A fraud team may have a proven decision strategy but suspect a new one could catch more fraud. In a champion-challenger framework, the current strategy is the champion; one or more proposed replacements are challengers. They are compared before a successful challenger replaces the incumbent. section 7.4.4
A controlled comparison follows three steps:
- Run the challenger alongside the champion, typically on a small, representative segment of live traffic. section 7.4.4
- Compare the measures that matter to the decision. For fraud, these include detection rates, false positives, and operational costs. section 7.4.4
- Promote a successful challenger before wider deployment; keep collecting outcomes to refine models, rules, and thresholds. section 7.4.4 section 3.4.1
Collections strategy
In post-loan collections, an established strategy can be tested against an experimental one. One comparison pits automated SMS reminders against human phone calls or formal legal notices, measuring which approach performs better. section 4.3.2
The same pattern helps manage model change. Substantial drift in a credit scorecard can prompt a side-by-side comparison of old and new models rather than an immediate replacement. For a new AI feature, an internal sandbox and limited rollout can precede comparison on live data. section 6.6 section 3.4.1
