Straight answers. No software-sales fog.

Portfolio size and type, how many programs you operate and how layered they are, the scope of implementation, any optional Evara Studio work, third-party services you choose to connect, and usage-based costs.

Processing economics vary by method and by volume, so a published rate is not necessarily the rate you would get. Think your current processing is cheaper? Bring us the statement and we will compare it line by line.

Some connected providers bill you directly rather than through us. We will name which ones those are for your configuration before you sign, not after.

No. HOME, tax-exempt bond and National Housing Trust Fund are supported as layered program markers that ride the LIHTC TIC. Treating them as standalone certification workflows would misdescribe how they actually work.

No. Tribal / IHBG under NAHASDA is a separate certification lane. IHBG is also the one program with no universal HOTMA date, and ExactEstate refuses to certify until the Tribe income-definition election is recorded — which is a deliberate stop, not a gap.

It produces and validates them, and files them wherever the agency publishes a way in. The HUD-50058 goes into IMS/PIC through HUD’s own Secure Systems sign-on under your agency’s own WASS credentials, with automated filing switched on per agency and starting one record at a time. USDA’s MINC XML and the RD 3560-8 PDF are generated and XSD-validated, then filed by a person and the outcome recorded — USDA publishes no interface that would let software file them for you.

HUD-50059 and 50059-A reach TRACS over iMAX, routed to the Contract Administrator where one administers the contract.

Book selection and reporting basis are properties of the report rather than a second copy of the data, so the underlying property events stay connected either way.

External bank activity is matched against book movements with a stated confidence, so a session starts with the exceptions. Splits, partial matches and anything the system will not guess at stay with a person, and the reconciliation history is kept.

That is the right question to bring to a demo with one of your own invoices. The document is read and the fields extracted, and the reviewer approves coding rather than typing it.

It says so. Low-confidence matches go to a person for review instead of into the import.

No, and we will not describe it that way. The system validates structure, required fields and consistency; whether the balances are the ones your controller would sign and whether a household’s certification history is complete are checks your team has to make.

Yours. Export paths are part of the implementation conversation, and we would rather answer that question before you sign than after you want to leave.

What the user asking can see. EEva works inside that user’s context and permissions, and it cites the authority behind a compliance answer or declines when it does not have one.

No. The compliance calculations are owned by deterministic code. Regulatory findings are staged for human review before they change a product rule, and predictive models are gated on quality before they are shown at all.

We publish a support metric when telemetry and the commercial terms support the number. Until then we will describe the service model honestly rather than print an SLA we cannot stand behind.