Full reasoning chain
Every conclusion carries its reasoning and a citation to the source document, with agent actions and human overrides recorded in sequence.
Solution · Payment Screening
The alerts that hold up a payment.
Sanctions, PEP and internal list hits raised on payment messages. The volume is high, most of it resolves to nothing, and the payment does not move until somebody writes down why it should. That last part is the work.
HitContextDisposition
The work
What the disposition
actually takes.
A screening hit is a small file with a hard requirement: the same conclusion, reached the same way, whether it is the tenth of the day or the thousandth, under time pressure, with a payment waiting behind it.
01
Hit
The hit arrives with the payment message, the list entry it matched, and the reason it was raised.
02
Context
Ordering and beneficiary details, routing, and the free-text fields are read as one payment rather than as separate strings.
03
Resolution
The party behind the payment is resolved against registries, alias and name variants, and the list entry itself.
04
Rationale
The disposition is drafted with the evidence behind it — what matched, what distinguishes the party, and what could not be confirmed.
05
Decision
Your analyst releases, holds or escalates. The record closes with the reviewer, the reasoning and the evidence attached.
Where the agents run
Plan. Examine. Report.
The same three agents run this work as run every other case type. What differs is the policy behind them — the plan template, the dimensions scored, the tools available, and the disposition that comes out.
Consistent on the thousandth hit.
Screening volume is not the problem on its own. The problem is that two analysts, on different days, are meant to reach the same conclusion on the same facts and record it the same way. RiskPulse applies your disposition logic to each hit and writes the rationale in one form every time — so what reaches an analyst is a drafted decision to accept, amend or reject, not a raw hit to work from scratch.
- Party and list resolution — the payment's parties matched against the list entry, alias and name variants, and registry records
- Rationale per hit — what matched, what distinguishes the party, and what could not be confirmed, written the same way each time
- Prior decisions surfaced — where a party has been dispositioned before, that history is presented with the hit rather than rebuilt from nothing
- Escalation path — hits your policy reserves for a person are routed there with the file already assembled
RiskPulse · Disposition record
Policy for this case type
Configured,
not hardcoded.
Nothing on this page is fixed in the product. Every element below is a policy setting you define, which is why the same platform runs this work and every other case type.
- Domain
- Payment screening — with its own hit types, from a sanctions match on a beneficiary to an internal list hit on an intermediary.
- Risk dimensions
- Defined per hit type; the dimensions scored, their weights, the bands, and the override rules that force an outcome regardless of score.
- Plan template
- Hit type drives the checks that must run and the sources each one reaches.
- Report template
- Your disposition format, including the rationale fields your quality team samples against.
Controls
Defensible
after the fact.
The same governance and quality controls apply to this case type as to every other — because an examiner does not lower the standard for the harder files.
Quality control
Sampling built in
A sampling methodology sits behind this case type, so your quality team can assess a representative sample rather than reviewing at random.
Quality assurance
Independent assessment
A separate set of agents assesses case quality end to end against your methodology — a second opinion on the work.
See it on your own file
Bring a real case.
We’ll show you the workflow.
Pick a real queue or a set of closed dispositions and see how RiskPulse resolves them, evidences them, and writes them up under your policy.
Request Demo