Validity
Validity for Structured Finance

Formal Verification for Structured Finance

Validity proves whether the rules governing a structured product can logically coexist — before capital is deployed.

Structured finance instruments are defined by dense systems of triggers, thresholds, and conditional obligations. Validity transforms these systems into formally verifiable models, producing definitive outcomes: consistent, contradictory, or formally indeterminate.

The Problem

Structural complexity exceeds traditional review

Modern structured products embed intricate rule systems across offering memoranda, indentures, and servicing agreements. These rules govern payment waterfalls, trigger events, and portfolio constraints.

Despite their precision, they are evaluated through manual review and scenario-based modelling — approaches that cannot exhaustively detect internal contradiction.

As structural complexity increases, so does the risk of latent logical conflict.

The Validity Approach

A verification layer for financial structures

Validity applies a deterministic pipeline to structured finance documentation:

01Extraction of contractual commitments and structural rules
02Formalization within a constrained logical framework
03Encoding into a satisfiability model
04Solver-based evaluation of logical consistency

The result is a provable determination of whether the structure's governing rules can simultaneously hold.

Waterfalls as Formal Systems

From payment logic to provable structure

Payment waterfalls, trigger mechanisms, and covenant systems are inherently logical constructs.

Validity represents these constructs as formal constraints and evaluates them collectively, identifying:

Conflicting priority claims
Inconsistent threshold requirements
Mutually exclusive trigger conditions

Contradictions are not inferred — they are proven.

Proof, Not Scenario Coverage

Beyond model-based testing

Traditional analysis relies on sampling possible outcomes. Validity evaluates the full constraint system simultaneously.

Where contradictions exist, Validity returns a minimal unsatisfiable core — the smallest set of commitments that cannot all be true.

Each element of this core is traceable to:

Exact document text
Precise logical representation
Solver-verified conflict
Structural Failure Detection

A new class of detectable risk

Within its defined logical fragment, Validity identifies provable structural defects, including:

Threshold conflicts
In reserve and coverage requirements
Temporal inconsistencies
In payment or trigger timing
Deontic conflicts
In servicing or management obligations
Conditional loops
Within trigger systems
Portfolio eligibility contradictions
Across investment criteria

These are formal failures of the structure itself, independent of market performance.

Defined Scope, Explicit Boundaries

Precision through constraint

Validity does not model cashflows, predict performance, or assess credit quality.

It evaluates only whether the governing rules of a structured product are internally consistent within a defined logical system.

Where a rule cannot be formally represented, it is explicitly classified as UNDERDETERMINED. No approximation. No silent omission.

Institutional Applications

Designed for transaction-critical workflows

Validity integrates into structured finance processes including:

Pre-issuance verification of transaction documents
Independent diligence by investors and arrangers
Internal quality control for structuring teams and counsel
Supplementary analysis alongside rating and modelling processes
Verifiable Transaction Artifacts

Portable, reproducible assurance

Each analysis produces a cryptographically signed Proof Object containing:

The formalized rule set
The solver assertions
The satisfiability outcome
Any minimal contradiction set

Proofs are version-bound, reproducible, and independently verifiable.

A structured product is only as sound as the rules that define it. Validity proves those rules can hold.

Contact