arXiv:2607.26368v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Financial disclosures contain numerical claims, temporal statements, entity references, policy commitments, and risk descriptions that may conflict in qualitatively different ways. Detecting a conflict is only the first step: review workflows may also need to determine its type, since numerical, temporal, referential, factual, and normative inconsistencies require different evidence and downstream checks. We study this problem as fine-grained inconsistency classification. Using a fixed 5,940-instance snapshot of SBID-FD, a synthetic financial-disclosure benchmark with 11 inconsistency labels and paired reference evidence spans, we compare frozen embedding classifiers, fine-tuned encoders, evidence-augmented classifiers, prompted large language models, and LoRA-adapted generative models under a shared evaluation protocol. A fine-tuned 300M encoder reaches 61.9% accuracy, compared with 61.5% for a LoRA-adapted Qwen3.5-9B model and 61.3% for GPT-5.4. Because these systems differ in architecture, supervision, training objective, and input format, we interpret this as a practical efficiency result for compact supervised encoders rather than a controlled conclusion about model scale. Supplying gold evidence spans improves the fine-tuned encoder to 65.3%, whereas automatically predicted spans recover a meaningful but incomplete share of that gain, indicating that localization quality remains a bottleneck. Class-level analyses show that Referential inconsistencies are especially sensitive to localization quality, while Factual and Logical inconsistencies remain difficult even when the relevant evidence is provided. Together, the oracle, distractor, and per-class analyses separate localization errors from residual type-discrimination errors, indicating that progress requires both stronger evidence extraction and better reasoning over closely related inconsistency categories.
CMT-RAG: Complementary Memory Traces for Multi-turn Multi-hop RAG