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

docs(confidence-engine): define finding graph reasoning contract

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
robbond
2026-08-26 14:28:33 +01:00
parent ac5fbe7896
commit 10aa18d367
1 changed files with 48 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
docs/current-handoff.md
+48
View File
@@ -474,3 +474,51 @@ focused contribution
### Decision: FINDINGS-DOMAIN-MODEL-JUSTIFIED ### Decision: FINDINGS-DOMAIN-MODEL-JUSTIFIED
The distinction is clearly useful enough that focused→global integration should be designed around findings/provenance rather than raw turn outputs. The semantic gap between "what one answer contributed" and "what the investigation has found so far" is real and material. The distinction is clearly useful enough that focused→global integration should be designed around findings/provenance rather than raw turn outputs. The semantic gap between "what one answer contributed" and "what the investigation has found so far" is real and material.
---
## Finding ↔ SituationGraph Reasoning Contract — August 2026
1. **Finding is a separate durable reasoning entity.** It is not itself a SituationGraph node.
2. **Finding ↔ graph relationship is conceptually many-to-many.** One Finding may support/challenge multiple graph propositions. Multiple Findings may support/challenge one graph proposition.
3. **Findings do not directly mutate the SituationGraph.** They are evidence carriers, not graph mutation agents.
4. **case/update remains authoritative for:**
- graph node creation/update
- resolving/reopening unknowns
- graph confidence/status changes
- activeUnknownNodeId
- selectedQuestion
- Current Understanding
5. **Trust model:** focused reasoning proposes Findings/evidence → user disposition affects standing → case/update independently evaluates → authoritative graph changes happen only through case/update.
6. **User dispositions** (Agree / Not quite / Not relevant) are semantic signals that INFORM global reasoning. They do not directly bind graph truth.
7. **Finding status and graph node status remain separate concepts.** One does not dictate the other.
8. **Relevance and confidence remain separate dimensions.** A Finding can be high-confidence but low-relevance, or vice versa.
9. **Low-relevance Findings may remain in provenance/evidence** without affecting active investigation priority.
10. **Findings may be reopened** when later evidence changes their relevance or standing.
11. **Current Understanding should ultimately be reconstructed** by case/update from globally eligible Findings + graph state, not directly from the latest focused result.
12. **Findings may influence but do not own:** active frontier, selectedQuestion. Only case/update sets these.
13. **Raw focused fields must not be blindly copied into graph mutations.** Case/update evaluates accumulated evidence through authoritative reasoning paths (reconciliation, branch interaction analysis, decision closure protection).
14. **Minimum conceptual handoff object is approximately:** Finding + disposition + provenance + relevance/standing + graph anchor. API/schema design is NOT yet settled.
### Unresolved implementation choices
- Finding schema
- Finding IDs
- contribution↔Finding mapping/clustering
- confidence representation/scoring
- reopening triggers
- exact focused→global API/payload shape
- UI presentation of Finding dispositions