A credit referral note is the short record an AI agent writes when a credit request goes beyond what it may handle: why it was referred, which limit or rule decided, the facts gathered, what the customer has been told, and when they expect an answer. The receiving officer should be able to decide without reopening the file.
How does a referral note differ from a credit memo?
A credit memo is the full analysis behind a lending decision. A referral note is narrower. It exists because something stopped the normal path: an amount above a limit, a policy exception, a sign of financial difficulty, a mismatch the agent could not resolve. Its job is to move one decision to the right person fast, with no ambiguity about why.
It is a specific kind of handover. The general form, for any agent passing work to a person, is in the handover note template from an AI agent to a person. The credit version adds the deciding rule, the credit facts and the customer's expectations.
When should an agent raise one?
Whenever an action is held or refused on a credit request and a person could still say yes. Common triggers:
- The request exceeds the agent's limit, for example a credit limit increase above the amount it may approve. Whether an AI agent can change a customer's credit limit covers where that line usually sits.
- A policy criterion is not met but an exception is possible.
- The customer shows signs of financial difficulty or vulnerability.
- Sources conflict and the agent cannot say which is right.
If the request is plainly outside policy with no exception route, the agent refuses and explains instead of referring.
How do you fill in each field?
Write for an officer reading twenty of these in a morning.
- Referral reason names the bound that decided, in the same words as the verdict. "Customer limit: increase above 5,000" is useful. "Needs review" is not.
- Facts are short and sourced, with provenance marked.
- What the customer was told is quoted. The officer must not contradict it by accident.
- Options lists what the officer could decide, not what the agent prefers.
- Response due is the time the customer was given.
Officers who later need to explain an outcome to the customer can hand back to the agent, using the method in how to explain a credit decision to an applicant with an AI agent.
The credit referral note template
| No. | Field | Guidance |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Reference and time raised | Links to the verdict in the record |
| 2 | Customer and account | Name, account, product |
| 3 | Request | What the customer asked for, in one line |
| 4 | Referral reason | The deciding bound or policy rule, in the verdict's words |
| 5 | Key facts | Up to six, each with source and provenance |
| 6 | Checks completed | Credit file, affordability, identity, with results |
| 7 | Checks not completed | And why |
| 8 | Customer circumstances | Any difficulty or vulnerability flags |
| 9 | What the customer was told | Quoted |
| 10 | Response due | Date and time |
| 11 | Options open to the officer | Approve, approve in part, decline, request more information |
| 12 | Routed to | Named queue or officer |
| 13 | Officer decision and reason | Completed by the officer |
A filled example: credit limit increase
| No. | Field | Entry |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | Request | Increase card limit from 3,000 to 7,500 |
| 4 | Referral reason | Customer limit: agent may approve increases up to a new limit of 5,000 |
| 5 | Key facts | Income 3,400 a month (bank data, signed); no missed payments in two years (credit file, signed); new job started last month (customer statement, declared) |
| 6 | Checks completed | Credit file, affordability at 7,500: residual income positive after stressed repayment |
| 7 | Checks not completed | Income from new job not yet seen in bank data |
| 8 | Customer circumstances | None flagged |
| 9 | What the customer was told | "Your request needs a colleague to review it. You'll hear from us by 5pm tomorrow." |
| 10 | Response due | 5pm next working day |
| 11 | Options | Approve 7,500; approve 5,000 now and review after first salary; request payslip |
| 13 | Officer decision | Approved 5,000 now; review at 7,500 after two salary payments seen |
Field 7 drove the decision. The officer did not doubt the customer, but declared income from a job one month old was not enough on its own for the full amount.
Where Pryme fits
Pryme records the bound that decided each verdict, so field 4 comes straight from the record rather than the agent's paraphrase. The referral is held for a named officer, and the officer's decision is filed against the same verdict. Underwriters who use agents for fuller analysis can follow how to prepare credit memos for underwriters with an AI agent. The rules are in the guide to AI agents in banking.
Questions people ask
Should the agent suggest which option to choose?
No. Listing options helps the officer; ranking them shifts the decision toward the agent. Keep the recommendation with the person who is accountable.
What if the officer needs more information?
The officer returns the case to the agent with a specific request, such as a payslip, and the agent asks the customer. The new evidence is added to the same note.
How long should a referral note be?
One screen. If it needs more, the case probably needs a full credit memo rather than a referral.