Hit Resolution

When screening identifies a potential match, it creates a "hit" that requires investigation. This guide covers the process of reviewing and resolving screening hits effectively.

Hit Resolution Workflow

        ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
        │                                                 │
        │  1. Hit Detected                                │
        │     └─> Screening check finds potential match   │
        │                                                 │
        │  2. Initial Triage                              │
        │     └─> Quick assessment of match quality       │
        │                                                 │
        │  3. Investigation                               │
        │     └─> Gather additional information           │
        │                                                 │
        │  4. Decision                                    │
        │     ├─> Confirmed True (real match)             │
        │     └─> Confirmed False (false positive)        │
        │                                                 │
        │  5. Documentation                               │
        │     └─> Record reasoning and evidence           │
        │                                                 │
        │  6. Action                                      │
        │     └─> Update applicant status, create case    │
        │                                                 │
        └─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Understanding Hit Confidence

Confidence Score

Every hit includes a confidence score (0-100%) indicating how closely the applicant matches the watchlist entry.

Score	Confidence	Investigation Level
95-100%	Very High	Likely true match, verify identity
85-94%	High	Probable match, investigate thoroughly
70-84%	Medium	Possible match, need additional data
50-69%	Low	Unlikely match, quick review sufficient
Below 50%	Very Low	Probably false positive

Matched Fields

The response shows which fields matched:

{
  "matched_fields": ["name", "date_of_birth", "nationality"],
  "match_details": {
    "name": {
      "applicant": "John Michael Smith",
      "watchlist": "John M. Smith",
      "similarity": 0.95
    },
    "date_of_birth": {
      "applicant": "1985-03-15",
      "watchlist": "1985-03-15",
      "similarity": 1.0
    },
    "nationality": {
      "applicant": "USA",
      "watchlist": "USA",
      "similarity": 1.0
    }
  }
}

More matched fields = higher confidence in the match.

Investigating Hits

Step 1: Review Match Details

Compare applicant data with watchlist entry:

Check	What to Compare
Full name	Exact spelling, middle names, suffixes
Date of birth	Exact match required for high confidence
Nationality	Birth country and current citizenship
Address	Current and historical addresses
Other identifiers	Passport numbers, tax IDs

Step 2: Gather Additional Information

If initial data is inconclusive:

1. Request more documents from applicant
2. Check other data sources (credit bureaus, public records)
3. Search official databases (court records, business registries)
4. Contact applicant for clarification

Step 3: Use AI Assistance

TrustGate provides AI-powered resolution suggestions:

curl -X GET https://api.bytrustgate.com/api/v1/screening/hits/{hit_id}/suggestion \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer YOUR_API_KEY"

Response:

{
  "hit_id": "hit_789012",
  "suggested_resolution": "confirmed_false",
  "confidence": 0.87,
  "reasoning": "Different date of birth strongly suggests different individual. Applicant DOB is 1985-03-15, watchlist entry DOB is 1962-08-22. Name match is coincidental.",
  "evidence": [
    {
      "source_type": "applicant_data",
      "source_name": "ID Document",
      "excerpt": "DOB: March 15, 1985"
    },
    {
      "source_type": "watchlist_entry",
      "source_name": "OFAC SDN List",
      "excerpt": "DOB: August 22, 1962"
    }
  ],
  "generated_at": "2025-01-20T10:30:00Z"
}

Making a Decision

Confirm as True Match

If investigation confirms the applicant is the same person on the watchlist:

curl -X PATCH https://api.bytrustgate.com/api/v1/screening/hits/{hit_id} \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer YOUR_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "resolution": "confirmed_true",
    "notes": "Match confirmed. DOB matches exactly. Passport number matches OFAC entry. Verified against multiple sources."
  }'

Consequences:

• Applicant flagged with hit type (sanctions, PEP, etc.)
• Risk score increased
• Case automatically created
• May trigger automatic rejection (for sanctions)

Confirm as False Positive

If investigation determines this is not the same person:

curl -X PATCH https://api.bytrustgate.com/api/v1/screening/hits/{hit_id} \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer YOUR_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "resolution": "confirmed_false",
    "notes": "False positive. Different date of birth (applicant: 1985-03-15, watchlist: 1962-08-22). Different nationality. Common name collision."
  }'

Consequences:

• Hit marked as resolved
• No impact on applicant risk score
• Applicant can proceed with verification

Documentation Requirements

What to Document

For every hit resolution, record:

Element	Description
Decision	True match or false positive
Reasoning	Why you made this determination
Evidence	Documents/data supporting decision
Date/time	When decision was made
Reviewer	Who made the decision

Documentation Best Practices

Good documentation:

False positive determination:

Applicant: John Michael Smith, DOB 1985-03-15, US citizen, San Francisco CA
Watchlist: John M. Smith, DOB 1962-08-22, US citizen, New York NY

Key differentiating factors:
1. Date of birth does not match (23 year difference)
2. Different current residence (opposite coasts)
3. Applicant provided passport showing full name "John Michael Smith"
4. No other identifying data matches

Conclusion: Common name collision. Cleared for onboarding.
Reviewed by: Jane Analyst
Date: 2025-01-20

Poor documentation:

Looks like a different person.

Handling Different Hit Types

Sanctions Hits

Highest priority - Sanctions violations carry severe penalties.

Step	Action
1	Immediately flag for senior review
2	Do NOT proceed with onboarding
3	Thoroughly verify identity
4	If true match, report as required by law
5	Document everything

PEP Hits

High priority - PEPs require enhanced due diligence.

Step	Action
1	Confirm PEP status (current vs. former)
2	Identify PEP tier
3	Apply EDD measures
4	Get senior management approval
5	Set up enhanced monitoring

Adverse Media Hits

Variable priority - Depends on severity and recency.

Step	Action
1	Verify article is about same person
2	Assess severity and recency
3	Check for resolution (charges dropped, acquitted)
4	Document and risk-rate accordingly

Escalation Procedures

When to Escalate

Escalate hits when:

• Very high confidence sanctions match
• Multiple true positive hits
• Uncertainty about resolution
• Potential regulatory implications
• Customer disputes determination

Escalation Path

Analyst → Senior Analyst → Compliance Officer → MLRO/CCO → Legal

Creating Escalation Case

curl -X POST https://api.bytrustgate.com/api/v1/cases \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer YOUR_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "applicant_id": "550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000",
    "type": "sanctions",
    "title": "Potential OFAC SDN match - Escalation required",
    "description": "High confidence (92%) sanctions match requires senior review.",
    "priority": "critical",
    "screening_hit_id": "hit_789012"
  }'

Metrics and KPIs

Hit Resolution Metrics

Track these metrics to measure efficiency:

Metric	Target	Description
Average resolution time	< 4 hours	Time from hit to resolution
True positive rate	< 5%	% of hits that are true matches
First-pass resolution	> 80%	% resolved without escalation
Escalation rate	< 10%	% requiring senior review

Dashboard View

curl -X GET https://api.bytrustgate.com/api/v1/screening/stats \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer YOUR_API_KEY"

Response:

{
  "pending_review": 12,
  "total_hits_30d": 156,
  "true_positives_30d": 7,
  "false_positives_30d": 149,
  "avg_resolution_time_hours": 2.5,
  "checks_today": 45
}

Common False Positive Scenarios

Scenario	Characteristics	Resolution Approach
Common name	John Smith, Maria Garcia	Verify DOB, address, other IDs
Name variation	Mohammad vs. Mohammed	Check all name variations, verify docs
Outdated list data	Old address/DOB	Cross-reference multiple sources
Similar company names	ABC Corp vs. ABC Corporation	Verify registration numbers
Transliteration	Chinese/Arabic/Russian names	Compare original script versions

---

Next Steps

• Sanctions Screening - Understanding sanctions lists
• PEP Screening - Politically exposed persons
• Ongoing Monitoring - Continuous screening
• Screening Lists - Data sources reference