Skip to Main Content
IBM Data and AI RegTech Ideas Portal

Shape the future of IBM!

We invite you to shape the future of IBM, including product roadmaps, by submitting ideas that matter to you the most. Here's how it works:

Post your ideas

Post ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted and upvote them if they matter to you,

  1. Post an idea

  2. Upvote ideas that matter most to you

  3. Get feedback from the IBM team to refine your idea

Help IBM prioritize your ideas and requests

The IBM team may need your help to refine the ideas so they may ask for more information or feedback. The offering manager team will then decide if they can begin working on your idea. If they can start during the next development cycle, they will put the idea on the priority list. Each team at IBM works on a different schedule, where some ideas can be implemented right away, others may be placed on a different schedule.

Receive notification on the decision

Some ideas can be implemented at IBM, while others may not fit within the development plans for the product. In either case, the team will let you know as soon as possible. In some cases, we may be able to find alternatives for ideas which cannot be implemented in a reasonable time.

For product documentation, see Knowledge Center.
Create and View Support Cases and Use the Discussion Forum here

Shorter URL for this site is: or

Status Submitted
Workspace IBM Safer Payments
Component Operational
Created by Guest
Created on Nov 2, 2021

Separate the Intercepted by existing rules row within rule generation.

We identified in May that the “Intercepted by existing rules” row within the rule generator does not appear to be functioning correctly. Rather than providing stats surrounding transactions which were intercepted by the model revision, it actually provides stats for transactions which qualified for any rule within the model. This is extremely problematic for our implementation because every transaction will always qualify for at least one rule within the model as part of pre and post-processing functions (these functions do not set an intercept however). Aside from causing confusion amongst our clients, I believe this also impacts another key feature of the product related to rule generation.

When you define your training data selection, there are three options for “Rule generation scenario”. Two of them inform the system to consider already defined rules of the model revision. Again, 100% of our volume will be impacted by at least one rule within the model, which means that using either of those two scenarios will result in the system ignoring 100% of all transactions for rule generation. This only leaves one rule generation scenario, which is more suited to a day 1 model, and not incremental updates to an existing model (‘ignore existing rules and ignore existing intercept in records’). This seems like a huge gap in functionality.

Needed By Month