Retail Lending — Digital Origination
Mohit Karki · customer CUST-10251 · submitted 2026-08-27T09:45:37+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 conditional approval rests on a recalculated net DTI of 49.4% and a residual of 7,024, both derived from a bank statement showing a salary credit and a facility debit that match the declared figures. The amount-matching is genuine corroboration, and the four existing conditions (housing cost, three-facilities discrepancy, delinquency ageing, bureau refresh) address the other identified gaps. But the reviewer has identified a material gap rather than residual risk: the memo nowhere states how many statement cycles were reviewed, so "recurring" is an untested characterisation. If the evidence is a single month, the central figure of the file is corroborated for amount but not for repetition, and a 60-month affordability conclusion is being drawn from a one-period sample. This is not a fraud-behind-reconciling-documents objection that pricing can absorb; it is an unverified figure that a document request would settle either way. Recommendation remains APPROVE because the arithmetic, the bureau position and the amount-level match all point the same direction and nothing in the file contradicts stability - but confidence is low until statement time-depth is established, and a fifth condition requiring three to six consecutive months of statements (or an employer-confirmed salary history) should be added before drawdown. If the longer window shows the salary net or facility debit differs from the single observed month, the 49.4% and the 7,024 residual both move and the approval must be re-derived.
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.