Explore the workflow

Follow the decision.
Inspect the evidence.

One cleared sanctions alert, examined from five angles.

CASE / YSS-4823Synthetic case

01 / Completed alert

Cleared as a false positive.

An outsourced first-line reviewer closed this alert as a false positive. Independent review starts with the original decision and its evidence.

Original reviewer note

“Name variant, no DOB on record, low risk jurisdiction.”

CDD prototype

The CDD prototype accepts PDF case files and produces a weighted quality assurance report.

Every category carries its weight, its score and the explanation the prototype wrote. A reviewer can inspect the reasoning, not only the number.

01
Documentationweight 15% · score 55
Materially deficient relative to the HIGH risk rating and EDD obligation. Absence of Source of Wealth documentary evidence, a requirement under FCA and JMLSG Part II guidance for high-risk customers, replaced by an unrecorded verbal declaration.
02
CDD Adequacyweight 15% · score 68
Customer identity positively verified, SOF plausible and corroborated by bank statements. Failure to obtain documentary evidence of Source of Wealth characterised as a minor gap reflects a knowledge gap in EDD standards.
03
Risk Assessmentweight 20% · score 72
Reaches the correct conclusion, a HIGH risk rating consistent with the evidence. The case was accepted and the customer onboarded before mandatory manager 2LOD sign-off was obtained.
04
Screeningweight 15% · score 72
Sanctions and PEP screens completed on the correct date. Adverse media search terms too narrow for a HIGH risk case; dual nationality not addressed through jurisdiction-specific screening.
05
UBO & Ownershipweight 15% · score 82
UBO correctly identified as the 100% owner and cross-referenced; no UBO has been missed.

Sanctions QA

Everything the walkthrough showed, on one record: the finding, each criterion with its result and reason, and the timestamps.

Finding / YSS-4823Synthetic case

Review required

Original disposition: false positive, alert cleared. Independent review found the rationale insufficient and the name-variant criterion unresolved.

Screening hitScreening hit assessed against all list identifiersPASS
Name variantName variant assessed within configured fuzzy tolerance, including transliterationRationale does not address the transliterated alias on the list entry.FAIL
RationaleRationale supports the outcome on the evidence in fileLow risk jurisdiction is not a ground for dismissal under section 4.2.FAIL

A conversation with the founders

Start with a conversation about how QA runs in your firm, or request a guided look at the CDD prototype.