Entity Onboarding

Obligations attach to the registered legal person, not to the brand. A group that onboards the parent when the broking registration sits in a subsidiary will map a register to the wrong balance sheet, the wrong net worth certificate and the wrong shareholding pattern.

This number is the key every obligation in Part I and Part II hangs from. It is publicly displayed because SEBI requires brokers to display it — but displayed is not evidenced, so the engine holds it as DECLARED and will not promote it to verified until the registration certificate itself is supplied.

Membership is what makes Part I registration duties and Part II supervision duties concrete: annual inspection is conducted by the exchange, the system audit Terms of Reference vary by member type, and the QSB list is published exchange by exchange.

The licence says what the firm may do; this answer says what it does. Every segment switched on here instantiates an obligation family — and every one left off is a family the engine will not create, which is the difference between a register a compliance officer can use and a generic checklist.

DP status changes the client-securities surface entirely — reconciliation of client demat holdings, the Early Warning Mechanism against diversion under Part II item 17, and the DDPI regime under Part III item 36 all read differently for a participant than for a pure trading member.

MTF is the single largest fork in Part III. It brings a board-approved MTF policy, daily reporting to the exchange, a separate funded-position ledger and its own collateral rules. Onboard a broker without asking, and either the register carries obligations that do not apply or it silently misses a funded book.

Nothing in a filing reveals this, and the three answers carry different duties: in-house strategies need exchange approval and a maintained strategy inventory, vendor strategies pull in the outsourcing register under Part IX item 82, and client-facing APIs pull in the retail-algo provisions under Part IV.

Part IV item 61 attaches the reporting duty to USE, not to scale — a single ML-driven risk model or client-facing assistant triggers the Annexure-26 return. Use cannot be inferred from any public source, which is exactly why it is asked rather than assumed.

This is asked so the engine can record a NEGATIVE. If neither registration exists, two document families are waived — and the waiver, with its reason, is filed against the profile. An inspector can then tell the difference between an obligation the engine reasoned about and ruled out, and one it never knew existed.

The engine has computed QSB as probable from public inputs — an active-client base derived at roughly 6.76 million against NSE's 4.57 crore active base. That computation is a prediction. SEBI makes the designation and the exchanges publish the list, so only the intimation converts computed into confirmed. Until it arrives the enhanced obligations are tracked as active-provisional, because sitting in the gap is not an option.

CSCRF grades regulated entities by size and the grade sets the depth of every cyber obligation. The engine derives Qualified RE from client count, turnover band and the QSB path — but the entity's own self-assessment is the operative position it has taken with SEBI, and a divergence between the two is itself a finding worth surfacing early.

Scope errors are silent — an unbound Part produces no gap, no task and no alert, so nothing on the dashboard will ever tell you it is missing. That is why the engine shows what it excluded and invites the compliance officer to break the exclusion rather than quietly inheriting it. Accepting this scope also accepts that Part VIII carries no obligations on the register: the default provisions bind on a default event, none is declared, and the chapter is held under a trigger watch instead of being extracted. That zero is the answer, not a missing answer.