Can Loan Processors and Underwriters Spot AI-Edited Statements? An Empirical Study

AI agents that carry a multi-step computer task through on their own became ordinary tools in the past year, and the same autonomy is available to anyone whose task is harmful. We ask what that means for a relying party -- an insurer, a lender, an auditor -- whose evidence is a filed PDF. AgentForge-Bench measures how reliably an off-the-shelf coding agent, driving one of seven open-weight models with a shell and the stock Python PDF stack, alters one dollar amount, date or address in a real filed financial document from a single sentence of intent, graded by rules rather than by a model. Across 1,750 cells, 1,419 (81.1%) satisfy the verifier, and 808 (46.2%) also survive every stricter filter: visible, localized, typeface-matched, original value gone document-wide. A deterministic script with no model in it solves 98 of the 125 documents; the agents solve 124, and none the script solves alone. Agents misreport 41% of their wrong edits as done, no model refused, and the cheapest verified forgery costs 2.4 cents. The raw rate overstates the threat by about a factor of two; the strict rate is still large.

We present AIForge-Doc, the first dedicated benchmark targeting exclusively diffusion-model-based inpainting in financial and form documents with pixel-level annotation. Existing document forgery datasets rely on traditional digital editing tools (e.g., Adobe Photoshop, GIMP), creating a critical gap: state-of-the-art detectors are blind to the rapidly growing threat of AI-forged document fraud. AIForge-Doc addresses this gap by systematically forging numeric fields in real-world receipt and form images using two AI inpainting APIs -- Gemini 2.5 Flash Image and Ideogram v2 Edit -- yielding 4,061 forged images from four public document datasets (CORD, WildReceipt, SROIE, XFUND) across nine languages, annotated with pixel-precise tampered-region masks in DocTamper-compatible format. We benchmark three representative detectors -- TruFor, DocTamper, and a zero-shot GPT-4o judge -- and find that all existing methods degrade substantially: TruFor achieves AUC=0.751 (zero-shot, out-of-distribution) vs. AUC=0.96 on NIST16; DocTamper achieves AUC=0.563 vs. AUC=0.98 in-distribution, with pixel-level IoU=0.020; GPT-4o achieves only 0.509 -- essentially at chance -- confirming that AI-forged values are indistinguishable to automated detectors and VLMs. These results demonstrate that AIForge-Doc represents a qualitatively new and unsolved challenge for document forensics.

OpenAI's GPT-Image-2 has effectively erased the visual boundary between authentic and AI-edited document images: a single number on a receipt can be replaced in under a second for a few cents. We release AIForge-Doc v2, a paired dataset of 3,066 GPT-Image-2 document forgeries with pixel-precise masks in DocTamper-compatible format, and benchmark four lines of defence: human inspectors (N=120, n=365 pair-votes via the public 2AFC site CanUSpotAI.com), TruFor (generic forensic), DocTamper (qcf-568, document-specific), and the same GPT-Image-2 model as a zero-shot self-judge -- asked, to avoid the trivial "image is mostly real" reading, whether any region was generated or edited by an AI image model. Human 2AFC accuracy is 0.501, indistinguishable from chance: even side-by-side, inspectors cannot tell GPT-Image-2 receipt forgeries from authentic counterparts. The three computational judges sit only modestly above (TruFor 0.599, DocTamper 0.585, self-judge 0.532). The self-judge fails consistently, not by chance: across five prompt strategies and four policies for handling ambiguous responses, AUC never rises above 0.59. To rule out the possibility that the two forensic detectors are broken on our source domain rather than blind to AI inpainting, we calibrate each on a same-domain traditional-tampering set built for its training distribution: TruFor reaches AUC 0.962 on cross-camera splicing of our dataset, DocTamper reaches 0.852 on cross-document OCR-token splicing with two-pass JPEG re-encoding. Both retain near-published performance on traditional tampering; switching to GPT-Image-2 inpainting drops AUC by 0.27-0.36 (0.962->0.599 TruFor; 0.852->0.585 DocTamper), isolating a detection gap specific to GPT-Image-2 inpainting. We release the dataset, pipeline, four-judge protocol, and calibration sets.