Alert Burden Reduction

Transaction monitoring generates alert volumes that analyst teams cannot clear inside regulatory turnaround times. The instinct is to add headcount, and the result is a larger team clearing the same proportion of noise. Loosening the rules would cut the volume, but nobody will sign off on reduced risk coverage, and they are right not to. The real problem is not the number of alerts. It is that the system cannot tell anyone which ones matter.

• 01Reconciles transaction data across core banking, UPI, NEFT and RTGS, so monitoring works from one version of the truth rather than four.
• 02Builds a simulator that mirrors your existing rules, so any proposed change is tested against real history before it reaches production.
• 03Tunes thresholds and rules against that history, with the effect on risk coverage measured rather than asserted.
• 04Introduces dynamic customer segmentation, so thresholds follow how a customer actually behaves instead of the band they were filed under at onboarding.
• 05Prioritises whatever remains, so the highest-risk cases reach an analyst first instead of the oldest ones.

• False positive rate in transaction monitoring
• Alert-to-STR ratio
• Alerts cleared per analyst per day
• SLA breaches on alert adjudication
• Risk coverage: held constant, and demonstrably so