Sweat AI is an AI-native BPO for banks and fintechs, starting with onboarding and fraud queues. Business investigations are scoped work within that service: your team states what must be established, and our analysts prepare findings from the available evidence. Talk to us about the question and access needed before sending case data.
Start with a bounded question
A routine verification may leave an unresolved ownership chain, conflicting entity records or a question about a counterparty's activity. State the question precisely. For example: does a court record concern this legal entity, who controls its corporate shareholder, or which evidence is still missing for a partner's onboarding requirement?
Agree the subject's legal name and identifiers, the jurisdictions, the sources we may use and the stopping criteria. A focused factual investigation may need no onboarding recommendation at all. The scope should say so.
What your team receives
The evidence packet should let a reviewer assess the work without guessing how a conclusion was reached:
- Findings with a supporting excerpt, source location and capture time.
- Source limitations and unresolved entity or ownership relationships.
- Screening records with the names, lists and matching method used. A source that could not be read is recorded as a gap.
- One consolidated request list, with the reason each item is needed.
- A recommendation and its rationale when included in the agreed scope. It remains your team's decision.
See the fictional annotated KYB review for the format. The specimen is a simulated case, not evidence of customer results or production acceptance.
Sources and limits
Public registries can support legal existence and filed ownership; they may be incomplete or stale. The subject's own website is first-party evidence of its claims. Public reporting can contain allegations or syndicated copies, which need context and distinct attribution. Applicant documents should be read for what they establish and what they cannot establish.
Agree source coverage before work starts. A source that is unavailable, or a name match that cannot be resolved, must remain visible. Public findings do not complete protected identity verification, ownership attestations or tax-identifier verification on their own.
Our internal investigation tools assist evidence gathering. Their automated publication checks are separate from analyst review. Removing the standalone product offer does not change that boundary: discuss the review process, second-review criteria and escalation owner for your engagement.
Authority stays with you
An evidence assessment against a provider's requirements is not a provider approval. We do not imply affiliation with Stripe, Bridge, Adyen or another provider, and do not submit an application or contact a partner without your authorization.
Approvals, declines and adverse actions remain yours. Output must not be used for consumer credit, insurance, employment, housing or tenancy decisions; see the Terms.
Evaluate the work before live delivery
Use five redacted historical cases with their outcomes withheld. Agree the scope and compare the findings, source limits and request lists against your team's prior work. The historical-case evaluation describes the discussion. Scope and pricing are agreed for the queue; no fixed price or turnaround is promised here.
Questions
What does a managed business investigation include?
We agree the factual question, sources and review criteria with your team. The output contains source-linked findings, the limits of the evidence, unresolved questions and a recommendation where the agreed scope calls for one. Your team makes the final decision.
Is an automated evidence packet independently reviewed?
No. An internal tool's publication status records automated checks; it is not evidence of independent analyst review. Agree the analyst review and any second-review requirement as part of the engagement.
Does a clean sanctions screen mean the business is cleared?
No. A screen records the names and lists read at a stated time, plus the matching method and source limits. It is not a clearance and does not replace your own screening obligations.
Does a provider requirement assessment approve an applicant?
No. It maps available evidence to the named provider's requirements and records what remains missing or discrepant. Only the provider makes its onboarding decision.
Can the output be used for consumer decisions?
No. It is not a consumer report under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and must not be used for consumer credit, insurance, employment, housing or tenancy decisions.
Sources
- Sweat AI: managed review process and decision boundary, accessed 2026-10-08
- Sweat AI: fictional annotated KYB specimen, accessed 2026-10-08
- Sweat AI Terms of Service, accessed 2026-10-08