# What is a red flag and what do I do about it?

> Each finding in the report says if it is an ENISA requirement or a practitioner signal. A failed requirement means not eligible; a signal, not eligible yet.

- Canonical: https://help.enisa.ai/en/el-analisis/que-es-una-red-flag
- Updated: 2026-08-08
- Language: en-US
- Versión en español: https://help.enisa.ai/el-analisis/que-es-una-red-flag.md

A **red flag** is a failed finding in the "Requisitos comprobados" (requirements checked) section of your enisa.ai report, and its class is what matters: if a requirement published by ENISA fails, the verdict is not eligible; if a practitioner signal fails, it is not eligible yet — and fixable. By the end you will know how to tell a definitive problem from a fixable one and what to do in each case.

## Where the red flags are

Your report checks the requirements one by one and shows each finding with its result. The ones that fail are your red flags — and what matters is not how many there are, but **what class each one is**. That is why every finding carries its source in brackets:

- **ENISA requirement** — published in the official source, with a verbatim quote behind it.
- **ENISA recommendation** — official guidance, not a strict requirement.
- **Practitioner signal, not published by ENISA** — what experience with real files teaches, even though it is not written in the call.
- **enisa.ai's assessment** — our methodological judgement.

## A failed ENISA requirement: not eligible (today)

If a published requirement fails, the verdict is **No apto** (not eligible): with those facts, there is no viable file today, and the estimate is capped at 18 at most. Examples: not being a trading company domiciled in Spain, or planning to use part of the loan to **refinance debt or pay dividends** — ENISA expressly forbids it, and it is the kind of mistake nobody discovers until the file is already submitted.

The word "today" matters: some requirements depend on decisions of yours (the use of the funds, for instance) and can be rethought.

## A failed practitioner signal: not eligible yet

If what fails is a practitioner signal, the verdict is **Todavía no apto** (not eligible yet) — which is different from not eligible. You are not breaching anything published; you are missing something that in practice conditions approvals, and the report tells you **what to change**. The classic example is the **cash capital increase**: it is not a requirement published by ENISA, but nearly every offer letter makes disbursement conditional on one. Doing it turns a "not yet" into a defensible file.

Calling that "you are not eligible" would be false — and would talk you out of a perfectly viable application. That is why the report never presents a practitioner signal as if it were an official requirement.

## What to do with a red flag

1. **Look at its source.** Published requirement or practitioner signal?
2. **Read the report's "Próximos pasos"** (next steps): they are ordered and concrete.
3. **Fix what can be fixed** — close the capital increase, file the annual accounts, rethink the use of funds…
4. **Repeat the analysis** with the new situation once you have. Each analysis is a snapshot; the new snapshot can produce a different verdict.

## Troubleshooting

### I have a red flag and a low estimate — is it all over?

Not necessarily. If it is a practitioner signal, it is fixable by definition. Only a failed published requirement — one you cannot change — truly closes the door.

### What if the report marks a requirement as not checked?

Information was missing to resolve it and the verdict is marked as provisional. A new analysis with that fact resolves it.