Annual credit review, re-underwritten every year with fresh numbers — riskiest loans first, only what moved left to judge
Reviews drafted in hours, not days; stable credits cleared in minutes.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Software that takes each commercial relationship through its yearly re-underwriting — new statements, covenant tests, account behaviour, collateral, guarantors and the risk grade — to a signed annual review. Annual Credit Review adds six agents that gather, spread, test and draft the review, so the credit analyst judges only what changed since the last approval.
How to choose AI solutions for lending →
Updated
Every commercial relationship has to be re-underwritten at least once a year. The analyst chases the new statements, tax returns and compliance certificates, spreads them, re-tests every covenant, looks at how the accounts behaved, what the collateral and the guarantors are worth now, and writes a review that confirms or changes the risk grade. By hand that is about two days for an ordinary relationship and a week for a complex one — and most of it is assembly, not judgment.
As reviews pile up, stretched teams roll last year’s analysis forward. A borrower that started to slide in the spring is found at the next review — or by the examiner. A stale grade is an exam finding waiting to happen.
Estimated split for one ordinary relationship review, in hours — about two working days by hand, about two hours with the solution.
Six agents fill this year's column beside last year's approval; the analyst judges only what moved.
Calder Precision Components, a metal stamping and machining shop in Dayton, is due for its annual review on 31 October. Last year it was approved at grade 4. Here is the review, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Elena has 21 annual reviews due by 31 December. The overnight screen has ranked them by what changed since approval: six that moved and need her judgment, two stable ones to clear in minutes, two waiting on the borrower, eleven later in the quarter. Each row shows how many lines got worse or better and how long it will take her — Calder about 1 h 50, Oakmere Dental about 6 minutes.
“3 h 50 min on the reviews that moved · 11 min on the stable ones · by hand ≈ 16 working days for these 8.”
Calder opens as last year’s approved numbers on the left, this year’s column empty except the four lines last night’s screen flagged. Elena presses one button. The document collector gathers 31 documents, the financial spreader spreads FY2025 and the June interims, the covenant tester recomputes every covenant, the account monitor checks twelve months of activity, the guarantor analyst reads both guarantors — and the review writer compares it all with last year.
Run log: 1 min 52 s · 6 agents · 31 documents.
Of 27 lines, 19 got worse, 3 got better and 5 are unchanged. Revenue down 12% to $33.92M, EBITDA by the bank’s definition down 37% to $3.11M, fixed charge coverage 1.04x against a 1.20x minimum, the property insurance certificate expired on 1 September. The suggested grade ticks from 4 — Acceptable to 6 — Special Mention.
Nina Calder Ruiz’s Q2 compliance certificate reports leverage of 2.88x. It adds back $310,000 of relocation and consulting costs, but §6.12 of the credit agreement caps add-backs at $150,000 in any fiscal year. By the agreement’s definition, funded debt of $9,420,000 over EBITDA of $3,110,000 is 3.03x against a 3.00x maximum.
“An event of default under §8.1(c), not yet declared.” The covenant tester never waives a covenant: “Only Ruth Adeyemi can approve an exception.”
The revolver has been 90% drawn at the last four month-ends against 58% a year ago, with four overdrafts in August and September, the largest $86,400. All 36 loan payments were on time. Thomas Calder’s liquid assets fell from $1.92M to $0.86M after a lake-house purchase, and global debt service coverage is 1.08x against the 1.15x policy minimum.
Each moved line has Confirm and Challenge. Elena challenges the 31% drop in global cash flow: Marcus told her the lake house was sold in September. The challenge goes back to the guarantor analyst, which rechecks the line against the worksheet and answers in place — business $2,460,000 plus guarantors $372,000, against $3,370,000 plus $734,000 a year ago. She confirms the remaining 20.
A challenge is kept in the review and on the audit trail.
Oakmere Dental Partners moved on one line — collections up 7% with a ninth office opened — and on nothing else. Its other lines are carried forward with their sources. Elena confirms the one change and signs: grade 3 confirmed, next review in 12 months.
“Oakmere Dental Partners · signed in 6 min · grade 3 confirmed · next review in 12 months.”
The scorecard sets last October’s score beside today’s for each factor, from repayment capacity to collateral and guarantor support: model grade 4 → 6, weighted score 3.65 → 5.60. It quotes the Special Mention definition, and says what would move Calder to 7 Substandard — coverage below 1.00x for two quarters, a payment past due, the borrowing base short of the line — and what would bring it back to 5.
“Scores are the agents’ proposal; the grade is yours.”
The draft follows the bank’s annual review: recommendation, relationship, what changed since the last approval, financial performance, covenants, repayment and liquidity, collateral, guarantors and the risk grade, with 16 citations. The actions come with it — a reservation-of-rights letter and a leverage waiver request ($5,000 fee, covenant reset to 3.50x through 30 June 2027), quarterly review, monthly financials, the insurance certificate, the UCC-1 continuation and a new real estate evaluation.
Elena signs the review — her name, the meaning “Reviewed and agreed” and the time, recorded together. Because the grade changes, it goes to Ruth Adeyemi, who approves the grade change and the waiver request from her phone at 11:31. Next review: quarterly, 31 January 2027. Time to signature: 1 h 52 min, against about two days by hand.
The same review, seen by the five people who carry it — what their year looked like, and what it looks like now.
Six agents fill this year's column beside last year's approval; the analyst judges only what moved.
Finds every statement, tax return, compliance certificate, borrowing base and guarantor statement a relationship owes, checks each against the reporting requirements in the credit agreement, and asks the relationship manager for what is missing or late.
Spreads statements and interims into the bank’s template, ties revenue to the tax return’s gross receipts, and keeps the borrower’s add-backs on their own lines.
Recomputes every covenant by the loan agreement’s definitions and amendments, compares the result with the borrower’s compliance certificate and explains every difference.
Checks twelve months of payments, overdrafts, line usage and borrowing base, and the appraisals, insurance and UCC filings behind the collateral.
Reads the guarantors’ personal financial statements and returns for liquidity and contingent liabilities, and works out global cash flow and global debt service coverage.
Starts from the last approved review, writes what changed with each source page cited, scores the seven factors of the grading model, proposes the grade and the actions, and says why it is not the grade above or below.
Signs; a senior credit officer approves a grade change. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Ask about any relationship, covenant, grade or document — or tell it what to draft. Every answer cites its source.
Why is Calder in breach when its certificate says 2.88x?
Because the certificate uses its own EBITDA. It adds back $310,000 — $186,000 for moving the press line and $124,000 of consulting. The agreement allows non-recurring add-backs of no more than $150,000 a year. On the agreement’s definition, EBITDA is $3,110,000 and funded debt $9,420,000, so leverage is 3.03x against the 3.00x maximum — an Event of Default under §8.1(c), not yet declared.
What would make Calder Substandard, not Special Mention?
A well-defined weakness that jeopardises repayment. Today the business still covers its fixed charges at 1.04x, all 36 payments are on time and the borrowing base has $329,000 of room. It would move to 7 if coverage fell below 1.00x for two quarters, a payment went past due, the base fell short of the line, or the leverage default were declared without a waiver.
Draft the reservation-of-rights and waiver letter for Marcus
Drafted for Marcus Bell to send once Ruth approves. It cites §6.12 and the 3.03x result, reserves the bank’s rights under §8.1(c), and offers a waiver of the 30 June test for a $5,000 fee, leverage reset to 3.50x through June 2027, monthly statements, and the insurance certificate within 10 days.
Which of my reviews are likely to be downgraded this quarter?
Three, all drafted: Calder Precision 4 → 6 (leverage breached, EBITDA −37%), Pruett Mechanical 5 → 6 (backlog −38%, bonding line cut) and Bellhaven Foods 3 → 4 (gross margin −3.1 points). Marlow Hardwood is the one upgrade, 6 → 5.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
How often each relationship is reviewed, what the overnight screen flags and who approves what are settings — changed in plain words, versioned and on the audit trail.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Review frequency, every relationship | Annually | Annually · Annually, or at renewal if sooner |
| Grade 6 and worse | Quarterly | Quarterly · Semiannually · Monthly |
| Semiannual reviews above | $15,000,000 | $10,000,000 · $15,000,000 · $25,000,000 |
| Drafting lead time, once the statements are in | 30 days | More or fewer days, in steps of 5 |
| Flag line usage above, for three month-ends | 85% | 80% · 85% · 90% |
| Flag coverage within this margin of its covenant | 0.10x | 0.05x · 0.10x · 0.20x |
| Tax-return tie-out tolerance | 2% | 1% · 2% · 5% |
| Grade change or covenant exception | Ruth Adeyemi, senior credit officer | Ruth Adeyemi, senior credit officer · Victor Hale, Chief Credit Officer |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample loan book · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate · “typical” = published figures (nCino, Sep 2026: about two days per commercial relationship review, a week for complex ones; 60–70% less review effort, vendor-reported). Grade definitions follow the OCC uniform classification definitions. People, banks and borrowers named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
Software that takes each commercial relationship through its yearly re-underwriting — new statements, covenant tests, account behaviour, collateral, guarantors and the risk grade — to a signed annual review. Annual Credit Review adds six agents that gather, spread, test and draft the review, so the credit analyst judges only what changed since the last approval.
Every night at 06:00 the whole book is screened for what changed since each relationship’s last approval — coverage close to its covenant, line usage above 85% for three month-ends, any overdraft, late statements and customer concentration. The review book is ranked by risk; the due date is a deadline, not the order.
No. The covenant tester recomputes every covenant by the credit agreement’s own definitions and amendments and shows the clause, then compares the result with the borrower’s compliance certificate and explains each difference. In the working solution it finds a 3.03x leverage breach that the certificate reported as 2.88x.
No. The review writer scores the seven factors of the bank’s grading model and proposes a grade with the regulatory definition and what would move it. The analyst decides and signs; a grade change or covenant exception needs the senior credit officer, and grade 7 or worse also goes to the Chief Credit Officer.
In the working solution the agents fill this year’s column from 31 documents in under two minutes, and the analyst signs the Calder review 1 h 52 min after starting. A stable credit with nothing that needs judgment, like Oakmere Dental, is cleared in about 6 minutes.
Yes. Review frequency by grade and size, how many days before due the review is drafted, every early-warning threshold, the tax-return tie-out tolerance, the global debt service coverage minimum, the appraisal age and who approves what are all settings, versioned and on the audit trail.
Yes. Every moved line has Confirm and Challenge; a challenge goes back to the agent that produced the line, which rechecks it against the source and answers in place. Every number links to its source page, and the agents never change a reported figure.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements — your credit policy, grading model, review template and a sample of relationships due for review — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on your own loans first.
Every related entity spread in hours, each number linked to its page.
1-min demoCredit Memo AutomationA cited first draft the same day, not after days of pasting.
1-min demoCommercial Loan OriginationFiles ready for underwriting in days, not weeks of chasing documents.
1-min demoWe’ll run Annual Credit Review on a sample of your own relationships due for review.