Retail Lending — Digital Origination
Mohit Karki · customer CUST-10256 · submitted 2026-08-28T08:06:47+00:00 · demonstration path A (Straight-through approval)
Generated by the workflow. Advisory only — a lending decision remains with authorised credit staff.
The file presents as a clean affordability case: net income of 8,160 evidenced on bank statements, a single bureau-reported obligation of 2,650 apparently matched by a 2,650 recurring bank debit, plus 540 of other service, giving roughly 39% net DTI. The bureau is otherwise clean and the income and debit patterns are visible on statements rather than asserted. However, the corroboration at the heart of the memo is an inference from an identical amount, not a confirmed match: no payee or creditor name on the debit has been tied to the bureau tradeline. If the debit is a second, off-bureau obligation (family loan, BNPL, a facility too new to report) that coincidentally carries the same payment, true debt service is 5,840 against 8,160 net, or 71.6% net DTI — a materially different, likely declinable file. Compounding this, the memo does not state the bank statement lookback, so "recurring" for both the 8,160 credit and the 2,650 debit is unquantified; a one- or two-cycle window would not establish steady state and could disguise bonus-inflated income. This is not residual risk that pricing can absorb: it is an unverified figure that flips the decision, and both checks are cheap. Recommendation remains APPROVE, but conditioned on (a) confirming the creditor identity on the 2,650 debit against the bureau tradeline, not merely balance and term, and (b) evidencing a lookback of at least six months on both the income credit and the debit. Confidence is low pending those two items, and the recommendation should be treated as provisional rather than settled.
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.