An AI-prepared lender package can look finished before the file is ready to send. The summary reads smoothly, the figures line up on the page, and the supporting documents appear in an orderly list.
The broker's review still needs to establish whether those figures are current, the statements are supported, and the attachments are the ones the recipient should receive.
Here are five checks for that review. Use them alongside your brokerage's procedures and the lender's requirements. They focus on the generated package and do not replace the wider work of verifying a file or assessing a mortgage's suitability.
1. Confirm the file and the intended recipient
Start with the borrower names, subject property, transaction purpose, and intended lender. Check these in the summary and supporting documents, not only in the filename.
A borrower may have more than one property or an earlier application with similar documents. A familiar name does not establish that an attachment belongs to the current transaction. Likewise, income attributed to one applicant should not silently become another applicant's income.
Check the destination separately. Confirm the lender contact, recipient address, copied recipients, and the submission channel your brokerage uses. Include only the information appropriate and authorized for that recipient. An internal note about possible lender options should not become an attachment simply because it was available in the working folder.
2. Reconcile the figures and what they mean
Compare the requested loan amount, property value, income, existing debts, and relevant costs across the application, package summary, calculations, and supporting evidence. For each important figure, ask which source supports it, what period it covers, and whether it still applies.
Consider a fictional example with one proposed mortgage and no other secured debt. The draft uses a $480,000 loan against a $600,000 property value, giving an 80% loan-to-value ratio. The requested loan is then revised to $450,000 while the property value stays the same.
Original
Figures in the draft
$480,000 loan ÷ $600,000 property value.
Calculated ratio
80% loan-to-value.
Revised
Figures to reconcile
$450,000 loan ÷ $600,000 property value.
Calculated ratio
75% loan-to-value. An 80% figure left in the summary is now inconsistent.
These invented numbers illustrate an arithmetic check, not a lender's eligibility criteria. Correcting the loan amount in one field does not establish that the narrative, ratios, and attachments were all updated.
Definitions matter as much as arithmetic. A requested loan amount is different from the cash remaining after payouts and costs. A historical income figure is different from current income. An estimated property value should not be described as an appraisal merely because a calculation used it.
3. Check what the draft actually asserts
Read the package as the lender will read it. Look closely at words such as “verified,” “confirmed,” “approved,” and “complete.” Each communicates more than “this was entered in the application” or “the borrower told us this.”
Open the source behind important statements. Check whether it supports the particular claim, including its date, scope, and any conditions. A link to a document is useful, but a correct link can still accompany an incorrect interpretation.
If a material discrepancy remains unresolved, pause the submission and follow your brokerage's process for resolving and communicating it. Do not let a fluent summary choose a convenient figure or quietly remove an uncertainty. A warning that only appears in internal review notes will not qualify a contradictory statement in the lender-facing package.
For Ontario licensees, FSRA's guidance on detecting and preventing mortgage fraud emphasizes document verification and checking consistency across reliable sources. Reviewing an AI-generated summary is one part of that work, not a substitute for it.
4. Inspect the actual attachments
Compare the package's document list with the lender's requested items and the files that will actually be delivered. Open the attachments. Check that they are readable, contain the relevant pages, belong to the correct file, and are the versions you reviewed.
Pay attention to documents omitted during generation. An unreadable or unreviewed document may be excluded while other material is successfully assembled. The existence of a generated package does not prove that every required item is present.
Also distinguish a document being present from a condition being satisfied. Having an employment letter in the folder does not, by itself, establish that every income question has been resolved. If the package uses a link instead of an attachment, check that the intended recipient can access it through the approved sharing method.
5. Review the exact version being sent
After edits, open the final package and the accompanying message together. Confirm that the message describes the same request as the attachments and that both reflect the resolved figures and outstanding conditions.
If a material fact or supporting document changes after review, revisit the affected sections before sending. Approval of an earlier draft should not be treated as approval of a materially different package. Our article on traceable agent decisions explores why that connection matters.
Complete your brokerage's required approval steps for the recipient and package being delivered. After sending, check the actual delivery or submission result. A generated file, an approved draft, and a successful submission are separate events. Keep the relevant version and submission record in the file under your normal procedures.
How this informs Clara
Clara's package implementation keeps source references with claims, separates warnings from blocking issues, and records which supporting documents were included. Its delivery checks bind the attachment to a specific reviewed package version and reject changed package contents.
Those are checks implemented in particular package paths, not a claim that every Clara surface or installed version performs the entire review above automatically. They help make a package inspectable. The broker still needs to assess the evidence, resolve open questions, and determine whether the proposed submission is appropriate.
A useful final review note is short and specific: which package version was reviewed, which sources support the key figures, what remains outstanding, and who authorized sending it to whom. That gives the next person working on the file something more useful than “AI checked it.”
Explore Clara
Book a walkthrough of Clara