In plain English
A Financial Crime record is proof-ready when each approved review dimension has an explicit question, expected and observed evidence, source authority, status, evidence classification, limitation, and next review action. The canonical dimension statuses are Ready, Weak, Missing, Ambiguous, and Conflicting. Missing/unverifiable is a separate evidence classification, and no composite readiness score is produced.
A simple example
A reviewer asks six evidence questions. Some can be answered, some are partial and one is blocked; the statuses stay separate instead of becoming a misleading readiness score.
Status and evidence classification answer different questions
A dimension status answers how the observed evidence affects one review question. Ready, Weak, Missing, Ambiguous, and Conflicting are the only canonical dimension statuses.
Missing/unverifiable classifies evidence that is unavailable or cannot be confirmed. A record-level review posture or group conclusion must be labelled separately and must not replace dimension status.
The canonical eleven-dimension registry
The checklist uses the approved repository registry rather than inventing dimensions for editorial depth.
Approved proof dimensions
Worked illustrative use case: one Financial Crime review
An illustrative synthetic alert-review record retains source identities, transaction and customer evidence, a monitoring signal, alert, investigation actions, analyst rationale, approval, outcome, and timestamps. It is not the canonical public AML record and does not change that record's data.
The matrix below deliberately uses all five statuses to show how the registry works. Each row includes the review question, expected evidence, observed evidence, authority, status, evidence classification, limitation, and a next review action that does not prescribe a source decision.
Worked eleven-dimension matrix
Synthetic example
No composite score
The matrix is useful because different dimensions can be Ready, Weak, Missing, Ambiguous, or Conflicting at the same time. A percentage would conceal which authority or evidence must be reviewed next.
- Proof gap: decision-time policy version is Missing/unverifiable.
- Reviewer question: can chronology be accepted while source clocks conflict?
- RecordArc reconstructs the retained matrix; it does not remediate or redispose the alert.
What a later reviewer asks
The reviewer asks which dimensions are supported by source facts, which depend on human-certified meaning, which RecordArc-normalized or derived fields were introduced, and which gaps prevent a conclusion.
A next review action requests evidence, reconciles authority, or records a limitation. It does not recommend the source decision, assign a composite confidence score, or certify regulator readiness.
What RecordArc reconstructs and does not do
RecordArc can render the registry, retained evidence, provenance, statuses, classifications, limitations, and reviewer questions consistently.
It does not certify compliance, establish operating effectiveness, guarantee audit acceptance, create missing evidence, or prescribe an investigation or filing outcome.
Source references
- FFIEC BSA/AML Manual: Suspicious Activity Reporting - US supervisory reference; institution-specific obligations still require qualified review. Jurisdiction: United States. Publication/update: Current online manual. RecordArc source review: August 3, 2026.
- FATF Recommendations - International standards context; implementation and obligations vary by jurisdiction. Jurisdiction: International standard. Publication/update: Current consolidated recommendations. RecordArc source review: August 3, 2026.