FICTIONAL SAMPLE. This deal-screen memorandum is an invented demonstration deliverable — the buyer-side screening of the fictional Harborline offering memorandum (harborline_om.html, 40 pages, deliberately sponsor-optimistic). Every party, figure, and adjustment is fictional. Companion model: harborline_uw.xlsx — the buyer underwriting workbook this screen adjusts toward.
PURSUIT CRE AI
Deal Screener
FY0 Screening · Confidential
Buy-Side Screening Memorandum

DEAL SCREEN — HARBORLINE BUILDING
123 Main St, Austin, TX 78701

Travis County · 84,000 SF single-story warehouse · small-bay conversion
Advance to Full Underwriting — With Adjustments

The offering clears the screen on the buyer’s corrected basis, not the sponsor’s: with the marketed “total capitalization” rebuilt to true project cost, the exit cap widened 50 bps, taxes reassessed, and stabilization pushed to FY3 behind a 9% revenue haircut, the deal still underwrites to a 9.26% yield on cost against a 9.0% screen floor. Eight findings follow; four are corrected in the model, two convert to diligence conditions, two are noted for the committee.

$10,800,000
Asking Price
$14,660,600
True Project Cost
$1,357,839
UW Stab. NOI (FY3)
$20,116,127
Value @ 6.75% Cap
9.26%
Yield on Cost
Prepared for  Meridian Peak Partners LLC — Investment Committee
Prepared by  Pursuit AI Deal Screener
Source document  Offering Memorandum, Meridian Capital Advisors (40 pages)
Companion model  harborline_uw.xlsx — buyer underwriting workbook (11 tabs)
Date  FY0 screening — FICTIONAL SAMPLE
FICTIONAL SAMPLE — FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY. Every party, figure, finding, and adjustment in this memorandum is invented for a software demonstration. No real property, offering, or firm is described. Not investment, legal, or tax advice.
Harborline Building · 123 Main St, Austin TXDeal Screen · FICTIONAL — illustrativePage 1 of 9
Section 1

Deal Snapshot

ItemScreener Read
Asset / addressThe Harborline Building — 123 Main St, Austin, TX 78701 (Travis County); fee simple, delivered vacant at closing
Asking price$10,800,000 · $128.57/SF of GLA · offers due September 9, 2026 per OM Section 10
Gross leasable area84,000 SF · single-story 350′ × 240′ tilt-wall plate · 21′ minimum clear
Vintage1988 tilt-wall per screener property record¹
Site5.50 acres (±239,580 SF) per OM · fully fenced · ±2.7-acre yard¹
Occupancy at closing0% leased — seller-occupied under a license terminating at closing; broom-clean delivery
Business planSmall-bay conversion: 77 storage units (66,300 NRSF) + 9 office/flex suites (8,700 SF) = 75,000 rentable SF
Conversion program$2,900,000 budget ($34.52/SF) · 7-month program from permit issuance; permits in municipal review since June 2026
SubmarketSoutheast Austin — US-183/SH-71 corridor; OM cites 4.8% infill shallow-bay vacancy and 5.4 SF/capita small-bay supply
Seller / brokerCaldwell Distribution Systems, Inc. · Meridian Capital Advisors, exclusive advisor (deal team: Calloway / Okafor / Bergstrom)
Conversion sponsorKestrel Bay Storage Partners LLC — operating team behind the rent schedule and competitive survey
Sponsor headlineYear-2 NOI $1,292,928 · “9.4% yield on total capitalization” of $13,700,000 · implied ≈$20.7M value at a 6.25% cap

¹ Record discrepancies, immaterial to the screen but flagged for diligence: the OM describes 1987 construction (cover: “1987 Tilt-Wall”; Section 2: “1987-vintage”) while the buyer model property record carries 1988; the buyer model also carries 4.6 acres of site area against the OM’s 5.50 acres. Both resolve at the ALTA survey and re-measure — see Finding 7 and the verdict conditions.

What This Screen Is

This memorandum is the desk’s first-pass screen of a seller-prepared offering memorandum. It does three things: it grades the deal’s components (Section 2), it isolates the specific claims in the OM that a buyer cannot take at face value — quoting each one verbatim (Section 3) — and it restates the sponsor’s headline economics on the buyer’s corrected basis, tied cell-for-cell to the underwriting model (Section 4). The verdict and its conditions follow in Section 5. Findings are labeled ADJUSTMENT (already corrected in the buyer model), VERIFY (converted to a diligence condition), or NOTED (context the committee should hold).

Screen Inputs

DocumentRole in This Screen
harborline_om.html — Offering Memorandum, Meridian Capital Advisors, 40 pagesThe document screened. All quoted language and page cites refer to this OM; finding cards carry anchors into it.
harborline_uw.xlsx — buyer underwriting workbook, 11 tabsThe numbers this screen adjusts toward: true project cost, 9% EGI haircut, FY3 stabilization, 6.75% screen cap, 65% LTC debt sizing.
Reading the findings. Each finding card cites the OM page it indicts and expands to the exact OM language with the load-bearing phrase highlighted. Nothing in Section 3 paraphrases the seller’s book — if a claim is challenged, the claim itself is on the card.
PURSUIT CRE AI · DEAL SCREENERDeal Snapshot
Harborline Building · 123 Main St, Austin TXDeal Screen · FICTIONAL — illustrativePage 2 of 9
Section 2

Screen Scorecard

Five components, graded A–C against the desk’s screening standard. Grades reflect the evidence the OM itself supplies, weighed against the findings in Section 3; a B is institutional-quality with identified corrections, a C-range grade means the sponsor’s assumption was replaced, not adjusted.

ComponentGradeRationale
Market & submarketB+4.8% infill shallow-bay vacancy, 5.4 SF/capita small-bay supply against an 8.1 national benchmark, and a real contractor demand base — but every count, survey, and waitlist in the OM is sponsor- or broker-conducted (Findings 5, 8).
Basis & pricingB$128.57/SF asks below the OM’s own $136–$145/SF as-is warehouse trades — genuine basis cover — but the marketed $13,700,000 “total capitalization” omits $960,600 of real costs; true basis is $14,660,600 (Finding 1).
Business planB−Permit-ready scope, three GC bids within 5% of budget, modern roof and 1,600A service — the physical plan is credible. The revenue plan is not yet: Year-2 stabilization and a $32.38/SF blended rate outrun the printed comps (Findings 4, 5).
Exit assumptionsC+The 6.25% exit cap is the aggressive edge of the OM’s own 6.2%–6.7% small-bay sale-comp band — not its claimed “midpoint” (6.45%). Screener carries 6.75%; the deal still covers cost 1.37x, which is why it survives the downgrade (Finding 2).
Sponsor & executionBKestrel Bay brings operating facilities, a scoped budget, and an executable industrial re-let fallback (≈$882,000 NOI per the OM). But the rent evidence is largely self-referential, taxes are carried below reassessment risk, and the OM cites “six operating facilities” on p.5 and a “portfolio of nine facilities” on p.31 — reconcile (Findings 3, 5).

Screen Floors Applied

TestFloorThis Deal (Buyer Basis)Result
Stabilized yield on true project cost9.0%9.26%  ($1,357,839 / $14,660,600)PASS
Stabilized value coverage of total cost—1.37x  ($20,116,127 / $14,660,600)CLEARS
Spread: yield on cost over screen exit cap—≈250 bps  (9.26% vs 6.75%)CLEARS
Downside fallback exists without conversion—Industrial re-let — modeled as the bear case in harborline_uw.xlsxCLEARS

The 9.0% yield-on-cost floor is the desk screening standard and matches the minimum stabilized debt-yield gate in the buyer model’s Debt Sizing tests. All buyer-basis figures are derived in Section 4 and tie to harborline_uw.xlsx. Fictional throughout.

Net read. The deal is priced off a credible arbitrage — $11.50/SF bulk rent re-demised toward small-bay rates — and the screen’s corrections shrink the margin without erasing it. What the corrections do change is where the cushion lives: on the buyer’s numbers the profit is in the basis and the spread, not in the sponsor’s Year-2 sprint or a 6.25% exit.
PURSUIT CRE AI · DEAL SCREENERScreen Scorecard
Harborline Building · 123 Main St, Austin TXDeal Screen · FICTIONAL — illustrativePage 3 of 9
Section 3

Findings — What the OM Claims vs. What the Buyer Carries

ADJUSTMENT · 4 VERIFY · 2 NOTED · 2 Ranked most consequential first · each card quotes the OM verbatim
1
“Total capitalization” omits $960,600 of transaction & financing costs
ADJUSTMENTOM p.4 §1 · p.12 §4 — Transaction Summary; Sources & Uses
The OM’s headline basis — $13,700,000, styled “price + conversion budget” — counts the check to the seller and the construction budget and nothing else. The same page’s sources-and-uses quietly foots to $14,660,600, and the footnote concedes that title & escrow ($75,600), legal & diligence ($260,000), financing fees & rate cap ($480,000), and development & CM fees ($145,000) — $960,600 in aggregate — are excluded from the yield denominator. None of those costs is optional. The screener carries the full $14,660,600 (+7.0%) as the cost basis for every yield, coverage, and sizing figure in this memo and in harborline_uw.xlsx; every headline ratio in OM Sections 1 and 4 is quoted off the smaller number.
Exact language from the OM
Total Capitalization $13,700,000 (price + conversion budget) · $163.10/SF […] Yield on total capitalization is computed on price plus conversion budget only, consistent with sponsor convention; closing costs, financing costs, fees, and carry (aggregate $960,600) are excluded from the denominator. […] Total uses 14,660,600 100.0 174.53
Open the OM at this anchor →
2
Exit cap of 6.25% is 50 bps tight — the “midpoint” claim fails the OM’s own comp table
ADJUSTMENTOM p.4 §1 — Executive Summary · p.22 §6 — Sale Comparables
The OM caps sponsor Year-2 NOI at 6.25% to imply “approximately $20.7 million” of stabilized value, and defends the assumption as the midpoint of the small-bay evidence. The evidence it prints says otherwise: the three stabilized small-bay trades on p.22 cleared at 6.2%, 6.5%, and 6.7% — a band whose midpoint is 6.45%, not 6.25% — and the subject will arrive at exit as a first-generation conversion with no operating seasoning. The screener carries 6.75%, 50 bps wide of the sponsor, which values buyer-case stabilized NOI of $1,357,839 at $20,116,127 (≈$239/SF, just below the $241–$260/SF stabilized trades). The bid must not depend on exit-cap generosity; at 6.75% the deal still covers total cost 1.37x.
Exact language from the OM
On the sponsor’s pro-forma, the converted facility stabilizes in Year 2 at approximately $1.29 million of net operating income — a 9.4% yield on total capitalization of $13.7 million — with an implied stabilized value of approximately $20.7 million at a 6.25% small-bay capitalization rate. […] The sponsor’s 6.25% stabilization cap assumption is set at the midpoint of the small-bay evidence.
Open the OM at this anchor →
PURSUIT CRE AI · DEAL SCREENERFindings 1–2
Harborline Building · 123 Main St, Austin TXDeal Screen · FICTIONAL — illustrativePage 4 of 9
3
Year-2 taxes assume the appraisal district ignores the sale
ADJUSTMENTOM p.13 §4 — Pro-Forma, Real Estate Taxes · p.24 §8 — Tax & Title Summary
The $186,000 Year-2 tax line assumes Travis CAD reassesses the finished project to only $8,496,000 — 62% of the sponsor’s own capitalization figure and barely ahead of the $10,800,000 price the closing itself puts on record, with $2,900,000 of permitted improvements layered on top. The OM’s own footnote concedes the exposure: an assessment tracking price plus improvements “would produce a higher figure” — at the OM’s printed 2.1893 total rate, a $13.7M assessment implies roughly $300,000 of annual taxes. The buyer model underwrites reassessed taxes at $195,000 (FY1) stepping to $205,000 (FY2), grown 3.0% thereafter — $19,000 above the OM in the stabilization year, before crediting any protest outcome. A reassessment memo from Texas property-tax counsel is a condition to advancing.
Exact language from the OM
The pro-forma carries $136,000 in Year 1 at the current fictional assessment. Upon completion of the conversion, the sponsor projects reassessment to approximately $8,496,000 — roughly 62% of total capitalization — producing Year 2 taxes of approximately $186,000 at the current rate, escalated 4.0% annually thereafter. The sponsor’s fictional tax consultant regards this as the probable outcome of an income-approach protest posture; purchasers should note that an assessment tracking the full purchase price plus improvements would produce a higher figure, and should model their own tax conclusion.
Open the OM at this anchor →
4
Year-2 stabilization at $1,292,928 is a sprint the buyer does not underwrite
ADJUSTMENTOM p.13 §4 — Five-Year Pro-Forma · p.14 §4 — Lease-Up Ramp
The pro-forma asks a building that exits a seven-month conversion in May 2027 to post $1,292,928 of NOI — a 65.0% margin — in the fiscal year ending August 2028, riding a ramp of 38% committed at CO, 72% at fiscal year-end 1, and 90% at month 24, with every figure presented before any haircut. That is 86 separate tenancies signed at pace, at full schedule rates, on the first pass of a first-generation conversion. The buyer model applies a 9% haircut to sponsor EGI in every base-case year and carries stabilization in FY3, producing $1,357,839 of underwritten stabilized NOI — one year later than marketed. The extra year of 3.0% growth restores the dollars (+$64,911 vs. the sponsor’s Year 2), but the timing changes carry, reserves, and the covenant runway — and those are what kill bridge deals.
Exact language from the OM
Year 1 reflects the seven-month construction period followed by five months of operations from certificate of occupancy (May 2027); Year 2 is the projected stabilization year. Figures are presented on the sponsor’s basis, before any underwriting adjustment, reserve, or haircut. […] Month 24 (Aug. 2028) — stabilization 90% Held flat thereafter
Open the OM at this anchor →
PURSUIT CRE AI · DEAL SCREENERFindings 3–4
Harborline Building · 123 Main St, Austin TXDeal Screen · FICTIONAL — illustrativePage 5 of 9
5
$32.38/SF blended rate sits above every comp the OM prints, save one
VERIFYOM p.14 §4 — Rate Build-Up vs. Comparables · p.20 §6 — Small-Bay Lease Comparables
The comp set the OM itself relies on runs $25.50 to $33.00/SF — Longhorn Trades at $25.50 (12,000 SF), Bat City Outfitters at $26.75 (8,500 SF), Colorado Bend Storage at $27.25 (9,400 SF) — for an SF-weighted average of $28.11. The modeled $32.38 is reached only by stacking sponsor adjustments of +8.0%, +4.0%, and +3.2% for unit size and finish, none observable until lease-up; exactly one signed lease in the set ($33.00, on 3,600 SF) prints above the blended rate the plan needs across 66,300 SF. The buyer model does not accept the waterfall: sponsor EGI is haircut 9% in every base-case year and growth is held at 3.0%. Advance is conditioned on an independent rent survey of executed small-bay leases, banded by unit size.
Exact language from the OM
The blended small-bay rate is derived from the eight fictional comparable leases in Section 6 (SF-weighted average $28.11/SF) with sponsor adjustments for the subject’s materially smaller average unit size and superior functionality: […] 9300 McKinney Falls Pkwy — Bat City Outfitters 5.2 8,500 $26.75 $227,375 Nov-25 60 mo […] 1717 Ferguson Ln — Longhorn Trades LLC 6.0 12,000 $25.50 $306,000 Aug-25 60 mo
Open the OM at this anchor →
6
The 9.4% headline restates to 9.26% on the money actually out the door
NOTEDOM p.12 §4 — Transaction Summary · p.39 App. J — Yield Conventions
By its own stated convention, the marketed “9.4% yield on total capitalization” divides Year-2 NOI by $13,700,000 while $960,600 of closing and financing costs — costs the OM’s sources-and-uses itself funds — sit outside the denominator. Restated on the screener’s basis, buyer-case stabilized NOI of $1,357,839 over $14,660,600 of true project cost underwrites to 9.26% — 14 bps inside the marketed figure and still clear of this desk’s 9.0% screen floor. That is why this is a restatement rather than a rejection: the arithmetic survives honest accounting. All return metrics from here forward are quoted on $14,660,600.
Exact language from the OM
Yield conventions. Yield on total capitalization equals NOI divided by $13,700,000 (price plus conversion budget); closing costs, financing costs, fees, and construction-period carry (aggregate $960,600 in the page 12 sources & uses) are excluded from the denominator. […] Implied profit at stabilization ≈$6.0M Vs. all-in project cost of $14.66M below
Open the OM at this anchor →
PURSUIT CRE AI · DEAL SCREENERFindings 5–6
Harborline Building · 123 Main St, Austin TXDeal Screen · FICTIONAL — illustrativePage 6 of 9
7
84,000 SF carries a “±” on the cover — measure it before the model relies on it
VERIFYOM p.1 Cover · p.2 Disclaimer · p.9 §3 — Program Metrics
The plate is “±84,000-square-foot” on the cover and 84,000 SF everywhere the math matters, and the disclaimer concedes that all square footages are approximations. The plan needs 75,000 rentable SF — an 89.3% demising efficiency on a single-story 350′ × 240′ plate — and at blended schedule rates ($2,283,522 scheduled on 75,000 SF, roughly $30/SF) every point of lost efficiency bites revenue directly. Unit-mix risk compounds measurement risk: 52 of the 77 storage units sit in a single 600–1,000 SF demand band, so the demising plan concentrates the plan’s fate on one thesis. The record is also untidy at the edges — the OM describes 1987 construction while the buyer model carries 1988. Condition: BOMA re-measure against the CD set and the ALTA survey before the model’s GLA input is locked.
Exact language from the OM
A rare, fee-simple opportunity to acquire a vacant ±84,000-square-foot Class B warehouse on 5.50 fenced acres in Southeast Austin and execute a fully scoped conversion to 77 small-bay commercial storage units and nine office/flex suites […] Efficiency reflects rentable NRSF (75,000 SF) over GLA. […] All square footages, acreages, dimensions, dates, and dollar amounts are approximations.
Open the OM at this anchor →
8
The projections are the seller’s advisor’s — and the OM says so itself
NOTEDOM p.2 — Confidentiality & Disclaimer
Every figure this screen adjusts — the pro-forma, the rent schedule, the stabilized NOI, the projected assessment — is expressly the work of the seller’s advisor, prepared to market the deal, and the OM states in terms that none of it has been reduced by any underwriting adjustment. That is not a defect; it is the genre, and this disclaimer is unusually candid about it. It is also the working instruction for this desk: re-underwrite Sections 4 and 5 of the OM before relying on them. This memorandum, the adjustments in Section 4 below, and harborline_uw.xlsx are that re-underwriting.
Exact language from the OM
Without limiting the foregoing, the financial projections set forth in Sections 4 and 5 of this Memorandum — including the small-bay conversion pro-forma, the unit-mix rent schedule, the projected stabilized net operating income, and the projected assessed value — are forward-looking statements prepared by or at the direction of the Seller’s advisor to illustrate one possible business plan for the Property. They reflect numerous assumptions concerning rental rates, lease-up velocity, occupancy, operating expenses, taxes, construction costs, and market conditions, any or all of which may prove incorrect. No representation is made that any projected result will be achieved. Actual results will vary, and the variance may be material and adverse. The pro-forma is presented on the sponsor’s basis and has not been reduced by any underwriting adjustment, reserve, or sensitivity haircut.
Open the OM at this anchor →
PURSUIT CRE AI · DEAL SCREENERFindings 7–8
Harborline Building · 123 Main St, Austin TXDeal Screen · FICTIONAL — illustrativePage 7 of 9
Section 4

Adjusted Underwriting — OM Claim vs. Screener Basis

The table restates each headline economic in the OM on the buyer’s basis. Every screener figure ties cell-for-cell to harborline_uw.xlsx; every delta is computed exactly, with the single exception of the OM’s own “≈$20.7 million” marketing round, carried here as ≈$20,700,000.

MeasureOM ClaimScreener AdjustedDelta
Total capitalization / project cost$13,700,000 (price + capex only)$14,660,600 (all-in)+$960,600  (+7.0%)
Stabilized NOI$1,292,928 (Year 2)$1,357,839 (FY3, −9% EGI haircut)+$64,911  ·  +1 yr to stabilize
Exit / stabilization cap rate6.25%6.75%+50 bps
Stabilized value≈$20,700,000$20,116,127−$583,873
Yield on cost9.4% (on $13.7M)9.26% (on $14.66M)−14 bps
Debt (from buyer model)—$9,529,390 · 65% LTCsized in model

Deltas: $14,660,600 − $13,700,000 = $960,600 (+7.0% of the marketed basis); $1,357,839 − $1,292,928 = $64,911; 6.75% − 6.25% = 50 bps; $20,700,000 − $20,116,127 = $583,873; 9.40% − 9.26% = 14 bps. The OM’s p.12 illustrative sources & uses shows the identical $9,529,390 senior loan at 65% LTC — the sponsor’s financing math already runs on the true $14,660,600 basis its yield convention excludes.

Closing-Cost Bridge — From the Marketed Basis to True Cost

ComponentAmountBasis
Title, escrow & transfer$75,6000.7% of $10,800,000 price
Legal, diligence & third-party reports$260,000Carried input, buyer model Assumptions
Financing fees & interest-rate cap$480,000Carried input, buyer model Assumptions
Development & CM fees at close$145,0005% of $2,900,000 conversion capex
Closing costs excluded from the OM’s “total capitalization”$960,600Finding 1
Identity check: $10,800,000 price  +  $960,600 closing costs  +  $2,900,000 conversion capex  =  $14,660,600 total project cost ($174.53/SF).

Model Tie-Out & Debt Sizing

Screener FigureValueharborline_uw.xlsx Cell
Closing costs — total$960,600Assumptions!B17  =SUM(B13:B16)
Total project cost$14,660,600Debt Sizing!B8  =SUM(B4:B6)
Stabilized NOI — base FY3$1,357,839CF - Base!D31
Stabilized cap rate — base6.75%Assumptions!B36
Stabilized value — base$20,116,127CF - Base!B43  =D31/Assumptions!B36
Recommended total loan$9,529,390Debt Sizing!B20  (65% × $14,660,600)

Debt structure per the model: $6,480,000 initial funding at close (60% of price) plus $3,049,390 of future funding for capex and carry; 1M Term SOFR + 3.75%, 12 months + two 6-month extensions, interest-only, rate cap purchased at close. Sizing passes the model’s gates — minimum DSCR 1.25x (base FY3), minimum stabilized debt yield 9.0%, maximum as-is LTV 80%, maximum LTC 65%. All figures fictional.

PURSUIT CRE AI · DEAL SCREENERAdjusted Underwriting
Harborline Building · 123 Main St, Austin TXDeal Screen · FICTIONAL — illustrativePage 8 of 9
Section 5

Verdict & Conditions

Advance to Full Underwriting — With Adjustments

The screen recommends advancing the Harborline Building to full underwriting at the $10,800,000 ask. On the buyer’s corrected basis the economics clear the screen without leaning on a single sponsor assumption: $1,357,839 of FY3 stabilized NOI on $14,660,600 of all-in project cost is a 9.26% yield on cost against the 9.0% floor; stabilized value of $20,116,127 at the 6.75% screen cap covers total cost 1.37x (1.372×); and the industrial re-let fallback — modeled as the bear case in the buyer workbook, and quantified by the OM itself at ≈$882,000 of as-is NOI — bounds the downside without the conversion. The deal survives the removal of the OM’s four optimistic levers — basis, exit cap, taxes, and stabilization timing — which is the definition of a deal worth underwriting. Findings 1–4 are already corrected in the model; Findings 5 and 7 convert to the conditions below.

Conditions to Full Underwriting

  1. Reassessed tax underwrite (Finding 3). Obtain a reassessment memo from Texas property-tax counsel; hold the model at reassessed-basis taxes ($195,000 FY1 → $205,000 FY2, +3.0%) with any protest outcome treated as upside only.
  2. Rent comp survey (Finding 5). Independent survey of executed small-bay leases, banded by unit size, reconciling the comp set’s $28.11/SF weighted average to the sponsor’s $32.38/SF schedule before any haircut relief is granted.
  3. GLA re-measure (Finding 7). BOMA re-measure of the 84,000 SF plate and the 75,000 SF rentable demising plan against the CD set; reconcile the 1987/1988 vintage and 5.50/4.6-acre site records against the ALTA survey.
  4. Phase I environmental. Buyer-commissioned Phase I ESA; the seller-side Stonecreek report (June 5, 2026) is not addressed to the buyer and is relied upon for screening context only.
  5. Title & survey. Examine the Trinity Republic Title commitment (GF #26-04471-TR) and both recorded easements; resolve the 0.4′ south fence-line encroachment by boundary-line agreement at closing as the OM contemplates.
Route to: AI Underwriter — harborline_uw.xlsx  ·  carry this memo’s Section 4 basis into the model without modification; revisit the 9% EGI haircut only after Condition 2 evidence lands.

Screen Arithmetic — Committee Reference

CheckComputationResult
Yield on cost vs. screen floor$1,357,839 / $14,660,6009.26% vs 9.0% floor
Cost coverage at screen cap$20,116,127 / $14,660,6001.372×
Loan sizing65% × $14,660,600$9,529,390
Basis correction vs. OM headline$14,660,600 − $13,700,000+$960,600
Generated by Pursuit AI Deal Screener · reviewed by [analyst initials MP-114]
FY0 screening — FICTIONAL SAMPLE · source: Offering Memorandum, Meridian Capital Advisors (40 pages) · model: harborline_uw.xlsx
This screen is decision support, not a recommendation to purchase. All findings quote the fictional OM verbatim; all adjusted figures tie to the fictional buyer model. Every party, property, figure, and outcome is invented for a software demonstration.
PURSUIT CRE AI · DEAL SCREENERVerdict & Conditions
Harborline Building · 123 Main St, Austin TXDeal Screen · FICTIONAL — illustrativePage 9 of 9