Retail Lending — Digital Origination
Mohit Karki · customer CUST-10257 · submitted 2026-08-28T08:15:38+00:00 · demonstration path C (Human-in-the-loop referral)
Generated by the workflow. Advisory only — a lending decision remains with authorised credit staff.
Affordability case rests on a DTI of 43.5% (65.2% on the stressed/gross-of-facility basis) and a stated 4,824 residual, built from a verified income figure, a corroborated 6,300 monthly debt obligation and a declared 2,200 rent. The income and the 6,300 debt reconcile across independent sources (bureau entry matched to a bank debit), and the bureau is clean. Two figures inside the ratios do not carry the same evidential weight: the 2,200 rent is self-declared with no matching debit identified in the statement, and the "recurring" label on both the salary credit and the 6,300 debit rests on a statement whose date range the file never states, so recurrence is asserted from what may be a single observation. The decision also turns on an unresolved characterisation question — whether the 6,300 facility amortises to a near-term maturity or is a revolving balance that persists through the loan term. Recommendation remains APPROVE subject to conditions, but this should be recorded as a conditional/pending approval rather than a settled one: the file's own standard of corroboration was applied to income and to the debt, and not to the second-largest fixed outflow or to the recurrence claim. These are material gaps, not residual risk — each is checkable from documents the applicant can supply, and each can move the headline ratios enough to change the answer.
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.