That's what editorializing is. You can point out the thing you found salient in a comment, you can find another piece that better represents the interesting thing, etc. You can't make up the title, though.
Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
In this case, the problem is an excess of bureaucratese, euphemism, jargon, and vagueness.
As Orwell wrote in "Politics and the English Language" on five badly written English passages:
[T]wo qualities are common to all of them. The first is staleness of imagery; the other is lack of precision. The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not. This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing. As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house.
https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_poli...
It's very common to see this tactic used in communications from* organisations or institutions about matters of significant import. Take the recent " Email from Jeff Bezos to employees", as a classic example:
https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/email-from-jef... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26006656). The title entirely fails to adequately describe the actual subject.
As is the case with the IMF's blog entry.
The article is evil in large part because it proposes an absolutely Orwellian regime ... well, pretty much precisely as Orwell suggests such things happen. In vague, political, bureaucratic, anodyne language, with no awareness or consideration of consequences, damage, or alternatives.
As a reference to the evil, the article is invaluable. It is the primary source, straight from the horse's mouth. Much as, say, Mein Kampf was, and the reason a young journalist violated copyright to ensure that it was prominently available in the United States in unexpurgated form:
<https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-02-14-mn-42699-...>
You're presenting a false dichotomy of "making up a the title". The question is how best to find a truth within the mealy-mouthed source. Which has mostly been done (I'm not entirely satisfied with the present HN title "IMF researchers: digital footprint yields better credit assessment", but it certainly improves on the original.
Sunshine ... isn't always a great disinfectant, but it is in this case.
Anyways - in developing countries models along these lines are already being used - there are no or limited credit scores and identity issues can be big. So people are already getting financing as a result of this evil - usually microfinance