UMFRVerification infrastructure for private credit
Request access

Eight questions, 31 worked cases, anchored to real public records — including synthetic controls built to test the checks themselves. Each case shows what the engine recomputed and which checks fired; where a figure is clickable, it opens the source it came from.

UMFR VERIFY

Off-balance-sheet leverage (cold intake — analysis of a document as-received) — First Brands Group (Moore Declaration)

Curated demo — real public recordsSource document committed; quotes are byte-exact slices.

You're looking at First Brands, reconstructed from its public Chapter 11 filings alone. On the left, the recomputed leverage rail: on-balance 5.38x to a certified floor of 7.46x, to a 9.49x ceiling — in dollars, a certified floor of $8.4B against a $10.7B ceiling, +27.2% floor to ceiling, the gap driven by factoring disclosed only in prose. On the right, which checks fired and why. The four figures below open the filing they came from. The other 30 cases are in the rail.

We do not claim to have predicted the fraud. We claim something more useful: the verification that would have surfaced it was mechanically possible, on documents lenders already had — and no one was positioned to run it.

Does the issuer's own math hold?

What this report claimsHolds through L3 — Cross-Referenced
  1. 1Document present
  2. 2Data Extracted
  3. 3Cross-Referenced
  4. 4Checks cleared
  5. 5No exception surfaced

does not hold — something surfaced for review this lens does not screen here

L1 and L2 hold for any document; L3 to L5 depend on what this case's own artifacts show

What UMFR claims and does not claim, row by row
L1

Document present

Claims: The public filing is held as a committed copy and identified by type; its SHA-256 is recorded.

Does not claim: Does not claim the document is authentic or complete.

Liability: None beyond the copy.

(baseline for any ingested document (precomputed demo fixture))

L2

Data Extracted

Claims: These values were extracted from the document text by the pipeline, each carrying a source page and quote.

Does not claim: Does not claim the values are correct or the document truthful.

Liability: Extraction quality only.

(baseline — extracted / committed data present)

L3

Cross-Referenced

Claims: The extracted data is consistent across the documents provided and passes the internal recompute / reconciliation checks that ran.

Does not claim: Does not claim the underlying business reality matches the documents.

Liability: Cross-reference accuracy.

L4

Checks cleared

Claims: No rule-based duplicate-pledge, fabrication or arithmetic check fired on the data supplied; each check that ran is named, and each that could not run is named with its reason.

Does not claim: Does not claim the absence of sophisticated fabrication that the data patterns may not surface.

Liability: Methodology, not outcomes.

(anomaly surfaced — not cleared)

L5

No exception surfaced

Claims: Each check that ran surfaced no exception. Checks that could not run are named with their reason; an inferred figure is derived by a stated rule, not read from a filed figure.

Does not claim: Does not claim investment suitability and does not constitute advice.

Liability: See Disclaimer.

not assessed(stops earlier — warnings surfaced for review, not acknowledged)

First Brands Group (Moore Declaration)

Chapter 11 Declaration — Decl. of Charles M. Moore (A&M CRO)

Source document

Loading the source document…

Off-balance-sheet leverage (cold intake)

First Brands Group (Moore Declaration) — Decl. of Charles M. Moore (A&M CRO) (Case 25-90399)

Off-balance-sheet leverage, reconciled from a cold document into a certified floor (leverage confirmed by the documents) and a flagged ceiling. The certified floor counts on-balance debt plus structurally-tagged off-balance obligations (7.46x). The uncertified ceiling (leverage if every unresolved item counts) is surfaced for review at 9.49x, not counted.

Traced to the Moore Declaration

Certified economic leverage7.46x

On-balance debt + structurally-tagged off-balance obligations only.

On-balance-sheet5.38x
+ Off-balance-sheet obligations+2.07x7.46x

(funded debt $6,100.0mm + Off-balance-sheet obligations $2,346.8mm) / EBITDA $1,133.0mm = 7.46x

Certified floor $8,446.8mm (7.46x) → reconstructed ceiling $10,746.8mm (9.49x) — +27.2% floor to ceiling

Review tiersurfaced for review

Identity / sale-accounting unresolved; not certified, not summed into the certified floor.

Third-party factoring obligations$2,300.0mm

narrative-disclosed; off-balance treatment unresolved (ASC-860 sale vs secured borrowing is a case-by-case judgment) and identity vs the structural sources is not established — shown for review, not added to certified leverage

If the review obligations are distinct true off-balance sales, leverage rises toward 9.49x(uncertified ceiling) — shown for review, not counted.

Checks — certified floor only

consx-doccovoff-bal

cons = internal consistency · x-doc = cross-document · cov = covenant · off-bal = off-balance-sheet · ● check fired · ○ clean

Result4 checks: 1 disclosed · 2 inferred · 1 declined1 exception surfaced

The certified economic leverage (7.46x) counts on-balance debt plus structurally-tagged off-balance obligations. The uncertified ceiling (9.49x) is surfaced for review and not counted.

Off-balance leverage · 1 disclosed · 2 inferred · 1 declined

  • On-balance-sheet leverage — inferred: 5.38x = On-balance-sheet funded debt 6,100 / Reported EBITDA 1,133; the document states no multiple
  • Total Off-Balance-Sheet — disclosed: 2,346.8 as the document states it; added to the certified floor
  • Third-Party Factoring Obligations — declined: 2,300: identity and sale-accounting treatment unresolved, so not added; shown for review
  • Leverage with the certified off-balance obligations — inferred: 7.46x, from 5.38x on balance sheet; the uncertified ceiling with the review items is 9.49xexception: 2.07 turns of leverage outside the balance sheet: for review

This is the off-balance-sheet leverage disclosure class implicated in First Brands — not a First-Brands detector (First Brands was private, never in SEC XBRL); it is the cold-intake reconciliation of the court-filed Moore Declaration. The certified floor is counted; the uncertified ceiling is surfaced for review, not counted (it may double-count, or be on-balance secured borrowing). Every review item is attributed to the automated extraction match, never to a named issuer. A verification signal, not a verdict.

What we don’t claim

  • Within a pool, not across lenders — borrower identifiers are stripped from public data under SEC Release 33-9638, so cross-lender matching isn’t possible here, and we don’t pretend otherwise.
  • The $68.1B map covers public filers and shows the disclosure category implicated in the First Brands collapse — it is not a ‘First Brands detector’; First Brands was private and never filed with the SEC.
  • Findings are exceptions for review, never accusations.
  • UMFR checks whether reported figures reconcile to the source documents. It does not rate credit, predict default, or recommend investment.
  • Deterministic in the output. Read from source or computed from it. No model decides a number.

What it shows on a public filing

UMFR is pre-seed, building with a small number of design partners. If you lend in private credit or invest in the infrastructure, talk to the founder.

Talk to the founder