M/HQ Group · Stage 2 · CrossVal

Stage 2 Proposal: Implementation

The owned data core, the automated ingestion layer, and the AI layer: built, integrated and adopted before the end of Q4 2026

Draft v0.3 · review round 1 applied · for internal review, not yet for issue
M/HQ · Rethink · RAA
Prepared by CrossVal · 14 July 2026
Confidential
Working draft: read this first

This is the v0.2 merged working draft for internal review before design and issue to Greg. Structure follows the IFT post-programme format; no content is carried from that document. Amber verify chips mark every specific that is not yet grounded in the Stage 1 deliverables; Appendix C lists them in one table, and Appendix D is a glossary of the key terms, systems and acronyms. Scope basis, confirmed 14 July: Group-wide (M/HQ, Rethink, RAA); the owned-core direction is decided (Stage 1 Future State report and Transformation Roadmap); the spoke platform choice remains open and closes at the WS0 gate.

1Where we are

Stage 1 delivered three documents (current-state and gap report; future-state technology strategy and operating model; transformation roadmap) and a review cycle that produced 23 points of written feedback from the Group, all of which were resolved and shipped into the revised deliverables on 14 July 2026. The direction is settled: the Group's problem is not the absence of a system of record; it is that data reaches the system of record by hand. Stage 2 builds the layers that fix capture, hold the Group's own master data, and put automation and AI on top of it. The specialist systems stay, as swappable spokes around a record the Group owns.

The binding constraint has not moved: the main implementation completes before the end of Q4 2026. Working backwards from 31 December, this proposal is sized for a start no later than Monday 3 August 2026.

2Objectives

  • One master record per client and per connected party across the Group, replacing entity-by-entity re-keying, and covering the Rethink-only and RAA-only clients that today never fully reach the entity-management system.
  • Automated capture. Intake, screening and document data land in the record without manual entry. Manual data entry becomes the exception with a reason attached.
  • Quick wins live inside eight weeks. The Group sees working automation before the core build lands.
  • An AI layer where it earns its place. Document production, reporting and drafting; not where judgement is the product (tax opinions, audit conclusions).
  • A Group that can run this without us. Trained teams, defined roles, documented systems, and a steady-state model agreed before we leave.

3Target architecture

Read the architecture from the centre out, not top to bottom: the owned data core is the source of truth, and everything else is either an input to it, a spoke around it, or a layer on top of it.

LayerWhat it holds and does
Capture and ingestionKYC360 intake and screening; document OCR with a recheck that client-keyed data matches the source PDFs; BAU documents arriving by email through the same input layer; client portal forms. Everything is extracted, validated and written once.
Owned data core
the source of truth
The Group master record: clients, entities, connected parties (UBO, shareholder, officer), fee data, obligations, under a single enforced identifier. R&C client deliverables do not sit in the Group's owned record; they are housed on a separate tenant of the record system, with appropriate firewalls between tenants. This segregation was raised in the Stage 1 review, is non-negotiable, and is designed in from day one.
Specialist spokes
swappable, none load-bearing
The entity-management platform (ViewPoint upgraded or Quantios, closed at the WS0 gate) plus Xero, Inflo, BlueSky, KYC360 and ComplyAdvantage, each connected through a governed integration and each replaceable without touching the record.
Workflow and AI layerDocument generation, renewals and filing logic, compliance calendars, proposal production, fiduciary review drafting; Co-pilot and Claude at the desktop, governed and human-reviewed.
Reporting off the recordRegulator reporting, management reporting, operational reporting, sourced from the owned layer so it survives a change of platform.
What the owned core is, and is not

This is not a rebuild of ViewPoint or Quantios, and it does not replicate their application functionality. It is a data layer the Group owns, feeding the external systems around it; entity-management workflow, screening and finance functionality continue to live in the specialist tools. We build only where existing technology cannot provide the solution. This was the Group's central challenge in the Stage 1 review, and the boundary is stated on this page deliberately.

4Scope of work: six workstreams

WS0 · Mobilisation and the spoke-platform gate (weeks 1–2)

  • Close the entity-management spoke decision (ViewPoint upgrade vs Quantios as a spoke). The direction, an owned core with specialist spokes, is already decided; this gate picks the spoke. Decision paper: the capability matrix in Appendix B of the Stage 1 Future State report, covering the ViewPoint support window (~12 months), the completed KYC360 API on the upgraded ViewPoint, and the ADGM/DIFC jurisdiction gating on Quantios reporting.
  • Lock the data model, tenancy design and segregation boundary for R&C client data, signed off by the Group MLRO before build.
  • Baseline capture: time-and-motion sample across onboarding, renewals, invoicing, reporting, audit file prep. This is the measurement framework: no benefit is claimed in this proposal that is not measured here first.
  • Environments, access (ViewPoint SQL, Xero, KYC360, document stores), security review, and the Stage 2 RAID log.
  • Output: signed architecture and data model; spoke decision closed; baseline measurement pack; Release 1 backlog.

WS1 · Data foundation (weeks 2–12)

  • Master data model build; owned record deployed (segregated tenants).
  • Legacy CRM cleanse and standardisation (the "Ltd. vs Ltd" problem), de-duplication, unique party ID applied Group-wide. The ID already exists for M/HQ in ViewPoint; this workstream extends its enforcement to Rethink-only and RAA-only clients, including the connected parties (UBO, shareholder, officer) that are not recorded today.
  • Migration and reconciliation; data quality dashboard and ongoing stewardship rules.
  • Output: Group master record live, with a measured data-quality score against the Stage 1 baseline.

WS2 · Capture and ingestion layer (weeks 3–16)

  • KYC360 onboarding module deployed for intake, periodic review and ownership/control changes, with BAU document flow (email-received documents) routed through the same layer.
  • OCR and validation: keyed data checked against source PDFs before anything writes to the record.
  • Straight-through write to the owned record and onward to the spoke platform.
  • Fee-approval-to-invoice automation (removes the line-by-line re-keying into ViewPoint/Xero).
  • Output: intake and BAU changes captured once, entered once.

WS3 · Spoke configuration and integration (weeks 4–18)

  • Configure the chosen spoke platform; migrate; UAT.
  • Integrations: spoke platform to owned record; KYC360; Xero; ComplyAdvantage; Inflo; BlueSky.
  • Payroll flow (Excel to HRMS to Xero) rebuilt so individual employee changes no longer require a full payroll rollback.
  • Output: integrated landscape, no manual bridge files.

WS4 · Workflow automation and the AI layer (weeks 6–20)

  • Document production: working papers, board minutes, corporate governance documents, structuring proposals (including the PowerPoint-to-HTML proposal change flagged in the Stage 1 review; tested for real productivity gain before it is committed).
  • Renewals and filings: auto-roll of next-year filings, monthly renewal reporting.
  • Compliance calendars generated from jurisdiction rules rather than rebuilt by hand.
  • Annual accounting build on the record (no specialist tool covers it; a bounded build per the Stage 1 Future State report, Section 7.1): statement preparation off prepared data toward the team's own 8-to-4-hour goal, and FTA-compliant VAT/CT return generation, with the opinion staying with the professional.
  • Fiduciary reviews (elevated to the ranked list in the Stage 1 review on risk grounds): bank-statement requests, review file notes and fee schedules as workflow and AI drafting off the record, human-reviewed at every point a regulator examines.
  • Regulator and management reporting from the owned layer.
  • Co-pilot and Claude: licences, deployment, prompt library per function, governance and security policy, and hands-on training.
  • Output: automation live in the functions where Stage 1 evidenced the load.

WS5 · Adoption, capability and steady state (weeks 1–20, continuous)

  • Change and adoption programme by function; champions network; department-level KPIs.
  • Role and job-description changes; capability framework.
  • Recruitment support for the Group-side roles (Section 9).
  • Steady-state operating model, support model, and handover pack, including the standalone technology seat and internalisation plan conditions from the Stage 1 Roadmap, restated in Section 9 of this proposal.
  • Output: the Group runs it; CrossVal supports rather than drives.

5Deliverables and dates

#DeliverableWorkstreamDue
1Signed target architecture, data model and tenancy design; spoke decision closedWS014 Aug 2026
2Baseline measurement pack (pre-implementation)WS014 Aug 2026
3Release 1: quick wins liveWS2, WS425 Sep 2026
4Group master record live, migrated and reconciledWS130 Oct 2026
5Capture and ingestion layer liveWS213 Nov 2026
6Spoke platform configured and integrated; UAT signed offWS327 Nov 2026
7Workflow and AI layer live; Co-pilot and Claude rolled out with governance policyWS411 Dec 2026
8Fiduciary review workflow and drafting liveWS411 Dec 2026
9Annual accounting build live on the record (incl. FTA-compliant VAT/CT output)WS411 Dec 2026
10Adoption programme complete; training deliveredWS511 Dec 2026
11Steady-state operating model and handover packWS518 Dec 2026
12Post-implementation measurement report (against the WS0 baseline)All30 Jan 2027

6Release plan and timeline

Three gated releases, back-solved from the 31 December backstop. Scope flexes; the date does not.

ReleaseWindowContentsGate (end of window)
R1 · Quick winsMon 3 Aug –
Fri 25 Sep
Co-pilot/Claude rollout and prompt libraries; renewals reporting automation; fee-approval-to-invoice automation; compliance calendar generator; recruitment note-taking and scheduling automationSteering go/no-go on R2 scope
R2 · CoreMon 7 Sep –
Fri 27 Nov
Owned data layer; migration; capture and ingestion; spoke configuration and integrationsUAT sign-off by function heads and Group MLRO
R3 · Automation, AI and steady stateMon 19 Oct –
Fri 18 Dec
Document production, reporting, fiduciary workflow, annual accounting build, AI layer, adoption, handoverStage 2 close and steady-state entry

The windows overlap deliberately: each release starts while the one before it is still closing, which is what keeps six workstreams inside five months. The gate dates (25 Sep, 27 Nov, 18 Dec) are the commitments; the start dates are indicative until WS0 planning locks the backlog.

7Quick wins: the first eight weeks

Named, dated, and owned. These are chosen because they carry no dependency on the WS0 spoke decision.

Quick winFunctionLive by
Co-pilot and Claude deployed with function-specific prompt libraries and a usage policyGroup-wide4 Sep
Monthly renewal report generated rather than assembled in ExcelCorp sec · Marcia/Ekta confirm names11 Sep
Fee-approval table to invoice, no line-by-line re-keyingFinance · Deepti/Ateeq confirm names18 Sep
Compliance calendar generation from jurisdiction rulesR&C25 Sep
Meeting notes, call summaries and scheduling automationRecruitment · Barry confirm name25 Sep

8Resourcing: CrossVal team

Placeholder: reprice before issue

All rates below except the USD 450 principal rate, and all hours, are a placeholder model to be re-cut against the final workstream backlog before this document is issued.

RoleRate (USD/hr)HoursFee (USD)
Engagement Principal45012054,000
Solution Architect350320112,000
Data Engineer (lead)250400100,000
Integration / Automation Engineer25032080,000
AI Engineer27524066,000
Business Analyst / Process Lead20032064,000
Change and Adoption Lead22520045,000
QA / Test Analyst15016024,000
Totalblended 2622,080545,000

Roughly 3.3 FTE across 20 weeks.

9Resourcing: Group side

Required from the Group (no fee): the internal systems team led by Geetu confirm name; a named data owner per entity; function SMEs for design and UAT; Group MLRO / compliance sign-off; a nominated executive sponsor for decisions inside 48 hours.

The hybrid-model conditions (from the Stage 1 Roadmap, Sourcing recommendations). The internal systems team (six people, currently reporting through Group Finance) takes ownership of bounded reporting and configuration on the record. Two conditions attach. First, the team needs a standalone technology seat rather than reporting through Finance; this is an operating-model change to make in Stage 2. Second, if the Group wants to internalise the core over time, Stage 2 carries an explicit hiring and capability plan for that team, sized so the handover is real rather than nominal.

The four roles the Group raised confirm against Greg's email of 28 Apr

RoleOur viewDuration
Master Data ArchitectHire. This is the role that keeps the owned layer alive after we leave. Do not outsource it permanently.Permanent
Business Process Transformation LeadHire, or CrossVal covers it through Stage 2 and hands over.Permanent
Change Management / Adoption LeadFixed-term with hard KPIs; this is a 6 to 9 month job, not a permanent one.6–9 months
Platform implementation specialistVendor-side or contract, tied to the WS0 spoke decision. The Group's own history with ERP-type implementations argues for buying this in.Contract
Flag, stated plainly

Roles 1 and 3 should not be collapsed into one person. Running the technology and driving adoption are different jobs, and the half that is not the person's core strength is the half that slips.

10Governance and ways of working

  • Steering committee (monthly). Executive sponsor, Group Systems lead, CrossVal engagement principal. Owns the release gates, the RAID log's high items, and the scope-flex decisions that protect the Q4 date.
  • Delivery oversight (weekly). CrossVal delivery leads with the Group Systems lead and function-head representation as the agenda requires. Tracks the release plan, clears blockers, reviews the measurement dashboard.
  • Day-to-day delivery. CrossVal build team working alongside the internal systems team and named SMEs; decisions inside 48 hours via the nominated sponsor.

Decision rights, escalation path and the RAID log are set in the WS0 mobilisation pack. Scope flexes; the date does not.

11Measurement framework

No projected savings appear in this proposal. Instead: WS0 captures a measured baseline (volumes, cycle times, touch counts, error and rework rates) across onboarding, renewals, invoicing, reporting and audit file prep. Targets are set against that baseline at the end of WS0 and reported monthly. The post-implementation report in January 2027 measures the same things the same way.

The Group's own observed figures from Stage 1 discovery are the calibration points, and each carries its source. These are validation targets the measurement framework tests, not benefits we claim.

Observed figureSource
Compliance put automated onboarding at roughly 90% of its workCompliance team, discovery (Stage 1 Roadmap, Section 5.2)
Accounting's own goal: annual accounts from 8 hours to 4 per client, ~300 accountsAccounting team, discovery (Stage 1 Roadmap, Section 3)
~60 onboarding/KYC cases a month, M/HQ alone (new, refresh, BAU changes)Group steering feedback, Jul 2026 (Stage 1 Roadmap, Section 3)
Regulatory returns of ~300 questions each across three supervisory authoritiesR&C team, discovery (Stage 1 Roadmap, Section 3)
~1,200 entities; ~200 staff; priority cluster holds ~72% of payrollGroup-supplied data (Stage 1 Roadmap, Section 5)

12Investment and payment schedule

CrossVal fees

  • Fees: USD 545,000 placeholder: reprice with the rate card, billed hourly against a logged timesheet at the Section 8 rate card, capped per release.
  • Less Stage 1 credit: (USD 36,000) confirm credit amount and mechanism against the signed Stage 1 engagement terms, applied against the first invoice.
  • Net: USD 509,000 recalculates with the two items above
  • Change budget (optional, drawn only against approved change requests): up to USD 54,500 placeholder: 10% of gross; confirm

Third-party costs: client-contracted, not in the CrossVal fee

Verify before issue

Verify every figure in this table against Group cost data. The ~USD 111k total matches the Stage 1 Roadmap (Section 5); the line-item split is unverified.

ItemCurrent annual (USD)Stage 2 changeOwner
Entity-management spoke (ViewPoint upgrade / Quantios) licence + implementation66,500 verifyfrom WS0 decisionGroup
KYC360 (incl. onboarding module)16,923 verifyTBDGroup
ComplyAdvantage11,527 verifynoneGroup
Xero / Inflo / BlueSky16,237 verifyTBDGroup
Microsoft Co-pilot / Claude licences0TBDGroup
Cloud hosting for the owned data layer0TBDGroup
Current total~111,000 (Stage 1 Roadmap)

Payment schedule

Percentages of gross fee; the Stage 1 credit is netted in milestone 1; the schedule recalculates if fees change.

#Milestone%Amount (USD)Expected
1Signature and mobilisation (net of Stage 1 credit)15%45,7503 Aug 2026
2Release 1 live (quick wins)25%136,25025 Sep 2026
3Release 2 live (core)30%163,50027 Nov 2026
4Release 3 live + steady-state handover20%109,00018 Dec 2026
5Post-implementation measurement report10%54,50030 Jan 2027
Total (net of credit)100% of gross509,000

Exclusions

Third-party software licences and vendor implementation fees; hardware; recruitment agency fees for Group hires; salaries of Group staff; data migration of records outside the agreed scope; ongoing run and support beyond the steady-state handover (priced separately); anything arising from a change of the spoke-platform decision after the WS0 gate.

13Risks and mitigations

RiskMitigationOwner
Spoke decision not locked by 14 AugWS0 gate with the Stage 1 capability matrix as the decision paper; R1 quick wins are deliberately spoke-independent so the clock keeps runningSponsor / Systems lead
ViewPoint support window closes within ~12 monthsForced into the WS0 decision paper, with cost of both routesCrossVal
Spoke implementation slips (industry feedback on Quantios timelines is not encouraging)Owned data layer is not dependent on the spoke going live; decoupled by designCrossVal
Legacy CRM data quality blocks migrationCleanse starts week 2, ahead of everything elseCrossVal / Systems lead
R&C client data cannot sit in the Group record (DP and segregation)Separate tenant with firewalls between tenants, designed in WS0, signed off by the MLRO before buildGroup MLRO
Stakeholder availability, the same constraint that bound Stage 1Named SMEs with committed hours in the mobilisation packSponsor
Q4 2026 hard stopThree gated releases; scope flexes, the date does notSteering
Build-vs-buy maintenance burden: the owned layer needs ongoing expertise to evolveOwned, not softened; carried from the Stage 1 Future State risk register: scope held to data, ingestion, integration and reporting; the steady-state model names who maintains itCrossVal / Steering

14Steady state

From January 2027: the Group runs day-to-day; CrossVal provides a defined support and improvement model (options: hypercare only / hypercare plus managed improvement / full managed service, priced separately). The Master Data Architect owns the data layer. The improvement backlog is governed by a quarterly technology forum. The internal systems team holds its standalone technology seat, and if the Group elects to internalise the core, the hiring and capability plan from WS5 governs the handover.

Disclosure (carried from the Stage 1 Roadmap)

CrossVal is a build-capable technology firm recommending a model in which CrossVal builds and operates the core. That is disclosed. The internal and hybrid alternatives were laid out in Stage 1 with their real constraints so the Group could choose on the evidence, and the recommendation for hybrid rests on the internal team's observed size, not on CrossVal's interest. The Group owns the data throughout, so the operating partner can change without the record moving.

15Next steps

#StepWhen
1Proposal review with Greg and the Systems leadw/c 20 Jul 2026
2Confirm scope, the WS0 spoke-gate framing, and the Group-side resourcing commitmentby 24 Jul
3Contracting and POby 31 Jul
4Mobilisation and WS0 kickoffMon 3 Aug 2026
5Release 1 live25 Sep 2026

AAppendix: assumption log

Continues the assumption-log convention from the three Stage 1 deliverables; numbering restarts. Populate at design time; carry forward at minimum: Group-wide scope; 3 August start; observed figures treated as stated by function heads, not independently verified; vendor pricing confirmed at WS0; hybrid-model conditions as per Section 9.

BAppendix: Stage 1 feedback, closed and carried

Closed and shipped in the revised deliverables (14 July 2026), not to be re-argued

  • Origination (not "onboarding") starts at M/HQ; each entity onboards and screens its own clients separately. Corrected throughout the deliverables.
  • Fiduciary re-prioritised into the ranked use cases (item 8) on risk grounds; prioritisation stated as risk-weighted, not volume-weighted.
  • R&C client data segregation designed as a separate tenant with firewalls between tenants (wording locked in the Stage 1 Future State report, Sections 5.1b and 7.2).
  • Complyfin removed; the R&C function uses the internal ComplyAdvantage instance.
  • CRA workflow correction: ViewPoint auto-assigns review dates; the manual load is the email data requests and the human input layer.
  • Data-quality scoring basis note added; Uniqueness raised, Lineage lowered, on the evidence.

Genuinely open, carried into Stage 2

  • The spoke-platform decision (ViewPoint upgrade vs Quantios as a spoke), including whether the completed KYC360 API on the upgraded ViewPoint changes the calculus. Closed at the WS0 gate using the capability matrix in Appendix B of the Stage 1 Future State report.
  • The PowerPoint-to-HTML proposal-production change: tested in WS4 before any productivity gain is claimed.
  • Confirmation of the third-party cost lines and any vendor pricing changes (WS0).

CVerification register

Clear these before this document is designed and issued. Everything not listed here is anchored to the Stage 1 deliverables and needs no further check: the USD 450/hr principal rate, the Q4 2026 backstop, ~USD 111k total licences, ~1,200 entities, ~200 staff, ~72% of payroll in the priority cluster, and all observed figures in Section 11.

#ItemWhereAction
1Quick-win owner names: Marcia/Ekta, Deepti/Ateeq, BarrySection 7Confirm names and functions
2Systems lead name: GeetuSection 9Confirm name
3"Four roles raised by Greg, 28 Apr"Section 9Confirm against Greg's email
4All rates except USD 450/hr, and all hours (2,080 total)Sections 8, 12Reprice against the final workstream backlog
5Stage 1 credit: USD 36,000 amount and mechanismSection 12Confirm against signed Stage 1 engagement terms
6Change budget USD 54,500 (10% of gross)Section 12Confirm policy
7Third-party licence line-items (66,500 / 16,923 / 11,527 / 16,237)Section 12Verify against Group cost data
8Payment schedule amountsSection 12Recalculate after items 4–6 clear
9Next-step dates (w/c 20 Jul, 24 Jul, 31 Jul)Section 15Confirm against Greg's availability

DGlossary: key terms and acronyms

The engagement and its documents

TermMeaning
Stage 1 / Stage 2Stage 1 was the four-week tech and systems strategy, delivered July 2026. Stage 2 is the implementation this proposal covers, completing before the end of Q4 2026.
Gap ReportStage 1 Deliverable 1: the Current-State Assessment and Gap Report.
Future State reportStage 1 Deliverable 2: the Future-State Technology Strategy and Operating Model. Its Appendix B holds the Quantios/ViewPoint capability matrix used at the WS0 gate.
RoadmapStage 1 Deliverable 3: the Transformation Roadmap and Strategic Recommendations, including the sourcing recommendation this proposal executes.
WS0–WS5The six Stage 2 workstreams set out in Section 4.
R1 / R2 / R3The three gated releases in Section 6: quick wins, core, and automation/AI/steady state.
Quick winsAutomations delivered in the first eight weeks that carry no dependency on the core build or the spoke decision.

The architecture

TermMeaning
Owned data core / golden recordThe data layer the Group owns: one record per client, entity and connected party under a single enforced identifier. The source of truth; not an application.
Ingestion layerThe automated capture boundary: intake, OCR extraction and validation that turns documents and forms into structured data before it reaches the record.
SpokeA specialist application connected to the owned record through a governed integration (entity-management platform, Xero, KYC360, Inflo, and so on). Swappable; none is load-bearing.
Separate tenantA segregated instance of the record system. R&C client deliverables sit on their own tenant with firewalls between tenants, never inside the Group's own record.
Hybrid modelThe Stage 1 sourcing recommendation: CrossVal builds and operates the core, ingestion and AI layer; the internal systems team owns bounded reporting and configuration; spokes are vendor-managed.
Steady stateThe operating model after Stage 2 closes (from January 2027): the Group runs day-to-day and CrossVal supports under a defined model.
HypercareThe period of intensive, rapid-response support immediately after go-live.
Origination vs onboardingOrigination is where a client relationship starts (mostly at M/HQ). Onboarding, the regulated intake and risk assessment, is performed separately by each entity for its own clients.

The systems

SystemWhat it is
ViewPoint (VP)The current entity-management system of record (on-premise, 2019 version; support ends within roughly 12 months). An upgraded version exists with a completed KYC360 API.
Quantios (QC)The cloud trust-and-corporate-services platform assessed in Stage 1; a candidate spoke, not the system of record, in this design.
KYC360 (RiskScreen)Screening and client-intake tool used by M/HQ and internal compliance, at onboarding and on an ongoing daily basis.
ComplyAdvantageScreening tool used by Rethink and RAA for their own clients, and by the R&C function via the same internal instance.
XeroCloud accounting and invoicing used by Rethink and RAA.
InfloRAA's audit execution and document tool.
BlueSkyThe Group's HR management system.
Co-pilot and ClaudeThe two AI assistants in the AI layer: Microsoft Co-pilot inside M365, and Anthropic's Claude for extraction and drafting. Governed, human-reviewed, never the system of record.

Acronyms

AcronymMeaning
ADGMAbu Dhabi Global Market, a UAE financial free zone and regulator the Group files into.
AEOIAutomatic Exchange of Information: the FATCA and CRS reporting regimes.
BAUBusiness as usual: day-to-day changes (for example ownership or control changes arriving by email) outside onboarding and periodic review.
CDDClient due diligence: the identity and risk information collected on a client.
CRAClient risk assessment: the ViewPoint workflow that scores risk and auto-assigns review dates.
CRSCommon Reporting Standard, the OECD tax-information exchange regime.
CSPCorporate services provider.
CT / VATUAE corporate tax / value added tax.
DIFCDubai International Financial Centre, a UAE financial free zone and regulator the Group files into.
DPData protection.
FATCAThe US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.
FTAThe UAE Federal Tax Authority.
FTEFull-time equivalent.
KPIKey performance indicator.
KYCKnow your client: the regulated identity and screening obligations.
MF IDMaster-file identifier: the unique party ID enforced in ViewPoint at M/HQ.
MLROMoney Laundering Reporting Officer: the named officer in each entity who owns onboarding and AML compliance.
OCROptical character recognition: machine-reading documents into structured data.
POPurchase order.
RAIDThe risks, assumptions, issues and dependencies log kept through delivery.
R&CRegulatory and Compliance: Rethink's outsourced compliance service line, serving external clients (distinct from the Group's internal compliance).
SMESubject-matter expert.
UATUser acceptance testing: the function heads' sign-off that the build works.
UBOUltimate beneficial owner.

End of draft v0.3. Working document for internal review. Not for issue until the verification register is cleared and the document is designed.