# Hypothetical note-liquidity model

This module compares four hypothetical ways an originator might treat an already issued customer note:

- hold the note;
- sell it through an assumed permitted nonrecourse transfer;
- sell it with a limited originator-support cap; or
- borrow against it through an assumed permitted pledge.

It is not a model of real Broadcom terms, an actual entity, a contract waterfall, legal discharge, true-sale treatment, accounting derecognition, capital relief, expected default, an interest rate or an IRR. The `$70m` input is a financing requirement, not an executed deployment or spend. Every cash plan is unexecuted.

All monetary inputs and outputs use integer dollars. The closing fee is paid to a separate third-party fee recipient: gross price or advance equals originator net proceeds plus that fee. In the pledge route, the stipulated `$75m` terminal due consists of `$70m` principal plus a separately supplied `$5m` financing charge; no rate is derived. Terminal originator liquidity is exogenous money available only for the stipulated settlement, and the model does not recycle closing surplus into that input automatically.

Unknown note issuance or a route-relevant unknown disposition permission produces null ledgers. A known absent note or prohibited route is marked not executable and also has null closing and terminal ledgers; it is not represented as a completed zero-cash trade and does not silently switch to hold.

The sale routes assume disposition of the full note, while the pledge route is a partial secured borrowing that leaves the note with the originator subject to the pledge and returns recovery above the stipulated lender due to the originator. A HOLD collection is recorded as `originatorHeldNoteRecoveryUsd`; only a pledge excess is recorded as `originatorCollateralResidualUsd`. The assumed `$92m` and `$95m` prices are inputs, not estimates of support value. Because sale and pledge change different rights and raise different gross amounts, the model does not rank them or infer that one is economically preferable.

For supported sales and recourse pledges, terminal output separates the claim against the originator, cash actually paid from exogenous terminal liquidity, and any unpaid claim. A positive unpaid claim is retained as surviving in the hypothetical ledger; no silent discharge is modeled. If recovery is known but relevant terminal liquidity is unknown, the claim may be known while payment, receipt and unpaid-claim amounts remain null.

## Commands

Generate the committed fixture output:

```sh
node note-liquidity.mjs --write-results
```

Print the same deterministic fixture output without writing:

```sh
node note-liquidity.mjs
```

Run independent equation, conservation, unknown-state and invalid-input checks:

```sh
node verify-note-liquidity.mjs
```

The verifier proves only the model's deterministic arithmetic and schema. It does not prove that a note exists, a disposition is permitted, a transaction closed, recovery occurred, or any economic or legal characterization is correct.