Learned Monotone Recurrent Features in Governed Credit Scoring: The Price of the Frame and the Necessity of Macro Conditioning

Risk regulation imposes directional constraints on scores; we adopt their strict per-input form -- the score monotone non-decreasing in every exposure input -- as a normative commitment. Deployed pipelines -- monotone hand-crafted aggregates feeding sign-constrained gradient boosting -- already satisfy it by composition, so constrained-versus-unconstrained comparisons price a guarantee the incumbent has for free. We instead hold admissibility fixed on both sides and measure what learning the aggregation is worth. Our instrument is a recurrent network whose state is classical risk statistics (an exponentially weighted moving average and a high-water mark with learned transforms), monotone by construction in every input and per MC-dropout sample. The central finding, by functional regression, is a subsumption boundary: a learned monotone channel reproduces the geometrically weighted separable family of hand-crafted statistics, one channel per member, to Spearman $ρ\ge 0.996$, approximates window statistics with measurable ceilings, and fails at consecutivity ($ρ= 0.924$) and time localization (0.628), both structural, and at the exposure floor (0.829), a learnability boundary. One explicit admissible basis repairs each failure (rank correlation 1.000). In or near the separable family, learned and engineered aggregation are substitutes, and the learned channel is never statistically behind at full sample size and specified capacity. Its advantages are incumbent-specific: a committed grid pays up to 0.019 AUC in decay regions it leaves uncovered (the learned channel stays within 0.004 of the strongest engineered consumer at every swept point); the highest-dimensional comparator degrades fastest with scarce data; and beyond the training support, grid-fed tree-ensemble scores go flat while a strictly increasing head keeps ranking. No single incumbent is dominated on all three axes.

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.

Last-iterate convergence and generalization guarantees in first-order convex learning hinge on the monotonicity of the update operator. While linear averaging preserves the monotonicity of gradient updates, this property is often violated when gradients are aggregated non-affinely, as in modern pipelines enforcing constraints like adaptivity, privacy, robustness or fairness. Whether it is possible to design non-affine aggregation rules that maintain monotonicity has remained an open question. We answer this question negatively: we prove that the monotonicity of aggregated gradients is preserved if and only if the aggregation rule is positively affine. Consequently, non-affine aggregation prevents steady convergence and substantially degrade algorithmic stability. We quantify these drawbacks and propose a path forward by identifying sufficient conditions under which monotonicity can be restored. Our results provide a unified theoretical framework explaining the disparate failure modes observed in modern learning systems.