AML Alert Triage demo
Agents brief each monitoring alert with cited evidence, a challenger argues to escalate, and the Level 1 analyst closes or escalates with a written reason 1:29
What the demo shows
Level 1 AML analysts review every monitoring alert with a written rationale before escalating
An Alert reader writes one sentence on what fired and why. An Investigating agent answers three questions with cited evidence: is this normal for this customer, who are the counterparties, has it happened before, and drafts the rationale under a reason code. A separate Challenger agent argues for escalation and must agree before any closure is proposed. A Like-alert grouper puts alerts with the same pattern and evidence into batches an analyst signs together, a QC sampler draws and pre-checks a sample for the QC analyst, an Escalation writer opens the Level 2 case with its detection date, and a Tuning analyst turns repeated closures into proposals for the tuning team. The analyst closes or escalates; QC can reopen; nothing about an alert reaches a customer view.
Transcript
- AML Alert Triage helps Level 1 analysts decide every monitoring alert with a written rationale.
- Commonly, 85 to 95 percent of alerts are false positives.
- Fenwick Auto Body moved $48,200 in and $47,900 out in three days.
- Agents answer three questions with evidence: the monthly insurer payout to three regular suppliers.
- A challenger agent argues for escalation; here it found none.
- Dana closes it with this rationale in two minutes instead of thirty-eight.
- Twelve like alerts are signed as one batch; QC samples three.
- On Pellham Logistics the challenger disagrees: counterparty three is new. Dana escalates, and the SAR clock starts from the detection date.
- Every decision is kept for examiners; no alert reaches a customer view.
- The result: every alert with its reasons, like alerts cleared in minutes.
- Built on Botminds: agents, data, screens and governance on one platform.
The narration as written for the film. Captions are on the player.