Creditcrest Record
The file a lender keeps. Canonical serialisation, SHA-256, the hash travelling with the content, amendments that append rather than overwrite. It proves the content has not changed since it was sealed. It does not prove the content was true when written, and says so.
Every figure in this example is invented. There is no borrower, no bank statement and no lender: the transactions below were generated from the numbers in the form so that the policy engine has a statement to read, which is what it reads. The record below was sealed to answer this request and is not stored anywhere; a lender keeps theirs.
The credit policy replayed here is the one that says this at the top of itself. models/policies/example-au.txt is an example. Its thresholds are round numbers chosen to make the mechanism visible. They are not advice, not a market standard and not anybody’s policy. A real policy is written by a lender's credit risk function against their own book and signed off by people whose names go on it.
Sealed against round numbers — models/policies/example-au.txt. Written to make the mechanism visible: a $300 surplus floor, a 45 per cent debt service ceiling, thresholds a reader can do in their head while watching the replay work.
Or run the same application against In the shape of a published guideline.
What a seal proves, and what it does not. The content is serialised in a canonical form — object keys sorted, all the way down — hashed with SHA-256, and the hash travels with the content. Anyone can recompute it and see whether the two agree. That proves the content has not been altered since it was sealed. It does not prove the content was true when it was written, and nothing here pretends otherwise.
Why not a database row. A row proves what the database says now. The question a lender is actually asked is what they had in front of them at the time.
Sealed
Record 1 — sealed 31 May 2026
- Sealed at
- 31 May 2026 at 04:12 UTC
- Algorithm
- SHA-256
- Applicant reference
- EXAMPLE-0001
- Product
- Example unsecured personal loan — invented, not a product anybody sells
- Supersedes
- nothing — this is the first record in the chain
Hash: 4fa35da820dec1886b50e721aad863a09334bb038020a212aa1b2a28d0538dd8
What was asked, and what was answered
| Asked | Answered | When |
|---|---|---|
| What do you spend each month, excluding rent and existing repayments? | $1,400 a month. | 31 May 2026 at 03:50 UTC |
| Is there any commitment that does not appear on the statement supplied? | No. | 31 May 2026 at 03:52 UTC |
The conclusion, which is the assessor's and not the software's
- Verdict
- more_information — The assessor did not conclude either way and has asked for more information.
- Reasons
- The policy in force on 2026-05-31 was 2026.03. All 9 conditions in 2026.03 were met on the evidence supplied. 2 tests send this application to a person to look at. The referral tests that ask for a person are: dti-band, gambling. I have asked the applicant about the spending behind the referral and have not yet had an answer.
- By
- Dana Okafor
- At
- 31 May 2026 at 04:10 UTC
The evidence this record carries
- Statement period
- 5 December 2025 to 29 May 2026
- Transactions read
- 77
- Share identified
- 100%
- Verified monthly income
- $4,799.99
- Of which from unnamed payers
- $0.00
- Monthly commitments
- $1,200.00
- Monthly outgoings
- $2,958.47
- Reading engine
- 1.0.0
- Assessment rate
- 15.90%
- Assessed income
- $4,799.99
- Living expenses
- $2,700.00
- Commitments
- $1,200.00
- Repayment on the proposed loan
- $436.77
- Monthly surplus
- $463.22
- Complete
- yes
- Serviceability engine
- 1.0.0
| Step | What | Amount | The rule that produced it |
|---|---|---|---|
| income | DIRECT CREDIT 049211 ACME LOGISTICS PAYROLL | $4,799.99 | Counted in full |
| expenses | Living expenses | -$2,700.00 | The highest of the available figures, which here was the lender’s benchmark for this household |
| commitment | RENT HARCOURTS ELSTERNWICK REF 88210 | -$1,200.00 | Found on the statement, 6 payments monthly |
| proposed | The proposed personal loan | -$436.77 | Assessed at 15.90% — the offered rate plus a 3.0% buffer, with a 5.25% floor |
The debt-to-income ratio this file was assessed on
- Debt counted
- $495,000.00
- Gross annual income
- $75,000.00
- Debt to income
- 6.6 times
- Where it came from
- the figures typed into the form on this page, which is the lender’s own definition of what counts
Supplied rather than computed, and carried here for the same reason the policy hash is: a file whose debt-to-income rule decided the answer has to hold the ratio that rule read, or the outcome in it cannot be checked. It is inside the hash like everything else.
The declared expenses and the benchmark this file was assessed against
- Declared each month
- $1,400.00
- The lender’s household benchmark
- $2,700.00
- Declared as a share of the benchmark
- 51.85%
- Where they came from
- the two figures typed into the form on this page: what the applicant declared, and the lender’s own household expenditure benchmark
Both supplied, like the ratio above. The assessment uses the HIGHEST of declared, benchmark and observed and reports one number; a policy that waives a minimum surplus where declared expenses reach a multiple of the benchmark is asking about these two separately, so the file carries them separately. This repository holds no benchmark table: the Household Expenditure Measure is licensed from the Melbourne Institute and the benchmark is the lender's.
The policy version this file was assessed under
- Policy
- example-unsecured-au
- Version
- 2026.03
- Effective
- 1 March 2026
- Hash of the rules that ran
- 8400e4ccd45d6d4696e20f87c41cc6996ab7b9dc25bd429cc5c32316c4727caa
- Conditions met
- yes
- What the run said
- All 9 conditions in 2026.03 were met on the evidence supplied. 2 tests send this application to a person to look at.
Creditcrest Record has no named field for the policy version a file was assessed under, so this sits in the record's extra section. It is inside the hash like everything else, which is the part that matters: the hash above is the one decisioning.js computed over that version's own bytes, so which rules produced this file is provable rather than asserted.
Verified
The content was re-serialised and re-hashed just now, and the result is compared with the hash the record was sealed with.
- Sealed with
- 4fa35da820dec1886b50e721aad863a09334bb038020a212aa1b2a28d0538dd8
- Recomputed now
- 4fa35da820dec1886b50e721aad863a09334bb038020a212aa1b2a28d0538dd8
- Agree
- yes
- Reason
- The content matches the hash it was sealed with.
Now edit it
The verification failing is the feature, so here it is failing. One field of the sealed record above is changed — nothing else — and the same check is run again.
Change something else and watch it again: Raise the monthly surplus by $1Lower the debt-to-income ratio by oneChange the assessor’s conclusionPut a different name on itBackdate the sealDelete the evidence section
The figure the whole assessment turns on, moved by the smallest amount that is still a change.
- Before
- assessment.monthlySurplus = 463.22
- After
- assessment.monthlySurplus = 464.22
- Sealed with
- 4fa35da820dec1886b50e721aad863a09334bb038020a212aa1b2a28d0538dd8
- Recomputed after the edit
- 0e7280ab499340a5a217a708ee71ed3d9b58de2a66d45fe5db390e10dc633c28
- Agree
- no
- What the check says
- The content does not match the hash it was sealed with, so it has changed since.
The edit was detected. A single character anywhere inside the content — a dollar on a surplus, a name, the second the file was sealed — changes the hash completely, which is the property being relied on.
Record 1 (4fa35da820de): The content does not match the hash it was sealed with, so it has changed since.
The amendment below still verifies on its own after this edit, and that is the shape of the mechanism rather than a hole in it: each link proves its own content, and the chain is what proves the links belong together. It is checked as well, and it is the chain that reports the break.
The edited record in full, so the change can be found by eye
The same record, with one field changed
- Sealed at
- 31 May 2026 at 04:12 UTC
- Algorithm
- SHA-256
- Applicant reference
- EXAMPLE-0001
- Product
- Example unsecured personal loan — invented, not a product anybody sells
- Supersedes
- nothing — this is the first record in the chain
Hash: 4fa35da820dec1886b50e721aad863a09334bb038020a212aa1b2a28d0538dd8
What was asked, and what was answered
| Asked | Answered | When |
|---|---|---|
| What do you spend each month, excluding rent and existing repayments? | $1,400 a month. | 31 May 2026 at 03:50 UTC |
| Is there any commitment that does not appear on the statement supplied? | No. | 31 May 2026 at 03:52 UTC |
The conclusion, which is the assessor's and not the software's
- Verdict
- more_information — The assessor did not conclude either way and has asked for more information.
- Reasons
- The policy in force on 2026-05-31 was 2026.03. All 9 conditions in 2026.03 were met on the evidence supplied. 2 tests send this application to a person to look at. The referral tests that ask for a person are: dti-band, gambling. I have asked the applicant about the spending behind the referral and have not yet had an answer.
- By
- Dana Okafor
- At
- 31 May 2026 at 04:10 UTC
The evidence this record carries
- Statement period
- 5 December 2025 to 29 May 2026
- Transactions read
- 77
- Share identified
- 100%
- Verified monthly income
- $4,799.99
- Of which from unnamed payers
- $0.00
- Monthly commitments
- $1,200.00
- Monthly outgoings
- $2,958.47
- Reading engine
- 1.0.0
- Assessment rate
- 15.90%
- Assessed income
- $4,799.99
- Living expenses
- $2,700.00
- Commitments
- $1,200.00
- Repayment on the proposed loan
- $436.77
- Monthly surplus
- $464.22
- Complete
- yes
- Serviceability engine
- 1.0.0
| Step | What | Amount | The rule that produced it |
|---|---|---|---|
| income | DIRECT CREDIT 049211 ACME LOGISTICS PAYROLL | $4,799.99 | Counted in full |
| expenses | Living expenses | -$2,700.00 | The highest of the available figures, which here was the lender’s benchmark for this household |
| commitment | RENT HARCOURTS ELSTERNWICK REF 88210 | -$1,200.00 | Found on the statement, 6 payments monthly |
| proposed | The proposed personal loan | -$436.77 | Assessed at 15.90% — the offered rate plus a 3.0% buffer, with a 5.25% floor |
The debt-to-income ratio this file was assessed on
- Debt counted
- $495,000.00
- Gross annual income
- $75,000.00
- Debt to income
- 6.6 times
- Where it came from
- the figures typed into the form on this page, which is the lender’s own definition of what counts
Supplied rather than computed, and carried here for the same reason the policy hash is: a file whose debt-to-income rule decided the answer has to hold the ratio that rule read, or the outcome in it cannot be checked. It is inside the hash like everything else.
The declared expenses and the benchmark this file was assessed against
- Declared each month
- $1,400.00
- The lender’s household benchmark
- $2,700.00
- Declared as a share of the benchmark
- 51.85%
- Where they came from
- the two figures typed into the form on this page: what the applicant declared, and the lender’s own household expenditure benchmark
Both supplied, like the ratio above. The assessment uses the HIGHEST of declared, benchmark and observed and reports one number; a policy that waives a minimum surplus where declared expenses reach a multiple of the benchmark is asking about these two separately, so the file carries them separately. This repository holds no benchmark table: the Household Expenditure Measure is licensed from the Melbourne Institute and the benchmark is the lender's.
The policy version this file was assessed under
- Policy
- example-unsecured-au
- Version
- 2026.03
- Effective
- 1 March 2026
- Hash of the rules that ran
- 8400e4ccd45d6d4696e20f87c41cc6996ab7b9dc25bd429cc5c32316c4727caa
- Conditions met
- yes
- What the run said
- All 9 conditions in 2026.03 were met on the evidence supplied. 2 tests send this application to a person to look at.
Creditcrest Record has no named field for the policy version a file was assessed under, so this sits in the record's extra section. It is inside the hash like everything else, which is the part that matters: the hash above is the one decisioning.js computed over that version's own bytes, so which rules produced this file is provable rather than asserted.
An amendment appends. It never overwrites.
When something turns out to be wrong — or, as here, when the question a referral test asked finally gets an answer — the fix is a new record naming the hash of the one it supersedes. The original stays exactly as it was. A record that could be edited in place would be worth precisely as much as no record.
Record 1 — sealed 31 May 2026 at 04:12 UTC
- Sealed at
- 31 May 2026 at 04:12 UTC
- Algorithm
- SHA-256
- Applicant reference
- EXAMPLE-0001
- Product
- Example unsecured personal loan — invented, not a product anybody sells
- Supersedes
- nothing — this is the first record in the chain
Hash: 4fa35da820dec1886b50e721aad863a09334bb038020a212aa1b2a28d0538dd8
What was asked, and what was answered
Asked Answered When What do you spend each month, excluding rent and existing repayments? $1,400 a month. 31 May 2026 at 03:50 UTC Is there any commitment that does not appear on the statement supplied? No. 31 May 2026 at 03:52 UTC The conclusion, which is the assessor's and not the software's
- Verdict
- more_information — The assessor did not conclude either way and has asked for more information.
- Reasons
- The policy in force on 2026-05-31 was 2026.03. All 9 conditions in 2026.03 were met on the evidence supplied. 2 tests send this application to a person to look at. The referral tests that ask for a person are: dti-band, gambling. I have asked the applicant about the spending behind the referral and have not yet had an answer.
- By
- Dana Okafor
- At
- 31 May 2026 at 04:10 UTC
The evidence this record carries
- Statement period
- 5 December 2025 to 29 May 2026
- Transactions read
- 77
- Share identified
- 100%
- Verified monthly income
- $4,799.99
- Of which from unnamed payers
- $0.00
- Monthly commitments
- $1,200.00
- Monthly outgoings
- $2,958.47
- Reading engine
- 1.0.0
- Assessment rate
- 15.90%
- Assessed income
- $4,799.99
- Living expenses
- $2,700.00
- Commitments
- $1,200.00
- Repayment on the proposed loan
- $436.77
- Monthly surplus
- $463.22
- Complete
- yes
- Serviceability engine
- 1.0.0
Step What Amount The rule that produced it income DIRECT CREDIT 049211 ACME LOGISTICS PAYROLL $4,799.99 Counted in full expenses Living expenses -$2,700.00 The highest of the available figures, which here was the lender’s benchmark for this household commitment RENT HARCOURTS ELSTERNWICK REF 88210 -$1,200.00 Found on the statement, 6 payments monthly proposed The proposed personal loan -$436.77 Assessed at 15.90% — the offered rate plus a 3.0% buffer, with a 5.25% floor The debt-to-income ratio this file was assessed on
- Debt counted
- $495,000.00
- Gross annual income
- $75,000.00
- Debt to income
- 6.6 times
- Where it came from
- the figures typed into the form on this page, which is the lender’s own definition of what counts
Supplied rather than computed, and carried here for the same reason the policy hash is: a file whose debt-to-income rule decided the answer has to hold the ratio that rule read, or the outcome in it cannot be checked. It is inside the hash like everything else.
The declared expenses and the benchmark this file was assessed against
- Declared each month
- $1,400.00
- The lender’s household benchmark
- $2,700.00
- Declared as a share of the benchmark
- 51.85%
- Where they came from
- the two figures typed into the form on this page: what the applicant declared, and the lender’s own household expenditure benchmark
Both supplied, like the ratio above. The assessment uses the HIGHEST of declared, benchmark and observed and reports one number; a policy that waives a minimum surplus where declared expenses reach a multiple of the benchmark is asking about these two separately, so the file carries them separately. This repository holds no benchmark table: the Household Expenditure Measure is licensed from the Melbourne Institute and the benchmark is the lender's.
The policy version this file was assessed under
- Policy
- example-unsecured-au
- Version
- 2026.03
- Effective
- 1 March 2026
- Hash of the rules that ran
- 8400e4ccd45d6d4696e20f87c41cc6996ab7b9dc25bd429cc5c32316c4727caa
- Conditions met
- yes
- What the run said
- All 9 conditions in 2026.03 were met on the evidence supplied. 2 tests send this application to a person to look at.
Creditcrest Record has no named field for the policy version a file was assessed under, so this sits in the record's
extrasection. It is inside the hash like everything else, which is the part that matters: the hash above is the onedecisioning.jscomputed over that version's own bytes, so which rules produced this file is provable rather than asserted.Record 2 — sealed 6 June 2026 at 23:41 UTC
- Sealed at
- 6 June 2026 at 23:41 UTC
- Algorithm
- SHA-256
- Applicant reference
- EXAMPLE-0001
- Product
- Example unsecured personal loan — invented, not a product anybody sells
- Supersedes
- 4fa35da820dec1886b50e721aad863a09334bb038020a212aa1b2a28d0538dd8
Hash: 41921db1b96f1a641fb22db835f5b874d2ebd4a65c2859fc685df62484ac3b76
Why this amendment was madeThe applicant answered the question the referral test asked, and the conclusion follows from the answer.
What was asked, and what was answered
Asked Answered When What do you spend each month, excluding rent and existing repayments? $1,400 a month. 31 May 2026 at 03:50 UTC Is there any commitment that does not appear on the statement supplied? No. 31 May 2026 at 03:52 UTC What is the regular payment to the wagering operator for? A syndicate the applicant contributes to fortnightly; they say it is capped and have agreed to close it before settlement. 6 June 2026 at 23:20 UTC The conclusion, which is the assessor's and not the software's
- Verdict
- not_unsuitable — The assessor concluded the credit contract is not unsuitable for this applicant.
- Reasons
- The applicant has answered the question about the wagering payments and has agreed to close the arrangement. On that answer and on the assessment in this file I conclude the contract is not unsuitable. This is my conclusion and not the software’s.
- By
- Dana Okafor
- At
- 6 June 2026 at 23:41 UTC
The evidence this record carries
- Statement period
- 5 December 2025 to 29 May 2026
- Transactions read
- 77
- Share identified
- 100%
- Verified monthly income
- $4,799.99
- Of which from unnamed payers
- $0.00
- Monthly commitments
- $1,200.00
- Monthly outgoings
- $2,958.47
- Reading engine
- 1.0.0
- Assessment rate
- 15.90%
- Assessed income
- $4,799.99
- Living expenses
- $2,700.00
- Commitments
- $1,200.00
- Repayment on the proposed loan
- $436.77
- Monthly surplus
- $463.22
- Complete
- yes
- Serviceability engine
- 1.0.0
Step What Amount The rule that produced it income DIRECT CREDIT 049211 ACME LOGISTICS PAYROLL $4,799.99 Counted in full expenses Living expenses -$2,700.00 The highest of the available figures, which here was the lender’s benchmark for this household commitment RENT HARCOURTS ELSTERNWICK REF 88210 -$1,200.00 Found on the statement, 6 payments monthly proposed The proposed personal loan -$436.77 Assessed at 15.90% — the offered rate plus a 3.0% buffer, with a 5.25% floor The debt-to-income ratio this file was assessed on
- Debt counted
- $495,000.00
- Gross annual income
- $75,000.00
- Debt to income
- 6.6 times
- Where it came from
- the figures typed into the form on this page, which is the lender’s own definition of what counts
Supplied rather than computed, and carried here for the same reason the policy hash is: a file whose debt-to-income rule decided the answer has to hold the ratio that rule read, or the outcome in it cannot be checked. It is inside the hash like everything else.
The declared expenses and the benchmark this file was assessed against
- Declared each month
- $1,400.00
- The lender’s household benchmark
- $2,700.00
- Declared as a share of the benchmark
- 51.85%
- Where they came from
- the two figures typed into the form on this page: what the applicant declared, and the lender’s own household expenditure benchmark
Both supplied, like the ratio above. The assessment uses the HIGHEST of declared, benchmark and observed and reports one number; a policy that waives a minimum surplus where declared expenses reach a multiple of the benchmark is asking about these two separately, so the file carries them separately. This repository holds no benchmark table: the Household Expenditure Measure is licensed from the Melbourne Institute and the benchmark is the lender's.
The policy version this file was assessed under
- Policy
- example-unsecured-au
- Version
- 2026.03
- Effective
- 1 March 2026
- Hash of the rules that ran
- 8400e4ccd45d6d4696e20f87c41cc6996ab7b9dc25bd429cc5c32316c4727caa
- Conditions met
- yes
- What the run said
- All 9 conditions in 2026.03 were met on the evidence supplied. 2 tests send this application to a person to look at.
Creditcrest Record has no named field for the policy version a file was assessed under, so this sits in the record's
extrasection. It is inside the hash like everything else, which is the part that matters: the hash above is the onedecisioning.jscomputed over that version's own bytes, so which rules produced this file is provable rather than asserted.
Record 1, 31 May 2026 at 04:10 UTC
more_information — The policy in force on 2026-05-31 was 2026.03. All 9 conditions in 2026.03 were met on the evidence supplied. 2 tests send this application to a person to look at. The referral tests that ask for a person are: dti-band, gambling. I have asked the applicant about the spending behind the referral and have not yet had an answer.
Record 2, 6 June 2026 at 23:41 UTC
not_unsuitable — The applicant has answered the question about the wagering payments and has agreed to close the arrangement. On that answer and on the assessment in this file I conclude the contract is not unsuitable. This is my conclusion and not the software’s.
The first one is still there, with its own timestamp, and it says what it said on the day. Nothing was rewritten: the second record carries the hash of the first in its supersedes field, which is what makes the pair a history rather than two files.
The chain, checked
- Records in the chain
- 2
- Each still hashes to its own id
- yes
- Each points at the one before it
- yes
- Problems
- none
What the software will not write
The conclusion. A record has a place for one and holds whatever the assessor put there, attributed to them by name. This engine does not produce it, does not suggest it, and refuses to seal a record whose conclusion claims to have come from the software — engine, system, model, AI assistant, generated and a dozen other spellings are all refused, because a person's name on the conclusion is the one thing keeping this on the right side of a line that a competitor selling auto-generated file notes has already crossed.
An approval. The four verdicts a record may carry are not_unsuitable, unsuitable, more_information and withdrawn, because approval is not the question the law asks.
The assessor named in the example above, Dana Okafor, does not exist. Every figure in this example is invented. There is no borrower, no bank statement and no lender: the transactions below were generated from the numbers in the form so that the policy engine has a statement to read, which is what it reads.