Library · Chargebacks · Guide
CE 3.0 CIT vs MIT — claim map
GuideCE 3.0 CIT vs MIT — claim mapBack to article
Same two-prior Visa 10.4 rule on first sale and rebill. Filter the claim. Distinct from the prior checklist.
| Claim | Reality | Get in the packet | Do not |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subscriptions get automatic CE 3.0 | No. Still at least two matching undisputed priors | Two priors with IP + email or ship-to | Skip priors because it is a rebill |
| A disputed MIT can use the CIT as both priors | No. CIT can be one prior if undisputed. You still need a second | CIT plus one other matching prior | Count the disputed MIT as a prior |
| A disputed first CIT can use itself as a prior | No. Priors are other sales. New buyers with one checkout have no CE 3.0 path | Two other matching priors — or refund / write off | Invent a second sale to pad the count |
| Token on file replaces matching IP and email | No. Match fields still required on the prior sales and the dispute | Matching IP and email or ship-to on the priors | Send token-only as Compelling Evidence 3.0 |
| Broken MIT chain is fixed by CE 3.0 priors | No. Original-sale ID is a different job. Priors do not repair a missing receipt | N/A — fix the chain on the rebill page | Fight 10.4 while rebills lack the original ID |
| This map is the prior-count checklist | No. The checklist ticks fields. This map is CIT vs MIT shape | N/A — open the CE 3.0 checklist when building the packet | Skip match fields because you know CIT can count |
Filter the claim. Visa 10.4 still wants two matching priors. A disputed MIT can use an undisputed CIT as one prior — you still need a second. The disputed ticket never counts.
Pairing procedure: CE 3.0 on the first sale vs a later rebill. Topic: Chargebacks.
Work with us — We run this job on your accounts. Services