Composite scenarios illustrating how domain packs and project-based consulting support real implementation patterns — built from common situations across banking UAT and delivery programmes.
A delivery team migrating from a legacy trade finance system to a modern core banking platform had strong technical capability but limited hands-on LC and BG domain experience. With a fixed go-live date three months out, the team had built the platform but had not yet validated it against real-world trade finance scenarios — discrepancy handling, partial shipment tolerances, and SWIFT message sequencing in particular.
The team adopted Bankly's LC and BG domain packs as the structural basis for UAT — using the pre-built test scenarios, process flows, and use cases as a starting framework, then adapting them to the platform's specific configuration. A short engagement on a daily-rate basis covered scenario walkthroughs and FSD review for the discrepancy-handling module specifically.
UAT preparation that would typically require weeks of domain research and scenario drafting was compressed to days. The team identified configuration gaps in the partial-shipment tolerance logic during UAT — before go-live, rather than after. The implementation went live on the original schedule.
Read the related article: Why Letters of Credit Go to Second Presentation →
A bank's compliance technology team was upgrading its transaction monitoring engine and needed UAT scenarios covering rule logic, alert generation thresholds, and false-positive tuning — areas where a testing gap carries direct regulatory exposure, not just a production defect. The internal QA team had general testing experience but limited exposure to AML-specific scenario design.
Bankly's AML domain pack provided structured test scenarios across rule-based alerting, sanctions screening interaction, and transaction monitoring edge cases. A short gap-analysis engagement reviewed the bank's existing test coverage against the pack's scenario library to identify what was missing before UAT execution began.
The gap analysis surfaced several untested rule combinations, including a threshold interaction that would have under-flagged a category of structuring-pattern transactions. These were added to the UAT scope before sign-off, reducing the risk of a compliance gap reaching production.
Read the related article: Your TMS Has 200 Rules and a 90% False Positive Rate →
Every implementation is different. A 30-minute discovery call is the fastest way to find out what would actually help.
We respond within 24 hours · team.bankly@gmail.com · team@banklyconsulting.com