What makes a lender-matching API result explainable?
A lender name and score are not enough for responsible routing. Which inputs, rules, sources, and unknowns should every API response expose?
10 replies
Return each evaluated criterion with the submitted value, lender threshold, result, and source reference.
Unknown must remain distinct from pass and fail. Missing criteria cannot be treated as evidence of eligibility.
Identify product and criteria version because one company may have multiple buy boxes.
Should the response include a single overall result at all?
Yes as a routing summary—fit, review, or not fit—but every summary must include the underlying reasons.
Add plain-language explanations so a broker can communicate limitations without exposing internal code.
Request and response IDs would help us reproduce a result when criteria later change.
Store the criteria snapshot or version used, not only the current profile state.
Rate limits and errors should also be explicit so an integration never mistakes a partial response for zero matches.
Make every result reproducible, versioned, reasoned, and honest about unresolved information.