A synthetic credit file with eight defensibility gaps
This is a synthetic credit file with annotated defensibility gaps. It is not a real customer file. It is not based on any real institution. It is illustrative only. The point: this is what a non-defensible file looks like under structured review.
Eight annotated gaps
Missing approval evidence
Approval is referenced in the file summary but the actual approval record (approver, authority level, date/time) is not in the package.
Outdated policy reference
The decision cites the current published credit policy version, not the version in force on the date of decision.
Unsupported exception
An exception was granted but the rationale field is blank and no compensating-factor evidence is recorded.
Unclear authority
The approver's authority for the exposure and structure is not mapped to the recorded authority matrix.
Incomplete evidence
Three of seven listed supporting documents are not findable in the document map at time of decision.
Weak rationale
The credit memo summary closes with 'recommend approve' but does not address the structural concerns raised in committee minutes.
Absent audit trail
Committee minutes reference verbal discussion of exceptions that does not appear in the approval workflow log.
Unlabeled AI assistance
The memo includes AI-summarized borrower history but the AI assistance is not labeled, scoped, or human-attested.
This is what the diagnostic finds
The $30,000 Credit Governance Diagnostic finds and documents this class of gap across up to ten selected decisions, in a structured report against the published standard.
Request Diagnostic Conversation