A lender's HMDA data shows that its denial rate for Black applicants in a specific metropolitan area is 28%, compared to a 12% denial rate for similarly situated white applicants. The lender argues that its underwriting uses only objective financial criteria and the same standards apply to all applicants. A fair lending examiner challenges this position. Under current fair lending law, which analytical framework would BEST support the examiner's challenge?

The lender is automatically in violation because any statistical disparity in denial rates constitutes per se illegal discrimination under ECOA The examiner must prove discriminatory intent by finding direct evidence of racial animus in the lender's underwriting communications before the statistical data has any legal significance Statistical disparities in HMDA data are presumed to result from differences in borrower qualifications and cannot form the basis of a fair lending action without proof of intentional discrimination The HMDA disparity data triggers heightened scrutiny; under disparate impact theory, the lender must demonstrate that each underwriting criterion producing disparate results is necessary to achieve a legitimate business purpose and that no less discriminatory alternative exists