Exposure is a network property before it is a per-subject fact. A single-subject file is a view on that network, not an object of its own, and it reads honestly only when the subject and the neighbours sit on the same graph. Firms that build one report at a time end up recomputing the graph from scratch every time they open a file. That is expensive, and the expense hides the wrong-shaped answers it also produces.
Once exposure is read as a network property, the shape of the work changes. We stop building one report at a time and start maintaining a small graph that the reports are views on. Adding a subject is cheaper if the graph already contains their neighbours. Answering a question about one subject often requires only a new query against a graph we have already built.
The cost is discipline. A graph that grows without pruning becomes a graph of everything, which is a graph of nothing. Every node has to be there for a reason a client would recognise. Every edge has to be dated. Every merge has to be reversible. When the discipline slips, the graph starts inventing connections, and an invented connection is worse than a missing one.
The upside, when it holds, is that a signal on any node moves confidence on every node connected to it. A debanking on one shared service provider moves the risk read on every subject who used them, in proportion to how much of their footprint sat there. That kind of update is invisible to a per-subject workflow.
The useful output now is a view on the graph rather than a standalone document. A reader who wants a single file still gets one. What sits behind that file is the graph, and the graph is what keeps the file useful the week after it is delivered.