4 ms·

So the article is a bit confusing, as it says in a year the state processes over 18 million dollars in transactions. However the pilot program only analyzed tr

So the article is a bit confusing, as it says in a year the state processes over 18 million dollars in transactions. However the pilot program only analyzed transactions from Jan to Sept. For all state agencies (which seems impressive from an aggregation and governance stand point). With in that time period it found 117k in duplicates, so assuming that dollar/transactions are at a constant rate through out the year (they aren't). 117,000/(18,000,000 * (8/12)) ~ .975 % loss in state to vendor(?) transactions. Put another way, with in the time period they studied assuming 12 million dollars in transactions were made, they can potentially recuperate roughly 1% of the total value transacted.

Mathnerd314 7y ago
They process 18 million transactions per year, total, not 18 million dollars of transactions. And they only found 56 duplicates, i.e. a 0.0004% rate. (56 / (18e6 * 8/12)) For comparison there's a Kaggle dataset of 2 days of European credit card transactions from 2013. It contains 284k transactions of which 0.147% are fraudulent. This 1000x difference can either be good since it means the state is mostly paying appropriately or bad since the detection is not as good as the credit card company's.
- gunshai 7y ago
  >18 million payment transactions god damnit you're right. whoops