Evidence Access — Deterministic Intake App

The analysis began with the national public datasets maintained for two separate federal systems: the SBA Paycheck Protection Program loan and forgiveness records, and the Department of Labor Form 5500/ERISA filing records, including Savings Plan and ESOP financial schedules.

Those national source records were standardized, deduplicated, repaired, and linked at the sponsor level. The resulting analytical intersection contained 6,431 repaired analytical rows representing 1,429 sponsors with sufficient matched information to test the Selway condition consistently.

The 1,429 sponsors are therefore not presented as the total number of PPP borrowers or the total number of Form 5500 filers. They are the repaired sponsor-level comparison population derived from the national source universes after applying the minimum matching and data-availability requirements needed for the same test to be applied to every sponsor.

The national analysis did not ask whether Selway appeared suspicious and then search for facts supporting that conclusion. It tested whether any sponsor in the repaired national universe reproduced the same objective PPP/ERISA structure.

Gate 3 is the decisive national collapse. The field falls from 295 true comparison sponsors to one sponsor: Selway Machine Tool. Within the repaired comparison universe derived from the national PPP and ERISA datasets, Selway is the only sponsor satisfying the first three gates simultaneously.

This is a conditional national uniqueness finding. It does not establish wrongdoing, but it demonstrates that the combined temporal and financial structure was not reproduced by any other tested sponsor under the same rules.

Selway's Second Draw PPP loan was $2,000,000. The PPP forgiveness framework required at least 60% of the forgiven amount to consist of eligible payroll costs; a borrower using less than the required payroll proportion could remain eligible for partial forgiveness, but not full forgiveness of the entire loan on the same basis.

Gate 4 is therefore not simply a comparison between two similar round numbers. It is an exact match, to the dollar, between the public ESOP component and a legally operative PPP forgiveness threshold for Selway's entire $2 million Second Draw.

The reported contribution and contribution receivable must not automatically be added together as two separate $1.2 million transactions. They may be two accounting presentations of the same underlying obligation. The significance is the exact threshold match and the resulting need to determine whether the amount was paid, when it was paid, how it cleared, and whether it was used in any forgiveness calculation.

The same $1.2 million ESOP component performs two independent analytical functions.

1. It combines with the $3,712,289 Savings Plan benefit-distribution value to produce the $4,912,289 native ERISA/ESOP vector that falls inside Selway's total PPP principal-to-forgiveness corridor.
2. It independently equals exactly 60% of Selway's $2,000,000 Second Draw.

Gate 3 establishes the sole national survivor. Gate 4 then adds an exact regulatory-threshold relationship to the already unique sponsor. The combined result is both nationally unique and threshold-specific.

Established by the national reduction

• The analysis began with national PPP and ERISA/Form 5500 source universes, not a Selway-only dataset.
• The same objective rules were applied to every sponsor in the repaired comparison population.
• Selway was the only sponsor remaining at Gate 3.
• The sole surviving sponsor also had a $1.2 million ESOP component exactly matching 60% of its $2 million Second Draw.
• The resulting condition requires direct reconciliation through primary records.

Not established by the public-record comparison alone

• That Selway included the ESOP amount in its PPP forgiveness application.
• That PPP proceeds funded an ESOP contribution, Savings Plan distribution, or employer-stock purchase.
• That the $1.2 million receivable was a qualifying payment during the applicable covered period.
• That funds moved between the company, plans, shareholders, property owners, or related parties.
• That a false statement, false certification, fiduciary breach, or criminal act occurred.
• That any person possessed the knowledge or intent required for individual liability.

The correct characterization is a nationally unique, high-probative-value, threshold-specific reconciliation condition, not a standalone adjudication of fraud or fiduciary misconduct.

Central question: What eligible and documented payroll costs supplied the $1.2 million minimum payroll component associated with full forgiveness of Selway's $2 million Second Draw, and was the identically valued $1.2 million ESOP contribution or contribution receivable included, excluded, paid, unpaid, cleared, or otherwise connected to that calculation?

If the ESOP amount was not used, the forgiveness file should independently establish at least $1.2 million in other qualifying payroll costs. If it was used, the records must establish that it was a legally eligible employer retirement-plan contribution, properly timed, actually paid or otherwise eligible under the controlling requirements, accurately classified, and supported by payment proof.

A complete and internally consistent forgiveness file may establish that the numerical convergence is non-causal. The gate result does not shift the burden of proof and does not create a legal presumption of wrongdoing.

The exposure significance changes materially only if primary records show that an unpaid receivable, ineligible plan value, Savings Plan distribution, ESOP stock-purchase amount, duplicate entry, false classification, or materially misleading record was used to reach the payroll threshold or support forgiveness.

Depending on the proven facts, implicated review lanes could include:

• PPP repayment, forgiveness adjustment, lender review, or SBA/OIG referral;
• False Claims Act materiality, causation, knowledge, and false-record analysis;
• false-statement, false-loan-statement, wire, bank, conspiracy, concealment, or obstruction analysis;
• ERISA duties of loyalty and prudence, prohibited transactions, adequate consideration, valuation, restoration, or disgorgement;
• IRS retirement-plan, deduction-timing, excise-tax, reporting, and correction issues;
• corporate governance, conflict separation, source-of-funds tracing, and record-preservation duties; and
• role-specific review of signers, management, fiduciaries, trustees, accountants, payroll providers, advisers, valuation professionals, and counsel.

Each exposure lane remains dependent on the applicable legal elements, the underlying primary records, materiality, causation, knowledge, intent, and the role of each actor.

The analysis began with the national SBA PPP and Department of Labor Form 5500/ERISA source universes. After nationwide normalization, repair, entity matching, and sponsor-level comparison, 1,429 sponsors remained capable of being tested under the same objective Selway condition. Gates 1 through 3 reduced that universe from 1,429 to 321, then 295, and finally one sponsor: Selway Machine Tool.

Gate 4 then established that Selway's $1.2 million ESOP component equaled exactly 60% of its $2 million Second Draw - the payroll-cost amount associated with full forgiveness of the entire loan. This does not itself prove misuse, false support, or fiduciary misconduct. It makes the forgiveness file, payroll proof, retirement-contribution payment records, ESOP receivable-clearance records, and transaction tracing indispensable.