Deal screening that runs your underwriting checklist on every deal.

Your checklist, encoded as rules

Screening in Lendquo is configurable. Your team sets thresholds on the metrics that matter to your book: monthly revenue, average daily balance, existing debt positions, time in business, and negative balance days, each with the lookback period your policy calls for. A rule is not a black box; it reads the parsed bank sheet underneath the deal, so the inputs are the same figures a reviewer would check by hand.

A typical rule set looks like the checklist your team already runs:

• True monthly revenue above your minimum
• Average daily balance above a floor
• Existing positions within your limit
• Time in business above your threshold
• Negative balance days within tolerance

Because the rules are explicit, they are also auditable. When a deal passes, anyone on the team can see which criteria it met. When it fails, the reason is attached rather than implied. See the screening rules in the product walkthrough on the homepage.

A consistent first pass

Manual screening drifts. The tenth file of the day gets less attention than the first, and two underwriters interpret the same edge case differently. A rules-based first pass removes that variance: every submission is measured against the same thresholds, on the same parsed figures, before a person spends time on it.

That consistency is what makes the queue useful. Deals arrive pre-sorted by result, clear files move toward pricing, marginal files surface where judgment is needed, and obvious misses stop consuming underwriting hours. For MCA shops running high submission volume, that ordering alone changes the economics of the desk.

Exceptions get flagged, not buried

Some deals do not fail a rule so much as fail to compute cleanly. A missing statement month, an ambiguous extraction, a business sitting right at the threshold. Lendquo flags those for review instead of silently passing or failing them, and the flag carries the context: which document, which figure, which rule. The reviewer starts from the question, not from scratch.

Flagging also keeps policy honest. When exceptions accumulate around one rule, your team can see it and adjust the threshold deliberately, rather than discovering the drift after a quarter of inconsistent decisions.

This is the same discipline the journal describes in every insight deserves a source: a visible flag is more useful than a clean-looking result nobody verified.

Screened on figures you can inspect

A screening result is only as trustworthy as the numbers behind it. In Lendquo, every result traces back to the source-linked bank sheet and onward to the statement transactions themselves. If a rule flags a deal on negative days, the reviewer sees which days, on which statement, rather than a bare count. Disagreeing with the input is possible because the input is visible.

Results live inside the deal's book alongside the documents, notes, and review status, so the screen and the evidence stay together through every handoff. That structure is what lets a whole team follow the same deal without a status meeting.

Where screening sits in the workflow

Screening is one step in a connected path: documents come in through intake, are parsed and reconciled, screened on your rules, and then worked in the underwriting workspace. Deals that meet your criteria can move toward contracts generated from your templates and funding-partner matching, with deal data staying connected to LendSaaS, OrgMeter, and the rest of your stack through integrations.

The decision stays with your team at every step. Lendquo applies the checklist, shows its work, and keeps the exceptions visible. Your underwriters make the call, and when they do, the criteria that shaped it are still on the record.