Solution
For credit analysts, chief credit officers, and risk teams at banks and lenders: graded risk views and recommendation rationale assembled from the file itself, with every input cited to its source page.
The problem
Analysts hired for judgment spend the day moving numbers from spreads, memos, and third-party reports into a template.
Policy applied from memory varies from one analyst to the next — and from the first case of the day to the fiftieth.
When the committee or audit asks, the answer is a search through files and email — long after the memo shipped.
The product, not a promise
How it works
Extract metrics from statements, returns, and memos into one case file.
Score each risk factor against your grading framework and credit policy.
Generate the recommendation summary and decision rationale, fully cited.
Analysts edit, challenge, and approve; nothing ships unreviewed.
The full decision trail lands in the audit log.
Who it's for
Credit analyst
Chief credit officer
Head of credit risk / audit
Every credit decision ends in the same artifact: a graded risk view and a recommendation the institution has to stand behind — to the committee, to audit, and to the regulator. Producing that artifact today means senior analysts assembling numbers from spreads, memos, and third-party reports, applying policy from memory, and writing rationale under deadline. It is slow, it varies by author, and when someone asks where a number came from, the answer is a hunt.
Botminds assembles the risk picture from the documents themselves: financial statements, tax returns, bank statements, credit memos, collateral and third-party reports. Extracted metrics feed your grading framework — your scales, your thresholds, your policy — and the platform produces a structured risk view with each factor scored and each input cited to its source page. Financial spreading, the slowest part of the assembly, runs 5× faster on the platform.
On top of the graded view, the platform drafts the recommendation summary and decision rationale: strengths, weaknesses, mitigants, and conditions, each grounded in the underlying evidence. Analysts edit and own the narrative; the platform keeps the numbers under it consistent, current, and traceable — click any figure and the source document opens at the right page. No grade or recommendation leaves the system without human approval, and every step is logged: what was extracted, which policy was applied, who reviewed, what changed. Routine grading work stops consuming senior analysts, and the consistency problem disappears, because the framework is applied the same way on the first case of the day and the fiftieth. For individual cases or portfolio-wide reviews, the output is accurate, repeatable, and regulator-ready.
Objections, answered
Every factor in the risk view cites its source page — click the figure and the document opens. Low-confidence extractions are flagged, and no grade or recommendation leaves the system without a named analyst's approval.
That is what runs. Your scales, thresholds, and policy are configured once, and the platform applies them identically on every case. Framework changes are configuration — versioned and logged.
The full decision trail: what was extracted from which page, which policy version applied, who edited the rationale, who approved. Any figure in a memo traces to the borrower's own documents years later.
It ships as a working template. Configure your grading framework and spreading template, run analysts in review-and-approve mode from day one, and expect production cases in weeks.
Watch it spread the financials, grade every factor against your policy, and draft the rationale — with each number cited to its page.
Request a demo