Typed network relationships

Figure 01 / 12

The population that monitoring actually sees

12,152 of 12,400 source items enter this monitoring calculation. The missing 248 items are a coverage gap, not evidence of low risk. Reconcile stable identifiers and amounts where appropriate before interpreting the alert rate.

Figure data and text version

Population state	Items
Included in monitoring	12,152
Absent from this run	248

A payment, director role, device link, and ownership interest are different edges. Their meaning depends on direction, time, and evidence.

The reference case starts with the stated population and a functioning evidence path. The owner is risk operations.

All amounts, rates, capacity limits, and outcomes in this case are synthetic. The three conditions are separate assumptions for comparison. A better result in the response condition is not measured proof that the proposed control causes that improvement. The figures expose the calculation and its limits; a real deployment needs its own evidence.

Read the result

The daily source population is 12,400 items, but 248 are outside the completed monitoring run. The included population creates 316 hits and 259 unique cases. With 35 cases already open and capacity for 270, the queue closes at 24. Coverage, duplicate work, and staffing are separate causes; reducing one number does not prove that the overall control improved.

Figure 02 / 12

From scenario hits to unique cases

316 raw hits become 259 cases after removing 57 repeated references to the same case under the stated merge rule. Deduplication should reduce duplicate work while retaining the underlying events and reasons. It must not merge unrelated activity merely because values look similar.

Figure data and text version

Stage	Count
Raw scenario hits	316
Duplicate references	57
Unique cases	259

Figure 03 / 12

The queue balance is an accounting identity

Opening backlog 35 + arrivals 259 − completed cases 270 = closing backlog 24. Completion is capped by both available work and the stated capacity. This identity is useful even when average handling times are uncertain.

Figure data and text version

Movement	Cases	Definition
Opening backlog	35	Unresolved at window start
New cases	259	Unique arrivals in this window
Completed	270	Reached a defined completion state
Closing backlog	24	Unresolved at window end

Figure 04 / 12

Backlog accumulates across uneven days

This deterministic six-day example applies a stated daily arrival multiplier and a constant completion capacity. Unused capacity does not carry forward as completed work. The series is a workload illustration; it omits variable case durations and specialist routing. Horizontal positions are the labeled observations or scenarios; equal spacing does not imply equal numerical increments.

Figure data and text version

Day	Closing backlog
D1	24
D2	0
D3	41
D4	159
D5	174
D6	85

Figure 05 / 12

Arrivals and completions need separate plots

The service line cannot exceed the work available that day. A team can complete more cases than arrive while clearing an opening backlog. Conversely, stable staffing can coexist with a growing queue when arrivals remain higher than capacity. Horizontal positions are the labeled observations or scenarios; equal spacing does not imply equal numerical increments.

Figure data and text version

Day	Arrivals	Completions
D1	259	270
D2	220	244
D3	311	270
D4	388	270
D5	285	270
D6	181	270

Figure 06 / 12

An illustrative age profile of open work

The closing backlog is 24 cases. The 50/30/remainder split is an explicit illustrative age allocation, not a distribution inferred from the arrival model. Production age buckets must come from each case’s actual receipt and status history.

Figure data and text version

Age bucket	Open cases
Under one day	12
One to three days	7
Over three days	5

Figure 07 / 12

Completion outcomes are not criminal labels

Of 270 completed review tasks, 46 are referred for further assessment, 32 need another evidence action, and 192 close under the stated procedure. These are operational outcomes. None is a probability of money laundering or a substitute for a reporting decision.

Figure data and text version

Review disposition	Tasks
Referred for assessment	46
Further evidence action	32
Closed under procedure	192

Figure 08 / 12

Known-event tests assess specific coverage

The injected test set contains 100 known test events designed to exercise type the relationships. The system surfaces 92. That 92% detection result measures this constructed test set only; it does not establish population-wide detection of illicit activity.

Figure data and text version

Measure	Count	Interpretation
Injected known events	100	Defined test population
Detected by the scenario	92	Expected evidence reached the control
Not detected	8	Investigate data, logic, and delivery
Real-world illicit prevalence	Unknown	Not inferred from this test

Figure 09 / 12

Data quality has several independent dimensions

Each row is a different field requirement over the same source population. Completeness alone does not establish that values are accurate or current. The case uses explicit illustrative missing counts to show how data quality can affect scenario coverage.

Figure data and text version

Field requirement	Present	Absent
Party reference	12,338	62
Event time	12,276	124
Counterparty context	12,028	372

Figure 10 / 12

Type the relationship before drawing an inference

This evidence map distinguishes a customer relationship, a transfer, and a case reference. The links support type the relationships; they do not imply common ownership or intent. A shared data point is a lead whose meaning depends on source, time, and context.

Figure data and text version

From	To	Relationship
Typed network relationships	Counterparty A	Observed transfer
Typed network relationships	Profile record	Declared business
Counterparty A	Case record	Evidence reference
Profile record	Case record	Context for review

Figure 11 / 12

Case clocks start from defined events

A legal deadline, an internal response target, and an evidence-expiry date can start from different events. The hours here are internal teaching targets only. They are not BSA, sanctions, consumer-protection, or other statutory deadlines.

Figure data and text version

Event	Relative time	Operational meaning
Source event	T0	Activity occurred
Data arrival	T0 + 2 hours	The monitoring system learned it
Case created	T0 + 3 hours	Work entered an owned queue
Internal review target	T0 + 27 hours	Illustrative 24-hour target from case creation
Disposition	Recorded separately	Use actual decision and reporting records

Figure 12 / 12

The end-to-end delivery contract

The scenario is incomplete until the intended evidence reaches an owned case. For type the relationships, verify source coverage, hit creation, queue acceptance, reviewer access, and final disposition separately. A green job status proves only that a job reported completion.

Figure data and text version

Boundary	Acceptance evidence
Source to scenario	12152 included source items; 248 missing
Scenario to case	316 hits linked to 259 unique cases
Case to reviewer	Required evidence visible under the reviewer role
Reviewer to outcome	Disposition, rationale, and any separate reporting decision retained

Connect the result to the system

Keep relationship types and temporal validity visible to the investigator.

Check the population, evidence, permitted action, and actual effect together. A balanced calculation can still use the wrong population; a successful response can still leave an unknown financial outcome. The case’s numerical result applies only to its stated assumptions.