The leasing-risk stack now evaluates lease abstracts, estoppels, administration controls, recoveries, concessions, options, co-tenancy, percentage rent, and sales-audit compliance. Those modules read the terms the abstract and rent roll present. The next missing layer is document hierarchy: amendments, side letters, waivers, and concession agreements that may override the economic terms reflected in the abstract or the rent roll. A rent roll is a summary; the governing economics live in a stack of documents, the base lease plus every amendment, side letter, waiver, and letter agreement executed after it, and a single side letter can grant free rent, cap a recovery, waive a co-tenancy remedy, or reset an option that the abstract never captured. The model carries no amendment register, side-letter inventory, waiver history, document execution status, or legal hierarchy, and this module never fabricates any of them: it reads their absence as a documentation and reconciliation gap rather than proof that no amendment or side letter exists, treats weak abstract, estoppel, administration, and audit controls as document-reconciliation risk, and books no amendment-related NOI upside or downside because no amendment data exists in the model. An underwriting screen, not legal advice, lease interpretation, title or document-priority analysis, accounting advice, a broker opinion, or a property-management recommendation. Gated to commercial rent-roll deals; residential-only deals with no commercial tenant array auto-skip. Amendment control posture classifies reconciled, partial-documentation, unreconciled, or override-sensitive from the lease abstract completeness band (complete rank 0 to deficiency rank 3), worsened where the lease-administration reconciliation posture is informal (plus 1) or unreconciled (plus 2) and the admin band reads leakage (plus 1), and where estoppel readiness needs tenant confirmation (plus 1) or a file rebuild (plus 2). Economic-override tier counts the clause families amendments most often touch: base-year-stop, mixed, or gross-capped recoveries and a leakage-exposed or sponsor-absorbed recovery band, option-friction or tenant-loss retention, elevated or high concession intensity, elevated or high percentage-rent breakpoint exposure, co-tenancy-remedy or exclusive-use-conflict bands and an elevated or high conflict tier, and high tenant concentration, mapping the count to low (0 to 1), moderate (2 to 3), elevated (4 to 5), or high (6-plus). Side-letter posture classifies none-observed, documentation-gap, conflict-watch, or economic-override-risk from documentation weakness and economic complexity together, where none-observed means no evidence in the modeled inputs and never confirmed absence. Estimated override exposure is the observable commercial rent scaled by a reconciliation-scope fraction: a 0.15 base, plus 0.10 (partial), 0.25 (unreconciled), or 0.40 (override-sensitive) for the control posture and plus 0.05, 0.15, or 0.25 for a moderate, elevated, or high override tier, clamped 0.10 to 0.90; it is reported as a share of Y1 NOI and never as a confirmed loss, and top-tenant override exposure is the largest-tenant rent share. Six weighted drivers summing to one, scored so higher means a more reconciled document stack and lower override risk: document-stack completeness 25% (abstract band complete 82, watch 64, gap 44, deficiency 28, nudged plus or minus 10 by completeness), estoppel and amendment confirmation 20% (estoppel-ready 80 down to file-deficiency 28, adjusted plus 4 clean-package, minus 2 tenant-confirmation, minus 6 file-rebuild), lease-admin reconciliation controls 20% (administration-controlled 80 down to leakage 30, adjusted plus 4 annual-reconciled, minus 3 informal, minus 6 unreconciled), economic-clause complexity 15% (low tier 78, moderate 60, elevated 44, high 30), tenant concentration and exposure 10% (low 78, moderate 56, high 34), cash-flow cushion 10% (strong 78, typical 62, tight 46, thin 30, minus 6 on a negative worst-year conversion). Bands: document-stack-controlled (composite 72-plus with a reconciled or partial-documentation control posture, a none-observed or documentation-gap side-letter posture, and a tier below high), amendment-reconciliation-watch (58 to 71, the honest center), side-letter-documentation-gap (46 to 57, or an unreconciled control posture under composite 55), economic-override-risk (under 46, or an override-sensitive posture under composite 58, or an economic-override-risk side-letter posture under composite 55), not-assessable. Memo surface: verdict banner with band, score, and the amendment-control and side-letter postures; four-stat headline across the override reconciliation scope, its share of Y1 NOI, top-tenant exposure, and the economic-override tier; a posture strip across amendment control, side letter, and override tier; per-tenant document-risk rows sorted by rent share with an inferred override risk tier (from rent share, escalated by the override tier and weak controls) and open reconciliation items, each framed as an inference to reconcile against the executed file rather than a confirmed position; six-driver weighted score table; operating actions tied to building an amendment and side-letter register from the leases (always), requiring estoppels that confirm the complete document stack and no undisclosed modification (always), and tracking the reconciled stack in lease administration (always), escalating to a clause-by-clause reconciliation on elevated or high complexity and an unconfirmed-economics posture on weak controls; diligence requests tied to the complete executed document stack per lease (always), a seller amendment and side-letter schedule with a completeness representation (always), and confirming estoppels for the largest tenants (always), plus a lease-file rebuild on a thin abstract and a clause-isolation request on elevated complexity; 2-4 deal implications by band with the explicit framing that on economic-override-risk deals weak documentation meets heavy economic complexity and the sponsor treats the stated rent, recoveries, options, and exclusives as unconfirmed until the amendment and side-letter stack is reconciled, prices for the reconciliation scope, and makes delivery of the complete document stack and confirming estoppels a closing condition. Module auto-skips without a commercial rent roll, and degrades gracefully when the abstract, estoppel and audit, administration, recovery, retention, concession, percentage-rent, co-tenancy, tenant concentration, net effective rent, or cash conversion modules are absent (postures default to a documentation gap and drivers to neutral inference). Lease amendment, side letter, and economic override risk is a deterministic underwriting screen. It is not legal advice, lease interpretation, title or document-priority analysis, accounting advice, a broker opinion, or a property-management recommendation, and it never fabricates amendments, side letters, waivers, executed documents, legal priority, tenant claims, or modified terms.
What shipped, and when.
A day-by-day record of what landed in Underwrite, kept by hand. Page 7 of 23.
Want to verify? The six files the decision depends on are rendered from the live source at /methodology/engine.
Filter by engine, UI, AI, ops, marketing or fixes.
Phase 3 continues: Lease Amendment, Side Letter, and Economic Override Risk Index lands on top of the leasing-risk stack. The memo now reads document hierarchy: whether the amendments, side letters, waivers, and concession agreements that sit above the abstract and rent roll have been reconciled, or whether the underwritten economics may rest on terms a later document already changed. Because the model carries no amendment register, side-letter inventory, waiver history, or document hierarchy, it never fabricates them: it reads their absence as a documentation and reconciliation gap rather than confirmed absence, books no amendment-related NOI upside or downside, and surfaces the override exposure as the observable rent scope requiring reconciliation, not a loss. 140 Phase 3 modules cumulative.
Phase 3 continues: Tenant Sales Audit Rights and Reporting Compliance Risk Index lands on top of the leasing-risk stack. The memo now reads whether, if retail tenants carry sales-reporting obligations and audit rights, the sponsor can actually verify the reporting and detect underpayment. Because the model carries no sales reports, audit clauses, breakpoint schedules, or reporting history, it never fabricates them: it reads their absence as a documentation and control gap, holds modeled sales-based upside and downside at zero, surfaces the sales-rent verification scope as observable retail rent that needs confirmation, and infers compliance risk from the sales-reporting and clause-conflict reads, lease-admin and reconciliation controls, estoppel and abstract confirmation, concentration, and cushion. 139 Phase 3 modules cumulative.
The leasing-risk stack now reads sales reporting and percentage rent (whether sales-based rent upside or breakpoint risk exists) and co-tenancy and exclusive-use clause conflict. The next layer is reporting compliance and audit control: if retail or mixed-use tenants carry sales-reporting obligations, audit rights, breakpoint mechanics, or percentage-rent provisions, can the sponsor actually verify the reporting and detect underpayment. Percentage rent is only as good as the sales reports behind it; the right to collect it depends on the tenant reporting sales on a schedule, on a certification, and on the landlord being able to audit, so a pro forma that credits percentage rent without the reporting and audit controls to back it is crediting a number it cannot verify. The underwriting model carries no tenant sales, sales-reporting obligations, audit-rights clauses, sales certificates, breakpoint schedules, audit findings, or reporting history, and this module never invents any of them: it reads missing sales-audit data as a documentation and control gap rather than confirmed noncompliance, holds modeled sales-based upside and downside at zero because no sales data exists in the model, surfaces the sales-rent verification scope only as observable retail rent whose reporting and audit status requires confirmation, and infers compliance and verification risk only from observable proxies. An underwriting screen, not legal advice, accounting advice, audit advice, a broker opinion, or a property-management recommendation. Gated to retail, mixed-use, or commercial deals with retail or sales-reporting exposure; residential-only deals with no retail context auto-skip. The verification scope reuses the upstream sales-reporting at-risk scope from module #137 when available, else the retail rent base (per-tenant rent roll or aggregate retail net of vacancy), and is reported with its share of Y1 NOI; because the pro forma books contractual base rent only, estimated upside dollars, estimated downside dollars, and modeled NOI drag are all zero by construction. Six weighted drivers summing to one, scored so higher means more documented reporting obligations, stronger audit and verification controls, and lower compliance risk: sales-reporting documentation 25% (a structural gap because the model holds no sales data, read from the upstream sales-reporting posture, lease abstract band, and reconciliation control posture, capped below fully-documented at 18 to 62), audit rights and breakpoint verification 20% (the breakpoint exposure tier and percentage-rent posture, estoppel and audit band, lease-abstract option-rights coverage, clause-conflict band, and net-effective concession drag, capped below fully-confirmed at 88), lease-admin control support 15% (administration band and reconciliation posture), tenant concentration and retail exposure 15% (concentration risk tier, largest-tenant share, retail durability and trade-area leakage, and the verification scope share of NOI), estoppel and abstract confirmation risk 15% (estoppel and audit band, lease abstract band), cash cushion and income materiality 10% (cash conversion band and worst-year conversion, scope materiality). Sales audit posture classifies control-deficient (admin leakage, unreconciled, or weak upstream reporting controls), documented-control (administration controlled, annual reconciled, abstract complete, and estoppel clean), audit-rights-watch (elevated or high breakpoint exposure or a tenant-confirmation or file-rebuild estoppel posture), else documentation-gap. Reporting compliance posture classifies compliance-gap, low-friction, exception-sensitive, or monitor-required from the administration band and reconciliation posture. Breakpoint verification posture classifies not-applicable when there is little percentage-rent or breakpoint exposure to verify, verification-risk when elevated or high exposure meets weak confirmation, else documentation-gap, and never emits documented since the model holds no breakpoint schedule. Audit exposure tiers minimal to high from the verification scope share of NOI, escalated one step by a control-deficient, compliance-gap, or verification-risk posture. Bands: audit-control-supported (composite 72-plus with no control-deficient, compliance-gap, or verification-risk posture), reporting-documentation-watch (the honest center), audit-rights-gap (verification-risk under composite 58, or sub-44 composite with verification risk), sales-compliance-risk (control-deficient or compliance-gap under composite 58, or sub-44 composite with a deficient posture), not-assessable. Memo surface: verdict banner with band, score, and the sales-audit and reporting-compliance postures; four-stat headline across the sales-rent verification scope, its share of Y1 NOI, the audit exposure tier, and booked sales-rent upside (zero by construction); a posture strip across sales audit, reporting compliance, and breakpoint verification; per-tenant rows sorted by rent share with an inferred reporting risk tier (from rent share, escalated on deficient controls or verification risk and on the largest tenant under high concentration) and a read that flags sales reports, audit rights, breakpoint schedules, and reporting history as not in the model; six-driver weighted score table; operating actions tied to standing up a sales-reporting and audit-rights register from the leases (always), collecting and reconciling sales statements on the contractual schedule (always), and exercising audit rights on a rolling basis for the largest tenants (always), escalating on deficient controls and breakpoint verification risk; diligence requests tied to pulling the sales-reporting, percentage-rent, breakpoint, and audit-rights clauses (always), requesting trailing sales reports and reconciliations or audit findings (always), and isolating any sales-based rent in the broader underwriting (always), plus a clause-rebuild request on a thin lease file and a largest-tenant reporting confirmation on high concentration; 2-4 deal implications by band with the explicit framing that on sales-compliance-risk deals weak lease-administration and confirmation controls meet undocumented sales reporting and the sponsor underwrites strictly on minimum rent, holds percentage rent out of the base case, and stands up the reporting and audit controls before crediting overage. Module auto-skips deals with no retail context, and degrades gracefully when the sales-reporting, co-tenancy, lease administration, estoppel and audit, abstract completeness, tenant concentration, net effective rent, retail anchor, trade-area, or cash conversion modules are absent (postures default to a documentation gap and drivers to neutral inference). Tenant sales audit rights and reporting compliance risk is a deterministic underwriting screen. It is not legal advice, accounting advice, audit advice, a broker opinion, or a property-management recommendation, and it never fabricates sales reports, breakpoint schedules, audit rights, reporting frequency, certificates, audit claims, or tenant noncompliance.
Phase 3 continues: Tenant Co-Tenancy, Operating Covenant, and Exclusive-Use Conflict Risk Index lands on top of the leasing-risk stack. The memo now reads whether co-tenancy provisions, operating covenants, and exclusive-use grants carry latent conflict or remedy exposure that the rent line does not show. Because the model carries no lease clause text, it never fabricates clauses: it reads their absence as a documentation gap, surfaces remedy-exposed rent as scope rather than a legal conclusion, and infers conflict risk from retail mix, anchor dependency, concentration, lease-admin and abstract gaps, and income cushion. 138 Phase 3 modules cumulative.
The leasing-risk stack now covers concessions, rollover, retention, WALT, lease abstract completeness, estoppels, lease administration, tenant credit, credit support, TI burnoff, and sales-reporting and percentage-rent exposure. The next retail and mixed-use lease-risk layer is clause conflict risk: co-tenancy provisions that tie inline tenant rent to the presence of an anchor, operating covenants that require a tenant to keep operating, exclusive-use grants that bar competing uses, and the remedies attached to all three. These clauses do not change the contracted rent until a trigger fires, but when one does the remedy can reduce inline rent, let a tenant go dark or terminate, or block a re-lease, so a pro forma that reads clean on rent can carry latent conflict exposure that none of the numbers show. The underwriting model carries no lease clause text (no co-tenancy conditions, operating covenants, exclusive-use grants, radius restrictions, remedies, or tenant legal positions), and this module never invents any of them: it reads the absence of clause data as a documentation gap rather than confirmed absence, surfaces estimated remedy-exposed rent only as observable scope rather than a legal conclusion, and infers documentation and conflict risk only from observable proxies. An underwriting screen, not legal advice, lease interpretation, a broker opinion, or a property-management recommendation. Gated to commercial, retail, and mixed-use rent-roll deals; residential-only deals with no commercial tenant array and no retail context auto-skip. Estimated remedy-exposed rent is the inline rent a co-tenancy or exclusive remedy could reach: when a dominant anchor is sized (largest-tenant share at 25%-plus or a grocery-anchored format) it is the commercial rent net of that anchor, otherwise the commercial or retail rent base, reported with its share of Y1 NOI and surfaced as scope rather than a legal conclusion. Six weighted drivers summing to one, scored so higher means more complete clause documentation, a benign tenant mix and anchor structure, and lower conflict risk: clause documentation completeness 25% (a structural gap because the model holds no clause text, read from the lease abstract band, option-rights coverage, lease-administration option-tracking posture, and estoppel readiness, capped below fully-documented at 18 to 62), tenant mix and exclusive-use overlap 20% (retail format, small-shop fragility, commercial tenant count, and sales-rent underwrite risk as overlap-likelihood proxies), co-tenancy and anchor dependency 20% (the retail co-tenancy risk tier, anchor durability and quality, largest-tenant share, rollover within the hold, and tenant-loss retention pressure), operating covenant and notice control 15% (lease-administration band and notice-control posture), rent concentration and remedy exposure 10% (tenant concentration risk tier, largest-tenant share, estoppel concentration exposure), income cushion and recovery support 10% (cash conversion band and worst-year conversion, lease-recovery band). Co-tenancy posture classifies none-observed (non-retail), remedy-sensitive (a dominant anchor of high or elevated co-tenancy risk, anchor fragility, or tenant-loss retention), anchor-dependent (a dominant anchor present), else documentation-gap. Operating covenant posture classifies low-friction, monitor-required, covenant-sensitive, or default-remedy-watch from the administration band and notice posture. Exclusive-use posture classifies no-conflict-observed (non-retail), conflict-sensitive (overlap meets a thin lease file), overlap-watch (a discretionary or food-and-beverage mix or many small shops), else documentation-gap. Conflict exposure tiers minimal to high from the remedy-exposed share of NOI, escalated one step by a remedy-sensitive, conflict-sensitive, or default-remedy-watch posture and capped at moderate for non-retail commercial where co-tenancy and exclusive-use conflict is structurally unlikely. Bands: covenant-package-clean (composite 72-plus with no remedy-sensitive co-tenancy or conflict-sensitive exclusive-use posture), clause-documentation-watch (the honest center), co-tenancy-remedy-risk (remedy-sensitive co-tenancy under composite 58, or sub-44 composite with a dominant anchor), exclusive-use-conflict-risk (conflict-sensitive exclusive use under composite 58, or sub-44 composite with overlap), not-assessable. Memo surface: verdict banner with band, score, and the co-tenancy and exclusive-use postures; four-stat headline across remedy-exposed rent, its share of Y1 NOI, the commercial tenant count, and the conflict exposure tier; a posture strip across co-tenancy, operating covenant, and exclusive use; per-tenant rows sorted by rent share with an inferred clause-conflict risk tier (from rent share, escalated on overlap potential and on the dominant anchor) and a read that flags co-tenancy, exclusive-use, and operating-covenant clauses as not in the model, marking the dominant tenant as the condition inline co-tenancy clauses would key off; six-driver weighted score table; operating actions tied to abstracting the clause register from the leases (always), mapping exclusive-use grants against the tenant mix before new leases (always), and tracking operating-covenant compliance in the administration calendar (always), escalating on a dominant anchor and on overlap potential; diligence requests tied to pulling the co-tenancy, exclusive-use, radius, and operating-covenant clauses (always), reconciling an exclusive-use schedule against the rent roll (always), and modeling the inline remedy if a major tenant goes dark (always), plus a clause-rebuild request on a thin lease file and a largest-tenant clause confirmation on high concentration; 2-4 deal implications by band with the explicit framing that on co-tenancy-remedy-risk deals a dominant anchor whose departure inline tenants could invoke meets undocumented co-tenancy terms and the sponsor confirms the conditions and remedies and stresses the inline rent for the anchor going dark. Module auto-skips residential-only deals with no commercial rent roll or retail context, and degrades gracefully when the retail anchor, trade-area, mixed-use, tenant concentration, net effective rent, lease administration, estoppel and audit, abstract completeness, recovery, retention, lease-expiration, sales-reporting, or cash conversion modules are absent (postures default to a documentation gap and drivers to neutral inference). Tenant co-tenancy, operating covenant, and exclusive-use conflict risk is a deterministic underwriting screen. It is not legal advice, lease interpretation, a broker opinion, or a property-management recommendation, and it never fabricates co-tenancy clauses, exclusives, operating covenants, remedies, or tenant legal positions.
Phase 3 continues: Tenant Sales Reporting, Percentage Rent, and Breakpoint Exposure Index lands on top of the leasing-economics stack. The memo now reads whether retail and mixed-use tenants carry sales-based rent upside, breakpoint risk, or undocumented sales reporting that changes how durable the underwritten income is. Because the model books contractual base rent only, it never fabricates sales or percentage rent: it scopes the retail rent whose sales-reporting status is undocumented, books zero sales-based upside or downside, and infers exposure from retail durability, trade-area capture, concentration, controls, and cushion. 137 Phase 3 modules cumulative.
The memo carries tenant concession economics, TI and LC burnoff, credit and default risk, credit support, lease administration controls, estoppel and audit exposure, abstract completeness, WALT, retention, and rollover. The next commercial-lease-economics layer is sales reporting and percentage rent: whether retail or mixed-use tenants carry sales-based rent upside, breakpoint risk, reporting gaps, or revenue volatility that changes how durable the underwritten income actually is. Percentage rent is rent that steps up once a tenant's sales clear a breakpoint; it can be genuine bonus upside on a productive store or a number the pro forma leans on that never materializes, and either way it depends on the tenant generating, reporting, and being audited on sales. The underwriting model carries no tenant sales, percentage-rent clauses, breakpoints, audit rights, or reporting-compliance fields, and the pro forma books contractual base rent only, so this module never invents any of them: it reads the absence of sales-reporting data as a documentation gap rather than confirmed absence, books no sales-based upside or downside it cannot observe, and infers exposure only from observable proxies. A diligence and underwriting screen, not legal, broker, property-management, accounting, or asset-management advice, and it does not predict tenant sales with certainty. Applies only to retail, mixed-use, or commercial deals with retail-like cues (retail or mixed-use property type, retail SF or rent, an applicable upstream retail module, or retail cues in the deal name, address, notes, or tenant labels); pure office, industrial, and multifamily deals with no retail cues auto-skip. The retail rent base is read from the per-tenant rent roll, else aggregate retail revenue net of vacancy, and reported as estimated sales rent at documentation risk, the scope of rent over which the undocumented sales-reporting question hangs, not observed sales-based rent; the retail-rent share of Y1 NOI surfaces the income dependence. Because the pro forma books base rent only, estimated upside dollars, estimated downside dollars, and modeled NOI drag are all zero by construction, since crediting either side would be fabricating sales projections. Six weighted drivers summing to one, scored so higher means cleaner documentation, more durable retail, and lower sales-based-rent underwriting risk: sales-rent documentation clarity 25% (a structural gap because the model holds no sales fields, read from the lease abstract band, reconciliation control posture, and estoppel readiness and capped below fully-documented at 18 to 62), retail durability and trade-area support 20% (anchor durability band, trade-area capture band and leakage risk, mixed-use synergy band), breakpoint and upside underwriting risk 20% (base 68 because the base-rent-only pro forma carries no overstated percentage-rent line, adjusted for net-effective concession drag, trade-area leakage risk, and anchor fragility), concentration and NOI dependence 15% (tenant concentration risk tier, largest-tenant share, commercial share of NOI), lease administration and reporting controls 10% (administration band, reconciliation posture, estoppel and audit band), cash-flow cushion 10% (cash conversion band and a negative worst-year conversion haircut). Sales reporting posture classifies reporting-controls-adequate (administration controlled, annual reconciled, abstract complete), reporting-controls-weak (admin leakage or unreconciled or informal reconciliation), else reporting-documentation-gap. Percentage rent posture classifies upside-possible-undocumented (strong retail support), fragile-if-underwritten (anchor fragility or leakage risk), else percentage-rent-undocumented. Breakpoint exposure tiers minimal to high from the retail share of NOI (0.40-plus elevated base, 0.15-plus moderate) escalated one step on high concentration or high leakage. Bands: sales-rent-upside-supported (composite 72-plus with strong retail support and not weak), breakpoint-watch (58-71), reporting-documentation-gap (44-57, the honest center), sales-rent-underwrite-risk (under 44, or weak retail support under composite 52), not-assessable. Memo surface: verdict banner with band, score, sales reporting posture, and percentage rent posture; headline stats across retail rent at documentation risk, booked sales-rent upside and downside (both zero), breakpoint exposure tier, retail-rent share of Y1 NOI, modeled sales-rent drag (zero), and percentage rent posture; per-tenant rows sorted by rent share with an inferred sales-reporting risk tier (from rent share, escalated on weak retail support and on the largest tenant under high concentration) and a read that flags sales, percentage rent, breakpoints, and reporting status as not in the model; six-driver weighted score table; operating actions tied to building a sales-reporting register from the leases (always), underwriting percentage rent as bonus upside held outside the base case (always), and tracking sales-reporting and breakpoint compliance in the administration calendar (always), escalating on weak retail support and elevated or high breakpoint exposure; diligence requests tied to pulling the percentage-rent and sales-reporting clauses with breakpoint, overage rate, reporting frequency, and audit rights (always), requesting trailing tenant sales reports and reconciling to collected rent (always), and isolating any sales-based rent in the pro forma (always), plus a reporting-controls confirmation on weak controls and a largest-tenant sales-reporting confirmation on high concentration; 2-4 deal implications by band including the retail rent at documentation risk, its share of NOI, and the three classifications, with the explicit framing that on sales-rent-underwrite-risk deals weak retail durability meets undocumented sales reporting and the sponsor underwrites strictly on contractual minimum rent, holds percentage rent out of the base case, and confirms trailing tenant sales before crediting overage. Module auto-skips deals with no retail context, and degrades gracefully when the retail anchor, trade-area, mixed-use, tenant concentration, net effective rent, lease administration, estoppel and audit, abstract completeness, or cash conversion modules are absent (postures default to a documentation gap and drivers to neutral inference). Tenant sales reporting, percentage rent, and breakpoint exposure is a deterministic diligence and underwriting screen. It is not legal, broker, property-management, accounting, or asset-management advice, it never fabricates tenant sales, breakpoints, percentage rent clauses, audit rights, or reporting compliance, and it does not predict tenant sales with certainty.
The IC memo index grows up with the module count. The memo table of contents now routes the leasing-diligence and capital-projects families into their own categories, every category group collapses with a count, and the memo view controls gain a collapse-all action. Navigation only; no engine math moved, and the 136-module count is unchanged.
The memo table of contents categorizes sections by title keywords, and the category map predated the leasing-diligence and capital-projects waves, so the newest modules piled into the generic Rent Roll and Risk groups and the index lost its shape. Two categories join the router: Leasing and Tenant Diligence (concessions, rollover, retention, WALT, lease abstract, estoppels, lease administration, tenant credit, credit support, and allowance burnoff) and Capex and Capital Projects (procurement, draws, closeout, capital project ROI, exit value protection, diligence evidence, and business disruption), routed by specific title keywords so the core rent-roll sections stay where they were. Every category group in the index is now collapsible with a section count, the pattern the Phase 3 live group already used, and filtering always shows matches even inside a collapsed group. The memo view controls gain a collapse-all action beside expand-all, and the stale hardcoded section-count fallback is gone. Navigation chrome stays hidden in print, the printable memo is untouched, and no engine module changed. 136 Phase 3 modules cumulative, unchanged by this entry.
Phase 3 continues: Tenant Improvement Allowance Burnoff and Amortization Recovery Risk Index lands on top of the leasing-economics stack. The memo now reads whether the TI, LC, and free rent the rent roll carries burns off cleanly over the lease term or leaves unrecovered leasing capital at rollover and exit. It surfaces the leasing capital, the recovered and unrecovered split, a recovery ratio, a recovery posture, and a per-tenant leasing-capital table. 136 Phase 3 modules cumulative.
The memo carries tenant credit and default risk, credit support adequacy, lease administration, estoppel and audit exposure, abstract completeness, WALT, retention, rollover, and concession risk. The next leasing-economics layer is tenant improvement and leasing-cost recovery: whether the TI allowances, leasing commissions, free rent, and amortized concession packages burn off cleanly through the hold or leave the sponsor exposed to unrecovered leasing capital. Leasing capital is spent up front to sign or renew a lease and burns off over the lease term through the rent it secures; a long remaining term lets the allowance amortize and recover, while a lease that rolls before payback or a hold that ends first leaves a residual unrecovered. A diligence and underwriting screen, not legal, broker, property-management, accounting, or asset-management advice, and the recovery estimate is an underwriting proxy rather than accounting treatment; where amortization or repayment clauses are absent from the model it reads a documentation gap rather than fabricating repayment obligations, commission structures, tenant reimbursements, or accounting treatment. Renders when purchase price, hold of at least one year, and Y1 NOI are present and a commercial rent roll exists; residential-only deals with no commercial tenant array auto-skip. Leasing capital is taken from the concession module total concession exposure, else the sum of per-tenant concession term (free rent plus TI and LC) the Net Effective Rent module carries; leasing capital intensity reads as a multiple of Y1 NOI (light 0.25-or-under, moderate 0.5, elevated 1.0, heavy above). The recovery fraction equals the weighted average lease term over a seven-year standard amortization horizon (clamped 0.15 to 0.95), discounted 0.15 times the rent rolling within the hold above 30%, minus 0.08 on a tenant-loss retention band and 0.06 on a rollover re-tenanting-gap band, re-clamped 0.10 to 0.95. Estimated recovered equals that fraction times the leasing capital; estimated unrecovered is the residual, reported as an average annual NOI drag in bps over the hold; the recovery ratio surfaces the fraction; top-tenant unrecovered is the largest leasing-capital share times one minus recovery. Amortization documentation posture reads through the credit-support module documentation read (documented, standard-inferred, documentation-gap, or unverified). Six weighted drivers, scored so higher means cleaner recovery and lower unrecovered leakage: leasing capital intensity 25% (0.25x-or-under of NOI 80, 0.5x 62, 1.0x 44, above 28), remaining lease term and burnoff runway 20% (WALT 8-plus years 80, 6 64, 4 48, 2.5 34, under 24; null 50), concession drag and NER leakage 20% (NER drag 8pp-or-under 78, 18pp 60, 30pp 42, above 28; concession lease-up-capital-overhang minus 6 or concession-controlled plus 4), rollover and retention pressure 15% (rolling 25%-or-under 78, 45% 60, 65% 42, above 28; tenant-loss-risk or re-tenanting-gap-risk minus 4 each), documentation and recovery clarity 10% (documented 78, standard-inferred 60, documentation-gap 40, unverified 24), reserve and cash cushion 10% (ReserveAdequacy adequate 76, thin 50, under-reserved 30; CashConversion strong plus 6 to thin minus 8; positive late-hold NoiDecomp deltaNOI plus 3). Allowance recovery posture classifies fully-recovering (ratio 0.75-plus with WALT 5-plus or null), amortizing-on-track (0.55-plus), front-loaded (0.40-plus), else leaking-unrecovered. Bands: allowance-recovery-supported (composite 75-plus with fully-recovering or amortizing-on-track posture), amortization-watch (60-74), front-loaded-concession-risk (45-59, or heavy intensity under composite 50), unrecovered-ti-leakage (under 45, or leaking-unrecovered posture under composite 55, or recovery ratio under 0.40 under composite 52), not-assessable. Memo surface: verdict banner with band, score, recovery posture, intensity; seven headline stats across leasing capital, recovered dollars, unrecovered dollars, recovery ratio, NOI drag, top-tenant unrecovered, and amortization documentation; per-tenant rows sorted by leasing capital carried with the dollars, a recovery risk tier (from net-effective drag above 30 or 18 points and whether the lease rolls in hold and a concentration bump), and a read that flags amortization and repayment terms as not in the model; six-driver weighted score table; operating actions tied to tracking the unamortized leasing-capital balance per lease on a net-effective basis (always), tying allowances to term and seeking amortization or repayment-on-early-termination clauses (always), and reserving for the unrecovered balance at exit (always), escalating to face-rent achievability on elevated or heavy intensity and blend-and-extend on a front-loaded or leaking read; diligence requests tied to the executed TI, LC, and free rent terms with the funding schedule and any amortization, repayment, or recapture clause (always), the unamortized balance as of underwriting and the exit treatment (always), and market TI, LC, and free rent comps (always), plus a rolling-lease amortization check above 45% rollover and an unconfirmed-terms follow-up on a documentation gap; 2-4 deal implications by band including leasing capital, recovered and unrecovered dollars, the recovery ratio, and the three postures, with the explicit framing that on unrecovered-TI-leakage deals heavy leasing capital meets a short burnoff runway and the sponsor reprices for the structural leasing-capital cost, secures amortization or repayment terms, or re-underwrites the face rents net of the allowances required to achieve them. Module auto-skips without a commercial rent roll, and degrades gracefully when the credit-support, tenant credit, concession, net effective rent, rollover, WALT, retention, cash conversion, NOI decomposition, or reserve adequacy modules are absent (leasing capital reads from the rent roll and postures default to neutral inference). Tenant improvement allowance burnoff and amortization recovery risk is a deterministic diligence and underwriting screen. It is not legal, broker, property-management, accounting, or asset-management advice, the recovery estimate is an underwriting proxy rather than accounting treatment, and it reads a documentation gap rather than fabricating amortization or repayment terms.
Phase 3 continues: Tenant Guaranty, Security Deposit, and Credit Support Adequacy Index lands on top of the tenant-credit layer. The memo now reads whether the deal has enough deposit, guaranty, or letter-of-credit backstop to absorb the inferred tenant default exposure, treating the absence of support fields as a documentation gap rather than confirmed absence. It surfaces a credit-support posture, deposit and guaranty documentation reads, supported and unsecured exposure, a coverage ratio, and a top-tenant unsupported share. 135 Phase 3 modules cumulative.
The memo carries tenant credit and default risk, lease administration controls, estoppel and audit exposure, abstract completeness, WALT, retention, rollover, and concession risk. The next lease-risk layer is credit support: whether the deal has enough deposit, guaranty, letter of credit, or other backstop coverage to absorb tenant default, collection friction, downtime, and replacement cost. The model carries no tenant-level security deposit, letter of credit, guaranty, or parent-credit fields, and this module never invents them; it starts from the inferred default exposure carried by the Tenant Credit module, estimates how much a standard support package would cover under the documentation quality the upstream lease modules imply, and treats the residual as unsecured, classifying a documentation gap rather than confirmed absence where support evidence is missing. A diligence and underwriting screen, not a legal enforceability opinion, a credit rating, a broker opinion, or a property-management recommendation, and it does not predict tenant default with certainty. Renders when purchase price, hold of at least one year, and Y1 NOI are present and a commercial rent roll exists; residential-only deals with no commercial tenant array auto-skip. Guaranty documentation posture reads from a documentation-quality blend: the LeaseAbstract band (abstract-package-complete 80, critical-date-watch 60, lease-data-gap-risk 40, abstract-deficiency-risk 22) adjusted by the estoppel module (estoppel-ready plus 4, lease-file-deficiency-risk minus 8) and the lease-administration module (administration-controlled plus 4, lease-admin-leakage-risk minus 8), mapped documented 72-plus, inferred-standard 54-71, documentation-gap 38-53, absent-or-unverified under 38. Inferred support coverage blends a 0.12 base deposit fraction with a guaranty fraction by Tenant Credit posture (credit-anchored 0.30, mixed-credit 0.15, credit-thin 0.05, credit-fragile 0.0), discounted by documentation reliability (documented 1.0, inferred-standard 0.7, documentation-gap 0.4, absent-or-unverified 0.15), capped at 0.9. Estimated supported exposure equals that coverage fraction times the Tenant Credit default exposure; estimated unsecured exposure is the residual, reported as an average annual NOI drag in bps over the hold; the coverage ratio surfaces the supported fraction; top-tenant unsupported equals the largest tenant share times one minus coverage. Six weighted drivers, scored so higher means stronger inferred support and lower unsecured exposure: default exposure severity 25% (Tenant Credit band credit-supported-rent-roll 80, tenant-credit-watch 62, collection-friction-risk 42, default-cure-exposure 26), documentation completeness 20% (documented 80, inferred-standard 60, documentation-gap 40, absent-or-unverified 24), top-tenant concentration 20% (top tenant 15%-or-under 80, 30% 60, 50% 42, above 26; high concentration minus 4), lease administration and estoppel readiness 15% (admin band administration-controlled 78 down to lease-admin-leakage-risk 26; estoppel-ready plus 4 or lease-file-deficiency-risk minus 6), rollover and replacement friction 10% (rollover band rollover-controlled 78 down to re-tenanting-gap-risk 26; rolling above 50% or tenant-loss-risk minus 4 each), reserve and cash cushion 10% (ReserveAdequacy adequate 76, thin 50, under-reserved 30; CashConversion strong plus 6 to thin minus 8). Credit support posture classifies credit-backstopped (score 70-plus with documented or inferred-standard documentation and unsecured share 0.65-or-under), deposit-supported (55-plus), thinly-secured (40-plus), else effectively-unsecured. Security deposit coverage maps from documentation posture (documented to documented-coverage, inferred-standard to standard-deposit, documentation-gap to thin-deposit, absent-or-unverified to undocumented). Bands: credit-support-adequate (composite 75-plus with credit-backstopped or deposit-supported posture), deposit-backstop-watch (60-74), guaranty-documentation-gap (45-59), unsecured-default-exposure (under 45, or effectively-unsecured posture under composite 55, or absent-or-unverified documentation under composite 52, or top-tenant unsupported above 40% under composite 52), not-assessable. Memo surface: verdict banner with band, score, support posture; seven headline stats across top-tenant unsupported, unsecured exposure, coverage ratio, NOI drag, supported exposure, deposit coverage, and documentation posture; per-tenant rows sorted by rent share with an inferred support risk tier (from rent share, bumped one step on a documentation gap) and a support read (concentrated and unverified, documentation gap, or standard support assumed), each framed explicitly as an inference from rent share and lease-file quality to confirm against the lease rather than a statement that support is present or absent; six-driver weighted score table; operating actions tied to building a credit support register from the leases recording deposits, letters of credit, guaranty type and guarantor, and replenishment terms (always), sizing support against the realistic default cost rather than a month or two of rent (always), and tracking deposit and letter-of-credit expirations in the administration calendar (always), escalating to a closing condition on documentation gaps and a largest-tenant package confirmation on a high unsupported share; diligence requests tied to the deposit ledger and letters of credit and guaranty documents with amount, form, guarantor, expiration, and replenishment (always), whether deposits are segregated and transferable and instruments assignable at closing (always), and the default remedies the support actually backstops including caps and burn-down (always), plus a largest-tenant support read on high concentration and a coverage confirmation against the inferred unsecured exposure; 2-4 deal implications by band including default, supported, and unsecured exposure dollars, the coverage ratio, and the three postures, with the explicit framing that on unsecured-default-exposure deals concentrated inferred-fragile rent meets thin or unverified support and the sponsor confirms the actual support package, reprices for the structural exposure, or sizes committed reserves and security to the unsecured rent. Module auto-skips without a commercial rent roll, and degrades gracefully when the tenant credit, lease administration, estoppel, abstract, WALT, retention, rollover, net effective rent, tenant concentration, cash conversion, or reserve adequacy modules are absent (a concentration-based default-exposure proxy and a documentation-gap posture default in). Tenant guaranty, security deposit, and credit support adequacy is a deterministic diligence and underwriting screen. It is not a legal enforceability opinion, a credit rating, a broker opinion, or a property-management recommendation, and it does not predict tenant default with certainty.
Phase 3 continues: Tenant Credit Deterioration and Default Cure Risk Index lands on top of the lease-risk stack. The memo now reads whether the rent roll is exposed to tenant weakness, cure-period friction, collection risk, and replacement downtime if a key tenant stops paying, inferred only from observable proxies since the model carries no tenant financials. It surfaces a credit posture, a default-cure posture, a collection risk tier, at-risk rent, and estimated default exposure. 134 Phase 3 modules cumulative.
The memo carries concession risk, rollover, retention, WALT, abstract completeness, estoppel exposure, and lease administration controls. The missing lease-risk layer is tenant credit and default readiness: whether the rent roll is exposed to tenant weakness, cure-period friction, collection risk, replacement downtime, or operating leakage if a key tenant stops paying or needs relief. The model carries no tenant financial statements, payment history, default notices, cure periods, guarantors, or credit ratings, and this module never fabricates them; it reads credit and default exposure only from observable underwriting proxies: rent concentration, rollover exposure, WALT, net effective rent drag, lease administration and estoppel and abstract gaps, cash conversion, and operating margin. An underwriting screen, not a legal default opinion, a credit rating, a broker opinion, or a property-management recommendation, and it does not predict tenant default with certainty. Renders when purchase price, hold of at least one year, and Y1 NOI are present and a commercial rent roll exists; residential-only deals with no commercial tenant array auto-skip. Inferred fragility runs 0 to 1 from a 0.3 base adjusted by NetEffectiveRent drag (above 30pp plus 0.2, above 18 plus 0.1, 8-or-under minus 0.1), OperatingMargin trend (compressing plus 0.1, expanding minus 0.05), CashConversion (thin plus 0.15, tight plus 0.08, strong minus 0.1), a replacement-dependent retention posture (plus 0.1), and a rollover re-tenanting gap (plus 0.08). Tenant credit posture maps a 70-base credit read penalized by concentration (high minus 18, moderate minus 8, low plus 6) and fragility (minus up to 40): credit-anchored 70-plus, mixed-credit 54-69, credit-thin 38-53, credit-fragile under 38. Default-cure posture blends a 60-base with CashConversion (strong plus 14 to thin minus 16), the rollover band (rollover-controlled plus 6 to re-tenanting-gap-risk minus 12), and high concentration (minus 10): cure-cushioned 70-plus, standard-cure 54-69, cure-pressured 38-53, replacement-dependent under 38. Collection risk tier reads from cash conversion (thin plus 2, tight plus 1), margin compression (plus 1), heavy NER drag above 25pp (plus 1), and a lease-admin leakage band (plus 1), mapped low to high. At-risk rent equals the top-three concentration times a 0.5-to-1.0 fragility multiplier, capped at 90%, times total commercial rent; estimated default exposure adds a cure-and-downtime fraction (rollover downtime months plus 3, over 12, capped at 1.6) and a half-year re-leasing fraction on the at-risk rent, reported as an average annual NOI drag in bps over the hold. Six weighted drivers, scored so higher means stronger inferred credit and lower exposure: tenant concentration and single-tenant credit exposure 25% (top tenant 15%-or-under 80, 30% 60, 50% 42, above 26; high concentration minus 4), replacement and cure readiness 20% (cure-cushioned 80, standard-cure 62, cure-pressured 42, replacement-dependent 26), rollover and re-credit exposure 15% (rolling 25%-or-under 78, 45% 60, 65% 42, above 28; tenant-loss-risk minus 4), lease economics fragility 15% (NER drag 8pp-or-under 78, 18pp 60, 30pp 42, above 28), operating cushion 15% (CashConversion strong 78, typical 60, tight 42, thin 28; margin expanding plus 4 or compressing minus 4), lease-file and administration opacity 10% (LeaseAbstract band abstract-package-complete 78 down to abstract-deficiency-risk 26; estoppel lease-file-deficiency-risk or lease-admin leakage minus 4 each). Bands: credit-supported-rent-roll (composite 75-plus with credit-anchored or mixed-credit posture), tenant-credit-watch (60-74), collection-friction-risk (45-59), default-cure-exposure (under 45, or credit-fragile posture under composite 55, or replacement-dependent cure posture under composite 52, or top tenant above 50% under composite 55), not-assessable. Memo surface: verdict banner with band, score, credit posture; six headline stats across top-tenant exposure, at-risk rent, default exposure, NOI drag, default-cure posture, and collection risk; per-tenant rows sorted by rent share with an inferred credit risk tier (from rent share, bumped one step when overall fragility is 0.55-plus) and the dominant exposure driver (single-tenant concentration on 30%-plus rent, near-term rollover re-credit on in-hold expirations, concession and economics dependency on fragile rolls, else diversified lower exposure), each framed explicitly as an inference from rent share and lease structure to confirm in credit diligence rather than a credit opinion, since no tenant financials are in the model; six-driver weighted score table; operating actions tied to underwriting the largest tenants on credit and guaranty rather than rent (always), carrying a default and downtime reserve sized to the at-risk rent (always), and tracking collections and aging with an early-warning process (always), escalating to credit diligence and added security on thin or fragile inferred credit and a clean largest-tenant read on 35%-plus concentration; diligence requests tied to tenant credit evidence the leases allow including guaranty structure and deposits (always), the trailing collection and aging history with any abatement or workout or bankruptcy record (always), and the default remedies and cure periods and co-tenancy or kick-out triggers (always), plus a largest-tenant credit review on high concentration and a reserve-carry confirmation on thin cure readiness; 2-4 deal implications by band including top-tenant exposure, at-risk rent, default exposure, and the three postures, with the explicit framing that on default-cure-exposure deals concentrated inferred-fragile rent meets a thin cure cushion and the sponsor reprices for the structural credit exposure, sizes committed reserves and security to the at-risk rent, or re-underwrites the income on a conservative credit basis. Module auto-skips without a commercial rent roll, and degrades gracefully when the lease administration, estoppel, abstract, WALT, retention, rollover, net effective rent, tenant concentration, cash conversion, or operating margin modules are absent (postures and drivers default to neutral inference). Tenant credit deterioration and default cure risk is a deterministic underwriting screen. It is not a legal default opinion, a credit rating, a broker opinion, or a property-management recommendation, and it does not predict tenant default with certainty.
Phase 3 continues: Lease Administration Controls and Tenant Notice Workflow Risk Index lands on top of the lease-diligence stack. The memo now reads the operations layer of leasing: whether the operator can track option and renewal notice windows, expiration deadlines, recovery reconciliations, and tenant obligations without leakage. It surfaces a calendar-reliance score, critical-notice exposure, estimated administration leakage, and inferred notice, option, and reconciliation control postures. 133 Phase 3 modules cumulative.
The memo carries lease concession, rollover, retention, WALT, abstract completeness, and estoppel and audit exposure. Those modules read the lease economics and the lease data; this module adds the operations layer: whether the sponsor or manager can run the lease-administration workflow during the hold, tracking option and renewal notice windows, expiration deadlines, recovery and CAM reconciliations, insurance certificates, tenant obligations, and landlord delivery obligations without operational leakage. A clean lease file still loses value if the operator misses a renewal-option notice, lets a below-market lease auto-renew, fails to reconcile CAM, or lets an insurance certificate lapse; the risk is execution, not economics. An underwriting screen, not legal, property-management, broker, or asset-management advice, and it infers control posture from upstream lease data rather than fabricating tenant notices, option dates, audit claims, or estoppel status. Renders when purchase price, hold of at least one year, and Y1 NOI are present and a commercial rent roll exists; residential-only deals with no commercial tenant array auto-skip. Calendar reliance is a 0-100 read of how much income depends on disciplined notice and option tracking, floored at 40 and blended from rent rolling within the hold (0.45), the greater of near-term expiration and half the renewal exposure (0.35), and top-tenant concentration (0.20). Three control postures are inferred since the model carries no lease-administration fields: notice control from the LeaseAbstract band (abstract-package-complete maps to calendar-tracked, critical-date-watch to manual-tracked, lease-data-gap-risk to ad-hoc, abstract-deficiency-risk to uncontrolled, capped to ad-hoc when the estoppel module reads file-rebuild-needed); option tracking from the abstract optionRightsCoveragePct crossed with renewal exposure (0.4-plus option-calendar, 0.25 lease-by-lease, renewal exposure 0.4-plus untracked, 0.12 reactive, else untracked); reconciliation control from the LeaseRecovery band (recovery-strong annual-reconciled, recovery-watch periodic, leakage-exposed informal, sponsor-absorbed-opex-risk unreconciled). Critical notice exposure equals the greater of rolling-within-hold and renewal-exposure shares times total commercial rent. Estimated administration leakage blends a notice-leakage factor by notice posture (calendar-tracked 1%, manual-tracked 3%, ad-hoc 6%, uncontrolled 10%) on the critical notice exposure with a reconciliation-leakage factor by reconciliation posture (annual-reconciled 15%, periodic 40%, informal 70%, unreconciled 100%) on the modeled recovery leakage, reported as an average annual NOI drag in bps over the hold. Six weighted drivers, scored so higher means tighter controls and lower leakage: notice and critical-date control 25% (calendar-tracked 80, manual-tracked 60, ad-hoc 40, uncontrolled 24; calendar reliance 75-plus with an ad-hoc or uncontrolled posture minus 6), option and renewal tracking discipline 20% (option-calendar 78, lease-by-lease 60, reactive 42, untracked 26; retention tenant-loss-risk minus 4), recovery reconciliation control 20% (annual-reconciled 78, periodic 60, informal 40, unreconciled 26; high tenant dispute risk minus 4), lease data and abstract foundation 15% (abstract band abstract-package-complete 80 down to abstract-deficiency-risk 26; estoppel lease-file-deficiency-risk minus 6), tenant concentration and obligation complexity 10% (concentration low 76, moderate 56, high 34), operating cushion for administration leakage 10% (CashConversion strong 76, typical 60, tight 42, thin 28). Bands: administration-controlled (composite 75-plus with calendar-tracked or manual-tracked notice control), notice-calendar-watch (60-74), option-workflow-risk (45-59), lease-admin-leakage-risk (under 45, or uncontrolled notice control under composite 55, or unreconciled recovery under composite 55, or NOI drag above 150 bps under composite 52), not-assessable. Memo surface: verdict banner with band, score, notice control posture; six headline stats across calendar reliance, critical notice exposure, administration leakage, NOI drag, option tracking posture, and reconciliation posture; per-tenant rows sorted by rent share listing the standard administration obligations to track (renewal and option notice windows, recovery and CAM reconciliation, insurance certificate tracking, estoppel and SNDA coordination on 20%-plus leases, near-term expiration and renewal decision on in-hold expirations) and a tracking risk tier, presented as workflow items to confirm against the lease rather than tracked dates; six-driver weighted score table; operating actions tied to standing up a critical-date calendar from the abstracts with automated ticklers (always), running an annual CAM and operating-expense reconciliation on a fixed cycle (always), and assigning a named administration owner with an escalation path (always), escalating to rebuilding the calendar before close on weak notice control and reconciling trailing recoveries on weak reconciliation control; diligence requests tied to how the seller tracks critical dates today and whether any notice window is open or recently passed (always), the last two CAM reconciliation cycles with tenant audit correspondence (always), and the current tenant obligation file including insurance certificates and landlord delivery obligations (always), plus a close-the-abstract follow-up below a clean package and a largest-tenant obligation confirmation on high concentration; 2-4 deal implications by band including calendar reliance, critical notice exposure, administration leakage, and the three control postures, with the explicit framing that on lease-admin-leakage-risk deals the controls cannot reliably track the notice, option, and reconciliation obligations the lease file carries and the calendar and reconciliation process are rebuilt before close with the leakage carried in the underwriting. Module auto-skips without a commercial rent roll, and degrades gracefully when the estoppel, abstract, WALT, retention, rollover, lease recovery, net effective rent, tenant concentration, or cash conversion modules are absent (postures and drivers default to neutral inference). Lease administration controls and tenant notice workflow risk is a deterministic underwriting screen. It is not legal, property-management, broker, or asset-management advice, and it infers control posture from upstream lease data rather than fabricating tenant notices, option dates, audit claims, or estoppel status.
Phase 3 continues: Lease Audit Exposure and Estoppel Confirmation Risk Index lands on top of the lease-diligence stack. The memo now reads whether the lease file can survive tenant estoppels, audit rights, and reimbursement disputes, surfacing estimated disputed rent, the dollar exposure split across abstract gaps and recovery leakage, top-tenant estoppel concentration, an estoppel readiness posture, and a per-tenant confirmation table. 132 Phase 3 modules cumulative.
The memo carries lease abstract completeness and critical date risk. This module adds the confirmation layer: whether the lease file can survive the confirmation process at sale or financing, where every material lease is certified by the tenant through an estoppel and any gap, leakage, or mismatch in the file becomes an estoppel exception or an audit claim. It translates lease abstract gaps, recovery leakage, tenant concentration, WALT and expiration risk, retention posture, and net effective rent into a read on estoppel and lease-audit exposure. An underwriting screen, not a legal lease review, estoppel advice, or an audit opinion, and it does not fabricate estoppel status, amendments, audit claims, or tenant positions. Renders when purchase price, hold of at least one year, and Y1 NOI are present and a commercial rent roll exists; residential-only deals with no commercial tenant array auto-skip. Estoppel exception share is the LeaseAbstract unverified-rent read (0.2 fallback when the abstract module is absent); recovery dispute share reads from LeaseRecovery tenantDisputeRisk (high 0.20, elevated 0.12, moderate 0.05, low 0.02, else 0.04). Estimated disputed rent blends them as a probabilistic union (exception plus dispute times one minus exception), capped at 0.9. Abstract gap exposure equals the exception share times total commercial rent; recovery dispute exposure equals LeaseRecovery.estimatedLeakageDollars; estimated exposure dollars sum the two. Tenant concentration exposure is TenantConcentration.topThreeRentPct, else the computed top-three share. Readiness posture classifies file-rebuild-needed (abstract deficiency band), tenant-confirmation-needed (disputed rent 35%-plus, abstract lease-data-gap, or recovery leakage-exposed or sponsor-absorbed), targeted-confirmation (disputed rent 18%-plus, abstract critical-date-watch, or high concentration), else clean-package. Six weighted drivers, scored so higher means a cleaner file and lower exposure: lease abstract completeness and missing-field exposure 25% (abstract band abstract-package-complete 80, critical-date-watch 62, lease-data-gap-risk 42, abstract-deficiency-risk 26; over 40% unverified minus 6), recovery clause and reimbursement dispute exposure 20% (recovery band recovery-strong 78, recovery-watch 60, leakage-exposed 40, sponsor-absorbed-opex-risk 28; high dispute risk minus 6 or elevated minus 3), tenant concentration requiring estoppel confirmation 20% (concentration low 78, moderate 56, high 34), WALT and expiration and renewal dependency 15% (WALT band term-protected 76, near-term-roll-watch 60, concentrated-expiration-risk 44, walt-compression-risk 30; retention tenant-loss-risk minus 4; rollover re-tenanting-gap-risk minus 4), net effective rent and concession confirmation burden 10% (NER drag 8pp-or-under 76, 18pp 60, 30pp 42, above 28), cash conversion and operating margin cushion 10% (CashConversion strong 76, typical 60, tight 42, thin 28; OperatingMargin expanding plus 4 or compressing minus 4). Bands: estoppel-ready (composite 75-plus with clean-package or targeted-confirmation posture and disputed rent 20%-or-under), confirmation-watch (60-74), audit-exposure-risk (45-59, or disputed rent above 40% under composite 52), lease-file-deficiency-risk (under 45, or file-rebuild-needed posture under composite 55), not-assessable. Memo surface: verdict banner with band, score, readiness posture; six headline stats across disputed rent, estimated exposure, abstract gap exposure, recovery dispute exposure, top-tenant concentration, and readiness posture; per-tenant rows sorted by rent share with a confirmation risk tier (the LeaseAbstract critical-date risk bumped when recovery dispute risk is high or elevated on a 20%-plus lease) and the most likely confirmation item (expiration and critical-date confirmation when term is missing, reimbursement and CAM audit on leakage-exposed recovery, estoppel certification on a material lease at 25%-plus rent, else standard certification), drawn from the abstract per-tenant gaps and never a fabricated tenant position; six-driver weighted score table; diligence requests tied to ordering estoppel certificates for every material lease and reconciling each against the model (always), pulling the full lease file with amendments and prior reconciliations (always), and confirming the recovery and CAM methodology and audit-right provisions (always), escalating to closing abstract gaps before estoppels go out and a clean largest-tenant estoppel with an SNDA on high concentration; estoppel actions tied to issuing estoppel and SNDA packages from the abstracted terms, setting a response deadline and escalation path with a pre-cleared form, and holding the underwriting open on any outstanding or exception-laden estoppel, escalating to reconciling trailing CAM recoveries and carrying a clawback reserve on live reimbursement dispute exposure; 2-4 deal implications by band including disputed rent, exposure dollars split across abstract gap and recovery leakage, and top-tenant concentration, with the explicit framing that on lease-file-deficiency-risk deals the file cannot support clean estoppels as built, the confirmation process is gating, and the file is rebuilt from executed documents and amendments before the leasing reads are trusted. Module auto-skips without a commercial rent roll, and degrades gracefully when the lease abstract, lease recovery, tenant concentration, net effective rent, WALT, retention, rollover, operating margin, or cash conversion modules are absent (exposure and drivers default to observed data and neutral inference). Lease audit exposure and estoppel confirmation risk is a deterministic underwriting screen. It is not a legal lease review, estoppel advice, or an audit opinion, and it treats absent lease-file evidence as a diligence gap rather than a known fact.
Phase 3 continues: Lease Abstract Completeness and Critical Date Risk Index lands on top of the leasing-diligence stack. The memo now reads whether the lease abstract package is complete enough to trust the concession, rollover, retention, and WALT reads, surfacing abstract completeness, lease-term and recovery and option coverage, the count of leases missing a usable expiration date, unverified rent, a critical-date posture, and a per-tenant missing-fields table. 131 Phase 3 modules cumulative.
The memo carries concession risk, rollover reserve adequacy, tenant retention risk, and WALT and lease-expiration concentration. Every one of those reads is only as good as the lease data behind it, so this module steps back to the diligence question: is the lease abstract package complete enough to trust those reads, or do missing lease terms, expiration dates, recovery clauses, and option rights leave material rent resting on unverified assumptions. An underwriting screen, not a legal lease review or an abstracting opinion, and it treats absent fields as diligence gaps rather than inferred terms, never fabricating a missing critical date. Renders when purchase price, hold of at least one year, and Y1 NOI are present and a commercial rent roll exists; residential-only deals with no commercial tenant array auto-skip. It scores the fields the rent roll carries today (leased area, base rent, lease term and the derivable expiration year, and optional concession terms) and credits the recovery structure and renewal posture that upstream modules infer at the deal level, while treating the fields the TenantLease model never carries per lease (recovery clauses, renewal and option and expansion terms, and critical option-notice dates) as standing diligence gaps. Lease-term coverage is the rent-weighted share of tenants with a usable leaseTermYears; basic-field coverage is the share with leased area and base rent; recovery-clause coverage is 0.6 when LeaseRecovery classifies a structure else 0.2; option-rights coverage is 0.45 when the retention module infers a posture and term coverage is at least 0.6, 0.3 when retention applies with thinner term coverage, else 0.12. Abstract completeness blends lease-term coverage 40%, basic-field coverage 20%, recovery coverage 20%, and option coverage 20%. Critical-date posture reads tracked at 90%-plus term coverage, partially-tracked at 60 to 90%, missing-critical-dates below 60%, not-assessable without a roll; estimated unverified rent is the share in rows missing leased area, base rent, or term, and missing-critical-date count is the number of leases with no usable expiration. Six weighted drivers, scored so higher means a more complete abstract and lower critical-date risk: lease-term and expiration-date coverage 25% (95%-plus 84, 80 68, 60 50, 40 36, under 24), option and renewal and expansion rights coverage 20% (coverage 0.45-plus 60, 0.30 50, 0.15 40, under 30, framed as a standing abstraction gap even when retention infers a posture), recovery clause abstraction coverage 20% (0.6-plus 66, 0.45 56, 0.25 44, under 32, noting per-lease clauses and caps still need confirmation), tenant concentration in unverified rows 15% (unverified rent 15%-or-under 78, 35 60, 55 42, above 28; high concentration with material unverified rent minus 6), WALT and rollover model data dependency 10% (term coverage 80%-plus 76, 60 56, 40 40, under 28; null WALT minus 6), stabilization and lease-up timing sensitivity 10% (stabilized-at-acquisition 76, early 62, mid-hold 46, late 32, since lease-up theses are more exposed to abstract gaps). Bands: abstract-package-complete (composite 73-plus with tracked critical dates and unverified rent 25%-or-under), critical-date-watch (58-72), lease-data-gap-risk (44-57, or unverified rent above 55% under composite 52), abstract-deficiency-risk (under 44, or missing-critical-dates posture under composite 55), not-assessable. Memo surface: verdict banner with band, score, abstract completeness, critical-date posture; six headline stats across abstract completeness, lease-term coverage, unverified rent, missing critical dates, recovery coverage, and option coverage; per-tenant rows sorted by rent share listing the missing abstract fields (detectable per-tenant gaps plus the renewal-and-option terms the model never abstracts, plus recovery clause when not inferred) and a critical-date risk tier; six-driver weighted score table with status, contribution, and interpretation; diligence requests tied to a certified lease abstract for every tenant covering commencement and expiration dates, base and escalated rent, leased area, renewal and expansion and termination options with notice deadlines, and recovery structure with caps or base-year stops (always), building a critical-date calendar reconciled to the modeled rollover and WALT (always), and confirming the largest rent shares first (always), escalating to rebuilding WALT and rollover on confirmed dates when term coverage is incomplete and a full legal abstract of the largest lease on high concentration; operating actions tied to a lease administration system with automated option, notice, and expiration ticklers, treating any unabstracted term as an open item, re-running the leasing modules on confirmed abstracts, and prioritizing abstraction of unverified rent above 35%; 2-4 deal implications by band including abstract completeness, term coverage, the count of leases missing a usable expiration date, and the unverified rent share, with the explicit framing that on abstract-deficiency-risk deals the leasing reads cannot be trusted as built and a complete abstract package becomes a condition of advancing the deal, with WALT, rollover, retention, and concession rebuilt on confirmed terms. Module auto-skips without a commercial rent roll, and degrades gracefully when net effective rent, tenant concentration, the WALT module, the retention module, the rollover module, lease recovery, or stabilization are absent (coverage and drivers default to observed data and neutral inference). Lease abstract completeness and critical date risk is a deterministic underwriting screen. It is not a legal lease review or an abstracting opinion, and it treats absent lease fields as diligence gaps rather than inferred terms.
Phase 3 continues: Lease Expiration Concentration and Weighted Average Lease Term Risk Index lands on top of the leasing-economics stack. The memo now reads lease-expiration structure: whether income durability is protected by enough remaining term, or whether too much rent rolls inside the hold. It surfaces WALT, a duration posture, rent rolling within the hold, the largest single-year expiration, near-term expiration, estimated re-leasing exposure, a year-by-year expiration schedule, and a per-tenant lease-term table. 130 Phase 3 modules cumulative.
The memo carries TI, LC, and free rent concession risk, tenant rollover downtime reserve adequacy, and tenant retention risk. This module adds the lease-expiration structure layer: whether income durability is protected by enough remaining lease term, or whether too much rent rolls inside the hold. An underwriting screen, not a broker opinion or a lease audit, and it does not predict renewal outcomes with certainty. Renders when purchase price, hold of at least one year, and Y1 NOI are present and a commercial rent roll exists; residential-only deals with no commercial tenant array auto-skip. Weighted average lease term (WALT) is the rent-weighted remaining term across tenants with usable lease-term data, where remaining term equals leaseStartYear plus leaseTermYears minus one (the expiration year from acquisition), capped per lease at 40 years; tenants without usable term are left out of WALT rather than fabricated, and WALT reads null when no usable term exists. WALT posture classifies long-duration at 7-plus years, balanced-duration at 4 to 7, near-term-heavy at 2 to 4, thin-term under 2, not-assessable when null. Rent rolling within hold is the share of rent whose lease expires at or before the hold, largest-expiration-year is the peak single-year expiration share, and near-term expiration covers the first third of the hold capped at three years; the rolling and largest-year reads are cross-checked with the maximum of the computed value and the Rollover module rolloverExposurePct and the TenantConcentration maxAnnualRolloverPct so sparse dates never understate risk. Estimated re-leasing exposure prefers the Rollover module downtimeReserveNeed, else rolling rent times 0.75, reported as an average annual NOI drag in bps. Six weighted drivers, scored so higher means lower expiration risk: WALT and lease-duration protection 25% (8-plus years 82, 6 70, 4 56, 2.5 40, under 26, plus 4 when WALT runs at least one year past the hold; null degrades to 50), rent rolling within hold 25% (25%-or-under 80, 45 62, 65 44, above 28), largest expiration-year concentration 15% (20%-or-under 80, 35 62, 50 44, above 26), tenant concentration and renewal posture 15% (concentration low 76, moderate 56, high 34; retention sticky-income plus 6, replacement-dependent minus 8, tenant-loss-risk band minus 6), concession and re-leasing cost exposure 10% (NetEffectiveRent drag 8pp-or-under 76, 18pp 60, 30pp 42, above 28; rollover re-tenanting-gap or office functional-obsolescence minus 6), stabilization and cash-conversion cushion 10% (Stabilization stabilized-at-acquisition 78, early 64, mid-hold 46, late 30; CashConversion strong plus 6, typical plus 2, tight minus 4, thin minus 8; positive late-hold NoiDecomp deltaNOI plus 3). Bands: term-protected (composite 76-plus with long-duration or balanced-duration posture and rolling 45%-or-under), near-term-roll-watch (60-75), concentrated-expiration-risk (45-59, or any single year above 50% of rent under composite 68), walt-compression-risk (under 45, or thin-term posture under composite 55, or rolling above 70% under composite 52), not-assessable. Memo surface: verdict banner with band, score, WALT, posture; six headline stats across WALT, rent rolling in hold, largest expiration year, near-term expiration, re-leasing exposure, and average annual NOI drag; a year-by-year expiration schedule for dated leases within the hold with rent share, lease count, and a risk tier (high at 40%-plus of rent, elevated 25, moderate 12, else low), never fabricated; per-tenant rows sorted by rent share with lease term and expiration year, or a proxy note where term is missing; six-driver weighted score table with status, contribution, and interpretation; leasing actions tied to tracking WALT as a standing metric and underwriting each expiration year against the reserve and submarket window (always), protecting WALT ahead of exit with early renewals and blend-and-extend (always), and staggering terms to avoid stacking expirations (always), escalating to a leasing-story framing on short WALT, working the cliff first on a concentrated year, and a full leasing-budget confirmation on heavy rolling; diligence requests tied to the certified rent roll for recomputing WALT and the expiration schedule (always), the largest expiration years against submarket absorption (always), and early-termination or contraction rights that shorten effective WALT (always), plus a complete-lease-abstract request when term coverage runs under 60% and a largest-tenant term and intent confirmation on high concentration; 2-4 deal implications by band including WALT, rolling share, single-year concentration, and re-leasing exposure, with the explicit framing that on walt-compression-risk deals the remaining term is too short to protect the hold and the sponsor either reprices for the structural rollover, secures committed leasing capital sized to the heaviest expiration years, or re-underwrites the renewal and downtime assumptions against submarket reality rather than a flat-renewal assumption. Module auto-skips without a commercial rent roll, degrades to concentration and rollover proxies when lease term or dates are missing, and degrades gracefully when tenant concentration, net effective rent, stabilization, cash conversion, operating margin trend, the rollover module, the retention module, office obsolescence, or NOI decomposition are absent (drivers default to neutral 50-58). Lease expiration concentration and weighted average lease term risk is a deterministic underwriting screen. It is not a broker opinion or a lease audit, and it does not predict renewal outcomes with certainty.
Phase 3 continues: Renewal Option, Expansion Rights, and Tenant Retention Risk Index lands on top of the leasing-economics stack. The memo now reads whether the existing tenant base is likely to stay economically intact through renewal, expansion, contraction, or option exercise: renewal exposure within the hold, a retention posture, an estimated retention shortfall, replacement-cost exposure, and a per-tenant retention table. 129 Phase 3 modules cumulative.
The memo carries TI, LC, and free rent concession risk and tenant rollover downtime reserve adequacy. This module adds the retention layer: whether the existing tenant base is likely to stay economically intact through renewal, expansion, contraction, or option exercise. Re-leasing risk asks whether a vacated space can be backfilled; retention risk asks the prior question of whether the tenant leaves at all, and on what terms it renews. An underwriting screen, not leasing advice, a broker opinion, a property-management plan, or a lease abstract, and it does not predict renewal outcomes with certainty. Renders when purchase price, hold of at least one year, and Y1 NOI are present and a commercial rent roll exists; residential-only deals with no commercial tenant array auto-skip. Renewal exposure is the share of in-place commercial rent facing a renewal or option decision within the hold (lease end at or before the hold), taken from the TenantRollover module rolloverExposurePct when applicable, else computed from the rent roll. Retention posture classifies sticky-income, market-renewal, negotiation-sensitive, or replacement-dependent from a 0-100 stickiness read built from tenant concentration (high minus 12, moderate minus 5, low plus 4), concession intensity via the TenantConcession band (concession-controlled plus 8, concession-drag-risk minus 8, lease-up-capital-overhang minus 14) or NetEffectiveRent drag fallback, office leasing friction (institutional-quality plus 8, selective-demand minus 6, functional-obsolescence-risk minus 14), and OperatingMargin trend (expanding plus 6, compressing minus 8); mapped sticky-income 72-plus, market-renewal 56-71, negotiation-sensitive 40-55, replacement-dependent under 40. A non-retention share keyed to posture (sticky-income 10%, market-renewal 18%, negotiation-sensitive 28%, replacement-dependent 40%) drives the estimated annual retention shortfall (rolling rent times non-retention share times 0.5 for partial backfill) and the one-time replacement-cost exposure (TenantRollover downtimeReserveNeed times non-retention share when applicable, else rolling rent times non-retention share times 0.75). Average annual retention shortfall is reported in bps of Y1 NOI. Six weighted drivers, scored so higher means lower retention risk: tenant concentration and renewal exposure 25% (exposure 25%-or-under 78, 45% 60, 65% 42, above 28; concentration high minus 8 or moderate minus 3), renewal economics and concession pressure 20% (TenantConcession band concession-controlled 80, leasing-cost-watch 62, concession-drag-risk 42, lease-up-capital-overhang 24, with high-intensity minus 4 or low plus 4; NetEffectiveRent drag fallback 8pp-or-under 76 down to above-30pp 28), replacement difficulty and leasing friction 20% (OfficeObsolescence institutional-quality 80, leasing-relevant 64, selective-demand 44, functional-obsolescence-risk 28, non-office 60; TenantRollover downtime 9-months-plus minus 6 or 3-or-under plus 4), income durability and margin trend 15% (OperatingMargin expanding 78, stable 60, compressing 36; CashConversion strong plus 6, typical plus 2, tight minus 4, thin minus 8; positive late-hold NoiDecomp deltaNOI plus 3), stabilization and lease-up timing 10% (Stabilization stabilized-at-acquisition 78, early 66, mid-hold 48, late 30), downtime reserve and recovery offset 10% (TenantRollover band rollover-controlled 78, leasing-watch 60, downtime-reserve-watch 44, re-tenanting-gap-risk 28; LeaseRecovery recovery-strong plus 4, leakage-exposed minus 4, sponsor-absorbed-opex-risk minus 6). Bands: retention-supported (composite 76-plus with sticky-income or market-renewal posture), renewal-watch (60-75), option-friction-risk (45-59), tenant-loss-risk (under 45 or one of the structural floors: replacement-dependent posture under composite 50, or renewal exposure above 65% under composite 48), not-assessable. Per-tenant retention risk tiers low to high from rent share, whether the lease reaches a decision within the hold, net-effective-rent drag above 25 points, and a replacement-dependent posture. Memo surface: verdict banner with band, score, retention posture; four-stat headline (renewal exposure, estimated retention shortfall, replacement-cost exposure, average annual NOI drag); per-tenant rows sorted by rent share showing rent percent, retention risk tier, renewal concession pressure, and downtime exposure if lost, flagging leases reaching a decision within versus beyond the hold; six-driver weighted score table with status, contribution, and interpretation; retention actions tied to mapping every lease to its renewal, expansion, contraction, and termination rights and building a renewal calendar (always), underwriting renewals at net effective rent with a tenant-specific renewal probability (always), and opening early conversations with the largest tenants (always), escalating to a modeled non-renewal downside on negotiation-sensitive or replacement-dependent posture, blend-and-extend on heavy exposure, and a building-competitiveness capital check on office functional obsolescence; diligence requests tied to the lease file for renewal options, expansion and contraction and termination and co-tenancy clauses and option-rent mechanics (always), tenant-by-tenant renewal probability against in-place versus market rent and credit (always), and submarket renewal concessions and replacement cost (always), plus a largest-tenant credit and intent confirmation on high concentration and a reserve-carry confirmation on a re-tenanting gap; 2-4 deal implications by band including renewal share, retention shortfall, replacement-cost exposure, and the explicit framing that on tenant-loss-risk deals the income base is exposed to non-renewal the deal cannot easily absorb and the sponsor either reprices for the structural retention risk, secures committed leasing and concession capital sized to the largest renewals, or re-underwrites the renewal and downtime assumptions against submarket reality rather than a flat-renewal assumption. Module auto-skips without a commercial rent roll, and degrades gracefully when tenant concentration, net effective rent, stabilization, cash conversion, operating margin trend, office obsolescence, the concession module, the rollover module, lease recovery, or NOI decomposition are absent (drivers and posture default to neutral 55-60). Renewal option, expansion rights, and tenant retention risk is a deterministic underwriting screen. It is not leasing advice, a broker opinion, a property-management plan, or a lease abstract, and it does not predict renewal outcomes with certainty.
Phase 3 continues: Tenant Rollover Re-Leasing and Downtime Reserve Adequacy Index lands on top of the tenant concession layer. The memo now reads whether upcoming rollover can actually be re-leased without creating downtime, a reserve shortfall, or NOI leakage: rollover exposure within the hold, estimated re-leasing downtime, a downtime and re-leasing reserve need against available reserve capacity, the funding gap, releasing complexity, and a per-tenant rollover table. 128 Phase 3 modules cumulative.
The memo carries tenant-level TI, LC, and free rent concession risk. This module adds the re-tenanting layer: whether upcoming rollover can actually be re-leased without creating downtime, a reserve shortfall, or NOI leakage. A pro forma can roll a lease at flat rent with no gap while in practice the space sits vacant for months and needs fresh concessions to backfill. An underwriting screen, not leasing advice, a broker opinion, a property-management plan, or a lease abstract, and it does not predict re-leasing outcomes with certainty. Renders when purchase price, hold of at least one year, and Y1 NOI are present and a commercial rent roll exists; residential-only deals with no commercial tenant array auto-skip. Rollover exposure is the share of in-place commercial rent whose lease expires within the hold (lease end equals leaseStartYear plus leaseTermYears minus one, at or before the hold), with a peak single-year concentration taken from TenantConcentration.maxAnnualRolloverPct or computed from the rent roll. Estimated re-leasing downtime starts from an asset-class baseline (office 9 months, retail and mixed-use 6, industrial 4, hotel 3, multifamily 2) and is replaced by the OfficeObsolescence estimatedDowntimeMonths read for office when available, then scaled for tenant concentration (high 1.25x, moderate 1.1x), office leasing friction (functional-obsolescence-risk 1.2x, selective-demand 1.1x), and a BusinessDisruption interruption overhang (plus one month), capped at 18. Downtime reserve need sums the rent lost during downtime on the rolling space (rolling rent times downtime months over twelve) plus the re-leasing concession to backfill it (the TenantConcession module total exposure scaled to the rolling share, else half a year of rolling rent). Available reserve capacity is ReserveAdequacy.reservesAvgOverHold across the hold, or a one-percent-of-price-per-year proxy; reserve funding gap is the shortfall of need over capacity. Average annual NOI drag from downtime is reported in bps of Y1 NOI. Six weighted drivers, scored so higher means lower re-tenanting risk: rollover exposure and concentration 25% (exposure 25%-or-under 80, 45% 62, 65% 44, above 28; TenantConcentration high minus 8 or moderate minus 3; peak above 50% minus 6), downtime duration and leasing friction 20% (downtime 3-months-or-under 80, 6 62, 9 44, above 28; OfficeObsolescence functional-obsolescence-risk minus 8, selective-demand minus 4, institutional-quality plus 6), TI, LC, and free rent concession burden 20% (TenantConcession band concession-controlled 80, leasing-cost-watch 62, concession-drag-risk 42, lease-up-capital-overhang 24; high intensity minus 4 or low intensity plus 4), reserve adequacy and cash conversion 15% (ReserveAdequacy adequate 76, thin 50, under-reserved 30; CashConversion strong plus 6, typical plus 2, tight minus 4, thin minus 8; sponsor-gap posture minus 6 or reserve-covered plus 4), stabilization and lease-up timing 10% (Stabilization stabilized-at-acquisition 78, early 66, mid-hold 48, late 30; positive late-hold NoiDecomp deltaNOI plus 3), business disruption and recovery offset 10% (BusinessDisruption low-disruption-plan 76, tenant-coordination-watch 60, downtime-leakage-risk 44, business-interruption-overhang 28; LeaseRecovery recovery-strong plus 4, leakage-exposed minus 4, sponsor-absorbed-opex-risk minus 6). Reserve posture classifies reserve-covered (no gap), partial-reserve (gap under half the need), or sponsor-gap (gap at half the need or more). Releasing complexity classifies low to high from a points sum: office plus 2 or retail and mixed-use plus 1, OfficeObsolescence functional-obsolescence-risk plus 2 or selective-demand plus 1 or institutional-quality minus 1, high concentration plus 1, downtime 9-months-plus plus 1 (high at 4-plus, elevated at 2, moderate at 1, else low). Bands: rollover-controlled (composite 76-plus with low or moderate complexity and exposure 45% or under), leasing-watch (60-75), downtime-reserve-watch (45-59), re-tenanting-gap-risk (under 45 or one of the structural floors: sponsor-gap reserve with high complexity under composite 55, exposure above 65% under composite 50, or high complexity under composite 48), not-assessable. Memo surface: verdict banner with band, score, releasing complexity, reserve posture; headline stats across rollover exposure, estimated downtime, downtime reserve need, reserve funding gap, available reserve capacity, and average annual NOI drag; per-tenant rows sorted by rent share showing rent percent, rollover risk tier, estimated downtime, re-leasing concession, and a per-line read that flags leases rolling within versus beyond the hold; six-driver weighted score table with status, contribution, and interpretation; leasing actions tied to a year-by-year rollover budget with downtime and concession per expiration (always), a reserve sized to the peak rollover year rather than the hold average (always), and net-effective-rent renewal underwriting with a realistic renewal probability (always), escalating to early renewal and blend-and-extend on heavy exposure, a committed funding source on a reserve gap, and early leasing brokerage on high complexity; diligence requests tied to the expiration and renewal-terms schedule reconciled to the model (always), submarket downtime, TI, LC, and free rent comps with leasing velocity (always), and the reserve funding plan sized to the peak year (always), plus a peak-concentration confirmation, an office-obsolescence downtime and TI check, and an under-reserved follow-up; 2-4 deal implications by band including rollover share, downtime months, reserve need, capacity, and gap, with the explicit framing that on re-tenanting-gap-risk deals the rollover schedule threatens downtime and re-leasing cost the reserve cannot carry and the sponsor either reprices for the structural re-tenanting exposure, secures committed leasing capital sized to the peak expiration year, or re-underwrites the renewal and downtime assumptions against submarket reality rather than a flat-renewal assumption. Module auto-skips without a commercial rent roll, and degrades gracefully when tenant concentration, net effective rent, stabilization, cash conversion, office obsolescence, the tenant concession module, business disruption, lease recovery, reserve adequacy, or NOI decomposition are absent (drivers and posture default to neutral 55-58). Tenant rollover re-leasing and downtime reserve adequacy is a deterministic underwriting screen. It is not leasing advice, a broker opinion, a property-management plan, or a lease abstract, and it does not predict re-leasing outcomes with certainty.
Phase 3 continues: Tenant Improvement, Leasing Commission, and Free Rent Concession Risk Index lands on top of the full capex and operating-risk stack. The memo now reads the leasing economics: whether tenant improvements, leasing commissions, free rent, rollover timing, downtime, and concession leakage can absorb the NOI story before rent growth ever reaches the sponsor, with total concession exposure, an annualized NOI drag, concession intensity, funding posture, and a per-tenant concession table off the rent roll. 127 Phase 3 modules cumulative.
The memo carries the full capex arc (procurement, draw control, warranty and closeout, capital project ROI, exit value protection, diligence evidence) plus business disruption risk. This module adds the leasing-economics layer: whether tenant improvements, leasing commissions, free rent, rollover timing, downtime, and concession leakage can absorb the NOI story before rent growth ever reaches the sponsor. A pro forma can show clean rent growth while the cost of buying that occupancy quietly consumes the early-hold cash. Not a leasing plan, broker commission schedule, TI budget, or lease abstract. Renders when purchase price, hold of at least one year, and Y1 NOI are present and the Net Effective Rent module surfaces a commercial rent roll with at least one tenant; residential-only deals without tenant-level lease detail auto-skip with a clear not-assessable reason. Total concession exposure sums each tenant's free rent dollars plus TI and LC dollars over the lease term, read directly from the NetEffectiveRent tenant rows (concessionTerm). Annualized concession drag spreads that capital across the hold and is reported in dollars and in bps of Y1 NOI; total concession exposure is also expressed as a multiple of one year of NOI. Concession intensity classifies low, moderate, elevated, or high from the SF-weighted net-effective-rent drag below face (8 points or under low, 18 moderate, 30 elevated, above high), with a one-step bump when concession capital exceeds 1.5x Y1 NOI and a one-step relief under 0.25x. Recovery posture classifies cash-flow-funded, reserve-supported, capex-funded, or sponsor-gap by blending CashConversion band (strong or typical funds from cash flow, tight leans on reserves, thin pushes to capex or a sponsor gap when intensity is elevated or worse; a negative worst-year conversion plus heavy intensity forces sponsor-gap) with the CapitalProjectRoi funding plan as a fallback. Rollover overlap is the maximum share of rent expiring in a single year, taken from TenantConcentration.maxAnnualRolloverPct when applicable, else computed from the raw rent roll by bucketing rent at each lease's end year. Five weighted drivers, scored so higher means lower concession risk: concession intensity vs face rent 25% (drag 8pp-or-under 82, 18pp 64, 30pp 44, above 26), concession capital vs NOI 25% (exposure 0.25x-or-under of NOI 82, 0.5x 66, 1.0x 46, 1.5x 32, above 22; drag 50bps-or-under plus 4 or 200bps-plus minus 6), rollover overlap and timing 20% (overlap 25%-or-under 78, 40% 62, 55% 44, above 28; Stabilization stabilized-at-acquisition plus 6 or late-stabilization minus 8 or mid-hold minus 3; positive late-hold NoiDecomp deltaNOI plus 3), recovery and funding posture 15% (cash-flow-funded 80, reserve-supported 62, capex-funded 44, sponsor-gap 26; negative worst-year conversion minus 4), leasing execution and downtime 15% (PM execution institutional-operator plus 12, controlled plus 4, execution-watch minus 6, management-leakage-risk minus 12; OfficeObsolescence institutional-quality plus 6, selective-demand minus 4, functional-obsolescence-risk minus 8; BusinessDisruption interruption-overhang minus 6 or high downtime minus 3; LeaseRecovery recovery-strong plus 4, leakage-exposed minus 4, sponsor-absorbed-opex-risk minus 6). Bands: concession-controlled (composite 76-plus with low or moderate intensity), leasing-cost-watch (60-75), concession-drag-risk (45-59), lease-up-capital-overhang (under 45), not-assessable. Hard structural floors anchor to lease-up-capital-overhang: sponsor-gap funding with high intensity under composite 55, rollover overlap above 55% under composite 50, or high intensity under composite 48. Memo surface: verdict banner with band, score, concession intensity, recovery posture; four-stat headline (total concession exposure, annualized concession drag dollars, average annual NOI drag bps, rollover overlap); per-tenant rows sorted by concession exposure showing free rent months, TI and LC dollars, exposure dollars, a risk tier, and a net-effective-rent read; five-driver weighted score table with status, contribution, and interpretation; leasing actions tied to underwriting TI, LC, and free rent as a standing capital line keyed to the rollover schedule (always), holding net effective rent rather than face as the underwriting anchor (always), and staging a leasing reserve sized to the peak rollover year (always), escalating to face-rent achievability pressure-testing on elevated or high intensity, blend-and-extend or staggered terms on clustered rollover, and a confirmed funding source on capex-funded or sponsor-gap posture; diligence requests tied to the full rent roll with per-lease face rent, free rent, TI and LC, and expiration reconciled to the pro forma (always), market TI, LC, and free rent confirmation for comparable space (always), and the leasing-capital funding plan (always), plus a peak-rollover window confirmation, an office-obsolescence TI check on functional-obsolescence-risk, and a re-leasing downtime cross-check against the business-disruption window; 2-4 deal implications by band including concession exposure dollars, the NOI multiple and bps drag, and the explicit framing that on lease-up-capital-overhang deals the cost of buying and holding occupancy threatens to consume the NOI story before rent growth reaches the sponsor and the sponsor either reprices for the structural concession load, secures committed leasing capital sized to the peak rollover year, or re-underwrites face rents net of the concessions required to achieve them. Module auto-skips without a commercial rent roll, and degrades gracefully when tenant concentration, stabilization, cash conversion, lease recovery, PM execution, business disruption, capital project ROI, office obsolescence, or NOI decomposition modules are absent (drivers and posture default to neutral 55-60). Tenant improvement, leasing commission, and free rent concession risk is a deterministic underwriting overlay. It is not a leasing plan, broker commission schedule, TI budget, or lease abstract.