CONTEXT(CLONE)
Sign in

Decide which products and activities fall in scope of a rule

For: Regulatory counsel or compliance advisory lead classifying products under a new regime

Pattern: Cross-examinationNeeds live modelsDesigned for 6 to 200 agents
Get early accessSign in to use

The pain today

Whether a product, entity or activity is in scope turns on definitions and exemptions read against product terms. Advice is given one product at a time and inconsistently, and a wrong 'out of scope' becomes an unlicensed activity.

The ask

“I attached the regulation and guidance, and the terms, descriptions and process notes for each of our products and services. For each one, tell me whether it falls under the rule, which definition or exemption decides it, quote both sides, and show me the ones where the answer is arguable.”

Plain words, as you would say it to a colleague. Edit it to fit your case before you send it.

What you attach or connect

  • Regulation, definitions and supervisory guidance
  • Product terms and service descriptions
  • Process notes on how each product actually operates
  • Legal entity and licence list

The unit of work

One worker task per one product or activity against one definition.

Why a swarm fits

Each classification needs one product's documents and a few definitions. The answers are high stakes, so two unrelated model families classify independently and the disagreements become the review list.

Not for

A single product whose scope counsel must opine on anyway, or questions the regulator has not yet clarified in any text.

The decision tree

6 typed decisions, each with an action for every answer

At fixed moments in a run, the engine puts one narrow question to a decision model. The decision model never writes text: it answers yes or no with a probability, picks from listed options, or gives a score, about a small slice of the material. The engine then does exactly what this tree says, which is what makes the run auditable. The thresholds are the template's design values, not measured results.

  1. Planner, while planning

    Split or keep serialYes or no, with a probability

    While planning

    Does this definition have several cumulative conditions that can each be tested against the product terms separately?

    Sees only: One definition or exemption from the regulation

    Why: Testing one condition at a time is what makes two readings comparable.

    • Yes: 0.60 or higherthenSplit the work
    • Unsure: 0.40 up to 0.60thenKeep serial
    • No: below 0.40thenKeep serial

  2. After workers, the judge checks

    Evidence checkYes or no, with a probability

    After a worker answers

    Does the quoted product term satisfy this single condition of the definition, as the product is described in the process note?

    Sees only: One condition, the quoted product term and the process note extract

    Why: Scope errors start with one condition assumed rather than shown.

    • Yes: 0.90 or higherthenAccept
    • Unsure: 0.50 up to 0.90thenMark unresolved
    • No: below 0.50thenReject and retry

  3. Reconciler, while merging

    Conflict checkA choice among options

    While reconciling

    Do the two independent classifications of this product agree?

    Sees only: Both classifications with their deciding conditions and quotes

    Why: Agreement for different reasons is not agreement.

    • Agree, same deciding conditionthenAccept
    • Agree, different deciding conditionthenEscalate to a strong model
    • DisagreethenEscalate to a strong model

  4. Run control, between rounds

    Retry or stopA choice among options

    After a rejection or low confidence

    Where does the disagreement between the two classifications come from?

    Sees only: The two readings, the product terms and the process note

    Why: Tells counsel whether the problem is the facts or the law.

    • Terms and process note describe the product differentlythenAsk a person
    • Guidance text settles the readingthenAccept
    • Rule wording supports boththenMark unresolved

  5. Reconciler, while merging

    Conflict checkYes or no, with a probability

    While reconciling

    Have two products with the same features on the tested conditions received different outcomes?

    Sees only: Two scope register entries with their feature summaries

    Why: Inconsistent treatment of like products is what a supervisor spots first.

    • Yes: 0.60 or higherthenReject and retry
    • Unsure: 0.30 up to 0.60thenMark unresolved
    • No: below 0.30thenAccept

  6. Accountable person, before anything is settled

    Person decidesYes or no, with a probability

    Before anything is reported as settled

    Would this classification treat a product as out of scope, or rely on an exemption?

    Sees only: The scope register entry

    Why: A wrong 'out of scope' becomes an unlicensed activity; counsel decides.

    Accountable: Regulatory counsel decides every arguable classification and whether to seek guidance from the supervisor.

    • Yes: 0.30 or higherthenAsk a person
    • Unsure: 0.10 up to 0.30thenAsk a person
    • No: below 0.10thenAccept

The fleet: who does what

Model tiers by role, not brands: you choose the models. Strong reasoning models plan and reconcile, small fast models do the wide work, and the judge is a decision model from a different family, so it does not share the workers' blind spots.

  1. Planner

    A strong reasoning model turns definitions and exemptions into decision questions, each with its conditions spelled out.

    Decisions here:1. Split or keep serial

  2. Workers

    Two sets of mid-sized workers from different families classify each product independently, without seeing the other answer.

    Designed for 6 to 200 agents, one worker task per one product or activity against one definition. Each worker receives only its own unit.

  3. Judge, from a different model family

    A decision model from a third family settles a disagreement only where quoted text decides it, and otherwise keeps it open.

    Decisions here:2. Evidence check

  4. Reconciler

    A strong reasoning model builds the scope register and checks that similar products received consistent answers.

    Decisions here:3. Conflict check4. Retry or stop5. Conflict check

  5. Accountable person

    Regulatory counsel decides every arguable classification and whether to seek guidance from the supervisor.

    Decisions here:6. Person decides

Checked before anything is accepted

  • Every condition of a definition or exemption is tested separately with a product quote
  • Product terms are compared with process notes for how the product really works
  • Similar products with different outcomes are re-examined together
  • Open disagreements are reported with both arguments, never merged

What comes back

  • Scope register per product with deciding definition and quotes
  • Arguable classifications with both readings
  • Inconsistencies between similar products
  • Facts missing to decide a classification

What to measure

  • Agreed classifications later overturned by counsel
  • Share of products needing counsel review
  • Consistency of outcomes across similar products

Names of measures only. No result is claimed for this template.

Templates open in the workspace chat with the ask filled in. Nothing runs until you send it.

Get early accessSign in to use

More in Compliance and risk

Map a new regulation to policies and controls, rule by rule

For: Head of compliance or regulatory change manager implementing a new rule

A new regulation arrives with obligations buried in articles, annexes and guidance.

Pattern: Hierarchical decompositionNeeds live models6 decisionsDesigned for 8 to 400 agents

Test control evidence samples against the control description

For: Internal control manager or second-line tester running the annual control testing cycle

Every key control needs sampled evidence checked: was the approval there, by the right person, before the event, for the right amount.

Pattern: Map, verify, reduceNeeds scale6 decisionsDesigned for 20 to 800 agents