Manual vs. Automated Due Diligence
A side‑by‑side comparison of speed, quality and auditability.
Manual vs. Automated Due Diligence
Automated checks speed up routine tasks and improve consistency; manual review remains essential for judgement and context.
- Automation: lookups, document scans and anomaly detection.
- Manual: exceptions, ethics and final approvals.
- Audit trails: stronger when both are joined in one system.
Where automation excels
Repeatable checks gain the most.
- Register queries and sanctions/PEP screening.
- Policy presence and expiry validation.
- Media scanning and risk signal detection.
Key takeaway: use automation to focus human time where it matters.
Where humans are vital
Context and proportionality cannot be automated fully.
- Balancing risk vs opportunity.
- Interpreting complex governance structures.
- Assessing mitigations and support plans.
Key takeaway: Plinth combines both in one workflow.
Measuring effectiveness
Track quality and speed over time.
- False positives/negatives and time per case.
- Consistency of outcomes and documentation.
- Feedback from applicants and reviewers.
Key takeaway: evidence beats anecdotes in process design.
FAQs
Is automation expensive?
No—savings in time and assurance usually outweigh cost.
Will automation reject applicants automatically?
Not in Plinth; humans confirm outcomes.
Can we tune sensitivity?
Yes—configure to programme risk and context.