Component: TM Decision Engine (Segmentation and Rule Logic)

Description

The TM Decision Engine is the legacy rules and decision logic embedded within Tallyman. It governs segmentation, eligibility, routing triggers, exclusions, and timing of actions, all based on TM Data Dictionaries and configuration tables.

This logic is deeply intertwined with:

• TM-style config tables

• TM routes and treatment paths

• Historical audit and reporting constructs

Any move away from this model requires deliberate redesign. There is no true one-for-one translation into Strategy Manager (SM).

Option 1: Continue on PCC Upgrade Plan

Lift and shift TM decision engine logic with no configuration change

Action

• Lift and shift TM decision logic as-is.

• Preserve existing TM configuration tables as the source of truth.

• Rebuild logic to behave identically within the PCC environment.

• Do not introduce SM-based decisioning.

• Treat decision logic migration as a technical exercise only.

Target State Score

2 / 5

Change Impact

3 / 5

• No material change to decision outcomes.

• No change to configuration structure or ownership.

• Minimal visible change to business users.

Business Benefit

1 / 5

• No improvement to decision quality, clarity, or governance.

• All existing problems remain embedded.

• Decisioning behaviour is frozen in its current state.

What this option gets

• No change to configuration tables; all legacy data structures remain intact.

• Reduced testing effort because logic and config are unchanged.

• Migration testing is largely focused on technical correctness rather than behavioural validation.

• Historical audit history remains consistent because:

  • routes still determine treatment paths

  • accounts continue to traverse the same lifecycle states

• Lower perceived delivery risk in the short term.

What this option does not get

• No opportunity to improve or rationalise decision logic.

• No ability to move logic into SM without redesign.

• No uplift in explainability, policy alignment, or transparency.

• No resolution of legacy defects, exceptions, or drift.

• No future flexibility without a second major rebuild.

Key Risks and Considerations

Business Risk

• All existing weaknesses are locked in.

• Policy drift remains embedded and hard to explain.

• Decisions continue to be driven by historical artefacts rather than intent.

Delivery Risk

• False sense of safety due to reduced testing scope.

• Logic equivalence is assumed rather than challenged.

• Any future change becomes harder because the legacy model is further entrenched.

Accelerator

• Cursor can assist in:

  • documenting existing TM logic and dependencies

  • confirming equivalence of behaviour

• No acceleration toward a better state, only toward faster preservation of the current one.

Option 2: Pivot to Target State

Move decision logic to Strategy Manager (SM)

Action

• Change upgrade sequencing to prioritise SM implementation.

• Rebuild decision logic natively in SM.

• Explicitly redesign logic rather than attempting lift and shift.

• Treat policy intent, not TM config tables, as the starting point.

Target State Score

5 / 5

Change Impact

4 / 5

• Material change to how decisions are defined and governed.

• Requires business, risk, and analytics engagement.

• Deliberate shift away from TM-style configuration.

Business Benefit

5 / 5

• Clear, explainable, and testable decision logic.

• Removal of hidden dependencies on TM config tables.

• Improved audit defensibility.

• Enables challengers and controlled change.

What this option gets

• Modern decisioning aligned to policy intent.

• Independence from TM configuration constraints.

• A platform that can evolve without repeated rebuilds.

What this option does not get

• Behavioural equivalence by default.

• Requires upfront design and validation.

• Requires CDL readiness.

Key Risks and Considerations

Business Risk

• Requires clear ownership of policy interpretation.

• Risk of scope expansion if decisioning is not tightly governed.

Delivery Risk

• SM sequencing must be correct to avoid rework.

• Requires disciplined testing and validation.

Accelerator

• Cursor can:

  • reverse engineer TM logic into policy intent

  • design SM strategies

  • support validation and challenger frameworks

Option 3: Tactical Hybrid

Partial SM build with residual TM decision logic

Action

• Move selected logic into SM.

• Retain the remainder in TM-style configuration.

• Operate a mixed decisioning model.

Target State Score

2 / 5

Change Impact

3 / 5

• Partial change to decision ownership.

• Increased complexity for teams.

Business Benefit

2 / 5

• Some uplift in selected areas.

• No structural simplification.

What this option gets

• Incremental progress toward SM.

• Reduced upfront scope.

What this option does not get

• Clean decision ownership.

• Simplified audit and explainability.

• Long-term maintainability.

Key Risks and Considerations

Business Risk

• Fragmented logic ownership.

• Confusion over “source of truth”.

Delivery Risk

• Boundary defects between TM and SM.

• Increased long-term support cost.

Accelerator

• Limited.

• Any short-term acceleration is offset by complexity later.