Track lender information responses by evidence version and recipient

A response tracker manages the evidence conversation. It should show which lender asked the question, what answer was provided, which files supported it and whether the reviewer still has an unresolved concern. Keeping an email count is not enough.

The OCC file-documentation discussion provides context for a coherent credit record. This original tracker is a borrower coordination aid. It does not establish a lender’s approval or require sharing a lender’s proprietary questions with another institution.

Separate the question from the document request

A request for a bank statement may be intended to verify equity, explain a receipt or confirm a reserve balance. Record the actual question when known so the response addresses the issue. If the purpose is unclear, obtain clarification through the transaction team.

Use one request identifier per issue and preserve the recipient. Similar questions from two lenders can be linked internally, but their answers and supporting versions still need separate delivery records.

Blank response tracker

request_id,recipient,question,requested_date,due_date,answer_summary,evidence_version,sent_date,review_status,next_action
REQ001,,,,,,,,open,

Field instructions and common errors

Dates are calendar dates in the sample. Due dates must come from the actual process; this file does not create a contractual extension or calculate business-day rules.

Completed hypothetical example

request_id,recipient,question,requested_date,due_date,answer_summary,evidence_version,sent_date,review_status,next_action
REQ001,Hypothetical Lender A,Explain September rent receipts versus billed rent,2026-10-12,2026-10-16,Old arrears and security deposit separated from current rent,RECON-v2;LEDGER-v3,2026-10-15,under_review,Confirm reviewer received both files
REQ002,Hypothetical Lender B,Confirm September rent receipts versus billed rent,2026-10-13,2026-10-17,Prior response used RECON-v1; corrected reconciliation now required,RECON-v1,2026-10-14,superseded,Send RECON-v2 with change note through authorized channel
REQ003,Hypothetical Lender A,Provide executed roof contract,2026-10-14,2026-10-18,Bid exists; executed agreement not yet available,BID-v1,,open,Project manager to obtain execution or explain timing

REQ001 and REQ002 ask about the same rent discrepancy, but Lender A received RECON-v2 while Lender B received RECON-v1. The material difference is not the request wording. It is the evidence version used in underwriting.

The next action for B is a corrected submission with a clear change note and the relevant authorized attachments. The tracker does not assume B will accept the correction or that the change is immaterial. Preserve both versions and the reason for revision.

REQ003 remains open because a bid is not an executed contract. Sending the bid may be useful evidence, but it should not change the response to “contract delivered.” The distinction can affect construction scope, cost certainty and timing.

Correct an answer without hiding its history

When information changes, identify the earlier answer, the changed fact, the replacement evidence and the recipients affected. Avoid silently replacing a shared file while the old attachment remains in a lender’s underwriting system.

Use the evidence ledger to verify the source and the response tracker to verify communication. These records answer different questions: whether the support is reliable and whether the correct version reached the relevant reviewer.

Close a request on an observable basis

Record an actual acceptance or response when available, including conditions and scope. If the reviewer acknowledges receipt only, retain “received” or “under review.” Reopen an item when a later finding changes its premise.

At major milestones, review overdue, questioned and superseded rows with the transaction owner. The tracker is useful when it prevents an unanswered credit issue or inconsistent file from being mistaken for a completed submission.