Data-level QC tool
Are the liability fields present and consistent?
The liabilities section is populated and DTI is entered at 41.8%, inside the limit.
Field check passed
Evaluate Flightline
The tool that helped make the loanshouldn’t be the one that checks it.
Underwriting tools make good loans faster. Data-level QC tools confirm what the process recorded. Quality control exists to test the loan that was actually made, independently, against the documents. Use each for its job, and don’t let one stand in for another.
Three categories.Three different questions.
Each category is good at the question it was built for. The difference that matters in quality control is independence: whether the review tests the loan, or the record the process made of it.
| What each one does | Data-level QC tools | Pre-underwriting and underwriting tools | Flightline |
|---|---|---|---|
| What it reads | Loan data fields | Documents, to build the loan | The whole file, to test the loan that was made |
| The question it answers | Is the field present and consistent? | What should this loan’s numbers be? | Does the file support the loan as funded or delivered? |
| What it tests | Whether fields are present, formatted and inside limits | Whether the loan qualifies on the figures entered | The documents themselves: statements footed, income recomputed, and each document reconciled against the others |
| Where it sits | Wherever the data flows | Before and during underwriting | Prefunding and post-closing quality control |
| Independence | Checks the data the process produced | Part of the process being checked | Independent of the process that made the loan |
| What you receive | Pass and fail flags | Calculations and conditions for the loan decision | Findings with the evidence by page, the requirement and the effect on the loan, and a loan audit report for the file |
Where it fits.What changes, and what doesn’t.
Flightline is software your team runs. It does not replace your operating stack or your reviewers; it takes over the testing and the assembly of evidence, and hands your team findings to decide on.
What you keep
- Your loan origination system and your QC system of record
- Your QC plan, overlays and severity scale
- Your reviewers’ judgment: every finding is theirs to accept, waive or rebut
- The services you already order, such as reverifications
What Flightline takes over
- Running the tests that apply to each file, including the long ones
- Connecting evidence across documents, with the page for each fact
- Drafting each finding with its requirement and its effect on the loan
- Assembling the loan audit report
How files come in and findings go out
- Upload files one at a time, or a batch as a zip
- Or send them through the API, which takes files, not structured data
- Findings are worked in Flightline, where each response is recorded
- The sealed loan audit report is a PDF you keep with the loan file
One file, three questions.Each tool answers its own.
A personal loan opened shortly before closing never reached the application. Every field is present and every calculation is correct on the figures entered. The defect appears when the credit report, the application and the bank statement are tested against each other, which is the question quality control asks once the loan is made.
Underwriting tool
What is DTI from the liabilities entered?
DTI calculates to 41.8% from the debts on the application. Conditions cleared.
Approved as submitted
Flightline
Does the file support the loan as funded?
A $12,500 personal loan on the credit report is missing from the application. Its $384 payment moves DTI from 41.8% to 47.1%.
Open findingCredit p. 31003 p. 3Bank p. 2
Illustrative file. Names, pages and amounts are fictional. Category outputs are representative, not any specific product.
Use the same files.Inspect the differences.
Have your team compare Flightline’s findings with your existing review, and with the tools you use today. Judge the work, down to the evidence.
Choose files you have already closed
Include loans your team reviewed and knows well, with at least one where a defect surfaced late.
Run the same files through each option
Same documents, same review basis, no preparation beyond what your process already does.
Have your team score the output
Score each finding against the criteria, not against the tool’s own summary of itself.
Record the differences
Issues found and missed, false positives, and the work needed to reach a usable finding.
Evaluation worksheetOne per file
| Criterion | What to ask | Current review | Flightline |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finding quality | Does the evidence support the conclusion, including its severity and the requirement applied? | To be scored | To be scored |
| Existing cures | Does the review recognize later documentation that resolves an earlier condition? | To be scored | To be scored |
| Calculation support | Can your team follow the inputs, assumptions and effect on the loan? | To be scored | To be scored |
| Missing evidence | Does it separate an unresolved question from an established defect? | To be scored | To be scored |
| Reviewer effort | How much correction or investigation is needed before the work can be used? | To be scored | To be scored |
| Delivery and fit | Can your team use the record in its workflow, client discussions and oversight? | To be scored | To be scored |
Flightline is review software. Evaluate how it supports your team’s judgment and operating process, alongside any services your organization needs.
Send us a fileyou’ve already closed.
The fastest way to judge Flightline is on a loan your team already knows. We’ll show you what it finds, and you decide whether it holds.