A wallet risk score is easy to paste into a trade ticket and hard to interpret without context. Two people can look at the same number and reach different conclusions because they are answering different questions. One wants to know whether a payment should wait. The other wants to know whether the wallet owner did something wrong. A screening score does not establish the second claim.
Begin with the question being screened
Write down the subject, network and check type before discussing the score. An address check describes an address. A transaction check concerns a particular transfer. Neither should be relabelled as a verified identity check. If you are accepting a payment, confirm that the screened subject matches the funds that actually arrive.
A2 Route's current public pages describe address and USDT/USDC transaction screening on TRON and Ethereum. They describe reports containing a verdict and score, source shares, top exposure, sanctions lists and a risk-categories appendix. These items belong together. The number is a short summary, not a substitute for the evidence printed around it.
Score, verdict and explanation are different things
The score is a numerical signal. The verdict tells you the recorded screening decision. The explanation helps you understand why that decision appeared. Read all three before passing a result to a colleague. A spreadsheet containing only scores loses the information a reviewer needs to distinguish an actual finding from a missing-data problem.
The committed A2 Route sample reports show ALLOW and REVIEW examples. They are synthetic samples, not registered checks. They illustrate how a result is presented, not a universal acceptance threshold for your business. Do not copy a sample score or sample policy into your operating rules and assume it applies to every payment.
Avoid turning a score into an unsupported percentage. A score is not automatically the probability that the owner committed a crime, the percentage of a payment that is unlawful, or the chance that a bank will reject it. If a report prints a percentage beside an exposure, read that field's meaning separately from the score.
Read the exposure behind the number
Look for the category and path that led to concern. Is the evidence about a direct counterparty, or an entity reached through intermediaries? What subject does the report describe? A label attached to an upstream service does not establish that the screened wallet owner has the same identity or intent as that service.
The exposure guide explains this distinction. A2 Route's sample report also distinguishes direct and indirect exposure. Read the accompanying explanation rather than treating every flagged row as a direct sanctions-list match. Those are different statements and should remain different in your internal notes.
Source shares need a denominator. In the outgoing sample's address-mode explanation, shares concern the destination wallet's traced incoming funds. They are not a measurement of the specific outgoing amount being tainted. Read the report's mode and methodology before writing a sentence such as “this percentage of our invoice is high risk.”
Check the evidence's limits
Screening has a time context. Labels can change as new information appears, and a retained report records an earlier result. Check when screening happened and what data coverage is stated. A2 Route's public FAQ says partial results have reduced coverage and recommend a re-check. Missing information should be visible in the decision record, not converted into a reassuring zero.
A low score does not verify beneficial ownership, the customer's off-chain identity or the purpose of payment. The sample report's limitations section explicitly separates those matters from screening. An invoice, a customer explanation and a wallet report can support different parts of a review. They should not be presented as if any one document proves the rest.
Make the number useful for your team
Define the action your team takes when a result needs review. Name the person who owns that review and record what they considered. A policy might pause order release until questions about the source or sender are resolved. Treat that as a business procedure, not a statement about legal compliance.
For training, write FAKE_WALLET_NOT_AN_ADDRESS in a mock ticket and mark it synthetic. Do not borrow a real public wallet to make the example feel convincing. Ask trainees to explain a hypothetical result in words: what was checked, what was found, what remains unknown and who decides next. That exercise exposes misunderstandings hidden by a single number.
For recurring trades, keep earlier results and re-check decisions together. If a new result differs, compare the subject, network, timestamps and available evidence before concluding that risk changed. A different wallet or mode can explain the difference. See the OTC workflow guide for keeping that review attached to a trade ticket.
Use the report, not a badge
Before opening a customer relationship, use the wallet onboarding checklist. For established customers, set recurring review triggers rather than treating a reassuring score as permanent approval.
Read the A2 Route report walkthrough and start a supported check. If the next step is paying a supplier, the A2vanta business payment blog provides a separate place to explore that workflow. Screening remains an informational tool, not legal advice, a guarantee of clean funds or a promise that another party will accept the payment.