feat(confidence-engine): preserve initial reconstruction relationships

tests/v03-reasoning.test.js

@@ -25,9 +25,9 @@ describe("v0.3 prompt", () => {
     expect(PROMPT_VERSIONS).toContain("v0.3");
   });
 
-  it("DEFAULT_PROMPT_VERSION was v0.3 on earlier branches (now v0.4)", () => {
-    // This test documents that the old default was v0.3; the new default is v0.4
-    expect(["v0.3", "v0.4"]).toContain(DEFAULT_PROMPT_VERSION);
+  it("DEFAULT_PROMPT_VERSION was v0.3 on earlier branches (now v0.5)", () => {
+    // This test documents that the old default was v0.3; the new default is v0.5
+    expect(["v0.3", "v0.4", "v0.5"]).toContain(DEFAULT_PROMPT_VERSION);
   });
 
   it("v0.2 remains available in PROMPT_VERSIONS", () => {
@@ -201,6 +201,45 @@ describe("v0.2 backward compatibility", () => {
   });
 });
 
+describe("v0.5 prompt", () => {
+  it("is the production default", async () => {
+    const result = await buildPrompt("Default prompt scenario");
+
+    expect(DEFAULT_PROMPT_VERSION).toBe("v0.5");
+    expect(PROMPT_VERSIONS).toContain("v0.5");
+    expect(result.version).toBe("v0.5");
+    expect(result.prompt).toContain("Default prompt scenario");
+  });
+
+  it("keeps explicit v0.4 unchanged", async () => {
+    const result = await buildPrompt("Explicit v0.4 scenario", "v0.4");
+
+    expect(result.version).toBe("v0.4");
+    expect(result.prompt).toContain(
+      "with no dedicated schema field MUST be preserved explicitly in summary",
+    );
+  });
+
+  it("loads the v0.5 relationship contract", async () => {
+    const result = await buildPrompt("Explicit v0.5 scenario", "v0.5");
+
+    expect(result.version).toBe("v0.5");
+    expect(result.prompt).toContain("reconstruction.relationships");
+    expect(result.prompt).toContain("fromId");
+    expect(result.prompt).toContain("toId");
+    expect(result.prompt).toContain("MUST reference IDs of semantic units");
+  });
+
+  it("retains the provenance stop boundary and interpretation separation", async () => {
+    const { prompt } = await buildPrompt("Contract retention scenario", "v0.5");
+
+    expect(prompt).toContain("Explicit stop boundary for decomposition");
+    expect(prompt).toContain("Once the supplied meaning");
+    expect(prompt).toContain("Interpretation discipline");
+    expect(prompt).toContain("plausibleInterpretations");
+  });
+});
+
 // ──────────────────────────────────────────────
 // Schema validation tests for v0.3-shaped output
 // ──────────────────────────────────────────────
@@ -344,6 +383,90 @@ describe("v0.3 schema validation", () => {
 
     const result = reconstructionV2Schema.safeParse(input);
     expect(result.success).toBe(true);
+    expect(result.data.reconstruction.relationships).toEqual([]);
+  });
+
+  it("parses a valid reconstruction relationship", () => {
+    const input = {
+      inputClassification: {
+        primaryType: "decision_request",
+        classificationReason: "test",
+        confidence: "medium",
+      },
+      reconstruction: {
+        summary: "Decision depends on an unresolved quality question.",
+        actors: [],
+        systemsOrObjects: [],
+        expectedStates: [],
+        observedStates: [],
+        differences: [],
+        knownTransitions: [],
+        unexplainedTransitions: [],
+        contradictions: [],
+        importantUnknowns: [
+          { id: "u1", description: "Whether a quality problem exists", confidence: "high" },
+          { id: "u2", description: "Whether inspection is appropriate", confidence: "high" },
+        ],
+        plausibleInterpretations: [],
+        relationships: [
+          {
+            id: "r1",
+            fromId: "u2",
+            toId: "u1",
+            relationship: "depends_on",
+            description: "Inspection appropriateness depends on the quality problem.",
+            confidence: "high",
+          },
+        ],
+      },
+      evidence: [],
+      nextQuestion: {
+        id: "q1",
+        question: "What evidence establishes the quality problem?",
+        targets: ["u1"],
+        reason: "need evidence",
+        expectedInformationValue: "high",
+      },
+    };
+
+    const result = reconstructionV2Schema.safeParse(input);
+    expect(result.success).toBe(true);
+    expect(result.data.reconstruction.relationships).toEqual(input.reconstruction.relationships);
+  });
+
+  it("rejects invalid reconstruction relationship enums and missing endpoints", () => {
+    const validRelationship = {
+      id: "r1",
+      fromId: "u2",
+      toId: "u1",
+      relationship: "depends_on",
+      description: "u2 depends on u1",
+      confidence: "high",
+    };
+    const base = {
+      inputClassification: { primaryType: "other", classificationReason: "test", confidence: "low" },
+      reconstruction: {
+        summary: "test",
+        actors: [], systemsOrObjects: [], expectedStates: [], observedStates: [], differences: [],
+        knownTransitions: [], unexplainedTransitions: [], contradictions: [], importantUnknowns: [],
+        plausibleInterpretations: [], relationships: [validRelationship],
+      },
+      evidence: [],
+      nextQuestion: { id: "q1", question: "What next?", targets: [], reason: "test", expectedInformationValue: "low" },
+    };
+
+    expect(reconstructionV2Schema.safeParse({
+      ...base,
+      reconstruction: { ...base.reconstruction, relationships: [{ ...validRelationship, relationship: "updates" }] },
+    }).success).toBe(false);
+    expect(reconstructionV2Schema.safeParse({
+      ...base,
+      reconstruction: { ...base.reconstruction, relationships: [{ ...validRelationship, fromId: undefined }] },
+    }).success).toBe(false);
+    expect(reconstructionV2Schema.safeParse({
+      ...base,
+      reconstruction: { ...base.reconstruction, relationships: [{ ...validRelationship, toId: undefined }] },
+    }).success).toBe(false);
   });
 
   it("validates evidence distinguishing direct_observation from inferred_relationship", () => {
@@ -676,8 +799,8 @@ describe("target scenario fixture validation", () => {
 
 describe("diagnostics prompt version", () => {
   it("DEFAULT_PROMPT_VERSION is exported correctly", () => {
-    // The current default is v0.4 (was v0.3)
-    expect(["v0.3", "v0.4"]).toContain(DEFAULT_PROMPT_VERSION);
+    // The current default is v0.5 (was v0.3)
+    expect(["v0.3", "v0.4", "v0.5"]).toContain(DEFAULT_PROMPT_VERSION);
   });
 
   it("PROMPT_VERSIONS includes both v0.2 and v0.3", () => {
@@ -801,8 +924,8 @@ describe("Finding disposition toggle — state machine", () => {
 // ──────────────────────────────────────────────
 
 describe("v0.4 prompt", () => {
-  it("DEFAULT_PROMPT_VERSION is v0.4 on this branch", () => {
-    expect(DEFAULT_PROMPT_VERSION).toBe("v0.4");
+  it("DEFAULT_PROMPT_VERSION is v0.5 on this branch", () => {
+    expect(DEFAULT_PROMPT_VERSION).toBe("v0.5");
   });
 
   it("v0.4 is in PROMPT_VERSIONS", () => {
@@ -879,12 +1002,12 @@ describe("v0.4 prompt", () => {
     expect(result.prompt).toMatch(/exactly.*one.*question|Do NOT combine/i);
   });
 
-  it("default buildPrompt (no version arg) resolves to v0.4", async () => {
+  it("default buildPrompt (no version arg) resolves to v0.5", async () => {
     const result = await buildPrompt("Default version test");
     expect(result.version).toBe(DEFAULT_PROMPT_VERSION);
-    expect(DEFAULT_PROMPT_VERSION).toBe("v0.4");
+    expect(DEFAULT_PROMPT_VERSION).toBe("v0.5");
     // Should not contain v0.3 schema-specific differences array (it does have it)
-    // but the prompt should be from the v0.4 file which has the stop boundary text
+    // but the prompt should be from the v0.5 file which has the stop boundary text
     expect(result.prompt.toLowerCase()).toMatch(/stop|explicit.*stop/);
   });
 });