GPI MT-to-MX Translation

Note (dated 2026-08-04): a chain composes independent computations performed in an analytical order. No step's output is carried into the next step by the execution model; each step computes from its own declared inputs. This is true of every chain on this site, including chains whose per-step copy below reads as a data handoff.

Reading mode (READINESS-BUILD): These checks can be gathered in any order; the sequence below is for convenience. The tracker-lifecycle simulation and the field-mapping fidelity score are two independent diagnostics that both always run.

Linear two-step chain for SWIFT GPI MT103 to pacs.008 migration fidelity. Step 1 simulates the GPI tracker lifecycle for the payment status transition and the Universal Confirmation service-level target (ACSP to ACCC within 24 hours). Step 2 scores MT103-to-pacs.008 field mapping fidelity across ordering customer, beneficiary, agent BICs, remittance information, and charge bearer code mapping (OUR to DEBT, SHA to SHAR, BEN to CRED). Both steps always run. Use it to diagnose translation quality before the CBPR+ November 2026 go-live.

OpenChainGraph · 2 Steps compliance mandate · Linear Hash-Anchored §4 chain_depth:2 Client-Side · Zero PII

Chain Stages · 2 Steps · Linear

1 ROOT node

SWIFT GPI Tracker Lifecycle Simulator art-244-gpi-tracker-lifecycle-simulator

Simulates the GPI tracker payment status transition, validates it against allowed transitions, and flags Universal Confirmation SLA breaches (ACSP to ACCC within 24 hours). Passes transition validity, the SLA breach flag, and allowed next statuses to fidelity scoring.

MCP Call · simulate_gpi_tracker_lifecycle

{
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "name": "simulate_gpi_tracker_lifecycle",
    "arguments": {
      "current_status": "ACSP",
      "next_status": "ACCC",
      "hours_elapsed": 12,
      "amount_usd": 50000
    }
  },
  "id": 1
}

↓

2 TERMINAL node

MT103 to MX Translation Fidelity Scorer art-245-mt-mx-translation-fidelity-scorer

Scores MT103-to-pacs.008 field mapping fidelity across ordering customer, beneficiary, agent BICs, remittance info, and charge bearer code mapping, and flags truncation risks. Final stage.

MCP Call · score_mt_mx_translation_fidelity

{
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "name": "score_mt_mx_translation_fidelity",
    "arguments": {
      "mt_f20": "PAYMENT20260705",
      "mt_f23b": "CRED",
      "mt_f32a": "260705EUR10000,",
      "mt_f50": "Acme Corp",
      "mt_f52a": "DEUTDEFFXXX",
      "mt_f57a": "BARCGB22XXX",
      "mt_f59": "Global Trade AG",
      "mt_f70": "/INV/2026/001 trade payment",
      "mt_f71a": "SHA",
      "mx_uetr": "550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000",
      "mx_dbtr_nm": "Acme Corp",
      "mx_cdtr_nm": "Global Trade AG",
      "mx_cdtr_agt": "BARCGB22XXX",
      "mx_dbtr_agt": "DEUTDEFFXXX",
      "mx_rmt_ustrd": "/INV/2026/001 trade payment",
      "mx_chrg_br": "SHAR"
    }
  },
  "id": 2
}

Question: A cross-border payment has sat in pending since yesterday. Has it breached the GPI tracker SLA, and was the status transition valid? Run the AINumbers MCP tool `run_chain` with {"chain":"gpi-mt-to-mx-translation"} and read `art-244-gpi-tracker-lifecycle-simulator.sla_breached`. Re-run with `inputs` for `art-244-gpi-tracker-lifecycle-simulator`, reusing the values that result echoed, with `hours_elapsed` set to 200. Compare the same field. Verify: call `verify_execution_hash` (https://mcp.ainumbers.co/mcp) with `claimed_hash` set to `composite_execution_hash` and the full `composite_artifact`. Ledger, for a human re-check: https://ledger.ainumbers.co/ PII rule: send synthetic or anonymised inputs only. The MCP server runs these kernels and logs no payloads. Chain page: https://ainumbers.co/chaingraph/chains/gpi-mt-to-mx-translation.html

GPI MT-to-MX Translation

Ask your agent