Review readiness and approval answer different questions.
- Review readiness: Is the case organized well enough to be assessed?
- Approval: Has an authorized party decided to accept a request under applicable policy, risk, legal, and commercial conditions?
What review readiness can establish
A system can show that:
- the case identity is clear;
- evidence is indexed and traceable;
- conflicts are visible;
- required questions are organized;
- missing items are recorded;
- the handoff package is complete enough to begin or continue review.
What it cannot establish by itself
The same system cannot infer that an authorized bank, funder, buyer, insurer, or other party has approved the transaction. Approval may depend on information outside the package, internal policy, capital limits, legal review, pricing, concentration, sanctions controls, or human judgment.
Why the distinction matters
When software uses words such as “approved,” users may treat preparation output as a binding decision. That creates operational, legal, and trust risks.
tradeOS therefore uses conservative language:
- review-ready;
- evidence gap;
- confirmation pending;
- handoff-ready;
- funding readiness;
- authorized reviewer required.
Mandatory boundary
Review readiness is non-approval and non-execution. It does not authorize funding, payment, settlement, repayment, collateral release, token movement, live connector delivery, registry write, or chain submission.
The value of review readiness is not that it replaces the decision. It is that it gives the decision-maker a clearer, more complete, and more auditable case.