Questions worth exploring
Give the next reviewer the context they need.
A case-management discussion starts with the way your team works. Explain who opens a review, what information belongs with it, and what needs to remain understandable when someone else takes over. Case Management gives reviewers a shared workspace with role-based permissions, assignments, and a full activity history for handovers.
- 1
Create a case
A review is opened with a reference, a type and an opening question.
Open - 2
Add alerts and evidence
Alerts, wallets, transactions and documents are linked to the record.
Open - 3
Assign ownership
A named reviewer owns the case and its due date.
In review - 4
Investigate and collaborate
Reviewers add notes, tasks and comments on the same record.
In review - 5
Escalate when required
The case moves to a senior reviewer with its full context.
Escalated - 6
Record the final decision
A person records the conclusion, its rationale and its limits.
Approved - 7
Preserve the audit history
The record and every change to it stay available for review.
Closed
- OpenCreated, not yet owned
- In reviewOwned and being worked
- EscalatedPassed up for a senior view
- ApprovedDecision approved by a person
- ClosedComplete, history preserved
Illustrative case lifecycle. Your stages and state names are agreed during evaluation.
- Keep in view · 01
The working record
Describe the notes, references, and supporting material that belong together in your process. Discuss how reviewers would distinguish original evidence from later interpretation.
- Keep in view · 02
Ownership and handovers
Map the roles involved in a review and the context needed at each handover. Ask about any available assignments, permissions, and review states.
- Keep in view · 03
Decision context
Explain how a reviewer should record a conclusion and its limitations. Identify the information another reviewer would need to understand that decision later.
Case workspace demonstration
One record for the evidence, the people and the decision.
Open a case and move between the summary, the evidence, the linked activity, the tasks, the notes, the decisions and the full audit history, without leaving the record.
Layered transfers from a flagged wallet (example)
Funds moved from a flagged wallet through several intermediary addresses within 36 hours. Two transaction alerts were linked and a graph export was attached. The reviewer is checking whether the pattern is layering or an internal transfer.
- Case type
- Suspicious activity review
- Priority
- High
- Risk level
- High
- Owner
- Senior reviewer (example)
- Due
- Oct 28, 2024
- Stage
- In review
- 0x3be0..5d17Screened wallet
- 0x8d2c..7e1fIntermediary address
- Exchange (example)Entity reference, Medium confidence
- ALERT-7712Rapid movement, rule to confirmHigh
- ALERT-7719New counterpartyMedium
| Item | Type | Added by | Time | Nature |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wallet screening report0x3be0..5d17 | Linked screening | Analyst | Oct 21 · 10:12 | Original evidence |
| Investigation graph export3 hops, 14 addresses | Graph | Analyst | Oct 24 · 11:20 | Original evidence |
| Counterparty statementPDF, 2 pages | Source document | Investigator | Oct 23 · 16:02 | Original evidence |
| Pattern assessmentPossible layering | Analyst note | Senior reviewer | Oct 24 · 14:40 | Interpretation |
Original evidence and later interpretation are labelled apart, so a later reviewer can tell them apart.
| Transaction | Direction | Amount | Date | Alert |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0x91ab..e3c0 | Outgoing | 12.4 ETH | Oct 18 | ALERT-7712 |
| 0x77de..0a41 | Outgoing | 12.1 ETH | Oct 18 | ALERT-7712 |
| 0x4c02..b9f8 | Incoming | 3.1 ETH | Oct 20 | ALERT-7719 |
| 0xd0e5..21ca | Outgoing | 1.9 ETH | Oct 21 | — |
12 linked transactions in this sample; four are shown. Amounts and hashes are fictional.
- Screen the wallet and attach the reportAnalyst · done Oct 21Oct 21
- Export the investigation graphAnalyst · done Oct 24Oct 24
- Request the counterparty’s explanationInvestigator · in progressDue Oct 26
- Senior review of the escalationSenior reviewer · not startedDue Oct 28
- ANAnalyst
Funds left the wallet in two near-equal transfers within an hour. Both went to the same intermediary.
Observation - SRSenior reviewer
Pattern is consistent with layering, but the intermediary serves many customers. Do not treat as ownership. Requesting the counterparty statement.
Interpretation - CLCompliance lead
Comment: hold the decision until the statement is received.
Review comment
Pending. The senior reviewer will record a conclusion once the counterparty statement is attached. Limits to record: the intermediary’s customer base is unknown.
- Proposed outcome
- To be decided by a person
- Approval required
- Compliance lead
- Approval record
- Not yet recorded
- Escalation
- Escalated
The workspace records the decision, the rationale and who approved it. It does not make the decision.
- Case created by AnalystOpen
- Wallet screening report linked
- Case assigned to Senior reviewerIn review
- Analyst note added
- Graph export attached
- Interpretation note added
- Escalation requestedEscalated
Every change is recorded with a time and a name. How deep the history goes is confirmed during evaluation.
Illustrative demo data with a fictional case. No live data is shown or stored on this website.
Case queue and prioritization
See what needs attention, and who owns it.
A queue lets a team lead see every open case by type, priority, risk, owner and stage, and lets a reviewer find the next one to work. Use the filters to explore this sample queue.
| Case ID | Case type | Priority | Risk level | Assigned reviewer | Current stage | Due date | Last activity | Ageing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CASE-2041 | Suspicious activity | High | High | SESenior reviewer | In reviewReview | Oct 28 | 2h ago | 6 days · Ageing |
| CASE-2038 | Sanctions review | Critical | High | COCompliance lead | EscalatedEscalated | Oct 25 | 1d ago | 9 days · Overdue |
| CASE-2036 | Onboarding review | Medium | Med | ANAnalyst | OpenEvidence | Nov 04 | 3d ago | 2 days · Within target |
| CASE-2033 | Suspicious activity | Medium | Med | INInvestigator | In reviewInvestigate | Oct 30 | 5h ago | 4 days · Within target |
| CASE-2029 | Counterparty due diligence | Low | Low | ANAnalyst | ApprovedApproval | Oct 26 | 1d ago | 7 days · Ageing |
| CASE-2024 | Alert review | Low | Low | SESenior reviewer | ClosedClosed | Oct 19 | 6d ago | 5 days · Within target |
| CASE-2019 | Sanctions review | High | High | INInvestigator | EscalatedEscalated | Oct 24 | 4h ago | 12 days · Overdue |
| CASE-2017 | Onboarding review | Medium | Low | COCompliance lead | OpenAssignment | Nov 06 | 20m ago | 1 days · Within target |
No cases match these filters. Clear a filter to see more.
Evaluation example. Ageing and due-date indicators are shown to illustrate a queue. Whether Case Management supports service-level targets is not stated here and is confirmed during evaluation.
Illustrative demo data with fictional cases.
Ownership and handovers
Every handover carries the case with it.
Work moves between an analyst, a senior reviewer, a compliance lead and a final approver. At each step, ownership is explicit and the context, the notes, the evidence and the timestamps travel with the case.
Initial analyst
Opens the case, links evidence and writes first observations.
Open- Context
- Notes
- Evidence
- Timestamps
Senior reviewer
Tests the pattern, adds interpretation and requests missing evidence.
In review- Context
- Notes
- Evidence
- Timestamps
Compliance lead
Reviews an escalated case and decides whether it can be approved.
Escalated- Context
- Notes
- Evidence
- Timestamps
Final approver
Approves the decision and completes the record.
Approved- Context
- Notes
- Evidence
- Timestamps
The owner changes. The context does not.
If a reviewer is away or a case needs a different skill, ownership moves to someone else. The new owner receives the same notes, evidence and timestamps, and the change is recorded in the history.
- Handover
- Analyst → Senior reviewer
- Type
- Review request
- Time
- Oct 22 · 09:40
- Context
- Opening question and case summary
- Notes
- 2 analyst notes carried across
- Evidence
- 6 items, original evidence kept separate
- Message
- “Please review the intermediary pattern.”
Illustrative roles and sample data. Actual roles are agreed during evaluation.
Evidence and decision record
What was known, who decided, and when.
A closed case should be understandable a year later. The record keeps the evidence on one side and the decision history on the other, and labels what is original evidence and what is interpretation.
- Linked wallet screeningsScreening report for 0x3be0..5d17Original evidence
- Transaction alertsALERT-7712 and ALERT-7719Original evidence
- Investigation graphsGraph export, 3 hopsOriginal evidence
- Entity referencesExchange (example), Medium confidenceOriginal evidence
- Source documentsCounterparty statement, PDFOriginal evidence
- Analyst notesObservation and pattern assessmentInterpretation
- Review commentsCompliance lead commentReview comment
- Decision rationaleRecorded by the senior reviewerInterpretation
- Approval recordCompliance lead, final approverRecord
- TimestampsEvery item above, to the minuteRecord
- Case opened
Analyst opened the case with an opening question.
Open - Case assigned
Ownership moved to the senior reviewer.
In review - Escalated
Passed to the compliance lead with the full record.
Escalated - Rationale recorded
Senior reviewer recorded the conclusion and its limits.
- Approved
Compliance lead approved the decision.
Approved - Case closed
Record complete. History preserved.
Closed
Recorded and approved by people. The software preserves the record and does not decide.
Illustrative demo data with a fictional case.
Role-based workflow
The right people see, change and approve the right things.
Case Management gives reviewers a shared workspace with role-based permissions. This grid shows how a team might separate viewing, editing, assigning, approving, exporting and administration.
| Role | View | Edit | Assign | Approve | Export | Administer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AnalystOpens cases and adds evidence and notes. | Allowed | Allowed | No access | No access | Limited | No access |
| InvestigatorWorks the evidence and links investigations. | Allowed | Allowed | Limited | No access | Allowed | No access |
| Senior reviewerAssigns, reviews and escalates. | Allowed | Allowed | Allowed | Limited | Allowed | No access |
| Compliance managerApproves decisions and oversees the queue. | Allowed | Allowed | Allowed | Allowed | Allowed | No access |
| AuditorReads the record and its history. Does not change it. | Allowed | No access | No access | No access | Allowed | No access |
| AdministratorSets up roles, stages and access. | Allowed | Limited | Allowed | No access | Limited | Allowed |
- Allowed
- Limited, for example by case type or level
- No access
To confirm. These roles and permissions are an illustration. The exact roles, the permission levels and how they can be configured are confirmed during evaluation.
Prepare a focused conversation
Bring a scenario. Define what you want to learn.
Bring a fictional case with an opening question, two reviewer roles, and a proposed handover. We’ll walk through how assignments, permissions, and decision history would support that workflow.
- 1Describe the working record
- 2Map review ownership
- 3Define the handover
A simple way to structure your evaluation call.
Describe the working record
Choose the case stages
Map review ownership
Define handovers
Identify required evidence
Establish approval steps
Define the final record
Product verification
What needs confirmation
Case Management gives reviewers a shared workspace for assignments, evidence, and decision notes, with role-based permissions and a full activity history for handovers. Use these questions to confirm the details that matter for your evaluation.
- Ask · 01
Case types and custom fields
Which case types exist, and can fields be added?
- Ask · 02
Workflow customization
Can stages and their order be changed?
- Ask · 03
Assignment rules
How are cases assigned, and can rules be set?
- Ask · 04
Role-based permissions
Which roles exist and how are permissions set?
- Ask · 05
Collaboration features
How do reviewers comment, mention and hand over?
- Ask · 06
Notification options
What triggers a notification, and where is it sent?
- Ask · 07
Evidence retention
How long is a record kept, and can it be configured?
- Ask · 08
Export formats
Which formats can a case record be exported in?
- Ask · 09
Audit-history depth
What is recorded for each change, and for how long?
- Ask · 10
Product and API integrations
How does a case connect to other products and to an API?
These are evaluation questions, not guaranteed functionality. Answers depend on your deployment and are agreed with the team during your evaluation.
Before your demo
Case Management: questions and answers
Can several reviewers work on the same case?
Yes. Cases support multiple reviewers with role-based permissions and a shared activity history, so work can move between people without losing context.
Are case records retained or exportable?
Yes. Case records are retained for your configured retention period and can be exported for reporting or audit. Ask for the current retention and export options for your deployment.
How does case management relate to investigations?
An investigation defines the question and evidence; Case Management is where that work is organized, assigned, and documented through to a decision.
Start a conversation
Map your case-management requirements
Tell us how your team opens, owns, escalates and closes a review.