Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

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.

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Iluminada
2 days ago
A seems risky, we need comprehensive checks.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lettie
25 days ago
Option B is the funniest one. Imagine the tool matching "John Doe" to "Jhon Dough"!
upvoted 0 times
...
Natalie
1 month ago
C is the way to do it - no room for error when it comes to sanctions compliance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Thurman
1 month ago
I'd go with D. Fewer false positives means less hassle for everyone.
upvoted 0 times
...
Garry
1 month 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
2 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
2 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
2 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
2 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
2 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
2 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
3 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
3 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
3 months ago
B is definitely the way to go!
upvoted 0 times
...
Rebbecca
3 months ago
Option B seems like the way to go. Gotta catch those sneaky sanctions evaders!
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel