Post Oak Labs Showcase ISO 20022 Message Truncation Auditor
🔒 All inputs are processed locally in your browser. No data is transmitted, stored, or logged. Use synthetic or anonymised pacs.008 messages only.
Tool 77 · pacs.008 · MT103 · CBPR+ · SWIFT SR2026
ISO 20022 Migration SWIFT CBPR+ · 14 Nov 2026 AP2 Remediation Brief

Message Truncation Auditor

Detect silent data loss on the 35-character legacy boundary before your pacs.008 hits a correspondent still translating to MT103. Paste any ISO 20022 MX payload on the left — see exactly which bytes will be discarded by the SWIFT FIN gateway on the right.

Fields audited
MX elements → MT lines
Over 35 chars
silent truncation risk
Bytes dropped
if relayed to MT103 today
SWIFT CBPR+ · SR2026 cutover — days to 14 Nov 2026

Approximately 65% of payment messages still contain unstructured addresses as of March 2026 (SWIFT.com). After 14 November 2026, payment instructions with unstructured addresses face rejection on the CBPR+ path. Hybrid address (town + country minimum) is the compliance floor; fully structured is preferred. Scope exceptions: admi.024, camt.025, camt.052, camt.053, camt.054, camt.060.

Source: SWIFT Standards Release SR2026 — swift.com/news-events/news/iso-20022-milestone-november-2026
Load sample:
Browser-only · Zero data leaves this page

Source MX payload and translated MT103 envelope

MX · ISO 20022
pacs.008.001.12 · source of truth
● parsed   0 elements 0 chars
MT · Legacy FIN
MT103 · post-translation envelope · 4×35 limit
checking…

Truncation findings and remediation guidance

Truncation Findings
— findings
Remediation
map · don't truncate
Why this matters

The silent data loss problem

SWIFT MT-MX coexistence · ends Nov 2026

ISO 20022 (pacs.008) carries up to 140-character structured remittance lines and full structured postal addresses across 7+ subfields. When a correspondent on the MT103 side of a corridor receives the message, the SWIFT translation rulebook applies the legacy 4×35-character ceiling. Anything past column 35 is dropped, with no NACK, no warning, and no audit trail.

The original instruction looks delivered. The beneficiary sees a payment land. Reconciliation breaks downstream because the invoice reference is half-gone, the AML team can't pin the originator address, and your sanctions screening signal is silently shorter than what you sent. Auditing the boundary before the message leaves your gateway — and re-mapping the surplus into a structured field MT103 actually understands (:50F:, :59F:, :77B:) — is the only way to keep CBPR+ semantics intact across the legacy hop.

Payments & Treasury

Migrating rails or unlocking trapped capital?

ISO 20022 cutover, A2A migration, FX netting, nostro optimization and real-time fraud — built in production, not slideware. Let's map your move.

Talk to our team →
Post Oak Labs · production deployments in the Caribbean & South Asia · works with a limited number of institutions at a time
Remediation Brief · validated against AP2 v1.0 schema