In-house Financial Services Company newsroom

ClearBank

Customer Service Automation · Document Processing · Risk Management

ClearBank needed to deploy multiple generative AI use cases for banking API workflows in a regulated financial environment while safeguarding security, robustness, transparency, bias control, and regulatory alignment.

Reported impact

Business outcome

ClearBank reports that a single continuous evaluation and traceability approach helps it make better decisions, optimise processes, improve security, and maintain regulatory alignment while deploying generative AI securely and transparently with minimal bias.

  • Compliance
  • Productivity Improvement
  • Risk Reduction

Solution

ClearBank describes an in-house generative AI implementation for regulated banking API workflows built around Large Language Models (LLMs) and retrieval augmented generation (RAG) architecture. The system ingests internal policies, policy and client documents, and client transactional enquiries or complaints into separate pipelines for enquiry monitoring, policy review, and client screening. RAG is used to ground outputs in source documents, while the generative models run on ClearBank's internal infrastructure rather than an external shared service. An evaluation pipeline continuously measures document specificity, precision, QA correctness, hallucinations, toxicity, and, for summarisation use cases, ROUGE. A model experiment tracking system records the exact base model version used for each output so end users can trace responses. Domain experts remain in the loop to provide real-time feedback, identify bias, and help product owners tune models and refine input documents under a single assurance approach.

Data flow

Client transactional requests, complaints, internal policies, and policy or client documents are ingested into ClearBank's generative AI pipelines. RAG retrieves supporting source material for the LLMs, which generate monitoring, review, screening, or summarised outputs on internal infrastructure. The evaluation pipeline and model experiment tracking system then measure quality, log model versions, and support end-user traceability, while domain experts feed back tuning signals.

Solution architecture

4 components · 3 layers
  1. Compute
    • Large Language Models (LLMs) Generate and summarise responses for enquiry monitoring, policy review, and client screening workflows.
  2. Orchestration
    • retrieval augmented generation (RAG) architecture Grounds each pipeline output in source documents so responses can be traced back to internal content.
  3. Governance
    • evaluation pipeline Evaluates document specificity, precision, QA correctness, hallucinations, toxicity, and summarisation quality across ClearBank's generative AI pipelines.
    • model experiment tracking system Records the exact base model version used for each output so end users can inspect model lineage.

Architecture clues

  • A model experiment tracking system exposes the exact base model version used for end-user outputs.
  • Generative models are implemented on ClearBank's internal infrastructure.
  • Human evaluators and domain experts remain in the loop for feedback, bias review, and model tuning.
  • RAG is used so each pipeline output can be traced to source documents.
  • ROUGE is used for document summarisation-based use cases.
  • The evaluation pipeline tracks document specificity, precision, QA correctness, hallucinations, and toxicity.

Evidence from the source

"By implementing our generative models on our internal infrastructure, and by constantly evaluating and monitoring generative AI use case pipelines within the ClearBank API, our domain experts can give real time feedback and tune our models in a safeguarded environment."
"Generative AI such as Large Language Models (LLMs) with retrieval augmented generation (RAG) architecture have potentially transformative use cases in the Fintech domain of banking APIs."
"We achieve a high level of service through optimising processes, improving security, and ensuring regulatory compliance through a single assurance model monitoring approach for all our generative AI use cases."
"We routinely evaluate and track each pipeline with retrieval and response evaluation methods to assess document specificity, precision, QA correctness, hallucinations, and toxicity."
"With RAG and internally implemented generative AI models, we can trace the source documents for each pipeline output for our generative AI use cases, and with our model experiment tracking system supply the end user with the exact base model version used."
Transparency Evidence & methodology 75/100 reference value · 77% confidence · 1 source

Review how this reference was scored and trace each normalized claim back to its documented source.

01

Scoring methodology

How scores are calculated

Customer Reference Value measures usefulness as a customer reference. Evidence Confidence measures the quality and traceability of available evidence, not independent verification.

Customer reference value75/100
  • Problem clarity20/20
    Measures whether the customer's operational problem is specific enough to compare.
  • Implementation depth25/25
    Rewards named components, data flow, integrations, and architecture detail.
  • Outcome specificity20/20
    Measures whether the reported benefit is concrete rather than a generic claim.
  • Quantified impact0/25
    0 metrics describe measurable impact.
  • Deployment scale10/10
    Rewards evidence of a live or scaled deployment and meaningful integration scope.
Evidence confidence77%
  • Source authority10/25
    Sources are present but are not identified as first-party.
  • Claim traceability19/25
    9 of 12 key fields link to a named source.
  • Direct evidence20/20
    5 direct source quotes retained.
  • Date provenance10/10
    The publication date comes from the source page or publisher.
  • Source transparency10/10
    1 source reference document publisher, URL, authority, retrieval, and supported fields.
  • Implementation specificity8/10
    Rewards source-backed components, data flow, quantified impact, and a specific outcome.
02

Traceability

Sources & provenance

Field coverage shows which facts each source supports. Dates are shown only when documented by the source.

  1. Department for Science, Innovation and Technology

    ClearBank: Safeguarding generative AI use cases in a regulated fintech banking API - GOV.UK

    Independent
    https://www.gov.uk/ai-assurance-techniques/clearbank-safeguarding-generative-ai-use-cases-in-a-regulated-fintech-banking-api
    Source type
    Government-published case study
    Published
    Apr 9, 2024
    Supports
    • Customer
    • Industry
    • Business problem
    • Solution
    • Products
    • Solution components
    • Data flow
    • Integrations
    • technical area
    • use case category
    • Business outcome
    • outcome category
    • Architecture
    • Publication date

Date evidence

  • Published on source page Apr 9, 2024 · ClearBank · First-party
    Open date source
Not separately sourced Region, Company size, Metrics. Treat these normalized attributes as lower-confidence until a dedicated source is added.