Anonymised customer story. The company name and detailed implementation arrangements are withheld for confidentiality. The operating details below were supplied by Checklynx; public customer-review feedback is attributed separately.
A parts supplier uses Checklynx to screen its business relationships in quarterly batches. The team prepares the population in Excel or CSV, using stable customer IDs so that a supplier or customer can remain connected to its prior case-management history at the next review.
The review covers the company's suppliers and the businesses it sells to. Relevant companies and ultimate beneficial owners in their ownership structures also enter the screening process. Using registry information supplied by an external provider, Checklynx maps the relevant companies and owners, derives the ownership percentages in that mapped structure, and screens the identified parties. The customer reports less repeated-alert review work because previously resolved false positives remain connected to the same counterparty when unchanged results appear in a later batch.
The work has a practical destination: a report for the compliance team. Screening results need to support a review of business relationships, including questions about ownership and the parties behind each company.
For this customer, the useful unit of work is the quarterly review population: counterparties, relevant related parties and the information needed to explain what was checked.
Screening both sides of the supply chain
A parts supplier occupies two positions in a commercial network. It buys from other businesses and sells to customers that may themselves form part of a wider chain.
This customer's screening scope reflects both sides. It includes its suppliers and business customers. The quarterly batch process brings those groups into the same screening cycle.
Other supply-chain businesses should define their screening population around their own relationships and risks. This customer's scope does not establish an obligation for every business to screen every organisation throughout an unlimited supply chain.
The guide to sanctions screening for suppliers and third parties explains how to decide which relationships belong in scope. The manufacturing and supply-chain solution provides the wider Checklynx context.
Bringing ownership information into the review
The customer also needs to understand the ownership structure of each company. It screens relevant related companies and ultimate beneficial owners alongside the direct business counterparties.
Ownership information matters because a company-name search answers only part of the sanctions question. The compliance team may also need to consider whether restrictions extend to a company through its owners.
For this workflow, an external registry provider supplies the company and ownership information through a Checklynx integration partner. Checklynx maps the supplied information into the relevant companies and owners, derives the ownership percentages in that structure, and screens those mapped parties. The public customer review notes that registry and UBO information required another provider. This story does not claim that Checklynx independently discovers or verifies a complete ownership structure.
For teams planning a similar process, the important handoff is from registry information to the mapped ownership structure, ownership percentages and the correct screening subjects. Relevant intermediate companies can matter as well as the natural persons at the end of the structure. The UBO and related-party screening guide explains how to keep those tasks connected.
Why the 50 Percent Rule matters
The customer identified sanctions ownership analysis, including the OFAC 50 Percent Rule, as an important consideration.
Where the relevant US sanctions rules apply, OFAC treats an entity as blocked when blocked persons own 50% or more in aggregate, directly or indirectly, even if the entity has no separate sanctions-list entry. Ownership interests held by different blocked persons can count together. OFAC's examples also show why intermediate corporate layers matter.
This is an ownership test. Control alone does not automatically block an entity under OFAC's 50 Percent Rule, although it may raise other sanctions concerns. Other jurisdictions have their own ownership and control rules.
For this workflow, the implication is practical: screening a company and a list of final UBOs does not itself complete the ownership analysis. The compliance team needs the relevant mapped structure and ownership interests, screening results and an assessment under the rules that apply to the activity.
Quarterly batches that remember the case
The customer prepares its quarterly review population in an Excel or CSV file and synchronises it with Checklynx using its own stable customer IDs. This means the team does not need a large IT integration or an API project to manage the recurring process.
The customer IDs are important. When the same supplier, customer or related party is included in a later quarterly batch, Checklynx can connect that record to its prior screening workflow and case-management history. Previously resolved false positives remain connected to the same counterparty, reducing repeat investigation when unchanged results appear in a later batch. New or changed information can still require review.
The benefit the customer reports is less repeated-alert review work. It does not mean that no new alerts can arise, or that every potential match is automatically resolved. A compliance team still decides how to handle alerts, ownership changes and information that needs further investigation.
The previous batch-screening workflow did not provide the same one-to-one record mapping into persistent cases. For this customer, that meant repeat alerts could require repeated review in later cycles. Checklynx was selected specifically for its persistent counterparty and case workflow alongside a spreadsheet-led batch process.
A quarterly compliance handoff
The customer screens its population every quarter and generates a report for its compliance team.
That schedule gives the review a recurring operational cycle. It is the customer's reported approach, not a statement that quarterly screening is sufficient for every relationship or legal requirement. Changes in ownership, sanctions status or other relevant circumstances can call for attention before the next scheduled review.
OFAC's compliance framework describes a risk-based approach that considers supply chains and counterparties and responds to changes in sanctions exposure. The supplier rescreening guide explores how scheduled reviews and material changes fit together.
For a buyer designing a comparable reporting process, useful questions include:
| Report question | Why it helps the compliance team |
|---|---|
| Which counterparties and related parties were included? | Defines the scope of the review. |
| When were the checks performed? | Connects results to the review period. |
| Which ownership information informed the assessment? | Explains the relationships considered. |
| Which results require further investigation? | Makes outstanding work visible. |
| What conclusions were reached, and by whom? | Connects the evidence with accountable decisions. |
These are planning questions for a similar workflow, rather than a claim about this customer's exact report format.
Public feedback on the screening workflow
A public Capterra review of Checklynx, published in November 2025 by a supply-chain user, describes replacing a legacy screening workflow. The reviewer reports improved data quality, fewer false positives, less time reviewing them and better pricing.
Capterra labels the review non-incentivized. It is customer feedback, not an independent audit of this implementation. No percentages, financial amounts or measurement method are published for those observations.
The quarterly workflow described here adds operating context: the businesses being checked, the importance of ownership information, persistent review history and the report needed by compliance.
Discuss your supplier and customer screening process
If your team screens a recurring population of suppliers, customers and related parties, start with the scope of that population and the information your compliance team needs afterwards.
Talk to Checklynx about your supply-chain screening requirements. We can discuss spreadsheet-led batch screening, persistent cases and how screening fits with your ownership-information process. For delivery options, see the API versus batch screening guide for suppliers.
This story describes one customer workflow. Screening supports the organisation's review; it does not establish regulatory approval, replace legal analysis or determine whether a transaction may proceed. Public-review observations are specific to that customer's experience and are not guaranteed results.