An AI adverse media screening agent searches for the supplier and its principals by name, using alternative spellings and the supplier's country and sector to narrow results.
Agent forms search terms from supplier and owner names.
Agent searches news and public sources.
Agent groups results by topic and relevance.
Analyst decides what is credible and relevant.
Findings and reasoning are saved.
Agent flags new stories later.
It filters out stories about different companies with similar names, groups related articles, and summarises what each says with the source and date.
It categorises findings by type, such as financial crime, regulatory action or labour issues, and sends relevant ones to a reviewer with the original links.
Adverse media is useful signal buried in noise, since a manual search returns pages of irrelevant, duplicate or outdated results.
Many companies share a name, so reviewers read stories about unrelated businesses.
The same story appears in many outlets, wasting review time.
A resolved matter from years ago looks the same as a current one in a list.
Each reviewer uses different search terms and gets different results.
If nothing is found, there is often no record that anyone looked.
The agent lists legal and trading names, principals and the supplier's sector and country.
It searches the sources your team has approved using a consistent set of terms.
Stories about unrelated entities are filtered out with the reason shown.
Remaining stories are grouped and summarised with source, date and category.
Relevant findings go to a named reviewer, and the search itself is recorded even when nothing is found.
Bring a small sample and watch Flo work through it.
| Aspect | By hand | With the agent |
|---|---|---|
| Search terms | Analysts try a few ad hoc terms. | Agent searches name variants with topic words such as fraud or litigation. |
| Volume | Pages of irrelevant results are scanned. | Agent groups results and puts relevant ones forward with the source. |
| Identity | Namesake stories cause confusion. | Agent notes details that tie a story to this supplier or not. |
| Record | Findings are left as bookmarks. | Each reviewed story, source and judgement is stored. |
| Updates | Screening is a one-off. | New stories can be flagged for review later. |
| If | Then | Who decides |
|---|---|---|
| a story links the supplier to fraud or corruption | queue it as high priority | Compliance analyst |
| a story names a similar company only | mark it as likely a namesake | Compliance analyst |
| the source is a minor or unclear outlet | note source reliability | Compliance analyst |
| a story is old and resolved | show the resolution date | Compliance analyst |
| stories involve an owner not the supplier | show the link | Compliance analyst |
| no relevant stories appear | record a clear search with terms used | Compliance analyst |
The agent labels it as an allegation not a finding. The analyst decides how much weight to give it.
The agent notes foreign-language results and flags them for translation. The analyst decides whether to commission one.
The agent attaches the supplier's response. The analyst weighs both.
The agent reports low confidence in any link. The analyst asks for further identifiers.
Talk it through with the team. We will map it to your steps and show where a person stays in control.
Decide which topics count as adverse.
Run agent searches beside manual ones.
Review how often it confuses names.
Turn on later alerts for sensitive categories.
It shows how well the filtering removes noise. A low rate means reviewers still wade through irrelevant stories.
Quick answers to what people ask most about adverse media screening.
Book a demoIt is a search of news and public sources for negative information about a supplier or its principals. An AI agent can run the searches, filter irrelevant results and summarise what remains for review.
It uses country, sector, directors and other details to filter results, and it shows why each excluded story was removed so a reviewer can check.
No. A reviewer weighs the type, age and relevance of each finding and may ask the supplier for an explanation.
It uses the sources your compliance team has approved. The scope of sources is a policy choice that stays with people.
Sanctions screening is the step of checking whether a supplier, its owners or its directors appear on government sanctions lists before you do business with them.
→A supplier financial health check is the step of judging whether a supplier is stable enough to deliver and to keep trading over the life of the contract.
→KYB, or know your business, verification is the step of confirming that a supplier is a real, legally registered company and identifying who owns or controls it.
→A supplier credit risk check is the step of assessing how likely a supplier is to fail financially or default on its obligations, using credit reports, payment history and public records.
→Bring a small sample of real items. We will show what Flo handles on its own and where it hands over to your team.
