Skip to main content

AI & Machine Learning × Financial Services

AI Agents for Banking.

Production-grade AI agents for retail banks, commercial banks, and capital-markets operators: KYC triage, AML investigation, dispute resolution, branch-banker copilots, and customer-service automation. Built by CORTEX dept leads against eval frameworks, tool-use approval gates, and the audit trails your second-line risk and regulator will actually accept.

Privacy
GDPR · GLBA · CCPA
Risk
SR 11-7 · OCC model risk
Auditing
Per-call lineage + decision logs
Safety
Tool-use approval gates · HITL

The problem

Banks need agents auditable by a regulator, not a demo crowd.

Banking buyers come to AI agents with the same ask every quarter: deflect tier-1 service volume, accelerate KYC and AML investigations, summarize dispute cases, and put a relationship-banker copilot in front of every advisor. The pattern that fails them is a chatbot bolted onto a retrieval layer: confident, untested, and unable to evidence its decisions when a model-risk officer or supervisor asks. The first time the agent waives a fee it shouldn't, the program goes to the freezer.

Production banking agents need three things consumer-grade AI doesn't have: a tool-use boundary that's auditable line-by-line (every action logged, every approval gate documented), an eval framework calibrated against ground truth from your actual case files, and a model-risk frame (SR 11-7, OCC bulletin 2011-12) the second line will sign. We design those in from week one, not as a phase-2 cleanup after the regulator asks.

Where it ships

6 workloads, scoped to financial services.

Concrete applications where ai & machine learning unlocks measurable value inside financial services delivery constraints.

  • 01

    55%

    analyst time saved

    KYC / onboarding triage agent

    Reviews onboarding packages, flags identity-document mismatches, runs sanctions and PEP screens, and drafts the analyst note. Tools: ID-verification APIs, sanctions feed, document store, case-management write with approval gate.

  • 02

    3.2×

    alerts cleared per analyst

    AML alert investigation agent

    Triages transaction-monitoring alerts: pulls counterparty history, surfaces typology matches, drafts SAR-narrative candidates. Bounded to read-only on core systems; SAR filing stays human.

  • 03

    Dispute resolution agent

    Handles cardholder disputes: pulls transaction history, matches against chargeback rules (Visa / Mastercard / network), drafts resolution. Issues credits within policy thresholds; escalates exceptions.

  • 04

    Relationship-banker copilot

    In-branch and RM-facing agent: customer-360 summarization, next-best-action suggestions, regulatory-disclosure prompts. Read-only on customer data; suggestions require banker confirmation before customer contact.

  • 05

    Customer-service triage agent

    Tier-1 retail-banking service: balance, transaction history, card replacement, simple service requests. Tools: core-banking read APIs, card-services, IVR / chat platform integration. Approval gate on monetary transactions.

  • 06

    Internal ops + complaint-handling copilot

    Agent for ops and complaint teams: case-summarization, regulatory-categorization (Reg E / Reg Z / CFPB taxonomy), root-cause clustering. Inside Pega / NICE / ServiceNow workflows; not a separate UI.

How we engage

4 phases, named in the SOW.

Each phase has a deliverable, an owner, and an acceptance criterion calibrated to financial services delivery.

  1. 01

    Use-case + model-risk discovery

    Three-week discovery: candidate use cases, customer-impact tier per use case, model-risk classification (SR 11-7 tiering), data-residency and consent frame, second-line stakeholder map. Output is a prioritized roadmap with approval gates and HITL checkpoints designed before any code.

  2. 02

    Eval-first build with regulator-grade ground truth

    Build the eval set from real case files: labeled by your senior analysts, not synthetic data. Metrics: accuracy, refusal rate, escalation rate, false-positive cost. Agent ships against the eval; no eval, no production.

  3. 03

    Production hardening + auditable tool-use

    Tool-use whitelist with explicit approval gates on monetary actions, customer contact, and regulatory submissions. Per-call logs with prompt + tool calls + decisions + reviewer-of-record. Drift monitoring against the eval set; alerting wired to risk and ops.

  4. 04

    Model-risk handoff + operating cadence

    Model-risk documentation (SR 11-7-aligned) handed to the second line. Weekly performance review with risk + business; monthly model-update gate; quarterly model-risk recertification. The cadence isn't optional in regulated banking; we build for it.

Capabilities

What’s in scope.

  • Production AI agent design with tool-use boundaries and monetary approval gates
  • Eval frameworks for regulated banking: KYC, AML, disputes, service
  • Integration with core banking (FIS, Fiserv, Jack Henry, Temenos, custom)
  • AML / KYC stack integration: NICE Actimize, Verafin, SAS, Refinitiv, custom
  • Case-management integration: Pega, ServiceNow, custom workflow engines
  • Model-risk documentation aligned to SR 11-7 and OCC bulletin 2011-12
  • Drift monitoring, prompt-versioning, regression suites, approval-gate audit

Stack

Tools we use in production.

LLM platforms
Claude (Bedrock / Azure)GPT (Azure OpenAI)Llama 3 / 4 (self-hosted)
Agent frameworks
LangGraphDSPySemantic KernelCustom runtimes
Core banking integration
FISFiservJack HenryTemenosCustom cores
Risk + compliance
NICE ActimizeVerafinSAS AMLRefinitiv World-CheckComplyAdvantage
Eval + observability
LangfuseArizeWeights & BiasesCustom eval harnesses

Compliance overlay

Frameworks we engineer to.

Every financial services engagement carries the evidence collection that procurement and audit teams expect on day one.

  1. 01

    SR 11-7 / OCC 2011-12 model risk

    Every agent we ship into a regulated banking workflow is documented as a model: development data, evaluation methodology, ongoing monitoring, and effective challenge by an independent function. We hand the documentation to your second line in their format, not a vendor's.

  2. 02

    GLBA · GDPR · CCPA

    Customer-data access bounded by purpose-of-use and consent. Per-call data lineage logged. Data-export, right-to-deletion, and right-to-rectification flows tested. Data residency configurable per jurisdiction (EU, US, GCC).

  3. 03

    BSA / AML · Reg E / Reg Z

    AML agents support, never replace, the BSA officer's judgment. Reg E dispute-handling agents track timeline obligations explicitly. Reg Z disclosures required during banker-copilot interactions are surfaced and logged. The agent doesn't violate a regulation by accident; the design prevents it.

Where this fits

Open the parent practice or industry hub.

Common questions

Asked before the first call.

  1. 01

    Will our model-risk function actually accept an LLM-based agent?

    It will if you scope it correctly. The framing that works: the agent is a model, it gets documented as a model (SR 11-7 / OCC 2011-12), and the tool-use boundary defines what decisions are model-driven vs. human-of-record. Refund-issuance, SAR-filing, and credit decisions stay human; the agent triages, summarizes, and recommends. With that scoping, model-risk approval is achievable. We've shipped it.

  2. 02

    What about hallucinations in regulated workflows?

    Three guardrails. (1) Retrieval-grounded: the agent answers from your case data, policy, and product disclosures, not open generation. (2) Refusal-first: out-of-scope queries escalate; the agent doesn't guess. (3) Eval-checked: accuracy and policy-conformance rubrics catch regressions before they ship. Hallucination is a design problem, not an inherent property of LLMs.

  3. 03

    How do you handle customer data residency and consent?

    Per-call data lineage is logged; data residency is configurable per jurisdiction (we deploy in Azure / AWS regions appropriate to your customer base). Consent is wired into the tool layer: agents can't access customer data outside a documented consent envelope. Data-export, right-to-deletion, and right-to-rectification flows are tested as part of acceptance.

  4. 04

    Can the agent handle the regulator-presentation layer?

    Yes, and this is often where the value is largest. Agents can summarize a quarter of cases for a regulatory exam, draft the response to a Matter-Requiring-Attention, or generate the consistency-check view across a Reg E queue. The agent doesn't sign the response; the regulatory-relations function does. But the prep time falls 60–80%.

  5. 05

    What does ROI typically look like?

    On AML alert triage: 2.5–4× alerts cleared per analyst within nine months; false-positive review time falls 60–75%. On dispute resolution: 40–55% cycle-time reduction. On KYC: 50–70% analyst-hours saved on standard-risk onboarding. Customer-service tier-1 deflection: 50–65% with CSAT held vs. human baseline. Economics work above ~50,000 monthly customer interactions or ~3,000 monthly alerts.

  6. 06

    What does an engagement cost?

    Discovery + eval-set build: 4–6 weeks, $80K–$160K. Production agent build (single use case): 5–8 months, $400K–$1.0M. Multi-agent estate (KYC + AML + dispute + service): 9–14 months, $1.2M–$3.0M. Managed services post-launch: $30K–$120K monthly retainer covering eval iteration, drift monitoring, model updates, and the SR 11-7 recertification cadence.

Talk to us

Bring us a hard AI & Machine Learning problem. We’ll bring a senior Financial Services engineer.

A senior engineer plus the CORTEX department lead joins the first call, both with prior financial services delivery experience.