refine answerMeaning contract around user-supported meaning

2026-08-09 08:50:37 +01:00
parent 869afee1ab
commit 7965375aff
8 changed files with 208 additions and 57 deletions
@@ -1123,7 +1123,7 @@ describe("applyValidatedProposal", () => {
    expect(result.errors.join(" ")).toContain("conditional qualification");
  });

-  it("accepts equivalent conditional category labels and still applies the existing Regression B guard", () => {
+  it("accepts the Experiment 56A supportCategory wording variant and still applies the existing Regression B guard", () => {
    const { graph, riskUnknownId } = makeRiskClarificationFixture();

    const result = applyValidatedProposal({
@@ -1156,8 +1156,53 @@ describe("applyValidatedProposal", () => {
            "The user would normally avoid more risk, but for the right opportunity might accept some.",
          possibleInference:
            "This may support eventual clarification, but the qualifying condition remains material.",
-          supportCategory: "conditional_tradeoff",
-          resolutionGuidance: "may_resolve",
+          supportCategory: "conditional_qualification",
+          resolutionGuidance: "may resolve once the condition is clarified",
+        },
+      },
+    });
+
+    expect(result.success).toBe(false);
+    expect(result.stage).toBe("proposal_compatibility");
+    expect(result.errors.join(" ")).toContain("conditional qualification");
+  });
+
+  it("accepts the Experiment 56B live wording variants and still applies the existing Regression B guard", () => {
+    const { graph, riskUnknownId } = makeRiskClarificationFixture();
+
+    const result = applyValidatedProposal({
+      situationGraph: graph,
+      answer:
+        "I'd normally avoid more risk, but for the right opportunity I might accept some.",
+      previousQuestion:
+        "Is avoiding additional risk a hard constraint or a preference/trade-off?",
+      proposal: {
+        addedNodes: [],
+        updatedNodes: [
+          {
+            nodeId: riskUnknownId,
+            previousStatus: "unknown",
+            newStatus: "resolved",
+            previousValue: null,
+            newValue:
+              "Avoiding additional risk is a preference or trade-off rather than a hard constraint.",
+            reason:
+              "The answer shows a preference or trade-off rather than a hard constraint.",
+          },
+        ],
+        addedEdges: [],
+        removedEdgeIds: [],
+        resolvedUnknownNodeIds: [riskUnknownId],
+        affectedNodeIds: [],
+        selectedQuestion: null,
+        answerMeaning: {
+          userSupportedMeaning:
+            "The user would normally avoid more risk, but for the right opportunity might accept some.",
+          possibleInference:
+            "This may support eventual clarification, but the qualifying condition remains material.",
+          supportCategory: "conditional_preference",
+          resolutionGuidance:
+            "Identify and quantify the threshold conditions that trigger risk acceptance.",
        },
      },
    });
@@ -1296,6 +1341,50 @@ describe("applyValidatedProposal", () => {
    );
  });

+  it("fails safely when answerMeaning does not clearly establish one of the protected categories", () => {
+    const { graph, riskUnknownId } = makeRiskClarificationFixture();
+
+    const result = applyValidatedProposal({
+      situationGraph: graph,
+      answer: "Risk and growth are both important.",
+      previousQuestion:
+        "Is avoiding additional risk a hard constraint or a preference/trade-off?",
+      proposal: {
+        addedNodes: [],
+        updatedNodes: [
+          {
+            nodeId: riskUnknownId,
+            previousStatus: "unknown",
+            newStatus: "resolved",
+            previousValue: null,
+            newValue:
+              "Avoiding additional risk is a preference rather than a hard constraint.",
+            reason:
+              "The answer was interpreted as a balanced trade-off with no hard constraint.",
+          },
+        ],
+        addedEdges: [],
+        removedEdgeIds: [],
+        resolvedUnknownNodeIds: [riskUnknownId],
+        affectedNodeIds: [],
+        selectedQuestion: null,
+        answerMeaning: {
+          userSupportedMeaning: "Risk and growth are both important.",
+          possibleInference:
+            "The user may be describing a broad balance, but no constraint boundary is established.",
+          supportCategory: "constraint_preference_mix",
+          resolutionGuidance: "needs more nuance",
+        },
+      },
+    });
+
+    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",
+    );
+  });
+
  it("active unknown matches selected question node", () => {
    const { graph, ids } = makeApplicationFixture();