Exhibit 99.1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES

(1) Type of assets that were reviewed.

AMC Diligence, LLC (“AMC”) performed certain due diligence services (the “Review”) described below on residential mortgage loans acquired by Adamas Trust, Inc. (the “Client”) through flow reviews and acquired by reliance letter. The Review was conducted on mortgage loans with origination dates from March 2022 through September 2026 via files imaged and provided by the Client’s designee for review. The Review included loans reviewed under the Business Purpose Scope (1,134 loans). The loans reviewed using the Business Purpose Scope are referred to as the mortgage loans.

(2) Sample size of the assets reviewed.

The final population of the Review covered 1,134 mortgage loans totaling an aggregate original principal balance of approximately $229.516 million. To AMC’s knowledge, the Review covered 100% of the securitization loan population.

(3) Determination of the sample size and computation.

The Review was conducted consistent with the criteria for the nationally recognized statistical rating organizations, NRSRO(s), identified in Item 3 of the ABS Due Diligence-15E.

(4) Quality or integrity of information or data about the assets: review and methodology.

AMC compared data fields on the tape provided by the Client to the data found in the actual mortgage loan file as captured by AMC. For the purposes of this disclosure, AMC’s review only included fields that were included in a related data integrity review being performed by another vendor and did not include all fields that may have been available for data comparison at the time of original acquisition. This comparison, when data was available, included the following data fields:

Additionally, AMC verified (i) listed borrowers signed documents requiring signature, (ii) borrowers signing documents were eighteen (18) years or older at the time of the mortgage loan origination, (iii) that all riders required by the terms of the mortgage and mortgage note were attached to the respective document, (iv) that social security numbers across documents were consistent, and (v) debt-to-income ratio (“DTI(s)”) and/or loan-to-value ratios (“LTV(s)”) were used in the assessment of conformity guidelines.

(5) Origination of the assets and conformity to stated underwriting or credit extension guidelines, standards, criteria or other requirements: review and methodology.

BUSINESS PURPOSE SCOPE

Each loan, reviewed under this scope, was reviewed for adherence to the relevant credit policy as indicated by the Client. For this review, procedures followed included:

Documents reviewed include the following items (* = where applicable):

DATA COLLECTION

AMC will compare data fields on the bid tape provided by the client to the data found in the actual file as captured by AMC. All material discrepancies will be noted.

(6) Value of collateral securing the assets: review and methodology.

AMC’s review included a review of the valuation materials utilized during the origination of the loan and in confirming the value of the underlying property. AMC’s review included verifying the appraisal report was (i) on the appropriate GSE form, (ii) materially complete, (iii) in conformity with the guideline requirements for the property type in question, (iv) completed by an appraiser that was actively licensed to perform the valuation, (v) completed such that the named client on the appraisal report is the lender or a related entity that is permitted to engage the lender per Title XI of FIRREA, (vi) made and signed prior to the final approval of the mortgage loan application, (vii) completed and dated within the guideline requirements, (vii) made on an “as is” basis or provides satisfactory evidence of completion of all material conditions including all inspections, licenses, and certificates (including certificates of occupancy) to be made or issued with respect to all occupied portions of the mortgaged property and with respect to the use and occupancy of the same, have been made or obtained from the appropriate authorities.

With regard to the use of comparable properties, AMC’s review (i) captured the relative comparable data (gross and net adjustments, sale dates and distance from subject property) and ensured that such comparable properties are within standard appraisal guidelines; (ii) confirmed the property value and square footage of the subject property was bracketed by comparable properties, (iii) verified that comparable properties used are similar in size, style, and location to the subject, and (iv) checked for the reasonableness of adjustments when reconciling value between the subject property and comparable properties.

Other aspects of AMC’s review included (i) verifying that the address matched the mortgage note, (ii) verifying that the appraisal  and the policies and procedures with regard to the appraisal, including the appropriate level of review, when originating the mortgage loan, were followed, (iii) noting whether the property zip code was declared a FEMA disaster area after the valuation date and notifying the Client of same (iv) confirming the appraisal report does not include any apparent environmental problems, (v) confirming the appraisal notes the current use of the property is legal or legal non-conforming (grandfathered), (vi) reviewing pictures to ensure (a) that the property is in average or better condition and any repairs are noted where required and (b) that the subject property is the one for which the valuation was ordered and that there are no negative external factors; and (vii) confirming that the value product that was used as part of the origination decision was directly accessible to AMC or if it was not directly accessible that another valuation product that was directly accessible to AMC was ordered in accordance with the Client’s specific valuation waterfall process. If more than one valuation was provided, AMC confirmed consistency among the valuation products and if there were discrepancies that could not be resolved, AMC created an exception.

(7) Compliance of the originator of the assets with federal, state and local laws and regulations: review and methodology.

Not applicable.

(8) Other: review and methodology.

The final review results reflected in the Overall Review Results Summary herein may include additional exceptions identified after AMC’s initial review was completed where loan level issues were identified by external parties as a result of separate, distinct quality control evaluation of the loan files. In such cases, any additional exceptions cited by any such quality control evaluation would either be reflected (i) as an open exception or (ii) remediated if required documentation and/or curative actions were provided to AMC. The exception totals reflected herein, and corresponding Exception Rating, include exceptions that were so subsequently identified, if any. Please note that only a limited number of loans, if any, reflected in the Review Results Summary were subject to such external quality control evaluations.

(9) Disclaimer.

Except as expressly enumerated above, please be advised that SitusAMC has not performed any review to determine whether the mortgage loans covered in this Report complied with federal, state or local laws, constitutional provisions, regulations, ordinances or any other laws or guidance, including, without limitation, licensing and general usury laws (“Applicable Law”).  Further, there can be no assurances that in performing the review and preparing this Report that SitusAMC has uncovered all relevant factors and potential issues relating to the origination of the mortgage loans, their compliance with Applicable Law, or the original appraisals relating to the mortgaged properties, or that SitusAMC has uncovered all relevant factors that could affect the future performance of the mortgage loans. Please note that the results set forth in this Report are dependent upon receipt of complete and accurate data regarding the mortgage loans from mortgage loan originators, sponsors, issuers, underwriters, and other third parties upon which SitusAMC is relying in reaching such results.  Except as expressly stated herein, SitusAMC did not verify the data relied upon in performing its review and producing this Report.  In addition, the findings and conclusions set forth in this Report are provided on an “as is” basis and are based on available information and Applicable Law as of the date of this Report, and SitusAMC does not undertake any obligation to update or provide any revisions to this Report to reflect events, circumstances, changes in Applicable Law, or changes in expectations after the date this Report was issued.  SitusAMC also hereby disclaims any representation or warranty as to accuracy or completeness of the Report, the inclusion or omission of any facts or information, or as to its suitability, sufficiency or appropriateness for the purposes of the transaction parties or investors or the use of the Report in preparation of any other document in connection with the subject transaction.).

Please be further advised that SitusAMC does not employ personnel who are licensed to practice law in the various jurisdictions covered in this Report, and the results set forth in this Report do not constitute legal advice or legal opinions whatsoever. The findings are recommendations or conclusions based on information provided to SitusAMC, and are not statements of fact or legal conclusions. Information contained in the Report related to the applicable statute of limitations for certain claims may not be accurate or reflect the most recent controlling case law. Further, a particular court in a particular jurisdiction may extend, not enforce or otherwise allow claims beyond the statute of limitations identified in the Report based on certain factors, including the facts and circumstances of an individual mortgage loan.  The authorities administering the Applicable Law that was part of the review have broad discretionary powers which may permit such authorities, among other things, to withdraw exemptions accorded by statute or regulation, to impose additional requirements or to reach a conclusion that is not consistent with the results set forth in the Report. All decisions as to whether to issue, purchase, hold, sell or otherwise transact in securities backed by the mortgage loans reviewed in this Report, any investment strategy and any legal conclusions, including the potential liability related to the purchase or other transaction involving any such securities, shall be made solely by the parties to or investors in the transaction. The results set forth in this Report do not constitute tax or investment advice.  The scoring models in this Report are designed to identify potential risk in the securities backed by the mortgage loans reviewed, and each party or investor assumes sole responsibility for determining the suitability of the information for its particular use. SitusAMC does not make any representation or warranty (express or implied) as to the value of any mortgage loan or mortgage loan’s collateral that has been reviewed by SitusAMC.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS OF REVIEW

The NRSRO criteria referenced for this report and utilized for grading descriptions is based upon the NRSROs listed in the Form ABS Due Diligence-15E.

OVERALL RESULTS SUMMARY

After giving consideration to the grading implications of the Credit, Compliance and Property/Valuation sections, 100.00% of the mortgage loans by number in the pool have a NRSRO grade of “A”, or “B”.

CREDIT RESULTS SUMMARY

All one thousand one hundred thirty-four (1,134) mortgage loans reviewed by AMC have a Credit grade of “B” or higher and 83.16% of the mortgage loans by number received a Credit grade of “A”.

PROPERTY/VALUATION RESULTS SUMMARY

All one thousand one hundred thirty-four (1,134) mortgage loans reviewed by AMC have a Property Grade of “A”.

EXCEPTION CATEGORY SUMMARY

The table below summarizes the individual exceptions which carried an associated “B”, “C”, or “D” level exception grade. One loan may have carried more than one exception. In such cases, the exception with the lowest grade would drive the loan grade for that particular area of the review. The overall loan grade is the lowest grade for any one particular review scope (ex. a loan with a Compliance Grade of “B”, a Credit Grade of “A”, and a Property Grade of “A” would receive an overall Loan Grade of “B”).

TAPE INTEGRITY REVIEW RESULTS SUMMARY

The 1,134 mortgage loans reviewed had 915 different tape discrepancies across 48 data fields (some mortgage loans had more than one data delta). The largest variances were found on Subject Debt Service Coverage Ratio, Borrower Last Name and Guarantor 1 Last Name.

ADDITIONAL MORTGAGE LOAN POPULATION SUMMARY (some totals may not add due to rounding)