The same supplier, re-entered five times. We end that.
A compliance week at a bank means updating the same outsourcing arrangement in the DORA register, the CRD file, the BRRD critical-function list, and the AML third-party review, each with slightly different fields and a different deadline. Nobody signed off on that duplication, it just accreted, one rulebook at a time. Our platform holds the supplier, the contract, and the AML case once and lets every register that needs them read from the same record. The adjacent rulebooks that are not yet in the platform, CRD, BRRD, and MiCAR, are carried by our specialists on that same data. We tell you which part is which.
Every rulebook wants the same fact, in its own shape.
DORA wants your outsourcing arrangements as ICT third parties. CRD wants the same arrangements as an outsourcing register. BRRD wants to know which of them sit under a critical function. The AML package wants the counterparty side screened for beneficial ownership and sanctions exposure. It is the same supplier, the same contract, sometimes the same person, asked about four times a year by four different reviewers on four different cadences.
The bank's own AML/KYC casework carries its own weight regardless: source-of-funds checks, PEP and sanctions screening, beneficial-ownership look-through, all before DORA or CRD ever enter the conversation. Thin second-line teams end up re-keying supplier and entity data across a DORA spreadsheet, a CRD file, and a case-management tool that do not talk to each other, and the reconciliation itself becomes the thing a supervisor finds fault with.
The filing calendar does not help. The Register of Information has its own submission cycle, incidents have their own reporting clocks, and an AML case can open at any hour a transaction looks wrong. None of that waits for the quarter-end review.
One record. Every register reads from it.
On the platform, a supplier, an entity, or a counterparty is a single object. The contracts, functions, and ICT assets that reference it are connected records, not copies. Amend the contract once and every view built on it, the Register of Information among them, is current without a second pass.
The same discipline applies to AML/KYC. Case management, PEP and sanctions screening, source-of-funds review, and beneficial-ownership look-through under the AMLR run inside the platform, against the bank's own records, not in a separate system your team bridges by hand. A four-eye approval gate sits on every material step, so a decision is never one person's alone.
What this does not claim: it does not claim the platform already knows what counts as a critical function under BRRD, or which arrangements are material under CRD. Those are judgement calls specific to your authorisation, and they stay with our specialists, who work from the same supplier and entity data the platform holds.
DORA and AML/KYC, structurally. The rest, on the same data.
When a bank is onboarded, the platform activates the core risk and workflow engine, the DORA Register of Information across all fifteen RT/B tables with a submission-ready XBRL-CSV package, GLEIF/LEI verification, and the AML/KYC module: case management, PEP and sanctions screening, source-of-funds, and beneficial-ownership look-through. Supplier risk (register, AI-assisted and privacy assessments, contractual arrangements) sits alongside, so the third-party surface is modelled once for both DORA and AML purposes.
Incident management, policy generation with AI-assisted drafting, and health checks run inside the same workflow engine, each behind the four-eye approval gate. Entity and group structures, including branches and hierarchies, are modelled directly, which is what lets one supplier record serve every regulatory view that needs it.
Our banking specialists carry CRD and BRRD interpretation (which outsourcing arrangements are material, what counts as a critical function, the ICAAP and ILAAP narrative) and any MiCAR exposure where the bank also touches crypto-asset services, using the same supplier and entity data the platform holds. The decisions are recorded as they are taken.
The calls that need a person, recorded like everything else.
Some questions do not have a data answer. Whether an outsourcing arrangement is material under CRD, which functions are critical under BRRD, how a MiCAR-adjacent activity should be classified: these are judgement calls, made by people who have sat on the other side of the table as supervisors or internal auditors. Our specialists make that call, and the decision is written down against the record it concerns, not left in an email thread.
That written record is the point. When a supervisor asks why a particular arrangement was or was not treated as material, the answer already exists, dated, attributed, and attached to the same supplier object the DORA register uses.
You own the platform, the data as adapted to your operation, and the record of every interpretation decision made on top of it. Advisory work continues for as long as you need it, scoped to what your authorisation actually requires.
A discovery call, not a product demo.
You describe the compliance problem consuming the most of your team's time. We walk the platform through an example close enough to your operation that you can judge whether this way of modelling compliance fits how you want to work.
Book a discovery call →