Explainable review logic

Methodology and limitations

TradeGuard is a public, client-side demonstration of transparent review rules. It prioritises evidence and human judgement; it does not make autonomous compliance decisions.

Public methodology note

Implementation boundary

The public v37 build uses deterministic browser-side rules and does not call an AI API or make an autonomous compliance decision. “RegTech Nexus AI” is the publisher name; the public workflow should be understood as explainable rule-based review support. Any future AI component would require separate documentation, testing and governance.

TBML Check

The TBML workspace structures a trade case around goods, price and valuation, HS-code alignment, quantity and unit, documents, route and ports, related parties or UBO concerns, third-party payment, repeated or unsupported shipments, business-profile mismatch and unusual payment terms.

Additional control-context fields cover jurisdiction, PEP and sanctions status, restricted or dual-use goods, payment transparency and source of funds or wealth. These are control findings and readiness information, not automatic sanctions, STR or legal conclusions.

TBML indicator weights in the public build

Control-only context findings, including jurisdiction, PEP/sanctions status, restricted goods, payment transparency and source of funds, do not add numeric points in this public build.

Indicator-to-reference crosswalk

The following crosswalk explains the standards and practice families that inform the public vocabulary. It is not a legal opinion, a certification or a complete jurisdiction-specific mapping. Each institution must configure the applicable FIU, regulator, customs, sanctions and trade-finance requirements for its market.

Public indicatorReference familiesLocal configuration required
Price / valuation anomalyFATF TBML typologies; Wolfsberg trade-finance principles; ICC/BAFT practice materialsCustoms valuation, FIU and institutional benchmark sources
Goods / HS-code mismatchFATF TBML typologies; WCO HS/customs concepts; ICC/BAFT practice materialsNational tariff, customs and restricted-goods references
Quantity / unit inconsistencyFATF TBML typologies; WCO customs concepts; trade-document controlsNational customs and product-unit conventions
Document inconsistencyFATF TBML typologies; FATF Recommendations 10 and 11; Wolfsberg principlesDocumentary-credit, customs and record-keeping requirements
Route / port anomalyFATF risk-based approach and TBML typologies; Recommendations 1, 6 and 7Country-risk, sanctions, shipping and customs data sources
Related party / UBO concernFATF Recommendations 10, 24 and 25; Wolfsberg CDD principlesLocal beneficial-ownership, CDD and company-registry rules
Third-party paymentFATF Recommendations 10 and 16; Wolfsberg and BAFT payment-transparency practiceLocal payment, FX and wire-transfer requirements
Multiple / phantom shipmentFATF TBML typologies; Recommendation 11; trade and transport-document controlsCustoms, shipping, carrier and internal duplicate-detection sources
Business-profile mismatchFATF risk-based approach and Recommendation 10 CDD expectationsLocal KYC, customer-risk and sector guidance
Unusual payment termsFATF Recommendations 10 and 16; ICC/BAFT trade-practice materialsInstitutional product, FX and trade-finance policy

Price-deviation rule

When comparable positive values are available, the deviation is 0% when the declared unit price is within the reviewer-entered market range. Above the upper bound it is calculated as (declared price − upper bound) ÷ upper bound × 100; below the lower bound it is (lower bound − declared price) ÷ lower bound × 100. The current public thresholds are +15 at 50% or more and +25 at 100% or more. No live market-price feed is used; the reviewer supplies the range.

Risk bands, cap and duplicate prevention

Decision-ready bands are Low 0–24, Medium 25–49, High 50–74 and Critical 75–100. Raw scored points are capped at 100 for the TBML workspace. The six published Transaction Monitoring patterns currently total 95 points; its 100 cap is a defensive guard for future configured rules and does not activate under the current six-rule set.

Quick toggles and structured indicators use the same-concept suppression rules in the browser code, so a price, document, route, related-party, third-party-payment or goods/HS signal is not counted twice when one source already produced the corresponding flag.

Decision-readiness gate

Data completeness is the percentage of configured review fields that are non-blank. Data integrity is assessed separately for comparable currency, unit, HS-linked unit profile, price range and related context. “Unknown / not provided” is treated as not assessed, not as clean evidence. A result can show an indicative score while the decision-ready score remains withheld when integrity, evidence, confidence, route context or reviewer-note requirements are unresolved.

Transaction Monitoring

The public early-warning workspace uses configurable illustrative weights. The current pattern weights are:

The configured total is capped at 100 as a defensive guard. Evidence-supported and unverified contributions are shown separately. If more than 50% of the displayed contribution is unverified, the signal is labelled Pending evidence. If an expected transaction or value baseline is missing, the relevant baseline-dependent rule is not evaluated.

PDF input modes

Full statement mode uses available transaction text and limited context indicators to pre-fill a local review. Transaction history-only mode uses anonymised transaction rows while the reviewer manually supplies an anonymised reference and any available profession, profile, baseline and evidence context. In both modes, extracted values require reviewer confirmation.

Data sources and configuration

The public build currently uses one configured national tariff reference containing 7,420 records for tariff year 2026–2027; the packaged dataset carries its source metadata. It is not a universal tariff database. The form accepts a 6–10 digit HS-code format: six digits represent the harmonised level, while exact national 8- or 10-digit verification requires the relevant country reference to be configured. An unrecognised code may continue to an indicative review, but the result remains not decision-ready until the tariff mapping is verified.

It does not connect to a live sanctions, PEP, adverse-media, market-price, SWIFT or core-banking data feed. Country-specific tariff datasets, thresholds, weights, data lineage and approval controls must be configured and validated for an institutional pilot.

Reference families and coverage boundary

The indicator vocabulary is informed by public AML/CFT and trade-finance risk guidance, including FATF risk-based standards and TBML typologies, Wolfsberg Group trade-finance principles, and BAFT/ICC trade-practice materials. These references inform the public rule vocabulary; they do not constitute regulatory approval, a complete typology library or a jurisdiction-specific legal mapping.

Additional typologies such as transshipment, sanctions-evasion routing, vessel or AIS anomalies, freight-cost anomalies and LC-amendment patterns remain roadmap items unless explicitly configured and evidenced in a deployment.

What the score means

The score is an indicative prioritisation signal. It is not a probability of money laundering, a finding of TBML, a sanctions determination, a regulatory rating or a substitute for investigation. A high score can reflect missing or unverified evidence, while a low score does not prove low risk.

Production readiness boundary

This public build has no backend, login, role-based access, saved case record, server-side audit log, live screening integration or regulatory certification. Browser rules can be inspected and altered. Institutional deployment therefore requires secure hosting, identity and access management, server-side case storage, audit logging, versioned rule governance, independent testing, privacy controls, operational resilience and applicable regulatory review.

Version and change log

Human review required: TradeGuard can organise evidence and prioritise review signals. An authorised reviewer remains responsible for validating evidence, documenting rationale and deciding the appropriate next action under the institution’s approved policy.