4. Which references must intermediaries pass through unaltered, and which may they replace on their own leg? interoperability

Payment type, scheme and service level classification

Classification selects the rulebook. Instrument class (credit transfer, direct debit, card transaction, cash, instant transfer), the scheme or clearing system, the local instrument, service level and category purpose jointly determine execution deadlines, revocability, return rights and dispute mechanics. Legal definitions of acquiring and issuing further split card-type payments by the contracting side.

1. What instrument class and scheme does this payment belong to, and which rulebook version therefore governs it? classification
2. Which execution deadline, revocability rule and return right follow from the chosen classification rather than from party agreement? constraint
3. On what basis was this scheme selected over an eligible alternative, and who made that choice? decision
4. How does this classification map onto an external payment method identifier used by an ordering channel? interoperability

Payment instrument class and initiation direction

CPMI statistics treat payment instruments as credit transfers, direct debits, card payments, e-money payments and cheques. A credit transfer is a payment order, or sequence of orders, made to place funds at the disposal of the payee, with both the order and the funds moving from the payer's institution to the payee's institution. A direct debit is a preauthorised debit of the payer's account initiated by the payee. PSD2 defines a payment transaction as an act, initiated by the payer or on his behalf or by the payee, of placing, transferring or withdrawing funds, irrespective of any underlying obligations. Instant credit transfer is a credit transfer executed immediately, 24 hours a day on any calendar day. Cash and card remain instrument classes even when detailed till or scheme-clearing rules live elsewhere.

1. Is this payment a credit transfer, direct debit, card, e-money, cheque, cash or another instrument class, and is it instant or non-instant? classification
2. Was the payment order initiated by the payer (push), by the payee under a mandate (pull), by a PISP on behalf of the payer, or by a request-to-pay accepted by the payer? relationship
3. Which scheme or rail product governs the transfer, and is it domestic or cross-border given the residency of the payer's and payee's account-servicing institutions? constraint

Instructed, settlement and equivalent amounts

A payment order specifies a fixed or determinable amount of money. The instructed amount, the amount actually settled between agents, and any equivalent amount in another currency are distinct values that may diverge because of conversion or deducted charges. Currency identity and decimal scale are governed externally by the currency code registry, which publishes alphabetic code, numeric code and minor unit.

1. Is the amount fixed at instruction time or determinable later, and what rule determines it? definition
2. How is the amount validated against the governed minor unit of its currency, and what is done with excess precision? validation
3. Where the settled amount differs from the instructed amount, what accounts for the difference? measurement

Currency conversion and exchange rate application

When the payer's currency differs from the payee's, a rate is applied by an identified party at an identified moment, and the resulting equivalent amount and any spread must be attributable. The rate is provenance-bearing data: which quoting source, which quotation time, which rate type and whether it is contractual or indicative all change the payer's position.

1. Which party applied the exchange rate, from which quoting source, and at what quotation time? provenance
2. Was the applicable rate disclosed to the payer before the order became irrevocable? authority
3. What margin separates the applied rate from the reference rate, and how is it attributed? measurement

Charges, fees and charge-bearer allocation

Charge bearer codes determine whether the payer, the payee, or both share the cost of a transfer, and whether charges may be deducted from the principal. Where a receiving agent deducts charges, the legal effect on the underlying obligation may still be that the full instructed amount was paid, so the accounting of charges and the accounting of discharge diverge and both must be represented.

1. Which charge bearer arrangement applies, and does it permit deduction from the transferred principal? ownership
2. Which agent levied each charge, in what amount and currency, and on which leg? measurement
3. If charges were deducted in transit, is the underlying obligation still treated as discharged in the full instructed amount? exception

Payer, payee and the ordered agent chain

Roles are defined functionally, not by entity type: the payer initiates or consents, the payee is the intended recipient of funds, and a chain of agents (debtor agent, intermediaries, creditor agent) carries the instruction. Funds-transfer law adds that each hop has its own sender and receiving bank, so a single payment contains several nested instruction relationships. Initiating party and ultimate debtor or creditor may differ from payer and payee.

1. Which entity occupies each payment role, and does any entity occupy more than one role? relationship
2. Do the ultimate debtor or ultimate creditor differ from the account-holding payer and payee, and why? composition
3. What is the ordered sequence of agents, and which agent is the sender and receiving bank on each hop? composition
4. On what authority does the initiating party act where it is not the payer itself? authority

Party data carried with the payment

Rails impose minimum structured party data. Operator rules require structured postal address content including at least country code and town name for parties and agents, and encourage account information inside the corresponding party element for straight-through processing. This data is simultaneously an interoperability requirement and a personal-data exposure, and its completeness materially affects settlement success and screening outcomes.

1. What is the minimum party data set the selected rail requires, and is every mandatory element present? requirement
2. Is the party address supplied in structured form, and which structured components are populated? validation
3. Which carried party attributes exceed what the rail requires, and on what basis are they transmitted? privacy
4. Which identifier scheme is used to identify each party, and is the scheme externally governed? interoperability

Account references and the unique identifier rule

A unique identifier is the combination of letters, numbers or symbols a provider specifies to identify a user or their account unambiguously. Where a payer supplies an incorrect unique identifier, the provider is generally not liable for the misdirected payment but must make reasonable efforts to recover the funds; funds-transfer law reaches a comparable result through misdescription rules. This makes identifier correctness a legally significant field rather than a data-quality nicety.

1. Which supplied value is designated as the unique identifier by the provider, and which other account data is advisory only? identity
2. What happens when the account name and the unique identifier disagree, and who bears the resulting loss? exception
3. Was the identifier only structurally validated, or was existence and ownership confirmed with the receiving institution? validation

Payment instrument and credential handling

A payment instrument is a personalised device or an agreed personalised set of procedures used to initiate payment orders. Its credential may be a card number, a token, a mandate reference or an authentication factor set. Where cardholder data and sensitive authentication data are involved, an external security standard governs storage, transmission and the population of systems in scope, constraining what this model may hold at all.

1. Which device or agreed procedure constitutes the payment instrument used here, and who issued it? definition
2. Which credential elements may be stored after authorisation, and which must never be retained? security
3. What is the current state of the instrument, and does its expiry or suspension invalidate pending payments? lifecycle
4. Which roles may resolve a stored token back to the underlying credential, and under what control? access

Account, unique identifier and proxy references

PSD2 uses a unique identifier specified by the PSP to identify unambiguously another payment service user or that user's payment account. ISO 20022 and EPC SCT carry IBAN or other account identification and, in the 2025 SCT rulebook, alias and proxy definitions. Account containers and balances as holdings belong to the monetary-instrument sibling; this model stores only the reference used to debit or credit. Name-versus-number mismatch is an execution rule (UCC 4A), not a reason to inline account masters.

1. What unique identifier, IBAN or other account scheme identifier was used to identify the payer account to debit and the payee account to credit? identity
2. If an alias or proxy (mobile number, email, PayID, VPA or similar) was used, what type and value were submitted and to which account identifier did the scheme resolve them? interoperability
3. Did the instructed name and account identifier identify the same person, and if they diverged, which identifier was the receiving bank obliged or permitted to rely on? constraint

Verification of payee

EPC SCT implementation and EU instant-transfer amendments introduce payee verification / confirmation-of-payee so that a payer can check alignment between the unique identifier and the payee name before execution. FATF Recommendation 16 revisions add obligations on beneficiary institutions to check alignment of beneficiary information in payment messages. These checks are payment-process quality controls; they do not replace party master KYC. Absence of a global primary standard for proxy resolution is a recorded gap outside IBAN-name matching.

1. Was verification of payee or confirmation of payee performed, what match result was returned, and at what event time? evidence
2. If the check was a mismatch or close match, did the payer explicitly proceed, and was that choice recorded as an exception to straight-through processing? exception
3. Which directory or scheme API provided the match, and can the result be reused across rails or only within this scheme? interoperability

Authorisation state and consent evidence

A payment is authorised only if the payer consented in the agreed form. When a user disputes authorisation, the provider must be able to evidence authentication, and consumer rules cap payer liability and set notification windows beyond which claims lapse. The evidence set, not the assertion, is what survives challenge, so authentication method, timing and outcome must be retained separately from the payment body.

1. In what agreed form was consent given, and does that form cover this specific payment or a series? authority
2. What authentication evidence exists to show the payer authorised this payment, and where is it retained? evidence
3. Within what period may the payer still claim the payment was unauthorised, and when does that period start? temporal

Risk screening, holds and the acceptance decision

A provider may refuse a payment order but must notify the user at the earliest opportunity and within the applicable execution period, give reasons where lawful, and explain how to correct factual errors. Refusal, hold and decline are distinct outcomes with distinct downstream obligations, and screening holds may be legally required to be non-disclosed, which conflicts with the general duty to give reasons.

1. Was the order accepted, refused, held or declined, and which of these did the payer actually experience? decision
2. Was refusal notified within the applicable execution period, with reasons and correction instructions? process
3. Where a screening hold prevents disclosure of the true reason, how is the tension with the duty to give reasons resolved? exception

Mandate and request-to-pay

Direct debits depend on preauthorisation. ISO 20022 payments-mandate messages (pain.009 mandate initiation, pain.010 amendment) and pain.008 customer direct-debit initiation implement that authority as a reusable mandate distinct from each resulting payment. Creditor payment activation / request-to-pay (pain.013/pain.014) asks the payer to initiate a credit transfer rather than pulling funds. EPC SCT rulebooks additionally specify recall initiation and status-update handling, which are exception processes on an already initiated credit transfer, not a mandate. A mandate is not the invoice and not the payment.

1. Does a direct-debit or other pull mandate authorize this payment, what is its identifier and status, and is this occurrence first, recurrent or last? lifecycle
2. What maximum amount, creditor, account and expiry bound the mandate, and did this payment stay inside those bounds? constraint
3. If a request-to-pay or creditor payment activation preceded this credit transfer, what is its identifier and status, and which payment was created in response? process

Time of receipt, cut-off and business day

Receipt occurs when the order reaches the provider's system, but an order received outside business hours or after a cut-off is deemed received on the next business day, and the parties may agree that execution starts on a specified date or when funds become available. Because every execution deadline is measured from the time of receipt, receipt is the temporal origin of the whole aggregate and must be recorded as an actual and a deemed value.

1. What is the actual time the order reached the provider, and what is the deemed time of receipt after cut-off rules? temporal
2. Did the parties agree a future execution date or a funds-availability trigger instead of immediate execution? process
3. Whose business-day calendar governs, and how are divergent calendars across the agent chain reconciled? constraint

Revocation, amendment and irrevocability

As a rule the payer cannot revoke an order after submission, but scheme-specific exceptions exist: direct debits may typically be revoked until the end of the business day before the agreed debit day, and payee-initiated orders lose revocability once consent is given to the payee. After irrevocability, the only remaining lever is a request for return or recall addressed to the receiving side, which the receiver may refuse.

1. At what precise moment does this payment become irrevocable, and what rule fixes that moment? lifecycle
2. Is a scheme-specific revocation window still open, and who must consent to a late revocation? constraint
3. Once irrevocable, what recall or return request may be raised and what is the receiver obliged to do? event
4. Which fields of an accepted order may be amended without cancelling and reissuing it? constraint

Payment order as instruction

UCC § 4A-103 defines a payment order as an instruction of a sender to a receiving bank to pay, or cause another bank to pay, a fixed or determinable amount of money to a beneficiary, without a condition to payment other than time of payment; the order is issued when sent to the receiving bank. PSD2 defines a payment order as an instruction by a payer or payee to its PSP requesting execution of a payment transaction, and a payment instrument as a personalised device or set of procedures used to initiate a payment order. ISO 20022 pain.001 is the customer credit-transfer initiation; pain.008 is customer direct-debit initiation. A batch file may contain many payment orders; each credit transfer in a bulk is a separate payment.

1. When was the payment order issued and received by the receiving PSP, through which initiation channel, and what identifier does the order have distinct from the later FI-to-FI transaction? process
2. Who was the sender of the order, was a PISP involved, and which payment instrument or procedure was used to initiate it? authority
3. What requested execution date or time did the sender give, and how does it relate to scheme cut-off and to the time of receipt that starts legal execution clocks? temporal

Rail selection and the routing chain

A payment is carried either directly through a clearing system or through a correspondent chain, and the settlement method chosen (settlement on the instructed agent's account, on the instructing agent's account, through a cover payment, or through a clearing system) changes who bears which exposure. The clearing and settlement business area is distinct from the initiation area precisely because these are different processes with different participants.

1. Which rail or correspondent chain carried this payment, and what alternatives were reachable? decision
2. Which settlement method applies between each pair of agents, and where does a cover payment run separately? composition
3. Which participant holds credit exposure to which other participant at each stage of the chain? relationship
4. Where the payment crosses between rails or message standards, which fields are lost or truncated? interoperability

Clearing cycle, netting and settlement asset

Payments settle either individually and continuously on a gross basis, or as netted positions at defined cycle points. Central bank RTGS settles orders individually and continuously in central bank money with immediate finality and offers liquidity-saving features such as priorities, timed transactions and pooling. International principles require that money settlements minimise and control credit and liquidity risk arising from the choice of settlement asset, so gross versus net and central bank versus commercial bank money are first-order facts about a payment.

1. Did this payment settle individually on a gross basis or as part of a netted position, and in which cycle? process
2. In which settlement asset was the obligation discharged between participants, and who issues that asset? classification
3. Was the payment queued or delayed for liquidity, and which liquidity-saving mechanism resolved it? measurement
4. If a participant defaults mid-cycle, what happens to this payment under the system's default rules? exception

Settlement execution, value date and availability of funds

Execution is bounded: the payer's provider must ensure the amount reaches the payee's provider by the end of the business day following receipt, extended by one business day for paper-initiated orders and further for certain intra-area transactions, and the payee's provider must value date and credit on receipt of funds. Value date is a distinct concept from settlement time, defined as the reference time used for interest calculation, so settlement timestamp, value date and availability time are three separate facts that routinely diverge.

1. What execution deadline applied to this payment, and was it met measured from the deemed time of receipt? requirement
2. How do the settlement timestamp, the credit value date and the time funds became available to the payee differ? temporal
3. How much value-dating float arose between debit and credit, and to whom did the benefit accrue? measurement
4. How is a settlement record confirmed as authoritative rather than provisional or inferred? quality

Settlement finality and discharge of the underlying obligation

Finality is a legal state produced by system rules, not an operational status. Funds-transfer law fixes payment by the originator to the beneficiary at the moment the beneficiary's bank accepts a payment order for the beneficiary, and treats the underlying obligation as discharged to the same extent as a direct money payment, subject to four exceptions covering prohibited payment methods, timely refusal, non-withdrawal and avoidable loss. International principles require systems to define clear and certain final settlement, and a central bank RTGS asserts immediate finality; these two layers of rule must both be recorded because they can fix different moments.

1. At what moment did this payment become final, and which system rule or legal rule fixes that moment? state
2. Where the operational finality point and the legal moment of payment differ, which governs for which purpose? authority
3. Do any of the recognised exceptions prevent the underlying obligation from being discharged by this payment? exception
4. After finality, on what basis could funds still be recovered, and is that a reversal or a new payment? event

Exchange-of-value linkage

PFMI Principle 12 requires that if an FMI settles two linked obligations, it eliminate principal risk by conditioning final settlement of one upon final settlement of the other. A PvP system ensures that the final payment of one currency occurs if and only if the final payment of the other occurs. DvP model 1 settles securities and funds gross, obligation by obligation, with final transfer of securities if and only if final transfer of funds occurs. This model records the payment leg and the linkage condition; the securities or FX trade objects remain in sibling models.

1. Is this payment's finality conditioned on another payment, a securities delivery or another obligation, and which record is the linked leg? composition
2. What rule makes settlement of this leg occur only if the other leg settles, and is principal risk thereby eliminated? constraint
3. If the linked leg fails, is this payment rejected, held, unwound or settled independently? lifecycle

Execution clocks, value date and instant SLA

CPMI settlement lag is the time between acceptance of the transfer order by the system and final settlement. PSD2 execution clocks run from time of receipt. For EU instant credit transfers, time of receipt is the moment the payer's PSP receives the order regardless of hour or calendar day; the payer's PSP must immediately verify conditions and funds and send the transaction; the payee's PSP must make funds available and confirm completion within 10 seconds of that time of receipt. EPC SCT Inst scheme rules add tighter originator-PSP response expectations. Value date is a business date, not an identifier. Event time and ingestion time must be stored separately when they differ.

1. What are the time of receipt, execution date, value date, funds-available time and final-settlement time, each with RFC 3339 seconds and offset where they are instants, and what is the observation or ingestion time of this record? temporal
2. If the payment is instant, what SLA in seconds applied, was it met, and how many seconds elapsed from time of receipt to payee availability and to originator confirmation? measurement
3. What settlement lag elapsed from system acceptance to final settlement, and did the payment miss value date? process

Status model, reason codes and reporting participant

Status is reported through dedicated status messages and is always relative to the reporting participant and the leg it observed; a payment can be settled on one leg and pending on another. Refusal must carry reasons where lawful. Because reason code sets are scheme-governed and only partially harmonised, a status must be stored with its code set identity or it cannot be reliably interpreted later.

1. Which participant reported this status, about which leg, and as at what moment? state
2. Which code set does this status reason belong to, and what is its meaning in that set's version? classification
3. When two participants report conflicting statuses for the same payment, which is treated as authoritative? quality
4. What information is lost when a scheme reason code is mapped to an internal or customer-facing status? interoperability

Lifecycle event history and state transitions

The payment aggregate is reconstructed from an ordered event history: instructed, received, authorised, accepted or refused, cleared, settled, made final, and any return, recall or dispute. Each event has an event time on the rail and an observation time at which the adopting Dimension learned of it, and these frequently differ by hours; conflating them corrupts both deadline computation and audit.

1. What is the ordered sequence of lifecycle events for this payment, and how is ordering established across participants? lifecycle
2. For each event, when did it occur on the rail and when was it observed or ingested here? temporal
3. Which state transitions are permitted from the current state, and which observed transition was invalid? event
4. What is the source and trust level of each recorded event, and was any event inferred rather than reported? provenance

Returns, reversals and recall requests

Distinct mechanisms are frequently conflated. A return is a new payment in the opposite direction raised by the receiving side; a return request asks the receiving side to return a settled payment and may be refused; a response message conveys that refusal or agreement; and a reversal in some schemes undoes an entry rather than creating a new one. Each has its own reference, reason code set and timing window, and the original payment usually remains valid and final.

1. Which mechanism was used to move value back, and did it create a new payment or unwind the original? process
2. What reason was cited for the return or recall, and was it raised within the scheme's permitted window? temporal
3. Where a recall request was refused, on what ground, and what remedy remains to the requester? exception
4. How is a returned payment linked back to the original so that neither is double-counted? relationship

Disputes, unauthorised claims and error resolution

Consumer rules define an error broadly, require notice within sixty days of the statement first reflecting it, oblige the institution to investigate within ten business days or extend to forty-five days with provisional credit, and to report results within three business days of completing the investigation. Separate rules cap payer liability for lost or stolen instruments, remove liability after notification or where strong authentication was not applied, and set a thirteen-month outer limit for unauthorised-transaction claims. These are hard deadlines with defined start events, so the model must record which event started each clock.

1. Which event started the dispute or claim clock, and when does each applicable deadline expire? temporal
2. Was provisional credit required, in what amount, and was it granted within the prescribed period? requirement
3. Who bears the loss for this disputed payment, and which factor determined the allocation? ownership
4. What evidence was gathered and disclosed to the claimant, and in what readable form? evidence

Obligation linkage and allocation of the paid amount

A payment discharges the underlying obligation to the same extent as a direct money payment, but discharge is conditional and can be defeated. Practically, one payment may discharge several obligations partly, and several payments may discharge one obligation, so allocation is an explicit many-to-many structure with residuals; it cannot be inferred from amount matching alone without producing silent misallocation.

1. Which obligations does this payment discharge, in what allocated amounts, and who decided the allocation? relationship
2. What residual remains unallocated or unpaid after this payment, and how is it carried forward? measurement
3. Under what conditions could this discharge be undone, and what would then revive the obligation? constraint

Remittance information and payment purpose

Remittance is a distinct standardised business area, and purpose and category purpose codes classify why a payment is made independently of what it discharges. Remittance may travel inside the payment or separately as a standalone advice with a location reference; the choice materially affects reconciliation success and also determines how much commercially sensitive detail is exposed to intermediary agents.

1. What purpose and category purpose are declared for this payment, and who assigned them? classification
2. Does remittance information travel inside the payment or as a separate advice, and how are the two bound? composition
3. Where remittance data exceeds what a rail can carry, what is truncated and how is the loss signalled? interoperability
4. Which intermediaries can read the remittance content, and does it disclose commercially sensitive detail? privacy

Confirmations, advices and account statements

Cash management messages carry the evidence layer: intraday reports, end-of-day statements and debit or credit advices, each with its own entry references. These are the records a payee actually reconciles against and a court would inspect, and they are produced by the account servicer rather than by the payer, so their provenance and completeness differ from the instruction record.

1. Which party issued each confirmation, advice or statement, and what does that party actually attest to? provenance
2. How does a statement entry bind back to the payment, and what happens when the binding reference is absent? evidence
3. Is the statement series complete and gap-free, and how are missing or duplicated statements detected? quality
4. Which parties may obtain a copy of the payment evidence, and on what lawful basis? access

Reconciliation and handoff to accounting

Reconciliation matches an instructed payment to the settlement confirmation and to the statement entry, and only then is a defensible posting produced. The handoff to the accounting model is a composition boundary: this model asserts the economic facts and their evidence, while posting rules, account selection and period assignment belong to the financial transaction model.

1. What is the current three-way match state between instruction, settlement confirmation and statement entry? validation
2. Which facts does this model hand to the accounting model, and which decisions does it deliberately not make? process
3. How long has each reconciliation break been open, and what is the escalation threshold? measurement
4. If a payment fact is later corrected, how is the previously produced posting handled? quality

Applicable regulatory regime and transferred compliance data

Which regime applies is not a property of the amount but of the parties, the instrument, the currency or token, and the jurisdictions touched. Token-denominated transfers referencing an official currency sit under a distinct authorisation regime with issuer obligations and a phased application timeline, so a payment aggregate must record its applicable regime explicitly rather than assuming one default. Compliance data that must travel with the payment is a separate concern from the data the payment needs to settle.

1. Which regulatory regimes apply to this payment, and which jurisdictions triggered each of them? authority
2. Which jurisdictions did the payment touch through its parties, agents and settlement location? spatial
3. Which originator and beneficiary information had to accompany the transfer, and was it complete on arrival? requirement
4. When a regime's application date falls between instruction and settlement, which rules govern this payment? temporal

Access control, retention and deletion of payment records

Payment records mix commercially confidential data, personal data and, for card payments, data whose storage is externally restricted: the applicable security standard scopes every entity that stores, processes or transmits cardholder data or sensitive authentication data. Retention is pulled in opposite directions by evidential duties (claims can be raised many months after the debit and investigations have defined response duties) and by minimisation duties, so the model must record a per-element retention basis rather than one blanket period.

1. Who may read a payment record by default, and which additional roles require an explicit grant? access
2. What retention basis and period applies to each class of element, and which elements must be purged earliest? retention
3. How is a deletion obligation satisfied against an append-only settlement and event record that must remain intact? privacy
4. Which elements are prohibited from storage after authorisation, and how is that prohibition enforced and tested? security

Travel-rule payload and screening

FATF Recommendation 16 requires countries to ensure that financial institutions include required and accurate originator information and required beneficiary information on wire payments or value transfers and related messages. The June 2025 update standardises responsibilities in the payment chain, starting with the institution that receives the customer instruction, and applies enhanced data for peer-to-peer cross-border payments above USD/EUR 1,000 (name, address, date of birth among other fields). The EU Transfer of Funds rules require the payer's PSP to accompany transfers with payer and payee name and account number (or unique transaction identifier where no account), plus specified identity details, and to verify payer information before execution; the payee's PSP must detect missing data and may execute, reject or suspend. Screening against restrictive measures is a pre-execution control; list contents are out of scope. Crypto-asset transfers are covered by the TFR recast; detailed on-chain semantics remain a gap.

1. Which originator and beneficiary information accompanied this transfer, was it verified before execution, and is the payload complete for the applicable FATF or TFR threshold? constraint
2. What sanctions or restrictive-measures screening status applies, was the transfer rejected, suspended or frozen, and which hit reference supports that decision? exception
3. Which payer and payee countries and addresses travelled with the message, and did any PSP in the chain sit outside the jurisdiction that required the full payload? spatial