A pattern is a starting point. Context makes it useful.

A number can resemble a personal identifier without actually being one. The same pattern could be an internal reference, a test fixture, or a customer identifier. Detection helps identify a candidate. Review establishes what the finding means in its setting.

Put the finding back in context

A useful finding brings together its classification, source location, available detection confidence, and redacted sample. A reviewer can then ask whether the pattern fits the purpose of the table, file, or document where it appeared.

Confidence is a detection signal. It is not a substitute for a review decision, and a high score should not be presented as proof of a legal or compliance conclusion.

Record the decision

Pelestra’s finding review workflow includes three decisions: confirm a finding, mark it as a false positive, or suppress it. A rationale captures why the reviewer chose that outcome.

These choices have different meanings. Confirmation records that the reviewer accepts the finding. A false-positive decision records that the detection does not match the reviewed context. Suppression is a review state; it should not be confused with deleting sensitive data from a source.

Keep examples separate from live findings

The interactive examples on this website use sample data. They demonstrate the shape of the workflow without connecting to a source or changing product records.

During a demo or evaluation, the next step is to inspect a real finding from an agreed source. Review the evidence, make a considered decision, and keep the rationale with that decision.