Missing isn't a mismatch: how I review a screening hit
The most common shortcut in name screening is treating "we don't know" as "it's not them." It's also one of the easiest to catch in QC.
The shortcut
A customer named in your records hits a news article or a sanctions list entry. The article gives a name and a city but no date of birth. Under queue pressure it's tempting to write "DOB does not match, false positive." But nothing contradicted the DOB. It simply wasn't there.
Four states, not two
In the adverse media desk I compare each identifier and record one of four states rather than a simple match or no-match. The sanctions desk applies the same idea: each attribute supports, challenges or leaves the match unresolved.
| State | Meaning | Effect on the decision |
|---|---|---|
| Match | Both sources agree | Supports a possible match |
| Variant | Plausibly the same (transliteration, nickname, partial date) | Supports, with a note on why |
| Conflict | Both sources have a value and they disagree | Challenges the match |
| Unknown | One source has no value | Neither. It's an evidence gap to close or document |
Only a conflict is evidence against a match. A file full of unknowns isn't a cleared alert. It's an incomplete one.
A defensible "false positive" names the specific identifier that conflicts. If you can't point to one, you have a lead that still needs work, not a closed alert.
When "matching" still escalates
The reverse matters too. In the adverse media desk's SQL triage view, a matching name and date of birth with a different location still routes to further review rather than auto-confirming. People move, articles get details wrong, and two people can share a name and a birthday. Agreement on two fields is strong, but a real conflict on a third deserves an explanation.
What a good disposition records
- Which identifiers were compared, with the state of each
- The source for each value, and how reliable it is
- Alternative explanations considered (common name, outdated article, family member)
- What would change the decision, and any information request sent
- A snapshot QC can review, so later edits don't silently rewrite the decision
This is the same discipline I applied in KYC and EDD reviews at IBM Promontory and Deutsche Bank. The tools just make each step visible and checkable.
See it in practice. Both desks use fictional cases and run in the browser.