Improve Financial Crime Controls fasterwith transparency and governance baked in.

Define the behaviour that should be caught, test it against lookalikes, and approve the change with evidence.

Book a demo Scenario Studionow in beta

The solution

Build and improve controls around reviewed risk scenarios

Risk owners review the behaviour and expected outcome. Their decisions drive the next iteration.

Regulatory-derived typologies & emerging risks

Structured risk knowledge informs scenario creation

Risk control owner

Risk intent in words and expert context

Polarisk

Scenario Studio

Review scenarios and expected outcomes

Training and evaluation data

Control Studio

Build, evaluate and improve controls

3Business outcomes

Faster development
Less translation and rework
Lower operating cost
Less unnecessary review
Better risk coverage
Catch relevant behaviours

Findings guide scenario review and the next control improvement

How Polarisk fixes the process

Risk intent stays intact across every handoff

Polarisk carries the reviewed concern through interpretation, specification, tagging, and build — so later teams work from the same signed-off scenario, not a restatement.

Risk Owner

Risk Definition

The concern in the owner's words

Polarisk

Scenario capture

Variations and lookalikes, still in that language

Risk Owner

Review

Expected outcomes signed before the run

Polarisk

Corresponding data

Cases emitted in your schema

Engineering

Build

Control tested on the signed-off set

Validation

Expected vs actual

Mismatches tied to the original concern

Polarisk holds the reviewed scenario through every stage

Same reviewed set

Every stage works from the signed-off scenarios, not a restated spec.

Intent stays inspectable

The original concern remains attached to the cases used in build and evaluation.

Evidence at the gate

Expected versus actual is recorded against the same reviewed examples.

How Polarisk solves it

Polarisk keeps the back-story with the pattern

The same signature can be suspicious or legitimate. Polarisk writes both stories — timing, relationships, and purpose — so the control is judged on what happened, not only on the shape.

Potentially suspicious

ReceiptAccountOnward 48h

Rapid pass-through

In and out within 48 hours, no stated purpose.

Alert

What Polarisk distinguishesOne in, one out

TimingRelationshipsPurpose

Same signature. Polarisk writes both stories.

Legitimate lookalike

Operating fundsGroup accountTreasury sweep

Scheduled sweep

Documented treasury sweep to a group account.

No alert

Polarisk describes what happened, why it matters, and what would change the judgment. Illustrative examples.

Scenario Studio

One scenario every team can understand and use.

Is this the behaviour we mean?

Scenario Studio turns a risk concern into reviewable variations and the corresponding data — so risk owners, investigators, and modellers work from the same signed-off examples.

Scenario Studio

Risk concern

Reviewed scenarios

In and out the same day, no documented purpose.

ALERT

The same movement, split over several days.

ALERT

Documented treasury sweep, consistent with history.

NO ALERT

Intra-group chain, mandate on file.

NO ALERT

Shared across teamsComparing

Risk owner

Review the story

Investigator

Timing and evidence

Modeller

Corresponding data

Validation

Expected vs actual

Expected versus actual

Sub-threshold split across three daysMiss

Expected AlertToday No alert

Documented intra-group treasury sweepOver-alert

Expected No alertToday Alert

FX hedging via a regulated brokerMatch

Expected No alertToday No alert

Pass-through to a venue that does not bank hereExplanation

Expected AlertToday Alert

Evidence pack

Ready for the gate

Review.Compare.Approve.Implement.

Capabilities

What Scenario Studio carries into development

Reviewed. Testable. Evidenced.

Reviewed scenario sets

Suspicious variations and legitimate lookalikes, written in the language risk owners already use.

Expected versus actual

Today's control and a proposed change, compared on the same signed-off cases — like for like.

Corresponding data

Reviewed events emitted in your schema, with identity and timing held consistent across every record.

Independent challenge

Separate authorship for development and challenge. The build team does not shape the cases used to test it.

Evidence for the gate

Risk statement, review record, findings, and coverage summary — assembled as the work happens.

Start with one control

Improve the system you already run. The bank, the vendor, or Polarisk can implement to the agreed scope.

Evidence trail

Assembled as the work happens

The record supports governance review and makes remaining uncertainty visible, rather than implying comprehensive coverage.

Named review before the run, not after

Findings tied to the case that produced them

Coverage that says what was not tested

Evidence pack

Risk statement

The concern in the risk owner's words, with its source.

Scenario set

Suspicious variations and legitimate lookalikes, versioned.

Review record

Realism and expected response, named and dated, before the run.

Expected responses

What the control should do, in your configured schema.

Actual responses

What it did, case by case, with the reported explanation.

Findings

Each mismatch with the reason recorded against it.

Coverage summary

What was covered, what was not, and what was not tested.

Bring one control
you want to improve.

Agree the objective and baseline, review cases against a targeted improvement, and leave with a clear basis for the next decision.

Build and improve controls around reviewed risk scenarios

Risk intent stays intact across every handoff

Polarisk keeps the back-story with the pattern

Rapid pass-through

Scheduled sweep

One scenario every team can understand and use.

What Scenario Studio carries into development

Reviewed. Testable. Evidenced.

Assembled as the work happens

Bring one controlyou want to improve.

Bring one control
you want to improve.