Download: credit memo (PDF) | committee packet (PDF) | reviewer scorecard (PDF)
Scenario
Selecting a scenario updates the recommendation, constraints, waterfall, and shareable URL.
Four-cap decision
Collateral waterfall
| Measure | Amount |
|---|
Base case: 4.0m fictional USDC, 2% stress, 50 bps execution cost, 25 bps delay cost, $20k fixed cost, and 1.25x coverage.
Decision thresholds
Break-even sensitivities hold execution cost, delay, fixed cost, coverage, and all non-target drivers constant. They are not forecasts.
Coverage covenant call ladder
Stress the recommended $3.0 million commitment plus accrued amount. A negative covenant headroom identifies the modeled cure needed to restore 1.25× coverage.
| Price stress | Available proceeds | Coverage | Status | Covenant headroom | Top-up required | Repayment required | Rounded compliant commitment |
|---|
Live collateral what-if lab
Change simulated collateral and execution assumptions. The obligor, single-name, concentration, coverage, and rounding rules remain locked to the case contract.
Collateral decision surface
Rounded recommendation by fictional USDC quantity and price decline. All legal and operational conditions are assumed clear; an unresolved hard blocker still produces a decline.
Decision governance
Rationale:
Reversal trigger:
Public-data liquidity bridge
This static screen tests the tension between reported cash and identified obligations. It is not a borrowing-entity forecast.
| Line item | Amount |
|---|
Rating bridge
Declared ordinal factors show exactly what supports the illustrative obligor assessment and what evidence could change it.
| Factor | Weight | Score | Contribution | Evidence | What improves it | Deterioration trigger |
|---|
Scenario comparison
All declared cases use the same decision definitions. Each row identifies the binding driver and evidence needed to resolve or mitigate it.
| Scenario | Decision | Recommended | Delta vs. base | Available proceeds | Binding constraint | Primary driver | Resolution evidence |
|---|
Diligence execution plan
Eight tasks can begin in parallel. The control agreement moves to wave two after ownership and lien verification.
| Wave | Condition | Priority | Lane | Current action | Requirement | Owner | Depends on | Decision impact | Affected claims | Completion output | Failure consequence |
|---|
Pre-funding condition register
A conditional recommendation is not authority to fund. Every item below remains outstanding in the current evidence set.
| ID | Requirement | Owner | Status | Verification evidence |
|---|
Monitoring and early-warning design
This framework is not active borrower monitoring. The facility remains blocked before funding, and five measures require private reporting or testing.
| ID | Metric | Threshold | Current evidence | Frequency | Owner | Breach action |
|---|
End-to-end control matrix
Each row connects pre-funding evidence to the post-close metric, draft covenant, and response authority. It is a governance design, not evidence that any control is active or enforceable.
| Control | Objective | Pre-funding conditions | Monitor / threshold | Covenant | Cure | Escalation | Trigger severity / clock | Draw state | Decision owner | Exit criteria |
|---|
Illustrative covenant package
Each draft term maps to one monitoring rule and states the test, cure, and consequence. These terms are not executed or legally reviewed.
| ID | Type | Requirement | Threshold | Current evidence | Cure period | Breach consequence | Monitor |
|---|
Escalation and response playbook
These are illustrative response paths. No incident or borrower breach is currently observed.
| ID | Severity | Response clock | Draw state | Current state | Decision owner | Required evidence | Exit criteria |
|---|
Committee disagreement
Conditional approval: approve $3.0m only after ownership, first priority, enforceable control, and the Base-to-cash route are evidenced.
Opposing view: decline until private repayment-capacity diligence exists; the binding collateral cap is generated by synthetic terms.
Would you challenge the primary-repayment analysis, the collateral-access blocker, or the portfolio cap first, and what evidence would change your answer?
Review readiness and human gates
Local model verification is complete. Sharing readiness remains separate and cannot be cleared by rebuilding the package or generating a blank review form.
| Gate | Required review | Reviewer role | Status | Evidence required |
|---|
Decision lineage
Trace each committee headline to its evidence, rule, generated artifact, workbook cell, owner, and limitation.
| ID | Committee claim | Current value | Evidence | Calculation or rule | Artifact | Workbook | Owner | Limitation |
|---|
Assumption governance
Every registered case assumption remains explicitly unvalidated until its named evidence and review method are complete.
| ID | Assumption | Class | Materiality | Status | Owner | Workbook inputs | Validation method | Challenge trigger | Affected claims |
|---|
Model-risk register
Known limitations are tied to the decision they can distort, the evidence needed to close them, and the required disposition while they remain open.
| ID | Category | Risk | Severity | Affected decision | Linked assumptions / conditions | Mitigation | Validation evidence | Owner | Residual | If unresolved |
|---|