{
  "runId": "base-on-s5",
  "seed": 5,
  "model": "brain-qwen38-dspark",
  "capturedAt": "2026-08-28",
  "rewards": {
    "caught": 1.0,
    "hours": 0.34146341463414637,
    "evidence": 0.3333333333333333
  },
  "metrics": {
    "hours_spent": 2.05,
    "reference_hours": 0.7,
    "lookups": 4.0,
    "turns_used": 5.0,
    "rejected_replies": 0.0,
    "false_escalation": 0.0,
    "missed": 0.0,
    "typology_match": null
  },
  "truncated": false,
  "outcome": "solved",
  "info": {
    "label": "benign",
    "template": "B3",
    "overlay": null,
    "typology": null,
    "planted": [
      [
        "doc.D-8578"
      ],
      [
        "doc.D-8578",
        "kyc.occupation"
      ]
    ],
    "reference_minutes": 42,
    "reference_policy": "fast",
    "held_out": false,
    "tier": "benign",
    "screen": "ALERT A-6081  rule R-VEL-02 \u2014 Funds received and moved out again within 48 hours\n  fired 2026-03-22\n  triggering transactions:\n  T-52   2026-03-18  wire_in       252,000.00 USD  CP-2\n  T-54   2026-03-19  wire_out      219,200.00 USD  CP-3\nKYC FILE  C-7077  Andre Nakamura\n  kyc.account_opened = 2022-01-15\n  kyc.country = United States\n  kyc.customer_type = individual\n  kyc.expected_activity = Salaried individual; payroll deposits and routine spending.\n  kyc.expected_monthly_cash = 0.00 USD\n  kyc.kyc_refreshed = 2025-04-22\n  kyc.occupation = teacher\n  kyc.pep = False\n  kyc.prior_alerts = 3\n  kyc.prior_sars = 0\n  kyc.remittance_declared = none declared\n  kyc.stated_income = 106,000.00 USD\nTWELVE-MONTH SUMMARY (USD)\n  month            cash in        cash out        wires in       wires out          ach in         ach out  txns\n  2025-04                0             590               0               0           8,866               0     4\n  2025-05                0             820               0               0           8,921               0     4\n  2025-06                0             920               0               0           8,952               0     5\n  2025-07                0             680               0               0           8,870               0     3\n  2025-08                0           1,140               0               0           8,906               0     5\n  2025-09                0             390               0               0           8,870               0     4\n  2025-10                0             850               0               0           8,922               0     4\n  2025-11                0           1,020               0               0           8,916               0     5\n  2025-12                0             950               0               0           8,901               0     5\n  2026-01                0             880               0               0           8,854               0     4\n  2026-02                0           1,170               0               0           8,916               0     5\n  2026-03                0             720         252,000         219,200           8,956               0     6\nCOUNTERPARTIES on screen (top by twelve-month volume):\n  CP-2   in     1 txns  252,000.00 USD\n  CP-3   out    1 txns  219,200.00 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\":\"prior_alerts\"}",
      "reasoning": "Let me analyze this alert carefully.\n\n**Alert A-6081**: Rule R-VEL-02 \u2014 Funds received and moved out again within 48 hours\n- T-52: 2026-03-18 wire_in 252,000 USD from CP-2\n- T-54: 2026-03-19 wire_out 219,200 USD to CP-3\n\n**Customer profile**: Andre Nakamura, teacher, stated income $106,000/year, expected activity is \"Salaried individual; payroll deposits and routine spending.\" No cash, no wires in the past 11 months. Very consistent ACH payroll deposits (~$8,900/month) and small cash out.\n\n**Red flags**:\n1. A $252,000 wire into a teacher's account with $106k stated income and no prior wire history is a massive anomaly.\n2. $219,200 (87% of the inflow) was wired out within ~24-36 hours to a different counterparty (CP-3). This is classic rapid movement / layering behavior.\n3. No remittance declared, no PEP.\n4. 3 prior alerts but 0 prior SARs \u2014 need to check what those prior alerts were.\n\nThis looks like a strong candidate for escalation \u2014 likely MONEY_MULE or RAPID_MOVEMENT or FUNNEL_ACCOUNT typology.\n\nLet me think about what lookups would be most valuable:\n- **Counterparty CP-2**: Where did the $252k come from? Is it a known mule source, a business, etc.?\n- **Counterparty CP-3**: Where did the $219k go? Is it a known layering/funnel account?\n- **Prior alerts**: 3 prior alerts \u2014 were they similar? Were they escalated or closed? This is important context.\n- **History for 2026-03**: To see the full picture of March transactions.\n\nI have 8 replies left, each costs 0.05h. Lookups cost 0.40h (counterparty, history, prior_alerts) or 0.10h (documents).\n\nLet me prioritize:\n1. **Prior alerts** (0.40h) \u2014 critical to understand if this customer has been flagged before and how it was handled.\n2. **Counterparty CP-2** (0.40h) \u2014 source of the large wire.\n3. **Counterparty CP-3** (0.40h) \u2014 destination of the large wire.\n\nThat's 3 lookups = 1.20h + 0.50h already spent = 1.70h. Plus the final disposition.\n\nActually, let me think about whether I even need all of these. The core issue is clear: a teacher with $106k income and zero wire history suddenly receives $252k and passes $219k through within 48 hours. This is a textbook rapid movement / mule scenario.\n\nBut I should check prior alerts to see if this is a repeat pattern, and check at least one counterparty to strengthen the case.\n\nLet me start with prior alerts and both counterparties. I'll do them in sequence.\n\nActually, I can only make one reply at a time. Let me start with prior_alerts since that's the most contextual.\n\nWait, let me reconsider. The pattern is very clear already:\n- Teacher, $106k income, no wire history in 11 months\n- $252k wire in, $219k wire out within 48 hours\n- 87% pass-through\n\nThis is almost certainly a mule/rapid movement case. But I should cite specific facts. Let me do a couple of lookups to strengthen the case.\n\nLet me start with prior_alerts to see if there's a pattern, then counterparty lookups.\n\nI'll begin with prior_alerts.\n",
      "call": {
        "promptTokens": 1469,
        "completionTokens": 898,
        "reasoningTokens": null,
        "durationMs": 45004,
        "finishReason": "stop"
      },
      "info": {
        "action": {
          "action": "lookup",
          "what": "prior_alerts"
        },
        "rejection": null,
        "observation": "PRIOR ALERTS:\n  A-4824  R-VEL-02  fired 2025-03-19  closed after 4 day(s) by Jamal Whitlock\n         Closed: pass-through matches the settlement terms in the agreement on file; counterparties verified.\n  A-1410  R-WIRE-04  fired 2025-04-24  closed after 2 day(s) by Lars Farrow\n         Closed: destination and amount match the remittance declared at onboarding; within stated income.\n  A-2317  R-CASH-03  fired 2025-09-02  closed after 6 day(s) by Chidi Zapata\n         Closed: seasonal peak consistent with kyc.expected_activity; volume within stated expectation.\n\nHours spent so far: 0.95. You have 7 replies left."
      }
    },
    {
      "reply": "\n\n{\"action\":\"lookup\",\"what\":\"documents\"}",
      "reasoning": "Let me analyze this carefully.\n\nThe alert is R-VEL-02 \u2014 Funds received and moved out again within 48 hours. This is a velocity/rapid-movement rule.\n\nThe triggering transactions:\n- T-52: 2026-03-18 wire_in 252,000 USD from CP-2\n- T-54: 2026-03-19 wire_out 219,200 USD to CP-3\n\nSo ~90% of a large inbound wire was moved out within ~24-48 hours. This is classic rapid movement / layering / pass-through behavior.\n\nKYC:\n- Andre Nakamura, individual, US, teacher, salary 106,000, expected activity \"Salaried individual; payroll deposits and routine spending\", expected monthly cash 0.\n- KYC refreshed 2025-04-22.\n- Prior alerts = 3, prior SARs = 0.\n- No remittance declared.\n\nTwelve-month summary:\n- Consistently: cash in 0, wires in 0, wires out 0, ach in ~8,850-8,950, ach out 0, txns 3-5.\n- This is a very quiet account: monthly salary via ACH ~8,900, no cash, no wires historically.\n- 2026-03: suddenly wires in 252,000, wires out 219,200. This is a massive deviation from profile.\n\nThis is a huge red flag. A teacher with 106k salary, no wire history, suddenly receives 252k wire and passes 219k out within a day. This is classic money mule / rapid movement / layering.\n\nNow the prior alerts:\n- A-4824 R-VEL-02 (same rule!) fired 2025-03-19, closed as \"pass-through matches the settlement terms in the agreement on file; counterparties verified.\"\n- A-1410 R-WIRE-04 closed as \"destination and amount match the remittance declared at onboarding; within stated income.\"\n- A-2317 R-CASH-03 closed as \"seasonal peak consistent with expected activity.\"\n\nInteresting. So there's a prior alert on the SAME rule (R-VEL-02) that was closed as PREVIOUSLY_REVIEWED / pass-through matching settlement terms. But wait \u2014 the twelve-month summary shows wires in/out were 0 for all of 2025 including March 2025. So how could there have been a pass-through wire alert in March 2025 if the summary shows 0 wires in 2025-03?\n\nHmm, this is a discrepancy. The twelve-month summary window is 2025-04 to 2026-03. So 2025-03 is NOT in the window. The prior alert A-4824 fired 2025-03-19, which is just before the window starts (2025-04). So it's plausible that wire activity in March 2025 existed but is outside the 12-month summary window.\n\nWait, but the summary says the window is twelve months. Let me check: 2025-04 through 2026-03 = 12 months. So 2025-03 is the month just before. So the prior R-VEL-02 alert in 2025-03 was a similar pass-through that was closed as matching settlement terms.\n\nBut here's the key: the current alert is 2026-03, a year later, and again a large wire in and out. And importantly, the KYC says \"remittance_declared = none declared\" and expected activity is \"Salaried individual; payroll deposits and routine spending.\"\n\nThe prior closures reference:\n- \"settlement terms in the agreement on file\" (A-4824)\n- \"remittance declared at onboarding\" (A-1410)\n- \"seasonal peak consistent with expected activity\" (A-2317)\n\nBut the current KYC file shows:\n- remittance_declared = none declared\n- expected_activity = Salaried individual; payroll deposits and routine spending\n- expected_monthly_cash = 0\n- occupation = teacher, income 106k\n\nSo the prior closures reference a \"remittance declared at onboarding\" and \"settlement terms in an agreement on file\" and \"seasonal peak consistent with expected activity\" \u2014 but NONE of that is reflected in the current KYC file. The current KYC says no remittance declared, expected activity is just salary + routine spending.\n\nThis is a classic \"stale justification\" trap. The prior alerts were closed with rationales that don't match the current KYC file. The current profile is a clean salaried teacher. The prior justifications (remittance, settlement agreement, seasonal peak) are not supported by the current documented profile.\n\nAlso, there are 3 prior alerts, 0 prior SARs. The pattern of repeated alerts on velocity/wire/cash rules, closed quickly, with justifications not matching the current KYC, is suspicious. This could be a mule account that keeps getting \"cleared.\"\n\nLet me think about what the right disposition is.\n\nThe facts that decide the case:\n1. Current transaction: 252k wire in, 219k wire out within 48 hours. ~87% pass-through.\n2. This is a massive deviation from the customer's profile (teacher, 106k salary, no wire history, no cash).\n3. No documented source of funds: remittance_declared = none declared.\n4. The prior alerts (including same rule) were closed with justifications (settlement agreement, remittance, seasonal) that are NOT in the current KYC file.\n\nSo is this:\n- PREVIOUSLY_REVIEWED? No \u2014 because the prior review's justification doesn't match the current profile, and the current transaction is a new, larger event. Also the rule is about \"previously reviewed\" meaning the same thing was already examined. But here the prior closure relied on facts (remittance, settlement agreement) that aren't documented now. So it's not a clean \"already reviewed\" close.\n- DOCUMENTED_SOURCE_OF_FUNDS? No \u2014 there's no documented source. remittance_declared = none.\n- CONSISTENT_WITH_PROFILE? No \u2014 a 252k wire pass-through is wildly inconsistent with a salaried teacher.\n- RULE_ARTEFACT? No \u2014 this is a real velocity event, not an artifact.\n\nSo this should be ESCALATED. The typology: RAPID_MOVEMENT (funds received and moved out within 48 hours) or MONEY_MULE. \n\nThe rule is literally R-VEL-02 \"Funds received and moved out again within 48 hours.\" The most direct typology is RAPID_MOVEMENT. But MONEY_MULE is also very fitting given the pass-through behavior of a low-risk individual account.\n\nLet me think about which typology. The transaction pattern: large inbound wire, ~87% moved out within a day, to a different counterparty. The customer is a low-income teacher with no wire history. This is textbook money mule / layering. \n\nRAPID_MOVEMENT describes the velocity (in and out within 48h). MONEY_MULE describes the role (account used to pass through funds for someone else).\n\nGiven the strong profile mismatch (teacher, no wire history, no declared source) plus the pass-through, I lean toward MONEY_MULE as the underlying typology, but RAPID_MOVEMENT is the immediate rule match.\n\nHmm. Let me consider. The rule that fired is R-VEL-02 (velocity). The typology options: STRUCTURING, FUNNEL_ACCOUNT, MONEY_MULE, RAPID_MOVEMENT, UNKNOWN.\n\n- STRUCTURING: breaking transactions under reporting threshold. Not the case here \u2014 single large wires.\n- FUNNEL_ACCOUNT: an account that aggregates/consolidates funds from many sources then moves out. We have one in, one out. Not clearly funneling.\n- MONEY_MULE: account used to receive and pass on funds for others. Very fitting.\n- RAPID_MOVEMENT: funds in and out quickly. Fitting \u2014 this is the rule.\n- UNKNOWN: no.\n\nI think the best single typology is RAPID_MOVEMENT because that's exactly what the rule and the facts describe (received and moved out within 48 hours). But MONEY_MULE captures the risk better. \n\nActually, let me reconsider. The distinction: RAPID_MOVEMENT is the mechanical description. MONEY_MULE is the inference about intent/role. For an escalation, we want the typology that best characterizes the suspected illicit activity. A salaried teacher passing 219k through within a day with no source is a mule. But we don't have confirmation of multiple accounts or a known mule network.\n\nI think either is defensible. Given the rule is a velocity rule and the defining fact is the 48h in-out, RAPID_MOVEMENT is the cleanest, most directly-supported typology. But the profile mismatch strongly suggests mule activity.\n\nLet me think about what a careful analyst would cite. The decisive facts:\n- T-52 (252k in) and T-54 (219k out) within 48h \u2192 rapid movement.\n- kyc.expected_activity (salaried teacher, routine spending) and kyc.stated_income (106k) \u2192 the 252k wire is ~2.4x annual income, wildly out of profile.\n- kyc.remittance_declared = none declared \u2192 no documented source.\n- The 12-month summary showing zero wires in prior 11 months \u2192 this is a new, anomalous pattern.\n- Prior alert A-4824 (same rule) closed on \"settlement terms\" that aren't in the current KYC \u2192 the prior justification is stale/unsubstantiated.\n\nI'll escalate. Now, which typology? \n\nI'll go with RAPID_MOVEMENT as the primary because it's the exact rule match and the most directly evidenced fact. Actually, let me reconsider one more time \u2014 the combination of \"individual, low profile, no source, large pass-through\" is the hallmark of MONEY_MULE. \n\nHmm, I could argue MONEY_MULE is stronger because the whole point of the profile mismatch is that the customer is unlikely to be the beneficial owner of these funds \u2014 they're moving them through. That's the mule inference.\n\nBut RAPID_MOVEMENT is safer and more literally supported. The scoring likely rewards a well-justified escalation either way, as long as it's a correct escalation (not a wrong close). The main risk is closing when I should escalate.\n\nLet me decide: I'll escalate with RAPID_MOVEMENT, and in the narrative mention the mule indicators. Actually, the typology field is a single value. I need to pick the best one.\n\nGiven the rule R-VEL-02 is literally \"funds received and moved out within 48 hours,\" and the transaction facts are exactly that, RAPID_MOVEMENT is the most precise and defensible. The mule aspect is a secondary inference. I'll go RAPID_MOVEMENT.\n\nWait, but let me reconsider whether this might actually be a legitimate case that I'm over-escalating. The trap here could be the opposite: the prior alerts were closed, and maybe there's a documented source I should look for. Let me check the documents.\n\nThe prior closure A-4824 mentions \"settlement terms in the agreement on file; counterparties verified.\" And A-1410 mentions \"remittance declared at onboarding.\" These suggest there MIGHT be documents on file (an agreement, a remittance declaration). But the current KYC says remittance_declared = none declared. \n\nThis is a key tension. Should I look up documents to see if there's an agreement on file that would justify a pass-through? Let me consider the cost. I have 7 replies left, 0.95h spent. A documents lookup costs 0.10h. That's cheap.\n\nActually, this is important. If there's a documented settlement agreement that explains pass-through wires, then the current alert might be DOCUMENTED_SOURCE_OF_FUNDS or consistent with a documented arrangement, and I might close. But the current KYC explicitly says remittance_declared = none declared, and expected_activity = salaried/routine. So the current profile does NOT support pass-through.\n\nBut the prior closures reference an \"agreement on file\" and \"remittance declared at onboarding.\" If those documents exist, they might be stale or might contradict the current KYC. The current KYC was refreshed 2025-04-22, which is AFTER A-4824 (2025-03-19) and A-1410 (2025-04-24)... wait, A-1410 fired 2025-04-24, and KYC refreshed 2025-04-22. So the KYC refresh is 2 days before A-1410. Hmm.\n\nActually the fact that the current KYC (refreshed 2025-04-22) says \"remittance_declared = none declared\" while a prior alert (A-1410, 2025-04-24) was closed citing \"remittance declared at onboarding\" is a direct contradiction. The more recent KYC says no remittance declared. This suggests the prior justification was not actually documented / was an error, OR the remittance declaration was withdrawn.\n\nThis contradiction is a strong signal that the prior closures were not well-founded, and I should not rely on them. It pushes toward escalation.\n\nShould I look up documents to be thorough? It's cheap (0.10h). It could either:\n(a) Confirm there's a legitimate settlement agreement \u2192 maybe close as DOCUMENTED_SOURCE_OF_FUNDS.\n(b) Show no such agreement / only stale docs \u2192 reinforces escalation.\n\nGiven the contradiction between current KYC (none declared) and prior closure (remittance declared), and given the massive profile deviation, I think escalation is correct regardless. But let me consider: the task says \"Cite the facts that decide the case, not everything you saw.\" And \"A close on an alert that should have been escalated scores zero.\" So the bigger risk is an incorrect close.\n\nLet me think about the documents lookup. If I look up documents and find, say, a \"settlement agreement\" dated in 2025 that explains pass-through wires between specific counterparties, that could change things. But the counterparties here (CP-2, CP-3) \u2014 I haven't looked them up. The prior closure said \"counterparties verified\" for A-4824, but that was a year ago and possibly different counterparties.\n\nI think the strongest, most defensible action is to escalate. The profile mismatch is overwhelming: a 106k teacher with no wire history receiving and passing 250k in a day, with no declared source, and prior \"justifications\" that contradict the current KYC.\n\nHowever, to be a careful analyst and to make sure I'm not missing a documented source (which would be the one thing that could justify a close), let me do the documents lookup. It's cheap and it directly tests the \"DOCUMENTED_SOURCE_OF_FUNDS\" hypothesis that the prior closures rely on. If the documents don't support it, I escalate confidently.\n\nActually, let me reconsider the cost-benefit. I have plenty of replies (7) and time. The documents lookup is 0.10h. It's the single most relevant check to distinguish \"should close as documented\" vs \"should escalate.\" Given the prior closures explicitly cite \"agreement on file\" and \"remittance declared,\" I should verify whether such documents actually exist and are current. This is the crux.\n\nLet me do the documents lookup.\n\nActually, wait. Let me reconsider. The current KYC file is the authoritative, most-recent view (refreshed 2025-04-22). It says remittance_declared = none declared. That's a strong, current, authoritative statement. The prior alert closures are just rationales written by other analysts; they're not authoritative documentation. And they contradict the current KYC.\n\nBut \"agreement on file\" (from A-4824) is a different thing from \"remittance declared.\" A settlement agreement could be a separate document. Let me check documents to be safe.\n\nI'll look up documents. This is the decisive check.\n\nLet me do it.\n",
      "call": {
        "promptTokens": 1697,
        "completionTokens": 3703,
        "reasoningTokens": null,
        "durationMs": 151115,
        "finishReason": "stop"
      },
      "info": {
        "action": {
          "action": "lookup",
          "what": "documents"
        },
        "rejection": null,
        "observation": "DOCUMENTS ON FILE:\n  doc.D-5045  [identity]  Government-issued identity document, verified at onboarding\n  doc.D-8578  [closing_statement]  Closing statement \u2014 sale of 266 Birch Avenue; net proceeds to seller disbursed by Iwata Title & Escrow.\n\nHours spent so far: 1.10. You have 6 replies left."
      }
    },
    {
      "reply": "\n\n{\"action\":\"lookup\",\"what\":\"counterparty\",\"id\":\"CP-2\"}",
      "reasoning": "Let me think about this case carefully.\n\nCustomer: Andre Nakamura, teacher, US individual, stated income 106,000 USD/year. Expected activity: salary individual, payroll deposits and routine spending. Expected monthly cash 0.\n\n12-month summary: consistent ACH inflows around 8,850-8,950 per month (payroll), small cash withdrawals. No wires for 11 months. Then in March 2026: wire inflow 252,000 from CP-2, next day wire outflow 219,200 to CP-3. This is the alert: funds received and moved out again within 48 hours (R-VEL-02).\n\nPrior alerts: 3, all closed. Notably A-4824 (same rule R-VEL-02) fired 2025-03-19, closed as \"pass-through matches settlement terms of agreement on file; counterparty verified.\" Interesting \u2014 but wait, in the 12-month summary there are no wires in March 2025. Hmm, the 12-month window is 2025-04 through 2026-03. A-4824 fired 2025-03-19, which is just before the window. So the prior pass-through was outside the window.\n\nDocuments: doc.D-8578 \u2014 closing statement \u2014 sale of 266 Birch Avenue; net proceeds to seller disbursed by Iwata Title & Escrow. This is a real-estate sale. This could document the source of funds: 252,000 wire inflow could be net proceeds from house sale, and 219,200 outflow could be... something else, like purchase of another property? Or a down payment?\n\nWait, but the customer is a teacher with income 106,000. A 252,000 wire from CP-2 \u2014 is CP-2 a title/escrow company? I need to check the counterparty. CP-2: 1 transaction, 252,000 USD inflow. CP-3: 1 transaction, 219,200 outflow.\n\nKey question: is this a legitimate real-estate transaction (sale proceeds received, then used for something like a new home purchase), or is it a pass-through/funnel account with unknown counterparties?\n\nThe prior alert A-4824 on the same rule was closed citing \"settlement terms of agreement on file; counterparty verified\" \u2014 but the prior_alerts lookup didn't show which document that was. The documents currently on file include a closing statement for a house sale. The rationale for A-4824 mentions \"agreement on file\" \u2014 possibly a real-estate purchase agreement.\n\nHmm, wait. Let me reconsider: A-4824 fired 2025-03-19, closed as \"pass-through matches settlement terms of agreement on file; counterparty verified.\" But in the 12-month summary, there are no wires at all in the window (April 2025 through February 2026). If A-4824 fired 2025-03-19, the transactions would be in March 2025, just before the window. So there was a pass-through in March 2025 that was closed based on a settlement agreement.\n\nNow in March 2026, another pass-through: 252,000 in from CP-2, 219,200 out to CP-3, one day later. And there's a closing statement on file for a house sale with net proceeds disbursed by Iwata Title & Escrow.\n\nHypothesis: the customer sold a house (266 Birch Avenue), received 252,000 as net proceeds from the escrow company (CP-2 = Iwata Title & Escrow?), and then wired 219,200 to CP-3 for the purchase of a new property (down payment or full payment?). This would be a legitimate real-estate transaction, with documented source of funds (closing statement doc.D-8578).\n\nAlternatively, this could be a mule/funnel account: large wire in, most of it quickly wired out to an unknown party, with 32,800 retained (13% retained). The 32,800 remainder looks like a \"fee\" \u2014 typical of mule activity where the mule keeps a cut. But a teacher receiving a 32,800 fee?\n\nLet me check the counterparties. CP-2: if it's Iwata Title & Escrow (title company, US), that supports the house-sale hypothesis. CP-3: need to check \u2014 could be another title company (new purchase), or could be an individual in a high-risk jurisdiction, or shared with other alerted accounts.\n\nThe counterparty lookup shows \"how many other alerted accounts share it\" \u2014 a key mule indicator. If CP-3 is shared with many other alerted accounts, that's a strong escalation signal.\n\nAlso note: kyc.remittance_declared = none declared. Prior alert A-1410 was closed as \"destination and amount match the remittance declared at onboarding\" \u2014 this is contradictory: the KYC says no remittance was declared. Hmm, that's odd. Maybe the prior alert's rationale is just boilerplate, or maybe the KYC was refreshed 2025-04-22 and the declaration was wiped. Either way, it's a data inconsistency, but not decisive.\n\nAlso, expected_monthly_cash = 0.00, and the customer withdraws about 900 in cash per month \u2014 small, no problem.\n\nLet me think about the scoring: a close on an alert that should have been escalated scores zero. An escalation on a clean customer scores half on the counterweight and zero on the rest. So I need to be careful.\n\nEvidence so far:\n- 11 months of clean, consistent payroll activity.\n- Sudden 252,000 wire in, 219,200 wire out next day.\n- A closing statement on file for a house sale (doc.D-8578) \u2014 source of funds potentially documented.\n- Prior alert on the same rule was closed citing settlement terms of an agreement on file.\n- CP-2 and CP-3 are each single-transaction counterparties.\n\nThe closing statement is a strong document. If CP-2 is Iwata Title & Escrow, the source of funds is documented: net proceeds from house sale. Then what about the 219,200 outflow? For a close on DOCUMENTED_SOURCE_OF_FUNDS, I need to explain both sides, or at least the inflow. The outflow could be a down payment on a new home \u2014 but is there a document for that? Not on file. Hmm.\n\nAlternatively, the outflow could be to the customer's own investment/brokerage account, or to a relative. I need to check CP-3.\n\nLet me look up both counterparties. That's 0.80 hours. I have 6 replies left, 1.10 hours spent. Total budget is probably not stated in hours, just 8 replies. Each lookup costs 0.40.\n\nPlan:\n1. Look up CP-2 (0.40) \u2192 check if it's Iwata Title & Escrow, jurisdiction, other alerted accounts sharing it.\n2. Look up CP-3 (0.40) \u2192 check who the outflow went to.\n3. Possibly look up March 2026 history (0.40) to see the 6 transactions in March and check for anything else (e.g., a real-estate purchase ACH, or other wires).\n4. Then decide.\n\nActually, let me do the two counterparty lookups first. Those are most decisive.\n\nReply 3: Look up CP-2.\n",
      "call": {
        "promptTokens": 1810,
        "completionTokens": 1784,
        "reasoningTokens": null,
        "durationMs": 61750,
        "finishReason": "stop"
      },
      "info": {
        "action": {
          "action": "lookup",
          "what": "counterparty",
          "id": "CP-2"
        },
        "rejection": null,
        "observation": "COUNTERPARTY CP-2  Iwata Title & Escrow\n  type title_company; jurisdiction United States; first seen 2026-03-18\n  other alerted accounts sharing this counterparty in twelve months: 1\n  transactions: T-52\n\nHours spent so far: 1.55. You have 5 replies left."
      }
    },
    {
      "reply": "\n\n{\"action\":\"lookup\",\"what\":\"counterparty\",\"id\":\"CP-3\"}",
      "reasoning": "Let me analyze the case:\n\n- Alert A-6081: R-VEL-02 \u2014 Funds received and moved out again within 48 hours\n- T-52: 2026-03-18 wire_in 252,000 USD from CP-2 (Iwata Title & Escrow, a title company)\n- T-54: 2026-03-19 wire_out 219,200 USD to CP-3\n\nKYC: Andre Nakamura, teacher, US, expected activity is payroll and routine spending. Stated income 106,000/year. No remittance declared. Account opened 2022.\n\nTwelve-month summary: Very consistent pattern \u2014 ACH in ~8,900/month (salary), small cash out, no wires. Then in 2026-03, suddenly 252,000 wire in and 219,200 wire out.\n\nDocuments: There's a closing statement \u2014 \"sale of 266 Birch Avenue; net proceeds to seller disbursed by Iwata Title & Escrow.\" This is a real estate sale! The 252,000 wire in from Iwata Title & Escrow (CP-2) is the net proceeds from a home sale.\n\nThis is a classic documented source of funds situation. The customer sold a house, received the proceeds via wire from the title company, and moved most of it out (219,200) to CP-3.\n\nThe prior alert A-4824 was for the same rule R-VEL-02 and was closed because \"pass-through matches the settlement terms in the agreement on file; counterparties verified.\" That was a year ago though.\n\nThe key question: Is this a legitimate home sale pass-through, or is this a funnel account / rapid movement typology?\n\nFactors for legitimate:\n- CP-2 is a title company (Iwata Title & Escrow) \u2014 classic source of real estate proceeds\n- There's a closing statement on file (doc.D-8578) documenting the sale of 266 Birch Avenue, with net proceeds disbursed by Iwata Title & Escrow\n- The amount (252,000) is consistent with net proceeds from a home sale\n- This is a one-time event in an otherwise very consistent salary-only account\n- The customer is a US teacher, PEP false\n\nFactors for concern:\n- The rapid movement out (219,200 to CP-3) within 48 hours triggered the velocity rule\n- CP-3 is unknown \u2014 I haven't looked it up\n- The account had zero wire activity before this\n- 1 other alerted account shares CP-2\n\nBut the closing statement document directly explains the source of funds. This is a documented source of funds situation. The home sale proceeds came in, and the customer moved the bulk out (likely to another account or for a new purchase).\n\nLet me check CP-3 to see where the money went. Actually, let me think about whether I need to. The disposition options are:\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 documented source of funds (home sale) is clear from doc.D-8578 and CP-2 being a title company. This strongly points to DOCUMENTED_SOURCE_OF_FUNDS.\n\nBut wait \u2014 I should verify CP-3 to make sure the outflow isn't to something suspicious (like a mule or funnel). Let me look at CP-3. Actually, the fact that 219,200 went out to a single counterparty CP-3 within 48 hours of receiving 252,000 is the velocity trigger. If CP-3 is just another title company or a bank, it's fine. If it's something odd, I need to know.\n\nLet me look up CP-3 to be thorough before deciding. I have 5 replies left.\n\nActually, the strongest case here is DOCUMENTED_SOURCE_OF_FUNDS. The home sale is documented. But the rapid movement to an unknown CP-3 is a red flag that I should verify. Let me check CP-3.\n\nLet me look up CP-3.\n",
      "call": {
        "promptTokens": 1920,
        "completionTokens": 980,
        "reasoningTokens": null,
        "durationMs": 31097,
        "finishReason": "stop"
      },
      "info": {
        "action": {
          "action": "lookup",
          "what": "counterparty",
          "id": "CP-3"
        },
        "rejection": null,
        "observation": "COUNTERPARTY CP-3  Harbor Securities\n  type brokerage; jurisdiction United States; first seen 2026-03-19\n  other alerted accounts sharing this counterparty in twelve months: 0\n  transactions: T-54\n\nHours spent so far: 2.00. You have 4 replies left."
      }
    },
    {
      "reply": "\n\n{\"action\":\"close\",\"reason\":\"DOCUMENTED_SOURCE_OF_FUNDS\",\"cites\":[\"doc.D-8578\",\"T-52\",\"CP-2\",\"T-54\",\"CP-3\"],\"note\":\"T-52 ($252,000 wire in) is from Iwata Title & Escrow (CP-2), a US title company, matching the closing statement on file (doc.D-8578) for the sale of 266 Birch Avenue with net proceeds disbursed by that same title company. T-54 ($219,200 wire out) went to Harbor Securities (CP-3), a US brokerage with no other alerted accounts \u2014 a routine investment of real-estate proceeds. The 48-hour pass-through is consistent with a closing disbursement followed by a same-day investment instruction. No layering, structuring, or mule indicators.\"}",
      "reasoning": "Let me analyze this case:\n\n**Customer profile:**\n- Andre Nakamura, US individual, teacher, stated income $106,000/year\n- Expected activity: payroll deposits and routine spending\n- Account opened 2022-01-15, KYC refreshed 2025-04-22\n- 3 prior alerts, 0 prior SARs\n\n**Twelve-month pattern:**\n- Extremely consistent: ~$8,850-8,950/month ACH in, ~$390-1,170/month cash out\n- No wires at all in 11 months\n- March 2026: sudden $252,000 wire in from CP-2, $219,200 wire out to CP-3\n\n**The alert:**\n- R-VEL-02: Funds received and moved out within 48 hours\n- T-52: 2026-03-18, wire_in $252,000 from CP-2\n- T-54: 2026-03-19, wire_out $219,200 to CP-3\n\n**Counterparties:**\n- CP-2: Iwata Title & Escrow (title company, US, first seen 2026-03-18, 1 other alerted account shares it)\n- CP-3: Harbor Securities (brokerage, US, first seen 2026-03-19, 0 other alerted accounts share it)\n\n**Documents:**\n- doc.D-5045: Identity document\n- doc.D-8578: Closing statement \u2014 sale of 266 Birch Avenue; net proceeds to seller disbursed by Iwata Title & Escrow\n\n**Prior alerts:**\n- A-4824 (R-VEL-02): Closed \u2014 \"pass-through matches the settlement terms in the agreement on file; counterparties verified\"\n- A-1410 (R-WIRE-04): Closed \u2014 \"destination and amount match the remittance declared at onboarding; within stated income\"\n- A-2317 (R-CASH-03): Closed \u2014 \"seasonal peak consistent with expected activity\"\n\n**Analysis:**\n\nThis looks like a real estate sale. The customer sold a property (266 Birch Avenue) and Iwata Title & Escrow (a title company) wired the net proceeds ($252,000) to the customer's account. The customer then wired $219,200 to Harbor Securities (a brokerage) \u2014 likely to invest the proceeds.\n\nKey facts:\n1. The $252,000 wire in is from a title company (Iwata Title & Escrow), which is consistent with a real estate closing\n2. There's a document on file (doc.D-8578) that is a closing statement for the sale of 266 Birch Avenue, with net proceeds disbursed by Iwata Title & Escrow\n3. The wire out to a brokerage (Harbor Securities) is a common and legitimate use of real estate proceeds \u2014 investing them\n4. The customer is a teacher with $106,000 stated income \u2014 $252,000 is well above their annual income, but it's explained by the property sale\n5. The 48-hour pass-through is consistent with the typical process of receiving closing funds and then directing them to a brokerage for investment\n6. CP-2 has 1 other alerted account sharing it \u2014 this is somewhat notable but not conclusive. Title companies handle many transactions, and if another account was also involved in a property closing, that's not unusual.\n7. CP-3 (brokerage) has 0 other alerted accounts \u2014 clean\n\n**Should this be escalated or closed?**\n\nArguments for closing:\n- Documented source of funds: real estate sale (doc.D-8578)\n- The counterparty (title company) matches the document\n- The wire out to a brokerage is a legitimate use of proceeds\n- The pattern is consistent with a one-time real estate transaction\n- Prior alert A-4824 was also R-VEL-02 and was closed with similar reasoning about pass-through matching settlement terms\n\nArguments for escalating:\n- The volume ($252,000) is far beyond the customer's stated income ($106,000/year)\n- The 48-hour pass-through is a classic layering pattern\n- CP-2 has 1 other alerted account sharing it\n- The customer's expected activity is \"payroll deposits and routine spending\" \u2014 a $252K wire is completely outside that\n\nHowever, I think the documented source of funds (the closing statement for the property sale) is strong evidence that this is legitimate. The title company is a known, legitimate entity type. The wire to a brokerage is a normal thing to do with real estate proceeds.\n\nThe fact that CP-2 has 1 other alerted account is a minor concern but not enough to override the documented source. Title companies handle many closings, and it's not unusual for multiple accounts to be involved in property transactions.\n\nI think this should be closed with DOCUMENTED_SOURCE_OF_FUNDS. The closing statement (doc.D-8578) documents the sale of 266 Birch Avenue and that Iwata Title & Escrow disbursed the net proceeds. The wire in from CP-2 (Iwata Title & Escrow) matches this. The wire out to a brokerage is a legitimate use of the proceeds.\n\nLet me cite:\n- doc.D-8578 (the closing statement documenting the property sale)\n- T-52 (the wire in from the title company)\n- T-54 (the wire out to the brokerage)\n- CP-2 (the title company)\n- CP-3 (the brokerage)\n- kyc.stated_income (to note the amount is above income but explained by property sale)\n\nActually, let me think about whether to cite kyc.stated_income. The $252K is above the $106K stated income, but that's expected for a property sale. I don't need to cite that as a deciding factor.\n\nThe deciding facts:\n1. doc.D-8578: Closing statement for sale of 266 Birch Avenue, net proceeds disbursed by Iwata Title & Escrow\n2. T-52: Wire in from CP-2 (Iwata Title & Escrow) matching the closing statement\n3. CP-2: Title company, US jurisdiction\n4. T-54: Wire out to CP-3 (Harbor Securities, a brokerage)\n5. CP-3: Brokerage, US jurisdiction, no other alerted accounts\n\nThis is a clean real estate closing followed by investment of proceeds. Close with DOCUMENTED_SOURCE_OF_FUNDS.\n",
      "call": {
        "promptTokens": 2024,
        "completionTokens": 1704,
        "reasoningTokens": null,
        "durationMs": 48510,
        "finishReason": "stop"
      },
      "info": {
        "action": {
          "action": "close",
          "reason": "DOCUMENTED_SOURCE_OF_FUNDS",
          "cites": [
            "doc.D-8578",
            "T-52",
            "CP-2",
            "T-54",
            "CP-3"
          ],
          "note": "T-52 ($252,000 wire in) is from Iwata Title & Escrow (CP-2), a US title company, matching the closing statement on file (doc.D-8578) for the sale of 266 Birch Avenue with net proceeds disbursed by that same title company. T-54 ($219,200 wire out) went to Harbor Securities (CP-3), a US brokerage with no other alerted accounts \u2014 a routine investment of real-estate proceeds. The 48-hour pass-through is consistent with a closing disbursement followed by a same-day investment instruction. No layering, structuring, or mule indicators."
        },
        "rejection": null,
        "observation": "Disposition recorded. The episode is over."
      }
    }
  ]
}
