# EXPOSURE RECONCILIATION MATRIX Harbor Ridge Components LLC — 2027 Property Renewal Submission 9 MATCH 4 MATCH AFTER NORMALIZATION 3 MISSING IN SOURCE 1 INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE Review scope: one scheduled Dayton warehouse; 17 field-level reconciliation findings. ## 1. Source inventory and assessment | Source | Source condition | Exposure information and limitations | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | SOV — `Harbor_Ridge_2027_SOV.xlsx`, as of 09/30/2026 | INCOMPLETE at original-document level; supplied table and notes are usable | One scheduled location, property values, occupancy, construction, area, refrigerated storage, manufacturing status, and roof replacement notes. Worksheet name and physical row/column references were not supplied. | | ACORD application — `Harbor_Ridge_ACORD_Application.pdf`, form dated 10/01/2026 | INCOMPLETE at original-document level; supplied application content is usable | Premises information, property values, and operational narrative. Exact PDF page references were not supplied. | | Property supplement — `Harbor_Ridge_Property_Supplement.pdf` | INCOMPLETE at original-document level; supplied excerpts are usable | Page 2 provides operations, construction, story count, year built, and roof replacement information. Page 3 provides occupied-area and refrigerated-storage information. Only these excerpts were provided. | | Broker email — 10/02/2026, “Harbor Ridge Components — Property Renewal Submission” | VALID for the supplied email content | Confirms the Dayton warehouse is the only scheduled location and explicitly states that no manufacturing is conducted there. | Reconciliation coverage: Partial at the full-document level, but sufficient to reconcile the exposure fields represented in the supplied materials. The original workbook and PDFs, including any unprovided sheets or pages, were not independently inspected. Source authority has not been assigned to any document. ### Source reference key * SOV: `Harbor_Ridge_2027_SOV.xlsx`, exposure table, Loc. 1, and Additional SOV notes. * ACORD: `Harbor_Ridge_ACORD_Application.pdf`, Premises Information, Property Values, and Narrative. * SUP: `Harbor_Ridge_Property_Supplement.pdf`, pages 2–3, as quoted. * Broker: Email dated 10/02/2026. ## 2. Exposure Reconciliation Matrix The matrix preserves source-specific representations. Where a narrative does not restate a numerical schedule field, that absence is distinguished from a disagreement about the value. | Exposure / Record Identifier | Exposure Field | SOV / Exposure Schedule Value | ACORD Application Value | Narrative / Supplemental Value | Normalized Comparison Representation | Reconciliation Status | Discrepancy / Conflict Description | Evidence Reference | Human Review Required | Notes / Uncertainty | | ---------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Loc. 1 — Dayton warehouse | Location address | 1840 Industrial Park Dr, Suite 100, Dayton, OH 45414 | 1840 Industrial Park Drive, Suite 100, Dayton, OH 45414 | SUP refers to the Dayton location; Broker refers to the Dayton warehouse | 1840 Industrial Park Drive, Suite 100, Dayton, OH 45414 | MATCH AFTER NORMALIZATION | “Dr” versus “Drive” is a supported address-format variation. No substantive address difference identified. | SOV exposure table, Loc. 1; ACORD Premises Information; SUP p. 2; Broker email | No | The narrative sources do not independently repeat the full street address. | | Loc. 1 — Dayton warehouse | Scheduled-location count | One listed location, Loc. 1 | One premises shown in the supplied application information | SUP refers to the Dayton location; Broker states it remains the only scheduled location | One scheduled Dayton warehouse location | MATCH | No difference identified in the supplied evidence. | SOV exposure table; ACORD Premises Information; Broker email | No | The Broker explicitly confirms the single-location statement. The supplied ACORD information shows one premises. | | Loc. 1 — Dayton warehouse | Occupancy / operations | “Wholesale distribution / warehouse” | “Wholesale distribution warehouse” | ACORD narrative: regional parts distribution warehouse. SUP p. 2: wholesale distribution and storage of replacement components. | Wholesale distribution / warehouse operations involving replacement-component storage | MATCH AFTER NORMALIZATION | SOV and ACORD occupancy labels differ in punctuation and formatting. Narrative descriptions are consistent with the general operating description. | SOV exposure table, Occupancy; ACORD Premises Information and Narrative; SUP p. 2 | No | This is a description-level comparison. No formal occupancy code or classification was supplied or inferred. | | Loc. 1 — Dayton warehouse | Construction — structural frame | Steel frame | Steel frame / metal exterior | SUP p. 2: steel-frame warehouse | Structural frame: steel | MATCH AFTER NORMALIZATION | Hyphenation and field presentation differ; the stated structural-frame type agrees. | SOV exposure table, Construction; ACORD Premises Information; SUP p. 2 | No | Exterior material is evaluated separately below. | | Loc. 1 — Dayton warehouse | Construction — exterior material | Metal exterior | Metal exterior | Not stated in the supplied SUP excerpts | Exterior material: metal in SOV and ACORD | MISSING IN SOURCE | Exterior material is absent from the supplied supplemental narrative. SOV and ACORD agree on this detail. | SOV exposure table, Construction; ACORD Premises Information; SUP p. 2 | No | This is an omission from the supplied narrative, not a conflict between the SOV and application. | | Loc. 1 — Dayton warehouse | Year built | 2008 | 2008 | SUP p. 2: constructed in 2008 | Year built: 2008 | MATCH | No difference identified. | SOV exposure table, Year Built; ACORD Premises Information; SUP p. 2 | No | Same stated year across all sources that provide the field. | | Loc. 1 — Dayton warehouse | Number of stories | Single-story | Not stated in the supplied ACORD information | SUP p. 2: single-story warehouse | Single-story in SOV and SUP; ACORD value unavailable | MISSING IN SOURCE | The story count is stated in the SOV and supplement but is not stated in the supplied ACORD premises information. | SOV Additional notes; ACORD Premises Information; SUP p. 2 | Yes | Confirm whether the ACORD record needs to capture this detail. The omission does not establish that the application contradicts the other sources. | | Loc. 1 — Dayton warehouse | Total area | Approx. 52,000 sq. ft. | 52,000 sq. ft. | SUP p. 3: approximately 52,000 sq. ft. of occupied area | 52,000 sq. ft.; approximation qualifier retained where expressly stated | MATCH AFTER NORMALIZATION | The numerical area and units agree. The SOV and SUP expressly qualify the area as approximate; the supplied ACORD field does not. | SOV Additional notes; ACORD Premises Information; SUP p. 3 | No | The unqualified ACORD entry is not treated as proof of an exact measurement. | | Loc. 1 — Dayton warehouse | Refrigerated storage area | Approximately 8,000 sq. ft. | Approximately 8,000 sq. ft. | SUP p. 3: approximately 8,000 sq. ft. of refrigerated storage | Approximately 8,000 sq. ft. | MATCH | No difference identified in the reported quantity or its approximate qualifier. | SOV Additional notes; ACORD Narrative; SUP p. 3 | No | All three sources report the same approximate area. | | Loc. 1 — Dayton warehouse | Building value | Building TIV: $4,250,000 | Building: $4,250,000 | Not stated as a numerical value in the supplied SUP excerpts | Building value: $4,250,000 | MATCH | SOV and ACORD report the same building amount. | SOV exposure table, Building TIV; ACORD Property Values | No | Matching amounts do not, by themselves, establish that the two documents use identical valuation-component assumptions. See the separate roof-value finding below. | | Loc. 1 — Dayton warehouse | Business Personal Property | $1,100,000 | $1,100,000 | Not stated as a numerical value in the supplied SUP excerpts | Business Personal Property: $1,100,000 | MATCH | No difference identified between SOV and ACORD. | SOV exposure table, Business Personal Property; ACORD Property Values | No | The supplied narrative excerpts do not provide a separate numerical value for this field. | | Loc. 1 — Dayton warehouse | Business Income | $750,000 | $750,000 | Not stated as a numerical value in the supplied SUP excerpts | Business Income: $750,000 | MATCH | No difference identified between SOV and ACORD. | SOV exposure table, Business Income; ACORD Property Values | No | No separate Business Income amount is provided in the supplied narrative excerpts. | | Loc. 1 — Dayton warehouse | Total property values | $6,100,000 | $6,100,000 | Not stated as a numerical value in the supplied SUP excerpts | Total property values: $6,100,000 | MATCH | No difference identified. The reported component values sum to the stated total in both SOV and ACORD. | SOV exposure table, Total Values; ACORD Property Values | No | Arithmetic check: $4,250,000 + $1,100,000 + $750,000 = $6,100,000. | | Loc. 1 — Dayton warehouse | Manufacturing operations | No manufacturing operations at this location | No manufacturing is conducted at the premises | SUP p. 2 describes wholesale distribution and storage; Broker explicitly states no manufacturing operations | No manufacturing, as expressly stated in SOV, ACORD, and Broker email | MATCH | The explicit statements in the SOV, ACORD, and Broker email agree. | SOV Additional notes; ACORD Narrative; SUP p. 2; Broker email | No | The SUP excerpt describes the operations but does not independently state the negative manufacturing assertion. The match relies on the explicit statements in the other identified sources. | | Loc. 1 — Dayton warehouse | Roof replacement — completion timing | 2026 roof replacement completed in August | Not stated in the supplied ACORD information | SUP p. 2: 2026 roof replacement completed in August | Roof replacement completed in August 2026, as stated in SOV and SUP | MATCH | The SOV and SUP agree on the completion timing. ACORD silence is handled separately below. | SOV Additional notes; SUP p. 2 | No | Agreement is established only between the sources expressly stating the timing. | | Loc. 1 — Dayton warehouse | Roof replacement — disclosure in application | Roof replacement project completed in August 2026; building value includes the project | No roof replacement detail stated in the supplied application information | SUP p. 2 confirms project completion in August 2026 | SOV and SUP state the roof work; supplied ACORD content does not address it | MISSING IN SOURCE | The roof replacement detail present in SOV and SUP is not stated in the supplied ACORD information. | SOV Additional notes; ACORD Premises Information, Property Values, and Narrative; SUP p. 2 | Yes | Confirm whether the application is expected to record the roof replacement information. No such application requirement was supplied, so omission is not automatically treated as an error. | | Loc. 1 — Dayton warehouse | Building value — inclusion of roof replacement | SOV expressly says the building value includes the 2026 roof replacement project | Building amount is $4,250,000; inclusion of roof replacement costs is not expressly stated | SUP confirms the replacement was completed but does not state how the project is reflected in the building value | SOV states inclusion; the ACORD value basis and SUP value treatment are not established | INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE | The same reported building amount does not establish whether ACORD uses the same value-component basis or whether it expressly incorporates the roof replacement. | SOV Additional notes; ACORD Property Values; SUP p. 2 | Yes | Obtain confirmation of the intended valuation treatment if this distinction needs to be reconciled. Do not infer that ACORD includes or excludes the project based solely on the matching amount. | ## 3. Reconciliation Summary ### Coverage and record matching | Measure | Result | | ----------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- | | Distinct exposure records identified | 1 | | Exposure record matched across the supplied materials | 1 | | Matrix field/finding rows reviewed | 17 | | Full-document reconciliation | Not established; only supplied source content was reviewed | The location record is supported by the corresponding address in the SOV and ACORD, together with the Dayton warehouse references and broker confirmation. No ambiguous or unresolved record match was identified within the supplied information. ### Reconciliation status counts Counts are based on the 17 matrix rows. Roof replacement completion, application disclosure, and valuation treatment are kept separate because they represent different comparison questions. | Reconciliation status | Count | | ------------------------- | ----- | | MATCH | 9 | | MATCH AFTER NORMALIZATION | 4 | | DISCREPANCY | 0 | | CONFLICT | 0 | | MISSING IN SOURCE | 3 | | UNRESOLVED | 0 | | NOT COMPARABLE | 0 | | INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE | 1 | | Total matrix rows | 17 | ### Items requiring human review 1. Story count — ACORD omission. The SOV and supplement describe a single-story warehouse, but the supplied ACORD premises information does not state the story count. Confirm whether this omission requires follow-up. 2. Roof replacement disclosure — ACORD omission. The SOV and supplement report that the roof replacement was completed in August 2026, while the supplied ACORD content does not mention the project. Confirm whether that information should be reflected in the application record; no such requirement has been assumed. 3. Building value treatment — insufficient evidence. The SOV states that the $4,250,000 building value includes the roof replacement project. The ACORD reports the same amount but does not expressly describe its value components. The supplied evidence does not establish whether both documents apply the same inclusion basis. The exterior-material detail missing from the supplemental narrative is recorded in the matrix, but the SOV and ACORD agree on “metal exterior.” No separate follow-up is identified for that omission on the supplied evidence. ## 4. Overall result The supplied evidence shows consistent reported property values, occupancy, construction-frame type, year built, area, refrigerated storage, and explicit statements concerning manufacturing. The address is equivalent after formatting normalization. No source-to-source discrepancy or conflict was identified in the reviewed fields. Three source omissions and one valuation-basis evidence limitation remain documented. These findings are for exposure data quality review only; they do not establish the correct exposure, a final valuation basis, or an underwriting decision.