{
  "runId": "base-on-s2",
  "seed": 2,
  "model": "brain-qwen38-dspark",
  "capturedAt": "2026-08-28",
  "rewards": {
    "caught": 1.0,
    "hours": 0.4375,
    "evidence": 0.4
  },
  "metrics": {
    "hours_spent": 1.6,
    "reference_hours": 0.7,
    "lookups": 3.0,
    "turns_used": 4.0,
    "rejected_replies": 0.0,
    "false_escalation": 0.0,
    "missed": 0.0,
    "typology_match": null
  },
  "truncated": false,
  "outcome": "solved",
  "info": {
    "label": "benign",
    "template": "B6",
    "overlay": null,
    "typology": null,
    "planted": [
      [
        "doc.D-aded"
      ]
    ],
    "reference_minutes": 42,
    "reference_policy": "fast",
    "held_out": false,
    "tier": "benign",
    "screen": "ALERT A-9760  rule R-DORM-05 \u2014 Large credit to an account with no material activity for nine months\n  fired 2026-04-23\n  triggering transactions:\n  T-4    2026-04-18  wire_in       356,000.00 USD  CP-1\n  T-5    2026-04-19  wire_out      291,900.00 USD  CP-2\nKYC FILE  C-7059  Gabriela Kowalczyk\n  kyc.account_opened = 2012-03-09\n  kyc.country = United States\n  kyc.customer_type = individual\n  kyc.expected_activity = Retired; low activity expected.\n  kyc.expected_monthly_cash = 0.00 USD\n  kyc.kyc_refreshed = 2025-12-12\n  kyc.occupation = retired\n  kyc.pep = False\n  kyc.prior_alerts = 2\n  kyc.prior_sars = 0\n  kyc.remittance_declared = none declared\n  kyc.stated_income = 31,000.00 USD\nTWELVE-MONTH SUMMARY (USD)\n  month            cash in        cash out        wires in       wires out          ach in         ach out  txns\n  2025-05                0               0               0               0               0               0     0\n  2025-06                0               0               0               0               0               0     0\n  2025-07                0             170               0               0               0               0     1\n  2025-08                0               0               0               0               0               0     0\n  2025-09                0               0               0               0               0               0     0\n  2025-10                0               0               0               0               0               0     0\n  2025-11                0               0               0               0               0               0     0\n  2025-12                0             120               0               0               0               0     1\n  2026-01                0             170               0               0               0               0     1\n  2026-02                0               0               0               0               0               0     0\n  2026-03                0               0               0               0               0               0     0\n  2026-04                0               0         356,000         291,900               0               0     2\nCOUNTERPARTIES on screen (top by twelve-month volume):\n  CP-1   in     1 txns  356,000.00 USD\n  CP-2   out    1 txns  291,900.00 USD\nReporting threshold in this jurisdiction: 10,000.00 USD\nSYNTHETIC DATA \u2014 no real customer, account or transaction.\n\nHours spent so far: 0.50. You have 8 replies left."
  },
  "turns": [
    {
      "reply": "\n\n{\"action\":\"lookup\",\"what\":\"counterparty\",\"id\":\"CP-1\"}",
      "reasoning": "Let me analyze this alert carefully.\n\nAlert A-9760: R-DORM-05 \u2014 Large credit to an account with no material activity for nine months\nFired 2026-04-23\nTriggering transactions:\n- T-4: 2026-04-18 wire_in 356,000.00 USD from CP-1\n- T-5: 2026-04-19 wire_out 291,900.00 USD to CP-2\n\nKYC:\n- Gabriela Kowalczyk, individual, US\n- Account opened 2012-03-09\n- Retired, low activity expected\n- Expected monthly cash 0\n- KYC refreshed 2025-12-12\n- Stated income 31,000 USD\n- PEP false\n- Prior alerts: 2\n- Prior SARs: 0\n- Remittance declared: none\n\nTwelve-month summary:\n- Account essentially dormant (only small cash out of 170, 120, 170 in Jul, Dec, Jan)\n- April 2026: wire in 356,000, wire out 291,900\n\nSo a retired person with stated income of 31k receives a 356k wire and the next day wires out 291,900 to another party. This is a classic rapid movement / layering pattern. The account was dormant for ~9 months, then a large credit comes in and most of it moves out next day. This looks like a possible mule/funnel account or rapid movement.\n\nKey considerations:\n- Large credit inconsistent with profile (retired, low income)\n- Rapid movement: 291,900 out next day (82% of inflow)\n- CP-1 and CP-2 unknown - need to look up\n- Prior alerts = 2 - need to check if previously reviewed\n\nLet me think about what to do. I have 8 replies. Each lookup costs 0.40h except documents 0.10h.\n\nThe most decisive facts:\n1. The rapid movement (in then out next day, 82%)\n2. The counterparties - are they shared with other alerted accounts? (funnel/mule indicator)\n3. Prior alerts - were they escalated or closed?\n\nLet me look up the counterparties first. CP-1 and CP-2. The counterparty lookup tells me \"how many OTHER alerted accounts share it\" which is a strong mule/funnel indicator.\n\nActually, let me be strategic. The pattern here strongly suggests escalation (RAPID_MOVEMENT or MONEY_MULE or FUNNEL_ACCOUNT). But I should confirm with lookups to cite proper facts.\n\nLet me think about which disposition:\n- CONSISTENT_WITH_PROFILE: No, a 356k wire to a retired person with 31k income and dormant account is NOT consistent.\n- DOCUMENTED_SOURCE_OF_FUNDS: Would need documents.\n- PREVIOUSLY_REVIEWED: If prior alerts cover this.\n- RULE_ARTEFACT: If the rule fired in error.\n- Escalate: RAPID_MOVEMENT, MONEY_MULE, FUNNEL_ACCOUNT, etc.\n\nThe strongest signal: rapid movement of funds (in 356k, out 291.9k next day) to an account inconsistent with profile. This is a strong escalation candidate.\n\nBut I should check:\n1. Counterparty lookups to see if these are known/shared (mule/funnel)\n2. Prior alerts to see if this was already reviewed\n\nLet me start with counterparty lookups. Actually, let me look up both CP-1 and CP-2, and prior alerts. That's 3 lookups = 1.2h. Plus I've spent 0.5h. Total 1.7h. I have plenty of budget (8 replies * 0.05 = 0.4h base cost, but the \"hours\" seem to be a separate resource - actually the cost is in analyst-hours and each reply costs 0.05h, lookups cost 0.40h).\n\nWait, let me re-read. \"You have 8 replies. Each reply must be exactly ONE JSON object... and every reply costs 0.05 hours whether or not it is accepted.\" And lookups cost +0.40h or +0.10h.\n\nSo the constraint is 8 replies, not hours. The hours are just a cost metric. Let me count replies: I have 8. Each lookup is a reply. So I can do up to 8 lookups/actions.\n\nLet me be efficient. I'll do:\n1. Lookup counterparty CP-1\n2. Lookup counterparty CP-2\n3. Lookup prior_alerts\n\nThen decide.\n\nActually, the most decisive single fact might be the counterparty sharing. Let me look up CP-1 and CP-2 to see \"how many OTHER alerted accounts share it.\" If CP-1 or CP-2 is shared with many other alerted accounts, that's a strong mule/funnel indicator.\n\nLet me do the lookups. I'll batch my thinking but each reply is one JSON.\n\nLet me start with CP-1.\n\nActually, let me reconsider. The pattern of \"large credit to dormant account, then rapid outflow\" is the textbook RAPID_MOVEMENT typology. The counterparty info will tell me if it's a mule/funnel network.\n\nLet me look up both counterparties and prior alerts. I'll do them one at a time.\n\nReply 1: lookup counterparty CP-1\nReply 2: lookup counterparty CP-2\nReply 3: lookup prior_alerts\n\nThen I'll have enough to decide.\n\nLet me start.\n",
      "call": {
        "promptTokens": 1394,
        "completionTokens": 1306,
        "reasoningTokens": null,
        "durationMs": 56324,
        "finishReason": "stop"
      },
      "info": {
        "action": {
          "action": "lookup",
          "what": "counterparty",
          "id": "CP-1"
        },
        "rejection": null,
        "observation": "COUNTERPARTY CP-1  Eskildsen & Laurent LLP, client trust account\n  type law_firm_trust; jurisdiction United States; first seen 2026-04-18\n  other alerted accounts sharing this counterparty in twelve months: 0\n  transactions: T-4\n\nHours spent so far: 0.95. You have 7 replies left."
      }
    },
    {
      "reply": "\n\n{\"action\":\"lookup\",\"what\":\"counterparty\",\"id\":\"CP-2\"}",
      "reasoning": "Let me analyze what I have so far.\n\nThe alert is R-DORM-05 \u2014 Large credit to an account with no material activity for nine months.\n\nKey facts:\n- Customer: Gabriela Kowalczyk, retired, low activity expected\n- Account opened 2012-03-09\n- Country: US\n- KYC refreshed 2025-12-12\n- Stated income: 31,000 USD\n- Prior alerts: 2, prior SARs: 0\n- Remittance declared: none declared\n\nTriggering transactions:\n- T-4: 2026-04-18 wire_in 356,000 USD from CP-1\n- T-5: 2026-04-19 wire_out 291,900 USD to CP-2\n\nTwelve-month summary shows the account was essentially dormant (only tiny cash out of 170, 120, 170 in a few months) until April 2026 when the big wires hit.\n\nCP-1 = Eskildsen & Laurent LLP, client trust account (law_firm_trust), US jurisdiction, first seen 2026-04-18, 0 other alerted accounts sharing it.\n\nThis is interesting. A law firm trust account sending 356,000 USD to a retired individual. This could be a legitimate settlement or inheritance/lawyer distribution. But then 291,900 went out to CP-2 the next day.\n\nLet me think about the typology. The account was dormant for 9+ months, then a large credit arrives, and the next day most of it (291,900 out of 356,000, ~82%) is wired out to another party. This is a classic rapid movement / funnel pattern.\n\nThe question is whether this is:\n1. A legitimate source of funds (law firm trust = settlement/inheritance) \u2192 could be DOCUMENTED_SOURCE_OF_FUNDS or CONSISTENT_WITH_PROFILE\n2. A mule/funnel account \u2192 RAPID_MOVEMENT, MONEY_MULE, or FUNNEL_ACCOUNT\n\nLet me consider. The customer is retired with stated income of 31,000. A 356,000 wire from a law firm trust account is a large amount but could be a settlement or estate distribution. However, the rapid outflow the next day to a different counterparty (CP-2) is a red flag for layering / rapid movement / mule activity.\n\nI need to look at CP-2 to understand where the money went. Let me also consider prior alerts (2 prior alerts on this customer).\n\nLet me look up CP-2 and prior alerts. Let me be strategic with my 7 remaining replies.\n\nActually, let me think about what decides the case. The key tension:\n- Law firm trust account as source = potentially documented/legitimate\n- But rapid movement out to CP-2 next day = layering\n\nI should look at CP-2 to see who receives the funds. If CP-2 is another law firm or a related entity, it might be legitimate. If CP-2 is a high-risk jurisdiction or unknown, it's a red flag.\n\nLet me look up CP-2.\n",
      "call": {
        "promptTokens": 1509,
        "completionTokens": 746,
        "reasoningTokens": null,
        "durationMs": 23849,
        "finishReason": "stop"
      },
      "info": {
        "action": {
          "action": "lookup",
          "what": "counterparty",
          "id": "CP-2"
        },
        "rejection": null,
        "observation": "COUNTERPARTY CP-2  Brightwater Securities\n  type brokerage; jurisdiction United States; first seen 2026-04-19\n  other alerted accounts sharing this counterparty in twelve months: 1\n  transactions: T-5\n\nHours spent so far: 1.40. You have 6 replies left."
      }
    },
    {
      "reply": "\n\n{\"action\":\"lookup\",\"what\":\"documents\"}",
      "reasoning": "Let me analyze this alert carefully.\n\n**Alert A-9760**: Rule R-DORM-05 \u2014 Large credit to an account with no material activity for nine months\n- T-4: 2026-04-18 wire_in 356,000 USD from CP-1\n- T-5: 2026-04-19 wire_out 291,900 USD to CP-2\n\n**Customer**: Gabriela Kowalczyk, C-7059\n- Account opened 2012-03-09\n- US individual, retired\n- Expected activity: low\n- Stated income: 31,000 USD\n- KYC refreshed 2025-12-12\n- 2 prior alerts, 0 prior SARs\n\n**Twelve-month summary**: Essentially dormant. Only tiny cash-outs (170, 120, 170) in 2025-07, 2025-12, 2026-01. Then in 2026-04: 356,000 wires in, 291,900 wires out.\n\n**Counterparties**:\n- CP-1: Eskildsen & Laurent LLP, client trust account, law_firm_trust, US, first seen 2026-04-18, 0 other alerted accounts share it. This is a law firm trust account \u2014 consistent with a legal settlement/inheritance/claim payout to a retired individual.\n- CP-2: Brightwater Securities, brokerage, US, first seen 2026-04-19, 1 other alerted account shares it. This is a brokerage \u2014 consistent with depositing funds into an investment account.\n\n**Analysis**:\n- The customer is a long-standing (2012) US retiree with low activity, consistent with profile.\n- The large credit of 356,000 comes from a law firm trust account (client trust) \u2014 a very common and legitimate source for large one-off funds (legal settlement, inheritance, class action payout, etc.).\n- The next day, 291,900 (about 82% of it) is wired out to a brokerage (Brightwater Securities) \u2014 consistent with a retiree moving money into investments.\n- The remaining ~64,100 stays in the account.\n- The counterparty CP-1 is a law firm trust with 0 other alerted accounts \u2014 not a shared/suspicious entity.\n- CP-2 is a brokerage with 1 other alerted account \u2014 that's mild, but a brokerage is a normal destination.\n\nThis looks like a legitimate pattern: a retired customer receives a legal payout (settlement/inheritance from a law firm trust) and immediately moves most of it into a brokerage account. This is CONSISTENT_WITH_PROFILE or DOCUMENTED_SOURCE_OF_FUNDS.\n\nThe key question: is this a rule artefact or consistent with profile? The rule fired because the account was dormant for 9 months and then received a large credit. But the source is a law firm trust account (legitimate), and the outflow is to a brokerage (legitimate). \n\nLet me think about whether I need more info. The prior alerts (2) and documents could help. Let me consider:\n- Prior alerts: knowing the disposition of the 2 prior alerts would tell me if this customer has been reviewed before (PREVIOUSLY_REVIEWED option) and what the rationale was.\n- Documents: could show a legal settlement letter or source of funds documentation (DOCUMENTED_SOURCE_OF_FUNDS).\n\nThe strongest close here would be either:\n1. CONSISTENT_WITH_PROFILE \u2014 the pattern (law firm trust \u2192 brokerage) is consistent with a retiree receiving a legal payout and investing it.\n2. DOCUMENTED_SOURCE_OF_FUNDS \u2014 if documents show the source.\n3. PREVIOUSLY_REVIEWED \u2014 if prior alerts were already reviewed and cleared.\n\nLet me check prior alerts and documents to strengthen my case. Actually, let me be strategic. I have 6 replies left. Let me look at prior alerts and documents.\n\nActually, the most decisive evidence for a clean close is documents showing the source of funds (e.g., a legal settlement agreement or inheritance document). Let me check documents first, and prior alerts.\n\nLet me look at documents (0.10) and prior_alerts (0.40).\n\nActually, let me think about which is more decisive. The transaction pattern already strongly suggests legitimacy:\n- In from law firm trust (CP-1, 0 shared alerts)\n- Out to brokerage (CP-2)\n\nThis is a classic \"legal settlement \u2192 investment\" pattern for a retiree. The KYC says retired, low activity. A large one-off legal payout is entirely consistent with a retired person's profile (e.g., they may have had a personal injury claim, inheritance, or class action).\n\nI think the best close reason is CONSISTENT_WITH_PROFILE, citing the KYC (retired, low activity), T-4 (from law firm trust), T-5 (to brokerage), and the counterparties.\n\nBut let me check documents to see if there's a documented source, which would make it a stronger DOCUMENTED_SOURCE_OF_FUNDS close. And prior alerts to see if it's PREVIOUSLY_REVIEWED.\n\nLet me do both lookups to be thorough, then decide. I have enough replies.\n\nLet me look at documents first (cheapest, 0.10) and prior alerts.\n\nActually, I'll do both in sequence since I need to see results. Let me start with documents.\n",
      "call": {
        "promptTokens": 1613,
        "completionTokens": 1246,
        "reasoningTokens": null,
        "durationMs": 42157,
        "finishReason": "stop"
      },
      "info": {
        "action": {
          "action": "lookup",
          "what": "documents"
        },
        "rejection": null,
        "observation": "DOCUMENTS ON FILE:\n  doc.D-3211  [identity]  Government-issued identity document, verified at onboarding\n  doc.D-aded  [executor_letter]  Letter from Alicia Haddad, executor, via Eskildsen & Laurent LLP, client trust account: distribution from the estate of Aaron Eskildsen to the named beneficiary.\n\nHours spent so far: 1.55. You have 5 replies left."
      }
    },
    {
      "reply": "\n\n{\"action\":\"close\",\"reason\":\"DOCUMENTED_SOURCE_OF_FUNDS\",\"cites\":[\"doc.D-aded\",\"T-4\",\"T-5\",\"kyc.expected_activity\"],\"note\":\"Wire-in of 356K from Eskildsen & Laurent LLP client trust account is documented by executor letter (doc.D-aded) as an estate distribution to the named beneficiary. Next-day wire-out of 291.9K to Brightwater Securities (brokerage) is a normal disposition of estate funds. Customer is retired with low activity expected; the dormant period is consistent with profile. CP-1 (trust account) has zero other alerted accounts. No PEP, no prior SARs, KYC refreshed 2025-12-12.\"}",
      "reasoning": "Let me analyze what I have:\n\n- Alert A-9760: Large credit to an account with no material activity for nine months\n- Customer: Gabriela Kowalczyk, retired, low activity expected\n- Triggering transactions:\n  - T-4: 2026-04-18 wire_in 356,000 USD from CP-1 (Eskildsen & Laurent LLP, client trust account)\n  - T-5: 2026-04-19 wire_out 291,900 USD to CP-2 (Brightwater Securities, brokerage)\n\n- CP-1: Law firm trust account, US jurisdiction, first seen 2026-04-18, 0 other alerted accounts sharing it\n- CP-2: Brokerage, US jurisdiction, first seen 2026-04-19, 1 other alerted account sharing it\n- Documents:\n  - doc.D-3211: Identity document\n  - doc.D-aded: Executor letter from Alicia Haddad, via Eskildsen & Laurent LLP, stating distribution from the estate of Aaron Eskildsen to the named beneficiary\n\nSo the picture is:\n- Retired customer with low activity (consistent with profile)\n- Large wire IN from a law firm trust account (estate distribution)\n- Next day, wire OUT to a brokerage account\n- There's documentation: an executor letter explaining the source of funds (estate distribution)\n- CP-1 has 0 other alerted accounts sharing it\n- CP-2 has 1 other alerted account sharing it (slightly concerning but not definitive)\n\nThe key question: Is this a legitimate estate distribution being moved to a brokerage account, or is this suspicious?\n\nArguments for closing (DOCUMENTED_SOURCE_OF_FUNDS):\n- The customer is retired with low activity expected\n- The source is a law firm trust account (estate distribution)\n- There's an executor letter documenting the source of funds\n- The outflow is to a brokerage (Brightwater Securities), which is a normal place to put estate money\n- CP-1 has no other alerted accounts\n- The amounts are consistent (356K in, 291.9K out - the difference could be fees or partial distribution)\n- KYC was refreshed recently (2025-12-12)\n- No PEP status\n- No prior SARs\n\nArguments for escalating:\n- Rapid movement (next day outflow)\n- Large amount relative to stated income (31K)\n- CP-2 has 1 other alerted account\n- Account was dormant for 9 months\n\nHowever, the rapid movement to a brokerage is actually quite normal for estate distributions - people often deposit estate money into investment accounts. The documentation clearly explains the source. The law firm trust account is a legitimate source. The executor letter is a strong document.\n\nI think this is a DOCUMENTED_SOURCE_OF_FUNDS case. The executor letter from the law firm explains the source of the 356K wire. The outflow to a brokerage is a normal disposition of estate funds. The customer profile (retired, low activity) is consistent with receiving a large lump sum after being dormant.\n\nLet me cite:\n- doc.D-aded (executor letter documenting source)\n- T-4 (the wire in from trust account)\n- T-5 (the wire out to brokerage)\n- kyc.expected_activity (retired, low activity expected)\n- kyc.occupation (retired)\n\nI'll close with DOCUMENTED_SOURCE_OF_FUNDS.\n",
      "call": {
        "promptTokens": 1731,
        "completionTokens": 930,
        "reasoningTokens": null,
        "durationMs": 48857,
        "finishReason": "stop"
      },
      "info": {
        "action": {
          "action": "close",
          "reason": "DOCUMENTED_SOURCE_OF_FUNDS",
          "cites": [
            "doc.D-aded",
            "T-4",
            "T-5",
            "kyc.expected_activity"
          ],
          "note": "Wire-in of 356K from Eskildsen & Laurent LLP client trust account is documented by executor letter (doc.D-aded) as an estate distribution to the named beneficiary. Next-day wire-out of 291.9K to Brightwater Securities (brokerage) is a normal disposition of estate funds. Customer is retired with low activity expected; the dormant period is consistent with profile. CP-1 (trust account) has zero other alerted accounts. No PEP, no prior SARs, KYC refreshed 2025-12-12."
        },
        "rejection": null,
        "observation": "Disposition recorded. The episode is over."
      }
    }
  ]
}
