Institution decides
Policy scope, interpretation, exceptions, action, and timing
Published screen provides
A governed definition, criteria, scope, evidence, and history
Mapping establishes
Whether the available screen fits, partly fits, or does not fit
Define the policy test first
Start with the operative policy clause, not a familiar screen name. Rewrite the clause as a test that identifies the covered portfolios, relevant activity, corporate relationship, threshold, exception, evidence requirement, and required action.
Working policy test
For which portfolios or mandates, review which companies and relationships for which activity, subject to which boundary or exception, then take which documented action.
If the institution cannot state this test clearly, choosing a screen may hide an unresolved policy question rather than solve it.
Read the complete published screen
A title is only a label. Review the definition, every inclusion and exclusion criterion, hierarchy, data-collection role, ownership treatment, evidence expectations, and last-review information before deciding that a screen represents the policy.
Definition and criteria
Confirm exactly what evidence can identify involvement and what is excluded on its own.
Scope and evidence
Check the available company scope, source traceability, review date, and visible data gaps.
Relationship treatment
Compare the screen's ownership and relationship approach with the policy test.
Release and history
Record which governed release was used and review later changes to its meaning or hierarchy.
Compare the policy and screen boundaries
Compare like with like. A policy can be broader or narrower than a published screen even when they use the same topic name.
Activity
Does the screen assess the product, service, conduct, or value-chain role named by the policy?
Company scope
Does the available company universe cover the issuers and entities to which the policy applies?
Relationship
Does the screen treat direct operations, controlled entities, associated companies, and joint ventures in the way the policy requires?
Threshold
Does the screen use a threshold that the policy recognizes, and is the required data actually available?
Evidence
Are the evidence standard, source visibility, review date, and uncertainty treatment sufficient for the institution's process?
Outcome
Can the institution connect the screen outcome and any qualifier to a defined review, restriction, escalation, or documentation step?
Do not assume a revenue threshold, ownership percentage, or wider form of control is available unless the published screen and implemented data support it.
Classify the quality of the fit
Exact fit
The published definition, scope, relationship treatment, threshold, and evidence approach match the policy test.
Select the screen and preserve the version reviewed.
Partial fit
The screen covers part of the test but is broader, narrower, or relies on different assumptions.
Document the gap and the additional control or review needed.
No fit
The available screen does not reliably represent the policy requirement.
Record the gap. Do not treat a missing match as a compliant result.
Selecting a filter or available screen does not turn a published screen into a custom screen. Its definition and criteria continue to come from the governed taxonomy release.
Record the selection and rationale
A reviewable selection record connects the policy decision to the exact published material used. It also lets a later reviewer understand known gaps without reconstructing the decision from memory.
- 01Policy name, clause, owner, and version
- 02Portfolio, mandate, account, or strategy in scope
- 03Selected screen name, stable identifier, and taxonomy release
- 04Definition, inclusions, exclusions, and relationship treatment reviewed
- 05Mapping result and any gap or additional control
- 06Decision owner, approver, date, and rationale
- 07Next scheduled review or event-based trigger
Keep the final evaluation outcomes separate from workflow qualifiers. Company Screener uses Involvement identified and No involvement identified as outcomes. Missing, stale, conflicting, or review-required evidence describes the state of the supporting process.
Review the mapping when something changes
Review the mapping on a defined schedule and when the policy, mandate, portfolio scope, published screen, taxonomy release, or available evidence changes. A previous selection can remain understandable while a new version is assessed.
Policy change
Re-run the policy test and confirm that each selected screen still represents it.
Taxonomy change
Review added, removed, changed, or reparented screens before updating the mapping.
Evidence change
Follow the institution's escalation and decision process when a company result or qualifier changes.