Polarisk helps teams reduce unnecessary review, close gaps in risk coverage, and improve controls with a transparent, governed process.
Risk owners review the behaviour and expected outcome.
Their decisions drive the next iteration.
Define and agree the behaviour. Describe a risk in plain English, or start from a typology, advisory, or enforcement finding. Get suspicious scenarios and legitimate lookalikes, with expected responses for your risk experts to review and refine.
Build, evaluate, and improve the control. Develop or refine controls against reviewed scenarios, then evaluate on separate cases. Compare the proposed control with the one you run today.
Less translation and rework between risk intent and implementation.
Less unnecessary review — legitimate activity cleared by design.
Catch the behaviours that matter, tested before deployment.
Start from a typology, advisory, or enforcement finding — or describe a risk in plain English.
Scenario Studio turns it into suspicious scenarios and legitimate lookalikes, with expected responses for your experts to review.
Reviewed scenarios become realistic synthetic data, mapped to your agreed schema, for your team to develop and test controls.
Test a proposed change, compare it with your current control, and see where results fall short of the agreed expectations.
Pick a typology. See the specification it becomes, and the scenarios generated from it — the ones that must alert, and the near-misses that must not.
FinCEN advisory, red-flag indicators ¶14–17
Four ACH credits over five days from three unrelated originators into a nine-week-old account, consolidated out by wire on day six.
Ground truth: Satisfies every must-clause plus two may-clauses.
Four ACH credits of the same size and timing into the same account profile — all four from one payroll bureau against a registered employer relationship.
Ground truth: Trips a must-not clause. An alert here is a tuning defect.