fix(reasoning): ask for missing sufficiency confirmation

2026-08-14 18:01:27 +01:00
parent c335bf0a9a
commit 8311a176a5
2 changed files with 289 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
+import {
+  hasRemainingMaterialFactors,
+  isUserConfirmationOfNoRemainingUncertainty,
+} from "./decision-sufficiency.js";
+
 function normaliseText(value) {
  return String(value || "")
    .toLowerCase()
@@ -1997,6 +2002,42 @@ export function formulateQuestion({ node, graph, context = {} }) {
    };
  }

+  // ── State B: unresolved decision with zero remaining factors but
+  //     no explicit sufficiency confirmation yet ────────────────
+  // Detected transiently from existing state; no persisted field required.
+  if (
+    reasoningPatternSelection.pattern === "decision" &&
+    node.kind !== "unknown" &&
+    node.status !== "known" &&
+    node.status !== "resolved" &&
+    node.status !== "contradicted" &&
+    hasRemainingMaterialFactors(node.id, graph) === false
+  ) {
+    const resolved = context.resolvedValues || [];
+    const hasConfirmation = resolved.some((v) =>
+      isUserConfirmationOfNoRemainingUncertainty(v),
+    );
+
+    if (!hasConfirmation) {
+      return {
+        question:
+          "Is there anything else material that could change which option is better?",
+        reason:
+          "All represented material factors are resolved but explicit sufficiency confirmation has not yet been provided.",
+        strategy: null,
+        investigationStrategy: null,
+        reasoningPattern: reasoningPatternSelection.pattern,
+        reasoningPatternReason: reasoningPatternSelection.reason,
+        questionFamily: "decision_threshold",
+        allowedQuestionFamilies,
+        rejectedQuestionFamilies,
+        selectedQuestionTemplate: "decision_threshold_sufficiency_confirmation",
+        questionComplexity: null,
+        plainLanguageNormalisations: [],
+      };
+    }
+  }
+
  const investigationStrategy = selectInvestigationStrategy({
    node,
    graph,
@@ -7,6 +7,10 @@ import {
  selectInvestigationStrategy,
 } from "@/lib/graph/question-formulator.js";
 import { makeEdge, makeGraph, makeNode } from "@/lib/graph/schema.js";
+import {
+  hasRemainingMaterialFactors,
+  isUserConfirmationOfNoRemainingUncertainty,
+} from "@/lib/graph/decision-sufficiency.js";

 function makeGraphFor(node, extra = {}) {
  return makeGraph({
@@ -1093,4 +1097,248 @@ describe("formulateQuestion", () => {

    expect(unknown.description).toBe(description);
  });
+
+  // ── 60B.73 — missing sufficiency confirmation question ──────────
+
+  it("60B.73 Test 1 — exact State B gets sufficiency question", () => {
+    const decision = makeNode({
+      id: "n_product_launch_decision",
+      label: "Whether to launch product X",
+      description: "Launch vs not launch decision for product X.",
+      kind: "state",
+      status: "unknown",
+      confidence: "medium",
+      childIds: [],
+    });
+
+    const graph = makeGraphFor(decision, {
+      nodes: [],
+      edges: [],
+    });
+
+    const result = formulateQuestion({
+      node: decision,
+      graph,
+      context: { resolvedValues: [] },
+    });
+
+    // Decision identity preserved
+    expect(result.questionFamily).toBe("decision_threshold");
+    expect(result.selectedQuestionTemplate).toBe(
+      "decision_threshold_sufficiency_confirmation",
+    );
+    // Generic threshold wording ABSENT
+    expect(result.question).not.toContain("What outcome would demonstrate enough value");
+    expect(result.question.toLowerCase()).not.toContain("what outcome would be sufficient to justify this decision");
+  });
+
+  it("60B.73 Test 2 — question allows missing-factor discovery", () => {
+    const decision = makeNode({
+      id: "n_product_launch_decision",
+      label: "Whether to launch product X",
+      description: "Launch vs not launch decision for product X.",
+      kind: "state",
+      status: "unknown",
+      confidence: "medium",
+    });
+
+    const graph = makeGraphFor(decision, { nodes: [], edges: [] });
+
+    const result = formulateQuestion({
+      node: decision,
+      graph,
+      context: { resolvedValues: [] },
+    });
+
+    // Open enough to support: "Yes — customer implementation capacity is still uncertain."
+    expect(result.question).toContain("anything else material");
+    expect(result.question).toContain("could change which option is better");
+  });
+
+  it("60B.73 Test 3 — genuine remaining factor preserves existing path", () => {
+    const factor = makeNode({
+      id: "n_customer_readiness",
+      label: "Customer readiness level",
+      description: "How ready the customer is to adopt.",
+      kind: "unknown",
+      status: "unknown",
+      confidence: "medium",
+      parentId: "n_product_launch_decision",
+    });
+
+    const decision = makeNode({
+      id: "n_product_launch_decision",
+      label: "Whether to launch product X",
+      description: "Launch vs not launch decision.",
+      kind: "state",
+      status: "unknown",
+      confidence: "medium",
+      childIds: [factor.id],
+    });
+
+    const graph = makeGraphFor(factor, {
+      nodes: [decision],
+      edges: [],
+    });
+
+    // Verify factor is genuinely unresolved
+    expect(hasRemainingMaterialFactors(decision.id, graph)).toBe(true);
+
+    const result = formulateQuestion({
+      node: decision,
+      graph,
+      context: { resolvedValues: [] },
+    });
+
+    // Should NOT select sufficiency template — normal path preserved
+    expect(result.selectedQuestionTemplate).not.toBe(
+      "decision_threshold_sufficiency_confirmation",
+    );
+  });
+
+  it("60B.73 Test 4 — explicit sufficiency confirmation preserves closure/no-question path", () => {
+    const decision = makeNode({
+      id: "n_product_launch_decision",
+      label: "Whether to launch product X",
+      description: "Launch vs not launch decision.",
+      kind: "state",
+      status: "unknown",
+      confidence: "medium",
+    });
+
+    const graph = makeGraphFor(decision, { nodes: [], edges: [] });
+
+    const result = formulateQuestion({
+      node: decision,
+      graph,
+      context: {
+        resolvedValues: ["no other material uncertainty remains"],
+      },
+    });
+
+    // Should NOT select sufficiency template — confirmation present → normal path
+    expect(result.selectedQuestionTemplate).not.toBe(
+      "decision_threshold_sufficiency_confirmation",
+    );
+  });
+
+  it("60B.73 Test 5 — non-decision unknown unchanged", () => {
+    const unknown = makeNode({
+      id: "n_evidence_unknown",
+      label: "Evidence of demand",
+      description: "Need evidence of demand.",
+      kind: "unknown",
+      status: "unknown",
+      confidence: "medium",
+    });
+
+    const graph = makeGraphFor(unknown);
+
+    const result = formulateQuestion({
+      node: unknown,
+      graph,
+    });
+
+    // Should NOT be sufficiency confirmation — normal path
+    expect(result.selectedQuestionTemplate).not.toBe(
+      "decision_threshold_sufficiency_confirmation",
+    );
+  });
+
+  it("60B.73 Test 6 — ordinary decision_threshold preserved for genuine threshold cases", () => {
+    const unknown = makeNode({
+      id: "n-commercial",
+      label: "Uncertainty regarding the commercial value of the product",
+      description:
+        "Commercial justification remains unclear because the decision depends on it.",
+      kind: "unknown",
+      status: "unknown",
+      confidence: "high",
+      parentId: "n-decision",
+    });
+
+    const decision = makeNode({
+      id: "n-decision",
+      label: "Build decision",
+      description: "Decision introduced by the answer.",
+      kind: "state",
+      status: "known",
+      confidence: "medium",
+      childIds: [unknown.id],
+      value: "Deciding whether to build the product",
+    });
+
+    const graph = makeGraphFor(unknown, {
+      nodes: [decision],
+      resolvedNodeIds: [decision.id],
+    });
+
+    const result = formulateQuestion({ node: unknown, graph });
+
+    // Should still produce decision_threshold (the normal path for unknown factors)
+    expect(result.questionFamily).toBe("decision_threshold");
+  });
+
+  it("60B.73 Test 7 — resolved factor remains resolved", () => {
+    const factor = makeNode({
+      id: "n_customer_readiness",
+      label: "Customer readiness confirmed",
+      description: "Ready to adopt.",
+      kind: "unknown",
+      status: "resolved",
+      confidence: "high",
+      parentId: "n_product_launch_decision",
+    });
+
+    const decision = makeNode({
+      id: "n_product_launch_decision",
+      label: "Whether to launch product X",
+      description: "Launch vs not launch decision.",
+      kind: "state",
+      status: "unknown",
+      confidence: "medium",
+      childIds: [factor.id],
+    });
+
+    const graph = makeGraphFor(factor, {
+      nodes: [decision],
+      edges: [],
+    });
+
+    // Verified: zero remaining factors (factor is resolved)
+    expect(hasRemainingMaterialFactors(decision.id, graph)).toBe(false);
+
+    const result = formulateQuestion({
+      node: decision,
+      graph,
+      context: { resolvedValues: [] },
+    });
+
+    // Should get sufficiency confirmation (State B — no remaining factors, no confirmation)
+    expect(result.selectedQuestionTemplate).toBe(
+      "decision_threshold_sufficiency_confirmation",
+    );
+  });
+
+  it("60B.73 Test 8 — same decision identity preserved", () => {
+    const decision = makeNode({
+      id: "n_product_launch_decision",
+      label: "Whether to launch product X",
+      description: "Launch vs not launch decision.",
+      kind: "state",
+      status: "unknown",
+      confidence: "medium",
+    });
+
+    const graph = makeGraphFor(decision, { nodes: [], edges: [] });
+
+    const result = formulateQuestion({
+      node: decision,
+      graph,
+      context: { resolvedValues: [] },
+    });
+
+    // Decision identity not changed by sufficiency question
+    expect(result.reason).toContain("material factors");
+  });
 });