> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://docs.layerlens.ai/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://docs.layerlens.ai/more-in-this-section-2/scenarios-2.md).
# Financial services scenarios
Financial-services AI carries asymmetric risk: false negatives cost direct losses (fraud, mis-pricing); false positives drive customer friction and fair-lending exposure. Every scenario below pairs accuracy with fair-treatment evaluation.
## Fraud detection
**Setup:** AI analyzes transaction patterns, account behavior, and device signals to detect potential fraud in real-time.
**Why evaluation is hard:** detection rate is the obvious metric, but **false-positive disparity by demographic** drives fair-lending exposure that's invisible to aggregate accuracy.
**Stakes:** $4.2B annual US card fraud (Federal Reserve / Nilson Report); per-declined-legitimate-transaction friction \~$25 (card-network industry benchmarks); ECOA fair-lending civil penalties on systematic bias.
**Eval criteria:**
* Custom code grader — detection precision/recall on labeled fraud dataset
* Custom code grader — false-positive rate disparity across protected-class proxies (1.25× ratio threshold)
* Faithfulness judge — explanation quality for SAR (Suspicious Activity Report) filing
* Latency scorer — decision time under SLA
**Trace shape:**
```
trace
├── span: feature-extraction (transaction, account, device)
├── span: model-scoring (risk score)
├── span: explanation-generation (for SAR-eligible decisions)
└── span: outcome (approve / decline / flag-for-review)
```
## Advisory / robo-advisor chatbot
**Setup:** AI provides personalized investment guidance, portfolio recommendations, market analysis to retail investors.
**Why evaluation is hard:** suitability violations (recommending unsuitable products to a customer's risk profile) are FINRA enforcement targets — recent sweeps include $1M-$50M fines. Required disclosures must appear consistently.
**Stakes:** SEC / FINRA enforcement bands ($1M-$50M); customer losses + civil litigation; failure to disclose risk-of-loss; bias toward proprietary products.
**Eval criteria:**
* Faithfulness judge (GEPA-tuned ≥50 examples) — performance and product claims grounded in real fund data
* Suitability judge (GEPA-tuned ≥50 examples per risk-profile band) — recommendation matches customer's stated risk tolerance
* Disclaimer-presence scorer — required FINRA disclosures appear in every recommendation
* No-specific-recommendation rule — customer-facing AI never recommends specific securities (deterministic regex)
## KYC / AML document review
**Setup:** AI verifies identity documents (passports, driver's licenses, utility bills) and screens against sanctions / PEP / adverse-media lists.
**Why evaluation is hard:** sanctions-screening recall must be \~100%. Document authenticity detection must catch digitally altered documents.
**Stakes:** FinCEN penalties ($1M-$1B per BSA/AML enforcement action); correspondent banking relationship loss; onboarding fraudulent accounts.
**Eval criteria:**
* Sanctions-coverage rule — every input name screened against the active sanctions list (recall 100%)
* Document-authenticity scorer — image-tamper detection on submitted IDs and bills
* OCR-accuracy scorer — field extraction matches certified-coder ground truth
* Adverse-media judge — relevance scoring for media hits
* PEP-identification scorer — politically-exposed-person matches against the active PEP database
## Loan / mortgage document processing
**Setup:** AI extracts structured data from loan applications, tax returns, bank statements, pay stubs for underwriting.
**Why evaluation is hard:** Schedule C self-employment income parsing is a known weak point — depreciation add-backs, multiple schedules, net-vs-gross.
**Stakes:** $50K-$500K per bad loan; TILA / ECOA violations; manual rework cost; audit failures.
**Eval criteria:**
* Field-level extraction scorer — names, amounts, dates, account numbers exact-match against ground truth
* Cross-document consistency judge — values match across application + W-2 + bank statement
* Schedule C / self-employment numeric scorer — income computation matches certified-coder ground truth
* PII-redaction rule — no SSN / account-number echo in any logged span
## Trading compliance / SOX-aligned advisory
**Setup:** AI assists trading workflows — recommendations, audit narration, compliance checks.
**Why evaluation is hard:** SOX trading compliance requires immutable narration of decision rationale. Suitability for institutional vs. retail counterparties differs.
**Stakes:** SOX violations; SEC/FINRA enforcement; fiduciary breach litigation.
**Eval criteria:**
* Audit-narration faithfulness judge — every claim cites the underlying market data or policy
* Suitability judge (per counterparty type) — recommendation matches counterparty's authorized scope
* Position-limit rule — recommendation doesn't breach hard position limits
* Required-disclaimer scorer — SOX/FINRA disclosures present
## See also
* [Industry pattern: fair-lending platform pattern](/4.2-industry-use-cases/pattern-1.md) — these scenarios composed into one runnable evaluation
* [Eval patterns](/more-in-this-section-2/eval-patterns-2.md) | [Compliance](/more-in-this-section-2/compliance-2.md)
* [SDK sample: financial\_fraud.py](https://github.com/layerlens/stratix-python/blob/main/samples/industry/financial_fraud.py)
* [SDK sample: financial\_trading.py](https://github.com/layerlens/stratix-python/blob/main/samples/industry/financial_trading.py)
---
# Agent Instructions
This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com.
## Querying This Documentation
If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question.
Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter, and the optional `goal` query parameter:
```
GET https://docs.layerlens.ai/more-in-this-section-2/scenarios-2.md?ask=&goal=
```
`ask` is the immediate question: it should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language.
`goal` is optional and describes the broader end goal you are ultimately trying to accomplish on behalf of the user. GitBook uses it to tailor the answer towards what is most useful for that goal.
The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation.
Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.