Reasons with the signal
Read available reasons and citations alongside the finding. A reviewer should be able to trace the question back to the relevant information.
Financial verification and fraud review
Fraud review.
Follow the evidence.
Bring inconsistencies and supporting evidence into the same review. Help your team examine the facts before deciding what to do next.
Evidence reviewREVIEW CONTEXT
Follow the question
A difference.A reason to review.
Application figure$8,800 / mo
Source record$8,420 / mo
Check periods and supporting records before reaching a conclusion.
Evidence before conclusionsSignal · Context · Follow-up
The record behind the result
Useful signals give
reviewers somewhere to look.
A flag is useful when a reviewer can understand why it is there and which records need attention. Fintegral’s verification and fraud-review workflows focus on bringing the signal, available reasons, and supporting evidence closer to the people reviewing the file.
Use findings as part of your institution’s review process. A difference between records may need an explanation, a corrected request, or another source. Your team determines the follow-up, applies its policy, and makes the decision. No single signal should be treated as a complete borrower assessment.
Context across the file
Consider the requested verification, returned facts, dates, and borrower-file information together. Differences can have context that deserves attention.
A human review path
Define who reviews findings and what follow-up the team can request. Keep the result within your institution’s established assessment process.
Details that matter
Make the next review step
clear and explainable.
Keep the request, the returned facts, and your team’s assessment connected.
Review the integration guide- 01
What was flagged?
Identify the finding within the product’s result scope.
- 02
Which record supports it?
Read the available reason and evidence before acting.
- 03
What needs clarification?
Determine whether the file needs an explanation or additional records.
- 04
Who decides the outcome?
Keep the assessment and decision with the authorized reviewing team.
A connected workflow
A clear path.
From request to review.
- 01
Define the review use case
Confirm the available verification and fraud-review products for your workflow.
- 02
Bring the facts together
Read findings with their available reasons, citations, and source context.
- 03
Resolve and document
Follow your institution’s review process and record the appropriate next step.
Your institution sets its policies and makes the lending decision. Product scope, source availability, and authorization requirements apply.
A closer look
Fraud review.
Your questions, answered.
Useful details for planning the request and reviewing the records.
Talk through your requirementsDoes a verification signal prove fraud?
A signal is information for review. Your institution needs to examine the supporting facts, consider the context, and follow its process before reaching an outcome.
What should reviewers look for in a result?
Start with the finding, available reasons and citations, the requested product, and the relevant source records. Use those details to determine what needs further review.
Does Fintegral automatically decline a borrower?
The lending decision remains with your institution. Discuss the supported product behavior, review controls, and how findings fit your existing workflow before integration.
Where can developers review the result format?
The integration guide describes the published API workflow and returned product scopes. Our team can confirm available fraud-review products and the fields relevant to your proposed implementation.
Make the next request a clearer one.
Bring your records, sources, and workflow requirements. We’ll help you define the verification that fits.