Verified local facts
The criterion-to-proof matrix binds each provider-owned question to current evidence, an uncertainty status and an authenticated clarification route without scoring approval likelihood.
Evidence reviewed
Help a Mauritius household answer eligibility questions using attributable evidence and a stop condition.
Decision checklist
The criterion-to-proof matrix binds each provider-owned question to current evidence, an uncertainty status and an authenticated clarification route without scoring approval likelihood; review marker 116 applies this device only to “answer eligibility questions Mauritius” and the evidence boundaries named on this page.
Freeze the provider wording
Copy the criterion exactly from the current product page or application material with owner, address and date. Do not paraphrase first. MCB wording belongs to MCB and MauBank wording to MauBank. A changed page creates a new row version. The matrix cannot use a generic market criterion to fill a silent product.
Define what the row asks
Separate identity, residency, income, employment, purpose, amount, document and other stated questions. Do not expand a narrow question into unrelated disclosure. When a term is ambiguous, describe the uncertainty rather than choosing the favourable meaning. The product owner is the correct source for clarification, not a regulator list or another provider.
Attach current evidence
Link the minimum document that supports the truthful answer and record holder, period and validity. Do not edit evidence to remove an unfavourable fact or use another person's record. A missing item becomes not demonstrated. Organisation quality and document readiness do not establish that the provider will accept the evidence or the application.
Use four honest statuses
Mark supported by current evidence, not demonstrated, not applicable with reason, or unclear pending clarification. Avoid pass and fail because the institution owns interpretation and assessment. A single supported row cannot imply overall eligibility. Keep the status visible in the application log so later changes are not silently backdated.
Keep data rights outside eligibility
MCIB participant status says nothing about the row's outcome. A Data Protection Office access route concerns personal information in its scope, not whether a provider criterion is met. If a data response is relevant evidence, record its owner and date only after receipt. Do not delay truthful disclosure while assuming a correction will occur.
Ask one bounded clarification
Quote the row, identify the ambiguity and ask the authenticated provider what evidence or meaning applies to the exact product. Record reply, owner and date. A phone answer becomes a note to confirm where the point affects commitment. Do not send the entire dossier simply to resolve one term. Changed wording opens a new matrix version.
Control the package
Include only rows and evidence requested through the verified application route. Record consent, recipient, transmission and receipt. Separate an internal matrix from the documents actually sent. If the provider requests additional information, add a row with purpose rather than attaching unrelated records. This keeps data minimisation and truthful answers compatible. Conduct a blank-cell challenge after the matrix is populated. Every empty cell must be classified as genuinely not applicable, evidence not yet obtained, provider wording unclear or applicant answer unknown. A blank is never allowed to inherit the answer from a neighbouring product, an older page or another person's experience. For each unresolved cell, name the smallest question that could resolve it and the authenticated owner able to answer. This keeps clarification proportionate and prevents a broad personal-data disclosure merely to satisfy an ambiguous phrase. Next, test dependencies. Mark which application answers would change if a date expires, a document is replaced, employment circumstances move or the provider revises its wording. A dependency map stops one corrected fact from leaving inconsistent answers elsewhere. The reviewer then reads the completed matrix in the opposite direction: from each proposed answer back to the exact evidence and dated provider statement. If that reverse route fails, the answer returns to unresolved. Preserve the edition actually used for any submission, including checked dates and clarification receipts. A later edition must display changes rather than silently overwriting history. Finally, apply a household relevance filter. Some published criteria may be documented, yet the resulting product can still fail cost, cash-flow or purpose review. The matrix therefore closes before any approval forecast. Its proper outcome is a truthful set of answers, a bounded list of questions and a clear decision to submit, pause or stop. Institutional assessment, proposed pricing and voluntary acceptance remain separate future decisions. A dated reviewer sign-off names every unresolved row and prevents quiet assumptions from crossing into the submitted answers during the final document check.
Close without a predicted result
The final matrix lists supported, open and clarified rows plus the exact package transmitted. It does not convert supported rows into a percentage or probable approval. The provider may apply additional lawful assessment and may offer different terms. Any offered document returns to cost and affordability review. The applicant can stop even with every row complete. Add a contradiction lane where two rows, documents or provider messages cannot both remain true. Identify the conflicting words, dates and owners; do not choose the version that appears more favourable. Ask one authenticated, narrow question and preserve the earlier reply. If clarification changes a criterion, reopen every dependent row and application answer. A second reviewer verifies that the package contains no obsolete response. This lane prevents a polished matrix from hiding uncertainty and preserves the applicant's ability to pause rather than submit a guessed answer.