Phoenix pattern, all live indicators fire

Rule id: phoenixSixIndicator · Version: 2026.05.10-v1

Microsoft Responsible AI Transparency artefact. One Model Card per ML signal RecoupIQ ships. Generated from lib/modules/intelligence/canonical-warning-adapters.ts, re-runnable with npx tsx scripts/responsible-ai/generate-model-cards.ts.

What this rule does

This company resembles a phoenix successor of a dissolved company per the Insolvency Service's six-indicator framework. 4 of 4 live indicators triggered.

When it fires

• Severity (when fired): Critical
• Confidence in detection (when fired): high

Severity is bounded by the magnitude observed. Confidence is bounded by the number of independent dimensions that agreed. The two are deliberately separate: a Critical warning at high confidence has very different triage weight from the same rule at confirmed confidence.

Inputs

Evidence the rule cites when it fires (illustrative, actual values vary per company):

• Insolvency Service phoenix methodology, Six-Indicator Phoenix Score: 4 of 4 live indicators triggered (6-indicator full framework).
• Predecessor company, Sample Predecessor Ltd, dissolved 2025-09-01, 45 days before this company appeared. (source)
• Indicators fired, same registered address; 2 officers between predecessor and successor; same SIC / trade; director-loan drawdown before predecessor failure

Known false-positive triggers

Documenting where the rule is most likely to mis-fire is a Responsible AI Transparency requirement. RecoupIQ surfaces these directly to buyers in the report panel so they triage informed.

• Voluntary strike-off followed by reincorporation at the same address can fire indicators without abusive intent (e.g. restructuring under a new SPV).
• Sector specialists (estate agents, solicitors, dentists) commonly share office addresses across legitimate businesses.
• Members' Voluntary Liquidation (MVL) of a profitable predecessor is not a phoenix.

Recommended next steps

Review the predecessor's filing history, the dissolution route (compulsory vs voluntary), and the asset-transfer documentation if any. The Insolvency Service may have grounds to apply for a director-disqualification order under CDDA86 in proven cases.

Notes on language: this is process language only, review, verify, escalate. RecoupIQ does not give regulated financial advice ("do not pay", "refuse the contract") in any report. See lib/modules/intelligence/canonical-warning.ts for the validator that enforces this.

Intended use

• Pre-contract due diligence on a UK counterparty.
• Pre-credit-extension sizing for trade credit or invoice finance.
• Post-default forensic evidence pack (Practitioner Pack tier).
• Litigation / SBC adjudication evidence (Practitioner Pack Plus tier).
• M&A / investment diligence snapshot.

Out-of-scope use

• Not legal advice. Always consult a regulated insolvency practitioner, solicitor, or compliance professional before acting on a warning.
• Not a definitive determination of solvency, sanctions status, or director fitness. RecoupIQ reports on public-record signals; the registers themselves are the authoritative source.
• Not a credit score. The signals correlate with but do not predict insolvency probability in any calibrated sense.
• Not suitable as the sole basis for refusing service to a counterparty.

Data sources

Detailed lineage lives in the Methodology page linked at the top of this card. Source registers cited above are the immediate inputs.

Versioning + reproducibility

Reports stamp the rule id + version ([email protected]) in their footer. To reproduce an older report, pin the same version of lib/modules/intelligence/canonical-warning-adapters.ts from git and re-run the screen.

Right of reply

Subjects of any fired warning may submit a structured rebuttal via the Right-of-Reply endpoint linked from every report panel. RecoupIQ does not auto-suppress a warning based on rebuttal, but the rebuttal is recorded against the report and surfaced in any downstream version.