test(confidence-engine): checkpoint focused deconstruction regression cases

2026-08-26 07:34:22 +01:00
parent 112739b8e5
commit 3ca37b0918
1 changed files with 152 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,152 @@
+export const FOCUSED_DECONSTRUCT_REGRESSION_CASES = [
+  {
+    id: "nearest-frontier-wins",
+    centralStatement:
+      "I need to understand what currently prevents more operational responsibility moving away from me.",
+    targetLabel: "Team capability constraints on task handoff boundaries",
+    targetDescription:
+      "Which routine work is already handled independently and what still causes work to return to the owner.",
+    question:
+      "What was the comparable state before team capability constraints on task handoff boundaries?",
+    answer:
+      "She hasn't had any formal training in this area, but she already handles the weekly supplier payments herself and has done that without me checking them for the last six months. She still brings failed payments or anything unusual to me.",
+    manualReviewCriteria:
+      `Must preserve the stated payment facts without strengthening them.
+
+Nearest frontier is the distinction between routine payments and failed/unusual payments that return to the user.
+
+Must not jump first to:
+other tasks
+broader delegation
+transferability
+future staffing
+
+Exactly one uncertainty.
+Exactly one follow-up question.`,
+  },
+  {
+    id: "no-genuine-assumption",
+    centralStatement:
+      "I am trying to understand whether there is evidence of duplicate supplier payments.",
+    targetLabel: "Evidence of duplicate supplier payments",
+    targetDescription:
+      "What the available transaction evidence currently establishes.",
+    question: "What have you checked so far?",
+    answer: "I reviewed the last six months of transaction logs and didn't find any duplicate payments.",
+    manualReviewCriteria:
+      `Observation must preserve exactly what was checked and what was not found.
+
+Must not invent assumptions about:
+the logs being complete
+the review being perfect
+duplicates being impossible
+the payment process being reliable
+
+assumptions should be [] unless the production model identifies something genuinely required by the answer's meaning.
+
+Exactly one nearest uncertainty.
+Exactly one next question.`,
+  },
+  {
+    id: "genuine-evidence-sufficiency-assumption",
+    centralStatement:
+      "I need to understand where responsibility can safely move away from me without creating unacceptable operational risk.",
+    targetLabel: "Team capability constraints on task handoff boundaries",
+    targetDescription:
+      "Which payment responsibilities can be handled independently and what currently limits further handoff.",
+    question: "Why do you still review supplier payments over £10,000 yourself?",
+    answer: "Because she's only ever handled the normal weekly payments, which are usually under £2,000.",
+    manualReviewCriteria:
+      `A genuine implicit reasoning dependency exists:
+
+her lower-value experience is not yet sufficient evidence, by itself, for handing over the higher-value payments.
+
+Exact wording need not match.
+
+Must not strengthen into:
+she is incapable
+large payments are inherently unsafe
+formal training is required
+senior approval is mandatory
+
+Exactly one nearest uncertainty.
+Exactly one next question.`,
+  },
+  {
+    id: "juxtaposition-must-not-create-link",
+    centralStatement:
+      "I am collecting the facts that changed this week before deciding what matters.",
+    targetLabel: "Recent project changes",
+    targetDescription:
+      "Facts that changed recently without assuming how they relate.",
+    question: "What changed this week?",
+    answer: "The vendor quoted £50,000. We have three weeks left for approval.",
+    manualReviewCriteria:
+      `Both facts must be preserved.
+
+Must not automatically assert:
+the £50,000 quote caused the three-week constraint
+the approval deadline is caused by cost
+the project is unaffordable
+the vendor quote threatens approval
+
+Co-occurrence alone must not become a relationship or user-held assumption.
+
+Exactly one uncertainty.
+Exactly one next question.`,
+  },
+  {
+    id: "tentative-observation-fidelity",
+    centralStatement:
+      "I am trying to understand whether the delivery timeline is genuinely at risk.",
+    targetLabel: "Timeline risk",
+    targetDescription:
+      "What is known and uncertain about whether cost changes could affect timing.",
+    question: "What makes you think the timeline might need to change?",
+    answer: "I'm not certain, but I think we might need to reconsider the timeline if costs go up.",
+    manualReviewCriteria:
+      `Must preserve:
+uncertainty
+conditional language
+tentative stance
+
+Must not turn this into:
+costs will rise
+the timeline will change
+cost increases cause delay
+
+Subjective/tentative meaning must not become objective fact.
+
+Exactly one nearest uncertainty.
+Exactly one next question.`,
+  },
+  {
+    id: "genuine-dependency-frontier",
+    centralStatement:
+      "I need to understand which operational responsibilities still depend directly on me and why.",
+    targetLabel: "Payment approval dependency on owner access",
+    targetDescription:
+      "Why supplier payments cannot currently be completed when the owner is unavailable.",
+    question: "Why do supplier payments have to wait until you are available?",
+    answer: "Because the banking approval token is linked only to my login.",
+    manualReviewCriteria:
+      `Direct observation:
+token is linked only to the user's login.
+
+Genuine implicit dependency:
+payment completion requires access to that token.
+
+Must not strengthen into:
+only the owner can ever approve
+bank policy prohibits delegation
+another login cannot be authorised
+the dependency is permanent
+the team lacks capability
+
+Nearest frontier:
+whether token access itself is the actual blocker or whether another requirement also exists.
+
+Exactly one uncertainty.
+Exactly one next question.`,
+  },
+];