How we think about compliance.
The thinking behind the platform: where compliance is going, why the architecture has to change, and how we measure whether any of it works.
The assessment model designed for behavioural transaction monitoring.
An assessment model that reads each transaction the way an analyst reads a case, against your own procedures and the customer's behaviour, before it clears.
Read the piece →ResearchIntroducing ComplianceBench.
An open benchmark for AI on financial compliance casework, built on a fully published institution and released with its complete answer keys.
Read the piece →Pre-flagCompliance is reactive. It shouldn't be.
Industry estimates put the share of criminal proceeds intercepted by the compliance functions built to stop them at under one percent. The reason is structural. And it is fixable.
Read the piece →ArchitectureThe architecture compliance was built around no longer makes sense.
Every compliance product built in the last thirty years assumes a human at the centre. That assumption was load-bearing. It is no longer true.
Read the piece →AutonomyAutopilot, not co-pilot.
Most AI for compliance sits next to an analyst and helps them work faster. That is a co-pilot. It leaves the operation exactly where it was, with a person in the path of every case. Brayns is built to run the operation itself.
Read the piece →KnowledgeFrom tribe to hive.
Compliance today is tribal. Knowledge sits in individuals and behind walls between teams. A model that runs the operation turns that tribe into a hive.
Read the piece →The modelBrayns runs on your SOPs.
Most compliance tools are built to fit everyone, which means they fit no one. Brayns inverts this. It runs on your SOPs, exactly as you have written them.
Read the piece →