Assemble the transaction record
Organize transactions, dates, amounts, counterparties, and channels from approved records.
Compliance workflow / AML narratives
AML narratives are explanation work, not just writing work.
We build private workflows that assemble transaction timelines, connect unusual activity to customer context, and prepare a narrative draft for the compliance owner to review. The draft carries evidence; it does not file, decide, or clear the account.
Transaction timelineCustomer contextIndicator notesCompliance review
Pattern demonstration / same workflow, synthetic material
Fixed-scope setupClient-owned accountsDraft-and-review firstFull handover
Where narrative drafting loses time
The evidence exists. The explanation does not.
A useful narrative connects what happened, why it is plausible or unusual, and the review decision without inventing facts.
Connect the customer story
Bring in onboarding, occupation, purpose, source-of-funds, and prior review notes as context.
Prepare the explanation
Draft a narrative that states the pattern, the plausible explanations, and the open questions for review.
The AML boundary
The system drafts the explanation. It does not clear the account.
No invented explanations
Every statement in the draft is mapped to an approved record, transaction, or review note.
Compliance decides
The narrative is prepared for the compliance owner to correct, approve, or reject before it represents the institution.
No filing or freeze
Filing, reporting, account action, and regulator communication remain explicit human decisions.
A first narrative workflow
Start with one alert type or review queue.
Choose the narrative type
Pick the alert, review, or investigation output the team prepares most often.
Map the source records
List the transaction, customer, screening, and review systems that should feed the draft.
Test with completed cases
Compare the draft against approved narratives and check facts, tone, and open questions.
Hand over the review queue
Deliver the drafts, source links, and decision prompts to the compliance owner.
An AML narrative is only as strong as the evidence behind each sentence.
Why trust Pristine3D?
We build and operate production software.
Pristine3D Ltd builds and operates live digital products, and we run private AI workflows internally as part of our own operations. We scope around your real workflow: the documents you own, the questions your team asks, and the access boundary you approve. Based in Lagos, Nigeria, we work remotely with clients worldwide.
We already run live products
Based in Lagos, Nigeria, Pristine3D currently builds and operates smartcards.ng, venu.ng, photoshoot.ng, and ugc.ng in production.
We start with the actual workflow
One input, one output, one test set, and one person who owns the result. We scope a real workflow instead of a transformation programme.
The boundary stays visible
Cloud, model, storage, and messaging accounts stay in your name. The chosen data path, access rules, test record, documentation, and training are part of the agreed scope.
Pricing / fixed scope
Know the starting numbers before you ask.
The final quote follows the workflow. Infrastructure and model bills stay on your accounts.
One Workflow
Starting from$3,500 / ₦2.5m
2 to 3 weeksOne workflow for a small team, with training and handover.
See the one-workflow packageFirm-wide
Starting from$7,500 / ₦8m
4 to 6 weeksMultiple sources, roles, integrations, and admin handover.
See the deploymentAnnual support
Starting from$3,000 / ₦1.5m
per yearStandard care for one delivered workflow. Optional. Larger deployments and active monitoring are separately scoped.
See supportArchitecture review from $500. Standard annual support is $3,000 / ₦1.5m per year for one delivered workflow. New workflows, integrations, active monitoring, and infrastructure are separately scoped; infrastructure, model, storage, and messaging bills stay on client accounts. Full pricing and what changes the quote
Straight answers
Common questions.
Does this file a suspicious transaction report?
No. It prepares the draft and evidence pack. Filing and responsibility stay with the institution and its compliance owner.
Can it decide whether activity is suspicious?
No. It organizes evidence and prepares explanations. Suspicion, escalation, and conclusions stay with the qualified review owner.
How is this different from the KYC workflow?
That page builds the customer file. This page produces the narrative artifact from transaction, context, and review evidence.
Own your knowledge base
The model is not the product. The knowledge base is.
Documents, the retrieval index, access rules, and the workflows built around them are the asset, and they compound. We deploy so the knowledge base stays yours: on your accounts, in the environment you choose, under access rules your team defines. The model behind the answers is a connector, so the knowledge base moves with you, not with a vendor.
Your corpus, your index
The document store, metadata, and retrieval setup live on accounts you own. No vendor holds the corpus.
Models are swappable parts
Change the model provider, move regions, or go local without rebuilding the knowledge base or the workflow.
The knowledge base is the alpha
Every improvement to the corpus improves the answers, and the improvement stays with you, not with a vendor.
Keep exploring
Related setups.
Start with the queue
Which AML review keeps needing a written explanation?
Tell us the alert type, the source systems, and the review owner. We will scope a draft-first workflow around the evidence you already hold.