Requirement card
Certificate of insurance
Borrower entity
- Source
- COI p.1 § Named Insured
- Check result
- Entity matches; policy term needs review
- Next action
- Request a renewed certificate
- Owner
- Deal ops
Reviewer approval required
Controlled closing diligence
A clean path diligence close.
Dilit is designed as an evidence-verified closing workspace for private-credit and specialty-lending teams, connecting every requirement to its documents, checks, exceptions, approvals, and final record.
- 01Requirement
- 02Evidence
- 03Check
- 04Exception
- 05Approval
- 06Closing record
The closing problem
Collecting the files is only the beginning.
A folder can hold documents. It cannot prove that every closing condition is satisfied.
- 01
Evidence arrives fragmented.
Documents come from borrowers, internal teams, counsel, diligence providers, email, and shared folders.
- 02
Verification remains manual.
Analysts still map files to checklist items and inspect names, dates, signatures, expiration, completeness, and consistency.
- 03
Exceptions drive the close.
Missing items, defects, conflicts, and ambiguous requirements create repeated follow-up and require accountable human judgment.
Illustrative example · not customer data
Three exceptions hidden inside a document folder
- Insurance certificateExpired before target closeDefective
- GuarantyGuarantor signature absentMissing
- Entity documentsLegal name differs across filesConflicting
The evidence-and-exception layer
Make every closing requirement provable.
The proposed MVP is designed to organize the work between an existing checklist and the lender’s accountable decision.
- Structure each checklist item with an owner, status, due date, and accepted-evidence criteria.
- Connect the supporting document and exact page or section to the requirement it addresses.
- Run focused mechanical checks while clearly exposing conflicts and uncertainty.
- Bring missing, defective, conflicting, unsupported, and review-needed items into one exception queue.
- Preserve reviewer actions and rationale in the decision history.
- Prepare an evidence matrix and organized closing record for review and handoff.
Needs review
Status key
- Verified
- Missing
- Defective
- Conflicting
- Unsupported
- Needs review
Verified is evidence status, not approval. Approval and waiver are separate decisions.
How it works
From existing checklist to defensible closing record.
The workflow is designed to preserve the lender’s process while making evidence, exceptions, follow-through, and decisions easier to review.
- 01
Start with the checklist.
Import the lender’s Word or Excel checklist and turn it into structured requirements.
- 02
Collect and connect evidence.
Accept borrower and internal files, classify them, and match relevant pages to requirements.
- 03
Focus on what needs attention.
Run mechanical checks, surface exceptions, and prepare context-aware follow-up. Configurable sequences can request outstanding materials, remind on a lender-approved cadence, escalate at a defined gate, and stop when acceptable evidence arrives, the requirement changes, or a person intervenes.
- 04
Review and record the decision.
Approve, reject, comment, or waive with the evidence and rationale retained.
- 05
Export the close.
Prepare an evidence matrix, organized closing binder, and activity history.
Illustrative example · not customer data
Walk through a sample closeAutomated material follow-up sequence
- Day 0Request sentLender-approved request for renewed evidence
- Day 3ReminderConfigurable routine reminder
- Day 7Escalation gateHuman review before sensitive follow-upHuman-review gate
- Day 8Evidence receivedRenewed certificate matched to requirement
- StoppedSequence stoppedAcceptable evidence received; no further reminders
Proposed MVP
The focused toolkit for an evidence-verified close.
The MVP is intentionally bounded to one lender, one workflow, and one checklist format during an initial pilot.
Checklist and workspace setup
- Import one lender’s Excel or Word closing checklist.
- Convert checklist rows into structured requirements.
- Track owner, due date, status, accepted-evidence criteria, and notes.
- Support one lender, one workflow, and one checklist format at a time during the initial pilot.
Document intake
- Lender-branded borrower upload link.
- Internal team uploads.
- Ingestion designed for PDFs, images, spreadsheets, and Word files.
- File classification and duplicate detection.
Evidence matching and extraction
- Match documents to checklist requirements.
- Link each conclusion to the exact source page or section.
- Extract a narrow set of mechanical facts: entity names, dates, expiration, signatures, completeness, document type, and key identifiers.
- Expose confidence and unsupported extraction results.
Verification and statuses
- Check for missing pages and missing signatures.
- Check expiration and date relationships.
- Check wrong-entity evidence.
- Detect duplicates and cross-document inconsistencies.
- Classify each requirement as verified, missing, defective, conflicting, unsupported, or needs review.
- Keep rules-based checks distinct from model-assisted judgments.
Exceptions and follow-up
- Unified exception queue.
- Reason, severity, evidence, owner, and recommended next action for each exception.
- Context-aware borrower requests generated from the exact missing, defective, or conflicting requirement.
- Automated material follow-up sequences with configurable timing, reminder cadence, escalation paths, and borrower-facing language.
- Stop or update a sequence when acceptable evidence is received, the requirement changes, or a reviewer resolves the exception.
- Lender-defined communication policies: pre-approved routine reminders can send automatically, while sensitive, ambiguous, adverse, or out-of-policy messages require analyst approval.
- Record every request, reminder, response, escalation, and manual intervention in the activity history.
- Dashboard view of blockers, overdue requests, unresolved exceptions, and recent activity.
Review and decision control
- Reviewer approve, reject, comment, or waive actions.
- Required rationale for waivers or other defined decisions.
- Human ownership of adverse findings, legal interpretation, waivers, and final clear-to-close.
- Version-aware decision history so changed evidence can trigger re-review.
Outputs and recordkeeping
- Evidence matrix export.
- Organized closing binder export.
- Activity history of uploads, classifications, messages, status changes, approvals, and waivers.
- Evidence-linked handoff record for internal review.
White-labeling
- Lender logo, name, and colors.
- Branded upload and request experience.
- Branded borrower-facing communications.
- Configurable lender terminology and guidance copy.
Illustrative example · not customer data
Review the complete MVPException queue
| Item | Reason | Priority | Owner | Next action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guaranty | MissingGuarantor signature absent | P2 | Deal ops | Request signed page |
| Insurance certificate | DefectiveExpires before close | P1 | Credit reviewer | Request renewal |
| Entity documents | ConflictingLegal name differs | P1 | Counsel | Resolve name conflict |
| Coverage schedule | UnsupportedThreshold cannot be supported | P2 | Credit reviewer | Review requirement |
Current-stack fit
Works with the tools you already use.
Dilit is designed to begin with the lender’s current checklist, documents, email, and storage. It adds a reviewable evidence layer without positioning itself as a replacement system.
- Begin with an existing Word or Excel checklist.
- Accept the PDF, image, spreadsheet, and Word files teams already handle.
- Support borrower-facing intake and internal uploads without becoming a new system of record.
- Return an evidence matrix, closing binder, and activity history to the existing close process.
- Productize deeper integrations only where repeated use justifies them.
The work that changes is the manual matching, repeated status reconciliation, and follow-up chasing between those systems. The accountable close remains with the lender.
Discuss your current workflowIllustrative example · not customer data
Current-stack input and output map
Existing inputs
- Closing checklist
- Document folder
- Borrower uploads
Dilit evidence workflow
Reviewable outputs
- Evidence matrix
- Closing binder
- Activity history
White-label experience
Your closing experience. Your brand.
The proposed MVP is intended to give borrowers and counterparties a seamless, lender-branded experience while Dilit manages the evidence workflow behind the scenes.
- Lender logo, name, colors, and borrower-facing presentation.
- Branded upload links and request pages.
- Branded email templates and follow-up communications.
- Configurable lender terminology, instructions, and help text.
- Brand continuity across request, upload, status, and correction flows.
- Logically separated lender configurations and borrower experiences.
Custom domains, lender sending domains, removal of all attribution, localization, bespoke authentication, and per-fund sub-brands require separate validation before they can be offered.
See a branded exampleIllustrative example · not customer dataMeridian Credit Partners Halstead Specialty Finance
Illustrative white-label configuration
Request open · Due 12 Mar
Upload renewed insurance certificate
Your deal team will review the updated policy.
Choose fileRequest open · Due 12 Mar
Upload renewed insurance certificate
Your deal team will review the updated policy.
Choose fileTrust and control
Evidence behind every status. People behind every decision.
Dilit is designed around a control model that makes the source, uncertainty, follow-up, and accountable human decision visible.
Evidence you can trace
- Each extracted fact and status points back to its source document and exact page or section.
- Rules-based checks remain distinct from model-assisted review.
- Low-confidence, conflicting, and unsupported conclusions remain visibly open rather than being silently resolved.
Automation with brakes
- Mechanical checks are bounded to dates, signatures, entities, completeness, duplicates, and consistency.
- People retain authority over borrower communications that are sensitive or ambiguous, adverse findings, legal interpretation, waivers, and final closing readiness.
- Routine reminders can follow lender-approved templates, cadence, stop conditions, and escalation rules, with a human gate where policy requires one.
- Actions remain attributable with their rationale and underlying evidence version.
Security posture, stated plainly
- Role-based access, tenant isolation, encryption, and retention and deletion controls are design requirements. Present-tense claims will be published only after implementation and verification.
- Any live-deal evaluation remains subject to a separate security, privacy, and scope review.
- Our team has experience building HIPAA-regulated workflows and systems that handle protected information. That experience informs our security mindset; it is not a claim that Dilit is HIPAA compliant or certified.
Illustrative example · not customer data
Review the control modelDecision history
- ApprovedCurrent
- Closing analystEntity chart v310 Mar · 09:14Names match the requirement.
- Waiver recordedCurrent
- Credit leadCoverage schedule v210 Mar · 11:06Approved exception with stated condition.
- Re-review requiredStale
- System flagInsurance certificate v411 Mar · 08:31Underlying evidence changed after review.
Illustrative evidence review
See exactly why an item needs attention.
A reviewer can see the requirement, the exact source, each bounded check, the unresolved point, and the accountable next decision in one reading order.
Illustrative example · not customer data
Certificate of Liability Insurance
Fictional record · COI p.1
- Named insured
- Northfield Components LLC
- Policy period
- 01 Mar 2027 – 01 Mar 2028
- Coverage
- See attached endorsement
Verification checks
- Named insuredMatches expected borrower entityVerified
- ExpirationBefore 15 Mar 2028 target closeDefective
- Coverage thresholdEndorsement remains ambiguousNeeds review
Accountable decision
- Assigned to
- Credit reviewer
- Recommended next action
- Request renewed certificate
- Decision gate
- Human review and approval required
- Record
- Rationale retained with the evidence version
This example illustrates workflow behavior. It is not legal advice or evidence of a live deployment.
A bounded first evaluation
See what Dilit could surface in a completed deal.
Start with a redacted historical checklist and document set. See the exceptions and evidence structure Dilit is designed to produce.
- Redacted closing checklist
- Historical document folder
- Final closing output for comparison
Send a redacted historical checklist and document set. We will walk the proposed exception queue and evidence matrix with you.
Request a sample close reviewOr email hello@scalingtrades.com
Frequently asked questions
Questions stakeholders may ask.
Is Dilit a borrower portal?
It is designed to include a branded intake experience, but the core value is the evidence-and-exception workflow behind it: matching documents to requirements, surfacing defects and conflicts, recording decisions, and preparing a reviewable closing record.
Does Dilit decide when a deal is clear to close?
No. It is designed to organize evidence, run bounded checks, and focus reviewer attention. The lender’s authorized team retains final decision authority.
Does it replace our current systems?
The MVP starts from the lender’s current checklist and files and returns useful closing outputs. It is not positioned as a replacement for the LOS, CRM, DMS, accounting, or servicing platform.
What documents can it handle?
The proposed MVP is designed for PDF, image, spreadsheet, and Word files. Exact support, quality limits, and exception handling require product validation before publication as present capability.
What happens when the evidence is unclear?
The item remains visible as conflicting, unsupported, or needing review. Dilit is designed to show the source, uncertainty, owner, and recommended next action rather than silently resolving ambiguity.
Can the experience use our brand?
The MVP is intended to support lender logo, colors, name, terminology, request pages, upload flow, and borrower-facing communications. Custom domains and advanced white-label details require separate validation.
How are approvals and waivers handled?
The proposed workflow lets authorized reviewers approve, reject, comment, or waive, with the action, rationale, evidence version, and history retained for review.
What is the safest first evaluation?
A retrospective review using a redacted, completed transaction. That lets the team compare the proposed evidence matrix and exception queue against a known closing record before considering live-deal use.