Committee overconfidence at origination. Anchoring to prior deal terms. Herding under senior pressure. These are measurable, recurring precursors to credit events — with direct P&L consequences.
577 citations · h-index 12 · 30,022 Zenodo records · ORCID 0000-0002-8401-8018 · Google Scholar verified · hablamos@juanmoisesdelaserna.es
Basel IV tightens model governance. IFRS 9 demands forward-looking credit assessment. ECB supervisory expectations on internal governance continue to expand. None of these frameworks address the behavioral layer of the committee that makes the decision.
Systematic origination overconfidence, anchoring to prior deal terms, and groupthink that silences dissenting analysis are not edge cases. They are structural features of committees under performance pressure — identifiable, measurable, and directly attributable to specific NPL formation patterns, impairment provisions, and governance failures under supervisory examination.
Volatility clustering, coordinated sell-off signatures, and anomalous liquidity events in digital asset markets precede regulated-market contagion by measurable intervals. The behavioral forensics of investment decisions are visible in market microstructure before they appear in balance sheets.
Open full map ↗External map — opens in new tab
View Live Map ↗Each mandate begins with a specific institutional problem — a decision chain, a counterparty, a committee process, or a regulatory examination. The deliverable is forensic-grade analysis, not advisory opinion.
Documented fraud cases across institutional finance show systematic behavioral anomalies in counterparty communication patterns, management conduct, and documentation governance well before financial irregularities surface. Standard forensic accounting works backward from the event. This practice works forward from the signal — identifying the decision-chain deviations that carry predictive value before they become a loss event on your books.
A credit committee running with systematic overconfidence during origination produces statistically predictable NPL drift in specific segments, vintages, and sector exposures. This is a quantifiable model governance failure with direct P&L consequences — and under Basel IV supervisory review, one regulators are increasingly positioned to identify before you do. A structured behavioral audit of your committee process is governance infrastructure, not a soft intervention.
FCA under the Senior Managers Regime, ECB under SREP governance expectations, and SEC under duty-of-care frameworks now require documented evidence of how committees weighted information, managed conflicts of interest, and applied judgment under uncertainty. A behavioral governance record is not reconstructable after the fact from outcome documentation alone. It must be built at the time the decision is made. We build it.
Phishing, ransomware, and social engineering are not technical events — they are behavioral exploits. The credential that was stolen, the attachment that was opened, the perimeter that was left exposed: each is a governance failure traceable to a human decision chain. Real-time threat activity is fraud forensics at the infrastructure level.
Open full map ↗External map — opens in new tab
View Live Map ↗Four stages. Each engagement begins with a precise mandate definition. The deliverable — written findings, forensic attribution, and actionable documentation — is designed to hold under regulatory scrutiny, board presentation, or litigation. No academic language in the output.
Peer-reviewed methodology · Defensible under examinationInternational dataset archived at Harvard Dataverse. Publicly accessible, peer-reviewed, independently reproducible. DOI-registered 2026.
DOI: 10.7910/DVN/X2OCAM ↗30,022 records (29,967 open). 27,051 publications · 2,892 datasets · 662 preprints · 166 journal articles. CC BY 4.0. All DOI-registered via DataCite.
zenodo.org/communities/juanmoisesd-open-data ↗ORCID: 0000-0002-8401-8018. Scopus Author ID: 26632846700. ResearcherID: M-8296-2019. 577 citations, h-index 12, 595K+ reads. Top 1% on Academia.edu.
orcid.org/0000-0002-8401-8018 ↗Review Editor at Frontiers in Psychiatry. 86+ peer reviews. NSF Proposal Reviewer since January 2026. IRDiRC Digital Twins Task Force member. Advisory Board, Preprints.org.
ResearchGate profile ↗27,051 indexed publications means the methodology applied in every engagement has been independently validated, peer-reviewed, and replicated. That is a different evidentiary standard than management consulting opinion.
30,022 public records on Zenodo alone. Harvard Dataverse, ORCID, Scopus, ResearchGate, Figshare, OSF, Mendeley. If a regulator or litigant challenges the analysis, the scientific basis is publicly verifiable on seven independent platforms.
2,892 open datasets. 662 preprints. 166 journal articles. All DOI-registered via DataCite. The infrastructure is public, versioned, and independently auditable.
Review Editor at Frontiers in Psychiatry. 86+ articles peer-reviewed. U.S. NSF proposal reviewer. Member, IRDiRC Task Force on Digital Twins. Advisory Board, Preprints.org.
«Every institutional failure has two balance sheets: the financial one regulators read, and the behavioral one nobody filed.»
Behavioral governance failures are not discovered after the event. They are documented in real time by every institution that structures the analysis correctly. The committee that approved the position had all the relevant information. They just processed it wrong — and that processing is now within the scope of supervisory review.
If you are preparing for supervisory review, running due diligence on a high-stakes origination, or examining the decision trail behind a credit event — describe the situation. If there is a fit, you will know within one business day.
The institution, the decision under review, and the regulatory or commercial context. A paragraph is sufficient.