June AUS and AMI updates: controls to test before cutover

What changed

Fannie Mae says 2026 area median incomes will be implemented in Desktop Underwriter, HomeReady APIs, Loan Delivery, and the Area Median Income Lookup Tool effective June 13. The same notice says AMI-based pricing eligibility remains tied to the DU casefile create date and the Loan Delivery application received date until a later 2027 update.

Freddie Mac also has June 2026 Loan Product Advisor release notes and Income Calculator API LPA feedback-message materials effective June 2026. The candidate material supports the existence and timing of those release materials, but does not provide the detailed message content here.

The operational issue is not just the policy update. It is whether LOS, AUS, income-analysis, pricing-eligibility, and delivery workflows treat the same file the same way across the cutover period.

The hinge: effective dates and system interpretation

The Fannie Mae AMI update affects multiple touchpoints: DU, HomeReady APIs, Loan Delivery, and the AMI Lookup Tool. That creates a familiar control risk: one system may display or consume a current AMI value while another workflow still depends on a date-based eligibility rule.

For teams working near June 13, the key distinction is whether staff and systems understand the difference between updated AMI availability and AMI-based pricing eligibility timing. The notice ties pricing eligibility to the DU casefile create date and the Loan Delivery application received date until a later 2027 update. That should be reflected in job aids, exception logic, and file review procedures.

The Freddie Mac materials point to a parallel readiness need for LPA and Income Calculator API users. If your workflow consumes LPA release changes or Income Calculator API feedback messages, the question is whether those messages are displayed, mapped, routed, and documented consistently after the June 2026 effective point.

Controls to run before relying on June results

Lenders should consider a short, documented cutover checklist rather than treating these updates as routine vendor releases.

1. Inventory where AMI is used

Identify every workflow that uses AMI data or AMI-based eligibility, including DU, HomeReady API calls, Loan Delivery, the AMI Lookup Tool, LOS fields, pricing-eligibility checks, underwriting worksheets, and staff-facing job aids.

The control question is simple: when a user sees an AMI-related result, can they tell which date rule or source produced it?

2. Test files on both sides of June 13

Create a pre- and post-cutover sample for Fannie Mae workflows. At minimum, compare how the relevant systems behave for files with different DU casefile create dates and Loan Delivery application received dates.

Document expected results before testing. That makes it easier to distinguish a true system issue from a training issue or an incorrect assumption about the effective-date rule.

3. Reconcile pricing-eligibility logic

The Fannie Mae notice is especially important for pricing-eligibility controls because AMI availability and AMI-based pricing eligibility are not described as moving on the same logic. Confirm that any pricing-eligibility workflow uses the correct date basis and that staff instructions do not imply that a lookup-tool result alone controls pricing eligibility.

If an exception is approved, document the file date, the system source, and the basis for the eligibility conclusion.

4. Review Freddie Mac LPA and Income Calculator API handling

For Freddie Mac workflows, route the June 2026 LPA release notes and Income Calculator API LPA feedback-message material to the LOS/admin, underwriting, income-analysis, and QA owners who maintain system mappings and staff procedures.

The practical review questions are:

• Which LPA results or feedback messages are consumed by the LOS or other workflow tools?
• Are any messages suppressed, renamed, or translated before staff see them?
• Do income-analysis exceptions route to the right queue or review owner?
• Do file notes and underwriting checklists reflect the actual message shown to the user?
• Has any post-release behavior been regression-tested against expected results?

Because the candidate material here does not include the detailed Freddie Mac release-note text or message list, teams should not rely on a summary alone. They should review the PDF materials directly before finalizing system mappings or training content.

Documentation to keep

For audit and quality-control purposes, keep a concise change record showing:

• the source materials reviewed;
• the systems and workflows tested;
• the date scenarios used in testing;
• the expected and actual results;
• any job aid or checklist updates;
• any unresolved vendor, investor, or internal interpretation questions.

This does not need to be elaborate. The goal is to preserve evidence that the team identified the June cutover risk, tested the affected workflows, and gave staff clear instructions for files that straddle the effective period.

Caveat for implementation planning

This is a readiness note based on official-source candidate materials. It is not a prediction that lenders will experience defects, and it does not substitute for reviewing the full Fannie Mae notice or the Freddie Mac PDFs. The Freddie Mac candidate records identify the June 2026 release and feedback-message materials, but the detailed release contents are not reproduced in the provided material.