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
Double-pledged collateral: collateral pledged beyond its value
Curated demo — real public recordsIs the same collateral pledged twice? (the REGISTER thesis)
This is what a shared record across lenders would catch once it exists, shown on public cases; it is not live (that needs design-partner tapes; borrower identifiers are stripped from public data under SEC Release 33-9638).
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
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))
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)
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.
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 (verdict: critical))
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(a cross-document reconciliation verdict)
Boundary: v1 public-data screening. Anchored to the public record (DOJ indictment, Ch.7 filing) — NOT raw UCC filings. Named parties and the ~$1.4B/$2.2B magnitudes are documented public facts; the per-lender allocation is illustrative. A lien-level red flag corroborated by public facts — NOT independent verification of the per-instrument double-pledge (that is v3, private cross-lender data).
Cross-document collateral reconciliation
Cross-lender double-pledge: the same auto-loan and vehicle collateral pool pledged to three secured parties, summing beyond its value.
Tricolor Holdings (Ch.7, Sept 2025) held ~$1.4B of real auto-loan/vehicle collateral but pledged ~$2.2B to multiple financing sources (a ~$800M shortfall), per the DOJ indictment of its CEO and COO. Documented lenders include JPMorgan Chase, Fifth Third Bancorp, and Barclays.
Public-record corroboration — allegation, not adjudicated
DOJ / trustee corroboration (allegation, not adjudicated): The superseding indictment (US v. Chu et al., SDNY) alleges that Tricolor pledged the same collateral pool — roughly 29,000 auto loans — to more than one financing source, reconstructing ~$2.2B pledged against ~$1.4B of real collateral (a ~$800M shortfall). Trustee counsel described the same over-pledge in the Chapter 7 proceeding. JPMorgan Chase and Fifth Third each disclosed a Tricolor-related charge-off; no per-lender amount is stated here. The ~29,000-loan figure is DOJ-alleged pool composition — a corroboration anchor for the aggregate direction, NOT a per-loan or per-VIN tie-out. This remains v1 public-data screening: an allegation corroborated on the public record, not independent verification of the per-instrument double-pledge.
Collateral pledged to multiple lenders beyond its value
CRITICAL (this report's own severity): collateral pledged beyond its value, by 10% or more of that value
The Tricolor auto-loan and vehicle collateral pool is pledged to 3 lenders (JPMorgan Chase, Fifth Third, Barclays) totaling $2.2B against a value of $1.4B; over-pledged by $800M.
Per-rule and per-severity discrepancy totals are NOT additive: a single pool can carry overlapping discrepancies across rules (e.g. an availability overstatement and a cross-aging discrepancy), so summing them would overstate the amount at risk.
Source: public record
Each citation is a named public source — never a raw UCC filing
Per the DOJ indictment, Tricolor pledged the same auto-loan/vehicle collateral to multiple financing sources, totaling ~$2.2B against ~$1.4B of real collateral. JPMorgan Chase is a documented lender (DOJ). Per-lender allocation is illustrative of the documented ~$2.2B aggregate.
Provenance: real-anchored-curated@demonstration. Per-lender allocation is illustrative of the documented aggregate; this is a red flag corroborated by the public record, not an independent verification from primary filings.
What we don’t claim
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.