For commercial credit teams

Flag where the memo and its evidence disagree.

Review the draft memo against original sources, your financial definitions and your policy. Give every material finding a place, a reason and an accountable reviewer.

Built for US nonbank cash-flow term lenders. Your team keeps the credit decision.

MEMO REVIEW / 001Synthetic example
Northline Components

A ratio is only as sound
as its definition.

First-lien term loan · Frozen review scope

Definition conflict 01

Lease treatment needs reconciliation

Draft memo · p. 4

“Lease-inclusive coverage: 1.50×”

Approved definition · v1

Post-lease cash flow / debt service excluding those leases

$1.8m ÷ $1.2m1.50×Post-lease definition

The arithmetic may be correct. The memo's label describes a different definition. Check the intended formula before drawing a conclusion.

See the alternative bridge

Only if separately approved: ($1.8m + $0.3m) ÷ ($1.2m + $0.3m) = 1.40×. This definition requires its own matching threshold.

Disposition: OpenNamed human review required

A second look, with a paper trail

01 / EVIDENCE

Start with the source.

Freeze the memo, issue log and source versions. Keep page references and financial definitions beside every claim.

02 / CHALLENGE

Ask what's unresolved.

Reconcile the numbers and test the memo's reasoning. An issue already addressed by the memo should not become busywork.

03 / DISPOSITION

Keep the human record.

Record who resolved, disputed or accepted each material issue. Preserve open items and the reasons behind every change.

The finding should
earn your attention.

Model agreement is not a measure of borrower quality. The useful test is whether a review finds a material issue the memo missed, with enough evidence for your analyst to act.

Calibration compares simpler rules, a single model and approved multi-provider configurations. We measure investigation time and false alarms alongside useful findings.

Read the review method ↗

One loan type. One memo workflow.

Start with a defined scope.

Agree the checklist, evidence limits, expert hours and evaluation protocol before a prospective pilot.

Discuss your workflow ↗