Affordability and instalment-load review
Whether the file shows a real attempt to judge instalment burden — income, existing deductions, and living costs — rather than a score pass dressed up as affordability.
Subang Jaya · BNPL file review
Application files, read against the rules that actually applied.
LogicGateway Path Advisory is a small desk that examines originated buy-now-pay-later applications for providers, retailer programmes, and second-line teams. We do not score customers, sell a decision engine, or run collections. We read the file.
- Identity and capture
- How the applicant was identified, and whether a merchant-assisted flow still belongs to that person.
- Instalment load
- Income evidence, existing plans, and whether “affordability” in the record matches the policy pack.
- Decision trail
- Approvals, declines, and overrides that can be replayed from the documents you still hold.
Primary work
A BNPL application file audit
A typical engagement is a sample of originated files — approved, declined, and withdrawn — read against the policy, merchant scripts, and customer-facing terms that were in force on the origination date. Completeness is graded. So is whether the recorded decision is supported by what is actually in the file.
You receive worksheets for each selected application and a report that credit, compliance, or an audit committee can walk through. Pricing is quoted from the sample size and the channels in scope; the figure on the service page is a starting point, not a checkout.
Also requested
Related file-review work
These sit beside a full file audit when the question is narrower: ability to repay, shop-floor origination, or what the customer was shown.
Merchant-originated application review
Files opened at a till, in a showroom, or by a marketplace seller: consent quality, explanation of fees, and signs that the application was completed for the customer rather than by them.
Decision trail and decline documentation
Approvals, declines, and overrides: whether the recorded reason matches the policy pack, who changed the outcome, and whether the customer-facing explanation is consistent with the file.
How a review is requested
Send a frame, not a zip of ‘clean’ approvals
-
Sampling conversation
Product, channel, merchant group if relevant, approved and declined, and the origination window. We agree what is in and what is excluded.
-
Policy pack with dates
The rules, scripts, and customer-facing materials that were live in that window. Files without companions can be completeness-checked only.
-
Reading and report
Worksheets, finding grades, and a written report. Remediation support is a separate engagement after you have the findings.
From people who sent files
What commissioners say about the reading
They read the files we actually originated, including the messy merchant ones, and the report was something we could take to the credit committee without translating it into consultant language.
The sampling frame was the useful part. We had been sending ‘good’ approvals. Once declined and assisted files were in the mix, the findings changed.
We asked for a disclosure check, not a model review. They stayed on that brief: screens, scripts, and what the file claimed the customer had seen.
Desk notes
Recent writing on BNPL files
The five documents we expect in every BNPL application file
Identity, income, existing commitments, the customer-facing terms actually shown, and a decision record that can be replayed. If one of these is missing, the file is already telling you something.
Affordability is not a credit score
Scorecards rank risk. They do not, on their own, show that a particular instalment was workable for the person standing at the till.
Merchant-assisted applications: what the file rarely records
The till workflow can force every field to be filled. It cannot show who held the phone, who explained the late fee, or whether the customer understood they were opening credit.