Abstract
Income-based automated decision systems increasingly influence civil and commercial outcomes
such as credit approval, employment screening, insurance pricing, and tenancy assessment. While
machine learning models can enhance predictive accuracy, they also raise civil and commercial
law concerns relating to discriminatory impact, transparency, reason-giving, and liability for
negligent or unfair automated decision-making. This paper evaluates whether feature selection
can serve as a governance mechanism that improves model robustness while strengthening legal
defensibility through reduced dimensionality and clearer feature rationales. Using adult dataset,
this paper considered a customized Minimum Redundancy-Maximum Relevance (mRMR),
customized machine learning models and assessed using key metrics, alongside compliance
oriented interpretations of feature reliance. Ensemble models like Stacking and bagging models
achieve strong performance with reduce computational cost and enhance interpretability.
However, the recurring selection of legally sensitive or proxy-sensitive attributes highlights the
need for fairness auditing, transparency documentation and human oversight. The study concludes
with a civil-commercial governance framework for deploying income prediction models
responsibly.