Goscore
EN / NO
Run a backtest ↗
For Underwriting Operations

Turn borderline reviews from manual investigation into structured evidence.

Goscore assembles income stability, obligations, affordability and behavioural signals into a consistent review pack — so underwriters spend time on judgment, not data hunting.

Built for Head of Underwriting · Credit Operations · COO
Benchmark 100 manually reviewed cases → See Underwriting Intelligence
The proposition

Use Goscore as decision support, not an autonomous approver: a standard evidence pack, reason drivers and a repeatable review workflow with the bank retaining final judgment.

The challenge underneath

Manual reviews are expensive, inconsistent and hard to scale. The underwriter often has to reconstruct the same financial picture from multiple systems and documents.

For banks Credit & Risk Underwriting Operations Digital Sales & Growth Compliance & Responsible Lending Portfolio & CRM Lending P&L Data & Innovation
§ 01 — The evidence

Make the conversation numerical immediately.

100
cases
Suggested benchmark size
One pack
for every borderline case
Goscore capability
Explainable
reason drivers
Goscore capability

Goscore figures were gathered during pilot implementations and production lending use cases. They are specific to those portfolios and policies; results vary by lender, policy and implementation. Goscore Intelligence can operate across the Nordics, the EU, the US and Canada.

§ 02 — Why act now

This is easier to justify in 2026 than another generic innovation project.

  • 01

    Banks are actively looking for measurable productivity gains from AI and automation, while public bank reporting still notes that few organisations realise substantial value from broad AI investments.

  • 02

    Underwriting is a narrow, controlled workflow where time saved and decision consistency can be measured directly.

  • 03

    Starting as decision support keeps human judgment and existing credit authority intact.

Market/regulatory basis: DNB Annual Report 2025.
Specific first CTA

Benchmark 100 manually reviewed cases

Choose 100 recent borderline cases. Compare time-to-review, evidence completeness and decision consistency with and without a Goscore evidence pack.

Start this test →
§ 03 — How the first engagement works

Small enough to approve. Specific enough to kill.

01

Sample

Pick 100 cases that required manual judgment.

02

Structure

Generate a standard affordability/risk evidence pack.

03

Measure

Compare handling time, missing evidence and review variance.

04

Decide

Adopt only for the case types where the operational gain is proven.

§ 04 — Product behind the pitch

Underwriting Intelligence

Turn fragmented transaction signals into a concise affordability and risk picture for cases that need human judgment. Faster review, consistent evidence and a clear audit trail — with the bank retaining the final decision.

  • 01Prioritise cases where additional evidence can change the outcome
  • 02Summarise income stability, obligations, spending and risk behaviours
  • 03Explain which signals contributed to the assessment
Open product page →
Underwriting Intelligence
Reduce manual effort and improve consistency in marginal cases Works alongside existing bank scorecards, workflows and systems of record.

Benchmark 100 manually reviewed cases

Choose 100 recent borderline cases. Compare time-to-review, evidence completeness and decision consistency with and without a Goscore evidence pack.

Use this as the first conversation →