What regulators see when your firm uses DeepDive for EDD

The FCA skilled person arrives Monday morning requesting your EDD files from the past 18 months. Your MLRO's pulse quickens. Can you evidence your EDD research methodology? Explain why you selected certain sources? Show how you rated the sources you found? Prove that you looked beyond your principal to check risk from business associates and family members? 

For firms still using manual EDD, this scenario prompts anxiety for good reason—the gap between "what we did" and "what we can prove we did" can prove embarrassing under regulatory scrutiny. 

Regulators expect the same documentation standards, the same evidence trail, the same ability to defend your methodology—whether you're conducting two EDDs per week or two hundred. 

The gaps in manual EDD that regulators pick up on 

Common deficiencies in manual EDD documentation include: 

"I Googled them" isn't defensible methodology. File note states "conducted internet search—no adverse findings."  

Regulator asks: "What search engines? What search terms? How many pages of results did you review? How did you verify you'd identified the correct individual among multiple matches?" 

Inconsistent depth across analysts. Senior analyst's files show multi-jurisdiction searches and detailed timeline reconstruction. Junior analyst's files show Google and LinkedIn. Both cases were similar risk profiles.  

Regulator asks: "Why did investigation depth vary for similar risk?" 

Inadequate adverse media searches. Manual EDD tends to search adverse media once, in English, at point of onboarding. Subsequent media coverage gets missed. Non-English sources rarely checked.  

Regulator asks: " Did you search in the subject's native language?  

Beneficial ownership chains not pursued. Manual researcher identifies holding company as shareholder, stops investigation. Ultimate beneficial owner remains unknown.  

Regulator asks: "Did you attempt to identify UBO beyond the first layer? Why did you stop here?" 

PEP family and associates not screened. Manual EDD checks if subject is PEP but often doesn't systematically screen family members or known close associates.  

Regulator asks: "Your PEP screening—did it extend to family members and known associates as required?" 

What DeepDive reports prove to regulators 

Every DeepDive report provides what regulators require: 

Documentation of search methodology. DeepDive records every permutation of the terms searched. Not just "searched internet"—the report documents terms, languages used, name variations plus aliases and which search engines were deployed.  

Audit trail of sources used, and sources discarded. DeepDive maintains data on the sources it found, which sources were discarded, and which were subsequently used for the EDD.  The decision-making rationale for why a source is used or discarded is also preserved.  For subjects with international connections, reports also document multi-language searches and regional search engines used, demonstrating proportionate investigation depth for cross-border risk. 

Statement citation back to source provenance. DeepDive links statements and analysis produced back to the original sources that were reviewed to produce EDD statements. Both client and regulator can click through to read the original source themselves. 

Source quality scoring & evidence evaluation.  Every statement in DeepDive reports includes confidence scoring based on source type and evidence quality. Regulators can see not just what information was found, but how reliable the evidence is that is presented in the source.  

Entity resolution decision trail. For every source used, DeepDive documents why is selected that source based on entity resolution calculations so that regulators can be confident that the EDD research was broad, but that false positive elimination was rigorous. 

Risk categorization with semantic context. DeepDive doesn't just list every mention of a subject’s name—it categorizes findings by risk type such as legal, regulatory, financial, and other key risk categories. Regulators can quickly assess whether material risks were identified and appropriately evaluated. 

Consistent methodology regardless of analyst. Whether investigation is initiated by your most senior analyst or newest team member, DeepDive applies identical search methodology, covers same source universe, uses same entity resolution algorithms. Quality doesn't vary by analyst experience. 

Regulator sees consistent standards—every file demonstrates same comprehensive approach. 

The regulatory conversation shift 

MLROs using DeepDive can enjoy a fundamental change in regulatory interactions: 

From defensive to confident. Previously: "I hope our files are adequate." Now: "Our files demonstrate comprehensive methodology." 

From reactive to collaborative. Previously: Regulator questions reveal deficiencies you must explain. Now: Regulator questions are easier to answer and you can walk them through your documented methodology. 

Quality becomes verifiable, not subjective. High quality investigation stops being a judgment call and becomes a demonstrable standard: comprehensive source coverage, rigorous entity matching, complete provenance trail. 

What regulators value most is proof you searched comprehensively—see what DD finds that manual EDD misses in our investigation capability analysis. 

And they expect this standard consistently, which is only achievable at scale—learn how teams maintain quality while increasing throughput in our capacity analysis. 

DeepDive doesn't just satisfy regulators—it enables you to demonstrate your firm takes financial crime prevention seriously enough to invest in capabilities that exceed minimum standards. 

Ready to see what regulatory-grade EDD documentation looks like?