Check identity evidence, trace the ownership chain, assemble source-of-funds and rating inputs at onboarding and at refresh — with the rating, acceptance and any suspicion left to the officers who own them.
Take new-customer cases, trigger events and the reviews the cycle has fallen due on.
02
Collect identity documents, ownership filings and source-of-funds evidence on the agreed channels.
Reason
03
Check each identity document against its own security features and the data already held.
04
Trace ownership and control layer by layer, and record the layer at which the chain stops.
05
Read registry filings and the customer's own declaration against each other and mark the differences.
Decide
06
Score the file against the client's CDD standard and list the gaps, expiries and open layers.
07
Route thin evidence, register discrepancies and anything the standard flags to the officer who owns it.
Out
08
Present the rating inputs as evidence, each with its source, its date and the gaps still open.
09
Write to the customer file only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
→Product statement
The agent collects, traces and assembles. The customer risk rating, accepting or exiting a customer, deciding that anything is suspicious and any report that follows stay with named bank staff, and what may be said to a customer is limited to the evidence the file needs.
Example workflow
One customer file, end to end
AgentHuman
1Case openedA new customer, a trigger event, or the review the cycle has fallen due on
2Identity evidence checkedDocuments against their own security features, the data against the record already held
3Ownership tracedLayer by layer through filings and registers, until a natural person or a layer that will not resolve
4Wealth and rating inputs assembledSource of funds, source of wealth, expected activity and what has changed since the last review
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run without a person in the loop — collection, tracing and assembly finish before anyone is asked to open the file. A layer that will not resolve ends that stretch on the spot.
5DecisionSplits on file completeness and the standard's own flags
File complete to the standard
Reaches the officer's queue ready to be rated.
Gap, discrepancy or broken chain
Goes to the officer who owns that gap first.
KYC officer or MLRO
Reads the evidence, the chain as far as it was traced and the gaps on it, then sets the customer risk rating.
Rate · Correct · Re-request evidence
Rated — handed back▼
6File updated and queuedWritten only where access and policy allow; the risk-rating field is left empty for the officer
7Outcome evaluatedEvidence completeness, chain depth reached, discrepancies raised, officer corrections and re-work by cohort
Corrections
Evidence the officer re-gathers or re-reads is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Setting or changing a customer risk rating.
Accepting a customer, or exiting one.
Deciding that a customer or a payment is suspicious.
Filing, drafting or disclosing a suspicion report.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Collect identity, ownership and source-of-funds evidence.
✓Trace ownership and control through the filings, and record where the chain stops.
✓Set registry against declaration and raise the gaps, expiries and unresolved layers.
✓Assemble the rating inputs with their sources and dates.
Writes run only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation. The risk-rating field is not one of them.
Any wording that hints a report exists.
Clearing a screening match or a PEP hit.
Signing off a chain that stopped early.
Changing the CDD standard or the review cycle.
Example output
One periodic review, annotated
Everything the agent assembles is attached to the document or the register it came from.
KYC file · one periodic reviewIllustrative example
Customer
Case
Chain traced
Handed to
Confidence
Risk rating
Private company, layered ownership
Periodic review, cycle now due
3 of 4 layers
Officer — chain incomplete
88%
Not set by the agent
As receivedThe case as the review calendar raised it, and the structure as the filings describe it — nothing on this side is inferred.
Why it stopped at layer threeThe fourth layer resolves to a nominee holder in a register that publishes no owners.
ActionRateCorrectRe-request evidence
What the score decidesConfidence decides how much the officer re-gathers, not how risky the customer is.
Value
Where AI adds value
The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.
Where the value landsValue 01 – 04
Every file opened or refreshedNew customers, trigger events and the review calendar
03Evidence & chain
Work to the bank's own standard
Measure the file against the CDD standard in force for that customer type, the evidence it names and the depth it expects traced.
01Approved path
Hand over a file already worked
Documents checked, the structure traced as far as the filings go and the rating inputs assembled, so the officer opens on the risk question rather than on collection.
02Human review
Say where the chain actually stopped
A layer that resolves to a nominee, a register that disagrees with the declaration, evidence that has gone stale — named as such, rather than passed on as a finished file.
04Build an evidence trail
Retain each document, the registers read with their dates, the chain as traced, the gaps, the officer's rating and what changed since the last review — on both paths.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Core & onboardingFIS · Fiserv · Jack Henry Temenos · origination and CRM records
A single-owner retail refresh is close to a records exercise — one person, one document, one register. What comes back unfinished crosses three jurisdictions, or is a name spelled two ways. Nestack reports by slice, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Layered cross-border structures
5.5%
3.8×
Review
Nominee and trust arrangements
3.7%
2.6×
Review
Non-Latin-script name records
2.8%
1.9×
Watch
Retail refresh, single owner
1.1%
0.8×
Normal
Bar: unfinished-file lift vs. retail-refresh baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
An overdue review and a false complete are not the same miss
One of them is visible on a report the day it happens. The other reads as finished until somebody re-opens the evidence it closed on.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Re-gathered evidence, broken chains or discrepancy volumes move in one customer cohort.
02Diagnose
Narrowed to one step in the file — the document check, the layer that stopped, the register used or the age limit.
03Improve
The evidence standard, the chain rule or the staleness window is re-approved by the MLRO and version-linked.
04Verify
Re-assembled over files already rated, including the reviews that closed on out-of-date evidence.
05Learn
The structure that defeated the trace is kept as a case, and the cohort it came from is re-tested before release.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. Tightening what the agent asks for decides which customers a bank finds hard to keep, so each change is tested for pressure on whole categories before it ships.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, evidence and tracing, assembly, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01CDD standard and approval-boundary definition.
02Core, onboarding and registry API assessment.
03Customer-type and jurisdiction scoping.
04Identity capture and document checks.
05Ownership tracing and chain-depth rules.
06Source-of-funds and wealth evidence assembly.
07Rating-input assembly and gap scoring.
08Review cycle, triggers and change detection.
09Evaluation suite and cohort regression cases.
10Confidentiality scope and outreach wording.
11Customer-file write-back and case handoff.
12Observability, deployment 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 customer typeProductionCore and registry integrationAdvancedCross-border / multi-entity
Introduced at Pilot
Identity evidence checks✓✓✓
Ownership tracing with chain depth recorded✓✓✓
Source-of-funds and wealth evidence✓✓✓
Review cycle and trigger events✓✓✓
Rating, acceptance and exit left to officers✓✓✓
Audit trail and baseline evaluation✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Additional customer types and jurisdictions—✓✓
Adverse-media and screening-source breadth—✓✓
File write-back, observability and evaluation—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-jurisdiction registers and scripts——✓
Enterprise controls across the book——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on customer types, registry and screening integrations, file volume, review-cycle scope, 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 CDD standard and the evidence each customer type needs→CDD standard and approval-boundary definitionWeek 1
02Access to core, onboarding, registry and screening systems→Core, onboarding and registry API assessmentWeek 2
03The identity documents your customers actually present→Identity evidence capture and document checksWeek 2
04How deep your policy expects an ownership chain to be traced→Ownership tracing and chain-depth rulesWeek 3
05Your review cycle, trigger events and evidence age limits→Review cycle, triggers and change detectionWeek 4
06Files that were re-worked, and reviews that closed too early→Evaluation suite, cohort regression cases and failure-mode testingWeek 4
07Named officers, and what a request to a customer may say→Confidentiality scope and outreach wording, then pilot filesWeeks 5–6
Nothing else is requiredDeployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
Phases are drawn over the weeks they actually occupy. Week 5 carries both the cohort testing and the first supervised files.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1CDD standard, chain-depth policy and the automation boundaryW2Identity capture and document checks on the first customer typeW3Ownership tracing, source-of-funds assembly and gap scoringW4Evaluation suite, cohort testing and review-cycle rulesW5Registry integration, supervised files and targeted correctionsW6Officers rate from live files, then Agent Care starts
Reading the bandDocument-check performance is measured by nationality and document type in week 4, before the first supervised file runs in week 5.
At the end of W6Files have been assembled alongside your existing process and read by the officers who rate from them, then Agent Care takes over monitoring.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Banking AI agent
Build a KYC agent around the standard your officers already apply.
Show us your CDD standard, how deep your policy expects an ownership chain to go, and who sets a customer's risk rating today. We'll rebuild a set of files you have already rated, then tell you where each ownership chain actually stopped and how much of the evidence had expired before the review was signed.
