Typical scenario

One client feature increased the risk score twice

If a client’s risk category rises after a scoring-table change, one circumstance may have been counted under different names. A typical review examines geography appearing in both country and service-channel factors and whether the adopted method allows that combination.

What needs to be clarified

Reproduce the score using the applicable model version, verify input provenance, and assess how related factors affect the assigned client risk category.

Materials to prepare

  • Versioned methodology with weights, thresholds and factor-combination rules
  • Completed client assessment and source data for the assessment date
  • Calculation workbook with formulas and the model change log

What to compare

Check formulas, ranges, rounding and blank-value handling; link each factor to its documentary basis. Recalculate under approved rules, then separately show category sensitivity to the disputed combination. Correlated factors are not automatically removed: review the justification of their joint weight and compliance with the model description.

Possible outcome of the analysis

A reproducibility report may show factor contributions and discrepancies; recalculation may support the category or indicate that the responsible department should review the model.

Limits of the conclusions

The review assigns no binding category and guarantees no bank decision. Correlation alone proves no error; legal requirements need jurisdiction-specific examination.