This study empirically examines whether the financial qualification parameters established by Internal Regulation STJ/GDG No. 30/2022 remain aligned with the observed behavior of firms contracting with the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ), with particular emphasis on the measurement basis of contractual commitments and the fixed 10% divergence threshold relative to gross revenue. Using accounting data from the Court’s Financial Information Registry and Contractual Accounting Dashboard, we analyze a sample of 25 ongoing labor-intensive service contracts deemed representative of the current portfolio. Three contractual commitment metrics were constructed — total contract value, total remaining value, and remaining value annualized over 12 months (VR₁₂m). Financial sufficiency ratios (Equity ÷ (VR/12)) and absolute percentage differences between commitments and gross revenue were computed. The empirical strategy combined descriptive statistics, Shapiro–Wilk normality testing, paired and one-sample t-tests, Wilcoxon tests, and bootstrap confidence intervals. Results indicate that the equity sufficiency ratios already exceed the regulatory minimum when calculated using total remaining commitments, and that adopting the annualized remaining value increases such ratios without materially altering firms’ qualification status. Regarding divergence between commitments and gross revenue, the VR₁₂m-based metric shows typical differences around 50%, with an interquartile range approximately between 40% and 60%, evidencing statistically significant deviation from the fixed 10% threshold. Sensitivity analyses addressing survivorship bias — incorporating past penalties and a predictive Contract Default Risk Index (IRDC) — using Spearman correlation, Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis tests, and risk-stratified bootstrap procedures, found no statistically robust association between higher divergence levels and greater observed or predicted contractual risk. The findings suggest that explicitly adopting annualized remaining commitments in contract declarations and revisiting the 10% fixed divergence threshold in light of empirical evidence may enhance regulatory calibration, while preserving prudential safeguards and focusing justification requirements on genuinely atypical cases.