Skip to content

Replay of a real run — captured 2 Jul 2026

Sift

Alert Triage Agent

Every step below is a real trace event from the signed run ledger.

sc-sift

Transcript

Siftsonnet
Steps12
Tools5
Tokens36k
Elapsed0:46
Briefed on the case

I'll kick off by pulling the alert and then fan out to gather all the context I need in parallel.

Step 1 — Read the alert

Step 2 — Parallel fetch: customer profile, flagged transactions, and prior alerts

Step 3 — Analysis

Here's what the evidence shows:

FactorFinding
Scenario triggeredStructuring
Transaction pattern4 cash deposits in 5 days: $9,200 / $9,500 / $8,900 / $9,700 — every single one sub-$10k, totalling $37,300
Branch spreadAt least two distinct branches (T6002 memo: "diff. branch"); T6003 uses ATM channel
Customer typeB2B auto-parts wholesaler; expected activity = card settlement + supplier ACH — no cash-intensive element documented
Profile fitfail Cash deposits of this nature are inconsistent with a wholesale trade profile
Prior alertsNone — but absence of history does not clear structuring activity

Red-flag assessment:

  • All amounts kept just below $10,000 (range: $8,900–$9,700) — classic CTR-avoidance band
  • Multiple branches / channels within a compressed 5-day window — textbook cross-branch structuring
  • Aggregate ($37,300) far exceeds the threshold that would have triggered a single CTR
  • No documented business rationale for cash receipts; wholesalers overwhelmingly settle via ACH/wire/card, not cash
  • Medium risk-rated business with no explanation on file

This is an unambiguous structuring typology with a clear profile mismatch. There is no benign explanation I can construct from the available facts. Escalating.

Step 4 — Record triage decision

The decision brief

Disposition
Escalate

Triage Summary — Alert A1 | Greenfield Auto Parts (C6)

Disposition: ESCALATE | Risk Score: 0.88 / 1.00

What fired

Four cash deposits ($8,900 – $9,700) across multiple branches over five days — all sub-$10,000, aggregating to $37,300.

Why this escalates

  1. Classic structuring pattern — every deposit sits in the $8,900–$9,700 band, a hallmark of deliberate CTR-avoidance. The combined total ($37,300) would have required CTR reporting if deposited in fewer transactions.
  2. Cross-branch / multi-channel execution — at least two branch locations and an ATM used in five days, a recognised structuring technique.
  3. Profile mismatch — the customer is a B2B auto-parts wholesaler; KYC documents expected activity as card settlement and supplier ACH. There is no documented cash-intensive business rationale.
  4. No mitigating history — no prior alerts exist, but this does not explain or normalise activity that is structurally inconsistent with the business profile.

Reason codes

structuring · sub-threshold-cash · cross-branch · profile-deviation · cash-inconsistent-with-wholesale-profile

Recommended next step

Route to L2 Investigations for EDD: obtain a source-of-cash explanation, review full account history for additional sub-threshold deposits, assess SAR filing obligation, and conduct a CTR look-back review.

Cost$0.0733
Turns6
Time46.2s
Recorded to the audit ledger · tamper-evident