HomePenfoldConfirmoCableMaraStarcount
Cable
Cable
CableFinancial crime · B2B SaaS · Desktop web

It worked.
Nobody used it.

One screen, one feature, one pilot, no sales. Once I moved the product from reproducing steps to producing outcomes, the single feature grew into a fincrime suite that sold.

Paper Trail 3.0, the redesigned Cable product, in a browser window on the brand blue
Free → Paid
From pilot to paying clients
10x
The feature set
90%+
User engagement
RoleFounding designer
TimelineJul 2020 to Oct 2022
UsersCompliance officers (MLROs)
v0.0Diagnosis

The product was the manual process, reproduced in software.

The team had built each step faithfully and neglected the outcomes behind them. That asked people to change how they work for a marginal gain, a tough trade. The product had to create value, not mirror it.

Cable v0.0: the single Paper Trail screen, with the trail list, an open trail and its comments
1
1The most important work was happening inside an attachment.The account IDs under review arrived as a CSV uploaded into the chat, and the reviewing happened in there. The product was just how the file got delivered.
Dissecting v0.0: the v0 screen drawn as a blueprint, annotated with overly generous white space, two menu bars, content living inside the rows, and flows triggered too far apart

There was no blueprint to follow. I designed the first iterations on instinct, our pilot users and first principles.

v1.0Hierarchy

I gave the one feature room, and the work a place to happen.

I broke up the single screen first. It blocked the two things the product needed: to grow, and to be worth using.

Cable v1.0: the Paper Trails dashboard, trails grouped into Needs Reviewing, In Progress and Closed cards

I gave Paper Trails, the whole reason the product existed, a high level view of all trails. Each trail is a card associated with its state, a pattern users already knew.

Cable v1.0: a single Paper Trail, its account IDs listed one per row with a copy button, beside the trail timeline
2
2Same feature set. Different value proposition.I moved the account IDs out of the attachment and into a component of their own, one click to copy each. Over 90% of users engaged with it.

Then I gave each trail a view of its own. Fincrime tooling was new ground, so our pilot partners had little reference for what to ask for. Something worth reacting to changed the quality of what came back.

v2.0Growth

Designed for outcomes, not steps. The product blossomed.

I stopped asking users how they did the work. I asked what outcome they needed, how they were getting there, and whether a better route existed.

I kept the workshops frequent. These were not technical people, so the start was slow, but their insight gradually sharpened and the asks grew with the relationship. Soon small tweaks to existing elements became full features, and the roadmap took shape as we went.

Risk Assessment: each typology risk scored for inherent and residual risk as it is filled in

Risk Assessment

Scored as you fill it in, locked once approved.

Reports: a PEP QA sample, reviewed account by account, with the QA score beside it

Reports

Sample, questions and score, ready for a regulator.

Assurance: every check against the bank’s controls, passed, failed or without data

Assurance

Every account and transaction tested, continuously.

Actions hub: every finding with an owner, a due date and a state

Actions

Every finding carries an owner and a date.

Program Dashboard: charts summarising a fintech program under the bank’s oversightPrograms Overview: the fintech programs a bank oversees, with the dashboard sheet sliding over the list

Oversight, a flagship on par with Paper Trails

The sponsor banks wanted Cable inside Cable: the same product pointed at the fintechs they oversee, so they could read those controls the way they read their own. Oversight (then Programs) put immediate strain on the UI.

v3.0System

A bag of features, rebuilt as one system.

A full rebuild was a hard sell. Oversight pushed it through: it was our most popular feature, and the banks’ interest in it was rising.

Cable v2 Oversight: a fintech’s Paper Trails board under the top bar, cards grouped into New, In Progress and Closed
3
Cable v3 Oversight: the same board with the blue side navigation and a single floating tab bar
3
3Top navigationOversight had stacked four headers on one screen. I folded them into a single bar that still told you which bank, which fintech and which feature you were in.

I designed all of it at once, because by then I knew what the product had to be. I found the patterns doing the same job in different ways, kept the strongest of each, and extended it to cover every case. We rebuilt the information architecture and the code beneath it.

OutcomeAfter 3.0

Working isn’t enough. It has to be worth switching to.

The suite was finished, solid and reliable, with the right amount of polish to be worth the price.

Cable v3 Oversight: a fintech’s Paper Trails board under the blue side navigation and a single floating tab barCable Paper Trail 3.0: a PEP QA trail under review, the maker’s accounts listed with their review states, one opened on its QA questions

“Compliance officers are conservative people.”

Natasha Vernier, co-founder and CEO of Cable
The SPL podcast, 2023

Risks & Controls: each risk scored as it is filled in, with the controls that mitigate itRisk Assessment for a fintech (Griffin): its own assessment beside the programs it oversees, each scored for inherent and residual risk

Tide, our pilot partner, converted first. Quaint Oak Bank, Griffin and Ramp followed, and in the years after, more than 50 banks and fintechs. Banks buy slowly, on trust, and on a return that outweighs the disruption of changing how people work. 3.0 cleared that bar.

Cable was acquired in 2026.

Design unlocked the value.
Value made it sell.