Main site

Banking AI agent · Deposit records

Deposit-Insurance Recordkeeping & Signage AI Agent

Reconcile ownership right and capacity coding across core, trust and partner ledgers, name the accounts whose coverage cannot be calculated from current records, and assemble what the officer's inquiry examines.

Typical delivery
4–6 weeks
Deployment
Your stack
CEO or COO
Due inquiry
After launch
Agent Care

What this agent does

Maintains the records, not the certification

In

  1. 01

    An account is opened, and its ownership right and capacity code are read against the records actually held.

  2. 02

    An account sits on a trust, brokered or partner ledger, and it enters the same population as the core book.

Reason

  1. 03

    An account cannot be coded from current records, and it is held for item (v) of the report, not a work queue.

  2. 04

    An account has transactional features, and the 12 CFR 370.5 contract, notice and validation step are checked.

  3. 05

    An account population crosses the 12 CFR 370.2 threshold, and the part applies — most institutions sit below.

Decide

  1. 06

    An account's testing evidence ages, and its scope, exceptions and remediation ride the twelve-month window.

  2. 07

    A brand is added, and Part 328 starts — §328.8 policies since May 2025, §§328.4 and 328.5 by April 2027.

Out

  1. 08

    An account's rate or fee terms move, and Reg DD is checked — the FDIC ranks truth in savings among its most cited.

  2. 09

    Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.

Product statement

The CEO or COO certifies after due inquiry; if a signed report understated the bank's own gaps, what defends the officer is the record of the inquiry, not the agent.

Example workflow

One account, record to certification

  1. 1Account population readCore, trust, brokered and fintech-partner deposit ledgers
  2. 2Records assembledCapacity codes, signatory and beneficiary records and trust documents, each with its source ledger
  3. 3Coverage computedCapacity code, calculated coverage, uncomputable flag and confidence
  4. 4Controls appliedSource-record checks, Appendix A code rules, transactional-feature checks and confidence threshold

No human action required

Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing is certified at any of them — the agent is reconciling, and the reviewer's lane opens at the confidence gate.

5DecisionBranches at the confidence threshold
High confidence

Goes to deposit operations to review.

Low confidence

Adds a second records read first.

Deposit operations review

The record is held with its source ledgers, its uncomputable flag and the confidence.

Accept · Amend · Send to second review

Accepted — goes to the certifying officer

  1. 6Deposit records updatedOnly where write access and approval policy allow it
  2. 7Outcome evaluatedCoding corrections, uncomputable accounts closed, testing exceptions and examination findings

Corrections

Every reviewer correction is counted in the evaluation.

What should not run autonomously

Human approval stays in control

Outside the boundary — human approval required

8 items

  • Signing the annual 12 CFR 370.10 certification.
    • Deciding that a capacity code is correct.
    • Concluding that testing indicates compliance.
    • Requesting relief from the FDIC under 370.8.

  • Automation boundary

    Agent acts unaided

    • ✓Reconcile capacity codes across the deposit ledgers.
    • ✓Carry each record forward with the ledger it came from for the named owner.
    • ✓Test the population against the configured code rules into the review queue.
    • ✓Flag what cannot be computed, and hold it for review.

    Any write happens inside the boundaries agreed at implementation, never ahead of the officer.

    • Notifying an account holder under 12 CFR 370.5.
    • Judging a good-faith effort to contract sufficient.
    • Approving what a deposit channel displays.
  • Changes to coding, capability or escalation rules.

Example output

One deposit account, annotated

What an examination reads is the inquiry behind the signature — this is that layer.

Deposit-record output · single account

Illustrative example
Account
Revocable trust
Records assembled
Two named beneficiaries evidenced in the account records
Ownership right
Trust capacity, 14 Mar 2026
Rule and record
12 CFR 370.4 · FDIC
Confidence
93%
Certification record
Summary report, item (ii)

As received

Taken from the deposit account records and the trust document — nothing on this side is written by the agent.

Records held

  • Trust document on file
  • Beneficiary records
  • Signature card record

Why this record

The capacity code decides which Part 330 category the calculation reads.

What the score decides

Below the configured threshold the record picks up a second read before deposit.

Action

AcceptAmendSend to second review

Value

Where AI adds value

The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.

Where the value lands

Value 01 – 04

Every account

From the deposit records

03Reconciliation

Reconcile from the records

Draw on the deposit account records, the Appendix A code rules, and the Reg CC and Reg DD terms an account carries.

01Approved path

Due inquiry is the standard

The signature is an affirmative diligence representation, not an impression — the inquiry is what is examined.

02Human review

Send review to the weak coding

Uncomputable accounts and low-confidence codes are marked, so the reviewer's read starts where the gaps sit.

04

Build an evidence trail

The account, the ownership right it was coded to and the officer who certified stay on the record.

Integrations

Typical integrations

Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.

  • Core banking

    • FIS
    • Fiserv
    • Jack Henry
    • Temenos

  • Trust and fiduciary

    • SEI
    • FIS Global Plus
    • Trust accounting platforms

  • Partner and brokered

    • Fintech-partner ledgers
    • Brokered-deposit records

Agent

Deposit-insurance recordkeeping & signage

  • Reads the records
  • Reconciles the coding
  • Holds for review

  • Channels and disclosure

    • Digital banking
    • ATM fleet
    • Disclosure and signage tools

  • Observability & evaluation

    • OpenTelemetry
    • Langfuse
    • Supported monitoring/evaluation sources

Integration availability depends on the client's existing systems and API access.

Agent controls

Six layers between the model and the certification

Six checks, arranged innermost last. What gets past all of them is listed in the map below.

L6 · Outermost — last line of defence

Inward → L1 · closest to the model

L6Rollback / safe modePull reconciliation back to record-listing only when evaluation or production signals degrade.Roll back
L5Version monitoringTrack model, prompt, code-rule and coverage-configuration changes.Track
L4TraceabilityRecord the source ledger, the coding, the corrections and the acceptance time.Record
L3Officer reviewHold records for the named reviewer; it governs release, not whether a capacity code is right.Gate
L2Policy guardrailsTest records against the configured Appendix A code rules; a failure returns the record.Restrict
L1Confidence thresholdsRoute low-confidence records to a second read before the reviewer sees them.Require review
Model coreRecord produced — capacity code, calculated coverage, uncomputable flag and confidence
L1 – L2
Test whether a record may stand
L3
Puts the acceptance in a reviewer's hands
L4 – L5
Keep the account and the ownership right behind it
L6
Falls back to record reporting when signals degrade

How Nestack evaluates it

Evaluate the recordkeeping workflow — not only the coverage figure.

Coverage runs the whole depth of the workflow, and every layer is cut by slice.

Surface — the report the officer signs

  1. E1Final-output evaluationDid each coded account match the records behind it?
  2. E2Step-level evaluationDid the agent use the right ledger, code rules and Part 330 category?
  3. E3Tool evaluationDid it read the correct account and the correct ledger?
  4. E4Confidence calibrationDo low-confidence records actually attract more corrections?
  5. E5Slice evaluationHow does performance change across specific ownership rights?
  6. E6Business outcomeHow many accounts needed a correction or stayed uncomputable?

Floor — the outcome the bank answers for

Failure modes

Where each failure originates in the agent

Seven failure modes, placed at the stage each one originates.

Agent lifecycle

Direction of processing →

  1. 01 · Retrieval

    1 mode

    • DO-03

      Ledger left out

      A trust or partner book never enters the population.

    Stage gathers

    Core, trust, brokered and partner deposit ledgers

  2. 02 · Reasoning

    2 modes

    • DO-04

      Capacity code overstates

      An account is coded to a capacity the records do not support.

    • DO-06

      Uncomputable reclassified

      A gap moves to a pending bucket and off item (v).

    Stage proposes

    Capacity code, coverage and uncomputable flag

  3. 03 · Tool / write

    2 modes

    • DO-02

      Testing exception open

      Remediation slips and the exception is open at signature.

    • DO-05

      Notice without validation

      The 370.5 notice is sent and delivery is never validated.

    Stage writes

    Only where write access and approval policy allow it

  4. 04 · Output

    1 mode

    • DO-01

      Miscoded ownership right

      The capacity code does not match the records held.

    Stage returns

    The record the reviewer accepts and the officer signs

  5. 05 · Change / Version

    1 mode

    • DO-07

      Silent code-rule drift

      A model or rule change narrows what the agent flags.

    Stage tracks

    Model, prompt, code rules and coverage config

  • Sev-1 · record relied on outside the boundary
  • Sev-2 · a wrong code reaches the report
  • Sev-3 · source degrades, record to review
See the complete Banking failure-mode catalogue

Affected slices

A coding gap is never evenly spread

A bank-wide coding-accuracy figure is carried by the ownership rights that hold the most accounts, while the thin books set the determination. Nestack reports the coding-error rate by ownership right, not only in total.

Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregate

Illustrative example
SliceFailure rateLiftLift vs. thresholdStatus
Fintech-partner custodial6.2%3.5×Review
Formal trust accounts4.0%2.3×Review
Brokered deposit records2.8%1.6×Watch
Single-owner consumer1.4%0.8×Normal

Bar: coding-error-rate lift vs. single-owner baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold

2 of 4 slices over threshold

Evidence-linked improvement

Each cycle closes with a new account case

A cycle closes when the miscoded account is a case the next release has to catch. That suite is what the next certification made is measured against.

Improvement cycle · five stages

Switchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn

  1. 01

    Detect

    Coding errors rise in one ownership right.

  2. 02

    Diagnose

    The trust account coded as single ownership for eleven years is traced back to one cause — a core conversion with no capacity field to write into.

  3. 03

    Improve

    Version the fix, and the accounts that exposed it stay on that version.

  4. 04

    Verify

    The release is held until each touched account case clears a second run.

  5. 05

    Learn

    The case is kept, and the coding rules are updated in the same change.

  6. Learn → Detect

    The return edge. The next detection runs against a suite one account case longer.

Typical build scope

Twelve workstreams across six weeks

The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, sources, recordkeeping workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.

Workstream

Week 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6

  1. 01Deposit workflow discovery and boundary setting.Week 1
  2. 02Core, trust and partner source assessment.Week 1, Week 2
  3. 03Ownership-right and capacity-code rule mapping.Week 1, Week 2
  4. 04Deposit-record ingestion and mapping.Week 2
  5. 05Capacity-code reconciliation logic.Week 2, Week 3
  6. 06Confidence scoring and exception routing.Week 3
  7. 07Deposit operations review workflow.Week 3, Week 4
  8. 08Core and partner-ledger integration.Week 5
  9. 09Coding and capability cases.Week 4, Week 5
  10. 10Guardrails and inquiry controls.Week 4
  11. 11Account-trail instrumentation.Week 5, Week 6
  12. 12Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover.Week 6

12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallel

Final scope and sequence confirmed in discovery

Engagement tiers

What each tier includes

Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.

Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tierPilotOne ledger, one brandProductionProduction deposit systemsAdvancedMultiple brands / charters
Introduced at Pilot
Reconciliation to your records✓✓✓
Officer review✓✓✓
Coding-accuracy baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by ownership right—✓✓
Review workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved write-back—✓✓
Deposit-system integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-ledger capacity rules——✓
Multi-stage officer review——✓
High account volume——✓
Multi-brand recordkeeping controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build price
Confirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, transaction volume, approval controls and deployment requirements.
Separate from build
Build pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.

What we need from you

What you bring, and what we build with it

Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.

  1. 01Your deposit ledgers and record structure

    Deposit-record ingestion and code mapping

    Week 1

  2. 02Representative accounts by ownership right

    Coding baseline, source binding and coverage mapping

    Week 2

  3. 03Your Appendix A coding standards

    Ownership-right and capacity-code rule mapping

    Week 1

  4. 04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports

    Core, trust and partner assessment, then integration setup

    Week 2

  5. 05Records you would not want relied on

    Determination cases and failure-mode testing

    Week 4

  6. 06What no due inquiry may skip

    Confidence scoring, exception routing, guardrails and approval controls

    Week 3

  7. 07Named reviewers, and the officer who will certify

    Deposit operations review workflow, then pilot and production validation

    Weeks 5–6

Nothing else is required

Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.

Delivery timeline

Four phases across six weeks

Each band sits on the weeks the work genuinely occupies, so the fifth runs two phases together.

Phase

W1

W2

W3

W4

W5

W6

  1. DiscoveryW1
  2. BuildW2 – W3
  3. EvaluateW4 – W5
  4. Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6

Week focus

W1Deposit workflow discovery, code mapping and the automation boundary

W2Ledger integration and the coding baseline

W3Recordkeeping workflow, reconciliation logic and review controls

W4Evaluation suite, coverage checks and failure-mode testing

W5Core and partner integration, pilot accounts and targeted corrections

W6One annual cycle assembled under the deposit operations head, then handover

Reading the band
A bar covers the weeks its work is named in, and nothing else. The week 5 overlap is real, not padding.
At the end of W6
The final checks pass on a live cycle, and Agent Care takes monitoring on.
Duration
Six-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.

Next step · Banking AI agent

Build a deposit-records agent around the inquiry behind the signature.

Show us your ledgers, your capacity coding and who signs. The record has to survive a determination run that starts when a receiver is appointed — and we build to Part 370 as it stands, not the 2024 custodial-account proposal, which was never finalised.

Typical delivery
4–6 weeks
Deployment
Your deposit stack
CEO or COO
Due inquiry
After launch
Agent Care available

Nestack Agents · Deposit-insurance recordkeeping

AGT-BK-21 · Agent Care available after launch

Build a deposit-records agent

Four questions so the call starts from your actual setup — then pick a time that suits you.

About you
Your deposits

No obligation. We’ll map the workflow, name the automation boundary and tell you if an agent is the wrong answer.