Verifiable Transaction-State Reconciliation for AI-Orchestrated Financial Workflows Under Partial Failure and Duplicate Events

Main Article Content

Anil Mandloi

Abstract

AI agents are increasingly tasked with orchestrating multi-step financial workflows that span internal services and external processors. These workflows are exposed to partial failures and duplicate events caused by retries and at-least-once messaging. This paper describes a reconciliation protocol that pairs a deterministic transaction state machine with idempotency controls, compensating actions, and a hash-chain ledger supporting Merkle proofs. On a synthetic workload of 50,000 workflow instances under controlled failure injection, the design reduced unresolved states and improved consistency relative to a simple retry baseline and a saga-only approach, at the cost of modest added latency. The resulting evidence chain is intended to support operational audit in regulated environments.

Article Details

How to Cite
Mandloi, A. (2025). Verifiable Transaction-State Reconciliation for AI-Orchestrated Financial Workflows Under Partial Failure and Duplicate Events. The Eastasouth Journal of Information System and Computer Science, 2(03), 439–445. https://doi.org/10.58812/esiscs.v2i03.1290
Section
Articles

References

[1] H. Garcia-Molina and K. Salem, “Sagas,” ACM Sigmod Rec., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 249–259, 1987, doi: 10.1145/38714.38742.

[2] P. Helland, “Life beyond Distributed Transactions: an Apostate’s Opinion,” in CIDR, 2007. [Online]. Available: https://www.cidrdb.org/cidr2007/papers/cidr07p15.pdf

[3] M. Kleppmann, Designing data-intensive applications. O’Reilly Beijing, 2017.

[4] C. Richardson, Microservices Patterns. Manning Publications, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://microservices.io/patterns/data/saga.html

[5] R. C. Merkle, “A Digital Signature Based on a Conventional Encryption Function,” in Conference on the theory and application of cryptographic techniques, C. Pomerance, Ed., Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1988, pp. 369–378. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48184-2_32.

[6] M. Castro and B. Liskov, “Practical byzantine fault tolerance,” in OsDI, 1999, pp. 173–186. [Online]. Available: https://pmg.csail.mit.edu/papers/osdi99.pdf

[7] J. Kreps, “The log: what every software engineer should know about real-time data’s unifying abstraction,” LinkedIn Engineering. [Online]. Available: https://engineering.linkedin.com/distributed-systems/log-what-every-software-engineer-should-know-about-real-time-datas-unifying

[8] N. Narkhede and G. Wang, “Exactly-once semantics is possible: here’s how Apache Kafka does it,” Confluent, Inc. [Online]. Available: https://www.confluent.io/blog/exactly-once-semantics-are-possible-heres-how-apache-kafka-does-it/

[9] C. Richardson, Pattern: Transactional outbox. Microservices.io, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://microservices.io/patterns/data/transactional-outbox.html