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.
What the decision leaves behind
If an examiner asked about this alert in two years, what is there?
The decision is not stored on its own. The list version screened against, the threshold in force at the time, the evidence viewed, the identity of the decision-maker and the timestamp are all retained together, so the alert can be reconstructed as it was rather than as the configuration is today.
Retained record
Sample data| Retained | Value in this sample |
|---|---|
| List version screened against | Specimen list, synthetic version 2026-08-01 |
| Threshold in force at detection | 85 — the setting that made this comparison an alert |
| Evidence viewed before the decision | Customer file, identity evidence, listed-party entry |
| Decision-maker and reviewer | Two distinct synthetic identities |
| Timestamps retained | Detection, assignment, decision, review — separately |
| Sensitive-access events | Each view of the customer file logged for independent review |
Why it matters. Policy provenance is the difference between showing an examiner what you decided and showing them why that decision was correct under the rules in force when you made it.
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.