Your questionnaire fee did not change.
The work behind it did.
On 3 August 2026 Fannie Mae retired Limited Review for established condo projects over ten units. Files that used to take a two-page screen now need the budget, the reserve study, the delinquency roster, insurance and any critical-repair history — for the same flat fee you have always charged. This is a five-minute walk through a real association, Riverbend Terrace, ninety-six units with six periods of records already in it. Open each screen yourself. There is nobody to talk to.
Log in first
The demonstration account is open. It is the full product with real documents behind it.
demo@wardline.app / demo1234
Open Wardline →-
Start with the line that says which review you are in
Wardline resolves every rule against the loan application date, not today. Change the date on the run screen and watch the review path change under it — that single behaviour is the difference between a tool and a checklist, because the rules moved twice this year and will move again in January.
What you should see: at 96 units and an application dated 15 September 2026, Full Review. Set the date to 2 August and the streamlined path is back. -
Find the special assessment that fails on its own
The guide says no more than 15% of units may be 60+ days past due on each special assessment. Pooling them averages a failing assessment into a passing one and hides the exact thing the test exists to find, so Wardline tests them one at a time.
Roof Replacement 2024: 3 of 96 — 3.13%, clear. Facade Remediation 2026: 19 of 96 — 19.79%, a finding. Pooled, the pair averages 11.5% and looks fine. And the fix is a number: bring 5 units current. The cap at this project size is 14. -
Read the repair the board already paid for
The minutes say the board voted to fund the facade remediation. A checklist ticks that box. The guide does not: it turns on remediation, and the work has not started.
Finding: “Each item must be remediated, not merely funded or scheduled.” A funded repair is still an open condition. -
Look at the answer that is deliberately not an answer
The reader found a mention of a county recertification in the minutes but could not tell whether it applies to this building. Every value carries the file, the page and a verbatim quote, and the quote is checked against that page before the figure is used. This one came back at 0.41 confidence, under the floor.
Not established — “extracted with confidence 0.41, below the 0.70 floor — a human must confirm it.” Silence is not the same as “does not apply”, and a model’s uncertainty is never laundered into a pass. -
See what January does to a project that passes today
The replacement reserve floor rises from 10% to 15% for applications dated on or after 4 January 2027. Riverbend clears it comfortably today at 13.00%. Wardline runs the same documents against the future date and prices the gap.
That is a budget conversation you can have in September instead of a financing problem you discover in February. There is also a second route — a current reserve study funded at its highest recommended allocation — and Wardline checks that too rather than reporting a finding that is not there.Replacement reserve funding Application today From 4 Jan 2027 13.00% of assessment income Clear Finding Budget line needed $96,460 $111,300 Increase to stay clear — $14,840 -
Open the questionnaire worksheet and count the blanks
Every run also lays the same figures out by questionnaire topic. Look at the ratio at the top, because it is the product: 9 answers backed by a document, 3 repeated from what you entered, 17 still open. The middle number matters as much as the first — a filled line that came from your own entry is not evidence, and it is not counted as any.
The blanks are the feature. Litigation, occupancy split, flood zone, hotel activity — no budget can answer those, so they are marked as the board’s to answer rather than filled with something plausible. Wardline does not complete, submit or sign a questionnaire, and it is not Form 1076. Every filled answer carries its file and page, so whoever signs can check it in seconds instead of taking it on trust. -
Send the link, not the PDF
Each report has a share link that opens the full findings with every citation — no login, no key, nothing to install at the other end. That is what goes to the board or the lender.
It keeps working whatever happens to your subscription. A board should not lose findings it is relying on because a card expired.
What it does not do
It never certifies the project. Certification belongs to Fannie Mae’s Condo Project Manager and the warranty belongs to the lender; the status vocabulary in the code cannot even express approval, and that is on purpose. It does not complete or sign Form 1076, it does not determine flood zone, it does not answer litigation or occupancy questions, and it does not replace your counsel or your lender’s review. It reads the association’s own documents and tells you what a Full Review is going to find. If you are shopping for something that will sign the questionnaire for you, this is not it, and I would rather you learned that from a web page than from a call.
What it costs, and who pays for what
- Unlimited associations and unlimited runs
- Findings against the current Selling Guide, with the section and the page behind each one
- The January 2027 reserve change already built in, so you can run it forward today
- A questionnaire worksheet on every run, with the open questions listed rather than guessed
- Public share links for boards and lenders that outlive the subscription
- Nothing stored but the findings — your uploads are read once and dropped
$149 a month. Fourteen-day trial, no card.
You bring your own Anthropic API key and the document reading is billed to your account, not marked up through mine. Every run shows the cost before it spends anything, and the figure it shows is an upper bound. That is also why the subscription is flat: my marginal cost per report is zero, so there is nothing to meter you for. If you would rather not hold a key, say so and I will tell you straight that this is not ready for you yet.
For comparison, a lender-side warranted project review is bought per file and per project. This is bought once for the whole book you manage, and the thing it produces sits in front of the questionnaire you are already charging for.
Email me a questionIf you manage a few hundred associations
At that size the interesting version is not a subscription. It is the same system under your own name and on your own domain, so every report a board or a lender opens carries your branding rather than mine, and you keep the code. Exclusive against other management companies in the states you name.
$7,500 one time, white label. Not per seat, not per association, no revenue share.
The subscription above is priced per management company and billed monthly; putting the system in front of your boards and their lenders under your own name is this offer, not that one. Half on signature, half when it is installed and working, source included. How the white-label arrangement works →