Field notes · 06 February 2026
Reading credit committee minutes against the loan file
Investor diligence often starts with the deck. The minutes and the file decide whether the underwriting story holds.
Lending fintechs under diligence face a familiar sequence: investors ask how credit decisions are made; the deck answers with a tidy funnel; the file tells a more human story. Our job is to place those three layers next to each other without theatrical language.
Minutes that actually decide something
Useful committee minutes record the exception requested, the policy clause at stake, the decision, and who dissented. Minutes that only list attendees and “approved as discussed” leave auditors reconstructing intent from email threads — a poor substitute.
Exceptions are the curriculum
A healthy underwriting function produces exceptions. The question is whether exceptions are patterned (one officer always stretching tenure rules) or intentional (a documented pilot segment). Patterned exceptions without monitoring belong in the findings letter.
Deck claims need file anchors
If the deck says every unsecured personal loan above a threshold receives income verification, we look for the verification artefact in the sample — not a checkbox alone. Missing artefacts are not always fraud; sometimes operations outgrew the process. Either way, investors deserve the accurate version.
How we phrase findings
We avoid moral language. Findings state the policy, the sample result, and the implication for the diligence narrative. That tone keeps the letter usable in a data room without turning the engagement into advocacy.