UCP 600 rules, ISBP 821 practice and your own procedure, answered verdict first against the live presentation, every line cited
Every discrepancy question gets a cited verdict in seconds, the reasoning kept for audit.
See one case, screen by screen ↓UCP 600 & ICC Rules Search answers trade staff's UCP 600 rules questions, and those on ISBP 821, eUCP, URC 522, ISP98, URDG 758 and ICC opinions, with a verdict first: "Yes, discrepant", "No, compliant" or "Not settled". The rule, standard practice and the bank's own procedure follow, labeled apart and each cited to its passage, with past decisions and the approved refusal wording. Eight agents do the research; examiners decide and a second examiner confirms.
AI use cases in banking: a buyer's guide to agentic AI for bank and credit union operations →
Updated
Every document examiner answers UCP 600 rules questions all day: is an insurance certificate dated after shipment a discrepancy, does "about" allow this quantity, is a bill of lading with this clause still clean. Each presentation must be examined and paid or refused within five banking days (UCP 600 art. 14(b)), and a refusal must list every discrepancy in a single notice. The answers sit in UCP 600, ISBP 821, eUCP 2.1, URC 522, ISP98, URDG 758, hundreds of licensed Banking Commission opinions and the bank's own examination procedures.
Today the question goes to a senior checker by chat or email, to a shelf of ICC books, or to memory, and the reasoning is lost the moment the box is ticked. Four processing centers decide the same point differently, the bank's own precedent sits in email, and when Internal Audit samples a refused presentation the answer is "the examiner's judgment". UCP 600 & ICC Rules Search puts eight agents in front of that research, so the examiner reads a cited verdict and decides.
Estimated split of one examiner's rule question, by hand and with the agents. The 'before' column totals 40 minutes, the top of the 20 to 40 minutes an examiner waits on a senior checker; the 'after' column keeps the examiner's own reading and the second examiner's confirmation. Our arithmetic, kept modest.
Eight agents read the presentation, search the rules and precedent, write a cited verdict and route what is not settled; an examiner decides, a second examiner confirms.
Thursday 22 October 2026. Lena Okafor, a document examiner at Corvane National Bank's Chicago trade processing center, is on day 1 of 5 with import credit CNB-ILC-26-04417: USD 1,284,600.00 CIF Tacoma, applicant Halvorsen Marine Supply Co., beneficiary Kestrel Coastal Instruments Sdn Bhd. Here is her morning, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Lena types "Insurance certificate dated 20 Oct, B/L shipped on board 19 Oct. Discrepant?" with the lines pasted from the bill of lading and the certificate. The answer opens with the verdict in large type, at confidence 0.97, then three labeled rows: the rule (UCP 600 art. 28(e)), the practice (ISBP 821 ¶ K10) and Corvane's own text (TEP-07 §4.3 and ruling KR-2024-018 v2). Beside it sit the presentation's facts and the five-day clock.
Yes, discrepant, unless the certificate shows cover effective no later than the shipment date, 19 Oct 2026.
Lena opens UCP 600 art. 28(e), "Insurance document and coverage: date of the insurance document", with its version and the passage the answer rests on highlighted. The bank's ICC license is enforced on the same screen.
Licensed ICC text · shown to entitled staff (your seat: 37 of 128) · 80-word excerpt limit · never copied into exports
The precedent trail shows a licensed Banking Commission opinion holding a later-dated certificate discrepant, Corvane ruling KR-2024-018 v2 drafted by Jonah Feld and approved by Ruth Castellano, and Corvane's own 31 decisions on the point in 24 months: 29 discrepant, 2 compliant. Then the approved phrase DWL-INS-07, with "Add to CNB-ILC-26-04417".
Insurance document dated after date of shipment without evidence of earlier cover
The agent reads certificate KMI-CC-884120 from Kinabalu Marine Insurance Bhd and highlights the date of issue, 20 October 2026, the sum insured of USD 1,413,060.00 (110% of the CIF value) and the words "warehouse to warehouse". It finds no statement of earlier cover, and notes that Corvane does not accept "warehouse to warehouse" alone. It reports; the examiner decides.
Cover begins: no statement on the certificate
Lena adds D1 from verdict Q-261022-0137 and sends it to Tomás Rivera; the screen will not let her confirm her own discrepancy. Tomás confirms at 10:21, and D1 posts to the trade finance system, where the refusal notice is assembled.
This solution never sends a notice.
Erin Sato at Halvorsen Marine asks whether a waiver means Corvane pays. The draft explains that a waiver does not extend the time to decide, so the answer is needed by 4:00 pm CT on Tuesday 27 October (UCP 600 art. 16(b)). The agents keep the internal ruling, the procedure, examiner notes and screening status out of the reply, and Alicia Moreno checks it before it is sent at 10:44.
Asked whether a bill of lading marked "packaging reused" is still clean, the agents find UCP 600 art. 27 silent on the phrase, ISBP 821 giving examples either way, and two licensed opinions pointing different ways. Confidence is 0.58, below the 0.85 threshold, so they do not guess: the question joins Rules Desk item RD-26-0611.
Ruth's queue shows 14 open, 3 tied to a live presentation, 5 due today and 0 past SLA. The SLA is one banking day when a question is tied to a live presentation and three otherwise, with escalation to the Head of Trade Operations. RD-26-0602 is marked as a possible duplicate, ready to merge.
Jonah Feld drafted the ruling, so he cannot approve it. Ruth approves it as KR-2026-044 v1, effective 22 Oct 2026 for all four centers. The agents then re-answer the four questions waiting on it, from Paul Novak, Keisha Grant, Arjun Mehta and Lena Okafor, tell all four people, and close RD-26-0611 within its SLA.
Not settled → No, not discrepant
The trail runs from Lena's question at 09:58 through the verdict (prompt v14), the citation check of 9 sentences, the document check, D1 added and confirmed, the client reply approved and the ruling approved at 11:05. It cannot be edited, and the export pack is built for Internal Audit or a bank examiner.
The same insurance date question, seen by the five people at Corvane National Bank who carry it: what their day looked like, and what it looks like now.
Eight agents read the presentation, search the rules and precedent, write a cited verdict and route what is not settled; an examiner decides, a second examiner confirms.
Reads the question or pasted clause, finds the instrument type and the rules the credit applies (field 40E), and loads the live presentation when one is named.
Searches the licensed ICC texts, Banking Commission opinions, Corvane procedures and rulings by passage, and the bank's past decisions on the same point.
Writes the one-line verdict, its qualifier, the three labeled layers (rule, practice, Corvane), the precedent trail and the follow-ups.
Reads every sentence of the answer back against its passage and removes anything the source does not say.
Reads the presented document images for the condition the verdict turns on, and shows where it found it, or that it is not there.
Picks the approved phrase from Corvane's discrepancy wording library and fits it to the facts.
Routes "Not settled" questions to the Trade Rules Desk with the conflicting passages, re-answers earlier questions when a ruling is approved, and watches source versions for supersession.
Writes CDCS-style practice questions from the rules and Corvane rulings, each answer cited to its passage.
Decide, confirm and approve. The agents propose; a named person decides.
The assistant answers from the same cited sources, then takes you to the screen or does the work.
Has Corvane ever accepted "warehouse to warehouse" as earlier cover?
No. Ruling KR-2024-018 v2, approved by Ruth Castellano on 14 Mar 2025, says the wording alone is not evidence of earlier cover. Of 31 decisions on an insurance date after shipment in the last 24 months, 29 were refused; the 2 accepted certificates both said cover ran from the date of loading.
Which questions are waiting on the Rules Desk for live presentations?
Three: RD-26-0611 (packaging reused, due today 4:00 pm, draft ruling ready), RD-26-0612 (an eUCP on-board date, due 5:00 pm) and RD-26-0609 (URDG demand number, due Fri 10:00 am). None is past its SLA.
Draft a CDCS quiz on insurance documents for the Dallas examiners
Drafted: ten questions on UCP 600 art. 28 and ISBP 821 section K, each with its answer cited to the passage, and two built on Corvane rulings. Customer names are left out. It is ready for Ruth Castellano to assign to the 31 Dallas examiners.
Export the audit pack for CNB-ILC-26-04417
The pack covers the question, the verdict and the 5 passages it rested on with their versions, the document check, D1 with who added and who confirmed it, and the client reply. ICC text goes as references only, per the license.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
How the agents answer, what they may show and how long the record is kept are settings, versioned, and changed only with a second person's approval.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Confidence threshold | 0.85 | Below it, the verdict is "Not settled" and goes to the desk |
| Label rule, practice and Corvane apart | Always on | Never blended in one sentence |
| Refusal wording | From the library only (DWL v19, 412 approved phrases) | New wording goes through a desk review |
| Licensed ICC text | Entitled staff only, 128 named seats | 80-word excerpt limit; exports carry references only |
| Rules Desk SLA | 1 banking day when tied to a live presentation, 3 otherwise | Escalates to the Head of Trade Operations 2 hours before breach |
| Override reason codes | Credit terms differ, document read differently, rule applied wrongly, Corvane procedure differs, other | Every override logged, the desk told |
| Models and prompts | Verdict writer prompt v14, 97.4% on a 420-question evaluation set | A change needs the Rules Desk lead's approval |
| Retention | Question log 5 years; rulings for their life plus 5 years | Customer names and account numbers masked in training and exports |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
"demo" = seen in the working solution, on its sample data · "target" = the design goal, measured in the live solution · "estimated" = our arithmetic, kept modest · "typical" = published rules and figures (UCP 600, ICC Publication No. 600, arts. 14(b) and 16: five banking days to examine and a single refusal notice; surveys behind the UCP 600 revision: about 70% of presentations discrepant at first presentation). Rules named for context: UCP 600, ISBP 821 (2023), eUCP 2.1, URC 522, ISP98, URDG 758, URR 725 and GLBA. Rule passages on the screens are paraphrased in the bank library's own words; licensed ICC text is not reproduced. Corvane National Bank, its clients, the banks, insurers, credits and the people named on this page are fictional: characters and sample data in the working solution.
UCP 600 & ICC Rules Search answers trade staff's UCP 600 rules questions, and those on ISBP 821, eUCP, URC 522, ISP98, URDG 758 and ICC opinions, with a verdict first: "Yes, discrepant", "No, compliant" or "Not settled". The rule, standard practice and the bank's own procedure follow, labeled apart and each cited to its passage, with past decisions and the approved refusal wording. Eight agents do the research; examiners decide and a second examiner confirms.
UCP 600 is the International Chamber of Commerce's rules for documentary credits, in force since 1 July 2007, which apply when a letter of credit says so. They set how banks examine presented documents and give a bank five banking days to decide whether a presentation complies (art. 14(b)). ISBP 821 (2023) describes the standard banking practice examiners apply alongside them.
Article 28 covers insurance documents and coverage. Article 28(e) says the insurance document may not be dated later than the date of shipment unless it shows cover effective no later than that date, and 28(f)(ii) requires cover of at least 110% of the CIF or CIP value when the credit says nothing about the amount. In the working solution the Document checker looks for that earlier-cover statement on the certificate itself.
A discrepancy is a way a presented document fails to comply with the credit, the rules or standard practice, such as an insurance certificate dated after shipment without evidence of earlier cover. A bank that refuses must list every discrepancy in a single notice (UCP 600 art. 16(c)). Each discrepant verdict ends with the approved phrase from the bank's wording library, which the examiner adds to the presentation and a second examiner confirms.
Yes. The rules library holds UCP 600, ISBP 821, eUCP 2.1, URC 522, eURC 1.1, ISP98, URDG 758 and URR 725, the Banking Commission opinions in the bank's licensed set, its procedures and its wording library. Superseded text such as ISBP 745 stays searchable, is marked superseded, and is never used for a new answer.
The answer is "Not settled", with each source shown and why it does not decide the point, and the question goes to the Trade Rules Desk. A specialist drafts a ruling and the desk lead approves it; the author can never approve their own. Once approved, the agents re-answer every question that was waiting on it and tell the people who asked.
Yes. The agents research, write and check; they never pay or refuse a presentation, send a notice or approve a ruling. The examiner adds a discrepancy, a second examiner confirms it, client replies are checked by a team lead, and an examiner can disagree with any verdict with a reason code.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents: your examination procedures, wording library, rulings and a sample of past rule questions. It goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on your own questions first.
Every respondent's file rebuilt each cycle, with nesting checked against real payments.
1-min demoNostro ReconciliationEvery nostro break explained from its payment messages and cleared with two signatures.
1-min demoLetter of Credit Document CheckingExamined twice, cited to the rule, decided on banking day two of five.
1-min demoWe'll run UCP 600 & ICC Rules Search on a sample of your own past rule questions, procedures and presentations.