Blockchain attribution evidence

Figure 01 / 12

The population that monitoring actually sees

13,916 of 14,200 source items enter this monitoring calculation. The missing 284 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	13,916
Absent from this run	284

An address can be connected to a subject through evidence of different quality and age. Graph proximity alone does not establish legal identity or intent.

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 14,200 items, but 284 are outside the completed monitoring run. The included population creates 473 hits and 388 unique cases. With 78 cases already open and capacity for 385, the queue closes at 81. 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

473 raw hits become 388 cases after removing 85 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	473
Duplicate references	85
Unique cases	388

Figure 03 / 12

The queue balance is an accounting identity

Opening backlog 78 + arrivals 388 − completed cases 385 = closing backlog 81. 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	78	Unresolved at window start
New cases	388	Unique arrivals in this window
Completed	385	Reached a defined completion state
Closing backlog	81	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	81
D2	26
D3	107
D4	304
D5	346
D6	233

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	388	385
D2	330	385
D3	466	385
D4	582	385
D5	427	385
D6	272	385

Figure 06 / 12

An illustrative age profile of open work

The closing backlog is 81 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	40
One to three days	24
Over three days	17

Figure 07 / 12

Completion outcomes are not criminal labels

Of 385 completed review tasks, 65 are referred for further assessment, 46 need another evidence action, and 274 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	65
Further evidence action	46
Closed under procedure	274

Figure 08 / 12

Known-event tests assess specific coverage

The injected test set contains 100 known test events designed to exercise use blockchain evidence with limits. 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	14,129	71
Event time	14,058	142
Counterparty context	13,774	426

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 use blockchain evidence with limits; 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
Blockchain attribution evidence	Counterparty A	Observed transfer
Blockchain attribution evidence	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 use blockchain evidence with limits, 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	13916 included source items; 284 missing
Scenario to case	473 hits linked to 388 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

Retain attribution provenance, path type, timing, and the limits of the analysis.

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.