AffiliateClear — AI-Native BIS Affiliates Rule Ownership Diligence Pack Engine
Done-for-you counterparty ownership mapping, 50% Affiliates Rule determination packs, and Red Flag 29 resolution binders for US mid-market exporters — not a customer-operated screening co-pilot.
01 Thesis
AffiliateClear sells a finished Affiliates Rule Ownership Diligence Pack: for a capped set of foreign counterparties, the company delivers ownership trees (direct/indirect/aggregated), Entity List / MEU / §744.8 SDN ownership hits, a clear 50%-threshold determination (or unresolved Red Flag 29 memo), questionnaire artifacts, and an audit-ready diligence binder so the exporter can hold, escalate, or license before the November 10, 2026 snapback — without operating a screening SaaS themselves.
Pain exists because CSL name screening is no longer enough under the Affiliates Rule; BIS created an affirmative duty to determine ownership; opaque registries (China/Russia/etc.) defeat DIY spreadsheet work; big-law rates make portfolio re-screens expensive; and enterprise screening platforms sell data/tools, not DFY pack delivery for mid-market export compliance managers. AI extracts registry filings, builds ownership graphs, and drafts determination memos; an export-controls specialist remains the customer-facing trust interface and signs the pack. This is not a customer-operated co-pilot.
02 Discovery rationale
Terrain scanned this hour: BIS Affiliates Rule ownership diligence; FIFRA §7 annual production reports; IRS Form 8865 foreign partnership completeness; SEC Form N-PORT managed filing; EPA MSGP annual NeT reports; Colorado SB26-189 ADMT (enforcement stay); MoCRA/TRI (already claimed); FSMA 204 / OSHA ITA (already claimed).
AffiliateClear won because (1) verified hard snapback date 10 Nov 2026 with Federal Register reimposition language, (2) affirmative duty + Red Flag 29 create recurring document-heavy workflow, (3) existing category budget in trade software + export counsel + ITAR/EAR consulting retainers, (4) clear anti-dup vs prior export-classification-licensing-engine (product ECCN/licensing ≠ counterparty ownership diligence), (5) DFY pack launchable with registry APIs + specialist review before building software. Decisive evidence: 90 FR 47201 Affiliates Rule; 90 FR 50857–50858 suspension/snapback; BIS penalties page; Census 270,001 identified US exporters (2024); law-firm alerts documenting affirmative ownership duty.
03 Candidate comparison
| Candidate | Buyer / Outcome | Score∑/75 | Evidence | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AffiliateClear — BIS Affiliates Ownership Diligence | US mid-market exporters / ownership determination packs | 67 | High (FR + BIS + Census + counsel alerts) | Selected |
| FIFRA §7 Annual Production Report Engine | Pesticide/device establishments / Form 3540-16 filing | 52 | High regs / Thin public ASP | Rejected — adjacency to FIFRA NOA; weak published unit pricing |
| Form 8865 Completeness Engine | US persons with foreign partnerships / Form 8865 pack | 55 | High penalties / Saturated | Rejected — intl-tax desk saturation (5471/5472/3520/8621) |
| SEC Form N-PORT Managed Filing | Fund complexes / N-PORT packages | 48 | Med (redacted fee schedules) | Rejected — dominated by fund administrators; weak independent wedge |
| MSGP Annual Report NeT Filing | Industrial stormwater permittees / annual report | 46 | Med | Rejected — physical-inspection bleed; permit continuance uncertainty |
20-factor scores (winner excerpt, 1–5)
Trust 4 · Task judgment 4 · Intelligence 5 · Reg moat 5 · No physical 5 · Altman 5 · Outcome pricing 5 · GM 5 · Urgency 5 · Whitespace 4 · Novelty 5 · AI fit 5 · Demand evidence 5 · Budget proof 5 · Lead magnet 5 · MVP clarity 5 · Distribution 4 · Licensing 4 · Repeatability 5 · Speed to revenue 4 → avg 4.70.
04 Hard disqualifier check
| Disqualifier | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Customer-facing co-pilot / SaaS | Pass | DFY Ownership Diligence Pack; tools internal |
| Substantial physical labor | Pass | Document / registry / graph work only |
| Hourly primary pricing | Pass | Fixed pack + per-counterparty tiers |
| No path to 50%+ GM | Pass | Automation of extraction/graphing; specialist at chokepoints |
| Unclear buyer | Pass | Export compliance manager / GC at mid-market EAR exporters |
| Non-repeatable workflow | Pass | Intake → screen → ownership graph → determination → QA → binder |
| Fully automate regulated judgment | Pass | No legal advice claim; specialist signs determination; counsel escalations |
| Duplicative of prior blueprint | Pass | Distinct from ECCN classification / CTPAT / UFLPA / Lacey |
| Illegal / unlicensable | Pass | Diligence facilitation; not licensed practice of law if scoped + disclaimers |
| Unverified core demand | Pass | Binding FR snapback + affirmative duty in rule/alerts |
| Commoditized by frontier models | Unclear→Mitigated | Moat = audit binders, registry playbooks, escalation SOPs, customer portfolio memory |
| Cannot pilot small | Pass | 5–8 exporter pilots × 25–50 counterparties |
05 Rubric scorecard (6 gates)
Average ≈ 4.7/5. Anti-commoditization: ChatGPT cannot hold contemporaneous audit trails, resolve Red Flag 29 with documented best efforts, maintain refreshed Entity List aggregation logic, or deliver customer-specific portfolio monitoring SLAs.
06 Opportunity
07 Evidence quality and source-claim matrix
| Claim | Label | Source / basis | Confidence | Business impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Affiliates Rule published 30 Sep 2025 (90 FR 47201), effective ~29 Sep 2025 | Verified | Federal Register / law-firm alerts citing 90 FR 47201 | High | Core regulatory trigger |
| Rule stayed 10 Nov 2025–9 Nov 2026; reimposed 10 Nov 2026 absent further action | Verified | 90 FR 50857–50858 (FR Doc 2025-19846) | High | Why-now / urgency clock |
| 50% ownership (direct/indirect/aggregate) by Entity List/MEU/certain SDN triggers restrictions | Verified | 90 FR 47201 summary; WilmerHale / Debevoise alerts | High | Outcome definition |
| Affirmative duty / Red Flag 29 when ownership known but % unresolved | Verified | WilmerHale; ArentFox; Morgan Lewis alerts | High | MVP deliverable (resolution memo) |
| CSL name screening alone is insufficient for Affiliates Rule | Verified | ArentFox; MoFo; ovrseas analysis | High | Differentiation vs legacy screening |
| EAR civil penalty max $374,474/violation or 2× transaction value (as of 15 Jan 2025) | Verified | BIS enforcement penalties page; 15 CFR 6.3 | High | Willingness to pay |
| 270,001 identified US exporters in 2024 | Verified | Census CB25-163 / 2024 prelim profile | High | Market ceiling input |
| SMEs >97% of identified exporters | Verified | Census 2024 prelim profile | High | ICP skew to mid-market |
| Trade compliance software market ~$2.19B in 2026 | Verified | Research and Markets report abstract | Med-High | Budget category proof |
| Export compliance services market ~$3.8B in 2026 | Verified | MarkWide Research abstract | Med | Services budget proof |
| Enterprise screening/DD tools (Dow Jones, LexisNexis) sold as platforms, not DFY packs | Verified | Vendor product pages | High | Whitespace for DFY service |
| Trade counsel often $600–$2,000+/hr; ITAR retainers $2k–$8k/mo | Verified | Rate benchmarks / ITAR consultant ranges | Med | Pricing envelope vs counsel |
| ~8k–25k mid-market EAR-sensitive ICP | Inferred | Census exporters × industry risk filters | Med | TAM narrowing |
| First pack ASP $8k–$22k achievable | Inferred | Counsel hour displacement + consulting retainers | Med | Unit economics |
| BIS will not extend suspension again | Unverified | Political risk | Low | Kill risk if extended |
08 Why now
- Verified: Affiliates Rule is on the books with automatic reimposition 10 Nov 2026 (90 FR 50857).
- Verified: Law firms uniformly advise using the suspension year to map ownership and upgrade screening — WilmerHale explicitly notes BIS will expect preparation if the rule snaps back.
- Verified: Penalty exposure remains high under EAR/ECRA.
- Inferred: Mid-market exporters can buy DFY packs faster than they can procure enterprise ownership-data platforms before Q4 2026.
- Unverified: Exact share of exporters who will buy external DFY packs vs upgrade SaaS only.
09 Customer & PMF
| Dimension | Definition |
|---|---|
| ICP | US manufacturer/wholesaler, $25M–$750M revenue, 50–2,000 employees, regular EAR exports to Asia/ME/CIS, 30–500 active foreign counterparties, no dedicated trade-ops ownership team |
| Buyer | Export Compliance Manager / Trade Compliance Lead |
| Economic decision-maker | GC / CFO / VP Operations (penalty & shipment-hold risk) |
| User | Compliance analyst + sales ops submitting end-user certs |
| Urgent trigger | Snapback countdown; new China/Russia distributor onboarding; voluntary disclosure prep; board export-controls ask; insurance/audit questionnaire |
| Alternatives | Big-law diligence; DIY CSL + spreadsheets; enterprise screening SaaS; do nothing until hold |
| Jobs-to-be-Done | “When I must prove ownership diligence on my customer book, help me produce an audit-ready determination pack fast enough that shipments don’t freeze.” |
| WTP evidence | Verified counsel rates + software category spend; inferred pack ASP vs hours of counsel |
10 The outcome we sell
Deliverable — Portfolio Ownership Diligence Pack (MVP)
- Counterparty master list with risk tiers
- Ownership graph PDFs for each in-scope party (up to agreed cap)
- Listed-owner hit table (Entity List / MEU / §744.8 SDN) with aggregate %
- Determination: Clear / Covered Affiliate / Unresolved Red Flag 29
- Questionnaire pack + evidence appendix (registry extracts, filings, news)
- Specialist-signed cover memo + audit trail
Acceptance: Every in-scope counterparty has a determination label + evidence folder; unresolved items include documented best-efforts log suitable for license-application narrative.
Exclusions: Not legal advice; not a BIS license filing unless separately scoped with counsel; not OFAC blocking determinations; not ECCN classification (separate product).
Rework: Free correction if factual ownership source was available at delivery and omitted; no refund for later ownership changes (monitoring SKU).
Success metric: % of counterparties with Clear/Covered determination within SLA; # shipment holds avoided (customer-reported).
First one-feature MVP wedge
- ICP: Mid-market US industrial exporter with China/SEA distributor book
- Trigger: Affiliates Rule snapback prep / board ask / new high-risk distributor
- Pain: CSL-only screening cannot answer 50% ownership
- One-feature MVP: DFY Ownership Diligence Pack for ≤50 counterparties
- Input: Customer/distributor list + any KYC docs + jurisdictions
- Output: Determination binder + Red Flag 29 memos
- Human chokepoint: Export-controls specialist QA + escalation labeling
- Success metric: ≥90% counterparties labeled Clear/Covered/Unresolved with evidence in ≤15 business days
- Next asks: Continuous monitoring; license-application diligence annex; sales-onboarding API; deemed-export HR packs
11 Internal AI engine architecture
- Intake: CSV/CRM export of counterparties; end-user certs; questionnaires; prior screening hits.
- Normalization: Entity resolution (aliases, transliteration, address clustering); jurisdiction tags; risk tiering.
- Retrieval/knowledge: Entity List / MEU / SDN mirrors; corporate registries; OpenCorporates/commercial ownership feeds; prior gold packs.
- AI workbench: Extract owners from filings/PDFs; build ownership graphs; draft determination memos; propose Red Flag 29 narratives.
- Deterministic rules: 50% aggregate math; Rule of Most Restrictiveness flagging; list-match exact IDs; jurisdiction risk scores.
- Human chokepoint: Specialist validates opaque chains, Covered vs Clear calls, and unresolved best-efforts sufficiency.
- QA: Dual-check Covered Affiliates; source-link completeness; contradiction scan.
- Delivery: PDF/HTML binder + structured JSON determinations to customer SharePoint/Drive.
- Learning loop: Corrections → prompt/rules/registry playbooks; false Clears → red-team set.
- Model portability: Swap LLM providers; keep graph DB + rules + evidence vault model-agnostic.
12 AI-vs-human operations pipeline
Licensed counsel engaged only on escalation (license strategy, voluntary disclosure, contested ownership)—not on every Clear determination.
13 Operations as product
- SOP library by jurisdiction (CN/HK/SG/RU/AE/TR/IN)
- Required evidence checklist per risk tier
- Automated completeness gates before specialist review
- Exception queues: OpaqueOwnership, MinorityListed, BoardOverlap, ShellCascade
- Confidence scoring on each ownership edge
- Versioned binders + hash of source snapshots
- Gold-standard packs for training/QA
- Postmortem on any customer-reported miss
14 No-holes quality engine
- Never mark Clear if listed ownership suspected but % unknown → force Unresolved/RF29
- Require ≥2 independent sources for Covered Affiliate calls when possible
- Red-team weekly: inject known affiliates into sample books
- Hallucination controls: every ownership edge must cite a source URL/file ID
- Change detection: re-pull registry before final sign-off
- Customer attestation of list completeness to limit scope disputes
15 Pricing, pricing legality & unit economics
| SKU | Unit | Price (fixed) |
|---|---|---|
| Portfolio Diligence Pack (≤50 counterparties) | Pack | $8,000–$14,000 |
| Portfolio Diligence Pack (51–200) | Pack | $14,000–$28,000 |
| Deep-dive opaque counterparty | Party | $750–$2,500 |
| Monitoring & refresh retainer | Month | $2,000–$6,000 |
Why not hourly: Buyers buy a determination binder outcome, not hours. Hourly recreates law-firm economics.
Pricing legality: Fixed fees for diligence facilitation are standard. Avoid contingency on “penalty avoided.” Do not share in recovered funds. Disclaim legal advice; escalate contested calls to counsel. No unauthorized practice of law if outputs are labeled investigative/compliance-support and customer retains decision rights.
COGS per 50-party pack (target day-90)
| Component | Cost |
|---|---|
| Model inference + OCR | $40–$120 |
| Registry / ownership data APIs | $150–$600 |
| Hosting/storage | $15–$40 |
| Specialist review (90–150 min) | $180–$450 fully loaded |
| QA (20–40 min) | $40–$100 |
| Support / delivery | $30–$80 |
| Total COGS | ~$455–$1,390 |
| Gross margin at $11k ASP | ~87–96% (launch lower ~55–70% with more human minutes) |
Revenue/FTE target year 1: $350k–$550k with automation; year 2: $650k+.
16 Nonlinear scaling plan
- Automation %: launch ~45% → day 90 ~65% → year 1 ~80% of extraction/graph steps
- Throughput: 1 specialist → 2–3 packs/week launch → 5–7/week day 90
- Cycle time: 15 business days launch → 7–10 day 90 for standard tiers
- Rework target <8%; quality failure (missed Covered) <1%; escalation to counsel <12% of parties
- Margin expands as registry playbooks and customer portfolio memory reduce re-research
17 Moat & Sam Altman test
Frontier models strengthen AffiliateClear by accelerating multilingual registry extraction and graph drafting. Moat compounds via jurisdiction playbooks, false-clear red-team sets, customer portfolio histories, and audit-trail SOPs—not via chat answers. Commoditization threat: enterprise screening vendors adding “Affiliates Rule mode” + mid-market SKUs. Win by selling the finished pack + monitoring SLA where tools alone still leave the evidence chase unfinished.
18 Buyer-specific go-to-market
Primary motion: Founder-led outbound to export compliance managers + partnerships with customs brokers / mid-market trade consultants who lack ownership-investigation bandwidth.
- First 50 prospects: NAICS manufacturers exporting to CN/HK/TW/AE/TR/RU (via AES patterns / trade directories / LinkedIn titles “Export Compliance”)
- Trigger events: Snapback T-180/T-90; new distributor; BIS Entity List update affecting sector; board risk memo
- Outreach wedge: Free 10-counterparty Ownership Exposure Scan → paid Portfolio Pack
- Credibility asset: Public Affiliates Rule readiness checklist + sample Red Flag 29 memo (redacted)
- Conversion path: Scan → consult → fixed-fee pack → monitoring retainer
- Sales cycle: 2–6 weeks mid-market
- Acquisition metric: Scan→paid ≥20%; paid→retainer ≥35%
Distribution proof table
| Channel | Why ICP reachable | First angle | Conv. assumption | Proof source | Measurement | Follow-up |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LinkedIn outbound | Title-targeted compliance roles | “CSL ≠ Affiliates Rule — free 10-party scan” | 3–6% reply; 20% scan→paid | Counsel alerts + FR snapback | Reply/scan/paid rates | Calendar + sample binder |
| Broker/consultant partners | Already serve exporters | White-label diligence desk | 1–2 intros/partner/mo | Services market spend | Partner-sourced ARR | Rev-share pack fees |
| Trade association webinars | Exporter education demand | “90 days to Nov 10 snapback” | 10–20% attend→scan | Industry webinar norms | Registrations→scans | Offer pack discount |
| AEO / search | Buyers query “Affiliates Rule ownership” | Checklist + diagnostic CTA | 2–5% visitor→scan | High query intent (inferred) | Organic + LLM citations | Email nurture |
| Warm counsel referrals | Firms want leverage on diligence grunt work | “We produce the binder; you keep the advice” | High trust; lower volume | Counsel rate economics | Referral close rate | Co-branded packs |
First 30 days of content
- 10 posts: CSL insufficiency; Red Flag 29 explained; China registry opacity; aggregate ownership examples; Rule of Most Restrictiveness; penalty math; questionnaire redesign; T-180 countdown; broker partner FAQ; monitoring vs one-time packs
- 3 teardowns: anonymized ownership graphs (Clear / Covered / Unresolved)
- 2 lead magnets: Affiliates Rule Readiness Checklist; 10-Party Ownership Exposure Scan
- 1 live review: “Bring 5 counterparties — we map live”
- 1 outbound template: diagnosis memo with 3 named public risks in prospect’s sector
19 Pilot design & early-demand trap
- Pilot cap: 8 exporters / ≤50 counterparties each
- Incentive: 25% off first pack for weekly feedback + permission to anonymize learnings
- Product feedback: missed sources, UI of binder, determination disagreements
- Custom work (reject for scale): full export compliance program builds; ITAR classification; litigation support
- Hardening gates: after 5 → intake/QA checklists; after 10 → SOP/exception queues; after 20 → pause until COGS/rework measured
- Kill criteria: cannot hit <1% false Clear on red-team; buyers only want software login; snapback extended past 2027 without alternative demand
20 Competitive landscape
| Player type | Examples | Gap |
|---|---|---|
| Enterprise screening data | Dow Jones, LexisNexis, Descartes, Visual Compliance | Sell tools/data; mid-market still needs DFY pack assembly |
| Big-law trade practices | WilmerHale, Covington, Gibson Dunn, etc. | Excellent judgment; expensive for portfolio grunt work |
| Boutique EAR consultants | Various ITAR/EAR shops | Hourly/advisory; limited AI throughput |
| Prior internal blueprint | Export Classification & Licensing Engine | Product classification ≠ ownership diligence |
| Do nothing | CSL-only | Fails Affiliates Rule affirmative duty |
Budget validation: Buyers already spend on screening software, customs brokerage compliance add-ons, and trade counsel. AffiliateClear redirects a slice of counsel/hours and DIY labor into fixed packs.
Anti-duplication: Not a generic automation agency; not ECCN classification; not CTPAT profiles; not sanctions-only OFAC screening SaaS. Narrow wedge = Affiliates Rule ownership determination packs with Red Flag 29 documentation.
21 Regulation, compliance & licensing boundary
- AI may: extract ownership, draft graphs/memos, flag list hits, compute aggregates
- Operators may: assemble binders, run questionnaires, document best efforts
- Specialists must: approve Clear/Covered/Unresolved labels
- Licensed counsel must: advise on license strategy, voluntary disclosures, contested legal conclusions
- Must not claim: that AffiliateClear is a law firm; that Clear means “BIS-approved”; that OFAC blocking status is determined; that licenses are obtained
- Required: engagement letter, non-advice disclaimer, record retention ≥5 years (align Part 762), customer decision attestation
22 Compact founding team
| Role | Why | FT/Fractional | Timing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Export-controls domain expert | Chokepoint QA / trust | Fractional→FT | Day 0 |
| Ops lead | SOPs / throughput | FT | Day 0 |
| Automation/AI engineer | Graph + extraction engine | FT | Day 0–30 |
| Trade counsel (advisory) | Escalations / templates | Fractional | Day 0 |
| Sales/channel | Outbound + broker partners | Fractional | Day 30 |
| QA owner | Red-team / audit trails | Ops dual-hat → dedicated | Day 60 |
23 Exhaustive risk register
1. Snapback delayed/cancelled again
Likelihood Med · Impact High · Label Unverified · Mitigation: sell OFAC 50% + minority-listed red-flag diligence as evergreen SKU · Owner: Founder · Indicator: FR notices
2. False Clear on Covered Affiliate
Likelihood Low–Med · Impact Critical · Label Inferred · Mitigation: dual-source rule; never Clear on unresolved % · Owner: QA · Indicator: red-team miss rate
3. Unauthorized practice of law claim
Likelihood Low · Impact High · Label Inferred · Mitigation: disclaimers; counsel escalation path; no license filing as counsel · Owner: Counsel · Indicator: engagement letter audits
4. Registry data unavailability (CN/RU)
Likelihood High · Impact Med · Label Verified (opaque registries noted by firms) · Mitigation: Unresolved RF29 path; questionnaire + local researcher network · Owner: Ops · Indicator: % Unresolved by jurisdiction
5. Enterprise SaaS mid-market price war
Likelihood Med · Impact Med · Label Inferred · Mitigation: DFY pack differentiation; partner with SaaS rather than compete as tool · Owner: Sales · Indicator: win/loss notes
6. Data vendor cost spike
Likelihood Med · Impact Med · Label Inferred · Mitigation: multi-vendor; cache; tiered SKUs · Owner: Eng · Indicator: data COGS/pack
7. Customer list incompleteness disputes
Likelihood Med · Impact Med · Label Inferred · Mitigation: scope attestation; change-order SKUs · Owner: Ops · Indicator: scope tickets
8. Talent scarcity for EAR specialists
Likelihood Med · Impact High · Label Inferred · Mitigation: fractional bench; SOP leverage · Owner: Founder · Indicator: review queue days
9. Model hallucination of owners
Likelihood Med · Impact High · Label Inferred · Mitigation: citation-required edges; refuse unsourced nodes · Owner: Eng/QA · Indicator: unsourced edge rate
10. Over-customization early-demand trap
Likelihood High · Impact High · Label Inferred · Mitigation: pilot cap; reject program builds · Owner: Ops · Indicator: custom hours %
11. BIS further changes ownership thresholds
Likelihood Med · Impact Med · Label Unverified · Mitigation: rules layer versioning · Owner: Domain expert · Indicator: FR monitoring
12. Partner channel conflict with counsel
Likelihood Med · Impact Med · Label Inferred · Mitigation: clear “we draft, they advise” positioning · Owner: Sales · Indicator: referral volume
24 Tech stack & build plan
- Week 1–2: Airtable/Notion case DB; CSV intake; CSL API; OpenCorporates/commercial ownership API; Claude/GPT extraction prompts
- Week 3–4: Ownership graph store (Neo4j or Postgres recursive); memo templates; PDF binder generator
- Week 5–8: Exception queues; confidence scoring; customer portal delivery; monitoring diffs
- Later: CRM integrations; continuous screening webhooks; partner white-label
25 Metrics & KPIs
- Throughput packs/week; cycle time; rework %; GM %; COGS/pack; revenue/FTE
- Escalation %; automation %; evidence completeness %; quality failure %; customer acceptance %
- Scan→paid; waitlist→pilot; pilot→paid; retainer retention
26 What could kill this
Permanent repeal of Affiliates Rule without substitute ownership duty; systemic false Clears causing customer BIS enforcement; inability to access ownership data at usable rates; buyers insisting on self-serve SaaS only; UPL enforcement if marketing overclaims legal conclusions.
27 90-day validation & launch plan
- Days 1–7: Publish checklist + scan landing page; outreach 80 ICP; engage fractional EAR specialist; counsel templates
- Days 8–30: Deliver 3 paid packs; instrument COGS; red-team suite; refine RF29 memo
- Days 31–60: Cap at 8 pilots; broker partner MOUs; harden SOPs after 5
- Days 61–90: Measure rework/escalation; pause expansion if GM <50% at target automation; launch monitoring SKU
- Kill if: <3 paid packs by day 45; false Clear on red-team; snapback cancelled AND no OFAC/minority-listed demand
What the human expert actually does
| Task | License | Min launch | Min day 90 | Automation path | Quality risk | Cannot automate | Audit trail |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Risk-tier intake review | No | 25 | 10 | Rules + scoring | Missed high-risk party | Customer context judgment | Intake checklist log |
| Opaque ownership adjudication | No* | 40 | 20 | Graph assist | Wrong Covered/Clear | Best-efforts sufficiency | Edge citations + memo |
| Red Flag 29 narrative QA | No* | 20 | 12 | Draft AI | Weak documentation | Credibility of efforts | Versioned memo |
| Counsel escalation brief | Counsel | 30 | 20 | Template AI | Misframed legal ask | Legal strategy | Escalation ticket |
| Final pack sign-off | No* | 15 | 8 | QA checklist | Ship incomplete binder | Accountability | Signed cover page |
*Not practicing law; compliance specialist. Counsel for legal conclusions.
28 Sources
- Federal Register — One Year Suspension / Snapback of Affiliates Rule (90 FR 50857)
- WilmerHale — Affiliates Rule diligence obligations
- Debevoise — Commerce expands export-controls to affiliates
- MoFo — Affiliates Rule implications
- ArentFox Schiff — CSL insufficient; Red Flag 29
- Morgan Lewis — Affirmative ownership responsibility
- Gibson Dunn — Watershed Affiliates Rule analysis
- Wilson Sonsini — Formal one-year suspension
- Skadden — Suspension & automatic reimposition
- ovrseas — Snapback prep / CSL insufficiency
- BIS — EAR civil/criminal penalties
- 15 CFR 6.3 — Inflation-adjusted civil penalties
- Census — Preliminary Profile of US Importing/Exporting Companies 2024
- Research and Markets — Trade compliance software 2026
- MarkWide — Export compliance services market
- Dow Jones Integrity Check — DD reports product
- LexisNexis — Trade compliance screening
- ITAR Consultant — Consulting/retainer price ranges
- EPA — FIFRA §7 establishment reporting (rejected candidate)
- IRS — About Form 8865 (rejected candidate)