Deposit-Insurance Recordkeeping & Signage AI Agent
Reconcile ownership right and capacity coding across core, trust and partner ledgers, name the accounts whose coverage cannot be calculated from current records, and assemble what the officer's inquiry examines.
An account is opened, and its ownership right and capacity code are read against the records actually held.
02
An account sits on a trust, brokered or partner ledger, and it enters the same population as the core book.
Reason
03
An account cannot be coded from current records, and it is held for item (v) of the report, not a work queue.
04
An account has transactional features, and the 12 CFR 370.5 contract, notice and validation step are checked.
05
An account population crosses the 12 CFR 370.2 threshold, and the part applies — most institutions sit below.
Decide
06
An account's testing evidence ages, and its scope, exceptions and remediation ride the twelve-month window.
07
A brand is added, and Part 328 starts — §328.8 policies since May 2025, §§328.4 and 328.5 by April 2027.
Out
08
An account's rate or fee terms move, and Reg DD is checked — the FDIC ranks truth in savings among its most cited.
09
Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
→Product statement
The CEO or COO certifies after due inquiry; if a signed report understated the bank's own gaps, what defends the officer is the record of the inquiry, not the agent.
Example workflow
One account, record to certification
AgentHuman
1Account population readCore, trust, brokered and fintech-partner deposit ledgers
2Records assembledCapacity codes, signatory and beneficiary records and trust documents, each with its source ledger
3Coverage computedCapacity code, calculated coverage, uncomputable flag and confidence
4Controls appliedSource-record checks, Appendix A code rules, transactional-feature checks and confidence threshold
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing is certified at any of them — the agent is reconciling, and the reviewer's lane opens at the confidence gate.
5DecisionBranches at the confidence threshold
High confidence
Goes to deposit operations to review.
Low confidence
Adds a second records read first.
Deposit operations review
The record is held with its source ledgers, its uncomputable flag and the confidence.
Accept · Amend · Send to second review
Accepted — goes to the certifying officer▼
6Deposit records updatedOnly where write access and approval policy allow it
A bank-wide coding-accuracy figure is carried by the ownership rights that hold the most accounts, while the thin books set the determination. Nestack reports the coding-error rate by ownership right, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Fintech-partner custodial
6.2%
3.5×
Review
Formal trust accounts
4.0%
2.3×
Review
Brokered deposit records
2.8%
1.6×
Watch
Single-owner consumer
1.4%
0.8×
Normal
Bar: coding-error-rate lift vs. single-owner baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
Each cycle closes with a new account case
A cycle closes when the miscoded account is a case the next release has to catch. That suite is what the next certification made is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Coding errors rise in one ownership right.
02Diagnose
The trust account coded as single ownership for eleven years is traced back to one cause — a core conversion with no capacity field to write into.
03Improve
Version the fix, and the accounts that exposed it stay on that version.
04Verify
The release is held until each touched account case clears a second run.
05Learn
The case is kept, and the coding rules are updated in the same change.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. The next detection runs against a suite one account case longer.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, sources, recordkeeping workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Deposit workflow discovery and boundary setting.
02Core, trust and partner source assessment.
03Ownership-right and capacity-code rule mapping.
04Deposit-record ingestion and mapping.
05Capacity-code reconciliation logic.
06Confidence scoring and exception routing.
07Deposit operations review workflow.
08Core and partner-ledger integration.
09Coding and capability cases.
10Guardrails and inquiry controls.
11Account-trail instrumentation.
12Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover.
12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallelFinal scope and sequence confirmed in discovery
Engagement tiers
What each tier includes
Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.
Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tierPilotOne ledger, one brandProductionProduction deposit systemsAdvancedMultiple brands / charters
Introduced at Pilot
Reconciliation to your records✓✓✓
Officer review✓✓✓
Coding-accuracy baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by ownership right—✓✓
Review workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved write-back—✓✓
Deposit-system integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-ledger capacity rules——✓
Multi-stage officer review——✓
High account volume——✓
Multi-brand recordkeeping controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, transaction volume, approval controls and deployment requirements.
Separate from buildBuild pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.
What we need from you
What you bring, and what we build with it
Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.
You bringWe build with it
01Your deposit ledgers and record structure→Deposit-record ingestion and code mappingWeek 1
02Representative accounts by ownership right→Coding baseline, source binding and coverage mappingWeek 2
03Your Appendix A coding standards→Ownership-right and capacity-code rule mappingWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→Core, trust and partner assessment, then integration setupWeek 2
05Records you would not want relied on→Determination cases and failure-mode testingWeek 4
06What no due inquiry may skip→Confidence scoring, exception routing, guardrails and approval controlsWeek 3
07Named reviewers, and the officer who will certify→Deposit operations review workflow, then pilot and production validationWeeks 5–6
Nothing else is requiredDeployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
Each band sits on the weeks the work genuinely occupies, so the fifth runs two phases together.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Deposit workflow discovery, code mapping and the automation boundaryW2Ledger integration and the coding baselineW3Recordkeeping workflow, reconciliation logic and review controlsW4Evaluation suite, coverage checks and failure-mode testingW5Core and partner integration, pilot accounts and targeted correctionsW6One annual cycle assembled under the deposit operations head, then handover
Reading the bandA bar covers the weeks its work is named in, and nothing else. The week 5 overlap is real, not padding.
At the end of W6The final checks pass on a live cycle, and Agent Care takes monitoring on.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Banking AI agent
Build a deposit-records agent around the inquiry behind the signature.
Show us your ledgers, your capacity coding and who signs. The record has to survive a determination run that starts when a receiver is appointed — and we build to Part 370 as it stands, not the 2024 custodial-account proposal, which was never finalised.
