Draft orders and phone orders — the MOTO fraud gap

What drafts skip

A draft order paid by manually-entered card bypasses: fraud analysis (no risk score generated), session capture (no IP, no device data on the order), and depending on entry path, full AVS/CVV verification.

Dispute impact: a fraud claim on a draft order starts with an empty evidence locker — no session to match, no risk assessment to cite, sometimes no AVS result. Fraud rings probe for exactly this: a 'corporate buyer' calling in a large order, card details read over the phone, rush shipping requested.

Compensating controls

1. Prefer invoice links over manual entry: a draft-order invoice the customer pays themselves runs through card verification and captures their session — restoring most defenses with zero friction.
2. Phone verification protocol: for true phone entry, verify billing address against the card (manual AVS), call back on a number independently found (not caller-provided), and log both in the order note.
3. Document the interaction: who called, what was discussed, callback confirmation — narrative evidence for the dispute that session data would otherwise anchor.
4. Threshold rule: above ~$500, manual entry needs manager sign-off or conversion to an invoice link.

Aurai treats draft-order disputes with the evidence that does exist — payment verification results, interaction notes, fulfillment records — and Prevent flags anomalous draft patterns (volume, value, velocity) that suggest the phone-channel probe.