Credit decisions that are consistent, explainable, and fast.

You define the components that matter to your book, such as financial ratios, payment history, and bureau signals, assign each a weight, and define how raw values map to component scores. SCREDIT computes a weighted overall score and places the account in a risk band. The math is transparent: you can always see which components drove a score.

It is fully configurable and deliberately not a black box. Weights, components, thresholds, and risk bands are yours to define, and every score decomposes into its inputs. For trade credit, an explainable scorecard your team trusts beats an opaque model nobody can defend to an auditor or a sales VP.

You define authority levels, for example what a credit analyst, credit manager, and finance director can each approve, by exposure amount and risk band. When a decision is ready, SCREDIT routes it to the right level of authority. Nothing gets approved above someone's authority, and nothing waits on a director that a manager could sign.

No. The scorecard produces a consistent, evidence-based starting point, and routing ensures the right person makes the call. Analysts and approvers still exercise judgment, especially on marginal scores and large exposures, but they do it on top of structured evidence.

A bureau score is one input about one company from one vendor. SCREDIT decisioning combines bureau data with your financial analysis and your own receivables experience, weights them by your policy, and wraps the result in approval governance. The bureau tells you about the customer; the scorecard tells you what your policy says to do about them.

Decisioning is not only for new accounts. Scores recalculate as inputs change, and risk bands drive review scheduling, so a deteriorating account surfaces for re-review rather than coasting on a limit approved in better times.

Yes. Scorecards are defined per business rather than per platform, so a distribution arm and a construction supply arm can weight components differently, use different risk bands, and set different approval authorities, while group-level reporting still rolls exposure up across all of them. Acquisitions are the common case: the acquired business keeps operating on its own policy while it is brought onto yours, rather than being forced onto day one.

Only if you want it to. Component weighting can vary by customer size, so the emphasis that makes sense for a small trading account is not forced onto a major one. A thin file on a small account might lean on trade references and payment history, while a large exposure leans harder on audited financials — same policy, appropriate emphasis.