THE STANDARD
Findings That Can Be Defended
A finding that says "we believe rent was underbilled by $47,000" is not actionable unless it can be traced back to specific lease language and specific operational data. Without that chain of evidence, a tenant can dispute the finding, a lender can question it during due diligence, or an auditor can refuse to rely on it. The finding may be correct, but it can't be used.
Firststreet structures every output as an evidence-based finding. Each discrepancy surfaces with three components: the lease language that establishes what was required, the financial logic derived from that language, and the operational data that was compared against it. The resulting finding is not an estimate or a flag, it is a documented conclusion with a complete audit trail from source to output.
This matters operationally. When a lease administration team needs to correct a billing configuration, they need to show their property manager exactly which clause governs the correct treatment. When a controller is presenting a recovery adjustment to a CFO, the finding needs to hold up to scrutiny. When an acquisition team is reviewing findings during due diligence, each item needs to be traceable to a specific provision in the lease being acquired.
HOW IT WORKS
Structure of a Finding
Every Firststreet finding includes the lease section or exhibit that governs the obligation, the structured logic model derived from that provision, the expected value produced by applying that model to the relevant period, the actual value recorded in operational data, the variance between expected and actual, and the cumulative financial impact of the variance across its active period.
Findings also carry a confidence indicator that reflects the quality of the underlying data inputs and the clarity of the governing lease provision. This transparency helps teams triage appropriately rather than treating every finding as equally certain.
Lease-Grounded Evidence
Each finding cites the specific clause or exhibit governing the obligation, linking every conclusion directly back to the lease document.
Quantified Financial Impact
Findings include the calculated variance and its cumulative financial exposure across the period the discrepancy has been active.
Audit-Ready Documentation
The complete chain from lease provision to calculation logic to operational comparison is preserved and exportable for lender review, tenant disputes, and internal audit.
Finding #1
$87,400/yr
CAM cap unenforced, §12.3(c) requires 15% admin cap
Lease clause: §12.3(c) · Evidence: 4 docs
Lease Ref
§12.3(c): "Landlord administrative fee shall not exceed 15% of controllable expenses..."
Exhibit C, line 4
Audit Trail
Lease → Model → Billing comparison → Variance quantified
3-layer evidence chain
FROM FINDINGS TO ACTION
From Findings to Resolution
Evidence-based findings are designed to accelerate resolution, not just document problems. A finding that includes the exact clause governing correct treatment, the correct calculated amount, and the variance from what was billed gives the lease administration team everything they need to open a correction without additional research. Legal can pick up the same finding and have the documentation needed to support a demand letter or a settlement position. Finance can use it to support a balance sheet adjustment or a NOI restatement.
Findings also support portfolio-level governance reporting. Ownership groups and asset managers can review the aggregate finding set across a portfolio, total identified exposure by asset, by lease type, by obligation category, as an ongoing measure of execution risk. Rather than waiting for audits to surface problems, governance reporting allows leadership to see the quality of lease execution as a tracked operational metric.
