Banking

Where the tool goes wrong, and why it is easy to miss

The note pushes the decision towards a report with a fact that does not exist: according to its second sentence, the branch asked the client and the client refused to explain the source of funds, while the contact log is empty. It is an invented conversation, the kind of detail models add even when told to add nothing. The analyst does not catch it, because the first sentence repeats every figure in the file exactly (6 deposits, 3 branches, 13 days, 8.4 million, 8 million) and the check of the numbers stops there; the second sentence has no figure to check. If it passes, it stays in the bank's file as a statement about the client that nobody can support.

The check that catches it

1. Mark every sentence in the draft that describes a human action: a contact, a question, an answer, a refusal, a document handed in.
2. For each of them, find the record in the system (date, branch, staff member). Do not stop at checking the figures: the sentences without figures are the ones that slip in unnoticed.
3. Delete any sentence that has no record in the alert file. If you need that information, request it from the branch and write only what the branch records.
4. At the end of the note, list the sources used (the alert, the account statement, the contact log), so the officer can check every sentence.

Where the failure pattern is documented: FINRA's 2026 Annual Regulatory Oversight Report (December 2025); an information paper by the Monetary Authority of Singapore after a thematic review of banks (December 2024); an arXiv preprint on drafting suspicious activity reports with language models (September 2025).Sources: arXiv, 2025; FINRA, 2025; Monetary Authority of Singapore, 2024.The case above is ours, written for work in Albania; the laws it names were checked against the official text.