> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://docs.layerlens.ai/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://docs.layerlens.ai/4.2-industry-use-cases/pattern-1.md).

# Pattern: fair-lending platform

Financial services — fair-lending platform pattern. Bias scorer shared across product teams, variant comparison, continuous monitoring.

A bank deploys AI in many places — fraud detection, underwriting, customer service, marketing personalization. Each product team owns its own model, but **fair-lending exposure cuts across all of them**. A platform team owns that cross-cutting risk.

This pattern shows how the platform team standardizes fair-lending evaluation across product teams using a single org-scoped Stratix configuration that every team consumes.

## What's at stake

| Risk dimension                                                         | Magnitude                                           | Framework                            |
| ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------ |
| ECOA / fair-lending civil enforcement                                  | Per-violation civil penalties + consent-decree cost | CFPB / DOJ enforcement actions       |
| Per-declined-legitimate-transaction friction                           | \~$25 per false positive                            | Card-network industry benchmarks     |
| Annual US card fraud (the upside the model targets)                    | $4.2B                                               | Federal Reserve / Nilson Report data |
| Brand and customer-trust impact under public consent decree            | Multi-quarter remediation cycles                    | Public consent-decree filings        |
| State DOI / state regulator exposure on insurance and lending products | State-by-state penalty bands                        | State regulator actions              |

## The evaluation pattern

A single **org-scoped Stratix configuration** every product team uses:

1. **Bias scorer (custom code)** — computes per-segment false-positive disparity ratios against protected-class proxies (ZIP code, surname-derived demographics, age band). Flags any segment exceeding the **1.25× threshold** derived from regulatory adverse-impact guidance.
2. **Compare models** — when a product team proposes a new model, the platform team's bias scorer runs against it. Teams pick the variant that minimizes disparity without sacrificing primary-task performance (fraud recall, underwriting accuracy, etc.).
3. **Continuous trace evaluation** — production traffic from each product team is sampled hourly; bias trends are visible to the platform team's dashboard with per-team and per-feature breakdowns.
4. **Shared judge library** — helpfulness, faithfulness, safety judges curated centrally and GEPA-tuned against pooled labels (≥50 per judge, contributed across the 12 product teams); reused everywhere. See [Bootstrap a judge before GEPA](https://github.com/LayerLens/gitbook-full/blob/main/08-evaluate/guides/bootstrap-judges.md) for what to ship before the labels are there.
5. **Per-feature tolerances** — different features have different bars; tolerance configured per evaluation space.

**Onboarding:** new product teams get the bias scorer pre-wired into their CI from day one.

## Configuration in code

```python
# Python (SDK) — shared bias scorer used across product teams
from layerlens import Stratix
client = Stratix()

bias_scorer = client.scorers.create_code(
 name="fair-lending-disparity",
 code="""
groups = group_by_segment(input, output, segments=['zip_tier', 'surname_demographic'])
ratios = {g: false_positive_rate(g) / false_positive_rate('baseline') for g in groups}
result = {'passed': max(ratios.values()) <= 1.25, 'ratios': ratios}
""",
)

# Each product team consumes the shared scorer in their own evaluation
evaluation = client.evaluations.create(
 name="fraud-model-with-bias-check",
 model_id=os.environ["MODEL_ID"],
 dataset_id="fraud-labeled-v3",
 scorers=[bias_scorer.id, primary_recall_scorer_id],
)
result = client.evaluations.wait_for_completion(evaluation.id)
```

```typescript
// TypeScript (REST) — same eval from a CI runner
const r = await fetch("https://stratix.layerlens.ai/api/v1/evaluations", {
 method: "POST",
 headers: {
 "X-API-Key": process.env.LAYERLENS_STRATIX_API_KEY!,
 "Content-Type": "application/json",
 },
 body: JSON.stringify({
 name: "fraud-model-with-bias-check",
 model_id: process.env.MODEL_ID,
 dataset_id: "fraud-labeled-v3",
 scorers: [biasScorerId, primaryRecallScorerId],
 }),
});
```

## What you get

* Bias becomes a measurement, not a discovery. Every product team sees the same scoreboard.
* Cross-team conversations stop being "your team's eval said it was fine" and start being "the org's quality bar didn't move on this PR."
* Regulator-readable evaluation history quantifies disparity and tracks remediation per release.
* Platform team curates \~5 cross-cutting judges; product teams add their own task-specific judges as needed.

## Stratix capabilities used

* [Custom code graders](https://github.com/LayerLens/gitbook-full/blob/main/08-evaluate/cookbook/custom-code-scorer.md) — bias-disparity computations
* [Compare models](/5.-select-pick-the-model/compare-models.md) — variant selection with bias-aware criteria
* [Trace evaluations](/8.-evaluate-score-the-outputs/trace-evaluations.md) — continuous sampled production scoring
* [Multi-tenancy + shared org library](/7.-observe-see-whats-happening/multi-tenancy.md) — judges and scorers reusable across teams
* [Standardize judges across teams](https://github.com/LayerLens/gitbook-full/blob/main/08-evaluate/guides/standardize-judges.md)

## Replicate this

* [Industry → Financial services](/4.2-industry-use-cases/financial-services.md)
* [Workflow: Govern](/9.-improve-tune-the-system/workflow.md)
* [Cookbook: GitHub Actions integration](/6.-build-wire-your-code/integration-github-actions.md)
* [Use case: AI quality gates in CI/CD](/4.1-general-use-cases/ai-quality-gates-cicd.md)