CASE STUDY

Risk Assistant

An AI-assisted risk review workspace that organizes financial evidence, assessment stages, and analyst decisions into one traceable workflow.

Role Product Designer
Focus Financial UX Systems
Tools Figma

Project Context

Risk review needed structure and traceability

The product brings together company information, financial documents, and risk signals in one assessment workflow. Dense information still needs to stay navigable, and the evidence behind a recommendation has to stay visible.

The UX Challenge

Clarify risk logic without oversimplifying it

  • Surface priority, status, and ownership clearly
  • Connect document review with assessment context
  • Organize multi-source financial information into readable layers
  • Keep system recommendations tied to visible evidence
  • Preserve explicit analyst review at important decision points

My Role

Designing the path from case to decision

I designed how analysts move from portfolio overview into case-level review. Hierarchy, document context, and explicit analyst judgment stayed at the center of the work.

Interaction Model / Core Flow

From case intake to analyst decision

The workflow moves from portfolio-level orientation into evidence review, assessment, recommendation, and analyst confirmation without separating the decision from its supporting context.

1. Case intake

Priority, status, ownership, and key case information establish orientation.

2. Evidence review

Company information and uploaded documents are grouped into structured review areas.

3. Assessment

Risk factors are examined through layered views from summary to supporting detail.

4. Recommendation

System-generated guidance is presented alongside the evidence used to evaluate it.

5. Analyst decision

The analyst confirms the outcome and carries the decision into reporting.

Key UX Decisions

Keep evidence close to the decision

Layered hierarchy

Summary information appears first, with deeper evidence available when needed.

Signal grouping

Related metrics, alerts, and case signals are grouped into understandable sections.

Evidence linkage

Recommendations stay connected to the source information used to evaluate them.

Phase clarity

Assessment stages remain visible so analysts know the current state and next action.

Human checkpoints

Important outcomes remain inspectable and require explicit analyst confirmation.

Design System / Interface Logic

One interface language across dense review states

The same component rules are used across overview, evidence, assessment, and reporting so analysts can move between levels of detail without learning a different interaction pattern.

  • Cards for case status, urgency, and ownership
  • Consistent table and document-panel structures
  • Shared visual treatment for warnings, statuses, and review states
  • Stable spacing and typography for dense financial information

Final Solution

A risk-review workspace built around evidence

Portfolio overview, document review, assessment, recommendation, and reporting stay on one path: case → evidence → assessment → analyst decision.

The recommendation does not sit apart from the material used to evaluate it. Evidence, case status, and analyst actions stay visible together.

Outcome

Evidence stays attached to the decision

Each stage has a job: open the case, inspect the evidence, assess the risk, and leave room for the analyst to confirm or challenge the recommendation.

See something you’d challenge?

I like talking through design decisions. If you would have approached something differently, I’d like to hear it.

Back to Work