All eight requirements under the initiative Homepage widgets [phase 2]initiative Homepage widgets [phase 2] 下的全部 8 条需求
· Growth & x-sell ·
screened筛查于 2026-10-19
8Requirements需求
5To Compliance送合规
3Back to author退回作者
How to read this怎么读这份报告
Each of eight risk items is judged twice. First from the requirement’s own text — a quoted sentence is a stated answer. Where the text is silent, the screen estimates the probability (0–100) that the item applies given the kind of change this is, and compares it to that item’s bar.八条规则每条判两次。先看需求原文 — 能引用出句子的算明示。原文沉默的，系统根据这是什么类型的改动，估一个 0–100 的概率，再跟该条的阈值比。
Only a stated risk reaches Compliance. A referral has to arrive with something a reviewer can read; an estimate, however high, goes back to the author instead. The bars below show the estimate, with a marker at the threshold it has to clear — 30 for Financial crime and Conduct, which carry most of the checklist’s intent, and 50 for the rest.只有原文明示的风险才会送合规。送过去得带上评审者能读的东西；推断分再高也只退回作者。下面的条是估分，竖线是它要跨过的阈值 — 金融犯罪和行为准则是 30（它们承载了清单的主要意图），其余是 50。
This is a pre-screen, not a compliance decision. Compliance can overturn anything here.这是预筛查，不是合规结论。合规可以推翻这里的任何判定。
Nothing in the text states a risk, so nothing is referred. The items below went back to the author instead.原文没有写明任何风险，所以不送合规。下面这些项退回给作者。
Open items — estimated, not stated待补项 — 系统推断，原文未写
Item规则
Est.估分
Bar阈值
Why the screen thinks it applies系统为什么认为它适用（原文保留英文）
Financial crime
35
30
Repayment initiation from widget likely reuses existing payment flows, but a new entry point to money movement could touch limits/monitoring.
Customer impact
85
50
Homepage widget shown to all users with active loan/SNPL/EasyCash/split pay balance on a FINANCIAL line almost certainly exceeds 100 customers/day.
Conduct
70
30
Customer-facing collections/AECB warnings shown to overdue borrowers who may be financially vulnerable, and messaging 'must not be threatening' signals conduct risk.
Why the screen thinks it applies系统为什么认为它适用（原文保留英文）
Financial crime
45
30
links to sending with SNPL (deferred-payment funding of a transfer); new entry point into a money-movement/lending path even if the underlying product exists
Customer impact
80
50
placed in the main international transfer widget for all eligible and existing SNPL users, very likely exceeds 100 affected customers/day
Referred to Compliance — quoted from the description送合规的依据 — 引自需求原文
Conduct
the widget must not push borrowing too aggressively. Copy needs compliance sign-off
Open items — estimated, not stated待补项 — 系统推断，原文未写
Item规则
Est.估分
Bar阈值
Why the screen thinks it applies系统为什么认为它适用（原文保留英文）
Financial crime
30
30
widget links to borrowing and onboarding; it routes to existing money-movement paths rather than creating one, but it drives funding/payout activity and must exclude overdue/ineligible users
Customer impact
80
50
homepage widget shown to all eligible EasyCash users in a FINANCIAL line; a homepage placement almost certainly exceeds 100 affected customers/day
Nothing in the text states a risk, so nothing is referred. The items below went back to the author instead.原文没有写明任何风险，所以不送合规。下面这些项退回给作者。
Open items — estimated, not stated待补项 — 系统推断，原文未写
Item规则
Est.估分
Bar阈值
Why the screen thinks it applies系统为什么认为它适用（原文保留英文）
Customer impact
85
50
homepage widget on a financial product shown broadly to botim users who haven't discovered services; almost certainly exceeds >100 financial customers/day
Conduct
55
30
cards introduce fintech services and may carry promotional claims ('New on botim'), and the description itself flags 'Fintech cards need compliance sign-off', suggesting customer-facing claims are in scope
Nothing in the text states a risk, so nothing is referred. The items below went back to the author instead.原文没有写明任何风险，所以不送合规。下面这些项退回给作者。
Open items — estimated, not stated待补项 — 系统推断，原文未写
Item规则
Est.估分
Bar阈值
Why the screen thinks it applies系统为什么认为它适用（原文保留英文）
Customer impact
80
50
Homepage For You carousel on a financial product with >100/day FINANCIAL threshold; broad homepage placement very likely exceeds the daily affected-customer threshold.
Conduct
60
30
Carousel delivers targeted offers with T&Cs embedded in creatives — customer-facing promotional claims that can change per campaign, so conduct risk is material even though CRM reviews assets.
Referred to Compliance — quoted from the description送合规的依据 — 引自需求原文
Customer impact
botim users who haven’t discovered newer services — homepage widget on a large consumer base, financial line >100/day
Open items — estimated, not stated待补项 — 系统推断，原文未写
Item规则
Est.估分
Bar阈值
Why the screen thinks it applies系统为什么认为它适用（原文保留英文）
Conduct
55
30
cards are customer-facing claims promoting fintech services and description flags 'Fintech cards need compliance sign-off'; card copy may constitute a customer-facing claim requiring conduct review
The systematic gap系统性缺口
How many of the eight left each item unstated, and the range the screen estimated:八条里有多少条没写这一项，以及系统估分的范围：
Item规则
Unstated in多少条没写
Estimate range估分范围
Customer impact
7 of 8
80–90
Conduct
4 of 8
55–70
Financial crime
3 of 8
30–45
Third parties
1 of 8
55–55
Customer impact is the one worth fixing first. Every requirement here is a homepage widget on a financial line, where the bar is 100 affected customers a day — so the estimates sit at 80–90. None of them states a number, and the screen cannot declare one on the author’s behalf. One line closes it:客户影响是最值得先补的一项。这八条全是金融线的首页 widget，阈值是每天 100 人 — 所以估分都在 80–90。但没有一条写明人数，而系统不能替作者声明。补一句就行：
One caveat before you act on a single verdict拿单条结论行动前，先看这一条
These eight were screened on 15 October and re-screened on 19 October with identical text and identical rules. Three landed differently.这八条在 10 月 15 日 筛过一次，10 月 19 日 用同样的文本和同样的规则重跑，其中 3 条结论变了。
All three hinge on the same unresolved question: when an author writes “this needs compliance sign-off”, is that a stated conduct risk, or an inferred one? That decides whether something reaches Compliance — the heaviest fork in the design — and the screen does not yet pin it down.三条全卡在同一个没钉死的边界：作者写 “this needs compliance sign-off”，算明示的行为准则风险，还是算推断？这个边界决定送不送合规 — 整套设计里最重的分叉 — 而提示词里没写清楚。
Treat a verdict as a prompt to look, not as a settled fact.把单条结论当成「该去看一眼」的提示，而不是定论。