Assess whether comparative files show second-review bias (524395)
August 31, 2026 · SmartSolo
Situation
A notice that cites 'other' as the principal reason 40% of the time put mortgage pricing residual by prohibited-basis group in front of second-review underwriter in a small-business desk using a new vendor score. This Fair Lending / Redlining and HMDA Data close is comparative files show second-review from mortgage pricing residual by prohibited-basis group, and the live options are Remove access or reverse the item, Temporary compensating control, Approve a documented exception.
Decision
Second-review underwriter in a small-business desk using a new vendor score must choose Remove access or reverse the item / Temporary compensating control / Approve a documented exception / Hold using mortgage pricing residual by prohibited-basis group after a notice that cites 'other' as the principal reason 40% of the time.
Hypotheses to test
- Mortgage pricing residual by prohibited-basis group reads as Remove access or reverse the item once a notice that cites 'other' as the principal reason 40% of the time is lined up to the same Fair Lending population.
- Mortgage pricing residual by prohibited-basis group is closer to Temporary compensating control after a notice that cites 'other' as the principal reason 40% of the time; Remove access or reverse the item would over-claim this Redlining and HMDA Data extract.
- Approve a documented exception is still live in mortgage pricing residual by prohibited-basis group for second-review underwriter in a small-business desk using a new vendor score.
- Mortgage pricing residual by prohibited-basis group is missing the fact second-review underwriter needs after a notice that cites 'other' as the principal reason 40% of the time; stop this Fair Lending close.
Analysis required
- Compare mortgage pricing residual by prohibited-basis group to similarly situated files, second-review notes, and reason codes after a notice that cites 'other' as the principal reason 40% of the time.
- Flag any disparate-impact table second-review underwriter cannot explain from mortgage pricing residual by prohibited-basis group.
- Test a documented exception versus a pattern a small-business desk using a new vendor score must defend.
- For this Fair Lending Redlining and HMDA Data file, read mortgage pricing residual by prohibited-basis group against a notice that cites 'other' as the principal reason 40% of the time and write the one fact that would move comparative files show second-review for second-review underwriter.
Explore more
More Fair Lending prompts
- Assess whether the exam response should concede a finding (642fc7)
- Assess whether pricing disparities are justified by legitimate factors
- Assess whether line assignments have a disparate impact the bank will defend
- Assess whether line assignments have a disparate impact the bank will defend
- Assess whether the exam response should concede a finding (7ed8a2)
Explore related decision areas
See governed multi-model AI on your own prompt
Compare GPT-5, Claude, and Gemini side by side, with human review and a decision record built in.

