Guard Your Communications Against SEC Violations

Every memo, press release, or investor update carries the risk of unintentionally crossing a regulatory line. For compliance officers, the pressure to catch those slips before they become headlines is relentless. An automated review that flags risky language while preserving a clear audit trail can turn a daunting chore into a reliable safety net.

You describe it

Regulatory Compliance Checker

1. Overview

This process reviews a single communication or report and identifies any language that could indicate a potential violation of U.S. securities regulations (SEC and FINRA). The goal is to flag risky statements for further review by a compliance professional.

2. Business Value

Early detection of potential regulatory breaches reduces the risk of fines, sanctions, and reputational damage.
Provides a consistent, repeatable method for compliance officers to screen large volumes of text quickly.
Creates a clear audit trail of all flagged items, supporting internal investigations and external audits.

3. Operational Context

When to run: Whenever a new internal memo, external press release, investor communication, or regulatory report is created and must be reviewed for compliance before distribution or filing.
Primary user: Compliance Officer (or any member of the compliance team).
Frequency: Typically performed before any public or client‑facing communication is sent; also used for periodic internal audit of existing documents.

4. Inputs

Name/Label	Type	Details Provided
Communication Document	PDF Document (single file)	The complete text of the communication or report to be examined. The PDF must be machine‑readable (text‑based, not a scanned image without OCR).

All other reference material (e.g., violation categories, example phrasing) is included in the Appendices and does not need to be supplied for each run.

5. Outputs

Name/Label	Contents	Formatting Rules
Compliance Flag Report	A short summary followed by a table of flagged items. The summary includes the document title, review date, and total number of flags. The table lists each flagged occurrence with:
• Location (page or section)
• Excerpt of the flagged text
• Potential violation category
• Reason the text was flagged
• Recommended next step (e.g., “Review with legal team”).	- Tone: neutral and direct.

Layout: plain‑text bullet points for the summary, then a simple text table for the flagged items. Use a single pipe (|) as column delimiter. No system‑generated IDs. Example: Page | Excerpt | Category | Reason | Action.
No files are generated; the output is pure text data. |

Flagged Items Table (Part of the report)

Page/Section	Excerpt (up to 200 characters)	Potential Violation	Reason for Flag	Recommended Action

The above table appears in the output report under the heading “Flagged Items.”

6. Detailed Plan & Execution Steps

Validate the Input File
- Confirm the file is a PDF and is searchable (text‑based).
- If the file cannot be opened or is not searchable, stop and record “Unable to read document – flag for manual review.”
Record Document Metadata
- Capture the document title (as shown in the PDF metadata or first page header).
- Record the current date as “Review Date.”
Prepare the Keyword Library (contained in Appendix C). This list contains words/phrases that commonly signal SEC/FINRA concerns (e.g., “material non‑public information,” “inside”, “mislead,” “false,” “disclose,” “manipul*,” “fraud”).
Scan the Document
- Read the document page by page, left‑to‑right, top‑to‑bottom.
- For each sentence, look for any keyword from the library.
Contextual Check
- If a keyword is preceded or followed by a negating term (“not,” “no,” “never”), do not flag it.
- If the sentence includes a clarifying phrase that clearly disclaims the risk (e.g., “We do not share non‑public information”), do not flag.
Capture a Potential Flag (when a keyword passes the contextual check):
- Location: Record the page number (or “Section” if no pagination).
- Excerpt: Copy the full sentence (or up to 200 characters) that contains the keyword.
- Potential Category: Choose the most relevant category from the Appendix (e.g., “Insider Trading,” “Misleading Statement,” “Failure to Disclose”).
- Reason: Briefly describe why the sentence could be problematic (e.g., “Mention of material non‑public information without disclosure”).
- Action: Default to “Review with legal counsel.”
Deduplicate
- If the same excerpt appears on multiple pages, keep only the first occurrence.
Compile the Report
- Create the summary line (document title, review date, total flag count).
- Insert the “Flagged Items Table” populated with all captured flags.
Output the Report
- Produce a plain‑text document containing the summary and the table, following the formatting rules in Section 5.
Log Completion

Record that the document has been processed, noting any “Unable to read” or “No violations found” outcomes.

7. Validation & Quality Checks

File Accessibility: Ensure the PDF opened successfully.
Complete Scan: Verify that each page has been scanned.
Flag Completeness: Every flag must contain all five table columns (Location, Excerpt, Category, Reason, Action).
No Duplicate Flags: Compare excerpts; remove exact duplicates.
Category Consistency: Verify each category matches one listed in Appendix C.
Formatting Check: Confirm the report uses the pipe (|) delimiter and no extra columns or missing values.
Summary Accuracy: The “Total Flags” number must equal the number of rows in the table.

If any check fails, add a note “Validation Error – [description]” to the end of the report and flag for manual review.

8. Special Rules / Edge Cases

Scenario	Handling
Document unreadable (e.g., scanned image)	Abort processing; record “Unreadable document – manual review required.”
No keywords found	Output a summary stating “No potential violations detected.”
Negation or disambiguation (e.g., “We do not disclose …”)	Do not flag; move to next sentence.
Multiple keywords in one sentence	Flag only once, using the most severe applicable category.
Ambiguous language (e.g., “potentially…” without clear context)	Flag with a “Review – ambiguous wording” note, default action “Review with legal.”
Non‑English text	Stop processing; note “Non‑English content – manual review required.”
Missing page numbers	Use “Section” name (e.g., “Introduction”) as location.
Excessively long excerpts	Truncate to 200 characters, add “…” to indicate truncation.

9. Example

Input (PDF)

File name: Q1_2025_Earnings_Release.pdf
Excerpt (page 2): “We have material non‑public information about a pending acquisition that could affect the stock price. Employees are advised not to trade until the information is publicly disclosed.”

Output (Compliance Report)

Document Title: Q1 2025 Earnings Release
Review Date: 2025‑04‑01
Total Flags: 1

| Page | Excerpt | Category | Reason | Action |
|-----|---------|----------|--------|--------|
| 2 | We have material non‑public information … | Potential Insider Trading | Mentions material non‑public info without prior disclosure. | Review with legal counsel |

Because the excerpt contains a “material non‑public” statement, it is flagged as a potential insider‑trading violation.

Appendix A – FAQ

What kinds of documents can be processed?
- Any text‑based PDF containing internal or external communications. PDFs that are scanned images without OCR must be resubmitted in a searchable format.
What if a flagged item seems harmless?
- The flag is only a prompt for deeper review. The compliance officer should assess context, intent, and any mitigating language before deciding on a course of action.
How are false positives handled?
- False positives are expected. The “Reason for Flag” column helps reviewers quickly understand why the text was flagged. If a flag is determined to be a false positive, the reviewer can note “False Positive – No action required” in a separate audit log.
What does “Review with legal counsel” mean?
- It means the flagged item should be examined by the legal team for a definitive determination of compliance or violation.
What if the same sentence appears twice in a document?
- Only the first occurrence is recorded; subsequent identical occurrences are not added to the table.
What is the “Potential Violation Category”?
- See Appendix C for the full list of categories and example keywords used to assign a category.
Is the process a replacement for legal advice?
- No. This process only highlights potential issues for further review. Final decisions must be made by qualified legal or compliance professionals.
What if the PDF contains tables or charts?
- Text within tables and charts is also scanned, as long as the text is selectable. Images with embedded text are not scanned and should be flagged for manual review.

Appendix B – Glossary

Term	Definition
SEC	U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission – the federal agency that enforces securities laws.
FINRA	Financial Industry Regulatory Authority – a self‑regulatory organization that oversees broker‑dealers.
Material Non‑public Information	Any information that a reasonable investor would consider important for a decision and that has not been publicly disclosed.
Insider Trading	Buying or selling securities based on material non‑public information, or tipping others.
Misleading Statement	A statement that contains false or incomplete information that could mislead a reasonable investor.
Market Manipulation	Conduct intended to artificially influence the market price of a security.
Negation	Words such as “not,” “no,” “never,” or “without” that negate a potential violation phrase.
Flag	An identified piece of text that could indicate a regulatory breach.
Compliance Officer	The employee responsible for ensuring the company adheres to internal policies and external regulations.
Audit Trail	A record of actions taken, including timestamps and decision points, used for accountability and verification.

Appendix C – Reference Material

1. Violation Categories & Example Keywords

Category	Description	Example Keywords & Phrases
Insider Trading	Use of or disclosure of material non‑public information.	“material non‑public”, “inside information”, “non‑public”, “confidential”, “private”, “not disclosed”, “pending acquisition”.
Misleading / False Statement	Statements that are false, incomplete, or potentially deceptive.	“mislead”, “false”, “incorrect”, “misrepresent”, “error”, “mistake”, “not true”, “inaccurate”.
Failure to Disclose	Omission of required information.	“did not disclose”, “failure to disclose”, “not disclosed”, “omitted”, “lack of disclosure”.
Market Manipulation	Actions that could distort market price.	“manipul”, “price impact”, “price pressure”, “artificially”, “inflated”, “deflated”.
Unfair Practice	Any conduct that violates fairness principles.	“unfair”, “discriminatory”, “biased”, “exploitation”.
Conflicts of Interest	Undisclosed personal or financial interest.	“conflict”, “interest”, “benefit”, “gain”, “personal”, “affiliation”.

2. Phrase‑Based Filters

Positive Keywords:
- Insider‑related: “material non‑public”, “inside information”, “confidential”, “private”.
- Disclosure‑related: “disclose”, “publicly”, “announcement”.
- Trading‑related: “trade”, “sell”, “buy”, “transaction”.
Negation Filters (to avoid false positives):
- “not”, “no”, “never”, “without”.
- Example: “We do not have material non‑public information” → No flag.
Contextual Cues:
- Temporal Words – “pending”, “upcoming”, “future”.
- Action Words – “advise”, “recommend”, “must”.

3. Formatting Guide for the Report

Header: Document Title: <title> Review Date: <YYYY‑MM‑DD> Total Flags: <number>
Flagged Items Table: Use a plain-text table with the pipe (|) delimiter.
- Columns must appear in the order: Page → Excerpt → Category → Reason → Action.
- Do not use extra spaces before or after the pipe.
Example Row: 2 | We have material non‑public information ... | Insider Trading | Mentions non‑public info without disclosure. | Review with legal counsel

4. Style Guide

Tone: Neutral, factual, and concise.
Sentence Length: Keep excerpts to 200 characters or fewer; truncate with ellipsis (…) if longer.
Capitalization: Title case for headings, sentence case for content.
Punctuation: Use periods to end sentences; avoid exclamation points.
No Jargon: Avoid technical terms like “API”, “JSON”, “object”, or “script”.

5. Common Edge‑Case Examples

Situation	Example	Handling
Negated Keyword	“We do not have material non‑public information.”	Do not flag.
Conditional Statement	“If we had material non‑public info, we would... ”	Flag if statement implies actual possession; otherwise, add “Review – context unclear”.
Reference to Past Disclosure	“All material non‑public information was disclosed on March 1.”	Do not flag; note “Disclosed – no action”.
Ambiguous “Potential”	“The company might have material non‑public information.”	Flag with “Review – potential risk”.
Multiple Keywords	“We have material non‑public information and will not disclose.”	Flag for “Insider Trading” and also “Failure to Disclose”.

6. Troubleshooting Checklist

File not opening – Verify PDF is not corrupted; ask for a new file.
No text found – Confirm PDF is not a scanned image; request OCR‑processed version.
Excessive flags – Review keyword list for over‑matching; consider refining keywords in future runs.

Additional Tips

When in doubt, err on the side of caution and flag the text for review.
Keep a log of documents processed, dates, and outcomes to demonstrate compliance diligence.
Periodically review and update the keyword library in Appendix C to reflect new regulatory guidance.

We build it

Try me

The hidden cost of manual compliance checks

Relying on eyes alone means spending hours poring over dense text, often under tight deadlines. Human review can miss subtle phrasing, produce inconsistent judgments, and leaves a fragmented record of what was examined and why. When a single overlooked sentence triggers a regulator’s inquiry, the fallout extends beyond fines—reputation, client trust, and internal morale all take a hit.

AI‑powered flagging restores control

A large‑language‑model driven workflow scans each page of a PDF, matches against a curated library of SEC and FINRA keywords, and applies contextual filters to avoid false alerts. Because the process is repeatable, every document receives the same rigorous scrutiny. The resulting plain‑text report lists location, excerpt, potential violation category, reason and recommended action, creating a transparent audit trail that satisfies internal reviewers and external auditors alike.

What you gain

Early detection of language that could trigger a regulator

Consistent, repeatable screening across all communications

A clear, searchable record of every flagged item

Early detection matters

Spotting a risky phrase before a press release goes live reduces exposure and gives legal teams the breathing room to clarify intent without scrambling under pressure.

Process comparison

Aspect	Manual Review	AI‑Powered Check
Time per document	Hours, especially for long reports	Minutes, even for multi‑page PDFs
Consistency	Varies by reviewer and fatigue	Uniform application of the same criteria
Audit trail	Fragmented notes, hard to aggregate	Structured text report with full metadata
Scalability	Limited by staff availability	Handles any volume of documents automatically

Why Logic’s solution fits your team

Logic’s Regulatory Compliance Checker embeds the expertise of seasoned compliance professionals into an intuitive workflow. No coding is required; the model draws on a continuously updated keyword library that reflects the latest regulatory guidance. By integrating this workflow, compliance officers can shift their focus from hunting for hidden risks to strategic analysis and policy improvement.

The result is a more confident compliance function, a stronger safeguard against costly violations, and the peace of mind that every communication has been vetted with the same rigor that regulators expect.

Ready to Automate?

Get started with this workflow template in minutes. No complex setup required.

View Documentation