Consequence-aware triage

Figure 01 / 12

The population that monitoring actually sees

8,624 of 8,800 source items enter this monitoring calculation. The missing 176 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	8,624
Absent from this run	176

A queue order should reflect impact, time sensitivity, and applicable obligations. The oldest item and the largest dollar amount are useful signals but not complete policies.

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 8,800 items, but 176 are outside the completed monitoring run. The included population creates 561 hits and 460 unique cases. With 72 cases already open and capacity for 480, the queue closes at 52. 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

561 raw hits become 460 cases after removing 101 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	561
Duplicate references	101
Unique cases	460

Figure 03 / 12

The queue balance is an accounting identity

Opening backlog 72 + arrivals 460 − completed cases 480 = closing backlog 52. 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	72	Unresolved at window start
New cases	460	Unique arrivals in this window
Completed	480	Reached a defined completion state
Closing backlog	52	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	52
D2	0
D3	72
D4	282
D5	308
D6	150

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	460	480
D2	391	443
D3	552	480
D4	690	480
D5	506	480
D6	322	480

Figure 06 / 12

An illustrative age profile of open work

The closing backlog is 52 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	26
One to three days	16
Over three days	10

Figure 07 / 12

Completion outcomes are not criminal labels

Of 480 completed review tasks, 82 are referred for further assessment, 58 need another evidence action, and 340 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	82
Further evidence action	58
Closed under procedure	340

Figure 08 / 12

Known-event tests assess specific coverage

The injected test set contains 100 known test events designed to exercise prioritize by consequence and time. 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	8,756	44
Event time	8,712	88
Counterparty context	8,536	264

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 prioritize by consequence and time; 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
Consequence-aware triage	Counterparty A	Observed transfer
Consequence-aware triage	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 prioritize by consequence and time, 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	8624 included source items; 176 missing
Scenario to case	561 hits linked to 460 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 explicit priority classes with age and obligation checks and named escalation owners.

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.