Special assets file review that rebuilds a troubled loan's history before the first borrower meeting
A loan's whole story in minutes, not days of reading.
See one case, screen by screen ↓It is the work of rebuilding a troubled loan's history when it moves to special assets — what was lent, guaranteed, waived, promised and paid, and where the file disagrees with itself. Special Assets File Review has six agents read the whole transferred file the day it arrives and draw it as a cited timeline the officer can question in plain words.
How to choose AI solutions for lending →
Updated
When a commercial loan is downgraded and moves to special assets, the officer who inherits it has never seen it. Before the first meeting with the borrower they have to rebuild years of history from the loan agreement, amendments, guaranties, credit memos, covenant certificates, appraisals, site visits, servicing letters and the former relationship manager's email — spread across the loan system, document imaging, the email archive and CRM call notes.
By hand that takes an officer and an analyst days, so the meeting waits or goes ahead half-read. And what gets missed is what costs leverage: a waiver that went further than the credit memo, an email promising more than the signed amendment, a payment accepted after maturity before rights were reserved, a guarantor's signature page that never made it into the file.
Estimated split, in working hours, for rebuilding one commercial real estate file's history — by an officer and an analyst by hand, and with the solution. The by-hand total is estimated from practitioner accounts; there is no published benchmark.
Six specialist agents read the whole file and draw its history; the special assets officer asks, decides and signs.
Ridgeline Tower Partners LLC: an $18.4M office loan made in 2019, now $15,976,240 unpaid for 164 days, rated 7 Substandard — and a borrower who says the bank promised another extension. The first meeting is Tuesday 20 October. Here is what happens, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Loan 70-418226 is assigned to Renata Solberg. The agents collect the file from the loan system, document imaging, the email archive and call notes — 412 documents and 2,316 pages, plus 1,138 emails and call notes — split it into 18,904 passages, place 38 events on six lanes, list 14 promises and find 3 conflicts and 2 missing items. A first draft of the handover follows, with 19 citations.
“41 minutes from transfer to a readable file. By hand: four to six days of an officer's and an analyst's time.”
Renata opens the file. Across the top: principal $15,976,240, unpaid 164 days, value $14.8M at 107.9% loan to value, rating 7 Substandard. Beside the relationship timeline — agreements, credit, covenants, property and tenants, letters and emails, payments and status, with the DSCR under the axis — the story so far reads in four cited lines.
“The borrower now says the bank promised another extension. Ask the file what was promised.”
The answer comes back in plain words: in the First Amendment of 9 April 2024 the bank promised to consider in good faith a further extension of up to 12 months — not to grant one — if Cobalt Health renewed for at least five years by 30 June 2025 and FY2024 coverage was at least 1.20x. Neither condition was met. The cited events light up on the timeline, numbered, and the rest dim.
1,550 sources · 64 passages · all checked · 8.6 s
“Open First Amendment” lands on the passage itself, highlighted, with the agents' notes in the margin: what it was cited for, and that the conflict checker found neither condition met — Cobalt renewed for 3 years on 18 March 2025 and FY2024 DSCR was 1.04x. §4.2, the Vance step-down, sits a few lines below, marked “not triggered”.
§9.4 · “This Amendment is the entire agreement of the parties on its subject and supersedes all prior negotiations, correspondence and understandings.”
Twenty-one facts — loan, guaranties, collateral, covenants, waivers and accommodations, defaults and notices — each confirmed, in conflict or missing, each with its source. Theresa Vance's guaranty is 25% of principal at demand, $3,994,060 today; a servicing letter of 2 July 2025 told her 10%. Her signature page for the January 2026 release is not in the file.
The conflict checker reports; it never corrects a document.
The ledger holds 14 promises, seven by the bank and seven by the borrower. Filtered to “Not in a signed document”, four remain: Kevin Darrow's email of 20 February 2024 (“we can look at taking Theresa off entirely”), the servicing letter, the release signed by 2 of 3, and Graham Lindqvist's phone proposal of three years interest only with a $500,000 paydown from Vance.
It never decides whether a promise binds the bank — that is counsel's call.
Renata sends the three conflicts to Priya Anand at Whitcombe & Lyle LLP: does the servicing letter reduce Vance's guaranty to 10%; does Darrow's email bind the bank, given §9.4; does the $115,133 payment taken on 3 November 2025 — four days before the reservation of rights — affect enforcement.
The sources view counts the file by type — 46 agreements and amendments, 88 certificates and financials, 1,138 emails and call notes — and lists what is missing, each with a Request button: the FY2021 compliance certificate, Theresa Vance's signature page, and call notes for 2 of 5 calls with the borrower in February–March 2024.
The memo for the workout file runs in five parts: the relationship in brief, how we got here, where we are exposed, where we stand, and what to do before the meeting on 20 October — counsel's view in writing, a notice of default and a fresh reservation of rights, a debrief of Kevin Darrow, and Vance's signature page from the closing binder.
The handover writer never sends anything to the borrower and never sets the workout strategy.
Renata confirms the memo reflects the file as she read it. It goes to Priya Anand for counsel review, then to Howard Kim, who approves the strategy. Her signature, the memo version and its 19 sources are written to the audit trail.
The same file, seen by the four people who work it — what their week looked like, and what it looks like now.
Six specialist agents read the whole file and draw its history; the special assets officer asks, decides and signs.
Reads every document, email and call note in a transferred file; dates, classifies and splits each into passages with page and section, and notes any signature block left blank.
Turns passages into dated events on six lanes, merges duplicates — the memo and the email about the same meeting — and marks what should be in the file but is not.
Answers the officer's question from this loan's file only, one claim per sentence, each with the page it rests on, and follows a promise forward to what happened to its conditions.
Finds every commitment by either side, every waiver, accommodation, release and reservation of rights, and every payment taken after a default.
Compares what documents say against each other, checks signature pages against the parties named, and reads every fact back against its page when a new document arrives.
Drafts the handover memo for the workout file from the key facts sheet and the promise ledger, every factual sentence cited.
Signs; counsel reviews, the chief credit officer approves. The agents propose; a named person decides.
The officer, the analyst and counsel can ask about any promise, guaranty, waiver or payment in the loan's history — or ask for the next thing to prepare. Every answer rests on a page of the file.
Is the borrower right that we promised another extension?
Only in part. The First Amendment promised to consider in good faith a 12-month extension if Cobalt Health renewed for five years and FY2024 coverage reached 1.20x. Cobalt renewed for three and coverage was 1.04x. The stronger words are in Kevin Darrow's email, which the amendment supersedes — that is for counsel.
Which guaranty amount stands for Theresa Vance?
25% — $3,994,060 today. The step-down to 10% needed a five-year Cobalt renewal and never triggered. A servicing letter of 2 July 2025 told her 10%, and her guaranty can be reduced only by an instrument the bank signs. $2,396,436 rests on counsel's view.
What should counsel look at first?
Three things, in this order: the servicing letter that cut the Vance guaranty, the February 2024 email promise, and the payment taken on 3 November 2025 before rights were reserved.
Draft the handover for Howard Kim
The handover is drafted: the relationship in brief, how we got here, the four exposures, where we stand and what to do before the meeting on 20 October — 19 citations, each opening its page. It needs your signature, then counsel's review.
12 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
Which systems a file is read from, how answers are written, what goes to counsel and who signs — all settings.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| What a file is read from | 4 systems | Loan system · document imaging · email archive · CRM call notes |
| Email window | From 2 years before origination | The relationship team's mailboxes only |
| Every sentence carries its page | On | On · off |
| Legal questions go to counsel | On | On · off |
| Quote amounts, never recalculate | On | On · off |
| Include other loans to the same guarantors | Off | On · off |
| Sent to counsel automatically | Unsigned promises, guaranty changes, payments after a default | Each on · off |
| Who signs the handover | Officer → counsel → chief credit officer above $5M | Change each reviewer |
| Question log kept | 7 years | Change |
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 file · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate from practitioner accounts (4–6 days to rebuild a file by hand; the split of hours) · “typical” = published figures: FDIC Quarterly Banking Profile Q4 2025 (non-owner-occupied CRE past due and nonaccrual, banks over $250B: 4.06% against a pre-pandemic 0.58%) and Colliers/MBA ($384B of CRE loans extended into 2025). People, banks, firms, borrowers and properties named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
It is the work of rebuilding a troubled loan's history when it moves to special assets — what was lent, guaranteed, waived, promised and paid, and where the file disagrees with itself. Special Assets File Review has six agents read the whole transferred file the day it arrives and draw it as a cited timeline the officer can question in plain words.
Workout software usually tracks documents, modifications and exam reporting. This solution reads the file itself — agreements, credit memos, certificates, appraisals, emails and call notes — and answers questions about the relationship with the page each sentence rests on.
No. Waiver, course of dealing, oral promises and release scope are flagged to workout counsel with their pages, never answered. The promise and waiver finder lists what was said and where; it never decides whether a promise binds the bank.
No. The agents read the file; they never write to the loan system, never edit or delete a source and never contact the borrower. The handover writer never sends anything to the borrower.
The loan system, document imaging, the email archive of the loan's relationship team and CRM call notes — loan and security agreements, amendments, credit memos, covenant certificates, borrower financials, appraisals, inspection reports, letters and correspondence.
What should be in the file but is not — a covenant certificate, a guarantor's signature page, notes for a call on the calendar — is drawn on the timeline as a gap and listed on the sources view with a Request button.
Yes. The special assets officer owns the facts and signs the handover, workout counsel rules on every legal flag, and the chief credit officer approves the strategy and classification. Every question, answer and signature is on the audit trail.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents — your systems, your handover template and a sample of transferred files — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on one of your own files first.
Every contact inside the 7-in-7 rule, spent where it pays.
1-min demoBorrower Hardship ManagementSame request, same decision, every time, with the reason written down.
1-min demoCollections Agent AssistThe one call the rules allow this week, handled right first time.
1-min demoWe'll run Special Assets File Review on one of your own transferred files.