A test payment is not the wholesaler's new details | Rapid course Human factors and cyber policy

Open, free learning for anyone who wants to protect people and technology. No account is required to read this text or its worked answers.

Lesson map

Lesson 08. Map, example, EX054.

flowchart TD
  T["A small test payment used the callback"] --> P["That check tried the second trustee's path"]
  W["A lookalike wholesaler asks for new bank details"] --> C["Phone the number already on file"]
  P --> R{"Does the test approve the wholesaler's request?"}
  R -->|No| K["The request still needs its own call"]

Yesterday's rehearsal does not answer today's invoice.

Logical drawing

check already made
    second trustee
    small test payment
    callback used
still required for a real change
    phone the supplier on the number on file
typical lure
    lookalike wholesaler address
    new bank details
        |
        +-- the test payment names no supplier
        +-- no amount is written here
        +-- the lure is not paid

Learning outcomes

After this chapter, you should be able to:

Keep the small test payment as a check of the second trustee's path.
Send a later bank-detail request back to the number on file.
Refuse to treat the rehearsal as approval of a lookalike invoice.

8.1 The callback was practised. It was not spent on a supplier.

Ruth asked the second trustee to approve a small test payment, and that approval used a callback. Separately, the early decision says any change to a supplier's bank details is checked by phoning the number already on file. A classmate receives a lookalike of the food wholesaler asking for payment to new details, and says the test payment means the path is trusted enough to pay. The test had no supplier and no new account. The lookalike is the situation the phone call was written for. Ruth does not pay it, does not invent an amount, and does not invent the wholesaler's real name.

8.2 Worked example

Lesson table; scroll horizontally to read all columns →

Item	What it is	Decision
Small test payment with a callback	A check of the second trustee	May stay as that check
Lookalike wholesaler, new details	The typical lure	Do not pay
"The rehearsal covered this invoice."	A leap	Refuse
Phone the number on file	The rule for a real change	Still required

Synthetic case. No supplier name, account number or sum is added.

Errors and limits

Refusing the lure does not undo the test payment. The rehearsal and the invoice are different objects.

Apply

EX054 — Which payment was the test? The second trustee approved a small test payment with a callback. A lookalike wholesaler then asks for new bank details. Does the test approve that request, and what call is still required?
Show marking criteria
Rubric: 3 = the test does not approve the lure; phone the number already on file; do not pay; invent no amount and no supplier name;; 2 = the lure is not the test payment;; 1 = one of those;; 0 = none.