Banking AI agent · Commercial credit
Credit-Memo Drafting AI Agent (Commercial Credit)
Draft the credit memo — background, facility as proposed, spreads traced to their source statement, covenant history and the risks it can evidence — while a credit officer owns the rating and the case.
- Typical delivery
- 4–6 weeks
- Deployment
- Your stack
- Credit judgement
- Credit officer
- After launch
- Agent Care
What this agent does
Writes the case, forms no judgement
In
- 01
Take the credit file as it stands — the statements, the facility request, existing exposure and the last approved memo.
- 02
Take in the borrower's own record — covenant certificates, collateral and valuation records, and ownership filings.
Reason
- 03
Recompute the spreads and the ratios, keeping the statement, the period and the basis each figure came from.
- 04
Read the covenant history against the definitions written into the agreement, not the ones usually applied.
- 05
Set out ownership, the related entities and the industry conditions the file already evidences.
Decide
- 06
Name the risks the file supports, and mark where a figure is stale, unsourced or contradicted elsewhere.
- 07
Hold anything that would amount to a rating, a recommendation, a price or a proposed structure.
Out
- 08
Hand a credit officer a drafted memo in which every figure names the statement and period behind it.
- 09
Retain the sources read, each recomputation, the drafted sections and every correction an officer makes.
Product statement
The agent drafts and evidences the memo. The risk rating, the recommendation, the pricing and the structure stay with named credit staff, and a credit officer or committee owns the case.
Example workflow
One memo, end to end
- 1Memo requestedA new facility, an annual review, an amendment or a renewal reaches the credit team
- 2File assembledStatements and prior spreads, the facility request, existing exposure, covenant certificates and collateral records
- 3Figures recomputedSpreads, ratios and coverage rebuilt from the statements, each carrying the period and the basis it was taken from
- 4Draft assembled and checkedTrace, staleness, covenant-basis, related-entity and exposure checks, and the confidence threshold
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run before a credit officer opens the draft — assembly, recomputation and the checks finish first. Nothing in that stretch rates the borrower, recommends a course or prices the facility.
Goes to a credit officer as a draft to work.
Held, with the figure or the risk that stopped it named.
Credit officer or committee
Reads the draft against the statements behind it, supplies the judgement the memo does not carry, and owns the rating and the recommendation.
Take the draft · Correct · Send back
Draft taken — handed back
- 6Draft handed over or heldPassed to a named credit officer as a draft, or held with the figure it could not trace written to the file
- 7Outcome evaluatedFigures corrected in review, risks the officer added, sections rewritten, and what credit review found afterwards
Edits
Risks an officer adds count as much as figures corrected.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required
8 items
- The risk rating, or any change to it.
- Recommending that a facility be approved or declined.
- The price, the limit, the term or the covenants.
- The structure and conditions put to committee.
Automation boundary
Agent acts unaided
- ✓Recompute the spreads and ratios from the statements.
- ✓Read covenants against the agreement's definitions.
- ✓Trace each figure to the statement, the period and the basis, and hold the ones it cannot.
- ✓Draft the sections the file evidences and name what is stale or absent.
Write actions run only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation. No draft carries a rating or a view.
- Whether a guarantor's support may be relied on.
- Accepting a collateral value that is not current.
- Writing a figure no source document supports.
- Changing spreading rules, covenant definitions or templates.
Example output
One drafted memo, annotated
Every figure the agent writes is attached to the statement and the period it came from.
Drafting output · single memo
Illustrative example- Request
- Annual review
- Statements held
- Audited and interim
- Periods spread
- 3 years
- Draft status
- Held — untraced figure
- Confidence
- 89%
- Risk rating
- Not set by the agent
As received
The file as the credit team holds it — statements, certificates and the last approved memo.
Evidence used
- Audited accounts, FY24
- Covenant certificate, Q3
- Valuation on the file
Why it is held
A coverage input rests on a figure no statement supports, and the valuation is stale.
What the score decides
How hard the officer re-reads a figure against its statement, not what the memo concludes.
Action
Take the draftCorrectSend backValue
Where AI adds value
The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.
Where the value lands
Value 01 – 04
Every memo requested
New facility, review, amendment or renewal
Work from the file's own record
Use the statements the bank holds, the covenant definitions written into the agreement and the collateral records as recorded.
Hand over a drafted case
Background, the facility as proposed and the spreads arrive written and traced, so the officer opens on the credit question instead of on assembly.
Show what the file cannot support
Stale statements, figures no source supports and risks the record does not evidence are listed rather than written around.
Build an evidence trail
Retain the sources read, each figure and its statement, the drafted sections, confidence, evaluator result and the officer's edit — on both paths.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Credit & lending platforms
- nCino
- Salesforce Financial Services
- Loan origination systems
- credit APIs
Spreading & analysis
- Moody's CreditLens
- Abrigo
- Baker Hill
- spreading exports
Core & exposure
- FIS
- Fiserv
- Jack Henry
- Temenos
- existing exposure records
Agent
Credit-memo drafting
- Recomputes the spreads
- Traces every figure
- Drafts the case
Documents & collateral
- Statement files
- tax returns
- Appraisal records
- document management
Observability & evaluation
- OpenTelemetry
- Langfuse
- Supported monitoring/evaluation sources
Integration availability depends on the client's existing systems and API access.
Agent controls
Six layers between the model and the credit memo
Each control wraps the one inside it. A draft clears every layer before a credit officer is asked to work it, and the rating sits outside all six.
L6 · Outermost — last line of defence
Inward → L1 · closest to the model
- L1 – L2
- Decide whether a number may enter the memo
- L3
- Screens the fields and the wording it produces
- L4 – L5
- Keep the rating human and the record complete
- L6
- Pulls automation back when signals degrade
How Nestack evaluates it
Evaluate the memo a committee reads — not only the figures in it.
Coverage runs the whole depth of the workflow, and every layer is cut by slice.
Surface — the draft the credit officer opens
- E1Trace evaluationDid each figure match the statement and period it names?
- E2Recomputation evaluationWere the ratios rebuilt on the bank's own definitions?
- E3Covenant evaluationWas each covenant tested on the basis the agreement defines?
- E4Risk-coverage evaluationDid the draft name the risks the file already evidenced?
- E5Slice evaluationHow does draft quality change across specific borrower cohorts?
- E6Business outcomeHow much of the draft stood, and what did credit review find?
Floor — the memo credit review reads afterwards
Failure modes
Where each failure originates in the agent
Seven failure modes plotted against the five stages of the agent lifecycle.
Agent lifecycle
Direction of processing →
01 · File assembly
1 mode
- MD-01
Superseded figures spread
Statements or a valuation the bank no longer treats as current are carried in.
Stage gathers
Statements, certificates, collateral and exposure
02 · Recomputation
2 modes
- MD-02
Related entities read as one
A borrower group is spread together and the same cash is counted twice.
- MD-03
Covenant tested off-agreement
A ratio is computed on the usual basis, not the one the agreement defines.
Stage rebuilds
Ratios, coverage and covenant tests
03 · Drafting
2 modes
- MD-04
Risk written round, not named
The risk section reads well and omits the exposure the file already showed.
- MD-05
Prohibited basis in the narrative
Background wording describes the owner or the area rather than the credit.
Stage drafts
Background, structure, covenants and risks
04 · Handover / write
1 mode
- MD-06
Draft read as the credit view
A drafted section enters the file as though it were a recommendation.
Stage hands
The draft to a named credit officer
05 · Change / Version
1 mode
- MD-07
Silent spreading-rule drift
A spreading or covenant definition changes and stale templates stay in use.
Stage tracks
Model, prompt, spreading and template changes
- Sev-1 · the memo cannot be defended later
- Sev-2 · a wrong figure reaches the committee
- Sev-3 · drafting degrades, the memo is rewritten
Affected slices
One borrower on paper, several in the file
An annual review on audited accounts is close to mechanical — one entity, one basis. What comes back rewritten is the group spread as one borrower and the file built from tax returns. Nestack reports by slice, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregate
Illustrative example| Slice | Failure rate | Lift | Lift vs. threshold | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Related-entity borrower groups | 4.8% | 3.0× | Review | |
| Tax-return and compiled statements | 3.6% | 2.3× | Review | |
| Commercial real-estate facilities | 2.9% | 1.8× | Watch | |
| Annual review, audited accounts | 1.4% | 0.9× | Normal |
Bar: corrected-draft lift vs. audited-review baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold
2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
Credit review finds what the officer let stand
A draft an officer signed off is not a correct one. What settles it is the loan-review file, the covenant already breached, and the rating that moved a quarter later.
Improvement cycle · five stages
Switchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
- 01
Detect
Corrected figures, rewritten risk sections or credit-review findings rise in one borrower cohort.
- 02
Diagnose
Put beside the statement itself — the period spread, the covenant definition used, or the entities pulled into the group.
- 03
Improve
The spreading rule, the covenant definition or the section template is re-approved by credit policy and version-linked.
- 04
Verify
Re-drafted over memos already through committee, including the ones credit review criticised.
- 05
Learn
The risk the draft walked past is written into the section template, beside the memo that missed it.
Learn → Detect
The return edge. What credit review found last quarter is what the next draft is measured against before an officer sees it.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, file assembly and spreading, covenants and risk coverage, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
Workstream
Week 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
- 01Memo scope and approval-boundary definition.Week 1
- 02Credit, spreading and core system assessment.Week 1, Week 2
- 03Memo template and section-by-section rules.Week 1, Week 2
- 04File assembly and source-document capture.Week 2
- 05Spreading rules and ratio recomputation.Week 2, Week 3
- 06Covenant definitions and testing basis.Week 3
- 07Related-entity and exposure aggregation.Week 3, Week 4
- 08Risk-section evidence rules and coverage.Week 4
- 09Prohibited-basis field and wording exclusion.Week 4
- 10Trace-accuracy and risk-coverage evaluation suite.Week 4, Week 5
- 11Credit-officer handover and system integration.Week 5, Week 6
- 12Observability, deployment and Agent Care handover.Week 6
12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallel
Final scope and sequence confirmed in discovery
Engagement tiers
What each tier includes
Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.
| Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tier | PilotOne portfolio, one memo type | ProductionCredit-system integration | AdvancedMulti-portfolio / multi-entity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Introduced at Pilot | |||
| Figures traced to statement and period | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Ratios recomputed from the statements | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Covenant history on the agreement's basis | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Risks limited to what the file evidences | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Prohibited-basis exclusion | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Rating left to a credit officer | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Baseline evaluation | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Introduced at Production | |||
| Credit-system and spreading integration | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Observability and evaluation | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Introduced at Advanced | |||
| Multiple portfolios and memo types | — | — | ✓ |
| Multi-entity and enterprise controls | — | — | ✓ |
| Build price | From $5,000 | From $8,000 | Custom quote |
- Final build price
- Confirmed after discovery based on the portfolios and memo types in scope, credit, spreading and core integrations, statement formats, memo volume, approval controls and deployment requirements.
- Separate from build
- Build pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.
What we need from you
What you bring, and what we build with it
Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.
You bring
We build with it
01The memo template your committee actually reads
→Memo template and section-by-section rules
Week 102Your spreading standards and how each ratio is defined
→Spreading rules and ratio recomputation
Week 203Access to the credit, spreading and core systems
→System assessment, then file assembly and integration
Week 204Credit agreements and the covenant definitions in them
→Covenant definitions and the testing basis
Week 305How you group related entities and aggregate exposure
→Related-entity and exposure aggregation
Week 306Memos credit review criticised, and the ones it passed
→Evaluation suite, risk-coverage and wording tests
Week 407Named credit officers and your credit-review lead
→Handover workflow, then drafts worked under supervision
Weeks 5–6
Nothing else is required
Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
Phases are drawn over the weeks they actually occupy. Week 5 re-drafts memos already through committee, so nothing the agent writes reaches a decision.
Phase
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
- DiscoveryW1
- BuildW2 – W3
- EvaluateW4 – W5
- Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focus
W1Memo scope, the template your committee reads and the boundary
W2System access, file assembly and the spreading rules
W3Covenant definitions, related entities and exposure aggregation
W4Risk-coverage rules, wording exclusion and the evaluation suite
W5Memos re-drafted from cases already decided, nothing signed
W6Officers work live drafts under supervision, then handover
- Reading the band
- Risk-coverage and wording tests finish in week 4, before an officer works a live draft in week 5. Week 5 re-drafts memos your committee has already seen, so nothing the agent writes reaches a credit decision.
- At the end of W6
- Credit officers have worked live drafts with each figure checked against the statement it names, and the risks those drafts missed have been counted, then Agent Care takes over monitoring.
- Duration
- Six-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Banking AI agent
Build a memo agent around the case your committee already reads.
Show us your memo template, your spreading standards and the covenant definitions your agreements actually use. We'll re-draft a set of memos your committee has already seen and put our draft beside the one that went out, figure by figure and risk by risk.
- Typical delivery
- 4–6 weeks
- Deployment
- Your credit stack
- Credit judgement
- Always a credit officer
- After launch
- Agent Care available
Nestack Agents · Credit-memo drafting
AGT-BK-07 · Agent Care available after launch