reasoning: stop answer fidelity guard blocking valid unclassified answers

2026-08-09 19:55:35 +01:00
parent 7d94c6f73a
commit 4e4d0fa732
2 changed files with 207 additions and 3 deletions
@@ -1475,6 +1475,125 @@ describe("applyValidatedProposal", () => {
    );
  });

+  it("57A regression: a legitimate decision-advancing answer classified as other may resolve its intended unknown", () => {
+    const graph = makeCommercialUpdateFixture();
+    const parentId = graph.activeUnknownNodeId;
+
+    const result = applyValidatedProposal({
+      situationGraph: graph,
+      answer:
+        "We're looking at this mainly for cost reduction — roughly £2M annual savings on office overhead.",
+      previousQuestion:
+        "What problem would this need to solve to justify continuing development?",
+      proposal: {
+        addedNodes: [
+          makeNode({
+            id: "n-other-people-problem",
+            label: "Whether other people experience this problem",
+            description:
+              "Need to know whether other people experience this problem, because that must be established before deciding whether the problem is broadly important.",
+            kind: "unknown",
+            status: "unknown",
+            confidence: "medium",
+            parentId,
+          }),
+        ],
+        updatedNodes: [
+          {
+            nodeId: parentId,
+            previousStatus: "unknown",
+            newStatus: "resolved",
+            previousValue: null,
+            newValue:
+              "A concrete problem exists: reducing office overhead by roughly £2M annually is the main outcome being sought.",
+            reason:
+              "The answer directly states the practical decision-driving outcome the work is intended to achieve.",
+          },
+        ],
+        addedEdges: [
+          makeEdge({
+            id: "e-commercial-parent-other-people-problem",
+            fromNodeId: parentId,
+            toNodeId: "n-other-people-problem",
+            relationship: "depends_on",
+            confidence: "medium",
+            description:
+              "After establishing the concrete problem in the current context, the next unknown is whether it also exists for other people.",
+          }),
+        ],
+        removedEdgeIds: [],
+        resolvedUnknownNodeIds: [parentId],
+        affectedNodeIds: [],
+        selectedQuestion: {
+          nodeId: "n-other-people-problem",
+          question:
+            "What makes you think other people experience this problem too?",
+          reason:
+            "The answer establishes the problem in this case; the next consequential unknown is whether it generalises beyond this case.",
+        },
+        answerMeaning: {
+          userSupportedMeaning:
+            "The main reason for considering this is cost reduction, specifically about £2M in annual office-overhead savings.",
+          possibleInference:
+            "If those savings are real and recurring, that could make the problem commercially important.",
+          supportCategory: "other",
+          resolutionGuidance: null,
+        },
+      },
+    });
+
+    expect(result.success).toBe(true);
+    expect(result.updatedSituationGraph.resolvedNodeIds).toContain(parentId);
+    expect(result.stage).toBeUndefined();
+  });
+
+  it("unsafe unclassified answer: other is not automatically trusted when the proposal adds stronger unsupported meaning", () => {
+    const graph = makeCommercialUpdateFixture();
+    const parentId = graph.activeUnknownNodeId;
+
+    const result = applyValidatedProposal({
+      situationGraph: graph,
+      answer:
+        "We're looking at this mainly for cost reduction — roughly £2M annual savings on office overhead.",
+      previousQuestion:
+        "What problem would this need to solve to justify continuing development?",
+      proposal: {
+        addedNodes: [],
+        updatedNodes: [
+          {
+            nodeId: parentId,
+            previousStatus: "unknown",
+            newStatus: "resolved",
+            previousValue: null,
+            newValue:
+              "There is proven broad market demand for a product that delivers these savings.",
+            reason:
+              "The answer was treated as establishing commercial demand rather than only the user's own cost-reduction goal.",
+          },
+        ],
+        addedEdges: [],
+        removedEdgeIds: [],
+        resolvedUnknownNodeIds: [parentId],
+        affectedNodeIds: [],
+        selectedQuestion: null,
+        answerMeaning: {
+          userSupportedMeaning:
+            "There is proven broad market demand for a product that delivers these savings.",
+          possibleInference:
+            "The savings target could imply broader applicability if others share similar overhead pressures.",
+          supportCategory: "other",
+          resolutionGuidance: null,
+        },
+      },
+    });
+
+    expect(result.success).toBe(false);
+    expect(result.stage).toBe("proposal_compatibility");
+    expect(result.errors.join(" ")).toContain(
+      "unsupported meaning beyond what the raw answer itself states",
+    );
+  });
+
  it("Regression C: rejects unresolved uncertainty being treated as resolved", () => {
    const { graph, riskUnknownId } = makeRiskClarificationFixture();

@@ -1690,7 +1809,7 @@ describe("applyValidatedProposal", () => {
    expect(result.success).toBe(false);
    expect(result.stage).toBe("proposal_compatibility");
    expect(result.errors.join(" ")).toContain(
-      "does not clearly establish one of the protected reasoning categories",
+      "unsupported constraint or preference/trade-off distinction",
    );
  });