Regulatory exam management for compliance teams: every request in the letter gathered, checked and sent by its due date
Every request item gathered, checked and sent by its due date.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Software that takes a regulator’s request list from the day it arrives to every item sent, and then tracks the findings to closure. Regulatory Exam Management adds seven agents that read the letter, match each request to the answer sent last time, gather the evidence the bank already holds, check every clause and draft the cover note.
How to choose AI solutions for lending →
Updated
The first-day letter lands with dozens of numbered requests — board and committee minutes, the CMS policy, monitoring and testing results, the complaint log, training records, post-closing QC reports, loan lists — due through the secure portal in days. The exam coordinator copies the list into a spreadsheet, emails a dozen owners and starts chasing.
Most of the requests were asked last cycle, but nobody can find what was sent, or which version the committee signed. Owners send whatever they find in their own systems, nobody checks the answer against every clause of the request, and a missing part — “with management’s responses” — comes back as a follow-up that tells the examiner the program is weak. Then the findings go into yet another spreadsheet, and at the next exam the evidence that they were fixed is assembled again by hand.
Estimated split for a 46-request consumer compliance letter, by hand and with the solution.
Seven agents read the letter, gather the evidence and draft each answer; the Chief Compliance Officer approves.
Calder Ridge Bank’s 2026 FDIC Consumer Compliance and CRA Examination: 46 requests from examiner-in-charge Laura Kessler, due Friday 16 October. It is Monday 12 October. Here is the morning, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Marisa opens the exam board: 14 sent, 11 in review, 13 gathering, 8 open, and 4 days left. Every card carries the request number, area, due date, owner and the evidence already pulled. 34 of 46 carry a link to the answer the bank sent in 2023.
Run log, 08:31: “3 of 412 flood determinations missing. Flood was a 2023 finding — flagged for a close read.”
The Compliance Information and Document Request was split into 46 requests across 11 areas, two due dates (16 and 30 October) and 14 owners taken from the owner map. Beside each request in the margin: its owner, its stage and the 2023 request it matches.
The examiner’s wording is kept exactly; no due date is ever set later than the letter’s.
Request 14 asks for the three most recent quarterly post-closing QC reports, with the sampling method, the defects and management’s responses. The agents split it into four clauses, matched 2023 request 11, took the Q4 2025, Q1 2026 and Q2 2026 reports from the mortgage QC share with the signed management responses, checked 4 of 4 clauses and drafted a 132-word cover note.
“Q3 2026 is not issued until 20 October” — so the cover note says it will follow on issue.
The card reads “3 of 3 reports found · cover note drafted”. Marisa clicks Move to In review and the card slides across, now reading “3 exhibits · every clause covered · draft ready”.
“Request 14 is in review — three QC reports and a drafted cover note.”
Exhibits 14-A, 14-B and 14-C, and the cover note: 169 loans reviewed across the three quarters, 3 with a critical defect (1.8%). The two Q2 2026 findings — a self-employed income calculation and a tolerance cure issued after 60 days — are tracked in remediation item MR-26-07.
The request page shows the examiner’s wording with its four clauses numbered, the completeness check (4 of 4 covered), the QC report itself with the sampling method highlighted in section 2, and the cover note with each exhibit cited.
The answer library shows 2023 request 11 beside this year’s request 14 — 91% the same wording — and what happened afterwards. In 2023 the bank sent the Q2–Q4 2022 reports; on 22 March the examiner asked for the sampling methodology, and it took five days to answer. This time it goes in up front.
“Please provide the sampling methodology used for each quarter.” — the examiner’s follow-up, 22 March 2023.
Gregory sees the request, the three exhibits, “Every clause covered” and who reviewed it, picks the meaning of his signature — “Approved for sending to the examiner” — and signs. The package is assembled as R14-QC-reports.pdf for Marisa to upload to the regulator’s secure portal, and the answer is kept for the next exam.
Agents never send anything to the regulator.
The sweep re-runs the missing exports — 318 loss mitigation applications for request 20 and 37 accounts with servicemember protections for request 21 — and finds application procedures v2.4 for request 45, in place of the v2.1 used in 2023. It nudges Gregory Hale for requests 8 and 42 — due to him by Wednesday 14 October, so there is review time.
“Sweep done — 3 requests moved to Gathering, 2 ready for review.”
Every finding from examiners and internal audit sits on one remediation timeline with its actions and owners. F-23-1, late flood hazard notices, is validated by Internal Audit and awaiting closure; IA-26-09 was opened today from request 26 — 28 marketing pieces without a compliance sign-off. Request 6 of this exam is answered from this page.
Only the Chief Compliance Officer closes a finding, after Internal Audit validates it.
The same exam, seen by the people who carry it — the coordinator, the approver, an owner, internal audit and the credit side.
Seven agents read the letter, gather the evidence and draft each answer; the Chief Compliance Officer approves.
Reads the regulator’s request letter, splits it into numbered requests and their clauses, sets due dates and assigns owners from the owner map.
Matches each request to answers kept from earlier exams and audits, shows the wording difference, and notes what the examiner asked afterwards.
Pulls the evidence from the policy library, mortgage QC share, complaint, training, loan and deposit systems and board minutes — the latest approved and signed versions — and asks the owner for anything not found.
Maps every clause of a request to the exhibit and page that answers it, checking the period covered, every part, signatures and the latest version.
Drafts each cover note in the bank’s voice: what is provided, the period, the key figures from the exhibits and anything that will follow, citing every exhibit.
Runs the morning sweep during an exam: re-runs missing exports, nudges each owner three business days before the due date and escalates to the Chief Compliance Officer one day before.
Logs findings and remediation actions with owners and dates, reminds owners at 14 and 3 days, and drafts the board update.
Approves every item. The agents propose; a named person decides.
The exam coordinator can ask in plain words about any request, owner, kept answer or finding — or tell it what to do. Answers cite their sources.
What is still not ready, with 4 days to go?
21 requests are not in review yet — 8 open and 13 gathering. 15 are at risk: R8 and R42 need Gregory Hale’s list of new products and the title arrangement; R18 is missing 3 of 412 flood determinations, and flood was a 2023 finding; five have not started, and the morning sweep can answer three of them from system exports; seven more wait on an export or a sign-off. R46 is due 30 Oct, after the sample is chosen. The board is filtered to the 15.
What did we send for the QC reports last time?
In 2023 it was request 11: the Q2–Q4 2022 reports with management responses, sent 14 March. On 22 March the examiner came back for the sampling method, and it took five days to answer. This year’s request 14 asks for it directly, and section 2 of each report covers it.
How do our QC results compare with the industry?
Across the three reports, 169 loans were reviewed and 3 had a critical defect — 1.8%. The national rate published for Q4 2025 was 1.38%. Q2 2026 had two of ours: self-employed income and a late tolerance cure, now in remediation MR-26-07.
Nudge everyone with open requests
Done. The due-date watch sent each owner only their own open requests, with Wednesday 14 October as their internal date so Gregory Hale has two days to approve. Owners come from the owner map.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
Clocks, approvers, owners and sending rules are settings — every change is versioned and shown in the audit trail.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Warn the owner | 3 business days before the due date | 1 to 10 business days |
| Escalate to the Chief Compliance Officer | 1 business day before | 1 business day before · 2 business days before · On the due date |
| Review time before the due date | 2 business days | 1 · 2 · 3 business days |
| Reuse a kept answer when the wording is at least | 85% the same | 80 · 85 · 90% the same |
| Approves every item | Gregory Hale, Chief Compliance Officer | Any named approver |
| Co-approves credit requests in safety and soundness exams | Derek Fong | Any named approver |
| Who uploads to the regulator | Marisa Quinlan | A named person — agents never send |
| File names | R<number>-<topic>.pdf, exhibits lettered | On · off |
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 exam data · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate · “typical” = published figures (CSBS, community bank compliance costs — the smallest banks spend roughly 11–15.5% of payroll on compliance). The national Q4 2025 critical defect rate quoted by the assistant is from ACES Mortgage QC Industry Trends. Calder Ridge Bank and the people named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
Software that takes a regulator’s request list from the day it arrives to every item sent, and then tracks the findings to closure. Regulatory Exam Management adds seven agents that read the letter, match each request to the answer sent last time, gather the evidence the bank already holds, check every clause and draft the cover note.
The letter reader splits it into numbered requests and their clauses, keeps the examiner’s wording exactly, sets the due dates from the letter and assigns each request an owner from your owner map. In the working solution a 46-request FDIC letter was on the board eleven minutes after it arrived.
Yes. Every answer you send is kept with the documents and versions used and anything the examiner asked afterwards. When a new request is at least 85% the same wording, the kept answer is reused, with the wording difference and last time’s follow-up shown — and every document is checked for a newer version first. Below the threshold it is shown as a reference only.
No. The exam coordinator reviews each draft, the Chief Compliance Officer approves each item with an electronic signature and its meaning recorded, and a named person uploads to the regulator’s secure portal. The agents never send anything.
Yes. The findings tracker logs findings from examiners and internal audit with their remediation actions, owners and dates, reminds owners at 14 and 3 days and drafts the board update. Only the Chief Compliance Officer closes a finding, after Internal Audit validates it.
Yes. The exams calendar covers the safety and soundness exam with BSA and IT, internal audits, HMDA reviews and external audits, showing how much of each request list the library can already answer. Credit requests in a safety and soundness exam can require the Chief Credit Officer’s co-approval.
Yes. Agents read, gather, check and draft; people decide. The coordinator moves each request to review, the owner confirms what was asked of them, the CCO signs, and every step is in the audit trail.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements — your owner map, your last exam’s request letter and the answers you sent — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on your own last exam first.
One question, all fifty states at once, every answer cited to the rule it comes from.
1-min demoRegulatory Change ManagementEvery new rule scoped to products and states, and owned the day it lands.
1-min demoHMDA and 1071 Data ValidationEvery record checked against the file, not a sample, before filing.
1-min demoWe’ll run Regulatory Exam Management on your last exam’s request letter and the answers you sent.