Comparable customer segments

Figure 01 / 12

The population that monitoring actually sees

12,936 of 13,200 source items enter this monitoring calculation. The missing 264 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	12,936
Absent from this run	264

A cash-intensive retailer and a payroll provider can have different ordinary transaction patterns. A single peer comparison can obscure both legitimate variation and relevant changes.

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 13,200 items, but 264 are outside the completed monitoring run. The included population creates 479 hits and 393 unique cases. With 35 cases already open and capacity for 390, the queue closes at 38. 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

479 raw hits become 393 cases after removing 86 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	479
Duplicate references	86
Unique cases	393

Figure 03 / 12

The queue balance is an accounting identity

Opening backlog 35 + arrivals 393 − completed cases 390 = closing backlog 38. 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	393	Unique arrivals in this window
Completed	390	Reached a defined completion state
Closing backlog	38	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	38
D2	0
D3	82
D4	282
D5	324
D6	209

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	393	390
D2	334	372
D3	472	390
D4	590	390
D5	432	390
D6	275	390

Figure 06 / 12

An illustrative age profile of open work

The closing backlog is 38 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	19
One to three days	11
Over three days	8

Figure 07 / 12

Completion outcomes are not criminal labels

Of 390 completed review tasks, 66 are referred for further assessment, 47 need another evidence action, and 277 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	66
Further evidence action	47
Closed under procedure	277

Figure 08 / 12

Known-event tests assess specific coverage

The injected test set contains 100 known test events designed to exercise segment for meaningful comparison. 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	13,134	66
Event time	13,068	132
Counterparty context	12,804	396

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 segment for meaningful comparison; 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
Comparable customer segments	Counterparty A	Observed transfer
Comparable customer segments	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 segment for meaningful comparison, 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	12936 included source items; 264 missing
Scenario to case	479 hits linked to 393 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

Use justified segments, monitor coverage within them, and preserve changes to segment membership.

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.