reasoning: suppress explanation question without relationship structure

2026-08-10 10:17:35 +01:00
parent 1a31949a48
commit 4c5666dfb3
3 changed files with 184 additions and 1 deletions
@@ -279,4 +279,122 @@ describe("reasoning-pattern validation", () => {
    expect(result.selectedQuestion?.nodeId).not.toBe("n-incompatible-child");
    expect(result.selectedQuestion?.reasoningPattern).toBe("decision");
  });
+
+  it("preserves potentially_related with questionRequired=true for meaningful shared structure", () => {
+    // Two observations sharing "revenue" concept, both with known direction ("up").
+    // With confirmed comparability (via stored state), condition 2 triggers:
+    // sharedConcepts.size > 0 && all directions known → potentially_related
+    const graph = makeGraph({
+      centralStatement: "Revenue increased. Revenue doubled.",
+      nodes: [
+        makeNode({
+          id: "n-revenue-1",
+          label: "Revenue increased.",
+          description: "Revenue increased.",
+          kind: "observation",
+          status: "supported",
+          confidence: "high",
+        }),
+        makeNode({
+          id: "n-revenue-2",
+          label: "Revenue doubled.",
+          description: "Revenue doubled.",
+          kind: "observation",
+          status: "supported",
+          confidence: "high",
+        }),
+      ],
+      edges: [],
+      activeUnknownNodeId: null,
+      resolvedNodeIds: [],
+      currentSummary: "Potentially related regression fixture",
+      reasoningState: {
+        comparabilityStatus: "confirmed",
+        comparabilityReason: "Stored from earlier assessment.",
+        comparabilityEvidence: [],
+        relationshipStatus: "potentially_related",
+        relationshipReason: "Observations concern the same subject but do not assert a direct contradiction.",
+        relationshipAssessed: true,
+        contradictionReasoningAllowed: false,
+        reasoningStages: [
+          { stage: "comparability", status: "confirmed", outcome: "Stored." },
+        ],
+      },
+    });
+
+    const relationship = classifyObservationRelationship(graph);
+
+    expect(relationship.relationshipStatus).toBe("potentially_related");
+    expect(relationship.questionRequired).toBe(true);
+
+    const result = applyValidatedProposal({
+      situationGraph: graph,
+      proposal: {
+        addedNodes: [],
+        updatedNodes: [
+          {
+            nodeId: "n-revenue-2",
+            previousStatus: "supported",
+            newStatus: "resolved",
+            previousValue: null,
+            newValue: "Revenue doubled confirmed by accounts.",
+            reason: "Regression test update.",
+          },
+        ],
+        addedEdges: [],
+        removedEdgeIds: [],
+        resolvedUnknownNodeIds: [],
+        affectedNodeIds: [],
+        selectedQuestion: null,
+      },
+    });
+
+    expect(result.success).toBe(true);
+  });
+
+  it("preserves contradiction with questionRequired=true for genuinely opposing observations", () => {
+    const graph = makeGraph({
+      centralStatement:
+        "The service was reported as available throughout the hour and unavailable throughout the same hour.",
+      nodes: [
+        makeNode({
+          id: "n-available",
+          label: "The service was available throughout the hour.",
+          description: "The service was available throughout the hour.",
+          kind: "observation",
+          status: "supported",
+          confidence: "high",
+        }),
+        makeNode({
+          id: "n-unavailable",
+          label: "The service was unavailable throughout the same hour.",
+          description: "The service was unavailable throughout the same hour.",
+          kind: "observation",
+          status: "supported",
+          confidence: "high",
+        }),
+      ],
+      edges: [],
+      activeUnknownNodeId: null,
+      resolvedNodeIds: [],
+      currentSummary: "Contradiction regression fixture",
+      reasoningState: {
+        comparabilityStatus: "confirmed",
+        comparabilityReason: "Stored from earlier assessment.",
+        comparabilityEvidence: [],
+        relationshipStatus: "contradictory",
+        relationshipReason: "The observations assert mutually incompatible states about the same subject.",
+        relationshipAssessed: true,
+        contradictionReasoningAllowed: true,
+        reasoningStages: [
+          { stage: "comparability", status: "confirmed", outcome: "Stored." },
+        ],
+      },
+    });
+
+    const relationship = classifyObservationRelationship(graph);
+
+    expect(relationship.relationshipStatus).toBe("contradictory");
+    expect(relationship.questionRequired).toBe(true);
+  });
 });