What does an escalation look like when connected exposure pushes a case over the limit?

At Aster Financial, a credit officer holds a personal approval limit on unsecured exposure. Application **APP-2187** asks for a new equipment facility. On its own the facility sits under the officer's limit. The review screen, however, shows an existing facility **FAC-5530** on a related entity, and the combined exposure exceeds the limit.

The officer records the aggregate in the case note, selects policy clause **P-4.2 (connected exposure)** as the trigger, and attaches the two financial statements and the connection record. The case status moves from `IN_REVIEW` to `REFERRED_T2`, and ownership passes to the senior credit manager's queue.

The senior manager reads the handover, sees that the statements for the related entity are twelve months old, and returns the case with a request for current figures. Status becomes `RETURNED_INFO`, and the clock on the applicant's response starts again.

Had the officer approved the single facility, the aggregate breach would have surfaced only at the portfolio review, after funds were drawn.

**What it teaches:** the correct decision depended on a relationship between two records, not on the headline amount. A task built this way tests whether an agent aggregates connected exposure, cites the right clause, packages evidence, and understands that a return for information is not a decline.