Every answer from the treasury management agreement version that governed the day of the payment, quoted with its page and its signer, beside what the payments hub shows actually happened
What the client agreed, what the log shows, and whether they match.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Treasury Management Agreement Search answers what each business client signed — services, limits, security procedures and fees — from the version of the treasury management agreement that was in force on the day it matters. The answer has two sides: the procedure the client agreed to, quoted with its page and its signer, and what the payments hub shows actually happened to the payment order. One line says whether they match, and a position memo is drafted for a named officer to send and Legal to approve.
AI use cases in banking: a buyer's guide to agentic AI for bank and credit union operations →
Updated
A treasury management agreement is a master agreement plus a service schedule for every service a business client buys — wires, ACH origination, positive pay, remote deposit capture, lockbox — and then years of amendments, fee exhibits and authorized-user forms on top. At the bank in the working solution, 21,400 business clients hold 38,412 signed documents between them. One client's file alone holds fourteen, signed by three different officers of that client between 2019 and 2026, scanned and filed under a relationship number.
So when a client disputes a payment, somebody opens the folder and reads — and reads the newest copy, not the one that governed on the day. What the payments hub recorded about that payment order, who entered it, who released it, which token, sits in a different system again, so nobody compares the two until a dispute forces it, on a response window counted in business days. Treasury Management Agreement Search puts seven agents in front of that reading and gives the answer two sides: the procedure the client agreed to, and what actually happened.
Estimated split of the hours behind one disputed payment order, by hand and with the agents, for a dispute like the one on this page. Our arithmetic, kept modest; the clock agent measures the real response times.
Seven agents find the client's file, date the version that governed, pull the payment order's trail and draft the position; an officer sends it, Legal approves, claims delivers.
Wednesday, October 21, 2026. A food distributor has written to say a $186,400.00 wire sent on October 14 was not authorized: the beneficiary instructions came from an email impersonating a supplier. Here is the question and the answer, screen by screen in the working solution.
She asks what security procedure the client agreed to and whether it was followed. The agents read the client's fourteen signed documents, found 23 passages and used 4. The verdict comes first, and under it the two sides sit beside each other: what the client agreed to on the left, what the payments hub recorded on the right.
Agreed and followed. Confidence 0.96, threshold 0.85. No other client's file was opened.
Amendment 2, effective February 3, 2025, page 2, section 4.2, signed by the client's Chief Financial Officer on January 28, 2025: a payment order above $50,000 must be entered by one authorized user and released by a different one, the releasing user authenticating with a bank-issued security token, and a verification call only above $250,000. Section 4.5 records that the bank offered a call on every payment order and that the client declined it in writing.
Entered at 10:36 by one authorized user. Released at 10:41 by a different authorized user, whose security token code was accepted at 10:41. Dual approval satisfied above the $50,000 threshold; no verification call required below $250,000; executed at 10:43. Then the client's written notice on October 16, the recall request at 9:48 that morning, and $41,900.00 returned on October 19.
Two different authorized users above $50,000, a token at release, and no verification call owed below $250,000: nothing the procedure required is missing. Beside it the version agent lists what it did not use, and why it matters: read the 2022 schedule instead and the bank would have told its client it missed a verification call above $100,000 that it never owed.
The answer also says what it does not decide: whether the order was induced by fraud. Both users are the client's own.
A citation opens the document at the page the passage is on, with the quoted section highlighted, the signature page a tab away, and the facts beside it: effective February 3, 2025, still in force, four pages, held in document imaging. Account, routing and token numbers are masked to the last four, and the original scan is never copied out.
Everything that set or changed how this client sends a payment order since 2019, each row with its effective date and its signer: the 2019 schedule replaced in 2022, the 2022 schedule whose section 4.1 Amendment 2 replaced, Amendment 1 adding international orders and a $1,000,000 daily limit, and the authorized-user form returned in April 2025.
Set the date before Amendment 2 and the stack rebuilds: any one authorized user could release a payment order, and a verification call was owed above $100,000. Versions not yet in force, or already replaced, are marked. The same replay answers a dispute about a payment made three years ago.
Five services with the procedure and the limit the client actually agreed to, the person who signed for each one, and a link to the signed page: wires at $1,000,000 a day, ACH origination at $400,000 a day with a 3:00 PM cut-off, positive pay exceptions decided by 11:00 AM, remote deposit capture at $150,000 a day, lockbox after 2:00 PM.
The position quotes both sides and carries decision code PD-1: the bank does not accept the loss. The officer who drafted it can never approve it. Legal approves at 9:23, the director is not needed because $186,400.00 is under $250,000 and no liability is accepted, and the memo waits for the Wire Fraud Claims Analyst, the only person who sends it.
A restricted financial crime review, if one exists on any client, never appears on this screen, in the memo, or in anything sent to the client.
A $312,480.00 ACH file was released against a signed per-file limit of $250,000 that says the bank will reject a file that exceeds it. The hub shows the limit check failed and a bank user overrode it with a free-text reason. The verdict is "agreed, not followed", and the position has to say it plainly: either the limit is raised in a signed amendment, or the override stops.
Each dispute is counted in business days from the client's written notice. One is three business days late and was escalated to the director, one is due today, and one at $298,500.00 sits with the director because it is over $250,000. This fiscal year 193 of 196 positions went out inside the window.
Every night the agents ask whether the procedure each client signed matches the way their payments actually move. 148 of 21,400 clients do not: 61 need a second approver above a limit but entitle only one, 44 were released above a limit their schedule never raised, and 43 require a verification call the hub has never recorded.
The question, the version found, the payment order pulled, the draft, the approval and the send are all on the trail with who, what, when, why and the evidence, and the agents are marked as agents. An examiner pack bundles the governing version, the payment record, the position and the approvals, with account numbers masked.
The same disputed payment, seen by the four people who carry it: what their day looked like, and what it looks like now.
Seven agents find the client's file, date the version that governed, pull the payment order's trail and draft the position; an officer sends it, Legal approves, claims delivers.
Masks account, routing and security token numbers to the last four in questions, answers, memos and exports.
Finds every agreement, schedule, amendment, fee exhibit and authorized-user form for one client, with the page and the signer.
Works out which version governed on the day of the payment and strikes the wording a later version replaced.
Pulls the payment order's trail from the payments hub: who entered it, who released it, which token, which limit checks ran, whether a verification call was placed.
Says in one line whether the two sides match and drafts the position memo quoting both, with a decision code.
Marks unsigned amendments, missing authorized-user forms, conflicting schedules and scans the reader could not read, and opens a request to the relationship officer.
Counts the response window in business days from the client's written notice, reminds the owner and escalates a late response to the director.
Approves every position; the director over $250,000 or where the bank accepts liability. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Anyone who may open a client's file can ask in plain words. Every answer cites the clause or the payment record behind it, then opens the screen to act on.
What did this client agree to before February 2025?
Until February 3, 2025 the 2022 wire schedule governed: any authorized user could enter and release a payment order, and the bank placed a verification call above $100,000. Amendment 2 replaced that section with two users above $50,000 and a call above $250,000.
Which disputes are due this week?
Three. One is due today, one tomorrow and sits with the director at $298,500.00, and one on October 23. A fourth is already three business days past its window and was escalated.
Where do clients pay differently from what they signed?
148 clients of 21,400. 61 need two approvers above a limit but entitle only one, 44 were released above a limit their schedule never raised, and 43 require a verification call the hub has never recorded.
Is this position safe to send?
It is consistent with the file. The procedure in force on October 14 required two users above $50,000 and a call only above $250,000; the hub shows both users and the token; section 4.5 records that the client declined a call on every order. At $186,400.00 it is under the $250,000 director threshold, so Legal alone approves it.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
Thresholds, windows, masking and retention are settings. The document administrator proposes a change, and it takes effect only when the Director, Treasury Client Services approves it.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Answer without Legal at or above | Confidence 0.85 | Below it, the question goes to Legal with a one-business-day clock |
| Director approval on a position | Over $250,000, or where the bank accepts liability | A goodwill credit needs the director over $25,000 |
| Response to a client's written notice | 10 business days | From the master agreement; bank holidays are not counted |
| Remind the owner | 2 business days before the window closes | 2 or 3 business days; a late response goes to the director |
| Account, routing and token numbers | Masked to the last four, always on | Including in memos sent to clients and in examiner packs |
| Copy the original scan out of document imaging | Off | The agents read it in place and quote the passage |
| Funds-transfer records | Kept 5 years | 5 or 7 years; a legal hold overrides retention |
| Treasury agreements and schedules | Kept 6 years after the relationship ends | 6 or 10 years; questions and answers 3 or 5 years |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
Sources: FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center, 2025 Internet Crime Report (24,768 business email compromise complaints and $3,046,598,558 reported lost; the Financial Fraud Kill Chain froze $679,013,183 across 3,900 incidents, a 58% success rate) · UCC Article 4A-202 and 4A-204 on security procedures and unauthorized payment orders · FFIEC, Authentication and Access to Financial Institution Services and Systems, August 11, 2021. "demo" = seen in the working solution, on its sample data · "target" = design goal, measured in the live solution · "typical" = published figures · "estimated" = our arithmetic, kept modest. The bank, its business clients, their agreements, the payment orders and the people named on this page are fictional: characters and sample data in the working solution.
Treasury Management Agreement Search answers what each business client signed — services, limits, security procedures and fees — from the version of the treasury management agreement that was in force on the day it matters. The answer has two sides: the procedure the client agreed to, quoted with its page and its signer, and what the payments hub shows actually happened to the payment order. One line says whether they match, and a position memo is drafted for a named officer to send and Legal to approve.
Each client's file is built as an effective-dated stack: master agreement, service schedules, amendments, fee exhibits and authorized-user forms, each with the dates it was in force and the person who signed it. The version agent marks the one that governed on the date of the payment and strikes the wording a later version replaced. An unsigned amendment is never treated as in force, and any article can be replayed to an earlier date.
It puts the agreed security procedure beside the payment order's record from the payments hub — who entered it, who released it, which security token, whether a verification call was placed — and states in one line whether they match. A position memo quoting both sides is drafted with a decision code, the response window is counted in business days from the client's written notice, and the recall and what it has recovered are tracked alongside.
From the scanned documents already in document imaging. Every quote carries the document, the section, the page, the effective date and the signer, and opens the page it was signed on. The original scan is never copied out, and account, routing and security token numbers are masked to the last four everywhere, including in memos sent to clients and in examiner packs.
The gap agent marks amendments nobody signed, clients with no current authorized-user form, conflicting schedules and scans the reader could not read, and opens a document request to the relationship officer. Answers that would have quoted an unusable document say so instead, and a question with no clear answer goes to Legal with a one-business-day clock rather than being guessed.
Yes. Overnight the agents ask the same question of the whole book: does the procedure each client signed match the way their payments actually move? Clients fall into three groups — a second approver agreed but only one entitled, payments released above a limit the schedule never raised, and a verification call the hub has no record of placing — and each row cites the signed clause and the payment record behind it.
Yes. The agents find, date, compare and draft; they never send anything to a client, never move money and never extend a deadline. A question below the 0.85 confidence threshold goes to Legal instead of being answered, the officer who drafts a position can never approve it, the director approves anything over $250,000 or that accepts liability, and only the wire fraud claims analyst sends the answer to the client.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents — your master agreements, service schedules, amendments, fee exhibits and authorized-user forms, and your payment order records — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on one client's file first.
Live in days, not a month, with every setup signed and checked.
1-min demoPositive Pay ExceptionsEvery exception decided by a named person before the cutoff, not left to the default.
1-min demoAccount Analysis Fee Leakage ReviewEvery analyzed relationship compared with its signed schedule, every month.
1-min demoWe'll run Treasury Management Agreement Search on one client's master agreement, schedules and amendments, against your own payment order records.