Agentic AI for Real-Time Transaction Compliance
Technical Whitepaper v2.0 | January 2026The Transaction Compliance Nexus (TCN) is a pre-clearing compliance layer that intercepts every transaction before it reaches the clearing house. Unlike advisory fraud tools that run in parallel, TCN is an inline gate that autonomously decides: ACCEPT, REVIEW, or BLOCK—in under 50 milliseconds.
Each transaction is encoded into an 80-dimensional semantic vector where every dimension has explicit meaning. This enables:
Every decision can point to specific risk factors (e.g., "mule_account_indicator: 0.89")
Cosine similarity measures deviation from "ideal" behavior in vector space
Structured vectors enable AI agents to perceive, reason, and learn autonomously
Unlike black-box neural networks with 1000+ opaque dimensions, TCN's 80 named dimensions satisfy EU AI Act, SR 11-7, and GDPR Art. 22 explainability requirements.
Each transaction generates two 40-dimensional vectors. Values range from 0.0 (low risk) to 1.0 (high risk). Together, they form an 80D combined vector that captures complete transaction context.
IR captures who is transacting: account history, behavioral patterns, and risk classification.
| Category | Dimensions | Key Indicators | Perfect Values |
|---|---|---|---|
| Account Profile | IR[0-9] | account_age_days, kyc_completeness_score, biometric_match_score |
0.01–0.05 |
| Transaction History | IR[10-19] | historical_chargeback_ratio, payment_consistency_score |
0.01–0.15 |
| Behavioral Profile | IR[20-29] | device_consistency_score, ip_consistency_score, session_behavior_score |
0.03–0.10 |
| Risk Classification | IR[30-39] | pep_status_score, sanctions_screening_score, jurisdiction_risk_score |
0.01–0.10 |
CR captures what is happening: transaction characteristics, velocity patterns, and technical signals.
| Category | Dimensions | Key Indicators | Perfect Values |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Chars | CR[0-9] | amount_deviation_score, round_amount_indicator, merchant_category_risk |
0.02–0.10 |
| Velocity Patterns | CR[10-19] | hourly_velocity_score, burst_detection_score, pattern_break_score |
0.02–0.10 |
| Geographic/Network | CR[20-29] | cross_border_indicator, mule_account_indicator, layering_pattern_score |
0.01–0.10 |
| Technical Context | CR[30-39] | vpn_tor_indicator, bot_detection_score, session_hijack_indicator |
0.01–0.10 |
The Perfect Vector represents an ideal low-risk transaction from a fully verified, long-standing customer with consistent behavior. It serves as the reference point for all similarity calculations.
Unlike static baselines, TCN's Perfect Vector learns continuously from approved non-fraud transactions. It adapts to population drift using momentum-based updates—see Section 6 for the learning algorithm.
Cosine similarity measures the angular distance between two vectors, independent of magnitude. This is crucial because we care about the pattern of risk distribution across dimensions, not absolute values.
| Similarity | Angle | Meaning | Risk Level |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0 | 0° | Identical to Perfect Vector | Lowest |
| 0.85+ | ~32° | Very similar to ideal | Low |
| 0.50–0.85 | 32°–60° | Moderate deviation | Medium |
| <0.50 | >60° | Significant deviation | High |
| 0.0 | 90° | Orthogonal (perpendicular) | Maximum |
A high-value transaction isn't penalized for magnitude—only pattern matters
Angular distance has intuitive meaning: "how aligned is this with ideal behavior?"
O(n) computation enables <1ms vector comparison at scale
The Audit Risk score combines IR and CR similarities into a single risk metric, inspired by traditional audit methodology (AR = IR × CR). We convert similarity (higher = safer) to risk (higher = riskier).
| Component | Weight | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| IR Risk = 1 - IR_similarity | 40% | Entity profile is important but static; fraud can occur from trusted accounts |
| CR Risk = 1 - CR_similarity | 60% | Transaction characteristics are more actionable for real-time decisions |
The exponent 0.8 applies a power function that amplifies mid-range values, making the system more sensitive to moderate risk signals that might otherwise fall below thresholds.
| AR Score | Decision | Action |
|---|---|---|
| AR < 0.30 | ACCEPT | Transaction proceeds to clearing |
| 0.30 ≤ AR < 0.70 | REVIEW | Flagged for manual compliance review |
| AR ≥ 0.70 | BLOCK | Transaction rejected, escalated to fraud team |
To visualize 80-dimensional data, we project to 3D using domain-aware aggregation. Unlike generic PCA, our projection preserves semantic meaning by grouping related dimensions.
Account profile + behavioral patterns
X = mean(IR[0:10] + IR[20:30]) × 2 - 1
Amount characteristics + velocity
Y = mean(CR[0:10] + CR[10:20]) × 2 - 1
KYC/PEP status + geographic risk
Z = mean(IR[30:40] + CR[20:30]) × 2 - 1
| Coordinate | Position | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| (-1, -1, -1) | Origin | Ideal low-risk transaction (near Perfect Vector) |
| (0, 0, 0) | Center | Moderate risk across all dimensions |
| (+1, +1, +1) | Far corner | Maximum risk on all axes |
The visualization displays wireframe spheres centered on the Perfect Vector representing decision zones: green (ACCEPT r=0.4), yellow (REVIEW r=0.8), red (BLOCK r=1.3).
By 2027, Gartner predicts 50% of enterprises will deploy AI agents for autonomous decision-making. TCN is architected from day one for this agentic future—systems that perceive, reason, decide, and learn without human intervention.
80D vector ingestion captures complete transaction context
Multi-agent ensemble weighs cosine, anomaly, and neural signals
Autonomous ACCEPT/REVIEW/BLOCK in <50ms
Continuous adaptation from every transaction
Our 80D semantic vector space is not a limitation—it's a deliberate design decision that enables autonomous AI at payment speed:
Cosine similarity has O(n) time complexity. For 80 dimensions: ~500 floating-point operations = <1 microsecond per comparison. Competitors using 1000D+ embeddings face O(n²) for similarity computations, requiring 50-200ms. This is why TCN achieves <50ms decisions while they struggle.
| Approach | Complexity | Ops (80D) | Latency |
|---|---|---|---|
| TCN Cosine Similarity | O(n) | ~500 | <1μs |
| Full Outer Product (1600D) | O(n²) | ~6,400 | ~10μs |
| Neural Network Forward | O(n×h) | ~10,000+ | ~100μs |
| Black-box 1000D Embeddings | O(n²) | ~1,000,000 | 50-200ms |
At 10,000 TPS: Vector comparison uses ~5ms total, leaving 995ms for ensemble logic, logging, and I/O. The bottleneck is never the vector math.
Unlike opaque embeddings from black-box neural networks, our 80D vectors provide a structured world model that AI agents can navigate and explain:
| Property | Capability |
|---|---|
| Semantic Dimensions | Each dimension has clear meaning—agents reason about WHY a decision was made |
| Geometric Reasoning | Distance/angle computations have intuitive risk interpretations |
| Compositional | Agents reason about IR vs CR components separately |
| Comparable | All transactions exist in same coordinate system relative to Perfect Vector |
| No Dimensionality Reduction | Fixed dimensions mean no PCA/t-SNE latency or explainability loss |
TCN operates as a multi-agent system where specialized agents collaborate—mirroring how DeepMind and OpenAI structure complex decisions:
Compares transaction to Adaptive Perfect Vector via cosine similarity. Detects deviation from normal behavior.
Mahalanobis + Isolation + LOF ensemble. Catches never-before-seen attack patterns.
80→64→32→1 network with online learning. Learns non-linear fraud signatures.
Variance-based agreement. High disagreement → REVIEW. Prevents false confidence.
Top risk factors with contribution scores. GDPR Art. 22 compliant.
Traditional systems require weeks to retrain. Fraud rings exploit the "retraining gap"—they know banks update quarterly. TCN learns continuously.
| Component | Learning Signal | Speed |
|---|---|---|
| Adaptive Perfect Vector | Approved non-fraud transactions | Real-time (momentum-based EWMA) |
| Neural Network | Confirmed fraud labels | Hours (mini-batch gradient descent) |
| Anomaly Detector | Population statistics | Continuous (running mean/covariance) |
{
"top_risk_factors": [
{ "dimension": "CR:mule_account_indicator", "contribution": 0.89 },
{ "dimension": "CR:cross_border_indicator", "contribution": 0.76 },
{ "dimension": "CR:amount_deviation_score", "contribution": 0.71 },
{ "dimension": "IR:pep_status_score", "contribution": 0.65 }
]
}
| Requirement | How TCN Satisfies It |
|---|---|
| EU AI Act | High-risk AI with required risk assessment, logging, human oversight |
| SR 11-7 (Fed/OCC) | Model risk management with documented methodology and validation |
| GDPR Art. 22 | Right to explanation via top risk factors for every decision |
| FATF Recommendations | Risk-based approach with explainable scoring for AML |
| PCI-DSS | Real-time fraud monitoring with complete audit capabilities |
| Traditional Fraud Systems | Transaction Compliance Nexus |
|---|---|
| Static rule engines | Self-learning Perfect Vector |
| Human review bottleneck (200-500ms) | <50ms autonomous decisions |
| Black-box ML (unexplainable) | 80D vectors (fully interpretable) |
| 1000D+ embeddings (O(n²) slow) | 80D fixed dimensions (O(n) fast) |
| Weekly/monthly retraining | Continuous online adaptation |
| Single detection method | Multi-agent ensemble |
| 5-15% false positive rates | 60%+ reduction via ensemble |
| Version | Capabilities |
|---|---|
| v2.0 (Current) | ACCEPT/REVIEW/BLOCK with confidence-calibrated thresholds, multi-agent ensemble |
| v3.0 (2026) | Multi-tier autonomous actions, meta-learning across populations, automatic threshold tuning |
| v4.0 (2027+) | LLM-powered reasoning agents, cross-institution federated learning, network-wide fraud ring detection |
IR captures entity-level, historical, and behavioral risk factors. All 40 dimensions with their semantic meaning and ideal "Perfect Vector" values:
| Index | Dimension Name | Description | Perfect |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | account_age_days | Age of the account (older = lower risk) | 0.05 |
| 1 | account_verification_level | Level of account verification completed | 0.02 |
| 2 | kyc_completeness_score | How complete the KYC documentation is | 0.01 |
| 3 | document_authenticity_score | Confidence in document authenticity | 0.02 |
| 4 | identity_match_confidence | Confidence that identity matches records | 0.01 |
| 5 | address_verification_score | Address verification status | 0.03 |
| 6 | phone_verification_score | Phone number verification status | 0.02 |
| 7 | email_verification_score | Email verification status | 0.02 |
| 8 | biometric_match_score | Biometric verification match confidence | 0.01 |
| 9 | account_status_score | Current account standing (good/bad) | 0.01 |
| Index | Dimension Name | Description | Perfect |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | historical_transaction_count | Number of past transactions (more = more data) | 0.10 |
| 11 | historical_avg_amount | Average transaction amount historically | 0.15 |
| 12 | historical_max_amount | Maximum transaction amount on record | 0.20 |
| 13 | historical_decline_ratio | Ratio of declined transactions | 0.02 |
| 14 | historical_chargeback_ratio | Ratio of chargebacks filed | 0.01 |
| 15 | historical_fraud_flags | Number of past fraud flags | 0.01 |
| 16 | payment_consistency_score | Consistency of payment patterns | 0.05 |
| 17 | recipient_diversity_score | Diversity of payment recipients | 0.10 |
| 18 | channel_consistency_score | Consistency of channels used | 0.05 |
| 19 | time_pattern_consistency | Consistency of transaction timing | 0.05 |
| Index | Dimension Name | Description | Perfect |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20 | login_pattern_score | Consistency of login patterns | 0.05 |
| 21 | device_consistency_score | Consistency of devices used | 0.03 |
| 22 | ip_consistency_score | Consistency of IP addresses | 0.05 |
| 23 | geolocation_consistency | Consistency of geographic locations | 0.05 |
| 24 | session_behavior_score | Normal vs anomalous session behavior | 0.05 |
| 25 | navigation_pattern_score | Expected navigation patterns | 0.05 |
| 26 | interaction_velocity_score | Speed of user interactions | 0.10 |
| 27 | feature_usage_pattern | Typical feature usage patterns | 0.05 |
| 28 | communication_pattern_score | Communication frequency/style | 0.05 |
| 29 | preference_stability_score | Stability of user preferences | 0.05 |
| Index | Dimension Name | Description | Perfect |
|---|---|---|---|
| 30 | pep_status_score | Politically Exposed Person status | 0.01 |
| 31 | sanctions_screening_score | Sanctions list screening result | 0.01 |
| 32 | adverse_media_score | Negative media mentions | 0.01 |
| 33 | industry_risk_score | Risk level of industry/sector | 0.10 |
| 34 | occupation_risk_score | Risk level of occupation | 0.10 |
| 35 | income_source_risk | Risk of income sources | 0.05 |
| 36 | wealth_source_verification | Verification of wealth source | 0.05 |
| 37 | relationship_network_risk | Risk from associated relationships | 0.05 |
| 38 | jurisdiction_risk_score | Risk level of jurisdiction | 0.05 |
| 39 | overall_risk_category | Aggregate risk classification | 0.05 |