Guided product tour
Adjudicate a sanctions screening hit
Six steps, no account, nothing to install. Each step is its own page, so you can send a colleague a link to the part that matters and it will open exactly there.
Every name, list and identifier in this walkthrough is invented. SAMPLE SUBJECT 001 is not a person, SPECIMEN SANCTIONS LIST is not a real list, and none of these panels is a screenshot — they are drawn with the same components the application is built from.
Read the match evidence, field by field
What actually matched, and what did not?
A score is not evidence. The adjudication view puts the customer record beside the listed party and shows which fields drove the similarity and which contradict it. Most sanctions hits are the wrong person, and the reason is almost always visible here: a common name matched, and nothing else did.
Match evidence · SPECIMEN-SCR-0001
Sample data| Field | Customer record | Listed party | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Name | Sample Subject 001 | Specimen Listed Party A | Drove the matchStrong string similarity |
| Date of birth | 1979-03-11 | 1962-11-02 | ContradictsSeventeen years apart |
| Nationality | Nigeria | Specimen Jurisdiction Z | ContradictsNo overlap declared |
| Identifier | Synthetic BVN ••••0001 | None published | No dataList carries no identifier |
| Known aliases | None recorded | Two published | No dataNeither alias resembles the record |
Why it matters. An analyst who dismisses a hit on the score alone has recorded a judgement with no evidence behind it. The field-level comparison is what a reviewer reads first.
After the tour
The same walkthrough, against your own list configuration
A specialist runs this on the lists your policy puts in scope, at the threshold your committee approved, with the customer types you actually onboard.