This is the Electee Review. Today, sanctions screening looks like a technical problem. It is actually a judgment problem, and most compliance teams are solving the wrong one. The core argument matching a name against a sanctions list is the easy part. Any system can flag Ahmed Hassan against a watch list entry. The hard part is deciding what that flag means. Transliteration, aliases, shared names, outdated list entries, all of this generates false positives at scale. Teams end up buried in alerts, and the volume itself becomes the risk. When 90 plus percent of hits are noise, analysts stop trusting the system, and that's when a real hit slips through. The guide's practical point for 2026 is this. Risk-based screening isn't a compliance slogan, it's an operational necessity. Fuzzy, matching thresholds, list update frequency, and case review workflows all need to be tuned against the institution's actual exposure, not set once and left alone. A high-volume retail bank and a boutique wealth manager should not run identical screening logic. Yet many still do, because default settings are easier than defensible ones. There's a regulatory tension underneath this. Regulators want evidence of rigorous screening, but rigor measured by alert volume is a vanity metric. It proves activity, not effectiveness. The guide pushes toward measuring quality of disposition, how accurately and consistently teams close out false positives, and how well true matches get escalated. That's harder to build and harder to audit, which is exactly why most firms haven't done it. The uncomfortable takeaway. A lot of sanctions programs are optimized to look defensible rather than to actually catch risk. Tuning down false positives without a documented rationale can look like weakening controls, even when it makes the program smarter. So teams over flag defensively, then drown in the consequences. Real compliance, per this guide, means owning that trade off deliberately, calibrating, documenting, and being able to justify the calibration, rather than pretending a stricter default is automatically safer. That's the review.