Regulatory-Reporting & Compliance-Monitoring AI Agent
Assemble a return with each figure traced to source, reconcile it to the last submission and to the ledger, then monitor thresholds across the book — filing and attestation stay with the reporting officer.
Draw the figures a return needs from the core, finance, risk and product systems that hold them.
02
Pick up the taxonomy version, the reporting instructions and the submission filed last period.
Reason
03
Map each cell to the source field it came from, the transformation applied and the person who owns it.
04
Reconcile the return to the general ledger and to the figures filed for the period before it.
05
Explain each movement against the drivers the underlying data carries, and mark those it cannot.
Decide
06
Run the taxonomy's own validation rules, and separate a rule that fails from a figure that is wrong.
07
Route unexplained movements, threshold breaches and stale mappings to the officer who owns them.
Out
08
Retain the lineage, the validation run, the reconciliation and the officer's decision on each cell.
09
Write into the reporting system only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
→Product statement
The agent assembles, reconciles and monitors inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation. Submitting a return, attesting to one, and deciding that a breach is not reportable stay with the reporting officer and the accountable executive who own them.
Example workflow
One return, end to end
AgentHuman
1Period openedThe reporting calendar, the taxonomy version in force and the submission filed last period
2Figures assembledCell by cell from core, finance, risk and product systems, each against the source field it came from
3Reconciled and explainedTo the general ledger and the prior submission, with a driver named for each movement or marked as missing
4Validation runThe taxonomy's own rules, the client's own checks, and a failing rule kept apart from a doubtful figure
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run without a person in the loop — assembly, reconciliation and validation finish before the officer is asked to open the pack. A source system that has not closed its period ends that stretch on the spot.
5DecisionSplits on the reconciliation and the validation result
Ties out and validates
Reaches the officer's queue ready to be reviewed.
Break, failed rule or unexplained move
Goes to the owner of that figure first.
Reporting officer
Reads the lineage, the reconciliation, the validation result and what the agent could not explain, then decides what is submitted.
Approve · Correct · Escalate
Approved — handed back▼
6Pack queued for the officerWritten only where access and policy allow; the submission and the attestation are not the agent's to make
7Outcome evaluatedCells corrected, movements left unexplained, rules failed, alerts dispositioned and amendments filed after the fact
Corrections
Cells the officer re-traces or re-explains are counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Submitting a return to a supervisor.
Certifying or attesting to a return.
Signing anything an officer attests to.
Deciding that a breach is not reportable.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Assemble the return cell by cell, each figure traced to its source field.
✓Reconcile it to the ledger and to the last submission.
✓Run the validation rules and say what failed.
✓Explain the movements it can, name the ones it cannot, and route breaches to the officer.
Writes run only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation. Submitting a return is not one of them.
Amending or resubmitting a filed return.
Overriding a validation failure with an explanation.
Changing a reporting interpretation or a threshold.
Closing a monitoring alert without a disposition.
Example output
One prepared return, annotated
Everything the agent assembles is attached to the source field or the filing it came from.
Prepared return · one reporting periodIllustrative example
Return
Period
Cells traced
Handed to
Confidence
Submission
Quarterly prudential return
Quarter now closed
612/640
Officer — cells unexplained
89%
Not made by the agent
As receivedThe return as the calendar raised it, and the cells as the systems held them at close — nothing here is restated.
Evidence usedSource field and ownerPrior submission, as filedLedger balance at close
Why the rest stoppedTwo extracts were taken before the sub-ledger closed, so those cells carry no driver to name.
ActionApproveCorrectEscalate
What the score decidesConfidence decides how much the officer re-traces, not whether the return is right.
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
Each return as it falls duePrudential, statistical and conduct returns
03Assembly & lineage
Work to the version in force
Build against the taxonomy version, the reporting instructions and the interpretations that apply to that period — not the ones the last return was built to.
01Approved path
Hand over a return already traced
Each cell set against its source field, reconciled to the ledger and to the last submission, so the officer opens on the movements rather than on the build.
02Human review
Name what it cannot explain
A driver the data does not carry, an extract taken before a system closed, a mapping left over from the last version — named as such, rather than passed on as a finished return.
04Build an evidence trail
Retain the source field behind each cell, the transformation, the validation run, the reconciliation, the officer's correction and what moved since the last submission — 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 & financeFIS · Fiserv · Jack Henry Temenos · General ledger and sub-ledgers
Risk & treasuryCredit risk · market risk Capital and liquidity calculators
A return whose sources and instructions have not moved comes back much as the last one. What fails is a new taxonomy, a spreadsheet-fed cell, or a book bought since the mappings were set. 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
First return on new taxonomy
4.2%
2.8×
Review
Cells fed by spreadsheets
3.2%
2.1×
Review
Newly acquired portfolios
2.6%
1.7×
Watch
Steady-state repeat returns
1.2%
0.8×
Normal
Bar: corrected-cell lift vs. steady-state baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
A return can be wrong long after it validated
A rule set that passes says the return is well-formed, not that the figure behind it is right. What settles it is the officer's correction, or the amendment.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Corrected cells, failed rules or unexplained movements move in one return or one cohort.
02Diagnose
Followed down to the cell — the source field, the mapping, the extract window or the instruction it was built to.
03Improve
The mapping, the reconciliation rule or the explanation standard is re-approved by the reporting officer and version-linked.
04Verify
Re-assembled over periods already submitted, including the ones that validated first time.
05Learn
The cell that broke is kept as a case, and the returns built on the same mapping are re-tested before release.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. An amendment is a supervisory event in its own right, so each change is tested against periods already filed before it reaches a live return.
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 and lineage, reconciliation and validation, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Return scope and attestation-boundary definition.
02Core, finance and risk source assessment.
03Taxonomy version and instruction mapping.
04Cell-level lineage and owner mapping.
05Ledger and prior-submission reconciliation.
06Movement explanation and driver rules.
07Validation runs and failure handling.
08Threshold and control-breach monitoring.
09Evaluation suite and cohort regression cases.
10Officer review pack and queue handoff.
11Reporting-system write-back and change control.
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 return, one periodProductionProduction reporting cycleAdvancedMulti-entity / multi-regime
Introduced at Pilot
Cell-level lineage retained as an audit trail✓✓✓
Reconciliation to ledger and last submission✓✓✓
Validation runs against the version in force✓✓✓
Threshold and breach alerts routed to officers✓✓✓
Submission and attestation left to officers✓✓✓
Baseline evaluation✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Core, finance and risk system integration—✓✓
Reporting-system write-back and handoff—✓✓
Observability and evaluation—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multiple returns and reporting regimes——✓
Multi-entity consolidation and enterprise controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on returns in scope, source systems, reporting regimes, cell volume, monitoring 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
01The returns in scope and who attests to each one→Return scope and attestation-boundary definitionWeek 1
02Access to the core, finance and risk source systems→Core, finance and risk source assessmentWeek 2
03The taxonomy version and the instructions you build to→Taxonomy version and instruction mappingWeek 2
04Whatever maps your cells to source fields today→Cell-level lineage and owner mappingWeek 2
05The last submissions and the ledger they were tied to→Ledger and prior-submission reconciliationWeek 3
06Returns you amended, and the findings behind them→Evaluation suite, cohort regression cases and failure-mode testingWeek 4
07Named reporting officers, and how alerts are dispositioned→Officer review pack and queue handoff, then the pilot returnWeeks 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 return.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Return scope, attestation boundary and the reporting calendarW2Source access, taxonomy version and cell-level lineageW3Reconciliation, movement explanation and validation runsW4Evaluation suite, cohort testing and breach-monitoring rulesW5Reporting-system integration, a supervised return and correctionsW6Officers read from live packs, then Agent Care starts
Reading the bandNothing is submitted in these six weeks. The week 5 return is built alongside the one your team files, and the two are compared cell by cell.
At the end of W6A live period has been assembled, reconciled and validated in parallel with your own process, 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 reporting agent around the returns your officers already attest to.
Show us one return, the systems its figures come from and who signs it off today. We'll rebuild a period you have already submitted, put each cell next to the source field it should trace to, and show you which movements your own pack could not explain.
