feat: introduce reasoning pattern selection

tests/graph/reasoning-pattern-selection.test.js

@@ -0,0 +1,201 @@
+import { describe, expect, it } from "vitest";
+import {
+  formulateQuestion,
+  formulateTieResolutionQuestion,
+  selectReasoningPattern,
+} from "@/lib/graph/question-formulator.js";
+import { makeGraph, makeNode } from "@/lib/graph/schema.js";
+
+function makeGraphFor(node, extra = {}) {
+  return makeGraph({
+    centralStatement: extra.centralStatement || "Decision context",
+    nodes: [node, ...(extra.nodes || [])],
+    edges: extra.edges || [],
+    activeUnknownNodeId: node.id,
+    resolvedNodeIds: extra.resolvedNodeIds || [],
+    currentSummary: "Test summary",
+    reasoningState: extra.reasoningState,
+  });
+}
+
+describe("reasoning pattern selection", () => {
+  it("commercial-method scenario selects the decision pattern and rejects explanation family", () => {
+    const unknown = makeNode({
+      id: "n-commercial-method",
+      label:
+        "Whether the method addresses a genuine, high-priority problem for a specific audience",
+      description:
+        "Need to know whether this solves a real problem for a clear audience before continuing development.",
+      kind: "unknown",
+      status: "unknown",
+      confidence: "high",
+    });
+    const graph = makeGraphFor(unknown, {
+      centralStatement:
+        "Before investing significant time and money, we need to know whether continuing development is commercially justified.",
+    });
+
+    const result = formulateQuestion({ node: unknown, graph });
+
+    expect(result.reasoningPattern).toBe("decision");
+    expect(result.questionFamily).not.toBe("explanation");
+    expect(result.allowedQuestionFamilies).toContain("decision_foundation");
+    expect(result.rejectedQuestionFamilies).toContain("explanation");
+  });
+
+  it("revenue and cash relationship scenario allows the explanation family", () => {
+    const unknown = makeNode({
+      id: "n-revenue-cash-explanation",
+      label:
+        "Explanation for why revenue increased by 18%, but cash in the bank fell over the same period",
+      description:
+        "Need to understand what change or event could explain why these observations differ.",
+      kind: "unknown",
+      status: "unknown",
+      confidence: "medium",
+    });
+    const graph = makeGraphFor(unknown, {
+      centralStatement:
+        "Revenue increased by 18%, but cash in the bank fell over the same period.",
+      nodes: [
+        makeNode({
+          id: "n-revenue-observation",
+          label: "Revenue increased by 18%.",
+          description: "Revenue increased by 18%.",
+          kind: "observation",
+          status: "supported",
+          confidence: "high",
+        }),
+        makeNode({
+          id: "n-cash-observation",
+          label: "Cash in the bank fell over the same period.",
+          description: "Cash in the bank fell over the same period.",
+          kind: "observation",
+          status: "supported",
+          confidence: "high",
+        }),
+      ],
+    });
+
+    const result = formulateQuestion({ node: unknown, graph });
+
+    expect(result.reasoningPattern).toBe("explanation");
+    expect(result.allowedQuestionFamilies).toContain("explanation");
+  });
+
+  it("duplicate observations reject explanation family during tie resolution", () => {
+    const graph = makeGraph({
+      centralStatement: "The same figure was repeated twice.",
+      nodes: [
+        makeNode({
+          id: "n-obs-1",
+          label: "Revenue increased by 10%.",
+          description: "Revenue increased by 10%.",
+          kind: "observation",
+          status: "supported",
+          confidence: "high",
+        }),
+        makeNode({
+          id: "n-obs-2",
+          label: "Revenue increased by 10%.",
+          description: "Revenue increased by 10%.",
+          kind: "observation",
+          status: "supported",
+          confidence: "high",
+        }),
+      ],
+      edges: [],
+      activeUnknownNodeId: null,
+      resolvedNodeIds: [],
+      currentSummary: "Duplicate observation fixture",
+    });
+
+    const result = formulateTieResolutionQuestion({ graph });
+
+    expect(result.questionFamily).not.toBe("explanation");
+    expect(result.rejectedQuestionFamilies).toContain("explanation");
+  });
+
+  it("definition scenario selects the definition pattern", () => {
+    const unknown = makeNode({
+      id: "n-definition-pattern",
+      label: "Definition of justified confidence",
+      description: "The term needs clearer boundaries.",
+      kind: "unknown",
+      status: "unknown",
+      confidence: "medium",
+    });
+
+    const result = selectReasoningPattern({
+      node: unknown,
+      graph: makeGraphFor(unknown),
+    });
+
+    expect(result.pattern).toBe("definition");
+  });
+
+  it("comparison scenario selects the comparison pattern", () => {
+    const unknown = makeNode({
+      id: "n-comparison-pattern-2",
+      label: "How the two observations were measured",
+      description:
+        "Need evidence about the measure used for each observation before comparing them.",
+      kind: "unknown",
+      status: "unknown",
+      confidence: "medium",
+    });
+    const graph = makeGraphFor(unknown, {
+      centralStatement: "Traffic increased, but sales stayed flat.",
+      nodes: [
+        makeNode({
+          id: "n-traffic-2",
+          label: "Traffic increased.",
+          description: "Traffic increased.",
+          kind: "observation",
+          status: "supported",
+          confidence: "high",
+        }),
+        makeNode({
+          id: "n-sales-2",
+          label: "Sales stayed flat.",
+          description: "Sales stayed flat.",
+          kind: "observation",
+          status: "supported",
+          confidence: "high",
+        }),
+      ],
+      reasoningState: {
+        comparabilityStatus: "uncertain",
+        relationshipStatus: "insufficient_information",
+      },
+    });
+
+    const result = selectReasoningPattern({ node: unknown, graph });
+
+    expect(result.pattern).toBe("comparison");
+  });
+
+  it("question family stays compatible with the reasoning pattern", () => {
+    const unknown = makeNode({
+      id: "n-decision-family-compatibility",
+      label: "Who experiences this problem",
+      description:
+        "Need to know who experiences this problem before continuing development.",
+      kind: "unknown",
+      status: "unknown",
+      confidence: "medium",
+    });
+    const graph = makeGraphFor(unknown, {
+      centralStatement:
+        "We need to know whether continuing development is commercially justified.",
+    });
+
+    const result = formulateQuestion({ node: unknown, graph });
+
+    expect(result.reasoningPattern).toBe("decision");
+    expect(result.allowedQuestionFamilies).toContain(result.questionFamily);
+    expect(result.rejectedQuestionFamilies).not.toContain(
+      result.questionFamily,
+    );
+  });
+});