The program reserve covers 47% of rolling 60-day ACH debit volume; the bank requires 100%.

What happened. Alert de3f04b9 fired from the reserve_coverage detector on program Meridian Remit (48915275-d6d2-4068-8e62-f51a51f9da77). The reserve on file covers 47% of rolling 60-day ACH debit volume against a bank requirement of 100%. Severity is high, route is reviewed, and there is no prior disposition history for this program. What the evidence shows. The reserve_coverage_ratio KRI is 0.4669 (n=440) against a threshold of 1.0, status breach. This is the metric the alert is built on. Alongside it, the same program's KRI panel shows three other breaching metrics: manual_review_aging_hours=1151.6 (n=3, breach), ach_unauthorized_return_rate=0.0114 (n=440, breach), and sanctioned_country_transfers=2 (n=966, breach). Two KRIs sit at watch: hold_aging_hours=1369.7 hours (n=5) and pep_flagged_entities=1 (n=30). Other KRIs (frozen_accounts, overdraft_events, manual_review_rate, velocity_vs_declared, stale_screening_share, high_risk_entity_share, ach_overall_return_rate, verification_denial_rate, ach_administrative_return_rate, counterparty_concentration_top1) are within normal range. card_fraud_declines is unmeasured (n=0). The program declares $1,200,000.00 monthly volume across ach, wire, swift rails in US, MX, PH. What was checked. I reviewed the alert evidence block (n=440, kri=reserve_coverage_ratio, value=0.4669, status=breach, threshold=1) against the full program KRI panel to see whether the reserve shortfall is isolated or accompanied by other signals. I checked for prior dispositions on this program (none found) and confirmed the alert is unscored (skoor null) with hard_signal false, meaning no scoring engine has weighed in independently. What is recommended. This is not a single held transfer, so release does not apply. The reserve shortfall itself is a program-level capital adequacy issue that a person must evaluate before any assumption of adequate coverage is restored. Combined with a breaching sanctioned_country_transfers count (2, on a program with MX and PH rail exposure) and a breaching manual_review_aging_hours metric, the evidence points to more than an isolated coverage gap — it suggests broader program-level control weakness. I recommend escalate: the reserve breach should be reviewed alongside the sanctioned-country and review-aging breaches as a single program-level pattern rather than dispositioned as an isolated KRI miss.

{
  "n": 440,
  "kri": "reserve_coverage_ratio",
  "unit": "ratio",
  "value": 0.46692560418477086,
  "status": "breach",
  "threshold": 1,
  "routeReason": "detector always reviewed"
}