Predictika · Mortgage loan actions

An AI loan agent's proposed action, checked before it reaches the loan system

An AI agent at Harborview Home Lending, a fictional retail lender, proposes an action on a mortgage file: quote a price, lock a rate, extend a lock, clear a loan to close, send a Closing Disclosure or deny an application. Before anything reaches the loan system, the agent sends the proposed action to Predictika, which checks it against the lender's pricing and policy rules and the figures the agent states, and returns one verdict and every reason.

Scope: Seven loan actions an AI agent can propose (price, lock, extend, float down, clear to close, Closing Disclosure, deny), checked against agency eligibility, the lender's overlays and a score-by-LTV pricing grid. See everything this validator covers

This validator models Harborview loan actions, not just the scenarios shown below.

  • Eligibility — agency maximum LTV by occupancy, purpose and units, county loan limits, credit score and DTI limits, reserves, mortgage insurance coverage, HomeReady, and the lender's stricter overlays.
  • Pricing and locks — the current rate sheet, the credit score by LTV grid with attribute adjustments, lock period adjustments, daily pipeline limits, lock extensions and float-downs.
  • Closing — clear-to-close conditions (income, insurance, title, funds, lock expiry) and the Closing Disclosure timing, APR and fee-tolerance checks.
  • Denials — a recorded reason, no protected characteristic, a supported ground and a named person to sign.

Any Harborview loan action that touches these rules is in scope — not only the scenarios pictured here. The score-by-LTV grid and county limits follow the public agency structure; the rate sheet, lock adjustments, fees and lender overlays are illustrative. Not covered: jumbo loans, government programs, and the borrower's own disclosures. This is not a loan offer.

The AI loan agentProposes an action on a mortgage file and says it is ready to go to the loan system.
Predictika validatorChecks every rule at once and returns the verdict, each finding, and the computed figures.

9 scenarios in 4 groups · each group runs from the agent’s first attempt to the outcome · click one to switch

What the agent proposes

The AI sales agent says

Proposing agent: AI sales agent (scripted)

Before sending, the agent must call Recorded run

Predictika validator


      

        
        
        
      

      
Waiting for the call.

      
    

  

  
  

    
Where rules-based CPQ gets it wrong
Click to expand
    
Our assessment of what a typical rules-based CPQ (product rules, price rules and validation rules, as in Salesforce CPQ) does with the same cases. It is a judgment about effort and reliability, not a claim that nothing can be built.

    
What the validator caughtTypical rules-based CPQPredictika
A lock whose period must cover the closing date and whose price depends on that periodOnly with workarounds
The lock days feed a closing-date rule and a price adjustment. A rep who lengthens the lock to fix one meets a price error from the other, because each is a separate rule.		Lock days, closing date and the quoted price are in one request and are checked together on every call.
A loan-to-value that moves when the appraisal comes in lowOnly with workarounds
LTV must use the lower of price and appraisal. Mortgage insurance, the lender overlay, the pricing grid and the price all follow it, and each is its own rule that has to be kept in step.		LTV is computed once from the stated facts and every rule that depends on it sees the same figure.
A price that needs the score-by-LTV grid and the attribute adjustmentsOnly with workarounds
A rate sheet lookup returns a plausible price. The right one takes the grid and every adjustment, recomputed on each request and compared with the agent's figure.		The correct price is computed on every call and compared with the agent's quoted price.
A zero-tolerance fee that went up while the total looks fineOnly with care
A total check passes a small aggregate change. The rule is per fee bucket, and in the zero-tolerance bucket any increase counts.		Each fee bucket is checked on its own limit on every call.
A denial that needs a recorded, lawful reason and a named person to signOnly with care
A workflow can route for signature, but nothing checks that the request carries a recorded reason, that the reason avoids a protected characteristic, or that the sign-off is present.		The reason, its basis and the sign-off are fields of the request and are checked before the action is released.
Every problem returned in one answerOnly with workarounds
Rules tend to fire as a step is saved, so a rep often fixes one error and meets the next.		All findings come back together, whatever order the choices arrived in.

  

  

    
What this validator catches: findings from its test cases
Click to expand
    
Every rule is checked on every call, in any order the choices arrive; one problem never hides another. Blocking findings stop the request; approval findings need a person to sign off; everything else is computed.

    
1The agent quoted a price of 101.25; the correct price is 100.625 (base 101.25 + lock adjustment 0.0 - LLPA 0.625). The quote gives away margin.
2Priced off rate sheet HV_2,026_09_29_PM; the current sheet is HV_2,026_09_30_AM. Reprice on the current sheet.
3The agent used an LTV of 80.0 percent; the correct LTV on the lower of price and appraised value is 83.33 percent.
4The agent quoted a price of 99.375; the correct price is 99.125 (base 101.25 + lock adjustment 0.0 - LLPA 2.125). The quote gives away margin.
5Credit score 690 is below the lender minimum of 700 for this loan (agency floor is 620 for manual underwriting; Harborview overlay is 640, 680 for cash-out, 700 for investment).
6LTV 78.0 percent is inside the agency maximum but above the Harborview overlay maximum of 75 percent for this occupancy and purpose.
7The agent quoted a price of 100.375, more than 0.125 below the correct 101.25; the borrower would be overcharged. A person must confirm before it goes out.
8DTI 47 percent is above the Harborview overlay of 45 percent (DU allows up to 50); an underwriter must confirm the DU finding.
9DTI 52 percent exceeds the limit (50 with DU, 45 manually underwritten; underwriting is DU).
10Loan amount $900,000 exceeds the 1-unit conforming limit of $862,500 in Denver County CO; Harborview does not offer jumbo loans through this channel.
11Rate R15_5_375 is a 15-year product on the rate sheet but the loan term is 30 years.
12Manually underwritten loan - an underwriter must sign off on credit, reserves and DTI.
13A second home must be a 1-unit property; 2 units given.
14LTV 80.0 percent exceeds the 0 percent agency maximum for a SecondHome Purchase 2-unit SFR (high balance 0).
15A 30-day lock expires before the scheduled closing in 45 days.
16A lock needs a complete application, a pulled credit report and, for a purchase, an identified property (application True, credit False, property True).
17Today locks of $29,800,000 plus this $400,000 loan pass the $30,000,000 daily pipeline limit; secondary marketing must approve.
18A 20-day lock is not offered; lock periods are 15, 30, 45 or 60 days.
19The agent quoted a price of 100.625; the correct price is 100.375 (base 101.25 + lock adjustment -0.25 - LLPA 0.625). The quote gives away margin.
20The agent charged an extension fee of 0.0875 points; the policy fee is 0.0 (delay caused by lender; lender-caused delays are free).
21The lock expired -1 day ago and cannot be extended; it must be relocked at the current sheet.
22-1 day remaining plus a 7-day extension still ends before the closing in 8 days.
23This lock has already been extended 2 times; the limit is 2.
242 days remaining plus a 3-day extension still ends before the closing in 10 days.
25An extension is 1 to 15 days; 20 requested.
26The market improved 12.5 bps since the lock; a float-down needs at least 25 bps.
27This lock has already used its one float-down.
28A float-down is not allowed within 10 days of lock expiry; 6 days remain.
292 prior-to-docs conditions are still open.
30The verbal verification of employment is 14 days old; it must be within 10 days of closing.
31The property is in a special flood hazard area and flood insurance is not in place.
32Clear-to-close on a loan of $820,000 is above the $750,000 autonomy limit; an underwriter must sign the final approval.
33Verified funds of $90,000 do not cover the $128,000 needed to close.
34The lock has 4 days left but closing is in 9 days; extend the lock first.
35The Closing Disclosure must reach the borrower at least 3 business days before closing; only 2 remain.
36The final APR of 6.912 differs from the disclosed APR of 6.712 by more than 0.125; re-disclose and restart the 3-day wait.
3710-percent-tolerance fees rose from $3,000.0 to $3,400.0, more than 10 percent; a cure is required.
38Zero-tolerance fees increased by $150.0; the lender must cure.
39No Loan Estimate has been sent for this application.
40The loan meets every credit and eligibility rule, so there is no supported ground to deny it.
41An agent may not issue an adverse action alone; a loan officer or underwriter must review and sign the denial.
42An adverse action needs at least one specific reason code.
43The denial rationale relies on a protected characteristic.

  

  

    
Scenarios and results
Click to expand
    
The recorded result of the validator for each scenario on this page: the request the AI agent sent, the verdict, and every finding, in the order they appear above.

    
1. Rate lock: An investment purchase lock with a stale rate sheet, a 30-day lock against a 45-day closing, a low appraisal, short reserves and a credit report still on order

    
The agent's request. Locking the Brandt investment purchase: $400,000 on a home bought at $500,000 and appraised at $480,000, 740 credit score, 30-year fixed at 6.500 percent. I am locking for 30 days on yesterday evening's rate sheet; closing is 45 days out. The application is complete and the property is identified, and the credit report is still on order. Reserves documented: 3 months. No mortgage insurance is on the file. Pipeline lock volume stands at $29,610,000. I used 80.0 percent LTV and quote 97.0. Ready to lock.

    
Verdict: Blocked.

    
    
      
  • LTV above the lender overlay. LTV 83.33 percent is inside the agency maximum but above the Harborview overlay maximum of 80 percent for this occupancy and purpose.
    • 
      
  • LTV does not match the lower of price and appraisal. The agent used an LTV of 80.0 percent; the correct LTV on the lower of price and appraised value is 83.33 percent.
    • 
      
  • Reserves below the requirement. 6 months of reserves required for this occupancy, unit count and purpose; 3 documented.
    • 
      
  • Mortgage insurance below the requirement. LTV 83.33 percent on a 30-year term needs 12 percent mortgage insurance coverage; 0 percent given.
    • 
      
  • Priced off an old rate sheet. Priced off rate sheet HV_2,026_09_29_PM; the current sheet is HV_2,026_09_30_AM. Reprice on the current sheet.
    • 
      
  • Quoted price is wrong. The agent quoted a price of 97.0; the correct price is 96.125 (base 101.25 + lock adjustment 0.0 - LLPA 5.125). The quote gives away margin.
    • 
      
  • Lock requested too early. A lock needs a complete application, a pulled credit report and, for a purchase, an identified property (application True, credit False, property True).
    • 
      
  • Lock ends before closing. A 30-day lock expires before the scheduled closing in 45 days.
    • 
      
  • Daily lock volume over the limit. Today locks of $29,610,000 plus this $400,000 loan pass the $30,000,000 daily pipeline limit; secondary marketing must approve.
    • 
    

    
2. Rate lock: The agent resubmits after fixing the findings

    
The agent's request. Locking the Brandt investment purchase: $384,000 on a home bought at $500,000 and appraised at $480,000, 740 credit score, 30-year fixed at 6.500 percent. I am locking for 60 days on the current rate sheet; closing is 45 days out. The application is complete and the property is identified, and the credit report has been pulled. Reserves documented: 6 months. No mortgage insurance is on the file. Pipeline lock volume stands at $29,610,000. I used 80.0 percent LTV and quote 96.75. Ready to lock.

    
Verdict: Allowed.

    
    
      
  • Computed by the validator. LTV 80.0 percent on a $480,000 value; LLPA 4.25 points (grid 0.875 + attributes 3.375); correct price 96.75 on rate R30_6_500 with a 60-day lock; agent quoted 96.75.
    • 
    

    
3. Denial: A denial whose recorded reason rests on a protected characteristic

    
The agent's request. Denying the Reyes purchase application (credit score 610). I recorded one reason for the denial, and it draws on a protected characteristic of the applicant. Please issue the adverse action notice.

    
Verdict: Blocked.

    
    
      
  • Denial rests on a protected characteristic. The denial rationale relies on a protected characteristic.
    • 
      
  • Denial needs a person to sign. An agent may not issue an adverse action alone; a loan officer or underwriter must review and sign the denial.
    • 
    

    
4. Denial: The agent changes the reason to the credit score

    
The agent's request. Denying the Reyes purchase application (credit score 610). The one reason I recorded is the credit score, which is below the lender minimum. Please issue the adverse action notice.

    
Verdict: Needs approval.

    
    
      
  • Denial needs a person to sign. An agent may not issue an adverse action alone; a loan officer or underwriter must review and sign the denial.
    • 
      
  • Computed by the validator. 1 credit or eligibility finding supports this proposed denial.
    • 
    

    
5. Denial: A loan officer signs the denial

    
The agent's request. Denying the Reyes purchase application (credit score 610). The one reason I recorded is the credit score, which is below the lender minimum. A loan officer has reviewed and signed the denial. Please issue the adverse action notice.

    
Verdict: Needs approval.

    
    
      
  • Denial needs a person to sign. An agent may not issue an adverse action alone; a loan officer or underwriter must review and sign the denial.
    • 
      
  • Computed by the validator. 1 credit or eligibility finding supports this proposed denial.
    • 
    

    
6. Closing Disclosure: A Closing Disclosure with a late send, a moved APR, fee increases and a lock that ends before closing

    
The agent's request. Issuing the Closing Disclosure for the Tanaka purchase. Closing is 2 business days out (7 days) and the Loan Estimate was sent. The lock has 5 days left. The final APR is 6.912 percent against 6.712 percent disclosed. Fees in the 10 percent tolerance bucket went from $3,000 to $3,400, and one zero-tolerance fee is $150 higher than on the Loan Estimate. Ready to issue.

    
Verdict: Blocked.

    
    
      
  • Lock ends before closing. The lock has 5 days left but closing is in 7 days; extend the lock first.
    • 
      
  • Closing Disclosure sent too late. The Closing Disclosure must reach the borrower at least 3 business days before closing; only 2 remain.
    • 
      
  • APR changed too much. The final APR of 6.912 differs from the disclosed APR of 6.712 by more than 0.125; re-disclose and restart the 3-day wait.
    • 
      
  • Fees over the 10 percent tolerance. 10-percent-tolerance fees rose from $3,000.0 to $3,400.0, more than 10 percent; a cure is required.
    • 
      
  • Zero-tolerance fee increased. Zero-tolerance fees increased by $150.0; the lender must cure.
    • 
    

    
7. Closing Disclosure: The agent resubmits after fixing the findings

    
The agent's request. Issuing the Closing Disclosure for the Tanaka purchase. Closing is 5 business days out (9 days) and the Loan Estimate was sent. The lock has 12 days left. The final APR is 6.730 percent against 6.712 percent disclosed. Fees in the 10 percent tolerance bucket went from $3,000 to $3,150, and no zero-tolerance fee has increased. Ready to issue.

    
Verdict: Allowed.

    
8. Pricing: A quote at the base price without the LLPA

    
The agent's request. Pricing the Okafor purchase loan: $400,000 on a $500,000 home, 30-year fixed at 6.500 percent, 760 credit score, 30-day lock on the current rate sheet. I quote 101.25 at 80.0 percent LTV and I am ready to send the quote to the borrower.

    
Verdict: Blocked.

    
    
      
  • Quoted price is wrong. The agent quoted a price of 101.25; the correct price is 100.625 (base 101.25 + lock adjustment 0.0 - LLPA 0.625). The quote gives away margin.
    • 
    

    
9. Pricing: The agent applies the LLPA

    
The agent's request. Pricing the Okafor purchase loan: $400,000 on a $500,000 home, 30-year fixed at 6.500 percent, 760 credit score, 30-day lock on the current rate sheet. I quote 100.625 at 80.0 percent LTV and I am ready to send the quote to the borrower.

    
Verdict: Allowed.

    
    
      
  • Computed by the validator. LTV 80.0 percent on a $500,000 value; LLPA 0.625 points (grid 0.625 + attributes 0.0); correct price 100.625 on rate R30_6_500 with a 30-day lock; agent quoted 100.625.
    • 
    

  

  

    
Narration transcript
Click to expand
    
The text of the narrated walkthrough, step by step.

    
    
      
  1. Welcome to a demo of Predictika's Validator. An AI agent at Harborview Home Lending, a fictional retail lender, proposes an action on a mortgage file: quote a price, lock a rate, extend a lock, and more. Before anything reaches the loan system, the agent sends the proposed action to Predictika, which checks it against the lender's pricing and policy rules and the figures the agent states, and returns one verdict and every reason.
    2. 
      
  2. I will start with the first request by the agent.
    3. 
      
  3. The agent says. Locking the Brandt investment purchase: $400,000 on a home bought at $500,000 and appraised at $480,000, 740 credit score, 30-year fixed at 6.500 percent. I am locking for 30 days on yesterday evening's rate sheet; closing is 45 days out. The rest of the request is on screen.
    4. 
      
  4. Before it goes out, the agent calls the validator.
    5. 
      
  5. Blocked, with eight findings and one approval, all in one answer. LTV 83.33 percent is inside the agency maximum but above the Harborview overlay maximum of 80 percent for this occupancy and purpose. The agent used an LTV of 80.0 percent; the correct LTV on the lower of price and appraised value is 83.33 percent. 6 months of reserves required for this occupancy, unit count and purpose; 3 documented. The other five are on screen.
    6. 
      
  6. The validator returned eight blocking findings and one approval in one answer. A check that reads one field at a time would pass most of this; it shows only when the choices in the request are checked against each other.
    7. 
      
  7. What this shows: for a lock whose period must cover the closing date and whose price depends on that period, a rules-based CPQ can do this only with workarounds.
    8. 
      
  8. Now the agent resubmits.
    9. 
      
  9. The corrected request. It changes the loan amount to $384,000, the reserves to 6 months, the rate sheet to the current sheet and the lock period to 60 days. Two more changes are on screen.
    10. 
      
  10. It calls the validator again.
    11. 
      
  11. This time the validator clears it.
    12. 
      
  12. All nine earlier findings are cleared.
    13. 
      
  13. Nine problems caught in one call, fixed in one pass, and a clean action. That is the value of Predictika's validator: catching mistakes before the action runs.
    14.