Workflow
Compare Your Business Profile With Published Lender Requirements
Turn published lender criteria into a sourced review: what is supported, what does not match, and what still needs an answer.
- Audience
- Business owners, founders and advisers preparing capital applications
- Products
- Aurora, Documents, CRM
- Prerequisites
- Current exact lender product requirements, Approved business evidence, Accessible source documents
- Expected outcome
- Sourced met/unmet/unverified criterion checklist and lender questions
- Approval boundary
- User and qualified adviser interpret fit; lender alone decides approval
Replace a vague fit judgment with an evidence checklist
Compare your business with a lender's published requirements one criterion at a time. Give Aurora the current requirements and your approved business facts, then review a checklist of met, unmet and unverified points. The goal is to prepare a better lender conversation, not predict approval.
A product can appear suitable while an important requirement remains unknown. The checklist should make that uncertainty visible before you spend time preparing an application.
Prepare two source packs
The provider pack contains the exact product page, borrower criteria, service geography, application instructions and source dates. The business pack contains your legal entity, operating location, history, intended use of funds and evidence the provider actually requests. Keep sensitive personal and financial records out of an exploratory pack unless they are necessary and approved for this use.
For SBA 7(a), SBA's official guidance distinguishes program eligibility from the lender's application process. A published program checklist is not the whole lender decision.
Build a criterion-to-evidence map
| Requirement | Business evidence | Review state | Question |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published service area | Operating address and source date | Met, unmet or unverified | Does this operating footprint qualify? |
| Operating history | Approved incorporation and trading dates | Met, unmet or unverified | Which date does the lender use? |
| Use of funds | Project brief or equipment quote | Met, unmet or unverified | Are associated costs included? |
| Financial requirement | Approved requested-period report | Met, unmet or unverified | How does the provider define the measure? |
Met means the supplied evidence supports a specific published statement. Unmet means it visibly conflicts. Unverified covers missing, ambiguous, stale or inaccessible evidence. None of these labels substitutes for the provider's interpretation.
Run the review in main Aurora chat
- Upload or select the approved business documents and lender requirements. Confirm searchable source context is available before requesting conclusions.
- Name one provider and product. Do not combine different products into a favorable average profile.
- Ask for the criterion, source location, business evidence, state and question in separate columns.
- Review the returned table against the actual documents. Correct stale dates, wrong entities and misunderstood financial definitions.
- Save the reviewed working checklist to Documents and put unresolved questions beside the provider's CRM relationship.
Compare our supplied business facts with this lender's published product requirements. Quote only the brief criterion needed and provide its source URL or document section. Label each point met, unmet or unverified. Explain uncertainty and list questions for the lender. Do not infer undisclosed thresholds, calculate approval odds, offer a borrowing recommendation, submit forms or change records.
Aurora can prepare a review from available context. If the needed source is not available, provide an approved copy or retain an unverified state. Use a qualified financial adviser where interpreting accounts, repayment capacity or financing suitability requires professional judgment.
Illustrative result: an unanswered question becomes useful
A fictional workshop is seeking finance for a machine and installation. The lender page describes equipment purchases but does not address installation. Aurora should not call the entire project eligible.
| Criterion | Supplied evidence | State | Next question |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operating in served geography | Business address matches the published area | Met for this stated criterion | Confirm any additional footprint rules |
| Equipment purpose | Machine quote | Supported in principle | Confirm asset and installation treatment |
| Installation cost | Separate installation quote | Unverified | Can this cost enter the proposed project? |
This synthetic example uses invented businesses and no real financing offer. Its value is a precise question, not a positive financing verdict.
Know when the review is ready to use
The final receipt names the provider and product, lists source dates, preserves contradictory evidence, and identifies who will answer each unresolved question. It should say “prepared for lender discussion,” not “approved” or “prequalified.”
If financial periods differ, stop the comparison until an authorized person supplies compatible records. If a requirement is unpublished, ask. If a policy page conflicts with a provider email, retain both and request confirmation. Continue with a first lender conversation or the loan-readiness guide.