Problem
Context
LendWise uses a binary classification model to approve or decline small-business loan applications. The model was deployed 6 months ago, and the risk team now suspects that post-deployment performance has degraded even though approval volume has increased.
Current Performance
| Metric | At Launch | Last 30 Days | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | 0.81 | 0.76 | -0.05 |
| Precision (default class) | 0.72 | 0.68 | -0.04 |
| Recall (default class) | 0.64 | 0.51 | -0.13 |
| F1 Score | 0.68 | 0.58 | -0.10 |
| AUC-ROC | 0.84 | 0.79 | -0.05 |
| Brier Score | 0.142 | 0.181 | +0.039 |
| Approval Rate | 58% | 66% | +8 pts |
| 90-day Default Rate | 4.8% | 7.1% | +2.3 pts |
The Problem
The business wants a monitoring framework that can detect performance degradation early, explain whether the issue is threshold drift, calibration drift, or population shift, and define when retraining or rollback is required.
Requirements
- Explain what these metric changes suggest about model performance over time.
- Propose a production monitoring plan with leading and lagging indicators.
- Identify likely root causes for the recall and calibration decline.
- Recommend alert thresholds, review cadence, and retraining triggers.
- Discuss how you would separate data drift from true concept drift.
Constraints
- Loan decisions must be returned in under 300 ms.
- True default labels arrive with a 90-day delay.
- Compliance requires stable approval policies and documented threshold changes.
- A false negative (missed defaulter) costs about $4,200; a false positive (declined good borrower) costs about $320 in lost contribution margin.
You are practicing as a guest. Sign up free to get your answer graded with AI feedback. Your draft stays right here.