List assignment candidates with eligibility verdicts
Scores the tenant’s assignable pool against ONE fund’s registration and returns a verdict per receivable: eligible, or cut with exactly one reason. Every limit and policy (per debtor, payment source, assignor, arrears, suspended registration, repeated cuts) is the fund’s own; one it did not register is not applied, and in mode none only the repeated-cut brake is. The ledger’s integrity rules run in every mode. Concentration is measured against the fund’s accepted stock plus the admitted set, and the response states that base. A receivable attributed to another fund at origination is not in this fund’s pool.
Authorizations
JWT bearer token issued by the identity provider.
Path Parameters
Fund registration identifier.
Query Parameters
Pool window size. Verdicts are computed over the returned window as the proposed set.
1 <= x <= 500Response
OK
Denominator the surviving composition was measured against: the fund's accepted stock plus the admitted set.
ISO currency code every amount in this response is denominated in.
One verdict per candidate, in receivable-reference order. Always present, empty slice when the pool is empty.
Concentration dimensions this scoring did not measure: borrower, payment_source or assignor when the fund registered no limit for it (all three under eligibility mode none), assignor also when the composition carries no per-receivable assignor, and sector always (no data source).
full (our verification is authoritative), prefilter (the administrator verifies; this runs ahead of the offer file) or none (the client checks eligibility at the fund: only the ledger's integrity rules and a registered repeated-cut brake run here).
How many receivables survived every rule.
Total exposure of the surviving composition, decimal string, scale 2.
Fund registration the pool was scored for.
Instant the pool was read (RFC3339, UTC).
False when the fund's accepted stock, in-flight set membership and repeated-cut tally could not be read. In that state the caps were measured against the proposed set alone and the exclusivity and repeated-cut fences were NOT evaluated.
Identifier of the eligibility/concentration rule that produced these verdicts.
True when more assignable receivables exist than the requested window. Verdicts are computed OVER the returned window as the proposed set.

