Automotive-finance screening can fail when individually valid documents are paired with an internally inconsistent applicant narrative. We present the Adversarial Cognitive Probing Framework (ACPF), a theory-motivated staged protocol that scores four ordinal behavioral dimensions and delegates the final decision to a deterministic backend predicate. We evaluate ACPF on a risk-enriched retrospective corpus of 340 officer–applicant dialogues: 72 institutional adjudications of suspected misrepresentation, 138 cases of significant early delinquency, 110 good cases, and 20 non-fraud rejections excluded from the primary metrics. On identical fixed transcripts and the same QWEN3.5-122B carrier, structured scoring raises combined-risk capture from 5.7% to 61.0% while reducing the false-rejection rate from 14.5% to 12.7%. With OmniMAX, the selected low-FPR carrier, ACPF captures 58/138 (42.0%) delinquency cases at 6/110 (5.5%) false rejections; current origination review flags none of these delinquency cases. On the institutionally adjudicated stratum, ACPF captures 56/72 (77.8%) versus 72/72 for current review, but we make no comparative claim because the label and reference decision share institutional provenance. A shadow deployment has no adverse-action authority; prospective outcome validation is not yet available.