Partial coverage can help prioritise a review, but it cannot describe the risk of the whole portfolio. State what was counted, which questions were covered and what remains outside the search.
Start with the denominator
Suppose a fictional customer provides ten project positions and three match records already held. That is three of ten submitted positions matched. It is not automatically 30% of the portfolio’s credit volume, financial value or risk. If several positions refer to one project, project coverage and position coverage also differ. Choose the relevant denominator before calculating a percentage and keep it visible beside the result.
A match is not a completed assessment
For each matched position, ask what the available record can establish. One may have a directly relevant decision and a clear identifier. Another may have an old disclosure outside the customer’s period. A third may have only a candidate signal that requires a deciding source. Presenting all three as equally covered hides the work still needed. A coverage map should describe the question answered as well as the presence of a document.
The other seven positions are a research queue
Separate positions with no match in the existing record from those that have been actively searched. Then distinguish source access restrictions, unresolved identity and relevant evidence not found within the agreed search. These states suggest different next actions: check identifiers, retrieve a permitted source, ask the customer for a document or state the limit of the work.
What the customer can do with the result
A procurement team can send focused questions to counterparties. An adviser can decide where deeper diligence is justified. A portfolio owner can see which submitted positions require manual attention before comparing results. The review may conclude that the initial record adds little to a particular mandate. That is still useful information about fit, provided it is reported before a broader claim of coverage is made.
Measure expansion without hiding the remaining gaps
Report the original scope, sources checked, relevant matches and unresolved items after the next search. Increasing the number of sources is only progress when those sources address the customer’s questions. Do not turn every newly retrieved document into a covered position or count the same project repeatedly through alias names.
What to take into the review
The useful deliverable is a map of evidence and next actions. The percentage is a summary of that map, not a risk score.
Sources and basis
Kyroq perspective on review design. Examples are hypothetical and do not describe a customer or issuer. No empirical market-performance or customer-outcome claim is made.
Published by Kyroq. Read our approach and scope.