Here's the thing about designing fraud prevention: legal wants more warnings, product wants fewer steps, and the user just wants to pay their friend back for lunch. Everyone's right. And the requirements often contradict each other.
I worked with product, engineering, research, and risk to figure out where friction actually helps and where it just annoys people.
01
Prototype first, debate later
Abstract requirements go in circles. Tangible prototypes get people aligned. I learned to put something concrete in front of stakeholders early.
02
Friction is a design tool
A well-placed warning at the right moment can prevent a scam. A poorly placed one just annoys people. The difference is context and timing.
03
Compliance shapes the design
Regulatory requirements aren't things to work around, they're inputs. Some of my tightest solutions came from the tightest restrictions.
04
Speak everyone's language
In these projects, I'm in rooms with legal, risk, engineering, and product. Documented design rationale and clear flows became my best tools for alignment.