Platform

Tape versus file

Why not hand the tape to an analyst, or to a chatbot, and take the answer? Because the answer has no source. Below, one loan read two ways: the row as it arrives, and the row checked against the documents behind it, one figure at a time.

This page is not an appraisal, not a broker price opinion, not an opinion of value, and not accounting, tax, legal or investment advice. The platform makes no decisions. The loan below is synthetic; no client loan, scrubbed loan, or public-record address appears on this site.

Run on September 21, 2026 on a synthetic loan built for demonstration. Every figure is invented. Every mechanism is real: the policy version, the hash, the findings, the governor.

A synthetic residential construction loan: 60 units · horizontal complete, 24 units vertical underway. The file holds 5 documents: Appraisal summary (2 pages), Construction budget and draws (3 pages), Loan agreement (3 pages), Promissory note (3 pages), Title report (3 pages).

What the tape says

Read from the tape alone: 1st lien, full recourse, as-is value at 99 percent of unpaid principal, forbearance. Nothing in the row says otherwise.

Source for every figure: the tape row. No document, no page, no date of record. A reader who stops here bids on the row.

What the engine finds

2 fatal and 4 material findings on 12 citations. Governing test: Value cap (loan-to-value). Bid $9,750,000, 65 percent of unpaid principal, and the record is held, not bid-ready, because the disproof leg stands.

Source for every figure: a document in the file, a page, a quote. Two documents that disagree are both shown and flagged, not averaged.

Figure by figure

FigureThe tape saysThe file says
Unpaid principal balance
Reconciles to the note.
$15,100,000
Source: tape row.
$15,100,000
  • Promissory note, p.3: “Unpaid principal balance: $15,100,000”
Lien position
The loan agreement says first lien. The title report records a senior deed of trust ahead of it. The recording sequence settles it.
1st
Source: tape row.
1 senior encumbrance ahead, $3,200,000; recorded 2024-05-20, ahead of the subject deed of trust recorded 2024-06-03
  • Loan agreement, p.2: “constituting a first lien on the Property”
  • Title report, p.1: “Senior encumbrances ahead of the lender: 1 totaling $3,200,000”
  • Title report, p.2: “recorded 2024-05-20”
  • Title report, p.2: “recorded 2024-06-03”
Senior liens
The tape carries no senior lien. The title report carries one.
$0
Source: tape row.
$3,200,000
  • Title report, p.1: “Senior encumbrances ahead of the lender: 1 totaling $3,200,000”
Guaranty
No guarantor to look to for a deficiency or completion funding.
Full recourse
Source: tape row.
None; non-recourse except standard carve-outs
  • Promissory note, p.2: “Guaranty: None. Loan is non-recourse except for standard carve-outs”
As-is value
Two records say two figures with two dates. Both shown, both cited, one flag. The run used the tape figure; the appraisal is older than twelve months.
$15,000,000, dated 2026-05-20
Source: tape row.
$17,400,000, appraisal dated 2025-04-15
  • Appraisal summary, p.2: “As-is market value: $17,400,000”
  • Appraisal summary, p.1: “Appraisal date: 2025-04-15”
Cost to complete
The independent figure exceeds the lender residual by $1,500,000.
$7,600,000 budget remaining
Source: tape row.
$4,400,000 lender budget residual; $5,900,000 independent cost to complete
  • Construction budget and draws, p.1: “Lender budget residual: $4,400,000”
  • Construction budget and draws, p.2: “Independent cost to complete (third-party construction consultant, site visit 2026-06-20): $5,900,000”
Loan status
Reconciles to the servicer status in the file.
Forbearance
Source: tape row.
Forbearance
  • Loan agreement, p.3: “Current loan status per servicer: Forbearance.”
Finding classes
Red — fatal finding. The loan does not clear a governing test on the document cited.
Yellow — material finding. A figure moves the bid and needs the principal's eye.
Green — clear. The figure reconciles to its document.
Gray — data-quality gap. The document is missing, illegible, or two documents disagree.

A color is a finding class and the document behind it. It is not a buy, hold or sell signal; the platform makes no decisions.

The governed result

Bid policy version 7, dated 2026-09-10: required return 20 percent, value cap 65 percent of as-is value, cost cap 80 percent of total cost. The lowest of the three governs.

Value cap (loan-to-value)governspassLTV cap 9750000.00 — final bid 9750000.00 clears the cap.
Cost cap (loan-to-cost)passLTC cap 12640000.00 — final bid 9750000.00 clears the cap.
Par and discountpassGovernor: ltv. Final bid 9750000.00 vs UPB 15100000.00.
DisprooffailPass case holds — kill reasons: title/fatal, lien/fatal, cost_to_complete/material, value/material, citation_integrity/material, guarantor/material
Bid
$9,750,000
65 percent of unpaid principal · record held · proof version 6
Findings behind the hold
  1. title. The subject loan is represented as first lien in the loan documents, but the title report shows one senior encumbrance ahead of the lender totaling $3,200,000. The title report places a third-party lender in lien position 1 and the lender in lien position 2, so the position should not be acquired as structured as a first-lien construction loan. (7 citations)
  2. lien. The recorded lien chronology confirms the senior lien was recorded before the subject deed of trust: a third-party lender recorded on 2024-05-20, while the lender recorded on 2024-06-03. That recording sequence directly contradicts the note and loan agreement first-priority premise. (4 citations)
  3. cost to complete. The lender budget residual is $4,400,000, but the independent third-party cost to complete is $5,900,000, leaving a documented $1,500,000 shortfall. The completion plan is further weakened because vertical permits are pending for buildings 7–10 and zero of 60 units have certificates of occupancy. (5 citations)
  4. value. The as-is valuation is stale relative to the current file: the appraisal date is 2025-04-15, while later file activity includes a 2026-06-15 title effective date and a 2026-06-20 construction consultant site visit. The file therefore relies on an appraisal older than twelve months for the as-is value used in recovery arithmetic. (4 citations)
  5. citation integrity. The resolution-path finding asserts negotiated payoff because the as-is value exceeds the outstanding claim even accounting for the senior lien, but the cited arithmetic contradicts that assertion: $17,400,000 as-is value is less than $15,751,250 subject claim plus $3,200,000 senior lien, or $18,951,250 total debt stack. This removes the cited support for an equity-driven consensual payoff thesis. (3 citations)
  6. guarantor. There is no guaranty and the loan is non-recourse except for standard carve-outs, so the file does not support recourse to a guarantor for deficiency or completion funding. The only cited cooperation signal is forbearance status, which states loan status but does not evidence a sponsor funding commitment. (2 citations)

Reproduction

Computation hash 63d26bab2e3c, code 836eb2f. Recomputed from the stored inputs and the stored policy: the hash reproduced. The language model explains. The engine computes. The principal decides.

The measured figures for the platform as a whole are on Platform Facts.