A counterparty sends a wallet address, your screening result raises a flag, and a payment deadline is approaching. The worst response is an improvised decision nobody can explain later. Put the payment into a defined review path. Preserve the evidence, confirm what was checked and ask questions tied to the finding. The aim is an accountable decision, not a quick argument about whether the wallet is “good” or “bad.”
Step 1: pause the business action
Pause the action you control, such as releasing goods or authorising an outgoing payment. Name the reviewer and tell the operations team what is on hold. Do not claim that an A2 Route result automatically freezes funds or decides your commercial dispute. The report supplies information; your team owns the operational response.
If funds already arrived, record that fact separately from any decision to accept them against the invoice. Do not rush to forward them or return them to a newly supplied address. A return instruction can create another payment decision with its own counterparty questions. Ask the responsible reviewer to determine the next step under your procedures.
Step 2: preserve the original result
Keep the full result, not only a screenshot of the score. Record the checked subject, network, mode and screening time. Save the relevant customer message and trade reference alongside it. If you run another check later, keep both versions so a colleague can reconstruct what information was available at each decision point.
A2 Route's public pages describe a verdict and score, source shares, top exposure, sanctions lists and a risk-categories appendix. Paid checks can include a PDF report. See the report walkthrough for reading those parts together. A single word copied out of that report is weaker evidence than the report and its context.
Step 3: confirm the subject and payment details
Check for a simple mismatch before interpreting the flag. Was the address copied correctly? Did you choose the network the customer intends to use? Was this an address check or a particular transaction check? Does the actual payment match the sender and asset agreed in the trade ticket?
For an internal training ticket, use FAKE_COUNTERPARTY_NOT_A_WALLET and clearly mark it synthetic. Do not use an unrelated public address to demonstrate a risky customer. A convincing-looking identifier can escape into real operations, where someone may mistake a demonstration for an actual accusation or payment instruction.
A2 Route currently describes screening for addresses and USDT/USDC transactions on TRON and Ethereum. Keep your check within that published scope. A result on one supported network should not be repurposed as evidence for an unrelated chain or token.
Step 4: identify the reason for the flag
Read the explanation, categories, exposure paths and coverage. Distinguish a direct relationship from one reached through intermediaries. Distinguish a sanctions-list match from a provider's sanctions-associated exposure label. Those distinctions determine the questions you ask, even when your internal policy pauses both cases for review.
The exposure guide explains why indirect findings still matter without establishing ownership or intent. The risk-score guide explains why the number alone is not a probability of wrongdoing. Neither a high score nor a low score replaces the evidence needed for a business decision.
Check whether the result is partial. A2 Route's public FAQ says partial coverage is reduced and recommends a re-check. Put that limitation in the review note. Do not interpret missing coverage as a clean bill of health, and do not pretend the original result was complete after a later check succeeds.
Step 5: ask focused counterparty questions
Ask whether the wallet belongs to the agreed payer, whether a service handled the transfer and why the proposed sender differs from earlier instructions. Request supporting records appropriate to the trade. Keep questions neutral and specific. “Please explain the sending arrangement” is more useful than accusing the customer of a crime from a label.
Do not offer another wallet as a shortcut around the finding. A change of payment address should be explained and checked as a new subject. It does not erase the first result. Record who requested the change, what authority they have and how the new instructions were verified.
Step 6: record the decision and its limits
The responsible reviewer should write what they considered, what remains unknown and whether the trade proceeds, waits or is declined. Record any exception and who approved it. If the finding raises legal obligations or a dispute, seek qualified advice. This checklist does not decide those obligations and should not be used as a regulatory compliance certificate.
When funds are already in your receiving wallet, follow the flagged receipt checklist. For a review before opening the relationship, use the onboarding case-file guide.
For frequent trades, the OTC screening guide shows how to keep this process attached to each ticket. If settlement includes paying a supplier, consult the A2vanta business payment blog separately; a reviewed incoming wallet does not approve an outgoing destination.
Start a supported check with A2 Route or read the API documentation. Treat the result as an informational tool, not legal advice, proof of clean funds or a guarantee that another party will accept the payment.