Skip to content

Payments Intelligence

Learning System

What the controlled self-learning system has observed since the last cycle. This is OBSERVE-ONLY: every candidate below is a proposal, offline-evaluated against historical data — nothing here changes production automatically.

How it learns

One closed, observe-only loop. No candidate can reach production on its own — promotion is always a separate, explicit, human decision.

Observe
Extract
Aggregate
Detect
Propose
Evaluate
Store

Hover a stage for what it does. Every stage names a real step in the code — nothing here is illustrative.

Learning overview

Experiences processed, candidates proposed

21
Experiences processed
21 all-time
13
Source domains tracked
1
Passed offline
5 failed offline
0
Rejected
a human decision, never automatic

Last updated 27 Sept 2026.

Candidates

Proposed strategy improvements

Each candidate is a deterministic proposal, backed by a minimum evidence count, then offline-evaluated against real historical data with named metric deltas — never one opaque “better” score. PASSED_OFFLINE is the ceiling this system can reach on its own; promotion to production is always a separate, manual, human decision.

ScopeProposed changeEvidenceExpected effectOffline resultStatus
accountingtoday.com
Source deprioritization
consistently contributes duplicate coverage rather than new evidence36duplicate_rate ↓(+0.649)n=36FAILED_OFFLINE
openpr.com
Source deprioritization
consistently contributes duplicate coverage rather than new evidence36duplicate_rate ↓(+0.649)n=36FAILED_OFFLINE
ecb.europa.eu
Source deprioritization
consistently contributes duplicate coverage rather than new evidence348duplicate_rate ↓(-0.098)n=348PASSED_OFFLINE
fintechmagazine.com
Source deprioritization
consistently contributes duplicate coverage rather than new evidence144duplicate_rate ↓(+0.107)n=144FAILED_OFFLINE
reuters.com
Source deprioritization
consistently contributes duplicate coverage rather than new evidence36duplicate_rate ↓(+0.649)n=36FAILED_OFFLINE
engadget.com
Source deprioritization
consistently contributes duplicate coverage rather than new evidence36duplicate_rate ↓(+0.649)n=36FAILED_OFFLINE

Failed offline is the safety gate holding a candidate back deliberately, not a broken run.

Source quality

Transparent, decomposable source-reputation memory

Every classification below is re-derivable from the counters in its own row — never an opaque, model-generated trust score. A source needs at least 3 observations before it gets anything other than “insufficient history”; a single run never blacklists a domain.

DomainClassificationPrimary historyPublish historyEvidence count
ecb.europa.euDUPLICATE_PRONE348 / 348240348
cnbc.comCONSISTENT_SECONDARY0 / 180144180
thenextweb.comCONSISTENT_SECONDARY0 / 180144180
fintechmagazine.comDUPLICATE_PRONE0 / 14472144
adyen.comHIGH_PRIMARY_HISTORY72 / 727272
thefintechtimes.comCONSISTENT_SECONDARY0 / 727272
accountingtoday.comDUPLICATE_PRONE0 / 36036
engadget.comDUPLICATE_PRONE0 / 36036
openpr.comDUPLICATE_PRONE0 / 36036
talent.ecb.europa.euHIGH_PRIMARY_HISTORY36 / 363636
ft.comCONSISTENT_SECONDARY0 / 363636
thepaypers.comCONSISTENT_SECONDARY0 / 363636
reuters.comDUPLICATE_PRONE0 / 36036

Safety contract

No candidate can reach production on its own — promotion is always a separate, explicit, human decision, enforced at both the code and database level. See the loop at the top of this page for the exact stages every candidate passes through.

See system-wide metrics