U.S. Independence Day Deal! Unlock 25% OFF Today – Limited-Time Offer - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

Acams CGSS Exam - Topic 4 Question 2 Discussion

Which would be an appropriate tuning of a sanctions screening tool?
B) Tune the screening tool to generate matches to variations of spellings of sanctions targets and sanctioned jurisdictions.
A) Limit the customer address and/or name data being screened to reduce the generation of false positives.
C) Tune the screening tool to only generate matches to exact known spellings of sanctions targets and sanctioned jurisdictions.
D) Limit the spelling variations of sanctioned target and jurisdiction names being screened against to reduce the generation of false positives.

Acams CGSS Exam - Topic 4 Question 2 Discussion

Actual exam question for Acams's CGSS exam
Question #: 2
Topic #: 4
[All CGSS Questions]

Which would be an appropriate tuning of a sanctions screening tool?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

Appropriate tuning must maintain the tool's ability to capture spelling variations, transliterations, and linguistic differences. This is essential for detecting sanctioned parties that may appear under alternate spellings (e.g., Arabic, Cyrillic transliterations).

Exact-match screening (C) or limiting variations (A, D) leads to missed true positives and violates regulatory expectations for effective sanctions screening.


Wolfsberg Guidance on name-matching and spelling-variation recognition.

Importance of fuzzy and variant matching in sanctions screening systems.

by Phillip at Dec 23, 2025, 04:22 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium CGSS Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Douglass
1 month ago
D could limit our screening too much.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rickie
2 months ago
C is too strict, we need flexibility.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lindsey
2 months ago
But A might miss some important matches.
upvoted 0 times
...
Leontine
2 months ago
A seems safer, less false positives.
upvoted 0 times
...
Katy
2 months ago
It catches more variations.
upvoted 0 times
...
Blondell
2 months ago
Why B?
upvoted 0 times
...
Katy
2 months ago
I think option B is the best.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nicholle
3 months ago
I agree with B, variations matter in real-world scenarios.
upvoted 0 times
...
Denny
3 months ago
D could help with false positives, but at what cost?
upvoted 0 times
...
Kandis
3 months ago
Wait, limiting data? That sounds counterproductive.
upvoted 0 times
...
Iluminada
3 months ago
A seems risky, we need comprehensive checks.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lettie
4 months ago
Option B is the funniest one. Imagine the tool matching "John Doe" to "Jhon Dough"!
upvoted 0 times
...
Natalie
4 months ago
C is the way to do it - no room for error when it comes to sanctions compliance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Thurman
4 months ago
I'd go with D. Fewer false positives means less hassle for everyone.
upvoted 0 times
...
Garry
4 months ago
I’m a bit confused about option D. It sounds like it could help reduce false positives, but wouldn’t it also risk missing some matches?
upvoted 0 times
...
Hobert
5 months ago
I think we had a similar question about screening tools last week. If I recall correctly, tuning for variations in spellings is crucial, so B seems right.
upvoted 0 times
...
Maryann
5 months ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I feel like limiting the data screened could lead to missing important matches. Maybe option A isn't the way to go?
upvoted 0 times
...
Dominque
5 months ago
I remember we discussed the importance of balancing false positives and negatives in our last practice session. I think option B might be the best choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carole
5 months ago
I'm leaning towards B. Catching all possible variations is important, even if it means more false positives that can be reviewed.
upvoted 0 times
...
Leonora
5 months ago
C seems too restrictive. We need to be thorough in our screening, so B is probably the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
Leota
5 months ago
I'd go with B. Tuning the tool to catch spelling variations seems like the most comprehensive way to screen for sanctions targets.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ariel
6 months ago
I'm a bit confused on this one. Wouldn't limiting the data being screened in A reduce the chances of catching potential matches?
upvoted 0 times
...
Ines
6 months ago
Hmm, I think B would be the best approach. We want to catch all possible variations of sanctions targets, not just exact matches.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mendy
6 months ago
B is definitely the way to go!
upvoted 0 times
...
Rebbecca
6 months ago
Option B seems like the way to go. Gotta catch those sneaky sanctions evaders!
upvoted 0 times
Rosendo
1 month ago
I agree, option B is essential for accuracy.
upvoted 0 times
...
...

Save Cancel