DataFab //  artificial proprietary intelligence T+00:00:00 ISO/IEC 27001:2022 · SOC 2 Type II — certified Raw egress  0 B 

DataFab  /  Utilities  /  Due diligence

Governed utility · counterparty, transaction and onboarding diligence

Diligence on the party, not the paperwork.

Counterparty, transaction and onboarding due diligence over the resolved graph. Because the party is already one entity across every system you run, diligence stops being a document-collection exercise and becomes a question the estate can answer — with the ownership chain walked, the network surfaced and every finding traced to its source.

One resolved partyChains to natural personsThe halt reported as a finding

The brief

What diligence usually becomes

“A folder of documents, a screenshot of a registry, a spreadsheet of shareholders, and a memo written from all three — assembled by a person, stale on the day it is filed, and impossible to reproduce a year later.”

The artefact is a memo; the evidence is a folder; and the connection between the two lives in the head of whoever wrote it. When the question comes back — and it always comes back — the work is redone rather than reopened.

Over a resolved graph the shape changes. The party is one entity, the ownership chain is a traversal, the screening runs on the real party rather than a string, and the report is a view over evidence that was captured as the work happened. Reopening it later is a query, not a project.

Counterparty

Who you are actually dealing with

Ownership, control and ultimate beneficial owner over the resolved graph, with every hop carrying its source, its date and its confidence.

Transaction

Patterns and anomalies

The transaction reviewed with the graph in scope — counterparty risk, ownership and history all inside the same evaluation rather than three separate checks.

Onboarding

Know your customer and your business

Identity, existence and structure verified against approved sources, packaged so the file is complete on the day it is opened.

The pipeline

Seven steps. Depth set by risk.

Standard and enhanced are not two processes. They are one pipeline run to different depths, so the record is identical in kind whichever path a party takes — and a step not run is recorded as a step not run rather than left blank.

Fig. 01  //  one pipeline, two depths◆ escalation is a threshold, not a judgement call
ONE PIPELINE. THE DEPTH IS SET BY RISK, NOT BY WHICH TEAM PICKED THE FILE UP.01Identifythe party, resolved across every system you already run02Verifyidentity and existence, against approved sources with provenance03Structureownership and control walked to natural persons, or the halt reported04Screensanctions, politically-exposed persons and adverse media, on the entity05Assessrisk rated against a model the business owns and versions06Decideaccept, decline or escalate — by a person, with the basis recorded07Monitorcontinuously, so the decision reopens when the world changesSTANDARDSteps 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 run for every party.The depth is proportionate; the record isidentical in kind to the enhanced case.Nothing is skipped silently — a step notrun is recorded as a step not run.ENHANCEDFull ownership traversal, source-of-wealthand source-of-funds narrative, networkanalysis across the resolved estate, anddocumentary evidence bound to schema.Escalation is a threshold on the model,not a judgement call at the desk.THE FILE AND THE EVIDENCE FOR THE FILE ARE ONE ARTEFACT · EVERY STEP CARRIES ITS SOURCE, ITS CONFIDENCE AND ITS AUTHOR

Ownership & control

Walk it until it stops — then say where it stopped.

Traversal runs until it reaches natural persons or cannot proceed. Where it cannot, the halt is reported with the level reached, the percentage unresolved and the reason — a finding somebody has to disposition, not a blank field nobody owns.

Fig. 02  //  layers resolved to the ultimate beneficial owner◆ the hidden common owner
Graph evidence Documents Timeline Dispositions Case fileassembled Narrativecited · defensible every claim linked to its source — survives an audit
Beyond shareholding

Control, typed

Shareholding, directorship, signatory rights, trusteeship and effective control carried as distinct relationship types rather than collapsed into one percentage.

Cross-source

Registries and your own records

Public registries, approved data providers and the records already inside your estate resolved into the same chain, so an internal fact is not invisible to an external check.

Derived

Links written nowhere

Shared owners, shared addresses and shared counterparties across otherwise unrelated parties — surfaced as derived edges that carry the rule that produced them.

Temporal

Who controlled it then

Every edge carries a validity window, so the structure as it stood at the date of the transaction is a question the graph answers.

Network & relationships

The hidden hierarchy, made visible.

A party is rarely risky on its own. It is risky because of what sits one and two hops away — a director in common, an address in common, a counterparty already declined elsewhere in the book. Over a resolved graph that neighbourhood is a traversal rather than an investigation.

Link analysis

Who is connected to whom, and how, ranked by edge strength and recency.

Shared attributes

Addresses, officers, identifiers and bank details recurring across parties that look unrelated.

Prior decisions

What the firm already decided about this party, this owner or this network — and why.

Disambiguation

Entities that share a name held apart by biography, geography, time and source.

The report

Sourced and defensible.

The report is a view over evidence captured as the work happened, not a document assembled afterwards from a folder. Every statement links to the record it rests on; every unresolved point is stated as unresolved.

Fig. 03  //  what travels with every file◆ replayable under the rules in force at the time
WHAT TRAVELS WITH EVERY SINGLE CASE01Inclusion basiswhich rule version put this customer in scope, and the fields it read02Source snapshotthe cited record as it stood, so the finding survives the source changing03Calculation traceinputs, rate, period and arithmetic — reproducible to the penny04Exclusion evidencewhere a case was excluded, why, and on whose authority05Contact historyevery attempt, channel, response and non-response, timestamped06Decision paththe full chain, replayable under the rules in force at the timeTHE FILE AND THE EVIDENCE FOR THE FILE ARE THE SAME ARTEFACT — PRODUCED AS THE WORK HAPPENS

Continuous diligence

The decision reopens itself.

Diligence performed once at onboarding is a snapshot of a world that moves. Here the party stays under watch: a registry filing, a sanctions listing, an ownership transfer or a change in behaviour is matched against what you already know and, only where it matters, raises the file again — at the risk tier that change deserves.

Fig. 04  //  continuous, gated for material change● the file reopens itself
Changein graph Recomputerisk Gatematerial? Reviewonly if always on · noise-free

Next step

Bring the counterparty nobody can cleanly resolve.

The fastest proof is the party that appears differently in four systems, with an ownership chain that stops at the second offshore layer.