If you are a community bank.
Start with where synthetic-identity exposure enters account opening, unsecured credit, auto, mortgage, or HELOC workflows, then scope the evidence record reviewers and examiners will need later.
Buying guide
A buyer's guide for lender teams
Kenshiki is not a self-serve identity lookup or credit widget. Institutions start with synthetic-identity exposure, decide which adjacent file gaps also need reviewable evidence, then move to a written production agreement with pricing tied to the actual decision workflow.
If you are…
Start from the job you need the evidence record to do.
Different buyers arrive with different pressure: fraud loss, member inclusion, portfolio quality, examiner readiness, or day-to-day review burden. The product stays the same; the evaluation should start with the decision owner and the risk they need to prove.
If you are a credit union.
Start with the member decision: catch fabricated applicants without turning real thin-file, recovering, or nontraditional members into unsupported exceptions.
If you are a captive lender.
Start with the funding moment. Kenshiki should help separate a real buyer from a plausible file before principal leaves the lender and while the decision path is still easy to preserve.
If you own CRA, inclusion, or community lending outcomes.
Start with proof that protects the real applicant: continuity, context, and fit evidence that can support responsible inclusion without weakening fair-lending or adverse-action review.
If you are the chief lending officer.
Start with portfolio-level accountability: which decisions need more evidence, which policies must stay lender-owned, and what record your board, reviewers, and examiners can inspect.
If you review files every day.
Start with workflow fit: what should clear, what should refer, what should stop, and how the evidence should appear in the dashboard or API response without adding another reconstruction task.
The buying challenge
The price is not the first constraint.
Most credit-infrastructure purchases start by asking what the tool costs. Kenshiki starts one step earlier: where can a clean file hide synthetic-identity risk, and what evidence must the institution preserve before the decision?
That burden does not go away just because an institution is smaller. Community banks and credit unions still need to explain decisions to reviewers, examiners, boards, and members, often with leaner teams. Kenshiki helps by leaving fewer unsupported decisions, less after-the-fact reconstruction, and a cleaner record for the people who carry the review.
Where Kenshiki fits
Built for institutions that have to defend the decision.
Kenshiki is scoped for regulated lenders carrying steady decision volume and formal review obligations — the point where reconstructing evidence by hand stops being workable.
Strong fit
Community banks, credit unions, and lenders that see synthetic-identity exposure in account opening or credit decisions, answer to reviewers or examiners, and also want to protect real thin-file applicants without weakening the record.
Probably not yet
Teams that only need occasional identity lookups, are still testing a market, or do not yet have a repeatable decision workflow. Kenshiki is most useful when decisions happen often enough to need a reviewable record.
Buying path
Start with the decision you need to explain.
The commercial conversation follows the proof conversation. Before pricing is final, the institution and Kenshiki agree which decisions are in scope, which approved source environments can answer bounded questions, and what evidence reviewers need later.
Evaluation
Confirm the use case, applicant segment, data-provider scope, success criteria, and governance evidence the institution needs before deciding whether to move forward.
Production agreement
Turn the evaluation into paid production use by defining approved checks, provider boundaries, security requirements, review process, operating responsibilities, deployment scope, and written commercial terms.
Commercial terms
Price the evidence layer from the expected decision mix, implementation scope, operating responsibilities, deployment model, and any applicable pass-through provider costs.
Regulatory productivity
The evidence layer should reduce review burden, not create another one.
Kenshiki can incorporate approved regulatory, policy, and examination materials relevant to the scoped use case, then map sealed decision records back to the criteria reviewers need to inspect. The goal is not to replace counsel, compliance, or model-risk review. It is to make the evidence package faster to assemble and easier to verify.
The source taxonomy matters because obligations are not just “big-bank problems.” Many regimes reach community banks and credit unions, while charter, volume, and size conditions still need to be modeled precisely.
Pricing model
A pricing framework, not a public rate card.
Kenshiki prices production use after the institution and Kenshiki agree what the decision record needs to prove. The commercial model is scoped around the workflow, not a generic public list of per-decision prices.
Pricing assumptions
What shapes the quote.
- Decision mix: account opening, fraud review, unsecured credit, auto, mortgage, HELOC, or other workflows do not carry the same evidence burden.
- Expected volume and review pattern: steady automated flows price differently from low-volume, high-touch reviewer workflows.
- Provider scope: bureau, mortgage, identity, payroll, bank-data, or other third-party costs are scoped separately where applicable.
- Deployment model: shared cloud, dedicated private VPC, customer-controlled environment, and data-residency requirements change hosting and operating responsibilities.
- Governance requirements: policy ingestion, examination mapping, audit-prep support, service levels, and record-retention expectations are part of the written scope.
Institution-level access.
A platform component can cover the production environment, governance model maintenance, dashboard, monitoring, and service commitments agreed in the production scope.
Implementation scope.
Onboarding can include deployment planning, policy-document ingestion and validation, reviewer workflow setup, and integration work for approved source and decisioning environments.
Review support.
When an exam, audit, or internal review cycle arrives, Kenshiki can help surface sealed records, map them to review criteria, and assemble a package your team can verify and sign.
Commercial process
Scope first, then quote.
Final terms are set per institution from the decisions in scope, expected volume, loan mix, provider responsibilities, deployment model, governance requirements, and production support — not a public rate card.
FAQ
Common buying questions
The commercial caveats institutions usually need before deciding whether to schedule a scoped evaluation.
- Does Kenshiki publish a self-serve pricing calculator?
- No. Kenshiki does not publish a self-serve calculator or public rate card. Pricing is scoped after decision mix, expected volume, provider responsibilities, deployment model, governance requirements, and written production terms are known.
- What determines Kenshiki pricing?
- Pricing is shaped by the decisions in scope, expected volume, evidence depth, provider and bureau responsibilities, deployment boundary, implementation work, operating support, and review or exam-readiness needs.
- Can Kenshiki run in a private VPC or customer-controlled environment?
- Production can be scoped for a dedicated private VPC or a customer-controlled environment when security, data-residency, or operating requirements call for it, but final terms can change with hosting, integration, and operating responsibilities.
- Does Kenshiki replace counsel or compliance review?
- No. Kenshiki can help assemble and map evidence to approved regulatory, policy, and examination materials, but it does not replace counsel, compliance, model-risk review, or lender decision authority.