{
  "runId": "base-on-s1",
  "seed": 1,
  "model": "brain-qwen38-dspark",
  "capturedAt": "2026-08-28",
  "rewards": {
    "caught": 1.0,
    "hours": 0.5238095238095238,
    "evidence": 0.0
  },
  "metrics": {
    "hours_spent": 1.05,
    "reference_hours": 0.55,
    "lookups": 1.0,
    "turns_used": 3.0,
    "rejected_replies": 1.0,
    "false_escalation": 0.0,
    "missed": 0.0,
    "typology_match": null
  },
  "truncated": false,
  "outcome": "solved",
  "info": {
    "label": "benign",
    "template": "B4",
    "overlay": null,
    "typology": null,
    "planted": [
      [
        "kyc.expected_monthly_cash"
      ],
      [
        "kyc.expected_monthly_cash",
        "kyc.business_type"
      ]
    ],
    "reference_minutes": 33,
    "reference_policy": "fast",
    "held_out": false,
    "tier": "benign",
    "screen": "ALERT A-8971  rule R-STR-01 \u2014 Three or more cash deposits just under the reporting threshold within ten days\n  fired 2026-04-26\n  triggering transactions:\n  T-213  2026-04-16  cash_in         9,440.00 USD  branch BR-052\n  T-217  2026-04-21  cash_in         8,950.00 USD  branch BR-052\n  T-219  2026-04-22  cash_in         8,880.00 USD  branch BR-052\nKYC FILE  C-9647  Oakhill Kitchen Group\n  kyc.account_opened = 2019-07-11\n  kyc.business_type = pizzeria\n  kyc.country = United States\n  kyc.customer_type = business\n  kyc.expected_activity = Cash-intensive food service; daily takings deposited most trading days.\n  kyc.expected_monthly_cash = 86,000.00 USD\n  kyc.kyc_refreshed = 2026-03-13\n  kyc.pep = False\n  kyc.prior_alerts = 4\n  kyc.prior_sars = 0\n  kyc.remittance_declared = none declared\n  kyc.stated_income = 492,000.00 USD\nTWELVE-MONTH SUMMARY (USD)\n  month            cash in        cash out        wires in       wires out          ach in         ach out  txns\n  2025-05           42,400               0               0               0               0          13,935    18\n  2025-06           38,160               0               0               0               0          12,582    19\n  2025-07           44,260               0               0               0               0          15,928    18\n  2025-08           41,680               0               0               0               0          13,940    18\n  2025-09           44,950               0               0               0               0          15,498    17\n  2025-10           35,860               0               0               0               0          13,284    19\n  2025-11           42,370               0               0               0               0          12,792    19\n  2025-12           39,280               0               0               0               0          13,776    19\n  2026-01           39,860               0               0               0               0          13,940    19\n  2026-02           39,280               0               0               0               0          12,718    18\n  2026-03           36,510               0               0               0               0          11,693    19\n  2026-04           71,720               0               0               0               0          14,218    18\nCOUNTERPARTIES on screen (top by twelve-month volume):\n  CP-1   out   48 txns  103,976.00 USD\n  CP-2   out   12 txns  60,331.50 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\":\"prior_alerts\"}",
      "reasoning": "Let me analyze this alert carefully.\n\n**Alert A-8971**: Rule R-STR-01 \u2014 Three or more cash deposits just under the reporting threshold within ten days.\n- T-213: 2026-04-16, cash_in, 9,440.00 USD\n- T-217: 2026-04-21, cash_in, 8,950.00 USD\n- T-219: 2026-04-22, cash_in, 8,880.00 USD\n\nAll three are just under the 10,000 USD reporting threshold. They're within ten days (April 16 to April 22 = 6 days). This is the classic structuring pattern.\n\n**KYC Profile**: Oakhill Kitchen Group, a pizzeria, cash-intensive food service, expected monthly cash 86,000 USD, daily takings deposited most trading days. Account opened 2019. PEP false. Prior alerts 4, prior SARs 0.\n\n**Twelve-month summary**: Cash in ranges from ~35,860 to ~44,950 per month, with 2026-04 at 71,720 (higher, likely due to the alert transactions plus normal activity). No wires, no cash out, only ACH out. 17-19 transactions per month.\n\nWait, this is interesting. The expected monthly cash is 86,000 USD, but the actual monthly cash in is only ~36,000-45,000. That's less than half of expected. Hmm.\n\nBut the key question: is this structuring?\n\nLet me think about the pattern. The rule fired because three cash deposits just under 10,000 within ten days. For a pizzeria that deposits daily takings, having deposits of 8,880-9,440 is actually... let me think. If they deposit daily takings, and expected monthly cash is 86,000, that's about 2,867 per day (86,000/30). But the actual monthly cash in is ~40,000, which is about 1,333 per day.\n\nWait, but the transactions shown are individual deposits of 8,880-9,440. If they deposit daily, each daily deposit would be ~1,300-1,500. But these are ~9,000 each. So these are NOT daily takings deposits \u2014 these are larger lump sums.\n\nHmm, but wait. Let me reconsider. The twelve-month summary shows cash in of ~40,000 per month with 17-19 transactions. So average transaction is ~40,000/18 \u2248 2,222 per transaction. That's consistent with daily takings deposits of a few thousand each.\n\nBut the alert transactions are 8,880-9,440 each \u2014 much larger than the typical ~2,200 deposit. And they're all just under 10,000. That's suspicious.\n\nActually, let me reconsider. Are these deposits consistent with the profile? The profile says \"daily takings deposited most trading days.\" If they deposit daily, a single day's takings for a pizzeria would be maybe a few thousand. A deposit of 9,440 in one go is a lot more than a single day's takings.\n\nBut actually, the expected monthly cash is 86,000, and actual is ~40,000. So the actual deposits are LOWER than expected. The alert transactions at ~9,000 each are HIGHER than the typical ~2,200 deposit.\n\nSo the pattern: normally the pizzeria deposits ~2,200 per transaction (daily takings), 18 times a month = ~40,000. But in April, there are three deposits of ~9,000 each that are just under the 10,000 threshold. These stand out as abnormally large for this account AND just under the reporting threshold.\n\nThis is a classic structuring indicator: breaking up what would be a single larger deposit into multiple sub-threshold deposits.\n\nLet me think about whether this is consistent with profile. The profile expects 86,000 monthly cash. The actual is ~40,000. The three alert transactions total 27,270. If we add those to a \"normal\" month... actually the April total is 71,720 which is higher than other months. So April had more cash.\n\nHmm, let me reconsider. April cash in = 71,720 with 18 transactions. Other months are ~40,000 with 18 transactions. So April's average transaction is ~3,984 vs ~2,222 for other months. The three alert transactions (8,880-9,440) are pulling the average up.\n\nLet me estimate: if April had 18 transactions totaling 71,720, and 3 of them are 8,880+8,950+9,440 = 27,270, then the other 15 transactions total 71,720-27,270 = 44,450, average ~2,963. That's a bit higher than the typical ~2,222 but in the right ballpark.\n\nSo the question is: are these three ~9,000 deposits consistent with a pizzeria's cash deposits, or are they structured?\n\nThe strong structuring signal:\n1. Three deposits all just under 10,000 (9,440, 8,950, 8,880) \u2014 all within ~1,120 of the threshold.\n2. Within ten days.\n3. The customer's normal deposits are ~2,200, so ~9,000 deposits are 4x the norm.\n\nBut counter-signals:\n1. Cash-intensive business, expected to deposit cash.\n2. No prior SARs (4 prior alerts but 0 SARs \u2014 so previous alerts were presumably closed without escalation).\n3. The amounts are plausible for a busy pizzeria's weekly takings.\n\nLet me look at the prior alerts. I should check prior_alerts to see if this has been reviewed before. The KYC says prior_alerts = 4. If these 4 prior alerts were for the same rule R-STR-01 and were closed as consistent with profile, that would be a strong signal to close again.\n\nActually, this is a key consideration. Let me look up prior alerts.\n\nAlso, I should consider the counterparty angle. The counterparties shown are only \"out\" (ACH out presumably). CP-1 out 48 txns 103,976, CP-2 out 12 txns 60,331. These are payments out, probably suppliers (flour, ingredients, rent, etc.). No counterparties for cash in (cash deposits don't have counterparties). So counterparty lookup isn't very relevant here since the alert is about cash deposits.\n\nLet me think about the decision framework:\n- Close: CONSISTENT_WITH_PROFILE, DOCUMENTED_SOURCE_OF_FUNDS, PREVIOUSLY_REVIEWED, RULE_ARTEFACT\n- Escalate: STRUCTURING, FUNNEL_ACCOUNT, MONEY_MULE, RAPID_MOVEMENT, UNKNOWN\n\nThe rule is literally R-STR-01 (structuring). The pattern of three sub-threshold deposits within ten days is the textbook definition of structuring.\n\nBut I need to weigh: is this genuinely suspicious structuring, or is it a legitimate business pattern that happens to trigger the rule?\n\nKey factors for a pizzeria:\n- A pizzeria with expected monthly cash of 86,000 would have daily takings. If they deposit daily, each deposit is small. But if they deposit less frequently (e.g., weekly), each deposit would be larger.\n- Actually, \"daily takings deposited most trading days\" suggests daily deposits. So ~9,000 single deposits would be unusual.\n\nHmm, but wait. Let me reconsider the expected vs actual. Expected monthly cash 86,000 but actual ~40,000. That's a big gap. Maybe the expected is aspirational or the business is underperforming. Regardless, the actual pattern is ~40,000/month in ~18 deposits = ~2,200 each.\n\nThe three ~9,000 deposits are 4x the typical deposit. This is a deviation from the established pattern. Combined with being just under the threshold, this is a strong structuring signal.\n\nHowever, I want to check the prior alerts first. If the customer has 4 prior alerts and 0 SARs, it's very likely these prior alerts were the same rule firing repeatedly and being closed as consistent with profile. That would change my analysis significantly.\n\nLet me look up prior_alerts. Cost 0.40h. I have plenty of budget (8 replies, 0.05 each = 0.40h for replies, plus lookups).\n\nActually, let me reconsider the budget. I've spent 0.50h. Each reply is 0.05h. Lookups: history 0.40, counterparty 0.40, prior_alerts 0.40, documents 0.10. I have 8 replies.\n\nLet me be strategic. The most informative lookup here is prior_alerts, because:\n1. If prior alerts are the same rule and were closed, that strongly suggests this is a recurring benign pattern (or a recurring pattern that was already judged benign).\n2. It tells me the disposition history.\n\nLet me also consider: should I look up a month's history to see the full transaction pattern in April? That would show me whether the ~9,000 deposits are part of a pattern of larger deposits or truly anomalous. But the twelve-month summary already gives me the monthly totals.\n\nActually, the most decisive piece of evidence is probably the prior alerts. Let me get those.\n\nLet me think about what a careful analyst would conclude:\n\nThe rule R-STR-01 is specifically designed to catch structuring. The three deposits are all just under 10,000 within 10 days. For a business whose NORMAL deposits are ~2,200, these ~9,000 deposits are anomalous in size AND suspicious in being just under the threshold.\n\nBut: cash-intensive business, and the total April cash (71,720) is still well within the expected monthly cash (86,000). So the total cash volume is not alarming.\n\nThe structuring concern is really about the SIZE and THRESHOLD-PROXIMITY of individual deposits, not the total volume. A pizzeria could legitimately have a big weekend and deposit ~9,000. But three such deposits in 10 days, each just under 10,000, when the norm is ~2,200... that's the pattern the rule targets.\n\nI think the right move is to look up prior alerts to see if this is a recurring pattern that's been reviewed. This is the highest-value lookup.\n\nLet me do that.\n\nActually, let me reconsider whether I even need to look anything up. The task says \"Cite the facts that decide the case.\" I have the alert, KYC, and twelve-month summary on screen. \n\nThe deciding facts:\n- For escalation (structuring): three sub-threshold deposits within 10 days (T-213, T-217, T-219), all just under 10,000, in a business whose normal deposits are ~2,200 (4x deviation), all at same branch BR-052.\n- For close (consistent with profile): cash-intensive pizzeria, expected monthly cash 86,000, April total 71,720 within expected, 0 prior SARs.\n\nHmm. This is genuinely a judgment call. Let me think about which way the balance tips.\n\nThe strongest argument for escalation: The deposits are 4x the customer's normal deposit size and all sit just under the reporting threshold within 10 days. This is the exact pattern R-STR-01 is built to catch. A pizzeria depositing daily takings wouldn't normally produce three ~9,000 deposits in 10 days.\n\nThe strongest argument for close: It's a cash business, the total is within expected, and there are no red flags otherwise. But \"no prior SARs\" is weak evidence because SARs are only filed on escalation; 4 prior alerts with 0 SARs means 4 prior alerts were closed.\n\nI really want to see the prior alerts. Let me look them up. That's the single most decisive piece of information.\n\nDecision: Look up prior_alerts.\n\nLet me write the JSON for the lookup.\n\n{\"action\":\"lookup\",\"what\":\"prior_alerts\"}\n\nThis costs 0.40h. After this I'll have spent 0.50 + 0.05 (this reply) + 0.40 = 0.95h. I have 7 replies left.\n\nLet me do it.\n",
      "call": {
        "promptTokens": 1567,
        "completionTokens": 2985,
        "reasoningTokens": null,
        "durationMs": 108274,
        "finishReason": "stop"
      },
      "info": {
        "action": {
          "action": "lookup",
          "what": "prior_alerts"
        },
        "rejection": null,
        "observation": "PRIOR ALERTS:\n  A-3217  R-WIRE-04  fired 2024-07-08  closed after 7 day(s) by Beatriz Grimaldi\n         Closed: destination and amount match the remittance declared at onboarding; within stated income.\n  A-4028  R-DORM-05  fired 2024-10-12  closed after 9 day(s) by Mateo Jensen\n         Closed: reactivation explained by a documented source of funds; document reviewed and retained.\n  A-2622  R-VEL-02  fired 2025-01-17  closed after 5 day(s) by Samir Pereira\n         Closed: pass-through matches the settlement terms in the agreement on file; counterparties verified.\n  A-1389  R-STR-01  fired 2026-03-06  closed after 3 day(s) by Marta Eskildsen\n         Closed: deposits are documented daily takings; amounts vary with trading days; within kyc.expected_monthly_cash.\n\nHours spent so far: 0.95. You have 7 replies left."
      }
    },
    {
      "reply": "",
      "reasoning": "Let me analyze this alert carefully.\n\n**Alert A-8971**: Rule R-STR-01 \u2014 \"Three or more cash deposits just under the reporting threshold within ten days\"\n- T-213: 2026-04-16, cash_in, 9,440.00 USD\n- T-217: 2026-04-21, cash_in, 8,950.00 USD\n- T-219: 2026-04-22, cash_in, 8,880.00 USD\n\nAll three are just under 10,000 (the reporting threshold). Three cash deposits under 10k within 10 days (April 16 to April 22 = 6 days).\n\n**Customer**: Oakhill Kitchen Group, a pizzeria, cash-intensive food service, expected monthly cash of 86,000 USD.\n\n**Twelve-month summary**: Monthly cash in ranges from ~35,860 to ~44,950, with April 2026 at 71,720. So the typical month is around 40k cash in. The expected monthly cash is 86,000.\n\nWait, the expected monthly cash is 86,000 but the actual monthly cash in is around 40k. That's interesting \u2014 the actual is lower than expected. But that's not necessarily suspicious; it just means they deposit less than expected.\n\n**Key consideration**: This is a structuring rule. Three deposits just under the threshold. But the customer is a pizzeria that deposits daily takings. The prior alert A-1389 (same rule R-STR-01, fired 2026-03-06) was closed by Marta Eskildsen with rationale: \"deposits are documented daily takings; amounts vary with trading days; within kyc.expected_monthly_cash.\"\n\nSo this is a repeat of a previously reviewed and closed alert on the same rule. The prior closure rationale is sound: daily takings for a pizzeria, amounts vary with trading days.\n\nLet me think about whether this is a genuine structuring concern or a rule artefact / consistent with profile.\n\nThe amounts: 9,440, 8,950, 8,880. These are all under 10k but not suspiciously close to 10k (like 9,990). They range from 8,880 to 9,440. For a pizzeria doing ~40k/month cash, daily takings would be around 40k/22 trading days \u2248 1,800/day. Hmm, but these deposits are 8,880-9,440, which is much larger than a single day's takings.\n\nWait, let me reconsider. If monthly cash is ~40k and they deposit \"most trading days,\" then over ~22 days, that's ~1,800/day. But these individual deposits are ~9k. That's about 5 days of takings per deposit. That's plausible if they deposit weekly or a few times a week.\n\nActually, the rule is about \"three or more cash deposits just under the reporting threshold within ten days.\" The total of these three is 9,440 + 8,950 + 8,880 = 27,270. That's within the expected monthly cash of 86,000, and actually the April total cash in is 71,720, so these three deposits are a subset of that.\n\nHmm, but is the total of 27,270 over 10 days a structuring concern? The rule specifically flags \"just under the reporting threshold\" deposits. The concern with structuring is that someone breaks up a large deposit into smaller ones to avoid the 10k CTR threshold.\n\nBut for a legitimate cash business, daily/periodic takings naturally come in as deposits that may individually be under 10k. This is exactly what the prior alert A-1389 concluded: \"deposits are documented daily takings; amounts vary with trading days; within kyc.expected_monthly_cash.\"\n\nSo this looks like a PREVIOUSLY_REVIEWED situation, or CONSISTENT_WITH_PROFILE, or RULE_ARTEFACT.\n\nLet me think about which close reason is most appropriate:\n- CONSISTENT_WITH_PROFILE: The activity matches the expected profile (cash-intensive food service, daily takings).\n- DOCUMENTED_SOURCE_OF_FUNDS: There's documentation of where the cash comes from.\n- PREVIOUSLY_REVIEWED: A prior alert on the same rule was reviewed and closed.\n- RULE_ARTEFACT: The rule fired but it's a false positive / artefact of the rule design.\n\nThe strongest case here: This is a repeat of R-STR-01 that was already reviewed and closed 3 weeks ago (A-1389, fired 2026-03-06, closed by Marta Eskildsen). The rationale was that deposits are documented daily takings, amounts vary with trading days, within expected monthly cash.\n\nNow, is the current alert materially different? Let me check:\n- Prior alert fired 2026-03-06.\n- Current alert fired 2026-04-26.\n- The triggering transactions are in April (16, 21, 22).\n\nThe prior alert A-1389 was about March. The current is about April. So it's a new occurrence of the same pattern.\n\nGiven the customer is a pizzeria with cash-intensive food service and daily takings, and the prior same-rule alert was closed as documented daily takings, this current alert is very likely also just the same legitimate pattern.\n\nNow, should I escalate? The rule R-STR-01 is a structuring rule. Three deposits just under threshold within 10 days is a classic structuring indicator. But the context (cash business, daily takings, amounts within expected monthly cash, prior closure) strongly suggests this is legitimate.\n\nLet me consider the amounts more carefully. For structuring, you'd typically see amounts clustered just below the threshold (e.g., 9,900, 9,800, 9,950) that sum to a round or significant number. Here:\n- 9,440\n- 8,950\n- 8,880\n\nThese vary, and they're not all tightly clustered at ~9,900. They range from 8,880 to 9,440. This variation is consistent with \"amounts vary with trading days\" as the prior analyst noted.\n\nThe total over the period is 27,270, which is well within the expected monthly cash of 86,000.\n\nI think the right call is to CLOSE this alert. The question is which reason.\n\nGiven that:\n1. The customer is a cash-intensive pizzeria (matches profile).\n2. Daily takings deposited most trading days (matches profile).\n3. Amounts are within expected monthly cash.\n4. A prior alert on the EXACT same rule (R-STR-01) was reviewed and closed with sound rationale.\n\nI think PREVIOUSLY_REVIEWED is a strong candidate because there's a directly relevant prior alert on the same rule. But CONSISTENT_WITH_PROFILE is also strong because the activity genuinely matches the expected profile.\n\nActually, let me think about the distinction. PREVIOUSLY_REVIEWED typically means \"this exact issue was already reviewed and no action needed.\" CONSISTENT_WITH_PROFILE means \"the activity is consistent with what we expect for this customer.\"\n\nThe most decisive fact here is that this is a repeat of a previously reviewed and closed alert on the same rule, AND the activity is consistent with the customer's profile.\n\nI could cite both. Let me think about which is the primary reason.\n\nHmm. The prior alert A-1389 was closed as \"documented daily takings; amounts vary with trading days; within kyc.expected_monthly_cash.\" That's essentially a CONSISTENT_WITH_PROFILE / DOCUMENTED_SOURCE_OF_FUNDS rationale.\n\nI think the cleanest close is CONSISTENT_WITH_PROFILE, citing:\n- kyc.business_type (pizzeria)\n- kyc.expected_activity (Cash-intensive food service; daily takings deposited most trading days)\n- kyc.expected_monthly_cash (86,000)\n- A-1389 (prior alert on same rule, closed)\n- T-213, T-217, T-219 (the triggering transactions, to show they're within range)\n\nActually, let me reconsider whether I need to do more lookups. I've already seen:\n- The alert and triggering transactions.\n- The KYC file.\n- The twelve-month summary.\n- The prior alerts.\n- Counterparties on screen (CP-1, CP-2) \u2014 these are OUT counterparties, likely suppliers/vendors for the pizzeria.\n\nDo I need to look up history for a month? The twelve-month summary already shows the monthly cash in. April 2026 is 71,720. The three triggering deposits (27,270) are a subset. The pattern is consistent with prior months.\n\nDo I need to look up the counterparty? The counterparties are \"out\" (payments out), likely to suppliers. Not relevant to a cash-in structuring alert. The cash is coming in from customers (walk-ins), not from a counterparty. So counterparty lookup isn't needed.\n\nDo I need to look up documents? The prior alert mentioned \"documented daily takings\" and \"documented source of funds.\" But I don't have specific document IDs on screen. The documents lookup would show what's on file. However, I'm not sure I need it \u2014 the prior closure already established the documented basis.\n\nLet me think about whether I have enough to close confidently.\n\nThe case for closing:\n1. Pizzeria = cash-intensive, daily takings. \u2713\n2. Expected monthly cash 86,000; actual monthly ~40k (below expected, not above). \u2713\n3. Three deposits totaling 27,270 over 6 days = well within a month's takings. \u2713\n4. Amounts vary (8,880-9,440), consistent with varying trading days. \u2713\n5. Prior alert on SAME rule (R-STR-01) closed 3 weeks ago with sound rationale. \u2713\n\nThe case for escalating:\n1. Three deposits just under 10k within 10 days is a textbook structuring pattern.\n2. But the amounts aren't tightly clustered at the threshold, and the context strongly supports legitimate business.\n\nI'm fairly confident this should be closed. The risk of a false positive (escalating a clean customer) is real here, and the context strongly supports the customer being clean.\n\nNow, which close reason? Let me reconsider the options:\n- CONSISTENT_WITH_PROFILE: Best when the activity matches the expected profile. This fits well.\n- DOCUMENTED_SOURCE_OF_FUNDS: Best when there's specific documentation of the source. The prior alert referenced \"documented daily takings\" but I don't have a specific doc ID.\n- PREVIOUSLY_REVIEWED: Best when this exact issue was already reviewed. A-1389 is on the same rule but a different month.\n- RULE_ARTEFACT: Best when the rule fired due to a technicality/false positive.\n\nI think the strongest, most defensible reason is CONSISTENT_WITH_PROFILE, because the core reason the alert is a false positive is that this cash business legitimately deposits daily takings that happen to fall under the threshold. The prior alert (A-1389) reinforces this but the primary basis is the profile match.\n\nActually, let me reconsider PREVIOUSLY_REVIEWED. The prior alert A-1389 is on the EXACT same rule (R-STR-01) and was closed 3 weeks ago. This is a very strong signal that the compliance team has already vetted this customer's cash deposit pattern under this exact rule. That's a strong basis for PREVIOUSLY_REVIEWED.\n\nBut PREVIOUSLY_REVIEWED usually applies when the SAME alert/issue was already reviewed \u2014 i.e., a duplicate. Here it's a new occurrence (April vs March). So it's not exactly the same alert.\n\nHmm. I think I'll go with CONSISTENT_WITH_PROFILE as the primary reason, and I can cite A-1389 as supporting evidence. Actually, let me reconsider \u2014 the instructions say \"Cite the facts that decide the case, not everything you saw.\"\n\nThe facts that decide the case:\n1. The customer is a cash-intensive pizzeria with daily takings (kyc.business_type, kyc.expected_activity).\n2. The deposits are within expected monthly cash (kyc.expected_monthly_cash, and the twelve-month summary).\n3. A prior alert on the same rule was reviewed and closed (A-1389).\n\nI think CONSISTENT_WITH_PROFILE is the best fit. Let me cite:\n- kyc.business_type\n- kyc.expected_activity\n- kyc.expected_monthly_cash\n- A-1389\n- T-213, T-217, T-219 (to show the amounts)\n\nWait, but should I cite the transactions? They're the triggering transactions, and showing they're within range supports the case. Yes, I'll cite them.\n\nActually, let me reconsider whether to do one more lookup to strengthen the case. Let me think about what would make this airtight.\n\nOne concern: The amounts 9,440, 8,950, 8,880 \u2014 are these really \"daily takings\"? For a pizzeria doing ~40k/month, that's ~1,800/day. A 9,440 deposit would be ~5 days of takings. So these are more like \"weekly\" or \"periodic\" deposits, not daily. But the KYC says \"daily takings deposited most trading days.\" Hmm.\n\nWait, let me recompute. If monthly cash is 40k and they deposit most trading days (say 22 days), that's ~1,800/day. But the expected monthly cash in KYC is 86,000, which would be ~3,900/day. The actual is lower than expected.\n\nBut the individual deposits of ~9k are larger than a single day's takings. So they're depositing accumulated takings every few days. That's still consistent with a cash business \u2014 they accumulate cash over a few days and deposit.\n\nActually, the rule fired on \"three or more cash deposits just under the reporting threshold within ten days.\" The fact that they're depositing ~9k every few days, and these happen to be under 10k, is just how a cash business's deposits naturally look. It's not that they're deliberately keeping each deposit under 10k to avoid reporting \u2014 it's that their natural deposit amounts happen to be in that range.\n\nThis is a classic case where a structuring rule fires on a legitimate cash business. The prior analyst recognized this and closed it.\n\nI'm confident in closing. Let me decide on the reason.\n\nI'll go with CONSISTENT_WITH_PROFILE. The narrative: The customer is a cash-intensive pizzeria whose daily/periodic takings are deposited and naturally fall just under the CTR threshold. The three triggering deposits total 27,270 USD over 6 days, well within the expected monthly cash of 86,000 USD and consistent with the twelve-month cash-in pattern (~35k-45k/month, April 71,720). A prior alert on the identical rule (R-STR-01, A-1389) was reviewed and closed on the same basis (documented daily takings, amounts vary with trading days, within expected monthly cash). No structuring indicator beyond the rule's mechanical trigger.\n\nHmm, but let me reconsider PREVIOUSLY_REVIEWED vs CONSISTENT_WITH_PROFILE one more time.\n\nThe key question: what is the DECISIVE fact?\n\nIf I say CONSISTENT_WITH_PROFILE, I'm saying \"this is normal for this customer.\" That's true and well-supported.\n\nIf I say PREVIOUSLY_REVIEWED, I'm saying \"we already looked at this exact pattern and closed it.\" That's also true (A-1389, same rule).\n\nI think CONSISTENT_WITH_PROFILE is more fundamentally correct because the reason it's a false positive is the profile match, not merely that we reviewed it before. The prior review is supporting evidence.\n\nBut actually, you know what, let me reconsider. Both are defensible. The instructions say cite the facts that decide the case. I'll use CONSISTENT_WITH_PROFILE and cite the profile fields plus the prior alert plus the transactions.\n\nWait, I want to make sure I'm not missing something that would make this a real escalation. Let me double check the numbers.\n\nReporting threshold: 10,000.\nT-213: 9,440 (560 under)\nT-217: 8,950 (1,050 under)\nT-219: 8,880 (1,120 under)\n\nThese are \"just under\" in the sense of under 10k, but 8,880 and 8,950 are not that close to 10k. Only 9,440 is fairly close. So it's a mix. Not a tight cluster at 9,9xx.\n\nTotal: 27,270 over 6 days (April 16-22).\n\nIf this were structuring, you'd expect the total to be a \"round\" amount that they're trying to hide, like 30,000 or 25,000, broken into sub-10k pieces. 27,270 isn't particularly round. And the individual amounts vary, which is more consistent with genuine takings.\n\nAlso, the customer deposits cash regularly (12 months of ~40k/month cash in). This is an established pattern, not a sudden change. April is 71,720 which is higher than usual but still within a reasonable range for a pizzeria (maybe a busy month, or they did a bigger deposit).\n\nActually, April being 71,720 vs ~40k typical is a notable jump",
      "call": {
        "promptTokens": 1863,
        "completionTokens": 4096,
        "reasoningTokens": null,
        "durationMs": 140542,
        "finishReason": "length"
      },
      "info": {
        "action": null,
        "rejection": "no JSON object found in the reply",
        "observation": "That reply was not accepted: no JSON object found in the reply. It still cost a turn. You have 6 replies left."
      }
    },
    {
      "reply": "\n\n{\"action\":\"close\",\"reason\":\"PREVIOUSLY_REVIEWED\",\"cites\":[\"A-1389\",\"kyc.expected_activity\",\"T-213\",\"T-217\",\"T-219\"],\"note\":\"Same rule R-STR-01 fired 2026-03-06 (A-1389) and was closed: deposits are documented daily takings, amounts vary with trading days, within expected monthly cash. Current deposits (9,440 / 8,950 / 8,880) show the same organic variation consistent with a cash-intensive pizzeria's daily takings. KYC refreshed 2026-03-13; no PEP; zero prior SARs. Pattern unchanged from the previously reviewed baseline.\"}",
      "reasoning": "Let me analyze this alert carefully.\n\nAlert A-8971: Rule R-STR-01 \u2014 Three or more cash deposits just under the reporting threshold within ten days.\n\nTriggering transactions:\n- T-213: 2026-04-16, cash_in, 9,440.00 USD, branch BR-052\n- T-217: 2026-04-21, cash_in, 8,950.00 USD, branch BR-052\n- T-219: 2026-04-22, cash_in, 8,880.00 USD, branch BR-052\n\nReporting threshold: 10,000.00 USD\n\nAll three deposits are just under 10,000. That's the rule firing.\n\nNow let me look at the customer profile:\n- Oakhill Kitchen Group, pizzeria, cash-intensive food service\n- Daily takings deposited most trading days\n- Expected monthly cash: 86,000 USD\n- Stated income: 492,000 USD\n- KYC refreshed 2026-03-13 (recent)\n- PEP: False\n- Prior alerts: 4, prior SARs: 0\n\nTwelve-month summary:\n- Monthly cash in ranges from ~35,860 to ~44,950 for most months\n- 2026-04: 71,720 cash in (higher than usual, but April may be partial - the alert fired 2026-04-26, so April isn't complete)\n\nWait, let me think about this. The monthly cash in for typical months is around 36k-45k. The expected monthly cash is 86,000. That's interesting - the actual monthly cash in is much lower than the expected 86,000. But that could be because the summary shows what was actually deposited, and maybe they don't deposit all cash, or the expected is a target.\n\nActually, let me reconsider. The 12-month summary shows cash in of ~36k-45k per month, but kyc.expected_monthly_cash = 86,000. That's a discrepancy, but it's the customer's stated expectation vs actual. Not necessarily a red flag for this alert.\n\nPrior alerts:\n- A-1389: R-STR-01 (SAME RULE) fired 2026-03-06, closed by Marta Eskildsen: \"deposits are documented daily takings; amounts vary with trading days; within kyc.expected_monthly_cash.\"\n\nThis is very relevant! The same structuring rule fired in March 2026 and was closed as consistent with profile - documented daily takings, amounts vary with trading days, within expected monthly cash.\n\nNow, the current alert is April 2026, same rule, three deposits just under 10k.\n\nLet me think about whether this is consistent with profile or whether it should be escalated.\n\nArguments for close (CONSISTENT_WITH_PROFILE or PREVIOUSLY_REVIEWED):\n1. Customer is a pizzeria - cash-intensive food service\n2. Daily takings deposited most trading days\n3. Same rule (R-STR-01) was just closed in March 2026 as consistent - documented daily takings, amounts vary with trading days, within expected monthly cash\n4. KYC recently refreshed (2026-03-13)\n5. No PEP\n6. No prior SARs\n7. The amounts (9,440, 8,950, 8,880) vary - they're not all the same amount, which is consistent with daily takings varying\n8. April cash in is 71,720 which is higher than typical but April is partial month (alert fired 4/26)\n\nWait, but let me look more carefully. The three triggering transactions are 9,440, 8,950, 8,880. These are all just under 10,000. The rule is about \"just under the reporting threshold.\"\n\nHowever, the key question is: is this actually structuring (deliberately keeping deposits under threshold to avoid CTR reporting), or is it just the natural pattern of a cash business depositing daily takings that happen to be under 10k?\n\nFor a pizzeria with daily takings, if they deposit daily, the daily amounts would naturally vary. If a typical day's takings are around 8,000-9,500, then deposits would naturally fall just under 10,000. This is the \"amounts vary with trading days\" rationale from the March close.\n\nThe fact that the same rule fired in March and was closed with this exact rationale strongly suggests this is a recurring pattern that has been reviewed and found consistent.\n\nLet me check: March had R-STR-01 fire on 2026-03-06 and was closed. Now April has R-STR-01 fire on 2026-04-26. \n\nThe amounts in the triggering transactions:\n- T-213: 9,440\n- T-217: 8,950\n- T-219: 8,880\n\nThese vary, which is consistent with daily takings.\n\nNow, the concern with structuring is that amounts are deliberately kept just under threshold. But for a cash business, if their daily takings are in the 8,000-9,500 range, they'd naturally deposit amounts just under 10,000. The variation (9,440 vs 8,950 vs 8,880) supports this being organic rather than deliberately structured (if someone were structuring, they might keep amounts very close to but under threshold, like 9,900, 9,950, 9,990 - all very close to 10,000).\n\nActually, 8,880 and 8,950 are not that close to 10,000. They're about 1,000-1,100 under. 9,440 is about 560 under. So there's variation in how close to threshold they are, which supports organic daily takings.\n\nLet me think about the disposition options:\n- CONSISTENT_WITH_PROFILE: The activity matches the expected profile of a cash-intensive pizzeria\n- PREVIOUSLY_REVIEWED: The same rule was just reviewed and closed in March\n- DOCUMENTED_SOURCE_OF_FUNDS: Daily takings are documented\n- RULE_ARTEFACT: The rule is firing due to the natural pattern of cash deposits\n\nI think the best disposition here is either CONSISTENT_WITH_PROFILE or PREVIOUSLY_REVIEWED.\n\nGiven that:\n1. The same rule (R-STR-01) was just closed in March 2026 with a clear rationale\n2. The customer is a cash-intensive pizzeria\n3. The amounts vary consistent with daily takings\n4. KYC recently refreshed\n5. No PEP, no prior SARs\n\nI'll go with PREVIOUSLY_REVIEWED, citing the prior alert A-1389 (same rule, same customer, recently closed as consistent) and the KYC profile fields.\n\nActually, let me reconsider. The options are:\n- CONSISTENT_WITH_PROFILE\n- DOCUMENTED_SOURCE_OF_FUNDS\n- PREVIOUSLY_REVIEWED\n- RULE_ARTEFACT\n\nPREVIOUSLY_REVIEWED seems most appropriate because the exact same rule was just reviewed and closed for this customer in March 2026. The rationale was \"deposits are documented daily takings; amounts vary with trading days; within kyc.expected_monthly_cash.\"\n\nLet me cite:\n- A-1389 (prior alert, same rule, closed as consistent)\n- kyc.business_type (pizzeria)\n- kyc.expected_activity (cash-intensive food service; daily takings deposited most trading days)\n- T-213, T-217, T-219 (the triggering transactions showing varying amounts)\n\nActually, I should cite the facts that decide the case. The key facts are:\n1. Prior alert A-1389 - same rule, same customer, closed as consistent with daily takings\n2. KYC profile showing cash-intensive business with daily takings\n3. The varying amounts in the triggering transactions\n\nLet me write the close.\n\nI'll cite: A-1389, kyc.business_type, kyc.expected_activity, T-213, T-217, T-219\n\nActually, let me be more focused. The deciding facts are:\n- A-1389: prior alert on same rule, closed as consistent\n- kyc.expected_activity: cash-intensive, daily takings\n- The transactions themselves showing variation\n\nLet me write this up.\n",
      "call": {
        "promptTokens": 1904,
        "completionTokens": 2191,
        "reasoningTokens": null,
        "durationMs": 98431,
        "finishReason": "stop"
      },
      "info": {
        "action": {
          "action": "close",
          "reason": "PREVIOUSLY_REVIEWED",
          "cites": [
            "A-1389",
            "kyc.expected_activity",
            "T-213",
            "T-217",
            "T-219"
          ],
          "note": "Same rule R-STR-01 fired 2026-03-06 (A-1389) and was closed: deposits are documented daily takings, amounts vary with trading days, within expected monthly cash. Current deposits (9,440 / 8,950 / 8,880) show the same organic variation consistent with a cash-intensive pizzeria's daily takings. KYC refreshed 2026-03-13; no PEP; zero prior SARs. Pattern unchanged from the previously reviewed baseline."
        },
        "rejection": null,
        "observation": "Disposition recorded. The episode is over."
      }
    }
  ]
}
