Draft investor report — illustrative example. The financials are real engine output for the canonical deal; the agent reasoning is simulated until D (the LLM agents aren’t live yet). When decision D lights up the reasoning agents, the same surfaces re-populate with their real analysis.
Investor report · draft
Edgewater — Phase One
A ground-up, mixed-income multifamily community with ground-floor commercial, underwritten from an honest base case to a financeable, sourced path to exit.
Location
Salem, Oregon
Asset type
Multifamily + retail
Deal mode
Single-asset
Stage
Pre-development
LP ask (cash equity)
$28.0M
Modeled levered IRR
23.9%
Executive summary
Underwritten honestly, the base case does not pencil — a conventional build at market cost returns -17.1% levered IRR, below any institutional bar. The value here is not a more optimistic spreadsheet; it is a composed path of sourced moves that turns the deal into a financeable one.
Three moves do the work. The Capital Stack assembles public subsidy, tax-credit equity and HUD financing; the Cost agent value-engineers the residential basis with industrialised methods; and the Program agent adopts an efficient single-stair building type that adds roughly 30% rentable area on the same envelope. Composed in that order — cheapest, non-dilutive sources first — they lift the deal from -17.1% to 23.9% levered IRR, a 2.20× equity multiple, with a stabilised DSCR of 1.37 clearing the 1.20 floor.
The ask is $28.0M of LP cash equity into a ~$131.4M total-cost project. Every assumption behind the path carries its source; the moves not needed to pencil (revenue placemaking premium, on-site energy) are held in reserve as upside, not baked into the headline.
The math
Real engine output. Base case versus the orchestrator’s composed path.
The orchestrator’s composed path: each agent move and the IRR it added (real engine output — the same audit trail /model shows).
Base case (every lever off)-17.1% base case
Capital stack-4.8% +12.3 pts
Cost10.7% +15.5 pts
Program23.9% +13.2 pts
Sensitivity — exit cap × hard cost
Each cell is a full re-run. The deal stays above the 15% line across the plausible range.
cap ↓ / $/SF →
$250
$258
$273
$288
$303
5.00%
37%
35%
31%
27%
23%
5.25%
34%
32%
28%
23%
18%
5.50%
30%
28%
24%
19%
14%
5.75%
27%
25%
20%
15%
9%
6.00%
24%
22%
17%
11%
4%
Bordered cell = current case (5.50% exit cap, $273/SF). Green ≥15% IRR, amber 10–15%, red <10%.
Deal scorecard scaffolding — populated when Q5 ships
A 0–100 score against the LP’s own hurdles, with the sub-factor breakdown. Structure shown; values are placeholder until the scorecard (Q5) is built.
Returns vs hurdle88
Feasibility / risk74
Affordability / impact80
Capital-stack quality69
The composers propose engine inputs · 6
The six agents that propose actual input values (typed per the steel-man pass). For each: their recommendation for this deal, the reasoning cascade, the numbers, and the real provenance. Risk & Returns is a composer — it owns the exit levers, now with real comps.
Program AgentIn the composed path
composer · proposes engine inputs
Recommendation
Adopt an efficient point-access / single-stair building type, tighten the unit mix, and apply parking discipline — about 30% more rentable area on the same envelope, fewer structured stalls, no extra basis.
Reasoning (reasoning simulated until D; the move & sources below are canonical)
Raising building efficiency (effRatio 0.82 → 0.93) puts more leasable homes in the same shell; the tighter mix (219 studios / 162 1BR / 84 2BR…) and a 30-stall parking cut lower the structured-parking basis. More rentable SF at the same construction cost lifts NOI and value. In the composed path this added the final +13.2 points of IRR (10.7% → 23.9%).
Numbers
effRatio, unit mix, parking
Sources & provenance
Single-stair efficiency uplifthigh Building-type & code research · Now City Labs design research · 2025-08-14Small-efficient unit mix (studio count)medium District unit-size & mix analysis · Now City Labs market research · 2025-08-14Small-efficient unit mix (1BR count)medium District unit-size & mix analysis · Now City Labs market research · 2025-08-14Small-efficient unit mix (2BR count)medium District unit-size & mix analysis · Now City Labs market research · 2025-08-14Small-efficient unit mix (3BR count)low District unit-size & mix analysis · Now City Labs market research · 2025-08-14Small-efficient unit mix (4BR count)low District unit-size & mix analysis · Now City Labs market research · 2025-08-14Small-efficient unit mix (townhome count)low District unit-size & mix analysis · Now City Labs market research · 2025-08-14Shared / managed parking reductionmedium Edgewater Phase One feasibility study · Now City Labs cost research · 2025-09-02
Cost AgentIn the composed path
composer · proposes engine inputs
Recommendation
Value-engineer residential hard cost from $315 to $273/SF with industrialised / modular methods — lowers the basis without touching the program.
Reasoning (reasoning simulated until D; the move & sources below are canonical)
A $42/SF reduction across ~260k SF of residential cuts total development cost, which shrinks both the equity and the debt the deal has to raise — lifting levered IRR and DSCR together. In the composed path this added +15.5 points (−4.8% → 10.7%).
Numbers
hcres 315→273
Sources & provenance
Value-engineered residential hard costhigh Edgewater Phase One feasibility study · Now City Labs cost research · 2025-09-02
Revenue AgentAvailable — not needed for the minimal path
composer · proposes engine inputs
Recommendation
Carry a ~6% placemaking premium phased over lease-up plus ancillary income — revenue the designed district will support.
Reasoning (reasoning simulated until D; the move & sources below are canonical)
The orchestrator reached the 15% pencil line and cleared every guard using Capital Stack + Cost + Program alone, so Revenue’s premium was held in reserve. It is real upside the deal can show an LP as a path beyond the modeled 23.9% — not assumed in the headline.
Numbers
distPrem 0→0.06, ancil 0→30
Sources & provenance
Placemaking / location rent premiummedium District value-creation comps memo · Now City Labs market research · 2025-09-10Premium ramp / absorption periodmedium District value-creation comps memo · Now City Labs market research · 2025-09-10Other ancillary incomemedium District value-creation comps memo · Now City Labs feasibility · 2025-09-10
Operations AgentAvailable — not needed for the minimal path
composer · proposes engine inputs
Recommendation
Add rooftop-solar income and underwrite a conservative green-opex saving — the building earns back part of what it costs to run.
Reasoning (reasoning simulated until D; the move & sources below are canonical)
Like Revenue, held in reserve because the composed path already pencils. Adds durable NOI (and a better DSCR) if the LP wants more cushion; conservative until metered in operation.
Numbers
solarK 0→250, greenSave 0→0.03
Sources & provenance
Rooftop solar ancillary incomemedium District value-creation comps memo · Now City Labs feasibility · 2025-09-10Green-infrastructure operating savingslow District value-creation comps memo · Now City Labs feasibility · 2025-09-10
Capital Stack AgentIn the composed path
composer · proposes engine inputs
Recommendation
Compose the full stack: TIF, grants, NMTC and a property-tax abatement; a ~20% affordable sleeve to unlock LIHTC equity; HUD financing to clear the conventional facility, with C-PACE and a Davis-Bacon wage carry held honestly.
Reasoning (reasoning simulated until D; the move & sources below are canonical)
Cheaper, non-dilutive sources (TIF $10M, grants, NMTC, $10M LIHTC equity, $5M C-PACE) replace senior debt, and HUD 40-year non-recourse debt at ~5.8% reduces debt service — together the first and largest move, +12.3 points (−17.1% → −4.8%). DSCR lands at 1.37, clearing the floor.
Tax-increment financing (URA)medium Public-finance & incentives research · Now City Labs public-finance research · 2025-09-20State & program grantslow Public-finance & incentives research · Now City Labs public-finance research · 2025-09-20New Markets Tax Creditslow Public-finance & incentives research · Now City Labs public-finance research · 2025-09-20Property-tax abatementmedium Public-finance & incentives research · Now City Labs public-finance research · 2025-09-20Affordable share for LIHTCmedium Public-finance & incentives research · Now City Labs public-finance research · 2025-09-25Affordable rent discountmedium Public-finance & incentives research · Now City Labs public-finance research · 2025-09-25LIHTC equity proceedsmedium Public-finance & incentives research · Now City Labs public-finance research · 2025-09-25HUD / agency financing (221(d)(4))high Edgewater Phase One feasibility study · Now City Labs financing research · 2025-10-01Davis-Bacon wage adjustmenthigh Edgewater Phase One feasibility study · Now City Labs financing research · 2025-10-01C-PACE for green improvementsmedium Edgewater Phase One feasibility study · Now City Labs financing research · 2025-10-01
Risk & Returns AgentComposer · owns the exit levers
composer · proposes engine inputs
Exit cap rate picked: 5.50% residential / 7.00% commercial; hold 24 months past stabilisation; sale cost 1%; Opportunity-Zone election available but not required to pencil. The reasoning below is simulated until D, but the exit assumptions now carry real market provenance (see chips).Downside read (from the real sensitivity grid): hold the cap and the deal spans 16.7%–30.4% IRR across the $250–$303/SF cost range; widen the exit cap to 6.0% at the current $273/SF basis and IRR still holds 16.7% — above the 15% line.
Sources & provenance
Residential exit cap rate (5.50%)medium Market cap-rate survey (CBRE / Freddie Mac Multifamily / RCA-MSCI) · Now City Labs capital-markets research · 2026-01-15Commercial exit cap rate (7.00%)medium Market cap-rate survey (CBRE / Freddie Mac Multifamily / RCA-MSCI) · Now City Labs capital-markets research · 2026-01-15Hold to exit (24 months past stabilization)medium Now City Labs underwriting · Now City Labs capital-markets research · 2026-01-15Cost of sale (1.0% of gross)high Now City Labs underwriting · Now City Labs capital-markets research · 2026-01-15Opportunity-Zone election (10-year hold)high IRS Opportunity Zone final regulations; IRC §1400Z-2 · Now City Labs capital-markets research · 2026-01-15
The policies & the gate set constraints & flags · 3
Capital Sourcing and ESG are policies (they set requirements, not slider moves); Insurance is a gate (a binary insurable-or-not check). All reasoning here is simulated until D.
Capital Sourcing & Stage AlignmentCross-cutting — sets constraints & flags
policy / gate · sets constraints & flags
Staged plan (illustrative target: a pension-fund / insurance general-account take-out at exit):
Pre-development — sponsor / GP + Opportunity-Zone equity; LIHTC equity committed. Set up correctly: the 20% affordable sleeve is in.
Construction — one-stage HUD 221(d)(4) (the deal already turns HUD on), LIHTC pays in on milestones. Consistent.
Lease-up — covered by the HUD permanent loan; no separate bridge needed.
Exit — pension-fund / insurance buyer of the stabilised asset. Flag: at ~$131M total cost this clears a typical ~$50M asset-size floor, but the ESG-mandate data scaffolding (see ESG) is not yet evidenced — needed before a pension take-out will underwrite.
Backwards-propagation: Program & Cost recommendations are consistent with a pension-fund take-out (asset size and a clean stabilised DSCR shape). The one gap to close in pre-dev is ESG-data collection.
NCRDI dimensional read (numbers simulated until D until the dimension model lands):
Carbon & energy62
Water & stormwater54
Biodiversity / habitat41
Health & daylight70
Affordability / equity78
Embodied-carbon estimate: ~640 kgCO₂e/m² (simulated) — a single-stair timber-hybrid option would cut this materially and pairs with the Cost agent’s method change. Energy/water/biodiversity targets feed the Q5 scorecard. Mandate alignment: the affordable sleeve + resilience story support a pension-fund ESG mandate once the data scaffolding exists (see Capital Sourcing flag).
Premium underwriting — carried inside the operating-expense ratio today; the engine has no standalone climate-premium lever yet (judgment).
Construction — builders-risk + an OCIP wrap recommended given the multi-trade single-stair build; sits inside hard cost.
Conditions — seismic detailing to current code, defensible-space landscaping, and a parametric wildfire rider priced before close.
Planned no live levers yet · 1
Entitlements is a future composer — it has no engine levers today, so it carries no moves yet.
Entitlements / Regulatory AgentEnabling — sets the envelope
composer · proposes engine inputs
Recommendation
Confirm the FAR and density-bonus path that lets the program scale and the affordable sleeve unlock LIHTC; carry the entitlement timeline as a judgment cost.
Reasoning (reasoning simulated until D; its levers are judgment until the engine models them)
Entitlements gate what Program can build and what Capital Stack can claim: the density-bonus eligibility is what makes the 20% affordable → LIHTC move legal. The envelope here supports the proposed program; the timeline carry is judgment until the engine models it.
Numbers
maxFAR / parking / density-bonus eligibility
Sources & provenance
No coded move-set yet — Entitlements’ levers (FAR, parking, density-bonus eligibility, timeline) are judgment until the engine models the timeline & eligibility; see the dashed levers on /architecture.
The orchestrator’s composed path
The Lead Agent composed the cheapest, non-dilutive path that clears every guard: Capital Stack → Cost → Program, reaching 23.9% levered IRR with a 1.37 DSCR — penciled, every validator satisfied. Revenue, Operations and Risk’s upside were held in reserve, not needed to clear the 15% line. When decision D lights up the reasoning agents, the composers will compose within the policies’ constraints and subject to the gate’s verdict.
Sources appendix
Every sourced assumption used in the underwriting, from the canonical provenance store.
Assumption
Source
Date
Confidence
Single-stair efficiency uplift
Building-type & code research · Now City Labs design research
2025-08-14
high
Small-efficient unit mix (1BR count)
District unit-size & mix analysis · Now City Labs market research
2025-08-14
medium
Small-efficient unit mix (2BR count)
District unit-size & mix analysis · Now City Labs market research
2025-08-14
medium
Small-efficient unit mix (3BR count)
District unit-size & mix analysis · Now City Labs market research
2025-08-14
low
Small-efficient unit mix (4BR count)
District unit-size & mix analysis · Now City Labs market research
2025-08-14
low
Small-efficient unit mix (studio count)
District unit-size & mix analysis · Now City Labs market research
2025-08-14
medium
Small-efficient unit mix (townhome count)
District unit-size & mix analysis · Now City Labs market research
2025-08-14
low
Green-infrastructure operating savings
District value-creation comps memo · Now City Labs feasibility
2025-09-10
low
Other ancillary income
District value-creation comps memo · Now City Labs feasibility
2025-09-10
medium
Placemaking / location rent premium
District value-creation comps memo · Now City Labs market research
2025-09-10
medium
Premium ramp / absorption period
District value-creation comps memo · Now City Labs market research
2025-09-10
medium
Rooftop solar ancillary income
District value-creation comps memo · Now City Labs feasibility
2025-09-10
medium
C-PACE for green improvements
Edgewater Phase One feasibility study · Now City Labs financing research
2025-10-01
medium
Davis-Bacon wage adjustment
Edgewater Phase One feasibility study · Now City Labs financing research
2025-10-01
high
HUD / agency financing (221(d)(4))
Edgewater Phase One feasibility study · Now City Labs financing research
2025-10-01
high
Shared / managed parking reduction
Edgewater Phase One feasibility study · Now City Labs cost research
2025-09-02
medium
Value-engineered residential hard cost
Edgewater Phase One feasibility study · Now City Labs cost research
2025-09-02
high
Opportunity-Zone election (10-year hold)
IRS Opportunity Zone final regulations; IRC §1400Z-2 · Now City Labs capital-markets research
2026-01-15
high
Commercial exit cap rate (7.00%)
Market cap-rate survey (CBRE / Freddie Mac Multifamily / RCA-MSCI) · Now City Labs capital-markets research
2026-01-15
medium
Residential exit cap rate (5.50%)
Market cap-rate survey (CBRE / Freddie Mac Multifamily / RCA-MSCI) · Now City Labs capital-markets research
2026-01-15
medium
Cost of sale (1.0% of gross)
Now City Labs underwriting · Now City Labs capital-markets research
2026-01-15
high
Hold to exit (24 months past stabilization)
Now City Labs underwriting · Now City Labs capital-markets research
2026-01-15
medium
Affordable rent discount
Public-finance & incentives research · Now City Labs public-finance research
2025-09-25
medium
Affordable share for LIHTC
Public-finance & incentives research · Now City Labs public-finance research
2025-09-25
medium
LIHTC equity proceeds
Public-finance & incentives research · Now City Labs public-finance research
2025-09-25
medium
New Markets Tax Credits
Public-finance & incentives research · Now City Labs public-finance research
2025-09-20
low
Property-tax abatement
Public-finance & incentives research · Now City Labs public-finance research
2025-09-20
medium
State & program grants
Public-finance & incentives research · Now City Labs public-finance research
2025-09-20
low
Tax-increment financing (URA)
Public-finance & incentives research · Now City Labs public-finance research