Preparing your origination team for an independent application review

Independent review of an origination application fails on logistics more often than on technical argument. The files are in one place, the access list is in another, and the person who can export the decision log is on leave. This note is the list we send with a draft engagement letter so that week one is spent on files, not on introductions.

We need a written product pack for every family in scope: rates, fees, eligibility, Islamic contractual sequence if applicable, and the circular or committee paper that approved them. Screenshots are not a product pack. If the pack is incomplete, the limitation goes into the report.

We need a user-access listing for the origination application covering the sample period, including disabled accounts. Maker-checker tests are weak if we cannot see who was allowed to do what. We also need the override matrix the credit team believes is in force, even if we will later test whether the application matches it.

We need a sample frame: a listing of applications opened, approved, declined, withdrawn, and disbursed in the period, with enough identifiers to pull the file. We draw the sample. The lender does not hand us only the clean files. If a population cannot be produced, we say so and we do not pretend the sample is representative.

On the operations floor we need a desk, a named counterpart who can pull imaged documents, and a walk-through of one live file from intake to disbursement instruction. We do not need a presentation. We do need the authority to look at declined files. A review that never sees a decline is only half a review.

Send questions to audit@mindvectorstack.digital or call the Shah Alam office before you lock a date. If the origination application is about to change, say so. A pre-go-live review and a review of the current book are different pieces of work, and mixing them in one week usually wastes both.

All notes · Request a scoping meeting