$\texttt{findr}$: Transparent and Fair Credit Risk Decisions through Semi-Structured Regressions

Machine learning algorithms in socially sensitive domains (e.g., credit decisions) often focus on equalizing predictive outcomes. However, satisfying these metrics does not guarantee that models use the same reasoning for different groups. We show that existing outcome-fair models can still apply fundamentally different reasoning to individuals, a hidden procedural bias'' missed by standard fairness metrics and algorithms. We propose Counterfactual Explanation Consistency (CEC), a framework that detects and mitigates this bias by aligning feature attributions between individuals and their counterfactual counterparts. Key contributions include a nearest-neighbor counterfactual generation method, a modified baseline for integrated gradient comparisons, an individual-level procedural fairness metric, and a corresponding training loss. We introduce a taxonomy identifying Regime B'' (same outcome, different reasoning) as a critical blind spot. Experiments on synthetic data, German Credit, Adult Income, and HMDA mortgage data demonstrate that outcome-fair baselines exhibit substantial hidden bias, while CEC substantially reduces it with modest utility cost.

Credit-risk prediction is important in banking, but a prediction alone does not explain why an applicant is risky or how it should be combined with other evidence. This paper presents CredWise, a decision-support framework that integrates credit-risk prediction, probability calibration, explainable artificial intelligence, policy retrieval, SQL analytics, and controlled agent-based workflows. An XGBoost model is trained on Lending Club data (1,345,310 loans, 18 features) using a temporal split: 2007--2016 for training, 2017 for validation, and 2018 for testing. On the 2018 test set, the calibrated model achieved a ROC-AUC of 0.7109, PR-AUC of 0.2993, F1-score of 0.3714, and accuracy of 65.44%. Calibration reduced the Brier score from 0.2157 to 0.1273 and the expected calibration error from 0.2862 to 0.0585. SHAP explanations were temporally stable, with a Spearman correlation of 0.9959 between 2017 and 2018 feature rankings. On 28 labeled queries covering nine policy sections, FAISS achieved the best Hit@1 (0.929) and MRR (0.964), while all three retrieval methods reached Hit@5 = 1.0. Agent routing achieved 95.6% accuracy (43 of 45 cases), and the SQL benchmark scored 1.0 on exact-match, execution-success, and result-match across six cases. These results show that CredWise can combine predictions, explanations, policy evidence, and structured analytics in one controlled workflow. It is an academic research prototype, and final decisions remain with a human reviewer.

Credit scoring increasingly relies on models whose decision logic cannot be read off their parameters, in tension with supervisory expectations that adverse decisions be explainable. A common proposal closes that gap with a language model: compute feature attributions, hand them to an LLM, and let it write the rationale. We build such a system end to end and test whether the second half of the promise holds. The predictive component is a multi-scale stacking ensemble fusing four differently regularised gradient-boosting learners with a residual network through a neural meta-learner trained on out-of-fold predictions. On a public 32,581-application credit dataset it reaches test ROC-AUC 0.9539 (95% CI [0.9462, 0.9616]) and PR-AUC 0.9137, beating the best single model by Delta-AUC = 0.0143 (p = 0.016 under a conservative independence assumption). Our central finding is asymmetric. The ranking gain is real but operationally small: at the F1-optimal threshold the ensemble avoids only six additional missed defaults out of 1,422 against a tuned random forest, cutting cost-weighted loss by under 2%. The narrative layer fails in a way prompt engineering alone does not fix. In an audited case the model named three factors as risk-increasing that the supplied attributions scored as risk-reducing, omitted the dominant driver, and introduced a feature never given to it. We trace this to properties we measure rather than assume: SHAP and LIME agree on which features matter (overlap@10 = 0.80) but not on their order (tau = 0.43, p = 0.18), and the attribution sign for the model's most sensitive input is near a coin flip across applicants (modal-sign share 0.53). Calibration (ECS = 0.117) and perturbation stability (DPD = 0.078) both fall short of our own thresholds. Constrained prompting is necessary but not sufficient: grounding must be verified after generation, not assumed.