LincPayandClaude Opus 5
4ed61a2427
Brings the Python service under version control for the first time. It has
been running and serving the demo since 23 August; until now it existed only
on one developer's disk.
Contents:
training/build_dataset.py point-in-time join over the feature store, with
leakage assertions. dscr_p10 and dscr_p50 are
excluded deliberately — both are derived from
the forecast, which is derived from the
instalment, so the model would read its own
answer.
training/train_stress.py LightGBM vs XGBoost vs two single-feature
baselines, expanding-window validation over
as-of dates, publishes to the model_metric table
training/train_forecast.py three quantile heads (P10/P50/P90), horizon as a
feature rather than one model per horizon
serving/explain.py SHAP TreeExplainer folded into the five risk
families the console already speaks. The family
map mirrors RuleBasedScoringStrategy in the API
repo; where they disagree the rule engine wins.
serving/app.py /score, /score/batch, /forecast, /health, /model
The trained models, their metrics and the training dataset are committed
alongside the code. Without them the published AUC of 0.760 is a claim nobody
else can check; at ~2.2 MB together they are worth the space.
Measured, on 5,523 rows / 263 enterprises / 242 positives / 100% synthetic
labels: LightGBM AUC-ROC 0.7599, and the emi_to_inflow baseline 0.7685 on the
same folds. The baseline wins. That is recorded rather than tuned away — on
generated labels, beating it would mostly prove the model had learned the
generator.
The quantile forecast beats the deterministic strategy on all three quantiles
(pinball loss, 12-33% better) but flags every borrower as breaching, so the
deployment runs udyam.forecast.engine=DETERMINISTIC and this model is held
back pending calibration against real repayment outcomes.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
1.7 MiB
1.7 MiB