See what your decision data already shows.

Compliance teams currently assemble fair-lending evidence by hand — pulling exports from systems they do not own, arriving at exams with gaps they did not know existed. Avarent turns the decision records you already collect into a structured evidence packet, without requiring direct model access or storing raw applicant PII.

AvarentOverviewFairnessModelsReports
Retail Credit
A
Decisions Today
2,847
+12% vs last week
Approval Rate
68.4%
+2.1% vs last week
Fairness Score
94.2
-0.3 vs last week
Avg Confidence
87.1%
+1.8% vs last week
Decision Volume
ApprovedDeclinedFairness
Last 12 months
3k2k1k0
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
Fairness by Segment
Prime
96
Near-Prime
93
Subprime
91
Thin File
88
Recent Decisions
APP-8821
742Approved96%
APP-8820
618Approved81%
APP-8819
541Review63%
APP-8818
489Declined88%
APP-8817
703Approved94%
APP-8816
655Approved89%
APP-8815
523Review71%
APP-8814
698Approved92%
APP-8813
476Declined85%
APP-8812
715Approved95%
APP-8811
589Approved78%
APP-8810
512Review66%

The problem

The gap between deployment speed and oversight capacity

Lenders have deployed non-linear machine learning models faster than their internal teams can monitor them. That gap is where regulatory exposure lives.

Exposure

ML models outran your oversight functionInstitutional lag

Model risk management was built for logistic regression. Gradient-boosted trees making thousands of micro-decisions across protected-class cohorts require a different kind of monitoring — one most internal teams do not yet have.

#Model Risk#SR 11-7
Undetected

Disparity runs without an alertDisparate impact

Approval rates diverge across protected-class cohorts without triggering any internal flag. The disparity is in your data right now.

#ECOA#DIR
Non-compliant

71% of adverse action notices fail the standardCFPB Circular 2023-03

Behavioral specificity is required. "Insufficient income" is not compliant. The reason codes exist — the defensible language does not.

#Adverse Action#Reg B
Unsustainable

The evidence pack is built by one person with a spreadsheetSpreadsheet status quo

CSVs from the LOS, joined to bureau data, analyzed with pivot tables and undocumented methodology. Gaps surface during the exam, not before it.

#Fair Lending#Audit
Unknown

You don’t know what’s missing until you’re presentingAnalysis readiness

Which statistical analyses are blocked by missing fields? Nobody knows until leadership asks a question the data cannot answer.

#Data Quality#Readiness
Critical

Regulators already have a view of your dataInformation asymmetry

HMDA submissions and complaint databases give examiners a structured picture of your decisions before the exam starts. Avarent gives you the same picture first.

#HMDA#Exams

The decision records are there. The analysis is not.

Avarent surfaces which analyses can run on your current data, calculates disparity metrics in real time, and compiles the evidence packet before the exam starts.

ExplanationAPP-0044
Decision
Under Review
Confidence 63% · Score 541
Top contributing factors
Credit Utilization 82%
Payment History 67%
Derogatory Marks 54%
Account Age 38%
Inquiry Count 29%
Balance Ratio 21%
Fairness by SegmentLast 30 days
Prime
94% pass4% review2% decline
Near-Prime
81% pass11% review8% decline
Subprime
63% pass22% review15% decline
Thin File
57% pass24% review19% decline
Disparate Impact DetectedThin File vs Prime
Approval rate ratio 0.61 — below 0.80 EEOC threshold
Decision LogLive
APP-0042
741Approved96%
APP-0043
618Approved81%
APP-0044
541Review63%
APP-0045
489Declined88%
APP-0046
703Approved94%
APP-0047
512Review59%
Today's summary
0
Approved
0
Review
0
Declined

Know what analysis is possible

Analysis readiness scoring surfaces which statistical analyses can run on current data fields and which are blocked — before the team presents to leadership.

Disparity at the four-fifths threshold

Calculates approval-rate disparity and the disparate impact ratio with plain-language labels alongside technical outputs.

Adverse action that holds up to Reg B

Validates reason-code completeness and specificity across decline cohorts against CFPB Circular 2023-03 requirements.

The exam package, prebuilt

Cohort context, open findings, methodology references, and limitations compiled into a format structured for MRM and fair-lending exam teams.

Built for Fair Lending

Evidence packet automation that meets regulatory standards

0%

of adverse action notices in production fail the CFPB specificity standard

Circular 2023-03 · Behavioral specificity required

Know what analysis is possible

Readiness scoring surfaces which statistical analyses can run on your current fields — and which are blocked — before you present to leadership.

DRIFT MONITORLast 12 months

Disparity runs without an alert

Track how approval-rate disparity shifts across origination periods before it becomes a finding.

Aggregate by design

No raw applicant PII stored. Decision-level and cohort-level records only. Built for governance, not surveillance.

Prime cohortDIR: 1.02Pass
Thin File cohortDIR: 0.61Review recommended

Disparity at the four-fifths threshold

Approval-rate disparity and the disparate impact ratio calculated with plain-language labels alongside technical outputs.

The $89 million Apple/Goldman Sachs fair-lending penalty was not the result of an algorithm nobody could have caught. It was the result of a pattern that existed in the data and was not seen by the institution before a regulator saw it. The same dynamic runs in 71% of adverse action notices currently in production — the reason code exists, the required specificity does not, and the gap is visible in the decision record. Regulators have a structured view of your approval and decline data. Avarent gives you the same view, so the questions below have answers before anyone external asks them.

Got questions?

Frequently Asked Questions

No. Avarent works from decision-level outputs and logs — it does not require API access to the model itself, model weights, or the underlying scoring engine.

No. Avarent produces statistical analysis and structured documentation — it is not legal review, does not make compliance determinations, and its outputs do not constitute legal advice.

Disparate impact analysis against the four-fifths rule. Proxy-risk variable flagging for compliance review. Adverse action reason-code validation against Reg B and CFPB Circular 2023-03. Drift monitoring across origination periods. Methodology documentation structured for MRM exam teams.

See your exam readiness before the examiner does.

Request access to the evidence packet pilot. Get the structured analysis your team needs before anyone external asks for it.

Credit Risk Teams
Compliance Officers
Model Validators
Fintech Founders
Risk Managers
Data Scientists
Audit Teams