Replacing an AML data provider requires validating evidence and policy decisions as well as an API client. Scores, categories and coverage may differ between services. This guide is a migration validation plan. Use the tool-selection guide to decide whether an investigation interface, screening API or monitoring workflow fits the requirement.
Freeze a representative validation case set
Select authorized cases that cover the networks, assets and review situations your process handles. Include known evidence, indirect exposure, incomplete data and benign cases. Record assessment time and the purpose of the test. Do not rely on one advertised example to establish a replacement’s coverage or suitability.
Map categories and explain score meanings
Document each service’s score scale and risk categories using current definitions. A numeric threshold on one scale may not map to another. Compare the supporting paths and attribution explanations, then identify which policy decisions depend on those fields. Keep unfamiliar or undocumented categories visible as unresolved migration work.
Review changed decisions with an accountable owner
Run both services on the validation set and inspect disagreements. Separate data coverage differences from category mapping and application errors. Have an authorized reviewer resolve consequential decision changes before changing automatic thresholds. Keep the reasoning and policy version with the test record.
Preserve historical evidence and open cases
Retain prior responses, timestamps, provider context and review decisions according to your access and retention rules. Carry unresolved cases forward with their original evidence. Treat a new result as another assessment instead of overwriting the record that explains an earlier decision. Confirm how case exports and source references will remain usable after cutover.
Test unavailable and contradictory results
Simulate timeouts, unsupported networks, incomplete paths and invalid input. The application must distinguish these outcomes from a completed check with no identified issue. Define the escalation owner and behavior for each uncertain state. A supplier’s risk response supports the process; it does not supply a legal conclusion or transfer review responsibility.
Approve the migration against explicit acceptance criteria
Require documented coverage, understood response fields, tested error handling and reviewed decision changes before enabling the new path. Keep a rollback process for technical failure and an escalation process for evidence disagreements. Evaluate Crypto Chief AML Intelligence against the same case set and documented scope, without assuming it duplicates another vendor’s products.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I copy the old risk threshold to the new API?
Only after validating what both scores mean and how they affect actual decisions. Different scales and category models may not be directly comparable.
What should happen to historical checks?
Preserve the original response and decision context under the process’s retention rules. Later checks are separate assessments and should not erase earlier evidence.
Does a successful API integration complete the migration?
No. Validate coverage, score interpretation, error behavior, open cases and changed decisions with the accountable review owners before relying on the new workflow.