SHŌKEN FOR CAPITAL PROVIDERS
For credit, portfolio and risk teams reviewing mid-market facilities. Inspect source context, capacity and exceptions, then follow the evidence into reporting and waterfall calculations.
Chapter 01 / Collateral
Start with the evaluated population and the rule version used to assess it. Inspect available source context separately from eligibility. Verification does not guarantee legal title and is not an external audit.
Identifiable population and rules
An identifiable population, policy and as-of date.
See it in the productChapter 02 / Capacity
Compare the eligible base, commitment and terms that constrain capacity. Check calculation validity and inspect funding evidence separately. Broader covenant monitoring is a conceptual view.
Eligible base and facility terms
Eligibility and capacity do not establish completed funding.
See it in the productChapter 03 / Exceptions
Follow an unmatched item back to servicing observations and bank data supplied by the customer. This conceptual view keeps the date, evidence and investigation together without assuming a live bank connection or access to accounts.
Conceptual reconciliation workflow
A proposed investigation path, not a reconciled customer result.
See it in the productChapter 04 / Reporting
Bring dated calculations and unresolved questions into the reporting review. Follow waterfall priorities and open obligations. Changed inputs block validation; allocations do not establish confirmed payments.
Allocation awaiting validation; payment unconfirmed
Allocated ≠ confirmed paid.
See it in the productConceptual explanation. This example has no funded positions. Funding tranches and investor-note classes are separate structures.
See it in the productSimulated operator workflows, not a universally available lender workspace. Information depends on permissions. Reconciliation, reporting and portfolio oversight views are conceptual previews; no customer outcome is shown.
Simulated demonstration
Each contract retains a result and its reason: eligible, excluded or awaiting data.
EVAL-009 matrix opened
Choose Excluded. The matrix narrows to the contract that does not meet the jurisdiction criterion.
Excluded result located
Open CT-0037. Its country is Portugal; the approved criterion requires Spain. The exclusion has an identifiable cause.
JUR-01 reason explained
Follow SRC-037 to the source field. The evidence for the data stays separate from the eligibility decision.
Source linked to the result
Simulated demonstration
Inspect EVAL-009. Capacity starts with a defined population assessed against rules v3.
Assessment population visible
Select Included in the base. CT-0042 is included; excluded CT-0037 and incomplete CT-0019 remain outside.
Borrowing-base scope identified
Open TERM-003. The eligible base is interpreted through the facility’s terms and restrictions.
Applicable terms opened
Review how the commitment, eligible base and restrictions relate. This view explains dependencies without monetary values.
Limits and dependencies expanded
Compare CAP-011 and CAP-012: cut-off date, rule version and input references. Validity depends on these inputs.
Snapshot references compared
Open the execution file. A capacity calculation does not establish a drawdown; supporting evidence remains outstanding here.
Execution evidence still pending
Simulated demonstration
Conceptual view
Select Unmatched to find records that need an explanation. This reconciliation workflow is conceptual.
Inbox filtered by match status
Conceptual view
REC-014 connects contract CT-0042 with a servicing record and customer-provided bank data.
Exception opened for review
Conceptual view
Open SRV-032. It retains the contract reference, observation date and origin in the servicing file.
Servicing record visible
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
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
Conceptual view
DOC-032 should explain how the references match. Without it, the review cannot be treated as resolved.
Supporting-document request identified
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
Simulated demonstration
Conceptual view
Select September 2026. The cut-off date defines which sources enter this conceptual report preparation.
Review period selected
Conceptual view
Inspect the loan-book, rules and capacity references. Open exceptions stay within the review.
Scope and sources identified
Conceptual view
The draft brings Atlas context, references and open questions together. It does not represent an issued certificate.
Review document opened
Open the allocation annex. The screen changes to the calculation’s priority structure.
Waterfall structure visible
Expand the order: expenses, interest and principal. Precedence explains allocation review; it does not establish transfers.
Priority order expanded
Review each priority’s obligation and proposed allocation. Payment confirmation remains in a separate column.
Obligations and allocations distinguished
A source changed after the calculation. Validation requires recalculation with current evidence before proceeding.
Changed-source block explained
Review outstanding updated inputs and external payment support. This simulation executes no payments and issues no report.
Pending evidence identified
Simulated demonstration
Conceptual view
The record connects the agreement, maturity and applicable conditions. This conceptual explanation shows no funded position.
Agreement terms visible
Conceptual view
The contract and execution evidence answer different questions. Access to these documents depends on permissions.
Contractual support identified
SHŌKEN / Explore the workflow
Inspect eligibility, assess capacity and review covenants and exceptions. Follow waterfall priorities and the evidence still needed.
Simulated demonstration
From the approved criterion to the reason behind each result.
Preparing the interactive demonstration…
Simulated demonstration. No changes are sent to the platform.
Simulated demonstration
Choose v3. The assessment retains this version of the rules, effective from 01 Sep 2026.
Version v3 selected
JUR-01 requires the contract country to be Spain. Inspect the condition before interpreting its result.
Contractual condition visible
Open country_code to see how the contract field relates to the criterion. A missing field requires review.
Field and source values visible
Each contract retains a result and its reason: eligible, excluded or awaiting data.
EVAL-009 matrix opened
Choose Excluded. The matrix narrows to the contract that does not meet the jurisdiction criterion.
Excluded result located
Open CT-0037. Its country is Portugal; the approved criterion requires Spain. The exclusion has an identifiable cause.
JUR-01 reason explained
Follow SRC-037 to the source field. The evidence for the data stays separate from the eligibility decision.
Source linked to the result
Simulated demonstration
Inspect EVAL-009. Capacity starts with a defined population assessed against rules v3.
Assessment population visible
Select Included in the base. CT-0042 is included; excluded CT-0037 and incomplete CT-0019 remain outside.
Borrowing-base scope identified
Open TERM-003. The eligible base is interpreted through the facility’s terms and restrictions.
Applicable terms opened
Review how the commitment, eligible base and restrictions relate. This view explains dependencies without monetary values.
Limits and dependencies expanded
Compare CAP-011 and CAP-012: cut-off date, rule version and input references. Validity depends on these inputs.
Snapshot references compared
Open the execution file. A capacity calculation does not establish a drawdown; supporting evidence remains outstanding here.
Execution evidence still pending
Simulated demonstration
Conceptual view
Open COV-007 in the monitoring matrix. Columns place observations against their dates.
Information requirement selected
Conceptual view
The clause requires portfolio information and a supporting document for the period. Open its contractual reference.
Delivery condition visible
Conceptual view
OBS-026 records receipt of the loan-book file. Its date provides context but does not close the review.
Period observation inspected
Conceptual view
Inspect the previous cycle, current receipt and request for supporting evidence. Each event retains its status.
Monitoring history visible
Conceptual view
The information arrived, but its supporting document is missing. An open review is not a confirmed breach.
Review reason explained
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
Simulated demonstration
Conceptual view
Select Unmatched to find records that need an explanation. This reconciliation workflow is conceptual.
Inbox filtered by match status
Conceptual view
REC-014 connects contract CT-0042 with a servicing record and customer-provided bank data.
Exception opened for review
Conceptual view
Open SRV-032. It retains the contract reference, observation date and origin in the servicing file.
Servicing record visible
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
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
Conceptual view
DOC-032 should explain how the references match. Without it, the review cannot be treated as resolved.
Supporting-document request identified
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
Simulated demonstration
Conceptual view
Select September 2026. The cut-off date defines which sources enter this conceptual report preparation.
Review period selected
Conceptual view
Inspect the loan-book, rules and capacity references. Open exceptions stay within the review.
Scope and sources identified
Conceptual view
The draft brings Atlas context, references and open questions together. It does not represent an issued certificate.
Review document opened
Open the allocation annex. The screen changes to the calculation’s priority structure.
Waterfall structure visible
Expand the order: expenses, interest and principal. Precedence explains allocation review; it does not establish transfers.
Priority order expanded
Review each priority’s obligation and proposed allocation. Payment confirmation remains in a separate column.
Obligations and allocations distinguished
A source changed after the calculation. Validation requires recalculation with current evidence before proceeding.
Changed-source block explained
Review outstanding updated inputs and external payment support. This simulation executes no payments and issues no report.
Pending evidence identified
THE DETAILS
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Bring your collateral criteria and oversight questions. We will review source evidence, capacity, exceptions and the reporting context available to your role.
Online scheduling is not yet available. You can explore the guided demonstrations on this page.
Platform sign in