Monitor the whole book, continuously.

Continuous re-screening of your existing customer book as sanctions lists, PEP status and adverse media change, so a customer who becomes a match after onboarding is caught when the change happens rather than at the next scheduled batch cycle, which could be weeks later. Risk does not stop accumulating at the moment a customer is first cleared: a person can become politically exposed, a company can come under new ownership that triggers the 50% Rule, or adverse media can surface about a previously clean customer at any point during the relationship. Ongoing monitoring exists specifically to catch these changes in the gap between onboarding and whatever periodic review cycle a firm might otherwise rely on. Because monitoring runs on the same entity-resolution engine as onboarding screening, a new match surfaced during monitoring is scored and de-duplicated with the same rigor as a first-time screen, not treated as a lower-priority afterthought.

Batch re-screening produces large alert spikes full of false positives every time it runs, because an entire customer book is matched against updated lists all at once rather than continuously, and any list update that affects common names creates a flood that overwhelms the team on review day and then goes quiet until the next batch. Our screening system monitors continuously and applies agentic entity resolution to every change as it happens, so the team sees a steady, manageable, prioritized queue instead of a periodic flood followed by a lull. This also closes the exposure window that batch cycles leave open: a customer who becomes a sanctions match the day after a batch run would otherwise go undetected until the next scheduled cycle, which could be weeks away, whereas continuous monitoring catches that change close to when it actually occurs, which is when the exposure is most actionable.

Yes. Every alert and disposition is recorded, giving a clear, examiner-ready history of how risk on the book was detected and handled, not just a log of which alerts fired but a record of what a reviewer decided and why for each one. Examiners tend to look closely at how a firm handles risk that emerges mid-relationship, after the initial onboarding decision was already made, since that is where gaps in a compliance program are most likely to show up. The same case-record structure used for onboarding screening applies here, so a monitoring alert and an onboarding hit are documented with the same rigor and are retrievable using the same process, rather than monitoring being treated as a lighter-weight, less-documented workflow than the initial screen.