Meridian Bank

Application LOAN-2026-00130   CREDIT ASSESSMENT

Mohit Karki · customer CUST-10252 · submitted 2026-08-27T09:57:46+00:00 · demonstration path C (Human-in-the-loop referral)

Assessment

Generated by the workflow. Advisory only — a lending decision remains with authorised credit staff.

Two unresolved gaps sit upstream of every affordability figure in this file, and both point the same way. First, the 33.3% deduction rate on gross pay is materially above statutory withholding at this income level; the underwriter labelled it "unusually heavy" and drew no conclusion. A rate that high is consistent with a garnishment order for a defaulted debt sitting inside the net figure, which would mean the reconciled 13,874 net is not clean income but income already reduced by an undisclosed enforced debt payment — making true debt service higher than the 6,300 + 550 assumed. Second, the bureau shows three facilities and the bank statements account for one debit line. The entire affordability case (net DTI, residual income, the flip conditions) rests on the unverified assumption that the two unaccounted facilities are undrawn revolvers with no scheduled payment. If either reading is wrong — garnishment inside net, or live payment streams on the two facilities — the affordability conclusion inverts. These are not residual risks that pricing can absorb; they are checkable facts that have not been checked, and they interlock: a garnishment would itself explain the facility-count mismatch. The "no collections activity has been initiated" statement does not cover this, as it speaks only to this lender's file and not to prior enforcement history by other creditors. Recommend DECLINE pending a full deduction breakdown on the payslip and bureau-level payment detail on all three facilities; the file cannot be underwritten on the current evidence.