Financial services
Transaction review, client-file analysis, control testing and escalation chains all share the same requirement: the institution must understand which sources and rules were used, what the system proposed, and who authorised the consequential step. This page sets out how such a workflow would be planned and run on inTheEU Assist, not a record of a completed deployment.
Where Assist fits in the workflow
A proposed multi-step action, document review, flagged pattern or escalation can be planned as a chain of stages. The proposed skills and approval points are presented before execution, and defined workflow events are retained so the reviewed plan and subsequent activity can be compared and reconstructed.
Stages flagged as risk-bearing (an escalation, a customer-facing output, a final decision) would carry an independent, second approval, separate from the initial plan-level sign-off. A general approval for the workflow does not substitute for a specific approval at the point that actually matters.
Human authority and operating boundaries
Every stage that could affect a customer, a transaction, or a regulatory filing would require an explicit signed approval before proceeding. Compliance, risk and quantitative teams remain the authority on what constitutes a signal and what action is permitted. The platform's role is to preserve the stated basis, execution context and human decision in a traceable record.
A first bounded pilot
A first pilot can avoid production transaction authority entirely. One team can provide a limited, approved set of policies, historical or synthetic cases, and one review workflow, such as client-file completeness, policy cross-reference, exception triage, or preparation of an internal review note. Assist prepares proposed findings and supporting source references; named staff accept, correct, reject or escalate them.
Success can be measured through review time, policy and source coverage, false or unsupported flags, corrections required, consistency across repeated files, escalation quality, and completeness of the approval record. No customer action, filing, payment, trade or account restriction needs to be placed within the pilot's authority.
What is available for a pilot
Scoped knowledge, proposed skill chains, stage approvals, local execution and traceable workflow records are working parts of the platform. What is not supplied as an off-the-shelf claim is a universal AML, fraud or suitability model. The institution's own compliance, risk and quantitative teams define the applicable rules and remain the authority; the platform supplies the governed working and execution environment around them.
Some of the architecture underlying this capability set is documented in filings still in progress. This page describes what the platform is designed to do, at a level appropriate for planning a pilot, not an implementation specification.
Bring one review workflow
If your team can define one recurring review, its approved policies and data, the permitted outputs and the people authorised to decide, we can assess a controlled pilot without connecting it to production transaction authority. Discuss the workflow and its success criteria →
Platform features and interface are subject to continuous improvement. Descriptions in this guide may not reflect the exact layout or wording of the latest released version.