Verifex Research
Measured studies of sanctions and PEP screening.
What screening engines really get right and wrong, what is inside the lists, and how to tell. Every report states its method, its uncertainty and its limits.
Reports
VR-2026-02PEP data·
79%
of removed PEP rows were people who had died
Four in five: what a Wikidata-derived PEP list really contains
We rebuilt a PEP dataset of about 930,000 rows from the Wikidata dump. About 79% of the rows the new definition removed were people who had died. What that means for PEP screening.
Read the report · 12 min readVR-2026-01Screening accuracy·
98.1%
of 2,000 real OFAC aliases found after two fixes (first run: 83.9%)
Real aliases, not synthetic variants: measuring name screening on 2,000 OFAC aliases
We screened 2,000 real OFAC aliases. Recall was 83.9%, not the 92.4% synthetic tests claimed. Two fixes took it to 98.1%.
Read the report · 12 min read
How we do research.
Counts and intervals
Every result is a count with its denominator and a 95% confidence interval, never a bare percentage.
Methods you can check
Each report says how the data was collected, what was measured and what was left out.
Limits stated first
Self-administered studies say so. Rounded numbers say “about”. Negative results are published.
Data behind every chart
Each figure has its data table one click away, so nothing depends on reading a colour.
Research is written by the Verifex Research team. Self-administered studies are evidence about the cases measured, not independent certification. For plain guides, see the blog.