W-A flagship. OFAC/EU/BIS 50%-rule aggregate-ownership traversal over a synthetic ownership graph (ART-91) -> sanctions list-coverage conformance (ART-92) -> audit receipt (cry-05). Determines constructively-blocked entities per BIS Affiliates Rule (29 Sep 2025) and OFAC 50% rule. Synthetic entities only.
aggregate_ownership_50pct{
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"name": "aggregate_ownership_50pct",
"arguments": {}
},
"id": 1
}
check_screening_list_coverage{
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"name": "check_screening_list_coverage",
"arguments": {}
},
"id": 1
}
aggregate_execution_receipts{
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"name": "aggregate_execution_receipts",
"arguments": {}
},
"id": 1
}
Copy this paragraph into Claude, OpenClaw, or any MCP-aware agent to run this whole workflow on the server and check one field that answers a real question.
Question: A listed parent holds 60 percent of a holdco which owns our counterparty. Is the counterparty constructively blocked?
Run the AINumbers MCP tool `run_chain` with {"chain":"sanctions-ownership"} and read `art-91-ownership-50pct-aggregator.blocked_count`.
Re-run with `inputs` for `art-91-ownership-50pct-aggregator`, reusing the values that result echoed, with `ownership_graph` changed so one OFAC-listed parent holding 60 percent of a holdco. Compare the same field.
Verify: call `verify_execution_hash` (https://mcp.ainumbers.co/mcp) with `claimed_hash` set to `composite_execution_hash` and the full `composite_artifact`.
Ledger, for a human re-check: https://ledger.ainumbers.co/
PII rule: send synthetic or anonymised inputs only. The MCP server runs these kernels and logs no payloads.
Chain page: https://ainumbers.co/chaingraph/chains/sanctions-ownership.html