Add title review, and show the checker the obligations

0.11.1 → 0.12.0
Attempt at a glance
Statuskept · in production
Procedure touchedSteps 4 and 7
Tested against150-field standard set · 12 of 12 runs, strict
Evidence96.4% ±1.2 against 92.4% ±2 baseline
Spent$26.28 · 41m
Owners.mendo

What changed in the procedure

before and after, by step
Step 7 · Title review

Read the title commitment for vesting, exceptions, and lien position.

WasTitle was never read. Vesting, exceptions and lien position went unconfirmed on every file.
NowThe title commitment is read and lien position is confirmed before the file can be decided.
Step 4 · Obligations and DTI

Assemble every debt from its true source and build the qualifying payment.

WasThe checker re-derived the qualifying payment from the recorded total alone, so any disagreement read as arithmetic it could not reproduce.
NowThe checker sees each obligation line and rebuilds the payment from the debts themselves.

What it did to the queue

the reviewer’s side of the loop

Closed the calculation-mismatch stops at step 4 — debt-to-income failures fell from 8 in 150 to 1. Autonomy rose from 79% to 86% on the first batch. It did nothing for conflicting extractions, which are still 2 of the 7 files waiting.

Thread

verdict computed as keep
you

Debt-to-income keeps failing for “calculation mismatch”. The checker can only see the total the underwriter wrote down, never the individual obligations behind it, so it cannot rebuild the qualifying payment the way a person would. Give it those lines. And add the title step, which has been missing since the baseline.

astro

Two changes. Step 7 now reads the title commitment, which no version has done since the baseline — that is the gap behind the failed build on 0.11.1. At step 4 the checker is handed each obligation line alongside the recorded total.

Graded 12 runs against the 150-field standard set, strict. 96.4% ±1.2 against a 92.4% ±2.0 baseline — the intervals separate, which is the first real movement since the baseline. Debt-to-income failures fell from 8 in 150 to 1, and the one that remains is a genuine document conflict rather than arithmetic.

It costs seven cents more per file, all of it the extra context the checker now reads.

you

has it held up on live files?

astro

Partly. Autonomy went 79% to 86% on the first batch, the largest single move so far. But blind review of files that cleared on their own reads 95.1% against the 96.4% graded — expected on live files, and worth watching rather than announcing.

Of the 7 files still waiting, 2 are conflicting extractions, which this attempt did not address.

Twenty of those conflicts share one shape. Test a rule that prefers the lender statement when the two sources disagree by little?