How Can Compliance Teams Determine Whether Adverse Media Is Relevant to a Customer?
The agent evaluates each article in context, using subject matching, source credibility, severity, and recency to assess whether reported activity represents meaningful financial crime risk. This ensures only substantiated, policy-relevant signals are carried forward into investigations.
Each case results in a structured materiality assessment, supported by consolidated evidence and documented reasoning, clearly distinguishing genuine risk signals from noise with greater speed and confidence.
Determine whether an article relates to the customer or entity under review
Apply adverse media risk standards consistently across investigations
Traditional keyword-based screening tools surface large volumes of articles but provide limited insight into relevance or materiality.
As a result, investigators spend significant time manually reviewing news coverage, slowing investigations, increasing operational burden, and limiting the ability to scale adverse media screening effectively.
Global Media Monitoring
Relevant coverage is identified across trusted news outlets, public records, regulatory announcements, and other reputable sources, spanning multiple jurisdictions and languages.
Contextual Risk Evaluation
Each article is assessed for subject relevance, severity of allegations, recency, and source credibility, ensuring only meaningful signals are considered material.
Structured Materiality Assessment
Each case results in a clear determination of materiality, supported by consolidated evidence and structured reasoning that explains the associated financial crime risk.
Structured reasoning visible for every adverse media assessment
Designed to operate within institutional governance frameworks
AI powered, materiality-driven analysis of global adverse media, enabling investigators to identify genuine financial crime risk earlier while reducing unnecessary noise.
