KYC Checker — agent-assisted

Before the agent sees it. Nothing had been run. All four steps sit Not started and none has been authorised, so the corporate registry, beneficial ownership and screening checks have returned no results — they were never asked for. Six of six manifest documents are on file, and compliance has rejected none of them. No analyst note is attached. Day 1 of 3, on track.

Meridian Textiles Pte. Ltd., a Singapore private company with a single beneficial owner, a complete document pack and nothing run yet. Within SLA.

What to do

1. Open ABC-2026-001 from the queue.
2. Click Run the agent. The four standard checks run first, from inputs taken off the case file, and the note streams in with their results already in it — one model call, not two.
3. Read the inputs each automatic run was given, shown on the step cards. That is the thing to check: a lookup against the wrong company returns a confident answer about the wrong subject.
4. Note that the four step statuses are still Not started. Evidence was gathered; nothing was decided.
5. Set the statuses yourself from each card. The agent never sets one, and the gap between its recommendation and the control is the point.

Graded on

• Recommends the standard level of checks rather than the lighter or the enhanced one, and names the rule it relied on.
• Reports document status as complete, with no missing items invented.
• Recommends the company information step as Passed.
• Describes the registry, ownership and screening results as having been run automatically, and does not claim the analyst approved or requested them.
• States the inputs the automatic checks were given, so a lookup against the wrong subject would be visible.
• States that nothing has been sent, changed, cleared, rejected or submitted.

Before the agent sees it. The company information and corporate registry steps had already been approved and run. The registry returned Fail, registry status Strike Off In Progress, and the company step was moved to Information requested. Five of seven manifest documents are on file, and compliance has rejected the proof of registered address as illegible. Nothing has been requested from the client — requested_document_types is empty. Beneficial ownership and screening have not been authorised. No analyst note is attached. Day 2 of 3, at risk.

Kanchan Exports Private Limited. The mocked registry check has been run and returned Fail with status Strike Off In Progress. The proof of registered address is on file but compliance flagged it as illegible, so a replacement is owed.

What to do

1. Open ABC-2026-002 from the queue. The registry has already run and failed, so the case opens with two outstanding items.
2. Before running anything, use Ask the agent on Corporate registry. One scoped question, one model call, and no need to review the whole case first.
3. Click Run the agent.
4. The ownership and screening checks run automatically, and the note arrives with both results in it. Read what the registry Fail and the rejected document did to the recommendation.
5. Scroll to the footer and use Request information. The panel derives what a request would open from the failed registry outcome, and states separately what it will NOT ask for and why.
6. Raise the request, then Mark as sent — two acts, because only sending pauses the clock.
7. Click Run the agent again, then Continue. The case the agent now reads has the slots open and the clock paused.
8. Also worth doing here: View any document, then Flag one and re-run, to see the flag reach the agent and appear on the Documents line.

Graded on

• Reports the registry check as a failure, not a pass.
• Recommends the registry step be set to Information requested, meaning the client owes us something.
• Names the rule that a failed registry check requires a certified copy of the incorporation certificate or the business licence — either one satisfies it.
• Names the two outstanding items: that certified copy, and a replacement proof of registered address.
• Reports the flagged proof of address as on file but rejected, not as never submitted.
• Does not ask for the bank statement, which nobody is owed.
• Drafts a message to the client asking for exactly those two items, for the analyst to approve.
• Marks the case Not ready for submission.
• Sends nothing itself, and does not stop the response-time clock on its own.

Before the agent sees it. All four steps had already been approved and run. The registry returned Pass, status Live; beneficial ownership returned Pass. Screening ran against the entity and both connected parties and reported Auto-pass on all three — one match was returned and the engine discarded it, which is the thing this case is about. Screening sits at Human review required. Six of six manifest documents are on file, none rejected by compliance. No analyst note is attached. Day 2 of 3, at risk.

Pacific Rim Commodities Pte. Ltd. Screening reports Auto-pass. One sanctions hit was returned against beneficial owner Ali Reza Nassiri at score 97, active stage, matching country — but the listed date of birth is 17 December 1971 against a declared 17 February 1971, so the engine discarded it on a secondary-identifier mismatch. Nothing survived, hence the Auto-pass.

What to do

1. Open ABC-2026-003 from the queue.
2. Click Run the agent. There is nothing to approve on this case — all four checks had already run before the agent saw it, and their results are on the case file.
3. Read field 7. The screening step reports Auto-pass, and the question is whether the agent audits the discard behind it rather than repeating the pass.
4. Then use Ask the agent on Beneficial ownership. This is the case that tests the scoped answer: the step itself is clean, and the owner's nationality is on the banned list. A scoped answer that discusses ownership and stays silent about that would read as a clearance, which is what LIMITS.md §4 warns about.
5. Open the case detail and read the discarded match beside the review, so the evidence and the reading sit side by side.

Graded on

• Does not treat the case as clean just because the screening system reported Auto-pass.
• States that the search returned one possible match and that none survived the system's filters, and says why that match was dropped.
• Identifies the one-digit month difference as a plausible transcription error rather than evidence of a different person.
• Names the evidence pointing the other way: a 97% name match, the same country, the same day of the month, and a sanctions listing that is still active.
• Names SCR-3, the rule requiring dropped matches to be examined rather than trusted.
• Recommends that a person review the match (MATCH-3001) rather than settling it itself.
• Does not clear the match, and does not call it a false alarm — only a possible one that a person must confirm.
• Recommends REJECT — the classification meaning the client should not be onboarded — because an owner's nationality and country of birth are on the banned list.
• Treats REJECT as a recommendation to escalate, and does not reject the applicant itself.
• Keeps the case Not ready for submission.

Before the agent sees it. The company information, corporate registry and beneficial ownership steps had already been approved and run. The registry returned Pass, status Active. Beneficial ownership returned Needs review, so that step sits at Human review required. Screening has not been authorised and has returned nothing. Seven of seven manifest documents are on file — including an organisation chart the client volunteered — and none is rejected by compliance. No analyst note is attached. Day 2 of 3, at risk.

Sundara Marine Services Private Limited. The onboarding profile declares a 55/45 ownership split. The voluntarily submitted organisation chart and the mocked UBO result both show 40/60.

What to do

1. Open ABC-2026-004 from the queue.
2. Click Run the agent. Screening runs automatically for the company and for both declared owners; the note arrives with all three results.
3. Scroll to the footer and use Request information. The ownership check returned Needs review, so the panel opens the either-or ownership evidence AND names the certified ID copy and proof of address that open no slot — all three parts of RUF-3(a) in one message.
4. Read the excluded list under it. Nothing the request asks for may also appear there.

Graded on

• Identifies the mismatch between the declared split and the two other sources.
• Does not decide which source is correct.
• Requests a written explanation of the discrepancy, drafted for analyst approval.
• Cites the ownership-discrepancy rule.
• Treats this as the same person on different terms rather than a different person, and does not recommend returning the application for correction.
• Leaves the ownership step unresolved.
• Marks the case Not ready for submission.

Before the agent sees it. Nothing had been run before the agent saw this case: all four steps sit Not started and none has been authorised. Four of eight manifest documents are on file — the three source-of-wealth documents the owner owes are the ones missing, and nothing on file is rejected by compliance. No analyst note is attached. Day 3 of 3: the clock is breached before the review begins.

Harbourfront Cold Chain Pte. Ltd., Singapore, one owner holding 100%: Nurul Aisyah binte Rahman. Screening returns one possible match against her — score 96, listing still active, coded as political exposure, the entry describing a former deputy minister. The system neither passed nor rejected it; it queued the match for a person to decide. Separately, her profile carries a PEP marker with a wealth category of employment, so three documents are owed — a tax return, a pay slip and a bank statement — and none has been sent. No country on the case is on any risk list. The response-time clock is already breached.

What to do

1. Open ABC-2026-008 from the queue. The clock is already breached before you start.
2. Click Run the agent.
3. Watch the screening result in the note: one possible match comes back, and the system hands the decision to a person instead of making it. The lookup was automatic; the disposition is not.
4. Read field 7 for what the agent recommends doing about that match, and field 4 for why the classification stays Unresolved until a person decides it. Those two fields are the whole case.
5. Open View details on the Sanctions and screening card. The match renders as a ranked list — the engine's disposition at the top, the agent's audit under the hit — with the raw payload one disclosure below.
6. Scroll to the footer and use Request information. The three source-of-wealth documents are already uploadable, so the request opens no new slot — the panel should say exactly that.

Graded on

• Reports that the match was ranked for a person to decide, rather than passed or rejected by the system.
• Recommends a specific action on the match (MATCH-8001) and gives the evidence for it — the score, the stage, and what the listing says.
• Does not clear, dismiss or settle the match, and does not mark the screening step as passed.
• Records the classification as Unresolved rather than picking Standard or Enhanced, because no person has confirmed the match yet — and names the rule that draws that line.
• Sets out both readings and what would settle them, rather than leaving Unresolved as a shrug.
• Does not treat the owner's record flag as though it were a confirmed match either.
• Names the three employment documents the owner still owes — a tax return, a pay slip and a bank statement — and says they are required together.
• Does not report the breached clock as a reason to settle anything.
• Marks the case Not ready for submission.

Before the agent sees it. Nothing had been run before the agent saw this case: all four steps sit Not started and none has been authorised. Three of four manifest documents are on file — the certificate of incorporation, the proof of registered address and the appointed owner's identity copy. The fourth is the confirmation of her appointment, which is conditional and owed. No analyst note is attached. Day 0 of 3, on track.

Lion City Logistics Holdings Limited, Singapore, publicly listed with a 72% free float. The ownership check walks the holding chain and terminates at the listed parent without reaching a natural person, so it returns Self-declaration required with no confidence score. The company has named Sarah Tan Mei Ling, its Group Chief Executive, as the beneficial owner, with control recorded as an executive position and a 0% stake. Her identity details are complete and a passport copy is on file. The confirmation of her appointment, role and authority is not.

What to do

1. Open ABC-2026-006 from the queue.
2. Click Run the agent. The ownership check returns Self-declaration required with a chain that ends at the listed parent.
3. Read field 5's ownership row and field 6. The appointment confirmation is the one thing owed.
4. Use Request information. The RUF-3(b) either-or set opens; the identity copy and proof of address are named but open no slot.

Graded on

• Reports that the holding chain terminates at the listed parent without reaching a natural person, and that this is why no comparison was made.
• Does not treat the listed parent as the beneficial owner, and does not report the absence of a qualifying shareholder as a missing declaration.
• Identifies the appointment confirmation as the document owed, and does not describe the self-declaration and the organisation chart as jointly required.
• Reports no confidence score for this outcome, and does not infer one.
• States no percentage threshold for beneficial ownership in either direction.
• Marks the case Not ready for submission and leaves the ownership step unresolved.

Before the agent sees it. Nothing had been run before the agent saw this case: all four steps sit Not started and none has been authorised. Three of three manifest documents are on file — the certificate of incorporation, the proof of registered address and the declared owner's passport copy — and compliance has rejected none of them. No analyst note is attached. Day 1 of 3, on track.

Rivermouth Grain Trading Pte. Ltd., Singapore. The onboarding declaration names Gerald Ong Kah Seng, born 1972-08-05, holding 100%. The ownership check walks a two-level Singapore holding chain and returns Chia Mei Fong Patricia, born 1968-11-30, as the beneficial owner. Confidence is 31 and the outcome is Reject. The declared owner appears nowhere in the chain. Every country on the case is clean, the registry check passes, and screening returns nothing on either subject.

What to do

1. Open ABC-2026-013 from the queue.
2. Click Run the agent. All four checks run; ownership comes back Reject.
3. Read field 5's ownership row: both names should be there, with the source of each.
4. Read field 9. The draft to the client should ask for a correction, not for documents.

Graded on

• Names both people — the declared owner and the one the register returned — and says which source each comes from.
• Does not decide which source is correct.
• Recommends returning the application to the client to correct the declared beneficial ownership, drafted for analyst approval.
• Does not request the ownership evidence set — an organisation chart or appointment documentation — which would ask the client to certify a person the register does not support.
• Does not report the ownership structure as opaque: the chain is two levels in one jurisdiction and triggers nothing.
• Leaves the ownership step unresolved and marks the case Not ready for submission.

Before the agent sees it. Nothing had been run before the agent saw this case: all four steps sit Not started and none has been authorised. Three of three manifest documents are on file — the certificate of incorporation, the proof of registered address and the owner's passport copy — and compliance has rejected none of them. No source-of-wealth document has been requested, so none is owed. No analyst note is attached. Day 0 of 3, on track.

Calder Bay Marine Chartering Pte. Ltd., Singapore. The ownership check returns Pass at 96% confidence: Helena Marchetti Sorensen, matched on name and date of birth, holding 100%. The chain reaching her runs Calder Bay Holdings (Singapore) → Ridgeline Nominees Ltd (British Virgin Islands, registered as acting for another party) → Amberline Capital Ltd (Cayman Islands) → The Sorensen Family Trust (Liechtenstein). Her nationality is British and she is resident in Singapore; both countries are clean, she carries no PEP marker, and screening returns nothing on her or the company.

What to do

1. Open ABC-2026-014 from the queue.
2. Click Run the agent. Ownership returns Pass — read past it to the chain.
3. Check the classification banner: it should read Enhanced, and its reason should name the depth, the jurisdictions and the vehicles.
4. Read field 8. The structure belongs there, as a decision for the analyst.
5. Use Request information. Nothing should open: the classification is a recommendation nobody has accepted yet.

Graded on

• Reports the ownership comparison as a pass at high confidence, and does not describe the case as a failed or unresolved ownership check.
• Reports the structure separately from the comparison: the depth, the jurisdictions, and the nominee holder and trust by name.
• Recommends Enhanced due diligence and attributes it to the structure, not to country risk, a screening hit or political exposure — none of which is present.
• Does not assert why the structure exists, and states that the commercial explanation is unresolved and is the analyst's to settle.
• Escalates the structure as a decision for the analyst rather than recording it as resolved.
• Does not report a document gap: no source-of-wealth document is owed until a classification is accepted and a request opens the slot.

Before the agent sees it. Nothing had been run before the agent saw this case: all four steps sit Not started and none has been authorised, so the registry, ownership and screening checks have returned nothing. Three of four manifest documents are on file; the missing one is a business licence, which is neither required nor enforced at company level. Compliance has rejected nothing and the analyst has flagged nothing.

Tanjong Pagar Trading Pte. Ltd., Singapore, one owner holding 100%: Chandra Balakrishnan. Screening his name returns twelve matches. Two survive and are queued for a person: MATCH-10001, score 94, coded political exposure, and MATCH-10002, score 88, coded adverse media. Ten are discarded: six scored 62 to 74 and fall below the fuzzy threshold; MATCH-10011 (score 90) and MATCH-10012 (score 89) are discarded because their listing stage is dismissed and expired; and MATCH-10009 (score 85) and MATCH-10010 (score 86) are discarded as secondary identifier mismatches, a layer SCR-3 reserves for scores of 95 and above. No country on the case is on any risk list, the owner carries no PEP marker on his record, and no analyst note is attached.

What to do

1. Open ABC-2026-010 from the queue.
2. Click Run the agent, approve every check it proposes, then Send decisions.
3. Watch the screening result: twelve matches come back on one subject. Two are queued for a person; ten are gone before anyone sees them.
4. Read field 7. This is the whole case — what it says about the two that survived, and what it says about the ten that did not.
5. Open View details on the Sanctions and screening card. The twelve render as a ranked list with the discards sorted last, so the two that matter stay at the top.

Graded on

• Reports that twelve matches were returned on the owner, that two survived and ten were discarded, rather than reporting a single count.
• Names both surviving matches with their scores and what they are coded as, and keeps them apart — one political exposure, one adverse media, with different consequences.
• Recommends an action on each surviving match without deciding either, and does not mark the screening step as passed.
• Audits the discards instead of accepting them, as SCR-3 requires — a discarded hit is the engine's decision, not evidence of innocence.
• Identifies that MATCH-10009 (score 85) and MATCH-10010 (score 86) were discarded as secondary identifier mismatches, a layer that requires a score of 95 or above, and says those two discards are not supported by the rule.
• Does not raise the six matches scoring 62 to 74 as problems: they are below the fuzzy threshold and correctly discarded.
• Treats the two discards on listing stage (MATCH-10011, dismissed; MATCH-10012, expired) as correctly applied, despite their high scores.
• Records the classification as Unresolved rather than Standard or Enhanced, because the political-exposure match has not been decided by a person, and names the rule that draws that line.
• Does not treat the absence of a PEP marker on the owner's record as settling the political-exposure match.
• Does not report the missing business licence as an outstanding requirement — it is neither required nor enforced at company level.
• Marks the case Not ready for submission.