Letter of credit document checking that shows the page behind every discrepancy
Examined twice, cited to the rule, decided on banking day two of five.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Letter of credit document checking is the examination a bank performs on the documents presented under a documentary credit, to decide whether they comply with the credit and with UCP 600 and ISBP 821. This solution puts one presentation on one screen: seven lanes built from the credit's own fields, every document's value on them, each conflict cited to the credit clause, the document line and the article, and the notice of refusal and the applicant waiver request drafted from the findings a named examiner accepts.
AI use cases in banking: a buyer's guide to agentic AI for bank and credit union operations →
Updated
Letter of credit document checking is the work of reading six to eighteen documents against one credit and saying whether they comply. The examiner opens the invoice, the bill of lading, the packing list, the insurance certificate, the certificate of origin and the inspection certificate, puts the credit beside them, and reads the same seven or eight facts out of every one: the goods, the quantity, the amount, the port of loading, the port of discharge, the latest shipment date, the applicant's name and address. Each value has to agree with the credit and with every other document, because UCP 600 art. 14(d) makes data that conflicts a discrepancy even where the rules do not require the documents to be identical.
Then the clock. Art. 14(b) gives a maximum of five banking days following the day of presentation to decide, and art. 16(c) allows exactly one notice of refusal, which must list each discrepancy — a second notice cannot add one. Art. 16(f) says what happens if the notice is late or incomplete: the bank is precluded from saying the documents do not comply, and it pays. Miss a discrepancy and the applicant does not reimburse; call one that the rules allow, such as an accepted abbreviation, and a good presentation is refused and the relationship pays for it.
Estimated split for a six-document presentation, by hand and with the solution. The time that did not fall is the time that should not: deciding what is a discrepancy is still a person's work.
Eight agents read the presentation, test every term twice and draft the notice; an examiner decides and a senior checker releases.
Import credit CNB-ILC-26-04417 for USD 1,284,600.00 — applicant Halberd Steel Supply Inc., beneficiary Ostrava Coil Works s.r.o., 1,200 metric tons of hot-rolled steel coil from Gdańsk to Baltimore. The presentation arrived on Thursday afternoon. Here is Monday, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Thirty-one presentations are live today, twelve of them on her screen, each showing which of the five banking days it is on, who has it and what it is waiting for. Twelve are on banking day 1, nine on day 2, and ten are on day 3 or later and already escalated to the trade operations manager. One is held before payment because the screening agent matched a vessel name. Marisol opens PR-26-1188, received Thursday 22 October at 14:05 from Tavrel Handelsbank AG.
“The clock counts banking days on Corvane's own calendar.”
A thin header carries the credit, the amount, the two parties and a plain clock: banking day 2 of 5, decide by Thursday 29 October. Below it, seven lanes — one for each term the credit sets, tagged with the field it came from: 45A goods, 45A quantity, 32B amount, 44E port of loading, 44F port of discharge, 44C latest shipment date, 50 applicant. Each of the six documents drops its value onto the lanes it speaks to. Chips that agree line up. Four do not.
Two examinations, side by side: “They agree on 6 of 7 lanes. One lane is still open.”
The bill-of-lading chip on the latest-shipment-date lane reads “On board 19 Oct 2026”. Clicking it shows what the credit says — 15 Oct 2026, field 44C — what the document says, and where it was read: bill of lading, page 1, the on-board notation. Beside it, the reason in one sentence and the article it rests on.
“The on-board notation sets the date of shipment under UCP 600 art. 20(a)(ii). 19 Oct 2026 is four days after the latest shipment date the credit sets in field 44C.”
She opens the bill of lading as it was presented — Northlane Container Lines, B/L NCLG-4471982, MV Baltic Harrier voyage 26-114, 1,198.420 MT, freight prepaid — with the ON BOARD 19 OCT 2026 stamp highlighted. The image is never altered; the highlight only marks the line that was read. The panel beside it carries the credit clause, the article, both examinations and their confidence.
Agent A: Discrepant · Agent B: Discrepant · confidence 0.98
Two agents examined the same seven lanes on different models and different prompts, and neither could see the other. They agreed on six lanes, including all three accepted discrepancies. On the seventh they differ: the packing list reads “4120 Cromwell Industrial Pkwy” where the credit reads “Parkway”. Agent A calls it a commonly accepted abbreviation under ISBP 821 para A1. Agent B calls it a conflict with field 50 under art. 14(d). Confidence 0.61, below the 0.90 threshold, so it always comes to a person.
“Agreement is the point. Agent A and agent B tested all seven lanes. They agreed on six.”
Marisol strikes it. The reason comes from Corvane's own list — R-07, an accepted abbreviation under ISBP 821 — and her note is kept with the record. The notice renumbers in front of her, and nothing she struck can reach it. Earlier she accepted the other three with R-01, each against the page it came from.
“R-07 Struck — accepted abbreviation under ISBP 821.”
Art. 16(c) allows a single notice, and it must list each discrepancy. The Drafting agent writes it from the accepted findings only: the late on-board notation, the insurance certificate at USD 1,350,000.00 against the USD 1,411,200.34 that 110% of the CIF value requires, and the inspection certificate dated 21 October, after the 19 October shipment. Each is numbered and cited to the credit field and the article, and the notice says how the documents are held.
What the agent may not do: “Never adds a discrepancy no examiner accepted. Never sends anything.”
Art. 16(b) lets the issuing bank ask the applicant to waive. Both drafts exist from the same findings, so Priya can take the faster path without rewriting anything. She sends it to Halberd Steel Supply Inc. with a reply asked for by Wednesday 28 October. Asking does not stop the clock, and the screen says so. Halberd waives all three at 14:36 — forty-eight minutes later.
“A waiver from you does not bind us: under art. 16(b) Corvane may still refuse.”
Dana reads the on-board notation herself before she releases anything. The screen lists what will be sent — USD 1,282,909.40 to Tavrel Handelsbank AG, value 27 October — and the checks behind it: two examinations completed, every finding carrying a reason code, screening clear on four parties, one vessel, two ports and the goods, inside the five banking days, the waiver held in writing. Marisol prepared it, so Marisol cannot release it.
Payment of USD 1,282,909.40 released, value 27 Oct 2026. Decided on banking day 2 of 5.
Every agent step and every human decision sit on the same trail, from the moment the trade finance system recorded the presentation and started the clock to Dana's release — each with who, what, when, the reason code and the evidence. An auditor or an examiner downloads the whole chain as one pack. In the audit role every Accept, Strike and Release is unavailable, and the screen says why.
“Dana Whitfield read the on-board notation on page 1 of the bill of lading and released payment of USD 1,282,909.40 value 27 Oct 2026. Reason R-01, waiver held.”
The same presentation, seen by the examiner who prepares it, the checker who releases it, the manager who owns the clock and the officer who talks to the applicant.
Eight agents read the presentation, test every term twice and draft the notice; an examiner decides and a senior checker releases.
Pulls the presentation from document imaging, splits the scan into named documents and counts originals against what field 46A calls for — on this presentation, 24 pages into 6 documents with 3/3 bills of lading.
Reads the credit and every amendment and writes one lane per term it sets, each tagged with its field — and marks a condition with no document called for as disregarded under UCP 600 art. 14(h).
Reads all 24 pages and places every value on its lane with the document, the page and the line it came from — 38 values on this presentation.
Tests every lane against the credit, UCP 600 and ISBP 821 and writes a finding with the credit clause, the document line and the article.
Examines the same presentation independently, on a different model and a different prompt, and cannot see agent A's work until both have finished. Where the two differ, the lane goes to a person.
Writes the single notice of refusal art. 16(c) allows and the art. 16(b) waiver request to the applicant, both from the findings the examiner accepted.
Sends the parties, the vessel, both ports and the goods to the screening system before anything is released, and holds the presentation if there is a hit.
Counts the five banking days on the bank's own calendar, escalates on day 3, pages the manager on day 4 and will not let a presentation pass day 5 undecided.
One prepares, the other releases. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Ask why something is discrepant, what happens if the applicant does not waive, or what has gone wrong on this credit before. Every answer points at the page or the article behind it.
Why is the bill of lading discrepant?
The bill of lading carries an on-board notation dated 19 October 2026. The credit sets a latest shipment date of 15 October 2026 in field 44C. Under UCP 600 art. 20(a)(ii) the on-board notation sets the date of shipment, so the goods shipped four days late. Both examinations called it discrepant, at 0.98 confidence.
What happens if the applicant does not waive?
Corvane sends one notice of refusal. Art. 16(c) allows a single notice and it must list each discrepancy, so a second notice cannot add one. It has to go by Thursday 29 October, the fifth banking day, and it must say how the documents are held. Art. 16(f): a bank that misses either is precluded from refusing, and pays.
Show me every presentation on banking day 3 or more.
Six, and two of them have no checker yet: PR-26-1176 on day 5, PR-26-1179 and PR-26-1178 on day 4, and PR-26-1181, PR-26-1183 and PR-26-1182 on day 3.
Has anything like this happened on this credit before?
Twice under CNB-ILC-26-04417. One presentation in September was paid after the applicant waived a short insurance amount — the same discrepancy as finding 2. One in August was refused for a late on-board notation and re-presented four days later. Shipment timing on this credit has now been wrong three times.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
What a trade operations manager sets. Every change is written to the audit trail with the person who made it.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Discrepancy confidence threshold | 0.90 | 0.80 · 0.90 · 0.95 — below it, a finding always reaches a person |
| Second, independent examination | Every presentation | Every presentation · Over USD 250,000 · Off |
| Banking-day calendar | US federal holidays, Mon–Fri | US federal holidays, Mon–Fri · add state holidays |
| Escalate at | Day 3 to the trade operations manager | Day 2 · Day 3 · Day 4, with day 5 blocked without the manager |
| A maker may release their own work | Blocked | Blocked · allowed above a named grade |
| Reason codes | Nine, R-01 to R-09 | Edit the list; a new code goes to the manager for approval |
| Models and prompts | Pinned per agent | Pin a version; a new one runs against last quarter's presentations first |
| Retention and redaction | 5 years, account numbers masked | 5 or 7 years · mask account numbers in exports · documents visible to trade operations and internal audit only |
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 trade data · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “typical” = published figures: the ICC's Guidance Papers on UCP 600 (about 70% of presentations discrepant on first presentation), UCP 600 art. 14(b) (five banking days) and art. 16(c) (one notice, each discrepancy), and the trade press on a check that takes up to 3 hours by hand. The rules named here are UCP 600, ISBP 821 and eUCP 2.1. People, banks, companies, credits, vessels and BICs on this page are characters and records in the working solution, not real institutions.
Letter of credit document checking is the examination a bank performs on the documents presented under a documentary credit, to decide whether they comply with the credit and with UCP 600 and ISBP 821. This solution puts one presentation on one screen: seven lanes built from the credit's own fields, every document's value on them, each conflict cited to the credit clause, the document line and the article, and the notice of refusal and the applicant waiver request drafted from the findings a named examiner accepts.
UCP 600 art. 14(b) gives a maximum of five banking days following the day of presentation to determine whether a presentation complies. The clock agent counts those days on the bank's own calendar, escalates on day 3, pages the trade operations manager on day 4, and will not let a presentation pass day 5 undecided without his name on the record.
One. Art. 16(c) requires a single notice stating each discrepancy and how the documents are held, so a later notice cannot add a discrepancy that was missed. Art. 16(f) is the reason it matters: a bank that does not act in accordance with those provisions is precluded from claiming that the documents do not comply, and must honour the presentation. The drafting agent writes that one notice from the accepted findings only.
On the sample quarter in the working solution, 2,447 discrepancies on the 1,363 presentations that were discrepant — 71% of the quarter's 1,920: late shipment or a late on-board notation first, then the insurance amount, cover or date, then the goods description on the invoice, then a missing document or short originals, then dates out of order, then presentation after the period or the expiry.
Art. 16(b) lets the issuing bank approach the applicant for a waiver, and the waiver request is drafted at the same time as the notice of refusal, from the same findings. Two things stay true and the screen says both: asking does not extend the five banking days, and a waiver from the applicant does not bind the bank, which may still refuse.
Yes, twice. The examiner accepts, strikes or edits every finding with a reason code from the bank's own list, and a senior checker reads the evidence and releases the notice, the waiver or the payment. A maker cannot release their own presentation, and no agent sends a message, releases money, clears a screening hit or extends the clock.
Because a single engine has nothing to disagree with, so a wrong call looks exactly like a right one. Agent A and agent B run different models and different prompts and cannot see each other. Where they agree, the finding goes into the notice. Where they differ — one lane on the sample presentation — it goes to the examiner with both reasonings and the rule each relied on.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and your own documents: your credit book and message formats, your reason codes, your banking-day calendar, your roles and your escalation. It goes live once every quality gate has passed, and the examination prompts and models are pinned so a change is a decision rather than a surprise.
Every clause tied to a model form and a rule, and no instrument issued without an end date.
1-min demoTrade-Based Money Laundering DetectionEvery trade alert decided in days, with the evidence that decided it.
1-min demoTrade Sanctions & Dual-Use ScreeningEvery party, bank, vessel, port and goods line screened, cited and decided the same day.
1-min demoWe'll run Letter of Credit Document Checking on a sample of your own past presentations.