Make two reviewers reach the same answer
When approval depends on who reviews the file, the standard is a person, not a policy.
The situation
Two experienced reviewers read one file and reach different answers, and neither can say why.
- Lenders learn which reviewer to route a marginal file to.
- Committee overturns a recommendation on grounds written nowhere.
- Coaching feedback contradicts the feedback from the desk next door.
What Crediteris answers with
- One list of disqualifying errors
- Six critical errors fail a certification outright, whoever is marking.
- One rubric for a file review
- TT-12 turns a reviewer’s instinct into a comment another reviewer can repeat.
- A session that finds the drift
- TT-14 calibration: coaches grade the same file, then reconcile the difference.
- Practice at being challenged
- CA-403 reviewing and challenging a file, CA-307 the committee simulation.
How you know it worked
6 critical errors
that every reviewer marks against, rather than a private standard each.
What is missing today
The rubrics exist as specification. The assessment engine that would apply them is not built.