| # FinGovBench data statement |
|
|
| ## Composition |
|
|
| FinGovBench `1.0.0-rc4` contains 3,000 English-language financial-governance cases: |
|
|
| - 1,200 genuine reported-value changes from SEC EDGAR XBRL company-facts records; |
| - 900 controlled structural stress cases; and |
| - 900 controlled delegated-action cases. |
|
|
| The six domains are credit, AML, treasury, investment research, portfolio management and |
| market data. The genuine SEC track covers five domains; AML is currently controlled-only. |
|
|
| ## SEC source track |
|
|
| The source builder queries the official SEC company-facts API for 30 issuers. A revision |
| candidate requires the same issuer, taxonomy concept, unit and reporting period to appear |
| in different accessions on increasing filing dates with different reported values. Each |
| record preserves both accession numbers, filing dates, forms, values, units, period, |
| taxonomy and SEC archive URLs. |
|
|
| The selected cases span filings dated 2019-12-05 through 2026-08-28 and 138 distinct XBRL |
| concepts. They are observed comparative reported-value changes. They are not automatically |
| formal restatements or evidence that the earlier filing was erroneous. |
|
|
| SEC API documentation: |
| https://www.sec.gov/search-filings/edgar-application-programming-interfaces |
|
|
| ## Controlled tracks |
|
|
| The controlled tracks contain 1,200 review-required cases and 600 release-eligible clean |
| controls. Controlled cases test exact known-truth behavior under stale or conflicting evidence, |
| unit/scale and calculation errors, permission expansion, prompt-policy drift, evaluator |
| coupling, monitoring drift, population expansion and red-line control failure. They do not |
| estimate real-world prevalence. |
|
|
| ## Splits |
|
|
| Splits are deterministic and grouped by issuer/event and delegated authority. No event |
| group or authority crosses development, validation and test. The release contains 613 |
| development, 642 validation and 1,745 test cases. |
|
|
| ## Labels and limitations |
|
|
| Labels encode iceberg presence/visibility/mechanism, affected nodes, invalidated assurance |
| claims, governance action, minimum revalidation scope, release permission and verified |
| outcome. Labels and topology are algorithmically checked. Independent domain-expert |
| adjudication remains pending; the package is therefore a release candidate. |
|
|
| The public workflow declaration is method-neutral. No evaluated method is used to construct |
| labels. The included reference |
| comparison uses one shared set of Together-hosted Llama 3.3 70B model-elicited local-risk |
| scores for a flat comparator and a graph-propagation comparator. These are neither token probabilities nor |
| calibrated uncertainty estimates. Genuine labels remain contract-derived pending independent review. |
|
|
| The public benchmark cannot represent every bank's internal policies, permissions, |
| controls or loss tolerances. Institutions should add private cases from their own governed |
| workflows and should not interpret benchmark performance as regulatory approval. |
|
|
