One member. Five systems. No answer.
The same person exists in your core, your card platform, digital banking and the CRM — and none of them agree. That is what every AI project in your institution is actually stuck on, and since April 2026 it is also what an examiner is most likely to ask you to show.
Get the Playbook — free.
By the end of it, you’ll be able to:
- Say how many customers you have — and defend the definition
- Know which of your eight data domains is authoritative for which field, and which only looks like it is
- Tell in one pass whether an AI system falls under SR 26-2, or into the gap it leaves open
instant download + emailed copy · no spam · unsubscribe anytime
Ask how many customers you have, and count the answers.
The core returns open deposit relationships. The CRM returns contact records, including prospects and people who closed accounts in 2019. Digital banking returns enrolled logins, which undercounts every joint account where only one party enrolled. Marketing has a fourth number. All four are defensible. None of them is wrong, exactly. There is simply no shared definition — and until there is, nothing model-shaped will hold.
And this is not the first time you have tried to fix it.
Ran a pilot that demonstrated beautifully on an extract somebody cleaned by hand, then never reached production
Scoped a customer-360 project that turned into a platform evaluation and quietly died in procurement
Waited for the core conversion, on the theory that the conversion would sort it out
None of those failed because the team was wrong. They failed because the gap between systems is nobody's job. The core team is right that the core is not authoritative for a mailing address. The CRM team is right that the CRM is not authoritative for balances. Each of them is doing their job correctly, and the space between them is where every project goes to stall.
Here’s what you walk away able to do.
Say how many customers you have — and defend the definition
from “The worksheets”Know which of your eight data domains is authoritative for which field, and which only looks like it is
from “What you actually run on”Tell in one pass whether an AI system falls under SR 26-2, or into the gap it leaves open
from “The worksheets”Hold a register of every GenAI use, including the ones a vendor switched on for you
from “The worksheets”Rehearse the eight questions an examiner asks, and time how long the evidence takes to produce
from “The worksheets”Run a first 90 days that needs no platform purchase and produces evidence you can show
from “The worksheets”You can put this off, sure — but a month from now you’ll still be doing it the slow way, wishing you’d started today.
We made this because we kept watching it not click.
Smart people — people who are genuinely good at their jobs — were paying for these tools and using maybe a tenth of what they could do. Not because they weren’t trying, but because nobody ever showed them the part that actually matters. So we sat down and wrote that part: the moves that work, the ones we’d hand a friend who asked. No filler, no hype, just the stuff we’d actually use ourselves.
The instruments to describe the gap precisely enough to close it.
Not a platform, not a reorganization, not a warehouse project. An honest map of what you run on, a scored read of whether you can resolve one person across it, a triage for which AI regime actually applies now that SR 11-7 is gone, and a rehearsal of the questions an examiner will ask. Six worksheets your existing people can fill in without a consultant in the room.
Why the same person exists five times and none of them agree
The eight data domains you actually run on, and what each one is really authoritative for
What changed when SR 11-7 was retired — and the gap it left open
Six worksheets: inventory, identity, model triage, the GenAI register, examiner rehearsal, and a 90-day sequence
Three steps, and you’re reading in under a minute.
Tell us where to send it
Just your first name and email — that’s the whole form. No hoops, no credit card, nothing to install.
It’s yours in a second
The guide downloads right away, and we’ll pop a copy in your inbox too, so you’ve always got it when you need it.
Try one thing this week
Open it, pick one idea that fits your week, and actually use it. One small win is all it takes to see what this thing can do.
A few fair questions.
Am I actually going to be able to do this?
Yes. It’s written to be followed, not admired. Every step is plain, the examples are copy-paste, and a simple first-week plan means you’re never staring at a blank screen wondering what’s next.
Will it actually show me how to set it up?
That’s the whole point. It walks you through the setup step by step and assumes nothing — so you end up with the thing actually working, not just a list of features you read about.
Is it too advanced, or too basic, for me?
It meets you where you are. New to this? It starts from the ground and builds up. Already comfortable? Skip ahead to the prompts and plays — they’ll still earn their keep.
How much time is this going to take?
You can read it in an afternoon, and you’ll have something working the same week. It’s built around small wins, not a giant course you start and never finish.
Is this just hype, or does it actually work?
No fluff. It’s the real moves — the exact prompts, the steps, and the mistakes to skip — from people who use this stuff every day, not a recap of a press release.
Is it really free? What’s the catch?
Genuinely free. We ask for your first name and email so we can send it (and the next one when it’s ready). No card, no catch, and one click to unsubscribe.
Find out what you can actually evidence.
Grab the Playbook, run W1 with the six people who touch your systems, and W5 with whoever would have to answer the examiner. An afternoon each. Free, takes a second, yours to keep.
Get the Playbook — free.
instant download + emailed copy · no spam · unsubscribe anytime
An independent guide from Prometheus Consulting, for coos, cios, risk & data leaders at banks and credit unions. Snapshot as of June 2026; tools move fast — check against current docs. Unofficial: product names are trademarks of their respective owners, none of whom reviewed or endorsed this guide.