# Market Thesis Research Bundle

Question: Given rising consumer credit stress, will a major captive or subprime auto lender tighten underwriting, raise loss provisions, or lower originations guidance by the next two earnings cycles?

What this bundle is: a reasoning and monitoring scaffold. It organizes public evidence into observations, claims, uncertainty branches, thresholds, and a watch plan.

What this bundle is not: primary evidence, live market data, trade advice, or a substitute for official, live, or current web sources.

Core tension: Given rising consumer credit stress, will a major captive or subprime auto lender tighten underwriting, raise loss provisions, or lower originations guidance by the next two earnings cycles?

Current inference to verify: {'status': 'inference_to_verify', 'statement': 'The current source-backed inference leans toward higher loss provisions and continued underwriting discipline at at least one major auto lender, while evidence for a broad, explicit originations-guidance cut across major captive or subprime lenders remains incomplete. The cleanest verified pattern is reserve building plus disciplined underwriting, not yet a uniform lenderwide retrenchment.', 'direction': 'mixed, leaning yes for higher provisions; weaker evidence for originations-guidance cuts', 'confidence': {'level': 'medium', 'score': 0.67}, 'basis_source_ids': ['s1', 's2', 's3', 's4', 's5', 's6']} Treat this as a hypothesis that must be refreshed against live official sources, not as a signal.

How to use: read `source_priority.json` first, refresh sources in `live_verification_plan.json`, then use `fact_inference_split.json`, `thresholds.json`, and `watch_schedule.json` to decide what changed. Do not infer buy/sell/hold, position sizing, execution, or asset-price direction from this artifact.