Screening

What this case's subjects are on record for. Two checks, one table: the watchlists, and the news. They are asked of the same list of subjects, because looking at a director you are asking one question: is there anything against this person.

One row per subject, one column per check. Each column has its own action and its own confirmation.

What stays separate is everything underneath. The two draw on different data, are billed differently, fail independently, and carry different evidential weight: an entry on a sanctions list and a newspaper article naming somebody are not the same kind of fact. The merge is in the reading, not in the plumbing.

Who gets screened

Derived from the case on every render rather than stored, so the list grows on its own: walk another level of ownership and the people it finds appear here, waiting to be checked.

Subject	Where it comes from
The company	The case itself
Directors and legal representatives	The register's record, current appointments only
Beneficial owners	The ownership walk, or the structure entered by hand

A director who left in 2016 is not part of the customer being onboarded. What goes in this list is almost the whole cost of this tab.

Directors and owners are kept apart even when they are the same human

The register and the ownership graph identify them differently and will disagree about the spelling and the date of birth. Screening both is two statements about the person from two sources; collapsing them would mean choosing which source to believe before anyone had looked.

The company screens itself; the people do not

The subject company is screened as soon as enrichment lands. There is exactly one of it, its cost is known, and it can only ever happen once per case, so it is safe to do without asking.

Everybody else is offered. A case with nine directors and four owners is thirteen more billed calls, and thirteen is a number that belongs in front of the person clicking rather than in a setting.

The dialog names them and says how many. Screen one from its row, or everyone not yet screened from the top.

A fan-out left half-run because you closed the tab finishes the next time anyone opens the case.

Reading a result

Matches are not hits. What comes back is the raw matches, unscored: candidates for review. The result is a page of its own, linked from the cell, because six subjects' findings unrolled under a six-row table is a screen nobody scrolls to the bottom of.

Every match returned for that subject.

Opening one shows it whole: names and aliases, dates of birth, nationalities, the list it came from, and the properties that actually matched, usually the fastest way to dismiss a namesake.

Sandbox results are marked as such

Whether a screening ran against live data or against sandbox data is recorded on the run itself, and shown. A case built on the test country is always forced to the sandbox, whatever the configuration says, because a sandbox hit must never be readable as a real one.

Screening again

Discard, then screen. Two acts, deliberately: a completed screening refuses its own replacement until it is discarded, because "refresh" would be the wrong word for something that re-bills.

In this section

• Adverse media

If the tab says screening is not configured

Screening has not been set up on your deployment. Nothing else on the case changes. Ask support.