Verified local facts
Trace the custody of every security statement from proposal wording to a named subject, evidence owner, trigger and household exposure before comparing two personal-loan structures.
Evidence and limitations
The map uses current proposals, agreements, security papers, ownership or consent records and authenticated clarifications. Public pages supply field boundaries only.
Questions to ask before signing
A familiar label can conceal an unidentified asset, an unsupported valuation, a third-party exposure, a missing notice rule or a consequence that matters more than the visible payment.
Decision checklist
Map each security link, keep cost and exposure in separate lanes and stop wherever the subject, consent, trigger, notice or consequence cannot be reproduced.
Evidence reviewed
informational: resolve secured versus unsecured personal borrowing Malawi for a Malawi reader without inventing price, access, availability or approval.
Decision checklist
article article 2 5 Malawi decision path: Seal each proposal and security evidence capsule -> Copy the exact security language before classifying it -> Trace every label to its named subject
Seal each proposal and security evidence capsule
Create a separate capsule for every personal loan proposal under review. Record its issue date, agreement version, schedule version and every security, guarantee, consent or supporting document supplied with it. Keep the capsules apart so a term from one proposal cannot repair a gap in another. Identify how each file was received and the independently authenticated channel used for clarification. A public product page may help the reader recognise that fields are separated, but it does not belong inside the applicant's contract capsule. Do not add a typical asset, value or borrower profile. If a document refers to another paper that is absent, record an open link instead of assuming its contents. The sealed capsule establishes what can be mapped on the review date and gives later changes a precise invalidation point.
Copy the exact security language before classifying it
Transcribe every relevant label and sentence from the proposal, agreement and accompanying papers with a document locator. Preserve distinctions among security, collateral, guarantee, deduction authority, account control or other wording actually used. Do not translate a term into a legal conclusion or assume that two labels have the same effect. The checked institution pages arrange product information differently and one visibly separates security from other fields. That observation supports a question checklist only; no displayed term becomes evidence about the reader's proposal. Give each copied phrase an evidence state: present and located, conflicting, cross-referenced to a missing paper or unexplained. Classification begins only after the language and version are stable. This step prevents familiarity with a word from substituting for proof of its subject or consequence.
Trace every label to its named subject
For each copied phrase, identify the asset, account, document, person or other subject named in the current papers. Record the identifier privately, the source locator and whether the connection is direct or depends on another document. Use unresolved when the subject is generic, absent or inconsistent across files. Do not guess that a salary account, vehicle, property, deposit or guarantor is involved merely because such structures can exist. A proposal described as unsecured also needs evidence of what the label means within that proposal; absence of a visible asset line does not authorise a universal conclusion. Connect only the subject stated by the documents. A map without a named and traceable subject cannot support a household exposure comparison, even when the marketing label appears clear.
Map ownership, consent, control and valuation evidence
Create separate nodes for ownership or entitlement, consent, control and any valuation process described in the supplied papers. Link each node to its evidence owner and date. Do not infer that the applicant owns the subject, has authority to offer it or obtained another person's consent. Do not publish a value or assume that a stated value is current, sufficient or accepted. If valuation affects a decision, ask who produced it, for which proposal and under what documented conditions. Keep an absent value unknown rather than zero. A signed form may show an action occurred without proving every legal consequence; the guide does not decide enforceability. Separating these nodes reveals whether the security chain depends on evidence that is not actually in the capsule.
Identify trigger, notice and consequence fields
Read the agreement for the event said to activate a security-related step, the notice process, the party who may act and the consequence described. Copy the wording without predicting that the event will occur or that a stated action is legally available. Keep a missed-payment term, continuing obligation, account instruction and asset-related statement in their own fields. If a trigger is defined in another missing document, the edge remains open. Ask how a cure, correction or dispute is recorded only when the current papers make that question relevant. The official consumer source supports a complaint-process boundary, not an interpretation of a contract. A complete consumer credit chain shows what the documents say, who owns the evidence and what remains unknown; it does not pronounce the term fair, valid or enforceable.
Separate cost, approval and exposure lanes
Build independent lanes for borrower outflow, approval conditions, security exposure and household importance. A visible difference in one lane does not answer another. A secured label does not establish lower cost, approval or suitability. An unsecured label does not establish the absence of every obligation or consequence. Copy cost and schedule evidence into the appropriate existing methods rather than calculating it here. Record any proposal condition as written and keep provider decisions unknown. The exposure lane traces the subject and documented consequence; the household lane records why access to that subject or relationship matters to this reader. Public pages can demonstrate that product fields are separate, but they cannot fill an applicant's lanes. This separation prevents a rate, payment or marketing phrase from becoming a shortcut around the security evidence map.
Overlay the household consequence without predicting enforcement
Ask what the named subject supports in the reader's real household: shelter, transport, income receipt, essential access, another person's interests or a different documented function. Record the consequence of restricted access or a changed relationship as a household planning scenario, not as a forecast that enforcement will happen. Avoid fictional examples and public asset values. If the subject belongs partly or wholly to someone else, preserve that person's evidence and consent as separate nodes. Compare both proposals against the same household consequence fields. A structure may have a different exposure even when its payment evidence looks similar. The map informs a decision by making that exposure visible; it cannot provide personal legal advice or determine what an institution is entitled to do.
Turn broken links into authenticated written questions
For every open edge, write a question that names the proposal, document, phrase and missing connection. Ask which subject the term refers to, where consent is recorded, which trigger applies, what notice wording controls and which document describes the stated consequence. Send the question through an independently verified channel and retain the complete response. A verbal answer or generic webpage does not amend the capsule. If the reply introduces a replacement document, reopen dependent nodes and preserve the earlier version. The Reserve Bank of Malawi consumer page describes provider-first contact, internal appeal and a route to the Registrar; it supplies a process map only. It does not decide the security issue, promise a response or establish a remedy. Unknown links remain blocked until evidence changes.
Issue the map verdict and invalidation triggers
Use mapped only when every material security phrase has a traceable subject, evidence owner, consent or authority state, trigger, notice and household consequence. Use partially mapped when a limited comparison survives but a separate link remains unknown. Use blocked when an open link prevents the intended secured-versus-unsecured decision. These states do not recommend a provider, predict approval or decide legal validity. Record the proposal versions, sources, unresolved questions and reasons for the verdict. Define invalidation triggers before filing: revised proposal, replacement agreement, new security paper, changed subject, new consent record or clarification that alters a trigger or consequence. Reopen only the dependent chain while retaining the earlier map as history. The result is a reproducible exposure record, not a permanent statement about a product label.