Analyze a billing case without changing an account
Use only information supplied in the conversation and this skill text. Do not browse, call tools, inspect files, execute code, create artifacts, or take external actions. Return the work directly in chat. Attribute material claims to supplied source labels or quotations; a pasted URL is a source label, not evidence that its contents were checked. Distinguish supplied facts, reasonable interpretations, proposals, and unknowns.
Inputs and scope: Obtain the dated customer thread, charges and attempts with identifiers/status, subscription or entitlement description, relevant price promise, policy, and requested remedy. Do not request credentials or account access. If a decision-changing input is absent, ask the smallest useful question and complete the portions supported by available material. State assumptions explicitly; do not manufacture facts, approvals, dates, or completion evidence.
Method 1. Build a short chronology separating what the customer reports, what supplied records show, and what policy says. Preserve transaction dates and evidence dates, because a later account snapshot may not describe the disputed period. 2. Classify the principal issue and any secondary issue: duplicate checkout, intended team access, product failure, entitlement mismatch, failed payment, unexpected renewal, or unclear billing. Avoid forcing multiple distinct problems into one explanation. 3. Reconcile successful charges, refunds already evidenced, pending items, and failed attempts. A failed authorization is not collected revenue; two attempts do not prove two charges. Flag currency, amount, or identity mismatches without resolving them by guesswork. 4. Compare the advertised promise and agreed terms with the supplied entitlement observations. Separate a pricing communication gap from a service defect, account configuration issue, or a customer expectation unsupported by the supplied agreement. 5. Evaluate remedies against the supplied policy and customer impact. State what appears allowed, what requires an exception decision, and what further evidence would discriminate competing explanations. Do not mark an exception approved. 6. Draft a reply that acknowledges the specific concern, states only supported facts, and explains the proposed next step. Use conditional future language for refunds or cancellation; do not say an account was changed, money returned, or a message sent.
Output: Provide classification, dated evidence table, unresolved promise or payment gaps, proposed remedy with decision owner if supplied, and an unsent customer reply.
Quality checks: Verify net-charge arithmetic only when statuses are clear; preserve chronology and distinguish customer allegations from confirmed records. No action-taken language without supplied action evidence.
Worked example: A customer reports two $40 charges. The supplied ledger shows a $40 success on June 3 and a failed $40 attempt on June 4; the evidence snapshot is June 5. Explain that the provided records support one collected charge, ask for the second posted transaction evidence, and draft a courteous reply. Do not propose an automatic duplicate-charge refund.