Raises the alert.
Identifies a possible match and supplies the original subject, candidate and trigger.
For compliance teams · In development
A workspace being built for your analysts to investigate sanctions alerts and document their decisions.
Keep your existing screening provider. Bring the original alert, compare the evidence and record a reasoned outcome.
Your analysts perform the review. Your firm retains the final customer decision.
Case EX-001 · Entirely fictional
The evidence and the analyst’s reasoning determine the assessment.
Illustrative workflow. No real customer or sanctioned entity.
A clear division of work
IA is being developed as software for the reviewing team. This proposed workflow does not include IA providing outsourced analysts.
Identifies a possible match and supplies the original subject, candidate and trigger.
Is being built to connect that alert with the evidence considered, the analyst’s reason and the recorded outcome.
Your analyst assesses identity and records a disposition. Your firm decides the customer action under its procedures.
Explore the proposed workflow
One fictional alert, three evidence situations. See why missing information must remain visible and why a different field is not an automatic clearance.
All names, identifiers, sources and findings here are invented for explanation. No live matching or clearing occurs.
| Evidence | Customer subject | Flagged candidate |
|---|
This records an assessment of one original alert. It is not a blanket clearance or a decision to transact.
For the name-file foundation that runs today, see the screening workflow.
Scope & availability
The current engine screens name files. The workflow shown above for reviewing your provider’s original alerts is being developed.
Current validation excludes PEP, adverse media and ownership checks. We make no production-performance, clearance-rate or cost-saving claim. Real client data is not accepted in this phase pending the required legal and data-processing arrangements.
The proposed clearing workflow complements your existing provider. It is designed to assess the original alert and specific candidate that provider identified.
No. Failure to retrieve a candidate in a new screen does not resolve the original alert. Its identity question still needs evidence and an assessment.
No. Record integrity and decision correctness are separate. A hash check supports comparison of the bytes against the expected hash; it does not establish the truth of the evidence or correctness of the assessment.
Start with your process
We’ll discuss your screening provider, the evidence available to your analysts and how decisions are recorded. The aim is to assess workflow fit and what a future validation would require.
A workflow discussion, not live onboarding. Please do not send client names, alert files or identity documents.
Discuss your workflowOpens your email app. Privacy information.