Retail Lending — Digital Origination
Mohit Karki · customer CUST-10245 · submitted 2026-08-27T08:39:19+00:00 · demonstration path C (Human-in-the-loop referral)
Generated by the workflow. Advisory only — a lending decision remains with authorised credit staff.
The file's affordability case rests on a net income figure derived by subtracting net from gross and treating the entire 33.3% gap as tax and statutory deduction. That composition is asserted, not evidenced. For a 20,800 earner, a one-third withholding is heavy enough to warrant explanation, and the only documents in the file are structurally incapable of providing it: the bureau reports facilities (6,300) but not payroll-deducted obligations, and the bank statement shows only post-withholding cash. If any material slice of that gap is a garnishment, court-ordered support, or an employer loan repayment, the true debt service exceeds 6,850, the 49.4% ratio understates the burden, and none of the three proposed conditions would surface it. The numerator has been audited exhaustively; the denominator's composition has not been tested at all. This is a genuine gap in the evidence rather than an unavoidable residual risk, because a single obtainable document resolves it. Recommendation remains APPROVE, but conditional on the added fourth condition: the payslip's full deduction breakdown, not merely the net total. Confidence is moderate and reflects that the decision turns on a figure no independent source in the file corroborates.
What we need, and what we have verified so far.
Upload through the portal, or send them to us by email — either channel feeds the same workflow.
Every step, as it happened.