INTERACTIVE SIMULATIONSynthetic data. No real executions, AI calls or connections.
advanexus for banking
What needs to be known before a decision?
Choose a business question. Follow the same finding through sources, processing and checks, all the way to the answer and its evidence in the platform.
Seven short steps per example. The layout follows the platform modules; data and outcomes are prepared for this demonstration. They are not customer outcomes or a live session recording.
Banks / SIM
{"copy": {"access_required": "To reveal the answer, first confirm the scope in the AI access step. Approval remains your choice, even in this simulation.", "after": "New execution", "answer_ready": "Prepared answer", "assistant": "Demo assistant", "back": "Presentation", "banner": "INTERACTIVE SIMULATION", "before": "First execution", "change": "Another example", "chat_empty": "The question is already prepared for this case. The answer will explain the confirmed finding and what is still missing.", "chat_scope": "Only the displayed approved review is used. The answer does not change data or start another job.", "chat_subtitle": "Prepared question and answer. Nothing is sent to a model.", "chat_title": "Conversation over the approved result", "chooser_note": "Seven short steps per example. The layout follows the platform modules; data and outcomes are prepared for this demonstration. They are not customer outcomes or a live session recording.", "client": "AI client", "client_name": "Demo business assistant", "close": "Close", "comparison": "View a separate result after correction", "connection_boundary": "Approval covers the selected scope, not every database or future resource. Data changes and Pipeline job execution are not part of this AI access.", "connection_intro": "In this example, project approval already exists. This shows the next step: permission for this particular AI connection.", "connection_resource": "Selected resource", "connection_title": "Approved scope of this conversation", "consent": "Show approval of this scope in the simulation.", "consent_button": "Show confirmed permission", "consent_confirmed": "Permission is shown. No real connection was created.", "consent_pause": "Playback stopped at the permission step. This example requires your click to confirm.", "contact": "Discuss this process", "description": "An interactive simulation of connected records, checks and an authorised AI conversation.", "details": "Details", "disclosure": "Synthetic data. No real executions, AI calls or connections.", "end_note": "A real pilot starts with one process, approved sources and agreed acceptance rules. This preview illustrates that workflow.", "end_title": "The business answer has a check and clear limits", "evidence_boundary": "Assurance displays the recorded trail. It does not rerun work or certify regulatory compliance.", "evidence_intro": "Open an event to see its related step and result. Times and SIM references belong to the scenario, not a live execution.", "evidence_title": "The same finding, a reviewable workflow", "eyebrow": "advanexus for banking", "finish": "Choose another example", "flag": "\ud83c\uddf7\ud83c\uddf8", "guide": "Guided walkthrough", "heading": "What needs to be known before a decision?", "help": "Platform Help is included", "hint": "Click the highlighted action in the window or use Next. Every SIM record belongs to the same prepared story.", "intro": "Choose a business question. Follow the same finding through sources, processing and checks, all the way to the answer and its evidence in the platform.", "language": "Srpski", "next": "Next", "next_evidence": "Next evidence to review", "no_script": "The guided preview requires JavaScript. It makes no database, AI service or authentication calls.", "observed": "Example snapshot", "of": "of", "open": "Explore the workflow", "open_evidence": "Open the linked evidence", "pause": "Pause walkthrough", "paused": "Autoplay is off. Continue at your own pace.", "pipeline_before": "A prepared workflow. Start the preview to see the different outcomes of its steps.", "pipeline_paused": "The record animation is paused. Resume when ready.", "pipeline_replay": "Replay this record\u0027s animation", "pipeline_resume": "Resume animation", "pipeline_run": "Show simulated execution", "pipeline_running": "Showing this simulated record\u0027s workflow\u2026", "play": "Play walkthrough", "playing": "Playback is on. Any manual choice pauses it.", "previous": "Back", "project": "Project", "quality_note": "The table shows representative records or aggregate groups from the prepared example. A check finding is not an automatic data correction.", "recommended": "RECOMMENDED START", "records": "Records in this example", "reference": "Example reference", "restart": "Restart", "result_label": "Prepared analytical review", "review_access": "Review the permitted scope", "role": "What it contributes", "selected_fields": "Selected output fields", "show_answer": "Show the prepared answer", "source": "Source", "source_detail": "This record source contributes to the comparison. Opening details does not connect to or read a database.", "source_note": "All systems shown belong to the synthetic example. Real workflows connect only approved sources and permitted fields.", "sources": "Connected records", "step": "Step", "steps": [{"body": "Each source supplies part of the picture. See what is connected and for which snapshot.", "id": "sources", "label": "Connected records", "module": "Sources", "title": "Where does the answer live?"}, {"body": "Play the workflow. Processing status and the business check outcome are considered separately.", "id": "pipeline", "label": "Workflow execution", "module": "Pipelines", "title": "What actually completed?"}, {"body": "The check isolates a specific exception. A failed check may mean it found a discrepancy, not a platform fault.", "id": "quality", "label": "Checks and exceptions", "module": "Data Quality", "title": "Which record changes the conclusion?"}, {"body": "The same finding is shown as business measures, with the limits that matter for the decision.", "id": "result", "label": "Decision review", "module": "Analytics", "title": "What does the decision maker need to see?"}, {"body": "The selected review and its fields are shown. Conversation access does not grant access to all bank data.", "id": "connection", "label": "Permitted AI access", "module": "AI Control \u0026 Evidence", "title": "What may the assistant read?"}, {"body": "The prepared question receives an answer tied to the same finding. Confirmed facts and the next check are stated separately.", "id": "chat", "label": "Question and answer", "module": "AI conversation", "title": "An answer in everyday language"}, {"body": "Opening a reference traces the same case to its check and recorded outcome. The AI explanation does not replace that evidence.", "id": "evidence", "label": "Evidence and next step", "module": "Assurance", "title": "What supports the answer?"}], "theme": "Change theme", "title": "advanexus | Guided banking demo", "version": "Review version", "version_value": "Synthetic snapshot 1", "workspace": "Workspace", "you": "Business user"}, "locale": "en", "project_name": "Banks", "scenarios": [{"answer": {"boundary": "This answer illustrates a synthetic check result; it does not grant regulatory approval or automatically change the mapping.", "headline": "The review is not yet ready for the agreed handover.", "next": "The mapping owner should review P-NEW, approve the required update and request a new execution over the same agreed scope.", "paragraphs": [{"text": "9,880 of 10,000 expected active accounts are included at the same cutoff. All 120 omitted accounts belong to product P-NEW without an effective mapping."}, {"text": "Preparation succeeded, but the required business check failed. The next transfer in this workflow was not started."}]}, "audience": "Executives \u00b7 finance \u00b7 risk \u00b7 reporting", "benefit": "Leaders see why the result is not yet acceptable; the team receives the exact account population requiring investigation.", "comparison": {"after": {"reference": "SIM-REPORT-DQ-02", "status": "PASSED", "value": "10 000 / 10 000"}, "before": {"reference": "SIM-REPORT-DQ-01", "status": "FAILED", "value": "9 880 / 10 000"}, "boundary": "An illustration of two separate executions, not a correction command or evidence that a new run was actually started. Passing this check does not validate every property of the report.", "intro": "An alternative ending to the guided example: the owner approved an effective P-NEW mapping, and a new execution uses the same cutoff. The earlier failure is not overwritten.", "title": "What evidence looks like after an approved correction"}, "connection": {"fields": [{"name": "cutoff_at"}, {"name": "expected_count"}, {"name": "included_count"}, {"name": "missing_count"}, {"name": "product_code"}, {"name": "mapping_status"}, {"name": "reason_code"}, {"name": "account_reference"}, {"name": "preparation_status"}, {"name": "quality_status"}, {"name": "next_transfer_status"}, {"name": "execution_reference"}], "resource": "Loan portfolio readiness review"}, "evidence": [{"detail": "9,880 accounts prepared for the 07:00 UTC cutoff.", "event": "Prepare the candidate review", "reference": "SIM-REPORT-PREP-01", "status": "SUCCEEDED", "time": "07:01:00 UTC"}, {"detail": "10,000 expected; 120 missing due to P-NEW mapping.", "event": "Check the expected population", "reference": "SIM-REPORT-DQ-01", "status": "FAILED", "time": "07:01:10 UTC"}, {"detail": "The preceding required quality step did not pass.", "event": "Hand over the accepted review", "reference": "SIM-REPORT-TRANSFER-01", "status": "NOT_STARTED", "time": "07:01:11 UTC"}], "id": "report-readiness", "pipeline": {"explanation": "Data preparation succeeded. The required completeness check failed, so the next transfer into the accepted-review table was not started.", "name": "Portfolio preparation and controlled handover", "reference": "SIM-REPORT-MASTER-01", "stages": [{"name": "Prepare the result for the agreed cutoff", "status": "SUCCEEDED"}, {"name": "Check every expected account", "status": "FAILED"}, {"name": "Transfer to the accepted-review table", "status": "NOT_STARTED"}], "status": "FAILED"}, "quality": {"columns": [{"label": "Account"}, {"label": "Product"}, {"label": "Reason omitted"}], "explanation": "120 of 10,000 expected accounts are missing. All belong to product P-NEW without an effective mapping. Three representative items are shown, not the full list.", "metrics": [{"label": "Expected", "tone": "neutral", "value": "10 000"}, {"label": "Included", "tone": "neutral", "value": "9 880"}, {"label": "Missing", "tone": "danger", "value": "120"}], "name": "Loan portfolio completeness", "rows": [{"cells": [{"text": "LOAN-09881"}, {"text": "P-NEW"}, {"text": "No effective mapping"}]}, {"cells": [{"text": "LOAN-09882"}, {"text": "P-NEW"}, {"text": "No effective mapping"}]}, {"cells": [{"text": "LOAN-09883"}, {"text": "P-NEW"}, {"text": "No effective mapping"}]}], "status": "FAILED"}, "question": "Is the morning loan portfolio review ready? What is missing and what needs to happen next?", "result": {"boundary": "In this synthetic example, the check stops only the next step in the prepared workflow. It does not control an external BI tool or report submission; the presentation executes nothing.", "chart": {"bars": [{"label": "Expected at the same cutoff", "tone": "neutral", "value": 10000}, {"label": "Included in the review", "tone": "danger", "value": 9880}], "max": 10000, "title": "Expected and included population", "unit": "loan accounts"}, "columns": [{"label": "Segment"}, {"label": "Expected"}, {"label": "In review"}], "lead": "The review includes 9,880 of 10,000 active accounts. The discrepancy is traced to one product rather than left as a generic warning.", "metrics": [{"label": "Accounts included", "tone": "neutral", "value": "98.8%"}, {"label": "Accounts to review", "tone": "danger", "value": "120"}, {"label": "Next transfer", "tone": "neutral", "value": "NOT_STARTED"}], "rows": [{"cells": [{"text": "Mortgages"}, {"text": "8 000"}, {"text": "8 000"}]}, {"cells": [{"text": "Consumer loans"}, {"text": "1 880"}, {"text": "1 880"}]}, {"cells": [{"text": "New product P-NEW"}, {"text": "120"}, {"text": "0"}]}], "status": "Not ready for the agreed handover", "title": "The result is incomplete"}, "sources": [{"name": "Active loan accounts", "records": "10 000", "role": "The agreed expected population at the same cutoff.", "stamp": "07:00 UTC"}, {"name": "Effective product mappings", "records": "2", "role": "Two products have mappings; P-NEW has no effective mapping.", "stamp": "07:00 UTC"}, {"name": "Prepared portfolio review", "records": "9 880", "role": "The result after joining to mappings; not yet accepted.", "stamp": "07:00 UTC"}], "summary": "Processing prepared a result, but 120 active loan accounts are absent from the review. Completeness is checked before the next step in the agreed workflow.", "title": "The report exists. Is it ready for a decision?"}, {"answer": {"boundary": "The check does not independently determine whether the source or target value is correct for the business; the acceptance rule defines the expectation.", "headline": "The transfer does not meet the agreed acceptance criterion.", "next": "Review the identified keys and transformation rules, approve the appropriate correction and repeat validation of the same snapshot.", "paragraphs": [{"text": "The target contains 6,997 of 7,000 expected records. Three card accounts are missing. In addition, existing contract MIG-TRADE-0042 has CLOSED instead of source value ACTIVE."}, {"text": "These are not four missing records: three are missing and one present record has a mismatched attribute. Onward distribution in the prepared workflow was not started."}]}, "audience": "IT \u00b7 data warehousing \u00b7 migration \u00b7 process owners", "benefit": "The team need not search the entire migration: it receives the specific missing keys and the record with a different status.", "connection": {"fields": [{"name": "snapshot_at"}, {"name": "population_name"}, {"name": "source_count"}, {"name": "target_count"}, {"name": "missing_key_count"}, {"name": "mismatch_count"}, {"name": "record_reference"}, {"name": "checked_field"}, {"name": "source_value"}, {"name": "target_value"}, {"name": "transfer_status"}, {"name": "quality_status"}, {"name": "next_transfer_status"}, {"name": "execution_reference"}], "resource": "Transfer acceptance review"}, "evidence": [{"detail": "The executed transfer moved 6,997 records.", "event": "Technical transfer", "reference": "SIM-MIG-TRANSFER-01", "status": "SUCCEEDED", "time": "07:01:00 UTC"}, {"detail": "Three missing keys and one required-status mismatch.", "event": "Key and attribute validation", "reference": "SIM-MIG-DQ-01", "status": "FAILED", "time": "07:01:20 UTC"}, {"detail": "Continuation depends on passing the preceding check.", "event": "Onward distribution", "reference": "SIM-MIG-DISTRIBUTE-01", "status": "NOT_STARTED", "time": "07:01:21 UTC"}], "id": "report-consistency", "pipeline": {"explanation": "The transfer completed with 6,997 records. The subsequent required check finds missing keys and a status mismatch, so onward distribution in this workflow was not started.", "name": "Transfer, validation and onward distribution", "reference": "SIM-MIG-MASTER-01", "stages": [{"name": "Transfer the prepared population", "status": "SUCCEEDED"}, {"name": "Compare the target with the source snapshot", "status": "FAILED"}, {"name": "Distribute the accepted result", "status": "NOT_STARTED"}], "status": "FAILED"}, "quality": {"columns": [{"label": "Key"}, {"label": "Source"}, {"label": "Target"}], "explanation": "Three card accounts are missing and one trade contract has a different status. Three of four findings are shown: two missing keys and one value mismatch.", "metrics": [{"label": "Source records", "tone": "neutral", "value": "7 000"}, {"label": "Missing keys", "tone": "danger", "value": "3"}, {"label": "Value mismatches", "tone": "danger", "value": "1"}], "name": "Completeness and equality of transferred records", "rows": [{"cells": [{"text": "MIG-CARD-1998"}, {"text": "ACTIVE"}, {"text": "No record"}]}, {"cells": [{"text": "MIG-CARD-1999"}, {"text": "ACTIVE"}, {"text": "No record"}]}, {"cells": [{"text": "MIG-TRADE-0042"}, {"text": "ACTIVE"}, {"text": "CLOSED"}]}], "status": "FAILED"}, "question": "Is the transfer acceptable to the business? Separate missing records from mismatched values.", "result": {"boundary": "This is a synthetic transfer check, not a business-report check or an actual migration cutover. Automatic rollback and equality of fields outside the scope are not promised.", "chart": {"bars": [{"label": "Missing records", "tone": "danger", "value": 3}, {"label": "Present record with a status mismatch", "tone": "danger", "value": 1}], "max": 3, "title": "What prevents transfer acceptance", "unit": "findings"}, "columns": [{"label": "Business population"}, {"label": "Source / target"}, {"label": "Open finding"}], "lead": "Completeness is checked by key and content by agreed attributes. Matching row counts in the trade population do not prove matching values.", "metrics": [{"label": "Transferred", "tone": "neutral", "value": "6 997 / 7 000"}, {"label": "Missing", "tone": "danger", "value": "3"}, {"label": "Status mismatch", "tone": "danger", "value": "1"}], "rows": [{"cells": [{"text": "Core accounts"}, {"text": "4 000 / 4 000"}, {"text": "No findings within the checked scope"}]}, {"cells": [{"text": "Card accounts"}, {"text": "2 000 / 1 997"}, {"text": "Three keys missing"}]}, {"cells": [{"text": "Trade contracts"}, {"text": "1 000 / 1 000"}, {"text": "One status differs"}]}], "status": "Four findings require investigation", "title": "Technically complete. Not accepted by the business."}, "sources": [{"name": "Agreed source snapshot", "records": "7 000", "role": "Three business populations, stable keys and required attributes.", "stamp": "07:00 UTC"}, {"name": "Target after transfer", "records": "6 997", "role": "Keys and values actually present for the same agreed snapshot.", "stamp": "07:00 UTC"}, {"name": "Transfer acceptance rules", "records": "3", "role": "Unique keys, completeness and equality of required fields.", "stamp": "07:00 UTC"}], "summary": "A successful technical transfer does not prove that the target contains every expected key and the correct required attributes.", "title": "The transfer finished. Is the target complete?"}, {"answer": {"boundary": "The payment, posting and case were not changed. This view does not promise faster external settlement.", "headline": "A EUR 1 difference is confirmed; the correct amount has not been established.", "next": "Review the approved posting-basis evidence for BANK-ENTRY-002 and its applied rule, then supplement the case with the confirmed finding.", "paragraphs": [{"text": "The payment is EUR 70 and the linked posting EUR 71. Both currencies are confirmed. The channel is SUCCEEDED, settlement status is SETTLED and the case is OPEN."}, {"text": "This result does not include the calculation basis or posting composition. The difference is therefore not classified as an error, an approved fee or grounds for automatic correction."}]}, "audience": "Payment operations \u00b7 customer service \u00b7 operational leaders", "benefit": "Operations receives a prepared case and a clear next question instead of another search for statuses across four systems.", "connection": {"fields": [{"name": "payment_id"}, {"name": "payment_amount"}, {"name": "currency"}, {"name": "channel_status"}, {"name": "ledger_entry_id"}, {"name": "ledger_amount"}, {"name": "ledger_currency"}, {"name": "ledger_status"}, {"name": "settlement_status"}, {"name": "case_id"}, {"name": "case_status"}, {"name": "reconciliation_status"}, {"name": "execution_reference"}], "resource": "Payment 360 (approved payment review)"}, "evidence": [{"detail": "Four approved records linked for the same payment.", "event": "Prepare evidence for 002", "reference": "SIM-PAY-PREP-01", "status": "SUCCEEDED", "time": "07:01:00 UTC"}, {"detail": "EUR 70 and EUR 71 differ; the cause is not in the output.", "event": "Amount check", "reference": "SIM-PAY-DQ-01", "status": "FAILED", "time": "07:01:10 UTC"}, {"detail": "A further check is proposed, with no business mutation.", "event": "Review the finding", "reference": "SIM-PAY-REVIEW-01", "status": "RECORDED", "time": "07:01:20 UTC"}], "id": "payments", "pipeline": {"explanation": "In this guided example, preparation completes successfully. A separate business check then evaluates the amounts; successful preparation is not evidence of reconciliation.", "name": "Prepare linked payment evidence", "reference": "SIM-PAY-PREP-01", "stages": [{"name": "Select approved records for 002", "status": "SUCCEEDED"}, {"name": "Join by identifier and currency", "status": "SUCCEEDED"}, {"name": "Prepare the review for checking", "status": "SUCCEEDED"}], "status": "SUCCEEDED"}, "quality": {"columns": [{"label": "Check"}, {"label": "Evidence"}, {"label": "Conclusion"}], "explanation": "The amount-equality check failed. Three checks are shown for the single selected payment 002; the finding does not establish whether the difference is justified.", "metrics": [{"label": "Payment", "tone": "neutral", "value": "70 EUR"}, {"label": "Ledger", "tone": "neutral", "value": "71 EUR"}, {"label": "Confirmed difference", "tone": "danger", "value": "+1 EUR"}], "name": "Payment and ledger reconciliation", "rows": [{"cells": [{"text": "Currency"}, {"text": "EUR / EUR"}, {"text": "Currencies match"}]}, {"cells": [{"text": "Amount"}, {"text": "70 / 71"}, {"text": "Difference +EUR 1"}]}, {"cells": [{"text": "Basis of the difference"}, {"text": "Not in this approved output"}, {"text": "Further review needed"}]}], "status": "FAILED"}, "question": "For BANK-DEMO-PAY-002, separate confirmed facts from what still needs checking. Has an error been established?", "result": {"boundary": "The synthetic view sends no request to a payment system. A EUR 1 difference is not automatically an error or a confirmed fee. Settlement amount and currency are outside the selected output.", "chart": {"bars": [{"label": "Payment", "tone": "neutral", "value": 70}, {"label": "Ledger entry", "tone": "danger", "value": 71}], "max": 75, "title": "Same identifier. Same currency. Different amount.", "unit": "EUR"}, "columns": [{"label": "Record"}, {"label": "Reference"}, {"label": "Confirmed state"}], "lead": "Channel status SUCCEEDED and settlement status SETTLED do not establish amount agreement with the ledger. BANK-CASE-002 remains open.", "metrics": [{"label": "Ledger minus payment", "tone": "danger", "value": "+1 EUR"}, {"label": "Case", "tone": "neutral", "value": "OPEN"}, {"label": "Automatic correction", "tone": "neutral", "value": "0"}], "rows": [{"cells": [{"text": "Payment"}, {"text": "BANK-DEMO-PAY-002"}, {"text": "70 EUR \u00b7 SUCCEEDED"}]}, {"cells": [{"text": "Ledger"}, {"text": "BANK-ENTRY-002"}, {"text": "71 EUR \u00b7 POSTED"}]}, {"cells": [{"text": "Case"}, {"text": "BANK-CASE-002"}, {"text": "OPEN \u00b7 AMOUNT_MISMATCH"}]}], "status": "Posting-basis review needed", "title": "The difference is confirmed. The cause is not."}, "sources": [{"name": "Payment channel", "records": "1", "role": "Instruction 002: EUR 70, channel SUCCEEDED.", "stamp": "07:00 UTC"}, {"name": "Ledger", "records": "1", "role": "Linked ledger entry: EUR 71, POSTED.", "stamp": "07:00 UTC"}, {"name": "Settlement", "records": "1", "role": "Linked SETTLED status; the amount is not in this output.", "stamp": "07:00 UTC"}, {"name": "Operations case", "records": "1", "role": "BANK-CASE-002 remains OPEN with reason AMOUNT_MISMATCH.", "stamp": "07:00 UTC"}], "summary": "Payment, ledger, settlement and case records have different statuses. One connected review separates a confirmed discrepancy from its still-unresolved basis.", "title": "The customer is waiting. What can be confirmed about the payment?"}, {"answer": {"boundary": "This is not a credit rating, provisioning or regulatory-capital calculation, or a recommendation to approve or refuse credit.", "headline": "Principal is above the internal threshold; guarantee data needs refreshing.", "next": "The risk team should review its threshold signal and obtain a fresh guarantee snapshot before a complete assessment.", "paragraphs": [{"text": "Drawn principal increased from EUR 1,000,000 to EUR 1,200,000. It exceeds the defined EUR 1,000,000 internal threshold by EUR 200,000."}, {"text": "The separate EUR 150,000 guarantee observation is 48 hours old, while the rule permits 24 hours. It is therefore not presented as a fully current view of the group."}]}, "audience": "Risk \u00b7 credit committee \u00b7 corporate banking", "benefit": "Risk receives a specific reason for attention and can see which source must be refreshed before the next decision.", "connection": {"fields": [{"name": "group_reference"}, {"name": "contract_reference"}, {"name": "measure_type"}, {"name": "previous_cutoff_at"}, {"name": "cutoff_at"}, {"name": "previous_principal"}, {"name": "current_principal"}, {"name": "currency"}, {"name": "internal_threshold"}, {"name": "previous_guarantee_amount"}, {"name": "guarantee_amount"}, {"name": "observed_at"}, {"name": "observation_age_hours"}, {"name": "max_age_hours"}, {"name": "freshness_status"}, {"name": "execution_reference"}], "resource": "Approved review of group DEMO-G01"}, "evidence": [{"detail": "Two principal balances compared; guarantee shown separately.", "event": "Review the confirmed group", "reference": "SIM-RISK-PREP-01", "status": "SUCCEEDED", "time": "07:01:00 UTC"}, {"detail": "Guarantee age of 48 hours exceeds the agreed 24 hours.", "event": "Freshness check", "reference": "SIM-RISK-DQ-01", "status": "FAILED", "time": "07:01:10 UTC"}, {"detail": "Principal is EUR 200,000 above the internal threshold; no decision was made.", "event": "Business signal recorded", "reference": "SIM-RISK-THRESHOLD-01", "status": "RECORDED", "time": "07:01:20 UTC"}], "id": "exposure", "pipeline": {"explanation": "Preparation is complete. Separate checks then assess freshness and the internal threshold; a successful aggregation does not establish that every source is current.", "name": "Prepare the connected-group review", "reference": "SIM-RISK-PREP-01", "stages": [{"name": "Apply confirmed group scope", "status": "SUCCEEDED"}, {"name": "Compare principal at two cutoffs", "status": "SUCCEEDED"}, {"name": "Show the guarantee separately", "status": "SUCCEEDED"}], "status": "SUCCEEDED"}, "quality": {"columns": [{"label": "Check"}, {"label": "Finding"}, {"label": "Meaning"}], "explanation": "All three checks in this small example are shown. The guarantee freshness rule failed. Crossing the internal threshold is a separate business signal, not a regulatory conclusion.", "metrics": [{"label": "Current principal", "tone": "neutral", "value": "1 200 000 EUR"}, {"label": "Above internal threshold", "tone": "danger", "value": "200 000 EUR"}, {"label": "Guarantee age / rule", "tone": "danger", "value": "48 h / 24 h"}], "name": "Freshness and management-review rules", "rows": [{"cells": [{"text": "Group scope"}, {"text": "DEMO-G01"}, {"text": "Confirmed relationships"}]}, {"cells": [{"text": "Internal principal threshold"}, {"text": "+200 000 EUR"}, {"text": "Review signal"}]}, {"cells": [{"text": "Guarantee freshness"}, {"text": "48 h \u003e 24 h"}, {"text": "Check failed"}]}], "status": "FAILED"}, "question": "What changed for DEMO-G01? Which threshold was crossed and what limits a complete review?", "result": {"boundary": "The synthetic review does not retrieve new data. The guarantee is not added to principal to imply regulatory exposure. Methodology, weights and the decision remain the bank\u0027s responsibility.", "chart": {"bars": [{"label": "Previous cutoff", "tone": "neutral", "value": 1000000}, {"label": "Current cutoff", "tone": "danger", "value": 1200000}, {"label": "Internal threshold", "tone": "neutral", "value": 1000000}], "max": 1200000, "title": "Drawn loan principal against the internal threshold", "unit": "EUR principal"}, "columns": [{"label": "Item"}, {"label": "Previous / current"}, {"label": "Freshness"}], "lead": "Drawn loan principal rises from EUR 1.0m to EUR 1.2m. The EUR 150,000 guarantee is shown separately because its record is stale and it is not part of the same measure.", "metrics": [{"label": "Previous principal", "tone": "neutral", "value": "1 000 000 EUR"}, {"label": "Current principal", "tone": "neutral", "value": "1 200 000 EUR"}, {"label": "Principal change", "tone": "danger", "value": "+200 000 EUR"}], "rows": [{"cells": [{"text": "Loan A"}, {"text": "700 000 / 800 000 EUR"}, {"text": "Within the rule"}]}, {"cells": [{"text": "Loan B"}, {"text": "300 000 / 400 000 EUR"}, {"text": "Within the rule"}]}, {"cells": [{"text": "Guarantee G (separate)"}, {"text": "100 000 / 150 000 EUR"}, {"text": "48 hours; refresh needed"}]}], "status": "Threshold review and refreshed data needed", "title": "Higher principal. Incomplete current context."}, "sources": [{"name": "Group loan contracts", "records": "2", "role": "Two contracts with comparable EUR principal at two cutoffs.", "stamp": "07:00 UTC"}, {"name": "Group guarantees", "records": "1", "role": "Separate records; the latest observation is 48 hours old.", "stamp": "T\u221248h \u00b7 07:00 UTC"}, {"name": "Confirmed group membership", "records": "1", "role": "Legal-entity relationships are already confirmed outside this example.", "stamp": "07:00 UTC"}, {"name": "Internal review rules", "records": "2", "role": "Principal threshold EUR 1,000,000; maximum observation age 24 hours.", "stamp": "07:00 UTC"}], "summary": "For an already confirmed connected group, compare drawn loan principal, an internal threshold and the freshness of separate guarantee records.", "title": "Exposure has increased. Is all the evidence current enough?"}, {"answer": {"boundary": "Transaction suspiciousness was not assessed, no AML decision was made and existing-system rules were not changed.", "headline": "Ten transactions lack confirmation after the agreed time allowance.", "next": "For the ten references, check transfer, receipt and processing records in the existing AML system; tie resolution to confirmed evidence.", "paragraphs": [{"text": "The expected population is 980 transactions after 20 valid exclusions. 950 have processing confirmation, while 20 are still within the maximum 15-minute allowance."}, {"text": "The remaining ten require investigation. The finding establishes absence of confirmation, not that AML processing did not occur."}]}, "audience": "Compliance \u00b7 AML \u00b7 data quality", "benefit": "The existing AML system stays; the team gains visibility into expected-input completeness and the exact references without confirmation.", "connection": {"fields": [{"name": "transaction_reference"}, {"name": "scope_rule"}, {"name": "received_at"}, {"name": "confirmation_status"}, {"name": "allowance_minutes"}, {"name": "cutoff_at"}, {"name": "coverage_category"}, {"name": "input_count"}, {"name": "excluded_count"}, {"name": "expected_count"}, {"name": "confirmed_processed_count"}, {"name": "within_allowance_count"}, {"name": "overdue_unconfirmed_count"}, {"name": "execution_reference"}], "resource": "AML input-coverage review"}, "evidence": [{"detail": "1,000 initial items minus 20 valid exclusions = 980.", "event": "Prepare the expected population", "reference": "SIM-AML-PREP-01", "status": "SUCCEEDED", "time": "07:01:00 UTC"}, {"detail": "950 confirmed, 20 within the allowance, 10 overdue and unconfirmed.", "event": "Confirmation and time-allowance check", "reference": "SIM-AML-DQ-01", "status": "FAILED", "time": "07:01:10 UTC"}, {"detail": "References for investigation, without claims of suspiciousness or non-processing.", "event": "Bounded finding recorded", "reference": "SIM-AML-REVIEW-01", "status": "RECORDED", "time": "07:01:20 UTC"}], "id": "screening", "pipeline": {"explanation": "Joining the expected population to confirmations succeeded. A separate check finds ten overdue items without confirmation; this does not stop the existing AML system.", "name": "Prepare the AML input-coverage check", "reference": "SIM-AML-PREP-01", "stages": [{"name": "Apply the approved scope", "status": "SUCCEEDED"}, {"name": "Match confirmations by reference", "status": "SUCCEEDED"}, {"name": "Calculate waiting at the same cutoff", "status": "SUCCEEDED"}], "status": "SUCCEEDED"}, "quality": {"columns": [{"label": "Reference"}, {"label": "Receipt"}, {"label": "State at 07:00 UTC"}], "explanation": "Ten included transactions lack confirmation after 15 minutes. Three of those ten references are shown. Twenty other items are still within the permitted waiting period.", "metrics": [{"label": "Expected population", "tone": "neutral", "value": "980"}, {"label": "Confirmed processed", "tone": "success", "value": "950"}, {"label": "Unconfirmed after allowance", "tone": "danger", "value": "10"}], "name": "Processing confirmation within the agreed time", "rows": [{"cells": [{"text": "AML-TX-0971"}, {"text": "06:40 UTC"}, {"text": "20 min; no confirmation"}]}, {"cells": [{"text": "AML-TX-0972"}, {"text": "06:39 UTC"}, {"text": "21 min; no confirmation"}]}, {"cells": [{"text": "AML-TX-0973"}, {"text": "06:38 UTC"}, {"text": "22 min; no confirmation"}]}], "status": "FAILED"}, "question": "Which expected transactions still lack a processing confirmation? Separate items within the time allowance from overdue items.", "result": {"boundary": "The illustration checks coverage, not transaction suspiciousness or regulatory compliance. It does not call the existing AML system. A missing confirmation is not confirmed non-processing.", "chart": {"bars": [{"label": "Confirmed processed", "tone": "success", "value": 950}, {"label": "Still within the allowance", "tone": "neutral", "value": 20}, {"label": "Unconfirmed after the allowance", "tone": "danger", "value": 10}], "max": 980, "title": "All 980 transactions in the expected population", "unit": "transactions"}, "columns": [{"label": "Group within expected scope"}, {"label": "Count"}, {"label": "Next"}], "lead": "Of 1,000 initial transactions, 20 are validly excluded. The remaining 980 comprise 950 confirmed, 20 within the time allowance and 10 unconfirmed after the allowance.", "metrics": [{"label": "Validly excluded", "tone": "neutral", "value": "20"}, {"label": "Still within the allowance", "tone": "neutral", "value": "20"}, {"label": "To investigate now", "tone": "danger", "value": "10"}], "rows": [{"cells": [{"text": "Confirmed processed"}, {"text": "950"}, {"text": "Retain confirmations"}]}, {"cells": [{"text": "Within the allowance"}, {"text": "20"}, {"text": "Monitor until the agreed deadline"}]}, {"cells": [{"text": "Unconfirmed after the allowance"}, {"text": "10"}, {"text": "Check transfer and processing records"}]}], "status": "Ten references need investigation", "title": "Confirmation is missing. That does not yet prove processing did not occur."}, "sources": [{"name": "Transactions for the agreed cutoff", "records": "1 000", "role": "Initial population before approved exclusions.", "stamp": "07:00 UTC"}, {"name": "Scope and exclusion rule", "records": "20", "role": "20 valid exclusions; 980 expected transactions.", "stamp": "07:00 UTC"}, {"name": "AML processing confirmations", "records": "950", "role": "Confirmed processed references for the same scope.", "stamp": "07:00 UTC"}, {"name": "Receipt times and permitted waiting", "records": "980", "role": "For included items, confirmation is expected within 15 minutes.", "stamp": "07:00 UTC"}], "summary": "The expected AML population is compared with processing confirmations. Valid exclusions, permitted waiting and missing confirmations are different situations.", "title": "Did the control cover everything it was meant to?"}, {"answer": {"boundary": "No unstructured contract was interpreted, collection was not confirmed and no fee was automatically posted or refunded.", "headline": "The total matches, but two individual charges do not match the rule.", "next": "The charging owner should confirm the rule and evidence for F-003 and F-004, then approve any correction through the appropriate process.", "paragraphs": [{"text": "F-003 lacks its expected EUR 2 charge. F-004 has a EUR 2 charge despite an effective exemption. F-002 is validly free and F-001 is correctly charged."}, {"text": "Expected and actual totals of EUR 4 each are therefore insufficient evidence of correctness. Two opposite discrepancies cancel only at aggregate level."}]}, "audience": "Finance \u00b7 product owners \u00b7 fee operations", "benefit": "Finance sees discrepancies in both directions even when the total matches; each finding is tied to a specific service and effective condition.", "connection": {"fields": [{"name": "service_reference"}, {"name": "service_completed"}, {"name": "charge_due_at"}, {"name": "cutoff_at"}, {"name": "effective_tariff"}, {"name": "exemption_status"}, {"name": "exemption_reference"}, {"name": "expected_amount"}, {"name": "charged_amount"}, {"name": "currency"}, {"name": "finding_category"}, {"name": "reviewed_service_count"}, {"name": "mismatch_count"}, {"name": "expected_total"}, {"name": "charged_total"}, {"name": "execution_reference"}], "resource": "Approved fee-control review"}, "evidence": [{"detail": "The effective tariff and two approved exemptions linked to charges.", "event": "Prepare four services", "reference": "SIM-FEE-PREP-01", "status": "SUCCEEDED", "time": "07:01:00 UTC"}, {"detail": "F-003: EUR 2 missing; F-004: EUR 2 despite exemption.", "event": "Per-service check", "reference": "SIM-FEE-DQ-01", "status": "FAILED", "time": "07:01:10 UTC"}, {"detail": "The EUR 4 / EUR 4 total does not resolve individual discrepancies.", "event": "Review two findings", "reference": "SIM-FEE-REVIEW-01", "status": "RECORDED", "time": "07:01:20 UTC"}], "id": "fees", "pipeline": {"explanation": "Services are linked to the effective structured tariff, exemptions and charges. Preparation succeeds; a separate check then identifies two mismatched items.", "name": "Prepare the contractual-fee check", "reference": "SIM-FEE-PREP-01", "stages": [{"name": "Select services past the charging deadline", "status": "SUCCEEDED"}, {"name": "Apply the effective tariff and exemptions", "status": "SUCCEEDED"}, {"name": "Match actual charges by service", "status": "SUCCEEDED"}], "status": "SUCCEEDED"}, "quality": {"columns": [{"label": "Service"}, {"label": "Expected / charged"}, {"label": "Finding"}], "explanation": "Three of four services are shown. F-001, not shown, is correctly charged EUR 2. F-002 is validly free; F-003 and F-004 differ from expectations.", "metrics": [{"label": "Expected total", "tone": "neutral", "value": "4 EUR"}, {"label": "Actual charges", "tone": "neutral", "value": "4 EUR"}, {"label": "Mismatched items", "tone": "danger", "value": "2"}], "name": "Expected-versus-actual charge agreement", "rows": [{"cells": [{"text": "F-002"}, {"text": "0 / 0 EUR"}, {"text": "Valid exemption"}]}, {"cells": [{"text": "F-003"}, {"text": "2 / 0 EUR"}, {"text": "Potential missing charge"}]}, {"cells": [{"text": "F-004"}, {"text": "0 / 2 EUR"}, {"text": "Charged despite exemption"}]}], "status": "FAILED"}, "question": "Do charges match the contract and delivered service? Separate exemptions, missing charges and excess charges.", "result": {"boundary": "The synthetic example changes no charges. A missing charge is not realised revenue, and a charge is not proof of collection. Discrepancies are not netted and corrections are not posted automatically.", "chart": {"bars": [{"label": "Expected after exemptions", "tone": "neutral", "value": 4}, {"label": "Actually charged", "tone": "neutral", "value": 4}], "max": 4, "title": "Matching totals do not prove correct items", "unit": "EUR across four services"}, "columns": [{"label": "Service group"}, {"label": "Count"}, {"label": "Expected / charged"}], "lead": "The four services require EUR 4 in total and EUR 4 was charged. Yet one service is missing a EUR 2 charge, while another was charged EUR 2 despite an exemption.", "metrics": [{"label": "Aggregate difference", "tone": "neutral", "value": "0 EUR"}, {"label": "Potential missing charge", "tone": "danger", "value": "2 EUR"}, {"label": "Potential excess charge", "tone": "danger", "value": "2 EUR"}], "rows": [{"cells": [{"text": "Correct: F-001 and exempt F-002"}, {"text": "2"}, {"text": "2 / 2 EUR"}]}, {"cells": [{"text": "Missing: F-003"}, {"text": "1"}, {"text": "2 / 0 EUR"}]}, {"cells": [{"text": "Despite exemption: F-004"}, {"text": "1"}, {"text": "0 / 2 EUR"}]}], "status": "Two items need review", "title": "Matching totals conceal two different discrepancies"}, "sources": [{"name": "Delivered services", "records": "4", "role": "Four services whose agreed charging deadlines have passed.", "stamp": "07:00 UTC"}, {"name": "Effective structured tariff", "records": "1", "role": "The standard fee is EUR 2 per service.", "stamp": "07:00 UTC"}, {"name": "Approved contractual exemptions", "records": "2", "role": "F-002 and F-004 have effective exemptions.", "stamp": "07:00 UTC"}, {"name": "Actual charge records", "records": "2", "role": "EUR 2 charged for F-001 and F-004; no charges for the others.", "stamp": "07:00 UTC"}], "summary": "Matching totals can conceal both an omitted charge and a charge despite an exemption. Check each service against its effective contractual rule.", "title": "The total matches. Is every fee correct?"}]}
