Independent warrantability and compliance assessments,
structured for decisions.
Equus produces examiner-ready determinations and remediation pathways under LL-2026-03 — without performing property management, brokerage, or legal services. Engagements begin with scope, not a recommendation.
An independent assessment of the warrantability questionnaire and its supporting documentation — reserves, insurance, governance, custody, and disclosure — evaluated against the post–LL-2026-03 Full Review standard.
Property management produces the operating record. A CPA verifies the financial statements. Neither evaluates the questionnaire against Full Review. Equus does — and produces a determination structured for review by lenders, examiners, and counsel.
Findings surfaced before the implementation date can be remediated privately, with full board control of sequencing and disclosure. After implementation, denials and examiner observations create their own public record, which narrows the remediation set.
An assessment report, defect and exposure mapping, a cure roadmap with sequenced remediation, and a board-ready summary suitable for sharing with lenders, examiners, or counsel without further translation.
What a Warrantability Assessment is — and is not
Stated as a scope-of-work definition. The boundary lines are operative.
- · A structured review of questionnaire integrity, documentation, custody, and presentation against post–LL-2026-03 Full Review expectations.
- · A defensible determination of warrantability status, with defect mapping and a cure roadmap.
- · A deliverable suitable for review by lenders, examiners, and counsel without further interpretation.
- · An independent third-party advisory output, signed by the principal.
- · Not property management, brokerage, or loan servicing. Equus does not assume operating responsibilities for the association.
- · Not legal advice. Equus surfaces facts; counsel determines legal implications.
- · Not a financial-statement audit. The CPA's role is not displaced.
- · Not a marketing artifact. The deliverable is structured to survive third-party review.
Capability, not internals
The analytical methodology and supporting IP are held separately from the operating entity and are not disclosed in marketing material. What follows is the capability surface — the conceptual components a counterparty can see reflected in the deliverable.
Scope-matched scoring
Every questionnaire item is graded against its specific scope — not a generic checklist. A 12-unit garden complex is not graded against a 480-unit high-rise.
Submission gate
Before any cure work begins, the building is run through a binary submission gate: under current state, would Full Review pass or fail. The answer is recorded.
Cure list
Each failure is broken into an ordered cure list. Sequencing matters: some cures depend on others; some cures invalidate prior filings if done out of order.
Exposure band
The deliverable concludes with a banded exposure estimate — low and high — tied to the specific findings, not a generic range.
// The mathematical constants, internal scoring engine, and module specifications that underlie M-01 through M-04 are proprietary and are not disclosed in marketing material.
What the engagement produces
Assessment report
The full record of the review. Each finding documented and tied to the underlying questionnaire item, supporting document, or disclosure. Structured for third-party review.
Defect and exposure mapping
Each finding mapped to its impact on warrantability and to an indicative exposure band. Used as the input for prioritization and remediation sequencing.
Cure roadmap and board summary
Sequenced remediation steps with dependency relationships, paired with a board-ready summary that can be shared with lenders, examiners, or counsel without further translation.
Scope sizes the engagement
Each tier exists because the prior one cannot answer at that scale. Outputs scale accordingly.
Single building
One questionnaire and supporting documentation set. Two to three weeks elapsed time, typical.
Multi-building / association
Multiple buildings under one association or sponsor. Comparative findings and prioritized cure sequence.
Portfolio and institutional data licensing
Referenced here; described in detail in the Institutional brief. Servicer- and lender-scale review and data products.
Stated plainly,
on the record.
Equus surfaces verifiable facts and presents the option set. The advisory practice does not steer boards or owners toward a predetermined outcome.
Equus does not perform property management, brokerage, or loan servicing. Equus does not provide legal advice. Where any of these are required, Equus refers; it does not substitute.
The perimeter protects the independence of the assessment. A practice that evaluates compliance cannot also operate the entity being evaluated.
How exposure evolves
Three stages, evaluated in sequence. The cost characteristics of each stage are different, and the order is fixed.
Findings can be remediated under board control, with sequencing and disclosure managed internally. Cost is contained; the documentary record is private to the engagement.
The Full Review standard becomes effective. Each warrantability questionnaire is graded against the expanded standard. Presentation, custody, or disclosure defects can fail the building on submission.
Exposure crystallizes as constrained collateral and observable repricing in the 10–25% band. Refinance and sale activity contract; documentation is reviewed under counterparty and examiner standards.
Request a Warrantability Assessment
Provide enough information to scope a building- or portfolio-level review; no commitment required. Equus will respond with a scope letter and an indicative exposure band within five business days.