AML PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Transaction Monitoring

Rule Performance Review

Advisory, data-led review of your AML/CFT transaction monitoring rules using historical transactions, alerts, and case outcomes where available. We deliver an evidence pack and a prioritized roadmap for implementation by your team or transaction monitoring vendor.

Request Scoping Call
Take the “Fit Check” Quiz
*Advisory review only. No audit opinion and no guarantee of detection.

What you get from the review

Rule Insights

Deep dive performance & workload insights, not just generic benchmarks. Understand why specific rules are underperforming.

Remediation Roadmap

A practical, defensible tuning plan. We prioritize actions by Impact × Risk × Effort.

Governance Evidence

Solid documentation for committees, audit, and supervisory discussions. Support governance and oversight discussions.

Kickoff &
Questionnaire

No written answers needed

Shadowing
sessions

~60 mins each to finalize data

Months
History

Months of history analysed (as available)

Weeks
Duration

Typical calendar duration (depends on package and data readiness)

Kickoff &
Questionnaire

No written answers needed

Shadowing
sessions

~60 mins each to finalize data

Months
History

Months of history analysed (as available)

Weeks
Duration

Typical calendar duration (depends on package and data readiness)

Why AMLYZE?

Client-specific metric design

We don’t force a generic KPI set. We build the metric definitions around your disposition taxonomy, case workflow, segmentation model, and risk appetite. This ensures results are meaningful in your environment.

Shadowing-first approach

We confirm workflows, outcomes taxonomy, and data joins before requesting extracts, thus reducing rework and misinterpretation.

Tuning with explicit trade-offs

We don’t promise blanket “noise reduction”. We make trade-offs explicit (what reduces volume, what improves coverage) and recommend post-change monitoring triggers.

Client-specific metric design

We don’t force a generic KPI set. We build the metric definitions around your disposition taxonomy, case workflow, segmentation model, and risk appetite. This ensures results are meaningful in your environment.

Shadowing-first approach

We confirm workflows, outcomes taxonomy, and data joins before requesting extracts, thus reducing rework and misinterpretation.

Tuning with explicit trade-offs

We don’t promise blanket “noise reduction”. We make trade-offs explicit (what reduces volume, what improves coverage) and recommend post-change monitoring triggers.

What we assess

Rule behaviour

Volumes, concentration, stability, overlap, and segmentation fit.

Outcomes

Conversion ratios overall and, where feasible, by rule/segment.

Governance

Turning change control, disposition taxonomy, triage/QA, MI suitability.

How it works

01

Kickoff Prep

Short questionnaire. No written answers needed.

02

Shadowing

2-3 sessions to confirm workflows, outcomes, systems, and identifiers.

03

Tailored Extraction Spec

Datasets, fields, keys, validation checks.

04

Delivery

Report + metrics pack + prioritized roadmap + stakeholder readout.

Engagement Models

Most clients choose the comprehensive review for a defensible audit trail, but we offer focused sprints for specific needs.

Recommended for regulatory remediation

Standard End-to-End Review

A complete, data-led review of your AML/CFT TM rules, outcomes (where available), and governanc. This process concludes with a report, metrics pack, and a prioritized roadmap for implementation.

~6-12 Weeks Calendar Duration
All active rules in scope (no sampling by default)
Governance Review

Limited-Scope Sprints

Focused Sprints (Optional)

Rapid, focused interventions designed for specific needs.

Note: While these are rapid engagements, the calendar duration typically spans 4-8 weeks to accommodate data extraction, validation, and feedback cycles.
Option A

Rapid Assessment

Rapid Assessment Report + rule-level metrics + initial prioritised actions.

Best for: High alert noise & immediate tuning.
Option B

Methodology & Design

Tuning/testing guidelines  + small set of vendor-ready Rule Design Documents (RDDs).

Best for: Resetting governance & vendor implementation.
Option C

Risk Coverage Sprint

Rule Design Document (RDD) package to close defined coverage gaps (logic +/- thresholds).

Best for: Specific audit findings or new product.

Data Handling & Privacy

Tokenised/pseudonymised identifiers where possible. Recordings only with your agreement. Secure deletion after acceptance. No cross-client pooling. Platform access is rarely required (typically delivered via extracts).

FAQ

Tailored to your needs. We start with shadowing to understand your reality, then confirm scope, data feasibility, metrics, and deliverables in a proposal.

Rarely. We typically work with data extracts or standard reports to minimize security friction. Direct access is only requested if extracts are not feasible.

Primarily conversion ratios (alert → case → escalation → SAR/STR where tracked). We also look at volumes, concentration, overlap, normalized rates, and timeliness indicators.

No. Our goal is alert integrity. While many reviews lead to noise reduction, some recommendations may increase targeted alerting where coverage appears weak.

We securely delete all operational datasets and recordings after final acceptance of deliverables, unless retention is contractually required.

Read Service Description & FAQ