AI Skill Report Card
Structuring Alternative Lending Case Studies
Quick Start14 / 15
Given raw facts about a funded deal (industry, problem, amount, turnaround time), produce a case study with this structure:
- Hook/Title — short phrase + lender name (e.g., "Messy Books, Clean Approval | Fora Financial")
- Setup paragraph — who the client is, what situation they're in, why they need capital
- Vision — what the owner wanted to achieve
- Opportunity — why the underlying business was fundable despite surface problems
- Challenge — bullet the 2-3 specific obstacles (always name them, e.g. "Messy Financials," "Late Payments")
- How [Lender] Helped — the approval, the amount, what requirement was waived
- Results — bolded outcome headers ("Funded Within 24 Hours," "Work Kept Moving") each with one sentence
- Conclusion — forward-looking close, reinforces vision achieved
- Why [Lender] — 2-3 reusable value props as bolded mini-headers
Recommendation▾
Add a second example with a different industry/obstacle (e.g., messy financials, restaurant) to show pattern generalizes beyond one template
Workflow14 / 15
Progress:
- Identify the core tension: what makes this business look risky on paper vs. why it's actually healthy
- Extract the dollar amount, turnaround time, and industry — these anchor credibility
- Write Vision (owner's goal, present tense desire)
- Write Opportunity (reframe the "risk" as evidence of a good bet — revenue exists, work exists, only timing gap remains)
- Write Challenge as 2 named bullets, each one sentence of context
- Write the Help section: name the specific underwriting flexibility (no history required, no clean financials required, no collateral, etc.)
- Write Results as 2 bolded outcome stats, each one sentence
- Write Conclusion tying back to the Vision
- Write Why [Lender] as 2 bolded reusable claims pulled directly from the Challenge/Help sections
Recommendation▾
Include a brief 'bad output' example showing what over-written or poorly-structured case study looks like for contrast
Examples16 / 20
Example 1: Input: "Retail store, seasonal inventory crunch before holidays, owner needed $75k fast, approved in 2 days despite thin credit file, used funds for inventory buy." Output:
Title: Thin File, Full Shelves | [Lender]
A retail store owner faced the holiday season with an inventory gap and a credit file too thin for conventional bank underwriting.
Vision
The owner wanted shelves fully stocked before the holiday rush, without missing the ordering window.
Opportunity
Foot traffic and seasonal demand were already proven from prior years — the business just lacked the paper trail a bank wants to see. A lender willing to look at current sales trends rather than years of credit history could close that gap.
Challenge
Thin Credit File: Limited credit history made traditional approval unlikely.
Tight Timeline: Inventory orders needed to be placed before suppliers' cutoff dates.
How [Lender] Helped
[Lender] approved $75,000 without requiring an extensive credit history, cutting the file down to what mattered: current performance.
Results
Funded Within 2 Days: Cash was available in time to place the full order.
Shelves Stocked for Season: The store entered the holiday rush fully prepared.
Conclusion
The owner hit the ordering window and entered the season fully stocked. With funding in place, the business can focus on sales instead of supply gaps.
Why [Lender]
No Extensive Credit History Needed: Approval focused on current performance, not file depth.
Fast Funding: Cash arrived within 2 days.
Recommendation▾
Clarify how to handle edge cases like declined-then-approved narratives or multi-round funding deals
Best Practices
- Always name the obstacle in Challenge headers exactly as a lender would flag it ("Messy Financials," "Thin Credit File") — this makes the case study scannable and searchable.
- Keep Results headers short declarative phrases, not full sentences — save the detail for the one-line description beneath.
- Frame every "problem" as a timing or paperwork issue, never a fundamental business weakness — the whole genre is about reframing risk as an administrative gap.
- Keep the amount and turnaround time exact and prominent; these numbers do the persuasive work.
- Close the Conclusion by echoing language from the Vision section — creates narrative closure.
- Keep "Why [Lender]" bullets reusable across case studies (same 2-3 value props recur: speed, minimal documentation, no deep history review).
Common Pitfalls
- Don't bury the dollar amount or turnaround time in prose — always isolate them in Results or Help sections for scannability.
- Don't let Challenge bullets run long — one clipped sentence each, no elaboration.
- Don't describe the underwriting process in technical/internal terms — keep it benefit-facing ("no long history needed," not "we waived the 2-year financials requirement per policy X").
- Don't end on the challenge — always resolve forward into the Conclusion with the business back in motion.