Industries · Financial services
A regulated answer is a commitment. Right now it depends on who is in the chair.
Policy language and attestations are approved by Compliance and Legal. Architecture, encryption and residual-risk statements are controlled by InfoSec. Product eligibility, SLAs and the operating model belong to Product and Operations. Capital, pricing and funding authority sit with Finance. Those facts live in separate systems, under separate owners, on separate revision cycles — and the deadline belongs to the buyer or the examiner.
Built for the RFP and diligence desk, relationship management, risk, compliance and InfoSec.
Respond answering a security DDQ — control language cited to the policy it came from
Where the answer actually goes wrong.
Not for want of knowing. Every answer below already exists somewhere in the firm, approved, with an owner. It is simply not in front of the person being asked.
-
01
The RFP and diligence desk
Institutional RFPs, consultant questionnaires, fund diligence and security packets get rebuilt from last year’s packet. Group-level policy and line-of-business language sit in separate stores, so four business units end up holding four copies of the same group content.
The same questions recur across RFPs, DDQs, onboarding packs and exams in different formats, so the work is repeated rather than reused.
Senior time goes to answers the firm has already written and approved.
-
02
The client conversation
Product terms, rate and structure, credit conditions, the compliance position on a cross-border question — settled live, while the client is deciding.
Relationship managers recreate answers that already exist on another desk or in another country, so one client hears three versions of one commitment. Required language on suitability, product limitation and confidentiality is not reliably delivered, and conventional QA samples a fraction of what was actually said.
When a tenured banker leaves, the client feels it in week one.
-
03
Risk, KYC and the back office
KYC, AML, credit memos and diligence are knowledge problems as much as process problems: what was approved before, under which conditions, which evidence is current, which questionnaire has already been answered.
Policy changes in a quarter. The desk still quotes last year’s version, because nobody retrained several hundred people on the change.
Reviewers, internal audit and the examiner each see a different version of the evidence.
What Tribble does about it.
One place the approved answer lives, with the source attached and an owner’s name on it — and every response you finish makes the next one cheaper.
- 1
Load it
Your approved sources come in with their permissions and versions intact, so every answer can be traced back from day one.
- 2
Answer from it
Answers are worked out before anyone asks. Each one shows the document it came from, who owns that document and when it was last changed.
- 3
Keep what you learn
Every edit a reviewer makes becomes the approved answer next time. Your experts see the 10–20% that is genuinely new, not all of it. The tenth submission is faster than the first.
Sources in, cited answer out, reviewer edits folded back.
The documents a regulated firm actually files.
All of them run the same way. Follow any one through to see it.
- Institutional RFPs and RFIs Consultant questionnaires, panel and mandate packs, product due-diligence requests. RFP automation →
- Security and privacy DDQs SIG, CAIQ, SOC 2, ISO 27001, DORA ICT and buyer security assessments, with cited control language. Security questionnaires →
- Third-party risk and onboarding Inbound diligence packs, residual-risk narratives, control evidence, KYC and AML onboarding packs. DDQ automation →
- Regulatory and ESG disclosures SFDR, TCFD and climate questionnaires, and cited drafts for exam preparation. Longform →
- Correspondent and client questions Partner onboarding, scheme questionnaires, capability statements, marketplace enablement. Portal & chat intake →
What we would measure.
Agreed up front, and measured against how the work runs today, so the result is judged on your numbers.
Proof.
The same job, in other industries: hundreds of questions, several people who own the answers, one deadline somebody else set.
The first engagement: one workflow, four to six weeks.
Narrow scope is what makes that real rather than aspirational. One team, one workflow, and we measure how it works today before changing anything.
- 1
Connect · week 0
Scope and owners named. Sources ingested from policy libraries, control inventories, prior submissions and the KYC and credit record. We measure how the work runs today first.
- 2
Build · weeks 1–2
The answer set assembled from your own records, scoped to the questions that actually recur. Your experts review and approve it.
- 3
Pilot · weeks 3–4
Live with a named team, on real work. Our team works alongside yours, tuning against what reviewers actually change.
- 4
Prove · weeks 5–6
Measured against the baseline, with a clear read on where value landed and a go or no-go on expanding.
What people ask
Some are worth putting to your own team first.
Our answers are regulated statements. What stops it inventing one?
The rule is absolute: the Brain is the source of truth, and answers are produced only from approved sources with the source, owner and version visible. Nothing is generated from the open internet. Anything below the confidence threshold, or touching control language, routes to Compliance, Legal or InfoSec before it ships rather than after. The point is not that a machine is trusted with a regulated statement — it is that the statement your experts already approved is the one that goes out.
We need line-of-business content separate but group policy shared. Is that possible?
Yes, and it is the specific pattern large institutions need. Content is segregated by line of business while group-level policy stays shared, so a business unit sees its own language plus the group position without four units maintaining four copies of the same policy in four databases and drifting apart.
Does this make KYC or credit decisions?
No, and we would be wary of anyone who said it did. It produces cited drafts and assembles the evidence — what was approved before, under which conditions, which evidence is current, which questionnaire has already been answered — so the reviewer decides faster with the full record in front of them. Regulatory and exam work is cited drafts for preparation, not unsupervised decisions.
What about staff pasting client information into consumer AI tools?
That is already happening in most firms, and it is the confidentiality exposure worth naming out loud. It happens because the fastest available tool is the wrong one. Permissioned access to approved sources inside the tools people already use removes the reason, which works better than a policy telling people not to.
How is this different from the response library we already pay for?
A library stores answers. It does not know which are stale, which contradict a policy that changed last quarter, or which were edited after review. Every answer here carries its source, its owner and a version timestamp, low-confidence answers route to the accountable owner, and reviewer edits fold back in. A library gets bigger. A Brain gets better.
Where would you start?
The narrowest slice that carries real volume: security DDQs and institutional RFPs for one coverage team, or the KYC and onboarding pack for one line of business. One workflow, we measure how the work runs today, then measure it again at the end. Narrow scope is what makes six weeks real rather than aspirational.
Bring one live DDQ.
We will map the policy language, control narratives and prior submissions you already trust, run the questionnaire together, and leave you with a first draft compliance can review.
Book a demo