Outcomes are what the process decides. If you had some other process that could tell you what the outcome should be, you could have just used that as the original process.

To note, the discussion is on the EU side.

Yes, process matters in that they need to be reviewable and fixable. Them being good or unbiased is a function of how much scrutinity and oversight there is, but before even talking about biases, we need to know what's happening.

Even outside of fixing the system, in most countries if your get a credit application refused you can request the info that lead to the decision and act on it (update/fix your credit history for instance). Even if you can't fix specific aspects you at least know what conditions block you and deal with it accordingly (no use in reapplying twelve times if you're banned for life for instance, same way you might want to wait 6 months if it's a matter of prescription)

So yes, knowing what, why and how is as critical as the final outcome.

Sometimes there seems to be an expectation that people are entitled to a loan if they meet some criteria.

That's not the case. As long as there is no discrimination based on a legally protected characteristic (e.g. race) you can lend to whoever you want based on whatever criteria you want.

The process is what we have to judge because in inputs are bias, so even if with a perfectly fair process you will get bias outcomes...