Violations & cases
Review
Confirming or dismissing a violation candidate: who may decide, what each decision records, and the eight dismissal reasons and why they are a closed list.
Last revised
Reviewing a candidate is the first place in the workflow where a person decides something. Confirming states, in your brand’s own records, that your brand considers this seller’s price to have been below its policy. It is not a legal determination, and the confirmation screen says so.
Who may decide
Confirming and dismissing need the violations: review permission — Compliance Manager and Brand Admin. An Analyst sees the whole queue, every figure and all the provenance behind it, and does not sign the decision. A support session is read-only and cannot decide on your behalf.
The candidate page
Open a row to see everything the decision rests on, in sections: the seller (storefront, seller id, known aliases, authorization and its reason, first and last seen, breach periods recorded), the observation (observed price, listing and landed price, shipping, coupon, availability, condition, fulfillment, Buy Box, source, observed at), and the policy (MAP amount, effective from, policy version, exceptions applied, gap and gap as a percentage of MAP).
Confirming
- Read the observation and the policy sections. Check the coverage: a candidate from a partial observation is still a real sighting, but it is worth knowing.
- Choose Confirm below policy. Add Notes if there is context a colleague would need later.
- Confirming opens a case for this seller and product — or, if one exists, attaches the observation to it. If the case has no open breach period, a new period opens; if it has one, the period continues. See Cases.
Dismissing
A dismissal always carries a reason from a closed list. Free text cannot answer “which of our dismissals were data problems and which were real authorizations”, and that question is how you learn whether your monitoring is working.
| Reason | Use it when |
|---|---|
| Not actually below policy | The measurement was wrong. |
| Authorised promotion | A promotion your brand ran covered the price. Consider recording it as a promotion so the next one never reaches the queue. |
| Covered by a policy exception | An exception covers this seller, product or window. |
| Source data not trusted | You do not believe the source for this observation. |
| Observation too old to act on | True when observed, but too old to act on now. |
| Matched to the wrong product | The listing is not the product it was matched to. |
| Duplicate of another candidate | Another candidate already covers this offer. |
| Other (notes required) | Anything else. Notes are required so the list stays honest. |
What a decision records
- Who decided and when (Decided by, Decided at), the decision, the reason, and the notes.
- The candidate is frozen afterwards. Re-reviewing one would rewrite the reason a case exists.
- An audit entry, visible to Brand Admins.