You choose how you pay us

The analysis comes first because it is what makes everything after it answerable. Until your own deduction book has been reviewed, neither side knows what is realistically recoverable, and any number proposed before that point would be guesswork. Where the arrangement includes a subscription, that subscription is sized from the estimated recoveries and from the analyst time the work displaces, and a recovery target is attached to it, so the commitment is to an outcome rather than to access.

Nothing here is priced per seat, per case, or as a cut of your deduction book. A per-seat price charges you for people rather than for recovered cash. A per-case price rewards filing volume, which is the one behaviour a deductions program should never reward. A cut of the book charges you for deductions nobody recovered.

What stays constant across every configuration is the basis: the analysis first, then a mix you have a say in, and a performance component measured on money that actually moved. Specific terms are set with you.

The analysis comes out of the Chargeback Recovery Assessment. The assessment reviews your own retailer deduction data and returns an estimate of how much of it is realistically recoverable. That estimate is what the proposal is built from, which is why it comes before the commercial conversation rather than after it.

The second input is the work itself. Disputing deductions is analyst labour: pulling the purchase order, the invoice, the bill of lading and proof of delivery, the remittance advice and the chargeback notice, then building a claim the retailer will accept. Roy does that work. Sizing a subscription component to the analyst time it displaces keeps it anchored to something your finance team can already cost, because today you are either paying for that time or leaving the deductions unworked.

Preference is a real input here, not a courtesy. Some finance teams want the cost predictable and budgeted, which points toward more subscription. Others want as much of the cost as possible to follow money that has already come back, which points toward more performance fee. Both are available, and so is either one on its own.

Two customers with similar deduction volume can land in very different places, because the retailer mix, the reason-code mix, and the evidence available to prove each claim all differ. That is the point of proposing from the analysis rather than from a list.

The target exists to make a subscription accountable. Software priced as access is indifferent to whether it is used well. A subscription with a recovery target attached has a stated job, and both sides can see whether that job is being done. Under a fully performance-based arrangement the question largely answers itself, because there is no subscription to hold accountable in the first place.

Be clear about what the target is not. It is a commitment shape, not a guarantee. ROIAI One does not guarantee a recovery outcome, does not offer a pay-nothing-if-we-miss mechanic, and does not publish a refund mechanic on this page, because none of those is contractually defined. The target frames the relationship and sets expectations on both sides. What is actually owed is what your agreement says.

Actual recovery depends on your retailer mix, your reason-code mix, and the evidence available to prove each claim. A target does not change those facts. It makes them the subject of the conversation.

Cash applied is the measurement basis because it is the only one both sides can see in the customer's own books. A claim the retailer accepted on paper but never funded is not a recovery. A credit that was issued and then reversed is not a recovery. Defining the recovered amount as cash applied removes the argument about what counts.

The basis is agreed with you and reconciled. The detailed mechanism sits in your agreement rather than on this page.

Two things determine whether recoveries happen at all, and both are why the fee has anything to apply to.

That is the honest answer, and the alternative is worth naming. A vendor with a genuinely uniform product can publish a uniform price. Deduction recovery is not uniform, and here the variation is structural. Your retailer mix, your reason codes, the state of your evidence trail, the volume and age of the book, and your own preference about what to commit to in advance all change which arrangement is right. Two companies of the same size can hold completely different recoverable positions and choose completely different structures.

So the choice is one consistent basis, published, or several contradictory price lists, published. ROIAI One publishes the basis. Every customer is priced the same way: an analysis of their own data, a proposed mix of subscription and performance fee calibrated to that data and their preference, with a performance component measured as cash applied. What fills in that structure comes from your data, through the assessment.

Each end of the range carries a known trade-off, which is why the mix is worth deciding rather than defaulting. Weighted toward pure contingency, nobody is funded to do the unglamorous work: the retailer relationship, the evidence assembly on claims that turn out to be marginal, and the reason codes that are hard rather than lucrative. Weighted toward pure subscription, the cost is predictable but it does not move with what actually comes back.

A mix, with a recovery target attached to the subscription component, is usually where those two pressures balance best. Which trade-off suits you is a legitimate preference, and it is yours to make.

A fully performance arrangement is a configuration ROIAI One offers, chosen from the analysis and your preference. It is not a promise about outcomes, and it should not be read as one. What you pay is determined by the arrangement you signed and by what actually comes back.

A recovery target can also be attached, which states what the arrangement is meant to produce and makes a shortfall a conversation rather than a surprise. And the assessment happens before you commit, so that neither side signs up to an arrangement your own data does not support. If the estimate does not justify the engagement, that is a useful answer to have early.

The measurement basis is what keeps this simple. Because a recovery is defined as the amount that comes back through cash application, the fee attaches to the money movement rather than to any of the activity that preceded it. Where a subscription component also exists, it funds the work being done continuously and is not a second charge on any individual recovery. The two components are sized together as one arrangement, which is exactly what the analysis produces.

The evidence layer is the check on this. Every claim is assembled from the records that decide a deduction: the purchase order and EDI 850, the invoice, the bill of lading and proof of delivery, the remittance advice, and the chargeback notice itself. Those documents are kept and the claim stays reviewable, so a filing the evidence does not support is visible rather than buried in a volume number.