Structured Debate Improves Corporate Credit Reasoning in Financial AI

Abstract: Despite advances in financial AI, the automation of evidence-based reasoning remains unresolved in corporate credit assessment, where qualitative non-financial indicators exert decisive influence on loan repayment outcomes yet resist formalization. Existing approaches focus predominantly on numerical prediction and provide limited support for the interpretive judgments required in professional loan evaluation. This study develops and evaluates two operational LLM-based systems designed to generate structured reasoning from non-financial evidence. The first is a non-adversarial single-agent system (NAS) that produces bidirectional analysis through a single-pass reasoning pipeline. The second is a debate-based multi-agent system (KPD-MADS) that operationalizes adversarial verification through a ten-step structured interaction protocol grounded in Karl Popper's critical dialogue framework. Both systems were applied to three real corporate cases and evaluated by experienced credit risk professionals. Compared to manual expert reporting, both systems achieved substantial productivity gains (NAS: 11.55 s per case; KPD-MADS: 91.97 s; human baseline: 1920 s). The KPD-MADS demonstrated superior reasoning quality, receiving higher median ratings in explanatory adequacy (4.0 vs. 3.0), practical applicability (4.0 vs. 3.0), and usability (62.5 vs. 52.5). These findings show that structured multi-agent interaction can enhance reasoning rigor and interpretability in financial AI, advancing scalable and defensible automation in corporate credit assessment.