R-FDI v3.2.0 — Critical Risk Control & Line-Item Reliability

R-FDI v3.2.0 — Critical Risk Control & Line-Item Reliability

R-FDI v3.2.0 extends the frozen v3.0 model/runtime baseline and v3.1 analytics with row-aware line-item evaluation, production-safe risk features, grouped model selection, selective-risk analysis, and finite-sample certification analysis.

Scope

• Extractor weights did not change.
• V3.2 is a risk-control and line-item reliability extension; it does not retrain the extractor.
• CORD test is a RETROSPECTIVE_LOCKED_BENCHMARK, not a fresh untouched holdout.
• V1 NO_PROMOTION, V2 PROMOTE, V3 V3_EXTENSION_SUCCESS, and v3.1 V3_1_ANALYSIS_SUCCESS remain unchanged.
• Promotion in this extension could only mean shadow risk routing—not autonomous production action.

Methodology correction

Before public v3.2 publication, an audit found that E0 did not implement the intended historical comparison, benign row permutations were conflated with semantic row-association failures, and row matchability was named as though it represented field accuracy. The evaluator was corrected to report these concepts separately, and monetary-risk labels and all dependent risk evidence were regenerated. The pre-correction audit and methodology history remain preserved in the repository.

Corrected metrics

• E0 path-occurrence field F1 is 0.8016; E1 positional-row field F1 is 0.7887.
• E2 permutation-invariant matched-row F1 is 0.9534 and measures row matchability, not field accuracy. E2 matched-field micro-F1 is 0.8585 and row exact rate is 0.6023.
• Benign permutation-only prevalence is 0.0% in the retrospective sample; semantic row-association errors affect 10.0%. Benign permutations are excluded from monetary risk.
• The corrected broadly defined critical monetary-error prevalence is 41.0%; line-item critical-error prevalence is 33.0%.
• Raw confidence remains the best evaluated risk ranker: retrospective AURC 0.2356, PR-AUC 0.8200, and AUROC 0.8189.
• The best learned candidate, shallow gradient boosting R4, records AURC 0.3314, PR-AUC 0.5754, and AUROC 0.6554; it does not improve on raw confidence.
• At 50% review, raw confidence captures 75.6% of critical errors and leaves 20.0% critical risk among accepted documents. R4 captures 70.7% and leaves 24.0%.
• At 80% review, raw confidence captures 92.7% of critical errors and leaves 15.0% critical risk among accepted documents.
• High occlusion remains the largest controlled extraction degradation. The learned risk response is weak and inconsistent when only production-safe image descriptors vary.

Risk decision

V3_2_RISK_MODEL_NO_PROMOTION

R0 raw confidence remains stronger than R4: it has lower AURC and higher PR-AUC/AUROC, and it captures more critical errors with lower accepted critical risk at 50% review.

Certification

The already-observed certification partition was replayed: 5% has insufficient support and 10%/20% are uncertified. Because the evidence was reused after correction, this replay is non-confirmatory and promotion-ineligible; it is not fresh certification evidence.

Runtime

API and action semantics were not changed. Runtime routing remains unchanged, and the corrected-target R4 replay is retained as reproducible offline negative evidence.

Limitations

• This is a research portfolio, not a live bank deployment, regulatory certification, or production-risk guarantee.
• Only one physical GPU was used; no multi-GPU execution is claimed.
• No fresh DocILE LIR validation was available.
• CORD test and the certification partition had already been observed before correction.
• The robustness response reuses a 10-document development cohort and holds clean post-extraction features fixed.
• Fresh external line-item evidence and a genuinely fresh independent certification sample are required before reconsidering risk-model promotion.

Documentation

• Final report
• Methodology correction
• Row-aware line-item evaluation
• Risk certification