CBSNexora/cbsnexora
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions 2 Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

feat(aml,risk-review,accounting): update financial activity mapping options, AML flagged transactions filters, and risk review report

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
keshav
2026-09-18 10:32:47 +05:30
parent 0cef1b5a50
commit f9b73a4930
14 changed files with 863 additions and 234 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
src/app/risk-review/risk-change-approvals.component.ts
+15 -4
View File
@@ -92,7 +92,9 @@ const CATEGORY_LABEL: Record<number, string> = { 1: 'Low', 2: 'Medium', 3: 'High
</td>
<td class="rca-reason">{{ r.reason }}</td>
<td>
<span class="rca-status" [ngClass]="'rca-status--' + (r.status || '').toLowerCase()">{{ r.status }}</span>
<span class="rca-status" [ngClass]="'rca-status--' + (r.status || '').toLowerCase()">{{
r.status
}}</span>
</td>
<td>{{ r.makerUsername }}</td>
<td class="mono">{{ r.createdDate }}</td>
@@ -250,7 +252,12 @@ export class RiskChangeApprovalsComponent implements OnInit {
private snackBar = inject(MatSnackBar);
rows: any[] = [];
readonly statuses = ['PENDING', 'APPROVED', 'REJECTED', ''];
readonly statuses = [
'PENDING',
'APPROVED',
'REJECTED',
''
];
selectedStatus = 'PENDING';
ngOnInit(): void {
@@ -363,11 +370,15 @@ export class RejectRiskChangeDialogComponent {
private snackBar = inject(MatSnackBar);
dialogRef = inject(MatDialogRef<RejectRiskChangeDialogComponent>);
data: { request: any } = inject(MAT_DIALOG_DATA);
form: FormGroup;
busy = false;
constructor(@Inject(MAT_DIALOG_DATA) public data: { request: any }) {
this.form = this.fb.group({ rejectionReason: ['', Validators.required] });
constructor() {
this.form = this.fb.group({ rejectionReason: [
'',
Validators.required
] });
}
submit(): void {
src/app/risk-review/risk-review-report.component.ts
+17 -12
View File
@@ -264,7 +264,12 @@ export class RiskReviewReportComponent implements OnInit {
)
)
).subscribe((results) => {
const byClient = new Map(results.map((r) => [r.id, r]));
const byClient = new Map(
results.map((r) => [
r.id,
r
])
);
this.liveAlerts = rows.map((r) => {
const info = byClient.get(r.clientId);
return {
@@ -470,24 +475,24 @@ export class RiskReviewReportComponent implements OnInit {
]
},
{
// Its own section, and above "no change needed", because it is the opposite of that. An unrated customer
// whose money is moving has no rating for the behaviour to be compared against, so nothing here can say
// whether it is in keeping - the work is to rate them, and grouping them under "no change needed" buried the
// one action the report was asking for.
// Its own section, and above the watching list, because it is the opposite of that. An unrated customer whose
// money is moving has no rating for the behaviour to be compared against, so nothing here can say whether it
// is in keeping - the work is to give them one, and grouping them with the customers nothing need be done
// about buried the one action the report was asking for.
key: 'unrated',
title: 'Rating needed',
title: 'Update risk',
hint: 'These customers are transacting with no rating on file. Nothing can be judged against a rating that does not exist — rate them first.',
tone: 'up',
rows: rest.filter((c) => !c.currentRisk)
},
{
// Everything an alert put on the report that the policy will not move. "No change needed" read as though
// these customers were fine, which is not what it means: a High-rated customer with four open alerts is on
// this list, and the reason is that the conditions for lowering the rating are not met - not that there is
// nothing to look at. The reason on each row says which condition fell short.
// Everything an alert put on the report that the policy will not move yet. "No change needed" read as though
// these customers were fine, which is not what it means: a customer with four open alerts sits here, and the
// reason is that the period does not yet carry enough to act on - not that there is nothing to look at.
// "Watching" says what the section is for, and the reason on each row says which condition fell short.
key: 'same',
title: 'Rating holds — no change this period',
hint: 'An alert brought these customers onto the report, but the conditions for moving the rating are not met. The reason on each row says what is missing.',
title: 'Watching — not enough to act on',
hint: 'In view, but the period does not yet support moving the rating. The reason on each row says what is missing.',
tone: 'hold',
rows: rest.filter((c) => c.currentRisk && c.direction === 'same')
}
src/app/risk-review/risk-review.compute.ts
+58 -5
View File
@@ -26,6 +26,17 @@ export type RatingDirection = 'up' | 'down' | 'same';
const RANK_TO_LEVEL: Record<number, RiskLevel> = { 1: 'LOW', 2: 'MEDIUM', 3: 'HIGH' };
/**
* What has to have been seen before this screen's own reckoning will argue for lowering a rating.
*
* The nightly behaviour review is the real test — it reads a 270-day window, counts transactions rather than alerts,
* and applies the blocks. These are the floor for the fallback used until that job has run: deliberately modest,
* because the fallback sees only the alerts inside the report's date filter, but not absent, because judging on
* amounts alone let three small deposits in one month argue for taking a customer off Medium.
*/
const MIN_ALERTS_TO_LOWER = 5;
const MIN_MONTHS_TO_LOWER = 3;
export interface DateRange {
from: string;
to: string;
@@ -157,17 +168,26 @@ function recommendRating(
largestAmount: number,
totalAmount: number,
escalated: boolean,
ruleCodes: string[]
ruleCodes: string[],
alertCount: number,
distinctMonths: number
): { risk: RiskLevel; reason: string } {
const implied = RANK_TO_LEVEL[impliedRank] ?? 'LOW';
const grave = ruleCodes.find((c) => isNonMitigableRule(c));
const material = largestAmount >= CTR_THRESHOLD || totalAmount >= MATERIALITY.highTotal;
const small = largestAmount < MATERIALITY.smallTxn && totalAmount < MATERIALITY.smallTotal;
// Small amounts are not on their own a reason to lower a rating. A rating describes a period of behaviour, so
// bringing one down needs a period to have been observed: enough transactions to be a pattern, and spread over
// enough months that they are not one busy week. Judging on amounts alone let three small deposits in a single
// month argue for taking a customer off Medium — which is the same mistake as re-rating on one transaction, only
// three times over.
const enoughActivity = alertCount >= MIN_ALERTS_TO_LOWER && distinctMonths >= MIN_MONTHS_TO_LOWER;
const small = enoughActivity && largestAmount < MATERIALITY.smallTxn && totalAmount < MATERIALITY.smallTotal;
// What the rating should be. Amounts only ever pull the rules' bound down, and
// only where nothing weightier holds it up.
let risk: RiskLevel;
let basis: 'escalated' | 'grave' | 'material' | 'small' | 'moderate';
let basis: 'escalated' | 'grave' | 'material' | 'small' | 'moderate' | 'thin';
if (escalated) {
risk = 'HIGH';
basis = 'escalated';
@@ -177,6 +197,12 @@ function recommendRating(
} else if (material) {
risk = implied;
basis = 'material';
} else if (!enoughActivity) {
// Too little observed to say anything about the rating either way, so it stands. Stating this rather than
// quietly leaving the rating alone is the point: an officer reading the row learns the period was too thin,
// not that the customer was examined and found unremarkable.
risk = currentRisk ?? implied;
basis = 'thin';
} else {
risk = RANK_TO_LEVEL[Math.min(impliedRank, small ? 1 : 2)] ?? 'LOW';
basis = small ? 'small' : 'moderate';
@@ -220,6 +246,27 @@ function recommendRating(
};
}
if (basis === 'thin') {
// A customer with no rating is not waiting for more evidence — there is no rating for evidence to move. Telling
// them the period is too thin, under a verdict that says "Rate this customer", asks for the work and argues
// against it in the same row. The thin-period test is about lowering a rating that exists.
if (!currentRisk) {
return {
risk,
reason: `Transacting with no rating on file — ${inr(totalAmount)} across ${alertCount} alert${
alertCount === 1 ? '' : 's'
}. Rate the customer; behaviour can only be judged against a rating.`
};
}
// Says which of the two tests fell short, because "not enough activity" leaves an officer unable to tell whether
// the customer needs watching for another month or another five.
const shortOn =
alertCount < MIN_ALERTS_TO_LOWER
? `only ${alertCount} alert${alertCount === 1 ? '' : 's'} in the period, ${MIN_ALERTS_TO_LOWER} needed`
: `activity falls in ${distinctMonths} month${distinctMonths === 1 ? '' : 's'}, ${MIN_MONTHS_TO_LOWER} separate months needed`;
return { risk, reason: `Too little to re-rate on — ${shortOn}. ${rated}; it stands until more is seen.` };
}
// The rating on file is where the activity puts it. Saying so is the verdict — leaving it blank
// read as "not assessed yet" on screen, which is the opposite of what the review concluded.
return {
@@ -345,7 +392,9 @@ export function riskCustomerRows(views: RiskAlertView[], windows: BehaviourWindo
// and approved. Dropping it here falls back to the per-alert reckoning until tonight's job catches up.
const raw = windows[clientId];
const staleWindow =
raw?.riskCategoryAtReview != null && currentRisk != null && RANK_TO_LEVEL[raw.riskCategoryAtReview] !== currentRisk;
raw?.riskCategoryAtReview != null &&
currentRisk != null &&
RANK_TO_LEVEL[raw.riskCategoryAtReview] !== currentRisk;
const window = staleWindow ? undefined : raw;
const recommendation = window?.suggestedDirection
? {
@@ -358,7 +407,11 @@ export function riskCustomerRows(views: RiskAlertView[], windows: BehaviourWindo
largestAmount,
totalAmount,
escalated,
alerts.map((a) => a.ruleCode)
alerts.map((a) => a.ruleCode),
alerts.length,
// Distinct calendar months the alerts fall in. Count alone does not establish a period: five alerts in one
// week is a busy fortnight, not five months of steady conduct.
new Set(alerts.map((a) => a.alertDate.slice(0, 7))).size
);
// Where the customer carries no rating there is nothing to move, so an