Manual vs. Automated Due Diligence

A side‑by‑side comparison of speed, quality and auditability.

By Plinth Team

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.