Build kit · companion to the Atlas
NachoLOS — the loan manufacturing system
A point-of-sale system persuades. A loan origination system manufactures. This is the build kit for
the back office: the file enters at one end and leaves insured, delivered and purchased — with every station
owned, gated and stamped. Built from Sharon LittleJohn's operational notes, the existing codebase, and the
POS Atlas it has to join.
236features
40new vs blueprint
18screens
13Atlas parts
31.5kAtlas words
19open decisions
Start here
⏱The 5-minute briefIf you have one meeting slot: the
talk track, the four numbers to memorise, and what to say when they push back.
▣ScreensTap through all 18 — desktop frames, with
phone companions where they genuinely belong.
⇢The lineEvery station, who owns it, what gates it, and
what fires next.
◆CompeteWhat we're replacing and what we have to beat
— evidence, not opinion.
◐UI kitThe design standard — density rules, the
three-pane layout, colour, language, and the stopwatch.
⚙ArchitectureIntegration map, the POS↔LOS seam, and the
credential checklist CLEAR must supply.
☰BacklogAll 236 features, filterable by tier and
phase. Generated from the Atlas, never hand-typed.
What makes this different
Four sources, one document
Sharon's raw operational notes (11,129 words, verbatim — including
Maddie's dictated frustrations), the blueprint built from them, a source-level review of the existing
NachoLOS codebase, and the POS Atlas. Where they disagree on how the shop runs, Sharon's notes win —
she is describing a licensed operation that exists.
Compliance as controls, not categories
The blueprint lists check names inherited from a competitor's
published coverage summary. This maps every rule to the control that satisfies it — and says out loud that
coverage copied from marketing copy is not a compliance control.
The QC module that was one line
Sharon supplied pages of agency QC requirements — FHA's sampling
split, VA's 13-point review, Fannie's prefunding selection. The blueprint carried a single catalog row.
Rebuilt here as nine features, including reviewer independence the system can actually enforce.
The seam, written down
Ownership table, push contract, event contract, stage mapping,
adapter interface — so the developer merging the two volumes doesn't invent the boundary. Including the
one conflict three documents disagree on: who sends disclosures.
An honest mobile position
Not "fully responsive." Named lists of what belongs on a phone and
what must never move there. Where a screen is desktop-only it shows a useful read-only view and
says why — rather than a broken miniature nobody uses.
Ten omissions, catalogued
Ten things in Sharon's own notes that the blueprint dropped —
the brokered channel (10–15% of volume), the QC program, TX A(4), the veteran property-tax exemption,
PACER, representative-score logic, pre-AUS validations, her closing checklist, the KPI framework, credit
supplements. Each verified by direct search, each now has a home.
Read the honest parts first
This kit is deliberately loud about what it does not know. The regulatory citations need
compliance-counsel confirmation before build. The competitive comparison is being rebuilt on real evidence
rather than impressions. The Excel formulas behind the worksheet library have not been handed over yet —
not a blocker for the framework, required before that feature ships. A specification that hides its
uncertainty is harder to build from than one that maps it.
The decision that outranks the rest
D-02 · Who owns disclosure generation and delivery. Sharon says all disclosures are sent in the LOS.
The blueprint says the LO sends from the POS. The POS Atlas assumed POS-side delivery. Three documents,
three answers — and whoever owns delivery owns the three-business-day deadline. This has to be settled by
a person, not by whichever developer writes the code first.