A person approves every decision
The system recommends an allocation. It never finalises one. POPIA requires human involvement where a decision substantially affects someone, and beneficiary fund administration affects people directly.
Security and governance
In financial services the decision is not made by one person. It is made by a committee, and security, legal, compliance and procurement each have a veto. This page exists so they can get their answers without booking a call.
The short version
The system recommends an allocation. It never finalises one. POPIA requires human involvement where a decision substantially affects someone, and beneficiary fund administration affects people directly.
Identification happens locally, inside your systems. Only de-identified text is interpreted anywhere else. Beneficiary funds serve minors and POPIA is strict about children's information, so this was a design constraint from the beginning.
No write access at any stage of the measurement. Nothing is changed in your environment, and there is no integration work. If your security team prefers a supervised session over credentials, that works for us.
We are not a migration and we do not want to hold your master data. We work on the administrative layer around your core system, which continues to be the authoritative source.
Data handling
Set out as a table because that is how a security review will want it.
| Stage | Access required | Personal information | Changes to your systems |
|---|---|---|---|
| Introduction | None | None. The demonstration uses synthetic data | None |
| Phase 0 measurement | Read only reporting | Aggregate volumes and timings. No member records leave your environment | None |
| Pilot | Scoped, agreed in writing | Identification runs locally. Only de-identified text is interpreted externally | Runs alongside. Your process is unchanged |
| Production | Scoped integration | As above, with a full audit record written for every recommendation and decision | Integrated. Your platform remains the system of record |
POPIA
Not a compliance statement written afterwards. These constraints shaped what was built.
Automated decision making
POPIA restricts decisions based solely on automated processing where they substantially affect a person. Our answer is structural: a person approves every allocation, so the decision is never solely automated.
Children's information
Beneficiary funds serve minors, where POPIA is strictest. Member identity is resolved locally so that identifying information about a child does not leave the responsible party's environment.
Minimality
Phase 0 uses aggregate reporting rather than member records, because the measurement does not need them.
Accountability and records
The workflow writes what arrived, what was recommended, who decided and why. A step that produces no record today starts producing one.
Regulatory
The standard requires structured complaints handling and proper record keeping from Section 13B administrators, with deadlines running through this year.
The relevant point is that the audit trail is produced as a by-product of doing the work rather than as a separate reporting exercise. You are not buying compliance tooling. You are removing manual effort, and the evidence trail exists because the system writes down what happened.
We are not your compliance advisers and we will not tell you this makes you compliant. Whether it satisfies your obligations is a judgement for your compliance function.
Commitments
Even where a client would prefer the throughput, we will not remove the human approval step on an allocation that affects a beneficiary.
Identification stays local. If an architecture requires otherwise, we would rather not take the work.
We will tell you exactly what we have and have not been assessed against, and work to what your review requires.
Next step
We would rather work through it early than discover a blocker after three meetings.