1. Subject and assignment
| Property address | 1247 Elm Street, Bremerton, WA 98310 |
| Effective date | 2026-04-15 |
| Loan program | FHA-insured Title II forward — Section 203(b) (FHA) |
| Appraiser | Sample Appraiser, SR-EXAMPLE-001-WA |
| Client / intended user | Sample Lender Trust |
| Report form | URAR-1004 |
| Submission id | sub_2026-04-15T14-21-50Z_bremerton_elm |
Single-family residence built 1962, owner-occupied, full interior
+ exterior inspection performed 2026-04-12. Subject is pre-1978
construction, triggering FHA lead-based-paint and Title X
disclosure considerations.
2. Decision Record at a glance
This evaluation is a sealed event. The block below
records the exact bytes evaluated, the exact rules applied, and
the exact moment the evaluation occurred. Anyone holding the
North Star public key can independently re-derive the seal and
confirm the record has not been altered.
| Work file content hash | sha256:7c1f6a8b9d4e2c5f1a3b8c9d4e2f1a3b8c9d4e2f... |
| Rule set applied | us-multi.appraisal.2026-Q4-approved (360 rules) |
| Engine version | 0.1.0 |
| Findings hash | sha256:5e3a9c2b7f1d4a8c5e3a9c2b7f1d4a8c5e3a9c2b... |
| Evaluation timestamp | 2026-04-15 14:22:08 UTC (RFC 3161 TSA: timestamp.digicert.com) |
| Chain predecessor | sha256:c8d4e2f1a3b8c9d4e2f1a3b8c9d4e2f1a3b8c9d4... |
| Signing key id | north-star-prod-2026-Q2 |
| Algorithm | Ed25519 over canonical CBOR |
How to verify offline: see Section 6.
3. Findings summary
| Severity | Count |
|---|
| Critical — loan-eligibility blockers; the deal cannot proceed until cured | 1 |
| Material — report defects requiring correction before sign-off | 2 |
| Advisory — best-practice nudges; non-blocking | 1 |
| Compliant — rules that fired and passed | 38 |
| Total rules evaluated | 42 |
| Rules not applicable — applicability gate didn't match this submission | 317 |
Action required. This submission has critical-severity findings. Resolve them before delivering the report to the lender.
4. Findings detail
Critical FED-FHA-4000-1-II-D-5-LEAD-PAINT Lead-based-paint assessment present on pre-1978 property
HUD-4000-1 Section II.D.5 —
source
Subject was built in 1962. FHA Handbook 4000.1, Section II.D.5
requires a lead-based-paint assessment for any property
constructed before 1978. The submitted work file does not
record a value for
content.subject_property.lead_paint_assessment.
The deal cannot proceed to closing until either (a) the
appraiser certifies no defective paint, or (b) defective paint
is documented with a remediation plan.
Improvement guidance. Add the lead-paint
assessment to the URAR addendum. Use one of the three accepted
values: no_defective_paint (no chipping / peeling
observed on a building component);
defective_paint_with_repair_plan (observed defects
+ remediation scope documented and bid);
defective_paint_undocumented (observed but no
plan — will block FHA insurance). Photograph any observed
defects.
Material FED-FHA-4000-1-II-D-3-COMPARABLE-RECENCY Closed comparables are within 12 months of effective date (or older comps are explained)
HUD-4000-1 Section II.D.3 —
source
Comparable Sale #3 (953 Pine Avenue) closed 2024-12-08, more
than 16 months before the effective date. The work file's
comparable_sales_within_12_months boolean is false
and no per-comp age explanation is recorded. FHA Section
II.D.3 expects closed comparables within 12 months; older
comps are permitted only when the addendum justifies the
choice (e.g., rural / low-volume market).
Improvement guidance. Either substitute
Comp #3 with a closer-in-time sale (preferable — the
West Bremerton submarket has had adequate transaction volume
in the trailing 12 months), or add a per-comp narrative
explaining the selection: why this older comp is more
locationally / physically similar than any alternative within
the 12-month window. The narrative goes in the URAR addendum
and the work-file's per-comp age_explanation
field is then populated.
Material FED-FNMA-SG-B4-1-2-01-FLOOR-PLAN-SKETCH Report includes a floor plan or building sketch with GLA calculations
FNMA-SELLING-GUIDE Section B4-1.2-01 —
source
The submitted work file includes a floor-plan sketch but the
content.report.gla_calculation_present flag is
false. Fannie Mae B4-1.2-01 requires both the sketch AND the
supporting GLA calculations (typically presented as a per-area
dimension table next to the sketch, summing to the reported
GLA figure).
Improvement guidance. Add the GLA calculation
as a supplementary exhibit alongside the existing floor-plan
sketch. Show dimensions per room or per finished area, sum to
the reported gross living area, and confirm the sum matches
the URAR's GLA field (1,847 sq ft as reported on this
submission). The exhibit can be hand-drawn on the sketch
margin or auto-generated by your floor-plan software.
Advisory FED-FNMA-SG-B4-1-3-09-MARKET-CONDITION-SUPPORT Market-condition adjustments are supported by trend data
FNMA-SELLING-GUIDE Section B4-1.3-09 —
source
Comparable Sales #2 and #3 carry positive market-conditions
adjustments of $4,500 and $9,200 respectively. The work file's
market_condition_adjustment_supported boolean is
true (attested), but the supporting trend data is not
referenced in the report. (advisory; consider but not
required for compliance.)
Rules that passed
The 38 rules below fired against this submission and produced no
findings. We show eight representative passes; the remaining
thirty are listed in the full Decision Record JSON.
- ☑ WA-RCW-18.140-050-A — Appraiser must hold an active certification
- ☑ WA-WAC-308-125-200-USPAP-EDITION — USPAP edition referenced
- ☑ USPAP-SR1-4-COMPS-MIN — At least three closed comparables
- ☑ FED-FHA-4000-1-II-D-1-ROSTER-ELIGIBILITY — Appraiser on the FHA roster
- ☑ FED-FHA-4000-1-II-D-3-PHOTO-FRONT-EXTERIOR — Front-exterior photograph included
- ☑ FED-FHA-4000-1-II-D-4-FEMA-FLOOD-ZONE — FEMA flood zone identified (Zone X — minimal risk)
- ☑ FED-FHA-4000-1-II-D-5-FOUNDATION-STRUCTURAL — Foundation / structural elements assessed
- ☑ FED-FHA-4000-1-II-D-6-FHA-CERTIFICATION — FHA-specific certification present
- … and 30 more.
5. Improvement guidance — ranked
The recommendations below are the consolidated, ranked list of
actions to take before resubmitting this work file. The order
follows severity (critical → material → advisory) and
within severity, chronological order in your workflow.
- Add lead-based-paint assessment to the URAR addendum critical
Pre-1978 construction triggers FHA II.D.5. Select one of: no
defective paint observed; defective paint documented with
repair plan; defective paint without repair plan (this third
option blocks FHA insurance). Photograph any observed
defects.
Driven by: FED-FHA-4000-1-II-D-5-LEAD-PAINT.
- Replace Comp #3 or add an age-justification narrative material
Comparable Sale #3 is 16 months old. Either swap in a sale
closed within the last 12 months from the West Bremerton
submarket, or document in the addendum why this older sale
is more similar than alternatives.
Driven by: FED-FHA-4000-1-II-D-3-COMPARABLE-RECENCY.
- Add GLA calculation exhibit alongside the floor-plan sketch material
Per-area dimensions summing to the reported 1,847 sq ft GLA.
Can be added to the existing sketch as marginal annotation
or as a separate exhibit page.
Driven by: FED-FNMA-SG-B4-1-2-01-FLOOR-PLAN-SKETCH.
- Reference the supporting trend data for market-conditions adjustments advisory
Comps #2 and #3 carry positive market-conditions
adjustments. Consider citing the West Bremerton 12-month
rolling price trend (Form 1004MC or equivalent) in the
addendum so the adjustments are inspector-defensible.
Driven by: FED-FNMA-SG-B4-1-3-09-MARKET-CONDITION-SUPPORT.
6. How to re-verify this Decision Record offline
This Record can be re-verified at any time, without our service
running, using only the Record file and our public key. The
verification confirms that the work file content, the rule set,
the timestamp, and the findings have not been altered since
seal time.
Files you need:
-
decrec_2026-04-15T14-22-08Z_a4f2c1e8.json —
the canonical Decision Record (in this download)
-
north-star-public-key-north-star-prod-2026-Q2.pub
— the North Star public-key file
(verify.athenanorthstar.com/keys)
One-line check (Bash):
athena verify --record decrec_2026-04-15T14-22-08Z_a4f2c1e8.json \
--public-key north-star-public-key-north-star-prod-2026-Q2.pub
Expected output:
record_hash OK (matches canonical bytes)
signature OK (Ed25519 over canonical CBOR)
timestamp OK (RFC 3161, timestamp.digicert.com)
chain OK (predecessor hash matches)
findings_hash OK (derived from canonical findings)
content_hash OK (derived from canonical work file submitted)
=> verified: true
The verifier is a small, focused, open-source
tool published by Athena Systems. It runs locally with no
Athena Systems service required — you only need
the Decision Record and the public key. Anyone
(regulator, auditor, opposing counsel) can install and
run it independently, and can read the verifier's
source code before trusting its output.
7. What this Decision Record attests and what it does not
This section is the legal-defensibility framing. Read it
carefully. The Decision Record is an
evaluation event witness, not a
content attestation.
What this Decision Record attests
- The exact bytes evaluated. The SHA-256
hash of the canonical work file submitted at evaluation
time matches the
content_hash field above.
- The exact moment of evaluation. The RFC
3161 timestamp (timestamp.digicert.com) places the event
at 2026-04-15 14:22:08 UTC. Counter-signed by an
independent TSA; not back-datable.
- The exact rule set applied. The 360 rules
in force at evaluation time are pinned by the
us-multi.appraisal.2026-Q4-approved hash. Any
change to the rules produces a different hash.
- The exact findings produced. The
findings_hash is deterministic; anyone re-
running the same engine on the same content with the same
rule set produces the same hash.
- The signing identity. Ed25519 signature
ties the Record to the
north-star-prod-2026-Q2 signing key.
- Continuity of evidence. The
predecessor_hash links this Record into the
hash chain. Flipping a byte of any prior Record breaks
the chain at the next verify.
What this Decision Record does not attest
- That the work file is accurate. The
Record witnesses what was submitted. We did not
source-verify the comparable data, the condition, the
income, or any other content. Garbage in, garbage out.
- That the appraiser's underlying valuation is
correct. Our rules evaluate structural
compliance, not the value conclusion. A passing
evaluation does not mean a defensible valuation.
- That observed condition matches reported.
If a report says C3 and the property is C5, the rule
still passes. The Record witnesses what was reported,
not what was physically observed.
- That comparable-sale source data is accurate at
source. MLS, deeds, prior-sale histories are
taken from the work file as submitted. The Record does
not warrant upstream sources.
- That the report passes any standard outside our
rule set. A passing evaluation reflects only
the specific rules in force at evaluation time.
- That the evaluation is legal advice or
professional opinion. North Star is a software
tool. Use it accordingly.
The plain-English summary
You submitted a work file. We ran our published rules against
it on the date and time shown. The cryptographic seal proves we
did exactly that, with exactly that content, against exactly
those rules. It is a tamper-evident record of the
evaluation event. It is not — and must not be
presented as — a third-party attestation that the
appraisal itself is accurate.
8. Rule set provenance
| Rule set id | us-multi.appraisal.2026-Q4-approved |
|---|
| Effective from | 2026-10-01 |
|---|
| Approved by | Justin Moriarty (appraisal SME, licensed appraiser WA + OR) + Darin Molnar (CTO, final tech say) |
|---|
| Approval date | 2026-05-29 |
|---|
| Rule-set hash | sha256:b366cca8e2f1a3b8c9d4e2f1a3b8c9d4e2f1a3b8… |
|---|
The full rule set is version-controlled internally and
pinned by hash. The hash above identifies the exact
rule definitions in force at evaluation time — any
change to any rule would produce a different hash. The
rule set is inspectable on request by regulators,
auditors, and customers under the customer agreement.
9. Engine + tooling provenance
| Engine version | 0.1.0 |
|---|
| Hashing | SHA-256 (FIPS 180-4) |
|---|
| Signature | Ed25519 (RFC 8032) |
|---|
| Timestamping | RFC 3161 (timestamp.digicert.com) |
|---|
| Canonical form | Deterministic CBOR (RFC 8949) |
|---|
| Reproducibility | Verified by golden-file CI on every engine release |
|---|
