Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
An auditable decision record that carries four aligned cues into a late calibration step: a passive detector score, a conditional keyed-probe score on a marked derivative, retrieval support, and a speaker-profile margin, together with explicit disagreement coordinates is answered.
Speech deepfakes can mimic a speaker's voice convincingly enough to deceive listeners and automated systems. This has driven strong progress in speech deepfake detection, but most detectors still end with one score per utterance. That score is useful for ranking systems, yet it says little about why a borderline item should be trusted, deferred, or reviewed. Two utterances can fall in the same score band for different reasons, for example because passive and retrieval evidence disagree or because the keyed probe is unavailable. We ask whether the final decision can remain scalar without discarding that provenance. We answer this question with an auditable decision record that carries four aligned cues into a late calibration step: a passive detector score, a conditional keyed-probe score on a marked derivative, retrieval support, and a speaker-profile margin, together with explicit disagreement coordinates. On the 4,080-example ASVspoof 5 Track 1 matched subset, the fixed retrieval-augmented rule improves on retrieval-only evidence, reducing equal error rate (EER) from 15.84% to 11.91%, and late calibration over the full record reaches 8.43% EER. At a 33.75% review budget, the exposed cue union covers 82.85% of the calibrated model's errors. The best passive WavLM run still reaches 6.71% EER, so we do not present the decision record as a stronger standalone detector. Its contribution is to preserve the evidence behind each surfaced utterance while still producing one operating score for thresholding and review.
