⚖️ “Defensible” unclaimed property compliance isn’t what it used to be.
For a long time, defensible meant doing your best with what you had.
You followed a process.
You leaned on precedent.
You made reasonable calls.
And honestly? That worked for years.
What’s changed isn’t just technology — it’s how audits are being viewed (i.e., as a source of state revenue).
Risk isn’t judged against what tools existed back then.
It’s judged against what tools exist today.
🤖 AI is going to quietly raise the bar.
So, the question isn’t just:
“Did you follow a reasonable process?”
It’s more like:
“Knowing what was available, did you actually do enough to reduce risk?”
That’s a meaningful shift.
Because regulators are paying closer attention to things like:
📊 Do the results hold up across the data?
📄 Can you clearly explain why decisions were made?
🔍 Were issues identified early — or only after they became problems during cleanups?
In that environment, older methods don’t fail because they’re wrong.
They fail because they leave unanswered gaps.
Defensible compliance today looks more like catching issues sooner, using logic that holds up consistently, and being able to show that risk didn’t just quietly build up on autopilot.
The companies that come through audits best aren’t the ones with the biggest binders or the longest explanations.
They’ll be the ones who can show why risk never had room to grow.
💬 Curious how others are seeing expectations change around what’s considered “defensible” during audits.
#UnclaimedProperty #AuditRisk #Compliance #AIinCompliance #RiskManagement #EscheatAnalyzer #UnclaimedPropertyAnalyzer
