Account and transaction records differ across providers
01Processors, banks and aggregators describe the same transaction with different IDs, timestamps and statuses, so balances drift unless every source is normalized.
FINTECH SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENTBuild financial workflows where data lineage and approvals are visible.
We build customer portals, lending operations tools and reconciliation systems that connect to processors, banks and data aggregators, keep monetary posting deterministic and record who approved every material action.
FinTech product teams, lenders, payment providers and financial operations groups
THE OPERATIONAL GAP
The cost of unclear financial data and approvals.
In financial software, small data inconsistencies become balance errors, audit findings or customer complaints. These are the failure points we look for first.
Underwriting documents arrive in inconsistent formats
02Bank statements, pay stubs and tax forms come in as PDFs, photos and portal exports, and analysts spend hours keying figures before a decision can start.
Reconciliation exceptions live in email and spreadsheets
03Unmatched payments, partial refunds and chargebacks are tracked in side spreadsheets with no owner, aging or link back to the ledger.
Sensitive actions lack clear approval evidence
04Disbursements, limit changes and account updates are approved in chat or by shared logins, leaving no reliable record for auditors or partner banks.
Account and transaction records differ across providers
01Processors, banks and aggregators describe the same transaction with different IDs, timestamps and statuses, so balances drift unless every source is normalized.
Underwriting documents arrive in inconsistent formats
02Bank statements, pay stubs and tax forms come in as PDFs, photos and portal exports, and analysts spend hours keying figures before a decision can start.
Reconciliation exceptions live in email and spreadsheets
03Unmatched payments, partial refunds and chargebacks are tracked in side spreadsheets with no owner, aging or link back to the ledger.
Sensitive actions lack clear approval evidence
04Disbursements, limit changes and account updates are approved in chat or by shared logins, leaving no reliable record for auditors or partner banks.
WHAT WE BUILD
FinTech software we design and build.
Every product starts from the ledger or record of truth, the money movements it may trigger, and who must approve them.
01
FinTech customer portals
Onboarding, account views, statements and payment flows with identity verification and consent capture integrated with your KYC and data providers.
02
Lending operations and document review tools
Application intake, document extraction, underwriting queues and decision records that keep credit decisions with your analysts and policies.
03
Payment reconciliation and exception dashboards
Automated matching of processor, bank and internal records, with aged exception queues, assignment and resolution history.
04
Financial data integration middleware
A normalization layer between processors, banks, aggregators and your systems, with idempotent ingestion and replayable event history.
01
FinTech customer portals
Onboarding, account views, statements and payment flows with identity verification and consent capture integrated with your KYC and data providers.
02
Lending operations and document review tools
Application intake, document extraction, underwriting queues and decision records that keep credit decisions with your analysts and policies.
03
Payment reconciliation and exception dashboards
Automated matching of processor, bank and internal records, with aged exception queues, assignment and resolution history.
04
Financial data integration middleware
A normalization layer between processors, banks, aggregators and your systems, with idempotent ingestion and replayable event history.
WORKFLOW EXAMPLE
From payment feed to an auditable disposition.
An example reconciliation flow. Matching rules, tolerances and approval limits are set with your finance team.
Financial data feed received
InputProcessor settlement file, bank statement or webhook events
OutputRaw records stored immutably with source and receipt time
01Accounts and transactions normalized
InputRaw provider records
OutputCommon transaction format with mapped account and reference IDs
02Payments matched to expected records
InputNormalized transactions and open invoices or ledger entries
OutputMatched pairs, partial matches and unmatched items
03Mismatches reviewed by authorized staff
InputUnmatched and out-of-tolerance items
OutputApproved adjustment, write-off or escalation with approver recorded
Review required
04Disposition posted with audit history
InputApproved resolutions
OutputLedger entries and an end-to-end audit trail from source record to posting
05
SYSTEM DESIGN
The architecture behind the workflow.
A reference design that keeps money movement deterministic and every external call traceable.
- Partner APIs, files and webhooks
- Consent and authorization service
- Ledger or transaction read model
- Rules engine and exception queue
- Finance operations UI
- Mismatches reviewed by authorized staff
- Partner APIs, files and webhooks to Consent and authorization service
- Consent and authorization service to Ledger or transaction read model
- Ledger or transaction read model to Rules engine and exception queue
- Rules engine and exception queue to Finance operations UI
- Rules engine and exception queue to Mismatches reviewed by authorized staff
- Mismatches reviewed by authorized staff to Finance operations UI
Partner APIs, files and webhooks -> Consent and authorization service -> Ledger or transaction read model -> Rules engine and exception queue -> Finance operations UI
01
Partner APIs, files and webhooks
Receives processor, bank and aggregator data, verifies webhook signatures and stores every payload unchanged.
02
Consent and authorization service
Tracks customer data-sharing consent and enforces which staff and services may read or move money.
03
Ledger or transaction read model
Holds the double-entry or reconciled view of balances that every other component reads from.
04
Rules engine and exception queue
Applies matching rules and tolerances, and routes exceptions to owners with aging and approval limits.
05
Finance operations UI
Gives analysts search, review and approval screens backed by the full event history.
Technology
Chosen for the systems above.
These tools are already in published projects with a similar shape of work. The set for your release is confirmed once the interfaces and review points are known.
- REST and webhook APIs
- ISO 20022 and NACHA file formats
- Stripe / Adyen / Plaid-style integrations
- Event sourcing
- PostgreSQL
Frontend
Next.jsNext.jsBackend
Node.jsNode.jsBackend Framework
Express.jsExpress.jsDatabase
MySQLMySQLAI Integration
OpenAIOpenAI
DESIGN TRADE-OFFS
Decisions that change cost, reliability and scope.
These choices determine your compliance burden and your ongoing provider costs, so we make them explicitly.
Direct bank APIs versus data aggregators
Aggregators speed up coverage across many institutions; direct connections offer more control and fewer intermediaries. Contract terms, data-use limits and per-call costs often decide it.
Compare coverage of your customers' institutions and review provider contracts.
AI classification versus fixed reconciliation rules
AI can help categorize transactions and extract document data, but posting to the ledger should stay deterministic and rule-based so balances are always explainable.
Run both approaches on a historical month and compare exception rates.
Real-time processing versus batch
Real-time alerts suit fraud and customer notifications; settlement and reconciliation usually follow batch cycles. Mixing them without clear status semantics causes double-counting.
Map each data source's actual delivery timing and finality.
Direct bank APIs versus data aggregators
Aggregators speed up coverage across many institutions; direct connections offer more control and fewer intermediaries. Contract terms, data-use limits and per-call costs often decide it.
Compare coverage of your customers' institutions and review provider contracts.
AI classification versus fixed reconciliation rules
AI can help categorize transactions and extract document data, but posting to the ledger should stay deterministic and rule-based so balances are always explainable.
Run both approaches on a historical month and compare exception rates.
Real-time processing versus batch
Real-time alerts suit fraud and customer notifications; settlement and reconciliation usually follow batch cycles. Mixing them without clear status semantics causes double-counting.
Map each data source's actual delivery timing and finality.
SECURITY & COMPLIANCE
Controls appropriate to financial data and money movement.
We scope controls to your license type, partner-bank requirements and data flows, then test them before release.
The CFPB's Section 1033 personal financial data rights rule, finalized in 2024, is under reconsideration and its enforcement has been enjoined; verify current status before relying on it. Lending, payments and data obligations vary by license, state and partner-bank agreements.
Encryption and least-privilege access
Financial and identity data is encrypted in transit and at rest, and service accounts and staff roles get only the permissions their function needs.
Tamper-evident transaction event trails
Every state change to a transaction, balance or approval is appended to an event history that can't be silently edited.
Maker-checker approval for material actions
Disbursements, limit changes and account detail updates require a second authorized approver above configurable thresholds.
Payment-card data boundaries
Card data stays with tokenizing processors wherever possible to reduce PCI DSS scope; anything in scope is isolated and documented.
NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0PCI DSS v4.0 (where card data is in scope)NIST AI Risk Management Framework
NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0PCI DSS v4.0 (where card data is in scope)NIST AI Risk Management Framework
DELIVERY APPROACH
From real system constraints to a verifiable release.
Every phase ends with an artifact your finance, risk and engineering leads can sign off.
01
Confirm data providers and authorization paths
List every processor, bank, aggregator and KYC provider, with contracts, sandbox access and data-use limits.
Signed provider inventory with access status and contractual constraints.
02
Define posting and reconciliation invariants
Agree what must always be true, such as balances reconciling and every posting having a source.
Documented invariants, matching rules, tolerances and approval thresholds.
03
Build bounded integration endpoints
Implement one provider connection and one workflow end to end with idempotent processing.
Working slice processing sandbox data with roles and approvals enforced.
04
Test exceptions, replays and balances
Replay duplicate, late and reversed transactions and attempt unauthorized approvals.
Test report showing balances reconcile under duplicate, out-of-order and failed-delivery scenarios.
05
Deploy with audit and settlement checks
Release with daily reconciliation checks, alerting and rollback.
Production runbook, reconciliation monitoring and named owners signed off.
Published work
Projects you can read in full.
Each card is a published project. The industry on the card is the one that work was built for.
From the journal
Reading that sits beside this work.
Recent notes from the team. Pieces that match this industry are shown first.
PROJECT PLANNING
What we need to define before development begins.
These questions shape both architecture and compliance scope.
- 01
Which processors, banks, aggregators and KYC providers are involved, and what do their contracts allow?
- 02
Which system holds the authoritative ledger or balance?
- 03
Which actions move money or change limits, and who must approve them?
- 04
Is card data in scope, and which partner-bank or licensing requirements apply?
- 05
What exception rate or processing time would make the first release a success?
Provider sandbox credentials
Partner-bank or compliance requirements
Historical transaction sample for testing
Finance and risk sign-off owners
Provider sandbox credentials
Partner-bank or compliance requirements
Historical transaction sample for testing
Finance and risk sign-off owners
FinTech software development FAQs.
Yes, for providers with documented APIs, file exchanges or webhooks, such as Stripe, Adyen, ACH file flows or aggregators like Plaid. We confirm sandbox access, webhook signing, rate limits and contract restrictions before design.
We implement maker-checker controls: material actions above a threshold need a second authorized user, and every request, approval and rejection is recorded with user, time and reason in a tamper-evident history.
We don't recommend it. AI can extract data from bank statements and pay stubs and flag risk signals, but credit decisions should follow your documented policy with a person accountable. Fair-lending and adverse-action requirements also mean you must be able to explain each decision.
Possibly, but the Section 1033 rule is enjoined and being revised, so its final requirements are not settled. We design consent and data-access flows that can adapt, and recommend confirming obligations with your counsel.
Provider onboarding and partner-bank approvals usually take longer than the code. A focused MVP covers one complete money or data flow, with reconciliation and approvals working, rather than a broad feature list.
You own the software we build and the records it holds. Processor and bank contracts stay with you. We record which system is allowed to move money or change a balance, and what happens when that access is removed.
Yes, when your security review allows it. Hosting, key management, and log retention are set with your security team before build, rather than assumed from a default environment.
One money movement or one decision path, with the approval record and the reconciliation check included. A wider product can follow once that path is traceable end to end.
The workflow keeps the original request, the processor response, and the ledger entry as separate records. A failure stops in a queue a person can see, instead of leaving the books half updated.
Have a payment, lending or finance-operations workflow to build?
Share your providers, ledger and approval rules. We'll outline a first release that reconciles from day one.
Tell us how the work runs today, which systems already hold the data, and what a useful first release would change. We use that to judge scope before anyone writes a proposal.
The form goes to a solutions architect at THE TISA. You get a direct reply on fit, approach, and what we would need from your team.
Share your scope
Tell us about the workflow or product. A solutions architect replies within one business day.