An alert was closed months ago. Can a later reviewer reconstruct the monitoring signal, rationale, approval and outcome?
Current synthetic example; enterprise capability under developmentSHARED PROOF INFRASTRUCTURE
Later financial-crime reviews often begin with a simple question: why did this happen?
RecordArc may connect retained evidence around those past reviews while keeping AML, KYC/KYB, sanctions and SAR/STR authority and maturity separate. It does not operate any of those workflows.
Read-onlyVendor-neutralSource authority preserved
Public synthetic exampleAML transaction monitoringIntendedKYC / KYBShared proof spineDistinct workflow authorityIntendedSanctions reviewNot offeredSAR / STR review
RECOGNIZABLE REVIEW SCENARIOS
Start with what happened before introducing the shared architecture.
Each scenario has different source systems and authorized decision owners. The common pattern is a later need to understand retained evidence, versions, human actions, outcomes and gaps.
A business was onboarded. Can the institution show which identity, ownership, screening and approval evidence supported it?
Intended adjacent applicabilityA possible match was cleared. Can a later reviewer establish which list version and review evidence supported the disposition?
Intended adjacent applicabilityA later reviewer asks what retained escalation and review evidence supported a reporting decision.
Future applicability; not currently offeredIdentity evidenceTransaction contextScreening resultPolicy versionReviewer actionApprovalRecorded outcome
SHARED DECISION PROOF LAYER
Four Financial Crime workflows connect to one controlled proof spine.
Authority and maturity remain separate.
- AML transaction monitoringpublic synthetic example - enterprise capability under development
- KYC / KYBconnects to shared layer - intended capability
- Sanctions reviewconnects to shared layer - intended capability
- SAR / STR reviewconnects to shared layer - not currently offered
CONSOLIDATED WORKFLOW BRANCHES
Common infrastructure does not erase workflow-specific context.
Mobile records retain every field association.
| Workflow | Recorded context | Retained authority | Maturity |
|---|---|---|---|
| AML transaction monitoring | Transactions, alerts, investigation, approval, outcome | Monitoring and investigation systems | Under development |
| KYC / KYB | Identity, ownership, screening, review, onboarding outcome | Onboarding and compliance systems | Intended enterprise capability |
| Sanctions review | Screening inputs, list context, match evidence, human disposition | Screening and review systems | Intended enterprise capability |
| SAR / STR review | Escalation evidence, reporting context, human filing-decision trace | Authorized reporting team | Not currently offered |
COMMON CONDITIONS AND GOVERNANCE
One proof vocabulary can support separate workflows.
Domain-specific authority remains.
Shared proof spine
Versioning - certification - provenance - timing - limitations
- 01Source identity
- 02Evidence lineage
- 03Semantic mapping
- 04Governing context
- 05Decision-time anchoring
- 06Human authority
- 07Limitation disclosure
CURRENT WEDGE AND MATURITY
Financial Crime and Compliance is an adjacent application family.
Banking and Payment Decision Assurance remains a sibling first implementation wedge outside this Financial Crime application family. AML, KYC/KYB, sanctions, and SAR/STR retain separate authority and maturity.
Review the sibling first wedge: Banking & Payment Decision Assurance.
SYNTHETIC REVIEW PATHWAY
Inspect the available AML example without implying every application is public.
The AML example is synthetic. KYC/KYB and sanctions remain conceptual, and SAR/STR remains not currently offered.
NEXT REVIEW POINT
Review the separate AML decision-proof application.
Start with the buyer-facing AML context, then inspect the bounded synthetic record.