Your run viewer was built for the underwriter. But in lending, hiring, and insurance, the applicant, the candidate, the claimant has a legal right to an explanation too — one that shows their own evidence and the real reasons, without leaking internal scoring or another candidate's data.
An applicant-facing decision notice: specific reasons tied to their own application, the documents used, and an explicit statement that internal scoring and other applicants' data aren't included — with an appeal path linked to the original decision.
Every screen in the system assumes the person looking at it is Priya the underwriter. Nobody built the version where the person looking at it is the applicant who has a legal right to see it.
The honest reasons for a decision live next to the internal score, the reviewer's private notes, and — in a comparative process — other candidates' information entirely. None of that belongs in front of the subject.
There's no record that links a dispute to the specific decision being disputed, so an appeal starts from zero instead of from the actual evidence and reasoning that produced the outcome.
"Does not meet our current criteria" satisfies no adverse-action requirement that asks for the specific reasons behind a specific decision, and it gives the subject nothing to actually contest.
The full record includes the internal score, comparative ranking against other applicants, and a reviewer's private notes — all of which are either a privacy violation or a fairness liability to expose.
It doesn't scale past a handful of cases a month, and a manually drafted explanation is exactly the kind of inconsistency that creates disparate-treatment risk across similar decisions.
Without a link back to the original run, whoever handles the appeal starts by trying to reconstruct what happened instead of reviewing the actual evidence and reasoning that produced it.
Not a second system — a view over the same run record that shows only the reasons and the subject's own submitted evidence, computed from the one record that already exists.
Internal scoring, other applicants' data, and reviewer notes are excluded by construction — not by a person remembering to redact them each time.
Disputing a decision produces a new run explicitly linked to the one being appealed, so whoever reviews it starts from the actual original evidence instead of reconstructing it from scratch.
The same fields that drove the decision — DTI, late payments, whatever the task actually evaluated — become the explanation, consistently, not a paraphrase someone writes by hand.
The redaction is structural, not a checklist a person has to remember — the same guarantee for every subject, every time, regardless of who generates the notice.
A linked run means the reviewer handling an appeal sees exactly what the original decision saw, instead of reopening an investigation from nothing.
Lending, hiring, insurance — the same subject-facing projection works across verticals because it's a view over the run shape, not a bespoke letter template per program.
