A record of what you looked for, and what you found.
Synthetic identity fraud is a question institutions are increasingly asked about and rarely have a documented answer to. Not because the answer is bad, but because nothing in the stack was pointed at the question, so there is no artifact to show.
The problem
"We rely on our onboarding controls" is a description of a control at the door. It says nothing about the accounts that passed through it three years ago, and it is difficult to evidence a look you never took.
How DoubleCheck applies
A review produces a dated artifact: the portfolio examined, the window covered, the five signal families applied, the dispositions returned, and the backtest against your own charge-off file showing what the method caught and what it missed. The method is documented rather than asserted, and the extraction script and data specification can be read by anyone who asks.
What you receive
- The findings memo, dated, scoped, and describing the method in plain language.
- The backtest, reported as measured, including a weak result, which is itself a documented look.
- The data specification and extraction script, so a reviewer can see exactly what was examined and what was excluded.
What this is not. Delegate does not know what your examiners expect and does not claim a review satisfies any specific requirement, guidance, or exam procedure. What it produces is evidence that you looked, how you looked, and what came back. Whether that is useful in your next exam is a judgment for your compliance team and your counsel, not a claim we make for you.
Have the artifact before you need it.
The review is free and the findings are yours regardless of the outcome. The ask is a 15 minute call.