Frankfurt am Main · On-premises

Documentary credit examination, inside the bank.

Rovarin reads the SWIFT, the amendments and the presentation, then surfaces the findings a documentary-credit examiner would raise and drafts the refusal notice. The desk decides. Documents never leave the building.

Request a briefing What the desk receives

Who: Issuing · confirming · nominated banks
Rules: UCP 600 · ISBP 821 · eUCP · your own practice
Output: Findings · draft MT734 · inspector record
Deployment: On-premises · zero egress

Examination

ILC26044019

Specimen · not a real presentation

Amount: EUR 418,750.00
Rules: UCP 600 · ISBP 821
Applicant: NORDLICHT HANDELS GMBH
Beneficiary: MERIDIAN TEXTILE CO LTD

BILL OF LADING NORDWIND 26W24
Discrepancy
Late shipment
On board 15 SEP 2026 against latest shipment 01 SEP 2026 as amended.
UCP 600 art. 20(a)(ii) · 44C as amendedComputed
Please review
Notify party address
Notify party shows the applicant without the street stated in the credit.
UCP 600 art. 14(j)Judged
COMMERCIAL INVOICE NDH-4419
Passed
Drawing within the credit amount
EUR 418,750.00 drawn against 32B EUR 418,750.00, no tolerance used.
UCP 600 art. 18(b) · 32BComputed

Draft MT734 · field 77J

Proposal — the examiner approves

LATE SHIPMENT BL NORDWIND 26W24 ON BOARD
150926 LATEST SHIPMENT 010926 AS AMENDED

The examining function

Five banking days. The desk is still the bottleneck.

2–4 h

of skilled attention per presentation, before an examiner has formed a single judgement.

Under UCP 600 article 14(b) a nominated bank, a confirming bank and the issuing bank each have a maximum of five banking days following the day of presentation to determine whether a presentation complies. The work is skilled, scarce and unforgiving. A missed discrepancy becomes a waiver conversation, or a loss. A false one becomes a dispute with a correspondent.

The paper does not help. Presentations arrive as scans, photographs and printouts. Amendments arrive out of order. Volumes peak at month-end and the examiners who can do the work are the same ones who train the next ones.

Most “AI for trade finance” products stop at reading. They transcribe a bill of lading and call it examination. Examination is something else: the credit against the paper, the paper against itself, the article against the practice, and a sentence the SWIFT network will carry. Rovarin is built for that second job.

UCP 600 article 14(b)

Rovarin returns inside day 0

Day 0
Presentation
Documents arrive. The drawing is registered and scanned.
Day 1
First examination
Traditionally the file waits for a free examiner.
Day 2
Cross-checking
Credit, papers, articles.
Day 3
Second pair of eyes
The four-eyes control.
Day 4
Drafting
Discrepancy wording, approvals.
Day 5
Determination
Refuse with notice, or take up. The article 14(b) ceiling.

The clock has been running since day one. Rovarin returns the first examination inside the workflow’s own dead time — submitted at registration, waiting when the examiner opens the file. The five days go to judgement instead of transcription.

The engine

Intake, examination, report — on your side of the wall.

One service the bank runs itself. Not a portal, and not a chatbot over PDFs.

Intake — the credit and the set

The credit as issued and as amended: MT700, MT707 amendments applied in their proper sequence, MT710 where the credit was advised through another bank. The presentation as a multi-page package from the scan or the back office — one PDF or many files, scans and phone photographs included. Desk facts, when the back office has them.

Examination — credit against papers

The credit’s terms, the ICC rules and the bank’s own practice, each applied to each document. The papers against each other. Dates, amounts, tolerances, identity and presence are computed. A model is used to read a messy scan and to interpret wording a person wrote — never to do arithmetic, and never to invent the procedure.

Report — two artifacts, and a draft

For the examiner: findings in the language of the documents, a draft MT734, and a statement of what was examined. For the inspector: every verdict, its evidence, its citation and the configuration that produced it. The examiner closes the file.

What the engine offers How the desk uses it

The hand-back

Findings a checker would raise, in the words a checker would use.

Grouped under the document’s own name. “BILL OF LADING NORDWIND 26W24”, “COMMERCIAL INVOICE NDH-4419” — never an internal identifier.
Two kinds of item. Discrepancy for determined facts: a date after the latest shipment date, a drawing above the credit amount, a credit number printed wrong. Please review for arguable findings the bank may or may not refuse on. The desk decides which arguable items reach the notice.
A draft MT734. Field 77J in telegraphic vocabulary, formatted for the gateway, every clause traceable to a finding. A proposal, not an instruction.
What was examined. Rules applied, checks run, documents read, values witnessed on the page — and, in the same breath, the gaps: a requirement nothing could check, a page nothing could read, a value the page did not confirm.
A per-document record. Every value read from each document, whether the printed page itself confirms it, and every check that touched it — each labelled computed or judged.
Compliance holds. Sanctions matches render first and never become a clause in the refusal. A hit is a compliance matter, not a discrepancy.

How it is built to be trusted

A model for the scan.
Code for the money.

The engine is not asked to be clever where it must be exact. Every determined fact is arithmetic in code; a model is used only where a person’s handwriting, phrasing or a bad scan makes reading the hard part.

Determined facts are computed

A credit arrives as a wire file, a house-style printout, or a photograph of a printout. Reading it may take judgement; examining it must not. Dates, amounts, tolerances, counts, references and the presence of required documents are computed from the extracted values. Where the reading is uncertain, the finding says so and comes back for review — it never becomes a refusal on an unverified value.

The rules are the bank's

UCP 600, ISBP 821 and eUCP are the institution’s own licensed copies, ingested on the bank’s premises — Rovarin never ships the ICC texts. Bank practice lives in a spreadsheet the desk owns. How hard to raise an arguable finding is a cell in that sheet, not a change request to a vendor.

The examiner closes every arguable finding

A surfaced item waved through costs seconds. A hidden one costs a refusal window. So the engine surfaces what is arguable, refuses only what is determined, and records who decided what. The product is examiner-assist, by design and by posture.

Every check is an audit event

Verdict, evidence, citation, whether the page witnessed the value, which ICC interpretation stood a finding down, and a fingerprint of the rules and configuration that produced the examination. Replayable in a dispute, comparable between releases.

0: Outbound connections from any component
1: Server, with one datacentre GPU
3: Sources of rules: the credit, the ICC books, your sheet
2: Artifacts: the examiner's report and the inspector record

Deployment

Built to sit on the bank’s private network.

Documents never leave. Application, worker, stores and model servers all run inside the institution’s network. No cloud OCR. No telemetry. No outbound connection the network team cannot verify.
Offline licence. A cryptographically signed licence file, verified on the premises. Entitlements are instrument packs and an expiry. No licence server on our side of the wall.
The bank brings the books. ICC publications and sanctions data are the bank’s licensed content. Rovarin brings the examination.
Hardware the bank already knows how to host. Containers on a server with one datacentre GPU, in the bank’s datacentre or private cloud.

Security posture

Tenancy

One bank per deployment

Egress

None, verifiable

Air-gapped

Offline bundle

Scope

Three things we are careful not to be.

Not a capture vendor

Capture and IDP platforms already sit in many banks. Rovarin examines. If you keep your capture, the typed document is the seam — we do not need the pixels.

Not an autonomous refusal

Arguable findings come back as review. The examiner closes them. The bank remains responsible for the examination, as it must under article 14.

Not a rule engine you wait on us to change

A new practice rule is a row in a sheet. An ICC interpretation the bank reads differently is an override in a readable file. The engine ships the comparisons; the bank aims them.

Readers

One engine, five conversations.

A documentary-credit product is bought by a desk, reviewed by security, integrated by architects and defended to compliance. The site answers all five.

“Determined facts refuse. Arguable findings come back as review.”

The rule the whole product follows

If you are	What changes
Head of documentary credits	A complete first examination waits in the queue before an examiner opens the file. Peaks stop being staffing emergencies. Refusals stand on a record.
An examiner	The reading and the cross-checking are done. The arithmetic is done. Every finding cites its article. Your time goes to judgement.
A trade-platform architect	One API, generated documentation, submit-and-poll, results into your own queue. File and queue adapters for back offices that cannot call HTTP.
Security, ICT third-party risk, model risk	Zero egress, verifiable. Offline licence. Every model call traceable on your infrastructure. A fixed examination procedure, not an improvising agent.
Compliance	Sanctions holds rendered first and kept out of the refusal. Every decision recorded with who took it.

Next step

Request a closed briefing.

Architecture, the audit trail, and a scored synthetic examination — with the people who will own the risk.

Request a briefing

Synthetic packs only. We do not take live presentations over the public internet.