Oscilar change log

TransUnion launched Synthetic Fraud and Credit Washing Scores that carry adverse action reason codes, and named Oscilar's risk platform as the first to incorporate them. Within Oscilar, the scores and their reason codes run alongside credit decisioning in one workflow, so a lender can act on synthetic identity or credit washing risk at account opening and cite it on an adverse action notice alongside the credit reasons.

Our read

Lenders can decline on synthetic identity risk without sending every case through manual review, and can cite credit washing as a reason for the first time. TransUnion describes the scores as being integrated with Oscilar, so confirm they are live in your environment, and have compliance review the reason code mappings and notice language before automated declines go live.

Oscilar made its MCP Server generally available, so Claude, Claude Code or any MCP compatible assistant can connect to an Oscilar environment, turn a written credit or fraud policy into a draft workflow, test it, and work cases. The assistant runs under the user's existing roles, permissions and audit trail, and any workflow change it makes is saved as a draft that someone on the team deploys. Oscilar AI, the in product assistant that explains decisions rule by rule, went generally available at the same time, and both are included at no additional cost.

Our read

Risk and compliance teams get a way for AI assistants to write fraud and credit policy logic without being able to push changes live, the kind of change control a model risk review looks for.

Oscilar's September product update introduces an AI Workflow Copilot that builds and queries risk rules from plain English prompts, alongside workflow testing that adds single rule testing, backtesting against historical data and a clear diff view before a change goes live. The release also ships version 2.1 of its AML alert scoring model, a 50 percent improvement in P99 latency, and nine new integrations.

Our read

The copilot writes the rule, but backtesting and the diff view are what let a risk team ship it without a change control argument, because a rule change with a measured historical effect and a visible diff is a rule change with an audit trail. The AML scoring model version is worth logging on its own: a bumped model version is exactly the disclosure model risk teams ask vendors for and rarely get.