The flip side of the 16 modules · the underwriter's view

The lender doesn't want your data. They want their model — pre-filled.

Price · Deploy · Expand · Govern is how the operator experiences the business. No underwriter has "loop coverage" in their risk model. An underwriter thinks in four buckets: can they service the debt, what can I lien, who pays them, and what breaks under stress. This page is the translation — the same vault, projected into the 16 fields a lender's covenant structure actually uses.

▸ Capture broad, translate narrow. The 16 modules are the capture layer. The Pulse Engine is the translation layer. The lender never consumes "16 modules" — they consume their own underwriting inputs, pre-filled and attested.

▸ you are here Covenant Structure The translation layer — the vault projected into the 16 fields a lender underwrites.
flip to the capture layer ▸ The Vault Where the evidence comes from — 16 operator modules depositing into one attested asset.

Two data models. One vault underneath.

The operator organizes around how work flows. The underwriter organizes around how risk is structured. The same captured evidence has to be projected into the second model — because that's the only one a credit committee can act on.

▸ The operator's model · the capture layer

4 loops · 16 modules

  • Price — quote · margin · cost · contract
  • Deploy — location · job cost · schedule · ops
  • Expand — deal room · ABM · health · accounts
  • Govern — market · control · inventory · workflows

This is how the operator runs the business day-to-day. It's the right shape for capturing evidence — and the wrong shape for handing to a credit committee.

▸ The underwriter's model · the covenant structure

4 buckets · 16 fields

  • Cash-flow predictability — can they service the debt?
  • Collateral / security — what can I lien or claim?
  • Counterparty risk — who pays them, are they good for it?
  • Downside behavior — what breaks in a stress quarter?

This is the model the lender already uses. Allometry's job isn't to teach them a new one — it's to pre-fill the one they have, with verified, attested values.

Live · the translation layer 4 operator loops → Pulse Engine → 4 underwriter buckets · the order scrambles on purpose
▸ THE OPERATOR'S MODEL PULSE ENGINE · TRANSLATION THE UNDERWRITER'S MODEL ◂ § PRICE quote · margin · cost · contract § DEPLOY location · job cost · schedule · ops § EXPAND deal room · ABM · health · accounts § GOVERN market · control · inventory · workflows PULSE ENGINE translation layer capture broad → translate narrow ① CASH-FLOW PREDICTABILITY can they service the debt? ② COLLATERAL / SECURITY what can I lien or claim? ③ COUNTERPARTY RISK who pays them · are they good for it? ④ DOWNSIDE BEHAVIOR what breaks in a stress quarter? ▸ same vault · operator's 4-color model in · underwriter's unified model out · the order scrambles because the two models aren't the same shape

▸ 16 modules → 16 fields

The 16 fields a covenant structure actually uses.

Every operator module maps to a specific, named field in a lender's risk model — grouped under the four buckets a credit committee thinks in. Each field shows what it answers, which module produces it, and its honest data lineage: native (Allometry generates it), partner-augmented (needs an integration), or constructed (cohort + external).

① BUCKET Cash-flow predictability — can they service the debt?
Forward pipeline coverageNative

Is there enough win-weighted forward revenue to cover scheduled debt service?

from M.01 · Quoting Engine2.4× coverage · verified
Booked backlog & weighted termNative

How much revenue is already signed, and for how many months on weighted average?

from M.09 · Deal Room$4.2M · 14-mo WART
Capacity utilization & forward loadNative

How much of deployable capacity is already committed — is growth real or theoretical?

from M.07 · Deployment Design82% used · 71% fwd-committed
Gross-margin level & disciplineNative

What's the blended margin, and does the floor hold quarter over quarter?

from M.02 · Margin Protect34.2% · floor held 11/11 qtrs
② BUCKET Collateral / security — what can I lien or claim?
A/R aging & eligible borrowing basePartner-augmented

What receivables exist, how old, how much is borrowing-base-eligible after dilution? The core ABL field.

from M.06 · Job Costing + billing integration$1.8M A/R · 4% >90d · $1.5M elig.
Inventory value & turnoverNative

On-hand inventory worth, turn rate, obsolescence and stockout exposure.

from M.15 · Inventory Management$620K · 8.4 turns/yr · 2% obs.
Deployed-asset register & book valuePartner-augmented

What equipment is deployed, where, and what's the depreciated net book value?

from M.05 · Location Intelligence + accounting247 assets · $3.1M NBV · geo-mapped
Work-in-progress & unbilled positionNative

How much cost is loaded into in-flight jobs not yet billed — and at what completion?

from M.03 · Cost Engine$410K WIP · 62% avg completion
③ BUCKET Counterparty risk — who pays them, and are they good for it?
Customer concentration (HHI / top-10)Native

How dependent is revenue on a few customers — what's the single-customer exposure?

from M.12 · Account Substratetop-10 = 38% · no single >9%
Contract terms & termination exposureNative

Payment terms, auto-renew, and how easily can customers walk (term-for-convenience)?

from M.04 · Contract Intelligencenet-30 avg · 18% have TFC clause
Customer payment behavior & churn signalPartner-augmented

Do customers pay on time — days-to-pay by account — and which are flagged at-risk?

from M.11 · Customer Health + payment data96% on-time · 2 accounts at-risk
Counterparty sector exposureConstructed

What industries do the paying customers sit in — how correlated is that to a downturn?

from M.13 · Market Intelligence + cohort3 sectors · low cross-correlation
④ BUCKET Downside behavior — what breaks in a stress quarter?
SLA compliance & operational continuityNative

Does the operator deliver reliably — and what breaks if a key person or site goes down?

from M.08 · Active Operations98.1% SLA · no SPOF >12% of ops
Compliance posture & audit-readinessNative

Could this operator pass an audit today — where are the open control gaps?

from M.14 · Control & Governance0 open gaps · evidence 94% complete
Evidence provenance & attestation integrityNative

Can the lender trust the data itself — is every field tamper-evident and hash-chained?

from M.16 · Pulse WorkflowsWORM · hash-chained · 0 breaks
Revenue-replacement capacityNative

In a stress quarter, can the operator originate enough new revenue to backfill losses?

from M.10 · Outbound ABM1.3× historical replacement rate

▸ covenant → module → trigger

How the model maps to what a lender actually enforces.

A field is not a covenant. A covenant is a field plus a threshold plus a breach condition. Below: every covenant an institutional facility runs on, the Allometry module that instruments it, and the trigger value that flips it to default. This is the translation layer between what the lender enforces and what the model already measures.

Covenant — what the lender enforces Module(s) Breach trigger Status
Customer concentration capno single customer above 20–25% of TTM revenue M.11 · M.12 Top-1 customer share of trailing-12-month revenue crosses the cap Native today
Backlog / forward-revenue coveragecontracted backlog ≥ 1.0–1.5× next-12-mo debt service M.01 · M.04 · M.09 Contracted forward revenue ÷ scheduled debt service falls below the coverage multiple Native today
Gross margin floortrailing margin ≥ operator-specific floor set at close M.02 · M.03 · M.06 Rolling 90-day realized gross margin crosses below the floor Native today
SLA / uptime complianceO&M and PPA-backed facilities require uptime ≥ 95–97% M.08 Rolling SLA compliance rate drops below the contractual minimum Native today
Revenue retention / churn floornet revenue retention ≥ covenant floor M.11 Cohort net revenue retention crosses below the floor Native today
Supplier / input concentration capsingle-supplier input ≤ X% of COGS M.03 · M.13 Single-supplier share of COGS crosses the cap Native today
Capacity / throughput maintenanceproject debt requires sustained throughput to hit milestones M.07 Forward capacity commitment vs. contracted obligation gap widens past tolerance Native today
Compliance certificate / reporting cadencecovenant certificate delivered on schedule M.14 · M.16 Auto-generated from the WORM ledger — late filing is structurally impossible; a missing field is the only breach mode Native today
Audit-readiness / data integrityclean, continuous audit trail M.14 · M.16 Evidence-completeness score below threshold; any hash-chain break Native today
Material adverse change — early signalhistorically a qualitative "material deterioration" clause M.16 Composite Pulse score drops beyond a set quarter-over-quarter band — a quantified, continuous tripwire, not a post-hoc legal argument Native today
DSCRcash available for debt service ÷ debt service ≥ 1.20–1.35× M.03 · M.06 + Codat / Plaid Computed DSCR crosses below the covenant floor Partial — cash side Q4 2026
Minimum liquiditymaintain ≥ $X cash or undrawn availability Plaid / Flinks Bank balance plus availability crosses below the floor Needs Plaid / Flinks Q4 2026
Maximum leveragetotal debt ÷ EBITDA ≤ the cap Codat + M.03 / M.06 Computed leverage ratio crosses above the cap Needs Codat Q4 2026
Ten covenants native today — and they're the predictive ones

The covenants Allometry instruments natively are not the residual set. They are the operational and performance covenants that most accurately predict default for field service operators — and the ones a traditional lender monitors worst. A lender today receives a quarterly certificate and trusts it. Allometry produces a continuous, attested reading.

Two genuinely new underwriting primitives

The compliance certificate self-generates from the WORM ledger — late filing, one of the most common technical covenant breaches, becomes structurally impossible. And the material-adverse-change clause — historically litigated after the fact — becomes a quantified, continuous tripwire: the composite Pulse score, monitored against a set band.

Three financial covenants on a dated path

DSCR, minimum liquidity, and maximum leverage are the pure balance-sheet covenants. Allometry contributes the margin and cash-generation side natively; the cash-position and debt-schedule side closes with Codat and Plaid / Flinks, sequenced for Q4 2026. Operational covenant coverage is live; financial covenant coverage is on a dated integration path.

▸ the proof layer

ZKP turns every threshold into a proof, not a disclosure.

Every row above resolves to a threshold — a number the operator must hold above or below. The zero-knowledge proof layer converts each threshold into a proof rather than a disclosure. The operator does not send the lender their customer list, their margin file, or their bank statement. They send a cryptographic proof that the covenant threshold is cleared — and the lender verifies it against the published methodology. Covenant monitoring stops being an event checked four times a year and becomes a state the lender holds continuously: a breach surfaces the day it occurs, not the quarter after.

▸ why it accelerates

The lender's covenant slots arrive pre-filled.

A lender's underwriting process is, mechanically, the work of filling a model — gather the documents, normalize them, compute the covenant inputs, set the thresholds, decide. For a $500K facility that work takes six weeks, because the operator's evidence arrives as 35 unstructured documents and the analyst rebuilds the model from scratch. With the covenant → module → trigger map already in place, that work is already done — continuously, by the model, before the lender opens a file. The process collapses to three steps: verify the proofs, set the threshold values at close, decision. The operator didn't assemble a faster data room. The data room assembled itself.

▸ The output

What lands in the credit committee. Their model, pre-filled.

Not the generic Pulse JSON. Not "16 modules." A covenant structure the lender's risk model can ingest directly — borrowing base, coverage, concentration, downside — every field attested.

▸ COVENANT STRUCTURE · ALM-0042 · Tier 1 (banks / ABL)
generated from the vault · every field traces to a module · every value hash-chained
BORROWING BASE
Eligible A/R · 85% advance$1,275,000
Eligible inventory · 50% advance$310,000
Gross borrowing base$1,585,000
CASH-FLOW COVERAGE
Forward pipeline coverage2.4×
Booked backlog · weighted term$4.2M · 14 mo
Gross margin · blended34.2%
CONCENTRATION
Top-10 customer share38%
Largest single customer9%
Contracts with term-for-convenience18%
DOWNSIDE
SLA compliance98.1%
Margin floor held11 / 11 qtrs
Revenue-replacement rate1.3×
Attestation: all fields hash-chained · attested_ledger: 3 mo (native, verifiable) · training_corpus: 14 mo (model context, not lender-verifiable) · ZKP 0x4F2A…A7E1
▸ Straight talk · this is a hypothesis, not a finished spec

The 16→16 mapping above is Allometry's best current model of what a Tier-1 underwriter needs. 12 of the 16 fields are native today; 3 are partner-augmented (they need a billing or accounting integration to be complete); 1 is constructed from cohort + external data.

What this page is not: a claim that we've validated every field with every lender. The covenant structure is strongest for Tier 1 — cash-flow lending against the operator. Tiers 2–4 (infra debt, insurance-linked, rated paper) underwrite assets and contracts, not operators — they need a different projection, and that's the expansion path, not today.

And telemetry supplements documents — it doesn't replace them. A signed security agreement is still a signed security agreement. The vault makes diligence fast and verifiable; it doesn't make the legal layer disappear.

▸ Help us validate the field list

If you underwrite asset-heavy operators — tell us where this is wrong.

"Which trigger thresholds in the map above would you set differently — and what would you need attested to extend a $500K line in 5 days instead of 6 weeks?"

The covenant → module → trigger map is built from first principles. The thresholds are the part only a Tier-1 underwriter can confirm — so we'd rather ship the version three lenders have pressure-tested than the version we modeled alone. 30 minutes — you get the sample profile and the written scan regardless.

▸ you just read Covenant Structure The translation layer — how the vault becomes a lender's pre-filled covenant model.
see the other side ▸ The Vault The capture layer — 16 operator modules depositing structured, attested evidence.

The capture layer, the engine, and the front doors