Acams CGSS Exam - Topic 4 Question 2 Discussion

Actual exam question for Acams's CGSS exam

Question #: 2
Topic #: 4

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

ALimit the customer address and/or name data being screened to reduce the generation of false positives.

BTune the screening tool to generate matches to variations of spellings of sanctions targets and sanctioned jurisdictions.

CTune the screening tool to only generate matches to exact known spellings of sanctions targets and sanctioned jurisdictions.

DLimit the spelling variations of sanctioned target and jurisdiction names being screened against to reduce the generation of false positives.

Show Suggested 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:

Submit Cancel

Rickie

11 hours ago

C is too strict, we need flexibility.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lindsey

6 days ago

But A might miss some important matches.

upvoted 0 times

...

Leontine

11 days ago

A seems safer, less false positives.

upvoted 0 times

...

Katy

16 days ago

It catches more variations.

upvoted 0 times

...

Blondell

21 days ago

Why B?

upvoted 0 times

...

Katy

26 days ago

I think option B is the best.

upvoted 0 times

...

Nicholle

1 month ago

I agree with B, variations matter in real-world scenarios.

upvoted 0 times

...

Denny

1 month ago

D could help with false positives, but at what cost?

upvoted 0 times

...

Kandis

1 month ago

Wait, limiting data? That sounds counterproductive.

upvoted 0 times

...

Iluminada

2 months ago

A seems risky, we need comprehensive checks.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lettie

2 months ago

Option B is the funniest one. Imagine the tool matching "John Doe" to "Jhon Dough"!

upvoted 0 times

...

Natalie

3 months ago

C is the way to do it - no room for error when it comes to sanctions compliance.

upvoted 0 times

...

Thurman

3 months ago

I'd go with D. Fewer false positives means less hassle for everyone.

upvoted 0 times

...

Garry

3 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

3 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

3 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

3 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

...