The borrowing base is assembled by hand.
Loan tapes, facility terms and adjustments arrive in different formats. Reviewers need to understand how the figure was calculated and which inputs underpin it.
DATA & OVERSIGHT / ASSET-BACKED FACILITIES
The data engine for
asset-backed finance management.
A shared view of portfolio data, facility rules and evidence. Shōken connects originators and capital providers around the work behind each financing decision.
Source data. Facility context. Evidence you can follow.
One connected review. Five ways in.
SHŌKEN / A SHARED OPERATING VIEWEXPLORE 01 — 05
SHŌKEN / Explore the workflow
A guided look inside Shōken.
Choose a workflow. Follow one action at a time, from the record to the evidence behind the result.
Simulated demonstration
Loan book & history
Follow a contract from the loan book to its source record.
Preparing the interactive demonstration…
- Filter by facility
- Open the contract
- Enter the history
- Expand the payment observation
- Inspect the correction
- Locate its reversal
- Open the source record
Simulated demonstration. No changes are sent to the platform.
Loan book & history · Read the steps
Simulated demonstration
Filter by facility
Choose Atlas in the selector. Only contracts belonging to this facility will remain in the table.
Loan book scoped to Atlas
Open the contract
Select CT-0042 to inspect its type, dates, jurisdiction and servicing references.
CT-0042 record opened
Enter the history
The History tab connects related observations. Later events do not erase earlier ones.
Contract history visible
Expand the payment observation
Open OBS-017. The servicer recorded a payment observation with a date and a source file.
Servicing observation expanded
Inspect the correction
OBS-018 corrects the reference on OBS-017. Their relationship preserves the explanation of the change.
Correction linked to the observation
Locate its reversal
OBS-019 reverses the correction, retaining its reason and its link to OBS-018. The full history remains available.
Reversal and reason identified
Open the source record
Inspect SRC-021 to connect the history with the supplied file. Servicing evidence does not confirm a bank payment.
Source record inspected
Rules & eligibility · Read the steps
Simulated demonstration
Select the approved version
Choose v3. The assessment retains this version of the rules, effective from 01 Sep 2026.
Version v3 selected
Open the jurisdiction criterion
JUR-01 requires the contract country to be Spain. Inspect the condition before interpreting its result.
Contractual condition visible
Inspect the evaluated field
Open country_code to see how the contract field relates to the criterion. A missing field requires review.
Field and source values visible
Open the results matrix
Each contract retains a result and its reason: eligible, excluded or awaiting data.
EVAL-009 matrix opened
Filter excluded contracts
Choose Excluded. The matrix narrows to the contract that does not meet the jurisdiction criterion.
Excluded result located
Expand the reason
Open CT-0037. Its country is Portugal; the approved criterion requires Spain. The exclusion has an identifiable cause.
JUR-01 reason explained
Inspect its source
Follow SRC-037 to the source field. The evidence for the data stays separate from the eligibility decision.
Source linked to the result
Capacity · Read the steps
Simulated demonstration
Open the evaluated population
Inspect EVAL-009. Capacity starts with a defined population assessed against rules v3.
Assessment population visible
Identify included assets
Select Included in the base. CT-0042 is included; excluded CT-0037 and incomplete CT-0019 remain outside.
Borrowing-base scope identified
Inspect the terms
Open TERM-003. The eligible base is interpreted through the facility’s terms and restrictions.
Applicable terms opened
Expand limits and restrictions
Review how the commitment, eligible base and restrictions relate. This view explains dependencies without monetary values.
Limits and dependencies expanded
Compare the snapshots
Compare CAP-011 and CAP-012: cut-off date, rule version and input references. Validity depends on these inputs.
Snapshot references compared
Inspect funding evidence
Open the execution file. A capacity calculation does not establish a drawdown; supporting evidence remains outstanding here.
Execution evidence still pending
Covenants · Read the steps
Simulated demonstration
Select a requirement
Conceptual view
Open COV-007 in the monitoring matrix. Columns place observations against their dates.
Information requirement selected
Read the contractual condition
Conceptual view
The clause requires portfolio information and a supporting document for the period. Open its contractual reference.
Delivery condition visible
Inspect the dated observation
Conceptual view
OBS-026 records receipt of the loan-book file. Its date provides context but does not close the review.
Period observation inspected
Follow the history
Conceptual view
Inspect the previous cycle, current receipt and request for supporting evidence. Each event retains its status.
Monitoring history visible
Expand the status reason
Conceptual view
The information arrived, but its supporting document is missing. An open review is not a confirmed breach.
Review reason explained
Identify the pending document
Conceptual view
Open DOC-026 to see what is needed and who should provide it. Missing evidence keeps the requirement open.
Document and responsibility identified
Reconciliation · Read the steps
Simulated demonstration
Filter the inbox
Conceptual view
Select Unmatched to find records that need an explanation. This reconciliation workflow is conceptual.
Inbox filtered by match status
Open the exception
Conceptual view
REC-014 connects contract CT-0042 with a servicing record and customer-provided bank data.
Exception opened for review
Inspect the servicing record
Conceptual view
Open SRV-032. It retains the contract reference, observation date and origin in the servicing file.
Servicing record visible
Compare the bank data
Conceptual view
Add BNK-018 to the comparison. Records align field by field; this demo has no bank connection or account access.
Sources aligned for comparison
Highlight the difference
Conceptual view
Inspect Reference: CT-0042 versus ATLAS-042. The date difference also needs context before the records can be linked.
Reference and date differences highlighted
Inspect the missing support
Conceptual view
DOC-032 should explain how the references match. Without it, the review cannot be treated as resolved.
Supporting-document request identified
Save a review note
Conceptual view
You can edit the draft. Save adds the note to this demo’s history without sending information or closing the exception.
Simulated note added to history
Reporting & waterfall · Read the steps
Simulated demonstration
Choose the period
Conceptual view
Select September 2026. The cut-off date defines which sources enter this conceptual report preparation.
Review period selected
Review the scope
Conceptual view
Inspect the loan-book, rules and capacity references. Open exceptions stay within the review.
Scope and sources identified
Open the review document
Conceptual view
The draft brings Atlas context, references and open questions together. It does not represent an issued certificate.
Review document opened
Enter the waterfall
Open the allocation annex. The screen changes to the calculation’s priority structure.
Waterfall structure visible
Follow the priorities
Expand the order: expenses, interest and principal. Precedence explains allocation review; it does not establish transfers.
Priority order expanded
Inspect the obligations
Review each priority’s obligation and proposed allocation. Payment confirmation remains in a separate column.
Obligations and allocations distinguished
Open the block reason
A source changed after the calculation. Validation requires recalculation with current evidence before proceeding.
Changed-source block explained
Inspect the required evidence
Review outstanding updated inputs and external payment support. This simulation executes no payments and issues no report.
Pending evidence identified
OUR APPROACH
Built for a review you can explain.
Traceability
Keep the source record, effective rule and calculation date close to the result. Missing evidence remains a question to resolve.
Neutrality
A shared data and oversight layer for both sides of the facility. Financing decisions and regulated responsibilities remain with the relevant participants.
Explainability
Show the inputs and limits of a calculation. Distinguish an eligibility result from capacity, an allocation from a confirmed payment.
THE DETAILS
Questions worth asking.
What does verification mean?
Checks against the source evidence available for a facility. It is distinct from eligibility under financing rules, does not guarantee legal title and is not an external audit. Source-verification workflows are presented as a preview.
Which source arrangements can we use?
Start with a representative loan tape, servicing records and supporting evidence. The documented import scope includes CSV, structured JSON and controlled single-sheet XLSX. Source mapping, availability and data quality determine the setup; specific integrations are agreed during scoping.
Do we need to change our bank or payment providers?
Shōken does not require bank account access for the workflows shown here. The reconciliation preview uses bank data supplied by the customer. Shōken is non-custodial: it does not hold funds or execute payments. Banking and payment arrangements remain with your existing providers.
Which assets and facilities is Shōken for?
The focus is mid-market asset-backed facilities involving loan books, receivables and asset finance. Suitability depends on the available records, contractual rules and operating model. Asset-class coverage is confirmed during scoping, without a minimum portfolio threshold.
What can each participant see?
Information and actions depend on role, tenant and facility permissions. The demonstrations use simulated interfaces based on operator workflows. They do not imply that every lender has a portfolio dashboard or access to every workflow.
How are facility terms and waterfall rules versioned?
Approved conditions and rule versions accompany the calculation they support. Review the effective version, inputs and date when assessing a result. A waterfall calculates allocations by priority; it does not execute a bank transfer or confirm payment.
How are exceptions or calculation disagreements reviewed?
Start with the relevant record, calculation date and supporting evidence. The reconciliation preview shows how an unmatched item can be investigated with its source context and a review responsibility. Missing evidence remains unresolved until it is explained; the illustration is not a completed customer reconciliation.
Can auditors or third parties review the evidence?
Access depends on the configured role, organisation and facility permissions. Read-only review packs and broader third-party reporting are presented as previews. Availability and the permitted information are agreed during scoping, rather than assumed for every participant.
A DEMONSTRATION WITH YOUR CONTEXT
Start with the questions behind your facility.
Bring the structure of your loan book and the terms of the facility. We will tailor the walkthrough to the evidence your team needs to review.
Online scheduling is not yet available. You can explore the guided demonstrations on this page.
Platform sign in