Institution-specific duty map

Figure 01 / 12

Determine the eligible population first

Of 980 source records, 823 are within the stated synthetic scope and 157 are outside it. Eligibility here is an explicit teaching input, not a legal conclusion. Production classification must use the actual entity, product, activity, jurisdiction, and facts.

Figure data and text version

Scope state	Records
Within stated scope	823
Outside stated scope	157

The product uses a fintech interface, a sponsor bank, and several service providers. The applicable duty follows the entity and activity, not the product’s marketing label.

A vendor screening result is mistaken for completion of the institution’s entire program obligation.

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 case identifies 823 eligible records from a source population of 980. The required workflow completes for 642, but 83 completed records miss the illustrative internal target. Another 181 remain incomplete. Communication evidence covers 559 generated notices. Scope, completion, timeliness, and delivery are four separate properties of the customer outcome.

Figure 02 / 12

A control can miss eligible records

The required workflow completes for 642 of the 823 eligible records. The 181 remainder needs an owned exception path. Reporting completion as a percentage of all source records would answer a different question and could hide the actual coverage gap.

Figure data and text version

Measure	Records
Eligible records	823
Workflow completed	642
Workflow incomplete	181

Figure 03 / 12

Completion and timeliness are distinct outcomes

The illustration applies an internal target, not a statutory deadline. Of 642 completed records, 83 miss that target and 559 meet it. The 181 open records are a third state; do not automatically classify them as timely merely because their final outcome is unknown.

Figure data and text version

Outcome	Eligible records
Complete within target	559
Complete after target	83
Still incomplete	181

Figure 04 / 12

An obligation record connects authority to behavior

This case implements map duties to the actual institution. The record separates scope, trigger, required action, ownership, and retained proof. Exact legal duties belong to the applicable source and interpretation; the timing and counts in this worked example are synthetic.

Figure data and text version

Element	Illustrative value
Control subject	Institution-specific duty map
Scope	The eligible population defined above
Trigger	A vendor screening result is mistaken for completion of the institution’s entire program obligation.
Required behavior	map duties to the actual institution
Owner	BSA compliance owner
Evidence	Versioned event, action, and communication records

Figure 05 / 12

Different clocks start from different facts

These relative times are illustrative service targets. They deliberately distinguish customer contact, receipt by the institution, classification, investigation, and communication. A routing delay must not silently replace the original receipt time when that fact matters.

Figure data and text version

Event	Illustrative time	Record
Customer report	T0	Original channel and words
Institution receipt	T0 + 5 minutes	Retained receipt timestamp
Classification	T0 + 20 minutes	Applicable process and owner
Internal review target	T0 + 1 day	Internal target only
Outcome communication	At decision	Content, destination, and delivery state

Figure 06 / 12

Evidence fields fail independently

Each row is one evidence requirement over the eligible population. The same record can fail several checks, so the absent counts across rows must not be added as though they were distinct customers. Completeness does not itself prove that a field is accurate.

Figure data and text version

Evidence field	Present	Absent
scope	757	66
trigger	724	99
action	700	123
notice	741	82
evidence	658	165

Figure 07 / 12

A generated notice is not a delivered notice

642 completed records generate a modeled notice event. 559 have a delivered state and 83 do not. The system must distinguish generation, dispatch, delivery evidence, and any required follow-up under the actual process.

Figure data and text version

Communication state	Notices
Generated	642
Delivered state recorded	559
Delivery unresolved	83

Figure 08 / 12

Authority differs by operation

The access matrix is a proposed teaching separation of duties. Read, propose, approve, and administer are distinct capabilities. The final policy must match the organization’s actual roles and obligations, with controlled emergency access and an audit trail.

Figure data and text version

Role	Read evidence	Propose action	Approve release
BSA compliance owner	Scoped	Yes	No
Independent approver	Scoped	No	Yes
Support	Limited	Request only	No
System administrator	Operational logs	No	No

Figure 09 / 12

Exceptions need capacity and a closing state

The control has 181 incomplete records. The available exception capacity covers 120, leaving 61 pending. A pending state requires an owner and a next action; changing a status label without resolving the required behavior does not close the gap.

Figure data and text version

Queue item	Records	Meaning
Exceptions opened	181	Eligible workflow incomplete
Capacity applied	120	Records handled in this window
Pending exceptions	61	Still require an owned response

Figure 10 / 12

A rate includes its denominator

These rates deliberately use different populations. Overall throughput, eligible coverage, completed-record timeliness, and delivery evidence are not interchangeable. Each needs the same cohort, cutoff, and definition every time it is compared.

Figure data and text version

Metric	Numerator	Denominator	Percent
Eligible coverage	642	823	78.01
On-time among completed	559	642	87.07
On-time among eligible	559	823	67.92
Delivered among generated	559	642	87.07

Figure 11 / 12

A change needs an evidence trail

The trigger is A vendor screening result is mistaken for completion of the institution’s entire program obligation.. A controlled change connects the revised requirement or interpretation to implementation, replay, customer impact, and approval. The old version remains relevant to decisions already made under it.

Figure data and text version

Stage	Retained proof
Interpret	Scope, source, effective date, and owner
Implement	Versioned logic, data contract, and message template
Verify	Boundary cases and affected-population comparison
Release	Approval, start time, and rollback condition
Correct	Affected records and customer outcome where required

Figure 12 / 12

Correction follows the affected population

A remediation map links the defect to affected records, financial consequences, communication, and closure evidence. It should retain exclusions and unresolved cases. A change that prevents future failures does not by itself correct earlier customer outcomes.

Figure data and text version

From	To	Relationship
Institution-specific duty map	Affected population	Reproducible query
Affected population	Financial review	Amount and balance impact
Affected population	Customer message	Required communication
Financial review	Closure evidence	Verified adjustment
Customer message	Closure evidence	Delivery and follow-up

Connect the result to the system

Map each applicable duty to the responsible entity, delegated task, evidence, and oversight.

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.