CredWise: A Controlled Agentic Decision-Intelligence Framework for Explainable and Auditable Credit-Risk Assessment

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.

This position paper argues that LLMs should not yet be credited with decision explanation. This matters because recent work increasingly treats accurate behavioral prediction, plausible rationales, and outcome-conditioned reasoning traces as evidence that LLMs explain why people decide as they do, risking a premature redefinition of what counts as explanatory progress in human decision modeling. We first distinguish three claims with different evidential burdens: decision prediction, rationale generation, and decision explanation. We then argue that the evidence most commonly offered for LLM-based decision accounts directly supports the first two claims, and sometimes explanatory hypothesis generation, but does not distinguish decision explanation from prediction-supportive rationalization. Next, we propose a bridge standard for decision-explanation credit: stronger claims should specify explanatory targets, discriminate against weaker rationalizer alternatives, use target-appropriate process- or intervention-sensitive validation, and bound their scope. We then situate this standard against competing views and related literatures, clarifying why it preserves the value of LLMs as predictors, narrators, and hypothesis generators while resisting premature explanatory credit. We conclude with a principle of credit calibration: LLMs should be credited for the strongest claim their evidence warrants, and no stronger; if adopted, this principle can help turn LLMs from persuasive narrators of decisions into more reliable instruments for discovering, testing, and communicating explanations of human behavior.

Predictive explanation methods attribute a model output; they do not, by themselves, attribute an intervention effect on the real-world outcome. We introduce the Causal Attribution Score (CAS), a compact score architecture for causal explanation. CAS starts from an identified interventional coalition game, allocates the joint intervention contrast with causal Shapley contributions, and converts those raw outcome-scale effects into Local CAS, Signed Local CAS, and two complementary Global CAS summaries. The innovation is not a new Shapley formula, but a local-to-global causal reporting layer with an explicit intervention target. In the known-truth benchmark, eight repeated primary-interaction simulations (n = 2,200 each, three actions) gave mean Local CAS MAE of 0.107 for coalition-aware CAS, compared with 0.173 for one-at-a-time normalisation and 0.213 for a global normalised absolute ATE vector. The paired advantage over one-at-a-time normalisation increased from -0.003 under additivity to 0.091 under strong interactions. On both empirical DoubleML datasets, 401(k) eligibility/net financial assets (n = 9,915) and Pennsylvania reemployment bonus/unemployment duration (n = 5,099), predictive SHAP/TreeSHAP rankings differed materially from Feature-CAS rankings of treatment-effect modifiers. In Pennsylvania, dep1 (exactly one dependent) moved from predictive global rank 13 to Feature-CAS rank 2 and was the leading local Feature-CAS modifier. These results isolate the added value of separating what predicts the outcome from what explains heterogeneity in an estimated causal effect.