AI Image
AI Text
-
Coming Soon
Most collections teams work overdue accounts oldest-first or biggest-balance-first. That spends the day on accounts that would have paid anyway, and misses the ones where a well-timed contact actually changes the outcome.
Every collections team has a list of overdue accounts. Almost none have a priority order that reflects what a contact will actually achieve. “Call everyone past 30 days” is not a strategy. “Skip these 15, they’re likely to pay on their own. Call this segment between 6 and 8 pm. Send a WhatsApp reminder to the rest” is. That gap, between a list and a plan, is what a Collections Optimizer closes.
Not a dialer. Not a chatbot that drafts reminders. An agent that scores every overdue account, works out where contact adds the most, and hands each agent a fresh ranked queue every morning, inside the contact-hour limits and frequency caps you set. This isn’t a nice-to-have feature. It’s the difference between agents who spend the day on the right accounts and agents who spend it on the loudest ones.
Stop thinking of it as a reminder tool. Think of it as a standing strategist that re-ranks your entire book every night, so your team starts every morning with a plan.
A Collections Optimizer, built the right way, gives you:
Not oldest-first, not biggest-first. Every overdue account is ranked by how much a contact is expected to add. Agents open the queue and start at the top.
Accounts likely to pay without being contacted are flagged, so agent time isn’t wasted and customers who were going to pay anyway aren’t pestered.
Call, WhatsApp, SMS or a written notice, with a suggested time window and tone tier for each account, based on what has actually worked on similar accounts.
Permitted contact hours and frequency caps are set by you and enforced inside the tool. The agent never recommends a contact outside them, and every recommendation is logged for audit.
No black box. Ask why an account is ranked where it is and see the evidence: payment history, promises kept, contactability, and what is driving the recommendation.
Accounts are matched to agents by past success on similar cases, and strategies can be tested against each other, so you learn what works instead of guessing.
Bucket-to-bucket forecasts of how many accounts will roll forward and how many will cure on their own, feeding provisioning and planning.
This is what separates a collections optimizer from a spreadsheet: it doesn’t just sort by what’s owed. It tells your team where a contact will make a difference, how and when to make it, and shows its work.
This isn’t built for quantitative analysts. It’s built for the people tired of working a list in the wrong order and hoping the month-end number holds.
If you’re looking for a tool to pressure borrowers, increase contact volume, or get around fair-collection rules, this isn’t that, and it won’t pretend to be. It works within the limits you set, and the aim is more recovery with fewer, better-timed contacts. It’s a decision-support tool for your team. Your organization stays responsible for how and when customers are contacted. This is for people who want to recover more, within the rules, and more humanely.
| Generic AI Agents / Chatbots | Us | |
|---|---|---|
| Consistency | Different answer each time you ask — probabilistic, hard to trust twice | Deterministic — same input, same output, every time |
| Cost to run | Re-processes your entire dataset through an LLM on every query | Purpose-built models, minimal token usage — cheap enough to run on the open book; pipelines larger than 500 leads can score locally |
| Reliability | A 0–100 score invented in the chat — confidently wrong when the closed sample is thin | Fits conversion from your outcomes, shows a range when it should, and refuses to fit when there isn't enough data — honesty instead of a bluff |
| Data privacy | Your data often leaves your systems, sits with a third party | Full SOC 2 compliance — no data ever leaves your premises |
In short: Other agents give you an answer. This gives you conversion probabilities, money at risk, and a daily queue you can defend, reproduce, and put in front of your security team without a fight.
We didn’t build new models and hope your accounts behave. Everything underneath is established statistics and operations research, the same lineage that credit-risk and large collections platforms have relied on for decades.
| What It Does | Method | In Use Since |
|---|---|---|
| Estimates how likely each account is to pay, from payment history, promises kept and contactability | Propensity-to-pay scoring (logistic regression) | 1958 |
| Estimates which accounts will cure on their own, and how many will roll into the next overdue bucket | Survival analysis (Kaplan-Meier and Cox models) | 1958 / 1972 |
| Finds the accounts where a contact changes the outcome the most, not just those likely to pay | Uplift modeling | 1990s |
| Chooses the best action for each account as it moves from one overdue stage to the next | Markov decision process | 1957 |
| Matches accounts to the agents most likely to succeed with them | Hungarian assignment algorithm | 1955 |
Why this matters to you: every layer here has been published, cited, and run on real lending data for years before we ever touched it. We didn’t ask an LLM to “guess which accounts to call.” We fit proven models to your book and your contact history, the same way a credit-risk team would: reproducible, defensible, and the same result every time you ask.
That’s what “deterministic” actually means. Not a marketing word. A math word.
ChatGPT and other LLMs are built to talk. Ask them which overdue accounts to work first and they generate the most plausible-sounding answer, which is exactly why they’re brilliant at drafting a polite reminder and unreliable at ranking a book of ten thousand accounts.
Here’s the practical difference:
The short version: ChatGPT can draft a perfect reminder message. It can’t reliably tell you which account deserves a call today, or when it’s better to wait. That’s the gap this agent exists to close.
In plain terms, it takes your overdue accounts, their payment history and your contact log, and does three things every day:
That’s the whole point of the agent: it turns an overdue list into a daily plan for every agent.
No, this isn’t an engineering project. If you can export a few spreadsheets, you already have everything the agent needs: your overdue accounts, their payment history, and a log of past contacts and outcomes (who was contacted, how, and what happened).
Just follow the step-by-step tutorials we provide, and you’re up and running in minutes: no models to train yourself, no code to write. Don’t have a clean contact log yet? Start with accounts and payment history; the agent gets sharper as contact outcomes build up.
The short version: if you can export a spreadsheet, you can have this running today. Follow the step-by-step tutorial.
Yes. This is built to be fully SOC 2 compliant, and your data never leaves your premises.
There’s no export to a third-party cloud and no black-box vendor holding your customers’ records. Debtor data is sensitive personal and financial information by definition, so this was built with that as a requirement from day one, not an afterthought. You decide what identifiers are sent, and a pseudonymous account ID is all the agent needs.
The short version: you get the intelligence, not the exposure.
It’s based on statistical models that have been researched, tested, and used in production for decades, not a new algorithm hoped to work.
The agent looks at three things: how each account has behaved (payments, promises kept, how long it has been overdue), what contact has achieved on similar accounts, and the rules you’ve set for when and how often customers can be contacted. From that it estimates who is likely to pay, who is likely to pay without contact, and where a contact adds the most.
The short version: it isn’t guessing from patterns in text, like a general AI chatbot would. It’s calculating, using methods that have had decades to prove themselves.
Non-deterministic means: ask the same question twice, get two different answers. This is how most general AI chatbots work. They generate the most likely-sounding response each time, even when nothing about your accounts changed. Fine for brainstorming a message. Risky when the answer decides who gets contacted today.
Deterministic means: same data in, same answer out, every single time. If the ranking changes, it’s because the account data changed, not because the model rolled different dice.
What we use: deterministic, every time. The priorities this agent gives you come from fitted models, not a language model guessing at a plausible list. That’s what lets you show a recommendation to a team lead, an auditor, or a regulator and know it holds up if someone re-runs it tomorrow.
The short version: we don’t give you a queue you have to hope is right. We give you the same, defensible queue, every time you ask.
It helps you stay within them, but your organization stays responsible for compliance. We never claim to guarantee it.
You set the rules: permitted contact hours, frequency caps and any contact restrictions that apply to you, such as RBI fair-practices requirements in India or FDCPA and Reg F limits in the US. The agent treats them as hard limits, so it never recommends a contact outside them, and every recommendation is logged so you have a trail to review. Used this way, it tends to mean fewer and better-timed contacts, which is better for customers as well as for recovery.
The short version: it enables compliant collections and gives you the audit trail. It doesn’t replace your compliance team or your legal advice.
Ready to Stop Working Your Overdue List in the Wrong Order?
You already have the data. Your overdue accounts, payment history and contact log have everything this agent needs; you just need to know how to connect it. We’ll walk you through exactly how, step by step.
How to Build an AI Agent →No credit card. No data science team. Just your overdue accounts and a few minutes.
