Existing evaluation context
Run the control under the frozen public synthetic evaluation basis.
494fraud-labelled applications reached review
AEGI Shield · Controlled Evaluation for Credit & Fraud Risk Change
Evaluate AI-assisted Credit & Fraud risk changes before production.
AEGI Shield is a controlled evaluation platform for financial institutions assessing proposed AI-assisted changes to existing Credit and Fraud risk workflows.
It compares one proposed change with the institution's current baseline using agreed historical evidence, while the institution retains decision rights over customer-impacting actions and production deployment.
No customer records are required for the first conversation. Start with the workflow, current baseline, proposed change and decision question.
WHERE AEGI SITSBEFORE PRODUCTION
EXISTING SYSTEMSCredit models · Fraud engines · Rules · Risk workflows
↓
PROPOSED CHANGEModel · Signal · Threshold · Context · Workflow treatment
↓
AEGI SHIELDControlled EvaluationScope · Replay · Compare
↓
REVIEWABLE OUTPUTComparative findings · Controls · Evidence · Limitations
↓
AI recommendation ≠ institutional decisionInstitution retains authority
One workflow.One baseline.One proposed change.One decision.
Show me
A proposed change should be tested against what happens today.
A simple example makes the job clear: hold the review capacity fixed, replay the current baseline and proposed change on the same evaluation basis, then compare which cases reach review.
PUBLIC SYNTHETIC EXAMPLE · BAF-003Fixed-capacity case prioritisation
Context-enriched evaluation
Replay the proposed context treatment on the same fixed-capacity evaluation basis.
544fraud-labelled applications reached review
OBSERVED DIFFERENCE+50 fraud-labelled applications surfaced at unchanged review capacity.
This public synthetic result demonstrates a fixed-capacity case-prioritisation difference. Institution-specific value is the question for each Controlled Evaluation.
Why AEGI
Add an evaluation layer without replacing the institution’s existing controls.
Financial institutions may already have strong models, validation, model-risk and change-governance functions. AEGI focuses on the evidence and decision boundary around one specific proposed risk-system change.
Keep what already governs risk.
- Credit models and policy
- Fraud engines and rules
- Model Validation / Model Risk Management
- Change governance and approval
Evaluate one proposed change.
Define the baseline and operating constraints, replay the proposed change on agreed historical evidence, and produce reviewable findings for the next decision.
Retain the decision.
Existing validation, policy, governance and authorised decision processes determine whether any later stage should proceed.
BOUNDARY
AEGI adds a focused, reviewable evaluation layer alongside existing Credit models, Fraud engines, Model Risk Management and institutional approval processes.
Verified engineering foundation
Engineering milestones accepted and evidenced.
The scoped AEGI bank-evaluation control foundation and local Fraud review, operations and recovery workflow have completed their declared internal engineering checkpoints.
15 / 15 dimensions
Six upstream control locks reconciled in the scoped internal bank-evaluation foundation.
276 / 276 per database
Exact-head synthetic Fraud workflow tests passed on both SQLite and PostgreSQL, with no skips.
12 / 12 checks
Populated database, evidence, configuration and image recovery exercised with functional checks.
VERIFIED SCOPE
The completed tests establish a reproducible internal baseline. Institution-specific evaluation is the next evidence stage. Examine the evidence
How it works
Evaluate the change. Keep the decision institutional.
The first commercial engagement is one Controlled Evaluation: a defined comparison for one proposed change, with agreed deliverables, evidence and decision points.
Scope
Define the workflow, baseline, proposed change, cohort, outcomes, review capacity, metrics and operating constraints.
Replay
Run the baseline and proposed change on the same agreed historical evidence.
Compare
Measure case-prioritisation impact, control effectiveness and evidence quality under the same agreed constraints.
Decide
Continue, Refine or Stop. Any later shadow or production stage requires separate institutional approval.
What you receive
A reviewable decision package.
Each decision package records what was evaluated, what changed, what the controls showed, what the evidence supports and what uncertainty remains.
ILLUSTRATIVE CONTROLLED EVALUATION OUTPUTDecision Package
Structure only · not a customer resultEVALUATION QUESTIONShould this proposed risk-workflow change progress to the next approved stage?
CURRENT BASELINEInstitution-defined current workflow and policy basis
PROPOSED CHANGEDefined model, signal, threshold, context or workflow treatment
FIXED CONSTRAINTSHistorical cohort · review capacity · outcomes · guardrails
COMPARATIVE FINDINGSCase-prioritisation impact and agreed operating measures
CONTROL FINDINGSAuthority · failure paths · escalation · customer-impact boundaries
EVIDENCE & LIMITATIONSProvenance · reproducibility · version/configuration · material uncertainty
DECISION BASISWhat the evidence supports — and what it does not
INSTITUTIONAL NEXT DECISIONContinueorRefineorStopAEGI supports the evaluation. The institution makes the decision.
Evidence
Three evidence classes. Three different questions.
Technical controls, public synthetic benchmark evidence and institution-controlled evaluation evidence remain separate because they support different conclusions.
Does the controlled system behave as designed under the stated test conditions?
Review technical evidence494→544
Fraud-labelled applications in the same 2,417 Top-1% review slots. Net change: +50.
BAF-003 · public synthetic benchmark · not production performance evidenceDoes the proposed change create decision-relevant value in the institution's own environment?
Explore the evaluation pathWHO IT IS FORFinancial institutions evaluating a proposed AI-assisted change to an existing Credit or Fraud workflow.
01WorkflowWhat process is changing?
02BaselineWhat happens today?
03Proposed ChangeWhat is being added or changed?
04DecisionWhat must the institution decide?
CONTROLLED EVALUATION
One workflow. One baseline. One proposed change. One decision.
Start with the decision question. Define the evaluation boundary before any institution-controlled data is considered.