The four layers of a routing decision
A useful process separates eligibility, alignment, prioritization, and permission. Combining them into one opaque score makes it difficult to know why a lender was selected—or why a promising candidate disappeared.
- Eligibility: remove hard mandate conflicts
- Alignment: assess the economic and underwriting fit
- Prioritization: decide who belongs in the first wave
- Permission: obtain broker approval before distribution
Hard filters protect everyone’s time
Minimum check size, prohibited industries, required sponsorship, geography, and capital-position constraints are not minor preferences. Treating them as soft scoring inputs creates recommendations that appear plausible but cannot close.
Qualitative fit separates possible from relevant
After hard conflicts are removed, the strongest signals are often contextual: the lender’s appetite for complexity, familiarity with the business model, comfort with the use of proceeds, downside orientation, and current deployment posture.
A first wave should be intentionally small
A focused initial group preserves process control and produces cleaner feedback than a broad send. Additional qualified lenders can remain available without receiving the deal until the placement professional chooses to expand the process.
The system should learn from explicit outcomes
Interest, pass reasons, and mandate changes provide better feedback than opens or clicks alone. That feedback should improve data quality while leaving final outreach decisions with the professionals involved.