One application, against the policy in force on the day it was assessed and against today’s.
A referral sends the application to a person and is counted apart from a failed condition. The boxes count every test in the version; the sentence above counts only those that must be met.
APRA’s debt-to-income limit caps the mix of a lender’s book. It does not prohibit a borrower, and no threshold here is APRA’s rule.
surplus Met → Not met
31 May 2026monthly surplus at least $300
10 November 2026monthly surplus at least $600
On 31 May 2026 that condition was Met; on 10 November 2026, on the same evidence, it is Not met. Not met. monthly surplus is $463.22. This rule requires at least $600. A surplus at the assessed rate is what the applicant has left if the rate moves against them. Raised in June after a portfolio review.
dti-ceiling Met → Not met
31 May 2026debt to income at most 7
10 November 2026debt to income at most 6
On 31 May 2026 that condition was Met; on 10 November 2026, on the same evidence, it is Not met. Not met. debt to income is 6.6 times. This rule requires no more than 6 times. Every debt this lender counts, including the loan applied for, as a multiple of gross annual income. Lowered from seven in June. This is the lender's own ceiling. It is not APRA's cap, which limits the share of a lender's new mortgage book written above a ratio and says nothing about whether any one borrower may be lent to.
dti-band Not met → Met
31 May 2026debt to income not between 6.5 and 7
10 November 2026debt to income not between 5.5 and 6.5
On 31 May 2026 that condition was Not met; on 10 November 2026, on the same evidence, it is Met. Met. debt to income is 6.6 times. This referral test requires it to be outside the band 5.5 times to 6.5 times.
Between 2026.03 and 2026.06: 4 changed, 9 unchanged.
Debt to income
Debt to income, and whose threshold it is
The cap APRA sets is on the lender's book. The threshold in this policy is the lender's own.
From February 2026 APRA limits an authorised deposit-taking institution to writing no more than 20 per cent of its new residential mortgage lending, measured each quarter and counted separately for owner-occupier and investor lending, at a debt-to-income ratio of six or more. That caps the mix of a lender’s own book. It does not prohibit a borrower: it does not say that a person at a ratio of six may not be lent to, and no threshold on this surface is APRA’s rule. What a lender does about a portfolio limit — a ceiling, a referral band, a delegation level, or nothing at all — is that lender’s own credit policy, which is the thing versioned and hashed here.
Two lenders with the same applicant in front of them may write that policy differently, and a lender close to its quarterly cap may write it differently in September than it did in June. That is the thing this surface holds, and it is the reason a threshold needs a date on it.
The example policy replayed here is invented consumer lending, which APRA's mortgage measure does not reach at all. 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. Debt to income is in the example because it is a threshold lenders are moving this year, and a threshold that moves is exactly what a replay is for.
This ratio was supplied. This software does not compute one, and the reason is not a limitation. A debt-to-income ratio is measured against gross income, and a bank statement shows what was credited to an account, which is take-home pay; there is no tax table in this repository and there will not be one. And what counts as debt — a card at its limit or at its balance, a HELP debt, a guarantee — is a definition the lender writes. Both of those belong to the lender, so the ratio arrives as an input with the two figures behind it and the engine reports what it was handed.
- Debt counted
- $495,000.00 — including the $18,000.00 applied for
- Gross annual income
- $75,000.00 before tax, which is not the $4,800.00 a month credited to the account
- Debt to income
- 6.6 times — $495,000.00 ÷ $75,000.00
- Where it came from
- the two figures typed into the form above
“Debt to income” and “loan to income” are two different figures and this policy carries both. Loan to income is the principal applied for as a multiple of assessed annual income, and the engine works it out from the application and the assessment. Debt to income is every debt the lender counts, this loan included, over gross annual income. A policy written against the wrong one of those would look entirely reasonable on the page.
A referral band reads backwards the first time. A refer line states the condition under which the application does not go to a person. So a lender who wants a ratio in the band this policy refers at looked at by a human writes it as the requirement to be outside that band:
debt to income not between 5.5 and 6.5
Both ends of a band are included, which is what “between” means when a person says it out loud. The format is documented in the policy file itself, where the person editing it will be.
Every condition, both versions (14)
evidence-complete this engine’s own condition, not the policy’s
What it measures: Whether every input a complete serviceability assessment needs was actually supplied
As assessed on 31 May 2026
Met
assessment complete is true
Met. The serviceability assessment reports that every input a complete assessment needs was supplied.
As the policy stands, 10 November 2026
Met
assessment complete is true
Met. The serviceability assessment reports that every input a complete assessment needs was supplied.
Why the policy has this condition, in the policy's own words: Rules below read figures from the serviceability assessment. If that assessment is itself incomplete, so is every conclusion drawn from it.
What this condition read, and what it compared it against
The figure this condition read was true.
The figures behind it
- Gaps
- 1
- Complete
- yes
This figure comes out of the serviceability arithmetic. Every step of it, with its inputs and the rule that produced it, is under “The arithmetic” below.
surplus
What it measures: What is left each month once assessed income has met living expenses, commitments and the proposed repayment
As assessed on 31 May 2026
Met
monthly surplus at least $300
Met. monthly surplus is $463.22. This rule requires at least $300.
As the policy stands, 10 November 2026
Not met
monthly surplus at least $600
Not met. monthly surplus is $463.22. This rule requires at least $600. A surplus at the assessed rate is what the applicant has left if the rate moves against them. Raised in June after a portfolio review.
The clause changed. It read “monthly surplus at least $300” and now reads “monthly surplus at least $600”. That change is what moved the answer.
Why the policy had this condition, as assessed on 31 may 2026: A surplus at the assessed rate is what the applicant has left if the rate moves against them. A figure near zero is arithmetically true and nobody should lend on it.
Why it has it as the policy stands, 10 november 2026: A surplus at the assessed rate is what the applicant has left if the rate moves against them. Raised in June after a portfolio review.
What this condition read, and what it compared it against
The figure this condition read was $463.22.
The figures behind it
- Assessed income
- 4,799.99
- Living expenses
- 2,700
- Commitments
- 1,200
- Proposed repayment
- 436.77
This figure comes out of the serviceability arithmetic. Every step of it, with its inputs and the rule that produced it, is under “The arithmetic” below.
surplus-ratio
What it measures: The monthly surplus as a share of assessed income
As assessed on 31 May 2026
Met
net surplus ratio at least 5%
Met. net surplus ratio is 9.65%. This rule requires at least 5%.
As the policy stands, 10 November 2026
Met
net surplus ratio at least 5%
Met. net surplus ratio is 9.65%. This rule requires at least 5%.
Why the policy has this condition, in the policy's own words: The same question as a share of income, so that a large income with large outgoings is not read as comfortable.
What this condition read, and what it compared it against
The figure this condition read was 9.65%.
The figures behind it
- Assessed income
- 4,799.99
- Living expenses
- 2,700
- Commitments
- 1,200
- Proposed repayment
- 436.77
This figure comes out of the serviceability arithmetic. Every step of it, with its inputs and the rule that produced it, is under “The arithmetic” below.
debt-service
What it measures: All repayments, existing and proposed, as a share of assessed income
As assessed on 31 May 2026
Met
debt service ratio at most 45%
Met. debt service ratio is 34.1%. This rule requires no more than 45%.
As the policy stands, 10 November 2026
Met
debt service ratio at most 45%
Met. debt service ratio is 34.1%. This rule requires no more than 45%.
Why the policy has this condition, in the policy's own words: Every repayment, existing and proposed, measured against assessed income.
What this condition read, and what it compared it against
The figure this condition read was 34.1%.
The figures behind it
- Assessed income
- 4,799.99
- Living expenses
- 2,700
- Commitments
- 1,200
- Proposed repayment
- 436.77
This figure comes out of the serviceability arithmetic. Every step of it, with its inputs and the rule that produced it, is under “The arithmetic” below.
loan-to-income
What it measures: The principal as a multiple of assessed annual income
As assessed on 31 May 2026
Met
loan to income at most 6
Met. loan to income is 0.31 times. This rule requires no more than 6 times.
As the policy stands, 10 November 2026
Met
loan to income at most 5
Met. loan to income is 0.31 times. This rule requires no more than 5 times.
The clause changed. It read “loan to income at most 6” and now reads “loan to income at most 5”. The answer did not move: on this application the figure sits on the same side of both thresholds.
Why the policy had this condition, as assessed on 31 may 2026: The principal as a multiple of assessed annual income.
Why it has it as the policy stands, 10 november 2026: The principal as a multiple of assessed annual income. Lowered in June.
What this condition read, and what it compared it against
The figure this condition read was 0.31 times.
The figures behind it
- Principal
- 18,000
- Assessed annual income
- 57,599.88
This figure comes out of the serviceability arithmetic. Every step of it, with its inputs and the rule that produced it, is under “The arithmetic” below.
dti-ceiling
What it measures: Every debt the lender counts, including the loan applied for, as a multiple of gross annual income — supplied, because gross income is not on a bank statement and what counts as debt is the lender’s own definition
As assessed on 31 May 2026
Met
debt to income at most 7
Met. debt to income is 6.6 times. This rule requires no more than 7 times.
As the policy stands, 10 November 2026
Not met
debt to income at most 6
Not met. debt to income is 6.6 times. This rule requires no more than 6 times. Every debt this lender counts, including the loan applied for, as a multiple of gross annual income. Lowered from seven in June. This is the lender's own ceiling. It is not APRA's cap, which limits the share of a lender's new mortgage book written above a ratio and says nothing about whether any one borrower may be lent to.
The clause changed. It read “debt to income at most 7” and now reads “debt to income at most 6”. That change is what moved the answer.
Why the policy had this condition, as assessed on 31 may 2026: Every debt this lender counts, including the loan applied for, as a multiple of gross annual income. This is the lender's own ceiling. It is not APRA's cap, which limits the share of a lender's new mortgage book written above a ratio and says nothing about whether any one borrower may be lent to.
Why it has it as the policy stands, 10 november 2026: Every debt this lender counts, including the loan applied for, as a multiple of gross annual income. Lowered from seven in June. This is the lender's own ceiling. It is not APRA's cap, which limits the share of a lender's new mortgage book written above a ratio and says nothing about whether any one borrower may be lent to.
What this condition read, and what it compared it against
The figure this condition read was 6.6 times.
The figures behind it
- Total debt
- 495,000
- Gross annual income
- 75,000
- Counted by
- the figures typed into the form on this page, which is the lender’s own definition of what counts
history
What it measures: How many days the statement covers, first transaction to last
As assessed on 31 May 2026
Met
statement days at least 90
Met. statement days is 176. This rule requires at least 90.
As the policy stands, 10 November 2026
Met
statement days at least 90
Met. statement days is 176. This rule requires at least 90.
Why the policy has this condition, in the policy's own words: Three months is the shortest period in which a fortnightly rhythm can be seen at all.
What this condition read, and what it compared it against
The figure this condition read was 176.
The figures behind it
- From
- 2025-12-05
- To
- 2026-05-29
coverage
What it measures: The share of transactions this software could identify
As assessed on 31 May 2026
Met
categorised share at least 80%
Met. categorised share is 100%. This rule requires at least 80%.
As the policy stands, 10 November 2026
Met
categorised share at least 80%
Met. categorised share is 100%. This rule requires at least 80%.
Why the policy has this condition, in the policy's own words: Below this, too much of the statement is unread for the expense picture to mean anything. The reading lists the payees it could not identify.
What this condition read, and what it compared it against
The figure this condition read was 100%.
The figures behind it
- Categorised
- 77
- Transactions
- 77
income
What it measures: How many separate regular income streams were identified
As assessed on 31 May 2026
Met
income streams at least 1
Met. income streams is 1. This rule requires at least 1.
As the policy stands, 10 November 2026
Met
income streams at least 1
Met. income streams is 1. This rule requires at least 1.
Why the policy has this condition, in the policy's own words: An assessment with no identified regular income is an assessment of nothing.
What this condition read, and what it compared it against
The figure this condition read was 1.
The figures behind it
- Verified monthly
- 4,799.99
The 1 row behind the figure
Where a row is a recurring arrangement rather than a single transaction, the date is its first payment and the amount is the monthly figure it was read as.
| Date | Description | Amount |
|---|
| 10 December 2025 |
DIRECT CREDIT 049211 ACME LOGISTICS PAYROLL |
$4,799.99 |
dti-band sends it to a person
What it measures: Every debt the lender counts, including the loan applied for, as a multiple of gross annual income — supplied, because gross income is not on a bank statement and what counts as debt is the lender’s own definition
As assessed on 31 May 2026
To a person
debt to income not between 6.5 and 7
Not met. debt to income is 6.6 times. This referral test requires it to be outside the band 6.5 times to 7 times. A ratio in the band below this lender's ceiling goes to a person rather than through. Read the polarity carefully: a refer states the condition under which the application does NOT go to a person, so the band a person looks at is the one written as "not between".
As the policy stands, 10 November 2026
Met
debt to income not between 5.5 and 6.5
Met. debt to income is 6.6 times. This referral test requires it to be outside the band 5.5 times to 6.5 times.
The clause changed. It read “debt to income not between 6.5 and 7” and now reads “debt to income not between 5.5 and 6.5”. That change is what moved the answer.
Why the policy had this condition, as assessed on 31 may 2026: A ratio in the band below this lender's ceiling goes to a person rather than through. Read the polarity carefully: a refer states the condition under which the application does NOT go to a person, so the band a person looks at is the one written as "not between".
Why it has it as the policy stands, 10 november 2026: A ratio in the band below this lender's ceiling goes to a person rather than through. The band was 6.5 to 7.0 in March and was lowered with the ceiling in June. Read the polarity carefully: a refer states the condition under which the application does NOT go to a person, so the band a person looks at is the one written as "not between".
What this condition read, and what it compared it against
The figure this condition read was 6.6 times.
The figures behind it
- Total debt
- 495,000
- Gross annual income
- 75,000
- Counted by
- the figures typed into the form on this page, which is the lender’s own definition of what counts
inferred-income sends it to a person
What it measures: The share of verified income that comes from credits whose description does not say they are income
As assessed on 31 May 2026
Met
inferred income share at most 50%
Met. inferred income share is 0%. This referral test requires no more than 50%.
As the policy stands, 10 November 2026
Met
inferred income share at most 50%
Met. inferred income share is 0%. This referral test requires no more than 50%.
Why the policy has this condition, in the policy's own words: Income counted because it repeats, from credits whose description does not name a payer, should be confirmed with the applicant before it carries an application.
What this condition read, and what it compared it against
The figure this condition read was 0%.
The figures behind it
- Inferred monthly
- 0
- Verified monthly
- 4,799.99
gambling sends it to a person
What it measures: Monthly spending in the gambling category
As assessed on 31 May 2026
To a person
spend on gambling at most $100
Not met. spend on gambling is $155.71. This referral test requires no more than $100. Not a reason in itself. It is a fact a person should see beside the rest of the file.
As the policy stands, 10 November 2026
To a person
spend on gambling at most $100
Not met. spend on gambling is $155.71. This referral test requires no more than $100. Not a reason in itself. It is a fact a person should see beside the rest of the file.
Why the policy has this condition, in the policy's own words: Not a reason in itself. It is a fact a person should see beside the rest of the file.
What this condition read, and what it compared it against
The figure this condition read was $155.71.
The figures behind it
- Total
- 899.99
- Count
- 13
- Months
- 5.78
The 13 rows behind the figure
Where a row is a recurring arrangement rather than a single transaction, the date is its first payment and the amount is the monthly figure it was read as.
| Date | Description | Amount |
|---|
| 11 December 2025 |
SPORTSBET DEPOSIT |
-$69.23 |
| 25 December 2025 |
SPORTSBET DEPOSIT |
-$69.23 |
| 8 January 2026 |
SPORTSBET DEPOSIT |
-$69.23 |
| 22 January 2026 |
SPORTSBET DEPOSIT |
-$69.23 |
| 5 February 2026 |
SPORTSBET DEPOSIT |
-$69.23 |
| 19 February 2026 |
SPORTSBET DEPOSIT |
-$69.23 |
| 5 March 2026 |
SPORTSBET DEPOSIT |
-$69.23 |
| 19 March 2026 |
SPORTSBET DEPOSIT |
-$69.23 |
| 2 April 2026 |
SPORTSBET DEPOSIT |
-$69.23 |
| 16 April 2026 |
SPORTSBET DEPOSIT |
-$69.23 |
| 30 April 2026 |
SPORTSBET DEPOSIT |
-$69.23 |
| 14 May 2026 |
SPORTSBET DEPOSIT |
-$69.23 |
| 28 May 2026 |
SPORTSBET DEPOSIT |
-$69.23 |
small-credit sends it to a person
What it measures: Whether the reading raised the small_amount_credit signal
As assessed on 31 May 2026
Met
signal small_amount_credit is absent
Met. signal small_amount_credit is absent. This referral test requires the signal to be absent.
As the policy stands, 10 November 2026
Met
signal small_amount_credit is absent
Met. signal small_amount_credit is absent. This referral test requires the signal to be absent.
Why the policy has this condition, in the policy's own words: Payments to businesses whose products are commonly small amount credit contracts. The rebuttable presumptions of unsuitability that used to attach to this were repealed in 2022, so this referral is this lender's own judgement and not a requirement of the Act.
What this condition read, and what it compared it against
The figure this condition read was absent.
dishonours sends it to a person
What it measures: Whether the reading raised the dishonours signal
As assessed on 31 May 2026
Met
signal dishonours is absent
Met. signal dishonours is absent. This referral test requires the signal to be absent.
As the policy stands, 10 November 2026
Met
signal dishonours is absent
Met. signal dishonours is absent. This referral test requires the signal to be absent.
Why the policy has this condition, in the policy's own words: Dishonour and overdrawn fees say something about the month to month that a monthly average does not.
What this condition read, and what it compared it against
The figure this condition read was absent.