robbond/confidence-engine
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

feat: decompose composite unknowns before questioning

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
robbond
2026-08-02 19:24:38 +01:00
parent b1c633ba5c
commit 0723c2f49a
9 changed files with 768 additions and 25 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
tests/graph/apply-proposal.test.js
+91 -6
View File
@@ -1146,10 +1146,10 @@ describe("applyValidatedProposal", () => {
comparabilityUnknownId,
]);
expect(result.selectedQuestion?.nodeId).toBe(result.newActiveUnknownNodeId);
expect(result.selectedQuestion?.question).toMatch(
/^What changed during that period that could help explain why /,
);
expect(result.selectedQuestion?.question).not.toContain("same basis");
expect(result.selectedQuestion).toMatchObject({
nodeId: result.newActiveUnknownNodeId,
question: "What evidence would clarify timing or measurement basis?",
});
expect(result.selectedQuestion?.question.toLowerCase()).not.toMatch(
/dso|debtor days|receivables turnover|working capital|receivables/,
);
@@ -1224,12 +1224,97 @@ describe("applyValidatedProposal", () => {
expect(result.success).toBe(true);
expect(result.emergentReasoningNodeCreated).toBe(false);
expect(result.emergentReasoningNodeId).toBe("n-existing-explanation");
expect(result.newActiveUnknownNodeId).toBe("n-existing-explanation");
expect(result.selectedQuestion?.nodeId).toBe("n-existing-explanation");
expect(result.newActiveUnknownNodeId).not.toBe("n-existing-explanation");
expect(result.selectedQuestion?.nodeId).not.toBe("n-existing-explanation");
expect(result.selectedQuestion?.question).toBe(
"What evidence would clarify timing or measurement basis?",
);
expect(
result.updatedSituationGraph.nodes.filter(
(node) => node.label === graph.nodes.at(-1).label,
),
).toHaveLength(1);
});
it("decomposes a composite selected unknown before asking the next question", () => {
const { graph, proposal } = makeComparabilityUpdateFixture();
const result = applyValidatedProposal({
situationGraph: graph,
proposal,
previousQuestion:
"Were these figures measured on the same basis and at the same scale?",
answer:
"Yes. Both figures cover the same accounting period and are taken from the same management accounts.",
});
expect(result.success).toBe(true);
expect(result.atomicityAssessment).toBe("composite");
expect(result.decompositionPerformed).toBe(true);
expect(result.childUnknownCount).toBe(5);
expect(result.childNodeIds).toHaveLength(5);
expect(result.atomicityReason).toContain("Decomposed");
expect(result.selectedQuestion?.nodeId).toBe(result.newActiveUnknownNodeId);
expect(result.selectedQuestion?.nodeId).not.toBe(
result.emergentReasoningNodeId,
);
expect(result.selectedQuestion?.question.toLowerCase()).not.toMatch(
/dso|working capital|receivables|capex/,
);
const parentNode = result.updatedSituationGraph.nodes.find(
(node) => node.id === result.emergentReasoningNodeId,
);
expect(parentNode?.status).toBe("unknown");
const childNodes = result.updatedSituationGraph.nodes.filter((node) =>
result.childNodeIds.includes(node.id),
);
expect(childNodes).toHaveLength(5);
expect(childNodes.every((node) => node.parentId === parentNode.id)).toBe(
true,
);
expect(
result.updatedSituationGraph.edges.filter(
(edge) =>
result.childNodeIds.includes(edge.fromNodeId) &&
edge.toNodeId === parentNode.id &&
edge.relationship === "depends_on",
),
).toHaveLength(5);
});
it("reuses existing decomposition children instead of duplicating them", () => {
const { graph, proposal } = makeComparabilityUpdateFixture();
const firstResult = applyValidatedProposal({
situationGraph: graph,
proposal,
previousQuestion:
"Were these figures measured on the same basis and at the same scale?",
answer:
"Yes. Both figures cover the same accounting period and are taken from the same management accounts.",
});
expect(firstResult.success).toBe(true);
const secondResult = applyValidatedProposal({
situationGraph: graph,
proposal,
previousQuestion:
"Were these figures measured on the same basis and at the same scale?",
answer:
"Yes. Both figures cover the same accounting period and are taken from the same management accounts.",
});
expect(secondResult.success).toBe(true);
expect(secondResult.atomicityAssessment).toBe("composite");
const uniqueChildIds = new Set(firstResult.childNodeIds);
expect(uniqueChildIds.size).toBe(firstResult.childNodeIds.length);
expect(
secondResult.updatedSituationGraph.nodes.filter((node) =>
firstResult.childNodeIds.includes(node.id),
),
).toHaveLength(firstResult.childNodeIds.length);
});
});
tests/graph/atomicity-assessment.test.js
+118
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,118 @@
import { describe, expect, it } from "vitest";
import { assessUnknownAtomicity } from "@/lib/graph/question-formulator.js";
import { makeGraph, makeNode } from "@/lib/graph/schema.js";
function makeGraphWithUnknown(centralStatement, unknown, observations = []) {
return makeGraph({
centralStatement,
nodes: [unknown, ...observations],
edges: [],
activeUnknownNodeId: unknown.id,
resolvedNodeIds: [],
currentSummary: "Atomicity test graph",
});
}
describe("assessUnknownAtomicity", () => {
it("classifies denominator-style unknowns as atomic", () => {
const unknown = makeNode({
id: "n-denominator",
label: "Complaint rate denominator",
description:
"Need the denominator because it directly determines the complaint rate.",
kind: "unknown",
status: "unknown",
confidence: "high",
});
const result = assessUnknownAtomicity({
node: unknown,
graph: makeGraphWithUnknown(
"Production increased while complaints increased.",
unknown,
),
});
expect(result.atomicity).toBe("atomic");
expect(result.reason.toLowerCase()).toContain("directly");
});
it("classifies relationship explanation unknowns as composite", () => {
const unknown = makeNode({
id: "n-explanation",
label:
"Explanation for why revenue increased by 18%, but cash in the bank fell over the same period",
description:
"Need to understand what change or event could explain why these observations differ, because that is needed to investigate their relationship.",
kind: "unknown",
status: "unknown",
confidence: "medium",
});
const graph = makeGraphWithUnknown(
"Revenue increased by 18%, but cash in the bank fell over the same period.",
unknown,
[
makeNode({
id: "n-revenue",
label: "Revenue increased by 18%.",
description: "Revenue increased by 18%.",
kind: "observation",
status: "supported",
confidence: "high",
}),
makeNode({
id: "n-cash",
label: "Cash in the bank decreased over the same period.",
description: "Cash in the bank decreased over the same period.",
kind: "observation",
status: "supported",
confidence: "high",
}),
],
);
const result = assessUnknownAtomicity({ node: unknown, graph });
expect(result.atomicity).toBe("composite");
expect(result.decompositionKind).toBe("relationship_explanation");
});
it.each([
[
"Customer satisfaction rose, but complaints also rose.",
"Explanation for why customer satisfaction rose, but complaints also rose",
],
[
"Delivery time fell, but cancellations increased.",
"Possible causes of why delivery time fell, but cancellations increased",
],
[
"Traffic increased, but sales stayed flat.",
"Broad explanation for why traffic increased, but sales stayed flat",
],
[
"Production increased, but defects also increased.",
"Factors behind why production increased, but defects also increased",
],
])(
"classifies broad divergence unknowns as composite: %s",
(scenario, label) => {
const unknown = makeNode({
id: `n-${label.length}`,
label,
description: `${label} because the current unknown is too broad to ask directly.`,
kind: "unknown",
status: "unknown",
confidence: "medium",
});
const result = assessUnknownAtomicity({
node: unknown,
graph: makeGraphWithUnknown(scenario, unknown),
});
expect(result.atomicity).toBe("composite");
},
);
});
tests/graph/orchestrator.test.js
+7 -2
View File
@@ -1047,8 +1047,13 @@ describe("lib/graph/orchestrator startCase", () => {
relationshipAssessed: true,
resolvedReasoningNodeIds: ["reasoning:comparability"],
emergentReasoningNodeCreated: true,
atomicityAssessment: "composite",
decompositionPerformed: true,
childUnknownCount: 5,
});
expect(result.diagnostics.emergentReasoningNodeId).toBeTruthy();
expect(result.diagnostics.childNodeIds).toHaveLength(5);
expect(result.diagnostics.atomicityReason).toContain("Decomposed");
expect(result.diagnostics.emergentReasoningNodeReason).toContain(
"backed by the graph",
);
@@ -1080,8 +1085,8 @@ describe("lib/graph/orchestrator startCase", () => {
},
]);
expect(result.selectedQuestion?.nodeId).toBe(result.newActiveUnknownNodeId);
expect(result.selectedQuestion?.question).toMatch(
/^What changed during that period that could help explain why /,
expect(result.selectedQuestion?.question).toBe(
"What evidence would clarify timing or measurement basis?",
);
expect(result.selectedQuestion?.question.toLowerCase()).not.toMatch(
/same basis|dso|receivables|debtor days|working capital/,
tests/graph/question-formulator.test.js
+58
View File
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
import { describe, expect, it } from "vitest";
import {
assessUnknownAtomicity,
formulateQuestion,
formulateTieResolutionQuestion,
selectInvestigationStrategy,
@@ -18,6 +19,63 @@ function makeGraphFor(node, extra = {}) {
}
describe("formulateQuestion", () => {
it("atomicity assessment leaves focused unknowns direct and marks broad explanation unknowns composite", () => {
const atomicUnknown = makeNode({
id: "n-atomic",
label: "Complaint rate denominator",
description:
"Need the denominator because it directly determines the complaint rate.",
kind: "unknown",
status: "unknown",
confidence: "high",
});
const compositeUnknown = makeNode({
id: "n-composite",
label:
"Explanation for why revenue increased by 18%, but cash in the bank fell over the same period",
description:
"Need to understand what change or event could explain why these observations differ, because that is needed to investigate their relationship.",
kind: "unknown",
status: "unknown",
confidence: "medium",
});
const compositeGraph = makeGraphFor(compositeUnknown, {
centralStatement:
"Revenue increased by 18%, but cash in the bank fell over the same period.",
nodes: [
makeNode({
id: "n-revenue-observation",
label: "Revenue increased by 18%.",
description: "Revenue increased by 18%.",
kind: "observation",
status: "supported",
confidence: "high",
}),
makeNode({
id: "n-cash-observation",
label: "Cash in the bank decreased over the same period.",
description: "Cash in the bank decreased over the same period.",
kind: "observation",
status: "supported",
confidence: "high",
}),
],
});
expect(
assessUnknownAtomicity({
node: atomicUnknown,
graph: makeGraphFor(atomicUnknown),
}).atomicity,
).toBe("atomic");
expect(
assessUnknownAtomicity({
node: compositeUnknown,
graph: compositeGraph,
}).atomicity,
).toBe("composite");
});
it("commercial viability plus build decision produces a decision-threshold question", () => {
const unknown = makeNode({
id: "n-commercial",