AI for Fintech · AI Fintech Development Company

AI for fintech + AI fintech development — orchestrate AI inside your compliance framework, not around it.

Fintech teams in 2026 sit in a three-way squeeze: funded competitors shipping AI features in 4–8 weeks, cost-of-fraud math that can't survive another year of analyst-only review, and regulator AI-readiness audits from the OCC, FRB, FCA, and MAS that ask for SR 11-7 inventories on the first visit. Paiteq is an AI fintech company doing AI fintech development inside your existing stack — KYC AI, AI AML, fraud decisioning, credit explainability, RegTech, treasury, AI compliance consulting — sized to SR 11-7, PCI-DSS, and EU AI Act Annex III obligations before the first prompt. We stay through the first eval-drift cycle, not the deploy.

Use cases 8 · KYC · fraud · credit · treasury · compliance
Engage MVP · Platform · Bank-grade
Stack LangGraph · Claude · Pinecone · Snowflake · LangFuse
Compliance SR 11-7 · PCI-DSS · EU AI Act Annex III
001 / WHY NOW

Why fintech is evaluating AI for fintech from an AI fintech development company right now.

Fintech founders and CTOs in 2026 face three pressures running in parallel: AI feature parity with funded competitors, cost-of-fraud math that needs an explanation layer to keep working, and regulator AI-readiness audits that are no longer hypothetical. Each pressure on its own would be manageable. Together, they're why AI for fintech has moved from R&D experiment to board-level agenda in the last 18 months, and why the AI in banking conversation now sits inside every bank-partner vendor evaluation we walk into. Every AI fintech company we talk to in 2026 is asking the same first-call question: what do we build first, and how do we ship it without tripping a regulator's first follow-up.

PRESSURE 01
Cadence: 4–8 week competitor AI feature sprints

Series C fintechs with $30M+ rounds are shipping AI features in 4–8 week sprints — embedded credit explainers, intelligent dispute triage, agent-driven onboarding — and the side-by-side bank-vendor evaluation goes badly if your product still looks pre-AI. We've watched a perfectly competent B2B payments platform lose a Tier 1 bank deal over a single missing AI feature the winning vendor shipped in seven weeks on Claude Sonnet 4.6 plus Pinecone. The category-defining moment for AI in fintech happened somewhere between the OCC's 2024 model-risk update and the EU AI Act's high-risk classification of credit scoring; trying to opt out isn't a strategy. The bottleneck isn't model capability — it's the eval framework, the regulatory documentation, and the integration surface against your existing payments and ledger systems. Those take 4–6 weeks to get right regardless of which model you pick.

PRESSURE 02
Cost-of-fraud target: 0.4–1.2% of GMV is the gate

Mature fintech keeps loss plus investigation cost under 0.4–1.2% of GMV. Below that, the unit economics work; above it, the CFO starts asking why fraud headcount grew 30% year-over-year. The analyst team reviewing flagged transactions burns 4–8 minutes per case reading Sift or Feedzai signals — fast enough at low volume, brutally slow at scale. The fintech ai fix is an explanation layer that compresses analyst-read-time from 4 minutes to 15 seconds without touching the fraud model itself. Chargeback rate stays flat or improves; false-positive friction drops 8–15% from better second-look decisions; analyst throughput goes 3.5–5× per shift. The unsexy part is that the explanation eval set has to be graded by your fraud analysts, not by a vendor's benchmark — that's the week-3 unblock most teams underestimate.

PRESSURE 03
Regulator AI-readiness audits — SR 11-7 inventory is the entry ticket

The OCC, FRB, FCA, and MAS are all running AI-readiness audits in 2024–25 — every regulator that touches AI in banking is now asking the same first-pass questions. Examiners are asking for SR 11-7 model-risk inventories on the first visit, not the third. Ad-hoc model documentation — the kind most fintechs accumulated when ML was a side experiment — won't pass. Every AI feature that influences a customer-facing decision needs an inventory entry: scope, data lineage, monitoring plan, human-override pathway, performance thresholds, retraining cadence. Our AI fintech development engagements ship that inventory in parallel with the build, not as a retrofit at audit time. The bank partner's MRM team should be able to drop the entry into their existing system without translation — that's the bar. EU AI Act Annex III adds another layer for any feature touching credit scoring or financial services more broadly. We classify against the Act in architecture, not at security review.

002 / USE CASES

The 8 highest-ROI AI use cases in fintech.

Below are the eight workflows we see fintech teams build first. They share three traits: each has a clear regulator-readable ROI number, each is deployable inside an 8–18 week window, and each compounds when you ship two or three together on shared infra rather than as standalone bets. The cards are dense on purpose — pain, with-AI workflow, named tools, and the ROI metric in the fintech buyer's vocabulary. Skim them, then read the two or three that match where your roadmap actually sits today.

USE CASE 01

KYC AI orchestration and customer onboarding

The Pain

KYC AI workloads are the entry point most fintechs ask about first. KYC providers (Persona, Alloy, Onfido) return verdicts in ~30 seconds, but routing the 8–12% edge cases through manual review takes 3–7 business days. Drop-off at the KYC gate runs 18–35% at most fintechs, and the funnel math gets ugly fast. AI AML alert triage runs on the same pattern — a parallel signal layer that pre-classifies before the human looks.

With AI

An orchestration agent takes the KYC vendor verdict plus applicant context — employment signals, transaction history if you have it, document quality — and either auto-clears low-risk edge cases or routes to the right human reviewer with a pre-built decision packet. Sanctions and PEP screening run in parallel calls so the wall-clock doesn't grow. Nothing here replaces the KYC primitive; the agent's job is to make the edge-case routing legible and the audit trail clean enough for a BSA/AML examiner to read in one pass.

42–58%
reduction in time-to-clear on edge cases
6–12 pp lift in onboarding completion at the KYC gate; full audit trail for examiners
Tools
LangGraphClaude Sonnet 4.6PersonaAlloyOnfidoRefinitivSnowflakedbt
USE CASE 02

Fraud-decisioning explanation layer

The Pain

Fraud platforms (Sift, Feedzai, FICO Falcon, Stripe Radar) score in real-time, but the analyst team reviewing flagged transactions burns 4–8 minutes per case reading raw signals. The chargeback-vs-friction tradeoff comes out wrong because the analyst can't read fast enough to second-guess the score.

With AI

An LLM drafts case briefs from the fraud platform's score plus the raw signals plus the transaction graph. The analyst gets "here's why this scored 0.82, here are the 3 strongest signals, here's the cohort comparison" in 8–15 seconds instead of 4 minutes. We don't replace the fraud model — we make its output legible. Case-similarity retrieval over historical decisions teaches the brief format your team already trusts.

3.5–5×
analyst throughput per shift
Chargeback rate flat or down (no model change); false-positive friction 8–15% lower
Tools
Claude Sonnet 4.6SiftFeedzaiFICO FalconStripe RadarPineconeSnowflakeNeo4j
USE CASE 03

Credit-decision explainability for SR 11-7 model risk

The Pain

Bank model-risk teams need a written justification for every adverse credit decision. The data team's SHAP plots aren't a customer letter; the customer letter is hand-written by a senior analyst. 90 minutes per declined application is the median we see, and the queue grows the moment volume does.

With AI

An LLM takes the credit model's feature importances plus the applicant profile plus the bank's lending policy and drafts a regulator-readable adverse-action letter (ECOA and Regulation B compliant) plus an internal SR 11-7 model-output justification. A human reviews and signs; nothing auto-sends. The same engine produces the model-risk inventory entry the MRM team needs at quarter-end audit.

75–88%
time reduction per adverse-action letter
SR 11-7 audit-pack documentation falls out for free; ECOA disclosure quality measurably improves
Tools
Claude Sonnet 4.6XGBoostLightGBMMLflowSHAPLangGraphVercel AI SDK
USE CASE 04

RegTech: regulatory-document RAG and impact analysis

The Pain

Regulators ship hundreds of pages of guidance per quarter — Fed, OCC, FDIC, CFPB, FCA, MAS, EBA — and the compliance team's 6–10 analysts can't read everything. New rules silently break old workflows, and the discovery lag runs 4–8 weeks at the fintechs we've audited.

With AI

RAG over your subscribed regulatory feeds plus internal policy docs. An agent surfaces "this new OCC guidance changes how Section 4.2.3 of your fair-lending policy reads — here are the 3 workflows it touches." Compliance officer reviews; nothing auto-implements. Retrieval quality is the load-bearing piece; we benchmark Cohere Rerank against your team's gold-standard answers before it touches a single policy document.

40–60%
reduction in time to first-pass impact analysis
New-rule discovery from 4–8 weeks → 2–5 days; compliance officer coverage extends ~3× without headcount
Tools
PineconeTurbopufferCohere Rerank 3.5Claude Sonnet 4.6MintlifyLangfuse
USE CASE 05

Treasury and reconciliation agents

The Pain

Daily and weekly reconciliation across payment processors, banking partners, FX desks, and the internal ledger eats 6–12 finance ops hours per day. Breaks surface 24–72 hours late, which means a payout problem on Monday gets noticed Wednesday and fixed Friday.

With AI

An agent ingests the four-to-six source feeds — Stripe, Adyen, Modern Treasury, your bank-partner API, your ledger — and surfaces breaks with proposed resolution paths ranked by historical pattern match. Finance ops approves or escalates. The agent never moves money; it just removes the manual-trace step that ate the team's morning.

65–82%
reduction in finance ops time-on-reconciliation
Mean-time-to-detect-breaks compresses from 24–72 hours → 30–90 minutes; finance close 1.5–3 days faster
Tools
LangGraphClaude Sonnet 4.6Stripe TreasuryAdyenModern TreasurySnowflakedbt
USE CASE 06

Customer-service deflection for fintech-specific queries

The Pain

Fintech support sees 60–80% of tickets about transaction status, dispute progress, KYC re-verification, payment delays, and statement explanations. Agent training is heavy because the system-of-record is genuinely multiple APIs, not a single CRM record.

With AI

A grounded chatbot with tool-calling against your payment processor, ledger, dispute system, and KYC vendor. It reads the actual transaction state from the systems, drafts the customer response, and escalates on uncertainty. The disputes path stays human-supervised by default — chargeback-reason-code language is too compliance-loaded to ship unsupervised on day one.

38–52%
T1 ticket deflection rate
AHT compression 28–40% on escalated tickets; chargeback-SLA hit rate up 12–22% via faster dispute triage
Tools
Claude Sonnet 4.6PineconeStripeAdyenChargebacks911JusttLlama Guard
USE CASE 07

Sales and account-management copilots for B2B fintech

The Pain

B2B fintech AEs and account managers carry 80–200 accounts; depth-of-context dies past about 30. The AM never has time to read the customer's last 90 days of transactions before the QBR, so the QBR runs on the customer's framing rather than yours.

With AI

An account-brief agent reads the customer's transaction volumes, product mix, expansion signals, support history, and recent regulatory exposure. It drafts the QBR pre-read 24–48 hours before the meeting. AE and AM read it, add the relationship layer, and walk into the room with the numbers already correlated. The brief lands inside Salesforce or HubSpot — the AM doesn't open a new tool.

18–30%
NRR lift on targeted-account cohort
AM time-per-account compresses 35–50%; QBR no-show rate drops when the customer feels prepared-for
Tools
Claude Sonnet 4.6SalesforceHubSpotSnowflakeBigQueryCubePlaidModern Treasury
USE CASE 08

Internal compliance copilot — the AI compliance consulting wrap

The Pain

AI compliance consulting that lives in the product. Engineers, product managers, and BD hit compliance questions weekly. "Can we offer this feature in California?" "Does this margin call hit Reg T?" "Does the new payment flow trigger FinCEN reporting?" They either wait days for a compliance officer's answer or guess and ship.

With AI

RAG over your internal compliance policy library plus relevant external regulatory text. The agent answers with citations from your policy doc and the regulator's language. Genuinely-novel questions route to the compliance officer's queue, not the customer-success queue. The routing logic is the unsexy load-bearing piece of AI compliance consulting at scale — get it wrong and the compliance team drowns; get it right and product velocity goes up.

75–90%
same-day answer rate on routine compliance questions
Compliance officer time freed for genuinely-novel reviews; engineers stop guessing on Reg T edges
Tools
PineconeCohere Rerank 3.5Claude Sonnet 4.6MintlifyLangfuse

A pattern worth flagging across all eight AI for fintech workflows above: the ROI numbers above are the median of what we and similarly-shaped agencies have shipped, not the headline outlier. Don't pick a use case for its ceiling. Pick the two with the cleanest regulator-readable ROI math for your stage — Series B with a KYC drop-off problem starts with UC-1 and UC-6; bank-partnered lenders with adverse-action volume start with UC-3 and UC-4; B2B fintech at ~$80M ARR with finance-ops drag starts with UC-5 and UC-7. The next section maps each pain to the Paiteq service that does the actual engineering.

003 / SERVICE MAPPING

How Paiteq services map to fintech needs.

Four common fintech pain shapes on the left, five Paiteq service pillars on the right. Hover any pain row to highlight which services we'd engage; hover a service to reverse-highlight the pains it solves. The descriptive anchors (not the service primary keyword) are deliberate — what matters to you is the workflow, not the service title.

AI feature parity pressure

Funded fintech competitors ship AI features in 4–8 weeks; pre-AI roadmaps fail vendor evals.

Cost-of-fraud compression

Analyst team capacity caps the chargeback-vs-friction tradeoff; an AI explanation layer breaks the cap.

Regulator AI-readiness audits

OCC, FRB, and FCA examiners are asking for SR 11-7 inventories; ad-hoc model documentation won't pass.

Reconciliation and treasury drag

6–12 ops hours per day on rec; breaks surface 24–72 hours late and finance close drifts.

004 / COMPLIANCE

Compliance, model risk, and regulatory posture for fintech.

Three regulatory layers shape every AI for fintech engagement we run. SR 11-7 is the Fed's model-risk guidance and the single biggest E-E-A-T moat in fintech AI. PCI-DSS is table stakes for anyone touching card flows. EU AI Act Annex III adds high-risk classification for credit-scoring and broader financial-services AI. We design within these layers in the architecture phase, not retrofit at security review.

Audited annually · Continuous monitoring
  • SR 11-7
    Fed model-risk · MRM inventory aligned
    AUDITED · 2026
  • PCI-DSS
    Card-data scope · tokenized references
    AUDITED · 2026
  • EU AI Act Annex III
    High-risk classification · transparency tier
    READY
SR 11-7
SR 11-7 model-risk posture

Every AI feature that influences a customer-facing decision gets a model-risk inventory entry from day one: scope of use, data lineage, monitoring plan, human-override pathway, performance thresholds, retraining cadence, and known limitations. The entry is pre-built for your MRM team to drop into their existing system without translation. We've found that bank-partnered fintechs underestimate how much of SR 11-7 readiness is documentation hygiene rather than model engineering — the model is usually fine; the documentation is usually missing or scattered across three Notion pages. The opinionated take here: SR 11-7 readiness is a scoping decision, not a retrofit. The first engagement week we spend on it pays back across every subsequent regulator visit for the life of the model.

PCI-DSS
PCI-DSS scope posture

We design AI features to not touch raw card data. The orchestration layer sits at the metadata tier with tokenized references; vector stores never contain a PAN or CVV; LLM calls receive transaction context but not card primitives; observability traces redact PII at the logging layer. Secrets live in your existing PCI-scoped vault, not in a vendor's. The network-segment boundary stays where it already is. This isn't a compliance constraint we work around — it's the cleanest engineering shape anyway, because the AI workload doesn't need card data to do its job. Most fintechs we engage with already have a clean PCI-scoped environment; our job is to design the AI orchestration in a way that doesn't expand the scope. Scope creep at audit is the failure mode here, and it's preventable.

EU AI ACT ANNEX III
EU AI Act Annex III posture

Credit scoring and broader financial-services AI are explicitly named in Annex III as high-risk systems — bigger regulatory weight than SaaS-side framing. We classify your feature against Annex III in the architecture phase. If high-risk applies, we ship the obligation stack: risk-management system, data-governance log, technical documentation, human-oversight surface, transparency disclosures, accuracy and robustness testing, cybersecurity controls. Sized to the obligation tier; not over-engineered. The honest take: most "EU AI Act compliant" marketing in fintech AI is fiction. The Act is the deployer's obligation, AI features change the data and decision flow inside it, and the vendor's job is to design within the obligation map — not invent a label that satisfies a procurement checkbox.

005 / ENGAGEMENT

How a fintech AI engagement runs at Paiteq.

Five phases. Every phase has an explicit deliverable, a named owner inside your team, and a gate criterion that has to pass before the next phase starts. The cadence is weekly: a Monday standup with your CTO, Head of Risk, Compliance lead, and Data lead. Demo every Thursday. Compliance documentation tracks in parallel from week 1, not as a retrofit.

Fintech AI Engagement · 18 weeks (typical Platform tier) 5 phases
WEEK 1–2 Discovery

Use-case prioritisation, eval surface, stakeholder map (CTO + Head of Risk + Compliance + Data lead)

Single regulator-readable ROI number scoped per use case

WEEK 3–4 Architecture + Compliance Scoping

Stack lock, SR 11-7 inventory entries drafted, PCI scope analysis, EU AI Act tier classification

Architecture signed by your model-risk lead before any prompt is written

WEEK 5–12 MVP Build

Runnable agent against eval set + your real data, weekly demo, observability via Langfuse

Baseline accuracy hit on eval set; SR 11-7 documentation tracking in parallel

WEEK 13–18 Production + Audit Pack

Hardening, fallback policies, rollout, complete MRM audit pack for the bank examiner

All eval gates green; compliance lead signs off on transparency surfaces

WEEK 19+ Optimise + Handoff

Cost engineering, prompt iteration, runbook in your repo, eval-drift monitoring, ownership transfer

006 / TEAM & PRICING

Team shape and pricing for a fintech AI engagement.

Two tier shapes cover roughly 80% of fintech AI engagements we run. MVP for a single high-clarity use case with the compliance scaffolding sized accordingly; Platform for the multi-use-case build on shared infra that most fintechs in the $30M–$200M revenue band actually need. Bank-grade tier (4 eng + 3 ML + 1 PM + compliance partner, $700K+, 32+ weeks) sits behind these for org-wide AI orchestration with a full SR 11-7 inventory and audit-ready posture.

MVP tier — one use case Platform tier — 3–5 use cases on shared infra
Scope One use case end-to-end (e.g. UC-1 KYC orchestration or UC-2 fraud explanation) 3–5 use cases on shared infra plus compliance scoping
Team shape 2 eng + 1 ML + 0.5 PM 3 eng + 2 ML + 1 PM
Timeline 8–12 weeks 18–28 weeks
Eval framework Single eval set, 30–50 examples Shared eval harness across use cases, regression alarms in CI
Observability Langfuse traces + cost dashboard Langfuse + Braintrust + per-agent SLO dashboards
Stop-and-walk option Yes — fixed scope, real option to stop after week 8 Phased gates at weeks 4 / 10 / 18; can collapse to a single-use-case build mid-flight
Click the indicative-range row for the take on which tier fits which revenue band. Bank-grade tier scoped separately on request.
007 / WORK

What we ship as an AI fintech company — three engagement shapes.

Three anonymised fintech engagements from the broader team's history. Industry shape and segment are real; metrics are real; the numbers were measured at week 8–12 post-launch, not at deploy. Brand names removed under standard NDA. Anyone selling you headline outliers without the operating numbers under them is selling case-study theatre.

Risk
Series C consumer lending · DACH

Credit-decision explainability + SR 11-7 inventory

LightGBM credit model already in production; the lender's model-risk lead needed adverse-action letters in regulator-readable language and SR 11-7 documentation that could survive a Fed exam. We built the LLM drafting layer over SHAP feature importances, the templating engine for ECOA-compliant disclosures, and the MRM inventory entries the bank partner could drop into their existing system. Ship cadence was 14 weeks kickoff to first audit pack delivery.

0 %
time reduction per adverse-action letter
Finance Ops
B2B payments fintech · NA · ~$80M ARR

Reconciliation agent + treasury automation

Reconciliation across Stripe, Adyen, Modern Treasury, two banking partners, and the internal ledger ate 9–11 ops hours daily. LangGraph orchestration over the six source feeds with break-resolution paths ranked by historical pattern. Finance ops approves; nothing auto-moves money. Finance close compressed from 7 days to 4. The team kept the same headcount; capacity went elsewhere.

0 %
reduction in finance ops time-on-reconciliation
Compliance
Early-stage RegTech · UK

Regulatory-document RAG with FCA + EBA coverage

RAG over FCA handbook updates, EBA guidelines, and the client's internal compliance policy corpus, with Cohere Rerank 3.5 for retrieval quality and a routing layer for impact-analysis flagging. Compliance officer reviews every surfaced delta. New-rule discovery dropped from 6 weeks to 4 days. The eval set lived in the client's repo from week 3 and grew through production traces.

Discovery lag 6w → 4d / first quarter post-launch
008 / FAQ

Fintech AI buyer FAQ.

Five questions we get on almost every AI for fintech first call, answered the way we'd answer them on the call. Specific numbers, named tools, the actual decision rules — not generic vendor-deck answers.

How much does it cost to build an AI fintech product or add AI to one?

Three bands. An MVP build of a single AI use case runs $90K–$160K over 8–12 weeks (2 engineers, 1 ML engineer, 0.5 PM). A Platform build covering 3–5 use cases plus compliance scoping runs $280K–$460K over 18–28 weeks. Bank-grade engagements with org-wide AI orchestration, a full SR 11-7 inventory, and an audit-ready posture start at $700K and run 32+ weeks. Fintech MVP starts higher than SaaS-equivalent because the compliance scaffolding (SR 11-7 documentation, PCI scope analysis, EU AI Act classification) is table-stakes, not optional. Pricing isn't a black box; we share specific bands during the first call and we'd rather you walk away than mis-scope. Most AI fintech development work that ships well sits in the Platform tier.

How do you handle SR 11-7 model risk for AI features in a bank context?

SR 11-7 is the Fed's model-risk management guidance and it's the single biggest E-E-A-T moat in fintech AI. We treat every AI feature as a model that needs an inventory entry: scope of use, data lineage, monitoring plan, human-override pathway, performance thresholds, retraining cadence, and known limitations. The inventory entry is pre-built for your MRM team to drop into their existing system rather than something we hand them and expect them to translate. Concretely, that means an LLM-based adverse-action letter generator (UC-3) ships with a model card, a SHAP-anchored explanation layer, an eval harness with regression alarms, and a documented escalation path when confidence drops. The AI strategy and roadmap advisory step in week 1 is where we map your specific examiner's asks — OCC vs FRB vs FCA frame this slightly differently — to the inventory shape.

Build vs. buy: when does an in-house AI orchestration layer beat a fintech AI vendor?

Buy when the AI feature is genuinely commodity — generic OCR, transcription, basic classification — and a hosted tool fits inside your PCI scope without surgery. Build the orchestration layer when the AI touches your differentiated decisioning, your regulatory exposure, or your customer-facing risk surface. Fraud-decisioning explanations (UC-2), credit explainability (UC-3), and the SR 11-7 documentation layer aren't workloads where a generic vendor's eval set predicts performance on your portfolio. We've watched fintechs over-buy at first, hit the second use case, and realise the vendor's data model doesn't extend; the rebuild costs more than the original platform build would have. In our experience, the right shape for B2B fintech AI is hosted models for inference, in-house for orchestration, eval, and observability. The build-vs-buy framing belongs in architecture, not after the contract is signed.

Which AI use cases have the highest ROI for B2B fintech?

The four highest-ROI starting points we see in 2026 are: KYC orchestration (UC-1 — 6–12 pp lift in onboarding completion at the gate, plus a cleaner audit trail), fraud-decisioning explanation (UC-2 — 3.5–5× analyst throughput with no model change, chargeback rate flat), credit-decision explainability for SR 11-7 (UC-3 — 75–88% time reduction per adverse-action letter, audit pack for free), and reconciliation agents (UC-5 — 65–82% finance ops time back, finance close 1.5–3 days faster). The selection rule we use: pick the two with the cleanest single-buyer ROI math and the lowest regulator surface, ship them on shared infra, and let eval data tell you which is next. Trying to ship five at once is how AI in fintech development stalls — and how the AI in fintech roadmap drifts a quarter — too many compliance reviews running in parallel.

How long does it take to add AI features inside an existing PCI-DSS scope?

A single AI feature that respects an existing PCI scope ships in 10–16 weeks from kickoff if the orchestration layer sits at the metadata tier with tokenized references — meaning the vector store, the LLM calls, and the observability traces never see a raw PAN or CVV. We design that boundary in the architecture phase. Multi-feature builds with shared infra inside a PCI-DSS environment run 18–28 weeks because the access controls, secret management, and logging redaction need to be wired into your existing PCI-scoped vault and SIEM rather than spun up new. The bottleneck is rarely the AI work — it's usually the time it takes to coordinate the network-segment change-management review and the SIEM integration with your security team. We name those bottlenecks in week 2 of grounded retrieval over regulatory text design so the timeline doesn't slip in production.

009 / START A FINTECH AI ENGAGEMENT

Book a discovery call. We'll name the two AI features that pass your next vendor eval and quote a build window.

No deck. Forty-five minutes with an engineering lead, your real product context on the table, and a follow-up memo within 48 hours scoping the MVP or Platform tier sized to your regulator's actual asks.

010 / OTHER INDUSTRIES

Adjacent industries we engage.

Fintech sits next to three industries in our book where the AI build patterns rhyme — sometimes the workflow translates directly, sometimes the compliance layer changes the engineering. Brief signposts; full pillars land as each ships.