Real teams, real screening results.

Why there is one, and not twenty

Case studies in this market are usually composites: a plausible customer, a round number, and no named person who would confirm any of it. They are easy to write and worth nothing to a compliance officer, who reads them the same way you would read a testimonial with no name attached.

So there is one here, and it is real. More are in progress, and each takes as long as it takes to get a customer’s permission to describe their controls in public — which, for regulated businesses discussing financial crime exposure, is not a quick conversation and should not be.

What a case study here will always contain

• What the team screened, and against what. Volumes and data sources, not adjectives.
• What the process was before. A result with no baseline is a claim, not a finding.
• What changed operationally. Review time, alert volume, or what an audit asked for and got — the things a compliance team is measured on.
• What is still hard. A study with no residual difficulty in it has been edited into advertising.

What it will never contain

An unattributed quote, a percentage we cannot source, or a customer name used without written permission. Where a figure comes from the customer rather than from our own measurement, it says so.

In the meantime

If you are evaluating platforms and want evidence rather than stories, three things are more useful than a case study: the buyer’s guide, which sets out evaluation criteria before naming any vendor; the checklists, which show the process a deployment has to support; and the readiness check, which will tell you which part of your own process to look at first.