The proposal is ready. The decision stays with you.
Credit proposal, KYC review file, reporting form, customer reply: agents read the core banking system, the credit DMS, your terms and other sources, calculate according to your rules and present every draft with its source. Votes, approval and submission stay with your experts.
neuland.ai HUB · Credit department
- and more systems
Credit application FK-2026-0588, Weber Präzisionsteile GmbH, working capital line €2.5 million: please prepare the credit proposal for front office and back office. What is still missing?
Tools chosen automatically
- Credit DMS · Annual accounts 2025read
- Credit DMS · BWA 08/2026read
- SharePoint · Corporate credit manual, sec. 4.2read
- Core banking system · Collateral and exposureread
- Credit DMS · Credit proposal FK-2026-0588Draft
Debt service coverage is 1.34 [1]; the credit manual requires at least 1.2 [2]. The collateral is a blanket assignment of receivables [3]. One point is open: the BWA 08/2026 (interim management accounts) shows 6% lower revenue [4], and there is no statement from management. The proposal is in the credit DMS as a draft.
- [1]Annual_accounts_2025_Weber.pdf · p. 9, income statement and debt service
- [2]Credit_manual_corporate_clients_2026.pdf · p. 14, sec. 4.2
- [3]Collateral overview · Customer 4471203
- [4]BWA 08/2026 · Revenue minus 6%
Is the collateral enough for the €2.5 million?
- Core banking system · Collateral overviewread
The collateral value in the core banking system is €1.55 million, so the blanket assignment covers 62% of the line [1]. The unsecured portion is 38%. How recoverable the assigned receivables are is for the back office to judge; the agent does not calculate that. Front office and back office write the votes.
- [1]Collateral overview · Customer 4471203 · Collateral value €1.55 million
- done: Debt service coverage 1.34, manual at least 1.2
- done: Blanket assignment, unsecured portion 38%
- done: Annual accounts 2025 and BWA 08/2026 read
- open: Statement on the revenue decline missing
- question: Votes from front office and back office pending
Onboarding 2026-0214, GmbH with HRB 48213: is the documentation complete, and are there any hits on the parties involved?
- Onboarding workflow · Application 2026-0214
- Commercial register · Extract HRB 48213
- Onboarding workflow · List of shareholders
- Sanctions lists · Screening of parties involved
- Customer file · Review file 2026-0214
Of 9 documents, 8 are matched to the requirements list [1] [2]. The ID of one of the two shareholders is missing [3]. Screening the 4 parties returns a name match on a sanctions list for one person [4]. Whether it is the same person is for your KYC analysis to clarify; date of birth and country are side by side in the review file.
- Onboarding workflow · Application 2026-0214 · 9 documents, 8 matched
- Commercial register · Extract HRB 48213 · Managing director and authorized signatory (Prokurist)
- Onboarding workflow · List of shareholders · 2 beneficial owners
- Sanctions lists · Screening on review date · 4 parties, 1 name match
- Customer file · Review file
- Documents: 8 of 9 matched
- Screening: 4 parties, 1 name match
- Open: ID of shareholder 2
- Audit trail: date and source per line
- Awaiting compliance
- Your compliance team signs off the business relationship.
The reporting form as of Jun 30, 2026 needs to go into the review folder. Are all 27 items filled, and where does anything deviate from the previous quarter?
- Core banking system · Balances as of Jun 30, 2026
- Risk system · Risk weights
- ERP · Accruals
- SharePoint · Previous quarter reporting form
- SharePoint · Regulatory reporting review folder
All 27 items are filled: 19 from the core banking system, 5 from the risk system, 3 from the ERP [1] [2] [3]. Totals and signs are correct. Two items deviate noticeably from the previous quarter: item 14 is 11% higher, and item 22 has flipped its sign [4]. Postings after Jun 30 are deliberately missing; controlling adds them later.
- Core banking system · Balances Jun 30, 2026 · 19 items
- Risk system · Risk weights Jun 30, 2026 · 5 items
- ERP · Accruals · 3 items
- SharePoint · Previous quarter reporting form · Comparison of items 14 and 22
Where does the flipped sign in item 22 come from?
- Risk system · Query for item 22
The value comes from the query in the risk system and is shown in the form with its source in the line [1]. Whether the reporting form requires the posting this way is for your compliance officer to clarify; the agent does not interpret the requirement. You will find the form in the review folder; the regulatory reporting manager is responsible for submission.
- Risk system · Query for item 22 · As of Jun 30, 2026
- Reporting_form_2026-06-30.xlsx · Excel · 27 items
Mr. Brandt writes: his debit card was defective, and he paid €12 for the replacement card. What do our terms say about that?
- Outlook · Email from Mr. Brandt
- Customer database · Customer history
- Knowledge base · Schedule of fees, sec. 3.4
- Knowledge base · Debit card terms
- Outlook · Draft reply
The schedule of fees lists €12 for a replacement card [1]. Under the debit card terms, a replacement is free of charge if the defect is not the customer's fault [2]. The customer database shows two contacts about the card in the last 30 days [3]. The draft cites both passages and asks for the defective card. Your team lead decides whether to refund.
- Knowledge base · Schedule of fees · Sec. 3.4
- Knowledge base · Debit card terms · No. 9, version Jul 1, 2026
- Customer database · Customer history · 2 contacts in 30 days
- Outlook · Reply to the customer
- To: Mr. Brandt
- Subject: Your replacement card
- Content: fee sec. 3.4, review under no. 9
- Request: return the defective card
- Awaiting approval by the service agent
- Approve
abcfinance works with the neuland.ai HUB
Not just in lending
KYC, customer service, DORA register and risk report: four of these agents at work.
Departments such as AML prevention, the service center, outsourcing management or risk controlling get a draft with its source. Decision and signature stay in those departments.
KYC in onboarding
KYC AgentNew corporate client: the KYC Agent (Know Your Customer) matches the commercial register extract, the Transparency Register extract and ID copies and flags what is missing on the beneficial owner. Your institution completes the identification; for discrepancies with the Transparency Register, AML prevention decides.
Example · One proposal for front office and back office
The agent does the math. People write the votes.
For risk-relevant lending, the German Minimum Requirements for Risk Management (MaRisk) require two votes, from the front office (Markt) and the back office (Marktfolge). Both read the same credit proposal, every ratio with document and page; your approval authority rules govern the rest.
Credit proposal FK‑2026‑0588 · Weber Präzisionsteile GmbH
Working capital line €2.5 million, term 36 months. Debt service coverage is 1.34 [1]; the credit manual requires at least 1.2 [2].
The collateral is a blanket assignment of receivables; the unsecured portion is 38% [3]. Open: the BWA 08/2026 shows 6% lower revenue, and a statement from management is missing.
Approval chain
Draft created
Kreditprüfung Agent
Front office vote
L. Hofmann · Corporate relationship management
Back office vote
S. Aydin · Credit back office
Credit decision
Head of Credit
Sources
Annual_
p. 9 · Income statement and debt service
Net income €1.12 million, depreciation €0.61 million.
Credit_
p. 14 · Sec. 4.2
The debt service coverage ratio is at least 1.2.
Core banking system · Collateral overview
Customer 4471203 · As of Sep 25, 2026
Blanket assignment of receivables, collateral value €1.55 million.
The back office sees the same sources as the front office and votes independently.
Every figure in the proposal cites document and page; credit analysis checks it with one click.
Ready in the Agent Library
Ready-made agents for banks and financial services. Adopt them and adapt them to your credit manual.
From credit review to regulatory reporting: eight of the ready-made agents for financial services.
For your outsourcing review
Your institution decides where the credit file lives.
Only those whose role allows it see balance sheets and account transactions, and no language model learns from them.
Certificates, DPA, TOMs and the DORA addendum can be downloaded from the Trust Center.
Example · Filed only after the OK
No export from the core banking system. The agent reads the exposure where it lives.
For FK-2026-0588, the agent queries collateral and exposure in the core banking system and reads the annual accounts and BWA in the credit DMS, with the permissions your admins set per agent. It files the finished proposal in the credit DMS only after a human OK.
Data from Core banking system, Credit DMS, SharePoint, SQL database etc. flows through neuland.ai HUB to Credit DMS, Outlook etc.
What compliance and IT ask first
Before compliance signs off: DORA, the credit decision, the interfaces and operations.
Under DORA, your institution records every contract for ICT services in the register of information, including the one for the neuland.ai HUB. Whether it is also an outsourcing within the meaning of MaRisk AT 9 is determined by your risk analysis. The DORA addendum and the other documents for this are in the Trust Center.
No. The Kreditprüfung Agent reads documents, calculates ratios according to your credit manual and drafts the proposal; the Agent Library lists 40 to 60% faster credit decisions for it. Votes and the credit decision stay with front office, back office and the authorized decision makers, and every write action waits for a human OK. Whether your use case falls under the high-risk rules of the EU AI Act is for your institution to assess.
We connect systems such as the core banking system or credit DMS individually via interfaces as an additional service, including legacy systems and your own specialist applications. Ready to use are, among others, SharePoint, OneDrive, Outlook, Teams, Confluence and SQL databases. Your admins decide per agent which data it reads there.
After two free test weeks, pilot and regular operation follow at fixed prices, plus a one-time onboarding fee. We prepare the offer based on your use case, details in the pricing overview.
The neuland.ai HUB runs in German data centers operated by STACKIT; on request, also in your own data center or hybrid. Which subprocessors are involved depends on the connectors you choose; all of them are named in the DPA, and the documents are in the Trust Center.
Customers from financial services include abcfinance. The Agent Library shows which of the ready-made agents fit your institution.
One decided credit application is enough. Watch the credit proposal take shape.
If you like, bring your credit manual, and the agent in the neuland.ai HUB calculates with your thresholds. Then we discuss connecting your systems, such as the core banking system and credit DMS, and the first agents.
After your request
- 01You choose a decided application, without customer names
- 02We draft the credit proposal for it in the neuland.ai HUB
- 03You get a proposal for integration and the first agents