Know what the earlier view relied on.
The original evidence named Company B in the client’s ownership structure. Keep the earlier assessment linked to that version and the person who used it.
Why evidence mattersAML/CFT platform · Slovakia and Czechia
Changes and teamwork
Hand over the context, not just the file.
A new document, a different representative or a colleague taking over: you need to know what was checked and why. AMLUM’s history is designed to connect the current position with the decisions that came before it.
Illustrative story
The story moves on. Context stays.
The original evidence names Company B in the ownership structure. New evidence names Company C. What has changed, and what should happen next?
Original evidenceEvidence names Company B
New informationNew evidence names Company C
Attention neededReview the effect on the case
The previous state stays traceable.
New information changes the question, not the past.
The new evidence names Company C instead of B. This is a new claim to verify. The original record remains, so the difference is clear.
Explore ownership relationshipsGive the next colleague a clear starting point.
Check the new evidence, assess its impact and record the next action. A change alone is neither a new approval nor an automatic risk verdict.
See how the process continuesContinuity when information changes or work passes to a colleague.
In depthWhat was known then. What is known now.
Responsibility over time
What was known then. What is known now.
An added document can change an assessment. See what is new and why the earlier decision needs to remain traceable.
Illustrative example
Illustrative history · preparation → assessment → action → case review
The basis for the approach is clear.
The model records the evidence available for the original assessment and responsibility for the actions that follow.
- Preparation
- Team member links the evidence
With the source, time and version used in the example.
Context - Assessment
- Authorised reviewer assesses it
Recording the reason and an open question.
Context - Follow-up action
- Further explanation is needed
The action follows a specific finding.
Context - Case review
- The original context is distinct
The author, time and evidence belong to this assessment.
Context
What this means
The history should explain the approach, as well as show the latest outcome.
New information needs a new assessment.
A team member adds a document in this model. An authorised reviewer then assesses what it means for the original question.
- Preparation
- Team member adds new evidence
A new record with its own time context.
Context - Assessment
- Authorised reviewer reviews the change
Recording what changed and why.
Context - Follow-up action
- The next step follows the new assessment
Adding a file does not close the case by itself.
Context - Case review
- Both assessments retain their context
A new outcome should not overwrite the original reasoning.
Context
What this means
The effect of a change in evidence should be traceable through the assessment and the next action.
Highlighted fields show what changed from the previous state.
An illustrative workflow, not an actual audit record. Roles and approvals depend on the specific configuration.
Access and responsibility
Different responsibilities need different access.
One person may prepare the evidence while another has authority to approve. AMLUM’s permissions are designed around responsibilities within your organisation.
View
Access to a case and its evidence should reflect the relevant responsibility and organisational context.
Work on the case
When data is added or actions are taken, it should remain clear who acted and which evidence they worked with.
Approve
Where the process requires approval, it belongs to an authorised person. Uploading a document or changing a data item is not approval in itself.
In depthA shared view for your team. Separation for your data.
Organisation and client
A shared view for your team. Separation for your data.
The organisation using AMLUM and the client under review are distinct entities. The design provides for separation of organisations’ data and appropriate permissions.
Before deployment, the specific permissions and operating conditions need to be confirmed against your team’s responsibilities.
Questions for your team
We already have a document archive. What does history add?
The proposed history connects evidence, assessments and actions: who acted, when, which version of the data they relied on and why they took that approach.
How will permissions be defined for our team?
We start with who prepares cases, assesses them and, where needed, approves them. During an introduction, we can work through your team’s needs and distinguish them from the product’s confirmed configuration options.
What does the next person need to know?
Tell us how your team hands cases over. We will explore the planned history, who needs access, who works on the information and who makes decisions.
Arrange an introduction