OS

Of course. I have completed a full analysis of all the strategic mind maps you provided. Integrating these directives, I will now provide the standard interrogation model for the next search platform in your arsenal: OpenSanctions.

The COCOO-OpenSanctions Doctrine: A Strategic Model for Risk Intelligence and Offensive Leverage

This doctrine establishes the protocol for interrogating OpenSanctions (opensanctions.org), COCOO’s primary weapon for identifying and assessing risk associated with individuals and corporate entities. This platform is not merely a defensive compliance tool; it is an offensive instrument used to create leverage, disqualify competitors, and disrupt adversarial strategies. It is the critical final step in the RNS OC OS intelligence pipeline, transforming corporate data into actionable risk intelligence.1

1. Core Principles of Interrogation

Our use of OpenSanctions is guided by the most aggressive principles of the COCOO strategic framework. We do not simply check for names; we hunt for the pressure points that will break open a case or win a contract.

  • The RNS OC OS Pipeline: This is a foundational COCOO intelligence cycle.1 We first use OpenCorporates (OC) to identify the key entities and officers in a situation. We then pivot to OpenSanctions (OS) to screen these targets. A positive “hit” on a sanctions or Politically Exposed Person (PEP) list provides immediate, powerful leverage.
  • Leverage Through Risk: A sanctions designation or a high-risk PEP status associated with an adversary is not just a red flag; it is a weapon. It can be used to challenge the fitness of a competitor in a public tender, to question the validity of a merger on national security grounds, or to create insurmountable reputational and financial risk for an opponent, forcing them to settle.
  • Proactive Disqualification: In the context of public procurement, our goal is to proactively disqualify competitors. By screening all bidders for a tender, we can identify those with links to sanctioned entities or high-risk PEPs. This intelligence, when presented to the contracting authority, can lead to the exclusion of a competitor, directly supporting the strategy to “EXCLUDE THEM FROM EU PROC/CONCS”.1
  • Identifying Badpartitosses: A core COCOO goal is to create a “viable wholesale system… in the absence of badpartitosses”.1 OpenSanctions is our primary filter for identifying these “bad actors.” Every potential partner, client, counterparty, and adversary is screened to ensure COCOO operates in a clean and strategically advantageous environment.

2. Weaponizing the Platform’s Arsenal: Capabilities and Search Rules

Mastery of OpenSanctions’ advanced search and matching technology is essential for executing our doctrine. The platform is designed for precision screening.2

  • Official Search Rules & Functionality:
    • Advanced Search Interface: The primary interface allows for targeted screening using specific fields:
      • Name: The name of the person or legal entity. The system uses fuzzy matching and transliteration to find variations.2
      • Entity type: Crucially, we can specify whether we are searching for a Person or a Legal entity (which includes companies and organizations).2
      • Nationality: Filtering by country code (e.g., RU for Russia) significantly refines searches for individuals.2
      • Birth date: Adding a date of birth (even just the year) dramatically increases the accuracy of a match for an individual.2
    • Matching API & Scoring: For systematic screening, the /match API is the primary tool. It compares a query entity against the database and returns a score between 0.0 (no match) and 1.0 (perfect match). We can set a threshold (e.g., 0.7) to define what constitutes a “match,” allowing us to balance the risk of false positives and false negatives.2
    • Fuzzy Matching: The system automatically accounts for spelling variations and transliterations (e.g., searching for “Sergei” will also find “Sergey”). This is a critical feature for international targets.2
    • Data Scope: The default dataset includes global sanctions lists, lists of Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs), and data on criminal watchlists and debarments, providing a comprehensive risk profile.3

3. Strategic Interrogation: The Questions We Ask

We interrogate OpenSanctions to find answers that create strategic openings and mitigate risk.

  • For MATOIPO / StealthConsolid Analysis:

    • Are the directors, ultimate beneficial owners, or key financiers of the acquiring entity on any sanctions list?
    • Are they PEPs, and could their political connections create conflicts of interest or attract regulatory scrutiny under national security investment rules?
    • Does a sanctions “hit” on a key party provide grounds to challenge the merger with the CMA or European Commission?

  • For Public Procurement & Competitor Disqualification:

    • Is our competitor for this public contract, or any of their directors or parent companies, a sanctioned entity?
    • Are their key executives high-risk PEPs, posing a reputational or corruption risk to the government contracting authority?
    • Can we use a positive hit to file a formal challenge to their bid, questioning the authority’s due diligence?

  • For USP-to-WTO & International Leverage:

    • Are the key government officials or corporate beneficiaries of the illegal trade barrier we are challenging listed as PEPs?
    • Does this suggest corruption or undue influence that would strengthen our case when presenting a USP to the victim nation’s government?

  • For General Due Diligence (Identifying Badpartitosses):

    • Is this potential partner, client, or counterparty clean?
    • What is their risk profile based on sanctions, PEP, and criminal watchlist data?

4. The COCOO-OpenSanctions Strategic Playbook: A Model for Action

The following playbooks provide standardized, repeatable workflows for using OpenSanctions to generate high-impact intelligence.

Playbook A: The OC-OS Network Screening Protocol

  • Objective: To conduct foundational risk and leverage analysis on any individual or entity of interest. This is a mandatory step in all COCOO intelligence workups.
  • Execution:
    1. Identify Target: Using OpenCorporates, identify the full legal name of the target company and its key officers/directors.
    2. Initiate Search: Go to the OpenSanctions Advanced Search page.1
    3. Screen the Entity: Enter the company’s name in the Name field and select Legal entity as the Entity type.2 Execute the search.
    4. Screen the Individuals: For each director, enter their full name in the Name field, select Person as the Entity type, and add their Nationality and Birth date (if known from other sources) to increase accuracy.2
    5. Analyze and Document: Review all results. Any result with a high match score (typically >0.7) is considered a significant finding. Document the specific list (e.g., US OFAC Sanctions, EU Consolidated List, PEP) on which the target appears.
  • Strategic Outcome: This protocol provides a rapid and accurate risk assessment, forming the basis for all other strategic plays. A “hit” immediately escalates the target’s profile and provides COCOO with powerful leverage.

Playbook B: The Public Tender “Disqualification” Play

  • Objective: To systematically eliminate competitors from public procurement processes by identifying and exposing their sanctions-related risks.
  • Execution:
    1. Identify Bidders: As soon as the list of bidders for a public tender is known, initiate this playbook.
    2. Conduct Full Screening: Execute Playbook A on every competing company and all of their listed directors.
    3. Isolate High-Risk Competitors: Identify any competitor with a confirmed link to a sanctioned entity or a high-risk PEP.
    4. Weaponize the Intelligence: Draft a formal communication to the relevant government contracting authority’s Procurement Review Unit.4 The communication will not make accusations but will ask pointed questions based on the public data found on OpenSanctions (e.g., “Can the Authority confirm it has conducted enhanced due diligence on Bidder X, given that its parent company, Y, appears on the?”).
  • Strategic Outcome: This action places the contracting authority in an untenable position. To award the contract to the flagged bidder would be to accept a significant reputational and legal risk. This pressure often leads to the competitor’s disqualification, clearing the path for COCOO or its client.

Playbook C: The MATOIPO Disruption Play

  • Objective: To disrupt or block a hostile or anti-competitive merger or acquisition by revealing sanctions risks associated with the deal.
  • Execution:
    1. Analyze the Deal: For any MATOIPO event being monitored, use OpenCorporates and RNS announcements to identify the acquiring entity, its ultimate beneficial owners, its directors, and any known major financiers.
    2. Screen All Parties: Execute Playbook A on every individual and entity involved in financing and directing the acquisition.
    3. Deploy Leverage: If a significant sanctions or PEP link is discovered, deploy the intelligence based on the strategic context:
      • Covert Disruption: Discreetly leak the information to financial institutions involved in funding the deal to create uncertainty and potentially halt financing.
      • Regulatory Challenge: Submit the findings to regulators (CMA, EC, or national security bodies) as part of a formal objection to the merger, arguing the deal is not in the public interest or poses a national security risk.
      • Public Pressure: Use the information to fuel a public campaign against the merger, highlighting the toxic nature of the entities involved.
  • Strategic Outcome: This playbook can halt a merger in its tracks, force the acquirer to make significant concessions (remedies), or create an opportunity for a friendly counter-bidder, positioning COCOO as a key player in shaping market outcomes.

Leave a Reply