feat: introduce reasoning pattern selection

docs/v0.7-question-simplicity-experiment.md

@@ -94,6 +94,95 @@ The engine now decomposes whenever either of these is true:
 
 This prevents a broad container node from becoming the selected question target even when its wording looks grammatically singular.
 
+## Reasoning Pattern
+
+The next failure exposed a deeper issue: even after atomicity and answerability were added, the engine could still choose a question template from the wrong reasoning family.
+
+The live failure was an explanation-style prompt appearing in a commercial validation scenario:
+
+> What changed during the period that could help explain why ...
+
+That was wrong not because of wording, but because the engine had selected an **explanation family** when the actual task was a **decision investigation**.
+
+To correct that, the deterministic pipeline now explicitly inserts a reasoning-pattern stage:
+
+```text
+selected unknown
+→ atomicity
+→ answerability
+→ reasoning pattern
+→ investigation strategy
+→ question family
+→ question
+```
+
+This matters because each stage must constrain the next.
+
+- **Reasoning Pattern** decides what kind of reasoning is happening
+- **Investigation Strategy** decides how to reduce uncertainty within that pattern
+- **Question Family** decides what template space is allowed
+- **Question** is the final concrete wording
+
+Without this stage separation, strategy and template selection can leak across domains and reuse relationship/explanation prompts too broadly.
+
+## Deterministic reasoning-pattern vocabulary
+
+The current deterministic pattern vocabulary is intentionally small:
+
+- decision
+- explanation
+- contradiction
+- definition
+- diagnosis
+- comparison
+- prioritisation
+
+Pattern selection uses graph structure rather than wording alone, including:
+
+- node kind
+- relationship / observation topology
+- parent context
+- reasoning state
+- selected unknown role in the graph
+
+## Question-family mapping
+
+Patterns now constrain which question families are allowed.
+
+- **decision**
+  - decision_foundation
+  - decision_evidence
+  - decision_threshold
+  - definition
+- **explanation**
+  - explanation
+  - comparison
+- **contradiction**
+  - contradiction
+  - comparison
+  - explanation
+- **definition**
+  - definition
+- **diagnosis**
+  - diagnosis
+  - comparison
+- **comparison**
+  - comparison
+- **prioritisation**
+  - prioritisation
+  - decision_threshold
+
+Most importantly:
+
+- explanation templates are only allowed for `explanation` or `contradiction`
+- decision investigations cannot emit explanation-family questions
+
+## Live correction
+
+For the commercial-method scenario, the engine now classifies the reasoning as a **decision** pattern rather than an explanation pattern.
+
+That means explanation-family templates are explicitly rejected, and the selected child unknown must be questioned using a decision-compatible family instead.
+
 ## UI result
 
 The long compound question no longer survives as the first follow-up in the tested path.

lib/graph/apply-proposal.js

@@ -1766,6 +1766,15 @@ export function determineGraphBackedQuestion({ situationGraph }) {
               reason: formulatedQuestion.reason,
               strategy: formulatedQuestion.strategy,
               investigationStrategy: formulatedQuestion.investigationStrategy,
+              reasoningPattern: formulatedQuestion.reasoningPattern,
+              reasoningPatternReason: formulatedQuestion.reasoningPatternReason,
+              questionFamily: formulatedQuestion.questionFamily,
+              allowedQuestionFamilies:
+                formulatedQuestion.allowedQuestionFamilies,
+              rejectedQuestionFamilies:
+                formulatedQuestion.rejectedQuestionFamilies,
+              selectedQuestionTemplate:
+                formulatedQuestion.selectedQuestionTemplate,
               questionComplexity: formulatedQuestion.questionComplexity,
               plainLanguageNormalisations:
                 formulatedQuestion.plainLanguageNormalisations,
@@ -2469,6 +2478,15 @@ export function applyValidatedProposal({
             reason: formulatedQuestion?.reason || deterministicSelection.reason,
             strategy: formulatedQuestion?.strategy,
             investigationStrategy: formulatedQuestion?.investigationStrategy,
+            reasoningPattern: formulatedQuestion?.reasoningPattern,
+            reasoningPatternReason: formulatedQuestion?.reasoningPatternReason,
+            questionFamily: formulatedQuestion?.questionFamily,
+            allowedQuestionFamilies:
+              formulatedQuestion?.allowedQuestionFamilies,
+            rejectedQuestionFamilies:
+              formulatedQuestion?.rejectedQuestionFamilies,
+            selectedQuestionTemplate:
+              formulatedQuestion?.selectedQuestionTemplate,
             questionComplexity,
             plainLanguageNormalisations,
           }

lib/graph/orchestrator.js

@@ -59,6 +59,12 @@ function buildDiagnostics({
   decompositionReason,
   selectedContainerUnknown,
   selectedChildUnknown,
+  reasoningPattern,
+  questionFamily,
+  allowedQuestionFamilies,
+  rejectedQuestionFamilies,
+  selectedQuestionTemplate,
+  reasoningPatternReason,
 }) {
   return {
     promptVersion: analysis?.promptVersion ?? null,
@@ -88,6 +94,12 @@ function buildDiagnostics({
     decompositionReason: decompositionReason ?? null,
     selectedContainerUnknown: selectedContainerUnknown ?? null,
     selectedChildUnknown: selectedChildUnknown ?? null,
+    reasoningPattern: reasoningPattern ?? null,
+    questionFamily: questionFamily ?? null,
+    allowedQuestionFamilies: allowedQuestionFamilies ?? [],
+    rejectedQuestionFamilies: rejectedQuestionFamilies ?? [],
+    selectedQuestionTemplate: selectedQuestionTemplate ?? null,
+    reasoningPatternReason: reasoningPatternReason ?? null,
   };
 }
 
@@ -177,6 +189,12 @@ function buildUpdateDiagnostics({
   selectedUnknownBefore,
   selectedUnknownAfter,
   plainLanguageNormalisations,
+  reasoningPattern,
+  questionFamily,
+  allowedQuestionFamilies,
+  rejectedQuestionFamilies,
+  selectedQuestionTemplate,
+  reasoningPatternReason,
 }) {
   return {
     promptVersion: promptVersion ?? "v0.4",
@@ -257,6 +275,12 @@ function buildUpdateDiagnostics({
     selectedUnknownBefore: selectedUnknownBefore ?? null,
     selectedUnknownAfter: selectedUnknownAfter ?? null,
     plainLanguageNormalisations: plainLanguageNormalisations ?? [],
+    reasoningPattern: reasoningPattern ?? null,
+    questionFamily: questionFamily ?? null,
+    allowedQuestionFamilies: allowedQuestionFamilies ?? [],
+    rejectedQuestionFamilies: rejectedQuestionFamilies ?? [],
+    selectedQuestionTemplate: selectedQuestionTemplate ?? null,
+    reasoningPatternReason: reasoningPatternReason ?? null,
     unknownSelectionExplanation: unknownSelectionExplanation ?? null,
   };
 }
@@ -370,6 +394,21 @@ export async function startCase(body) {
           initialQuestionResult.selectedContainerUnknown ?? null,
         selectedChildUnknown:
           initialQuestionResult.selectedChildUnknown ?? null,
+        reasoningPattern:
+          initialQuestionResult.selectedQuestion?.reasoningPattern ?? null,
+        questionFamily:
+          initialQuestionResult.selectedQuestion?.questionFamily ?? null,
+        allowedQuestionFamilies:
+          initialQuestionResult.selectedQuestion?.allowedQuestionFamilies ?? [],
+        rejectedQuestionFamilies:
+          initialQuestionResult.selectedQuestion?.rejectedQuestionFamilies ??
+          [],
+        selectedQuestionTemplate:
+          initialQuestionResult.selectedQuestion?.selectedQuestionTemplate ??
+          null,
+        reasoningPatternReason:
+          initialQuestionResult.selectedQuestion?.reasoningPatternReason ??
+          null,
       }),
       validationErrors: graphReferenceValidation.errors,
       statusCode: 500,
@@ -413,6 +452,19 @@ export async function startCase(body) {
       selectedContainerUnknown:
         initialQuestionResult.selectedContainerUnknown ?? null,
       selectedChildUnknown: initialQuestionResult.selectedChildUnknown ?? null,
+      reasoningPattern:
+        initialQuestionResult.selectedQuestion?.reasoningPattern ?? null,
+      questionFamily:
+        initialQuestionResult.selectedQuestion?.questionFamily ?? null,
+      allowedQuestionFamilies:
+        initialQuestionResult.selectedQuestion?.allowedQuestionFamilies ?? [],
+      rejectedQuestionFamilies:
+        initialQuestionResult.selectedQuestion?.rejectedQuestionFamilies ?? [],
+      selectedQuestionTemplate:
+        initialQuestionResult.selectedQuestion?.selectedQuestionTemplate ??
+        null,
+      reasoningPatternReason:
+        initialQuestionResult.selectedQuestion?.reasoningPatternReason ?? null,
     }),
   };
 }
@@ -709,6 +761,18 @@ async function updateCaseWithDependencies(body, dependencies = {}) {
         selectedUnknownAfter: applicationResult.selectedUnknownAfter,
         plainLanguageNormalisations:
           applicationResult.plainLanguageNormalisations,
+        reasoningPattern:
+          applicationResult.selectedQuestion?.reasoningPattern ?? null,
+        questionFamily:
+          applicationResult.selectedQuestion?.questionFamily ?? null,
+        allowedQuestionFamilies:
+          applicationResult.selectedQuestion?.allowedQuestionFamilies ?? [],
+        rejectedQuestionFamilies:
+          applicationResult.selectedQuestion?.rejectedQuestionFamilies ?? [],
+        selectedQuestionTemplate:
+          applicationResult.selectedQuestion?.selectedQuestionTemplate ?? null,
+        reasoningPatternReason:
+          applicationResult.selectedQuestion?.reasoningPatternReason ?? null,
         unknownSelectionExplanation: buildUnknownSelectionDiagnostics(
           applicationResult.updatedSituationGraph,
           applicationResult.updatedSituationGraph.resolvedNodeIds || [],
@@ -787,6 +851,12 @@ async function updateCaseWithDependencies(body, dependencies = {}) {
       selectedUnknownBefore: null,
       selectedUnknownAfter: null,
       plainLanguageNormalisations: [],
+      reasoningPattern: null,
+      questionFamily: null,
+      allowedQuestionFamilies: [],
+      rejectedQuestionFamilies: [],
+      selectedQuestionTemplate: null,
+      reasoningPatternReason: null,
       unknownSelectionExplanation: buildUnknownSelectionDiagnostics(
         situationGraph,
         situationGraph.resolvedNodeIds || [],

lib/graph/question-formulator.js

@@ -527,6 +527,10 @@ function buildFoundationalDirectQuestion(node) {
 
 function isRelationshipExplanationUnknown(node, graph) {
   const text = normaliseText(`${node?.label || ""} ${node?.description || ""}`);
+  if (isDirectlyAnswerableObservationChildText(text)) {
+    return false;
+  }
+
   return (
     collectObservationNodes(graph).length >= 2 &&
     /\b(explain|explanation|divergence|moved differently|difference between|change or event|what changed|why the observations)/.test(
@@ -729,6 +733,433 @@ export function assessUnknownAtomicity({ node, graph }) {
   };
 }
 
+const ALL_REASONING_PATTERNS = [
+  "decision",
+  "explanation",
+  "contradiction",
+  "definition",
+  "diagnosis",
+  "comparison",
+  "prioritisation",
+];
+
+const QUESTION_FAMILIES_BY_PATTERN = {
+  decision: [
+    "decision_foundation",
+    "decision_evidence",
+    "decision_threshold",
+    "definition",
+  ],
+  explanation: ["explanation", "comparison"],
+  contradiction: ["contradiction", "comparison", "explanation"],
+  definition: ["definition"],
+  diagnosis: ["diagnosis", "comparison"],
+  comparison: ["comparison"],
+  prioritisation: ["prioritisation", "decision_threshold"],
+};
+
+const STRATEGIES_BY_PATTERN = {
+  decision: [
+    "decision_threshold",
+    "evidence_gathering",
+    "definition",
+    "baseline_reconstruction",
+  ],
+  explanation: ["evidence_gathering", "baseline_reconstruction"],
+  contradiction: [
+    "contradiction_resolution",
+    "baseline_reconstruction",
+    "evidence_gathering",
+  ],
+  definition: ["definition"],
+  diagnosis: ["evidence_gathering", "baseline_reconstruction"],
+  comparison: ["baseline_reconstruction", "evidence_gathering"],
+  prioritisation: ["decision_threshold", "evidence_gathering"],
+};
+
+function buildParentChain(node, graph) {
+  const nodesById = buildNodeMap(graph);
+  const chain = [];
+  let current = node?.parentId ? nodesById.get(node.parentId) : null;
+
+  while (current) {
+    chain.push(current);
+    current = current.parentId ? nodesById.get(current.parentId) : null;
+  }
+
+  return chain;
+}
+
+function hasDecisionContext(node, graph, relatedNodes = []) {
+  const ancestry = buildParentChain(node, graph);
+  const contextText = normaliseText(
+    [
+      graph?.centralStatement,
+      node?.label,
+      node?.description,
+      ...relatedNodes.map((relatedNode) => relatedNode.label),
+      ...relatedNodes.map((relatedNode) => relatedNode.description),
+      ...ancestry.map((ancestor) => ancestor.label),
+      ...ancestry.map((ancestor) => ancestor.description),
+      ...collectResolvedContextValues(graph),
+    ]
+      .filter(Boolean)
+      .join(" "),
+  );
+
+  return /\b(whether to|build|launch|continue|proceed|invest|commercially justified|commercial justification|commercial value|business case|viability)\b/.test(
+    contextText,
+  );
+}
+
+function hasObservationRelationshipTopology(node, graph, relatedNodes = []) {
+  const ancestry = buildParentChain(node, graph);
+  const topologyNodes = [node, ...relatedNodes, ...ancestry].filter(Boolean);
+
+  return (
+    collectObservationNodes(graph).length >= 2 &&
+    topologyNodes.some(
+      (candidate) =>
+        candidate.kind === "observation" || candidate.kind === "relationship",
+    )
+  );
+}
+
+function isDefinitionPatternCandidate(node, graph) {
+  const text = normaliseText(`${node?.label || ""} ${node?.description || ""}`);
+  return isDefinitionLikeUnknown(
+    text,
+    `${text} ${graph?.centralStatement || ""}`,
+  );
+}
+
+function isContradictionPatternCandidate(node, graph, relatedNodes = []) {
+  const relationshipStatus = graph?.reasoningState?.relationshipStatus ?? null;
+  const text = normaliseText(
+    [
+      node?.label,
+      node?.description,
+      ...relatedNodes.map((relatedNode) => relatedNode.label),
+      ...relatedNodes.map((relatedNode) => relatedNode.description),
+    ]
+      .filter(Boolean)
+      .join(" "),
+  );
+
+  return (
+    relationshipStatus === "contradictory" ||
+    /\b(contradiction|contradict|conflict|inconsistent|mismatch|opposing)\b/.test(
+      text,
+    )
+  );
+}
+
+function isComparisonPatternCandidate(node, graph, relatedNodes = []) {
+  if (isRelationshipExplanationUnknown(node, graph)) {
+    return false;
+  }
+
+  const text = normaliseText(
+    [
+      node?.label,
+      node?.description,
+      ...relatedNodes.map((relatedNode) => relatedNode.label),
+      ...relatedNodes.map((relatedNode) => relatedNode.description),
+    ]
+      .filter(Boolean)
+      .join(" "),
+  );
+
+  return (
+    (hasObservationRelationshipTopology(node, graph, relatedNodes) ||
+      collectObservationNodes(graph).length >= 2 ||
+      graph?.reasoningState?.comparabilityStatus === "uncertain") &&
+    /\b(compare|comparison|different timing|measured|measurement|basis|scale|period|alternative|alternatives|better than)\b/.test(
+      text,
+    )
+  );
+}
+
+function isExplanationPatternCandidate(node, graph, relatedNodes = []) {
+  if (isRelationshipExplanationUnknown(node, graph)) return true;
+
+  const text = normaliseText(
+    [
+      node?.label,
+      node?.description,
+      ...relatedNodes.map((relatedNode) => relatedNode.label),
+      ...relatedNodes.map((relatedNode) => relatedNode.description),
+    ]
+      .filter(Boolean)
+      .join(" "),
+  );
+
+  return (
+    hasObservationRelationshipTopology(node, graph, relatedNodes) &&
+    /\b(explain|explanation|why .* but|difference between|divergence|what changed|moved differently)\b/.test(
+      text,
+    )
+  );
+}
+
+function isPrioritisationPatternCandidate(node, graph, relatedNodes = []) {
+  const text = normaliseText(
+    [
+      node?.label,
+      node?.description,
+      graph?.centralStatement,
+      ...relatedNodes.map((relatedNode) => relatedNode.label),
+    ]
+      .filter(Boolean)
+      .join(" "),
+  );
+
+  return /\b(prioritise|prioritize|priority|rank|ranking|trade off|tradeoff|which first)\b/.test(
+    text,
+  );
+}
+
+export function selectReasoningPattern({ node, graph, context = {} }) {
+  const relatedNodes = collectRelatedNodes(node, graph);
+  const patternContext = {
+    hasDecisionContext: hasDecisionContext(node, graph, relatedNodes),
+    hasObservationRelationshipTopology: hasObservationRelationshipTopology(
+      node,
+      graph,
+      relatedNodes,
+    ),
+  };
+
+  if (isDefinitionPatternCandidate(node, graph)) {
+    return {
+      pattern: "definition",
+      reason:
+        "Selected definition because the active unknown is about meaning, scope, or term boundaries.",
+      context: patternContext,
+    };
+  }
+
+  if (isContradictionPatternCandidate(node, graph, relatedNodes)) {
+    return {
+      pattern: "contradiction",
+      reason:
+        "Selected contradiction because the graph indicates opposing claims or incompatible observations.",
+      context: patternContext,
+    };
+  }
+
+  if (isComparisonPatternCandidate(node, graph, relatedNodes)) {
+    return {
+      pattern: "comparison",
+      reason:
+        "Selected comparison because the active unknown is about distinguishing measurements, timing, basis, or alternatives.",
+      context: patternContext,
+    };
+  }
+
+  if (isExplanationPatternCandidate(node, graph, relatedNodes)) {
+    return {
+      pattern: "explanation",
+      reason:
+        "Selected explanation because the active unknown is about accounting for a relationship between observations.",
+      context: patternContext,
+    };
+  }
+
+  if (patternContext.hasDecisionContext) {
+    return {
+      pattern: "decision",
+      reason:
+        "Selected decision because the active unknown sits inside a build, continue, invest, or commercial-justification decision context.",
+      context: patternContext,
+    };
+  }
+
+  if (isPrioritisationPatternCandidate(node, graph, relatedNodes)) {
+    return {
+      pattern: "prioritisation",
+      reason:
+        "Selected prioritisation because the active unknown is about ordering options or trade-offs.",
+      context: patternContext,
+    };
+  }
+
+  return {
+    pattern: "diagnosis",
+    reason:
+      "Selected diagnosis as the default because the active unknown needs clarifying evidence or mechanism-level investigation.",
+    context: patternContext,
+  };
+}
+
+function allowedQuestionFamiliesForPattern(pattern) {
+  return QUESTION_FAMILIES_BY_PATTERN[pattern] || [pattern];
+}
+
+function rejectedQuestionFamiliesForPattern(pattern) {
+  const allowed = new Set(allowedQuestionFamiliesForPattern(pattern));
+  return ALL_REASONING_PATTERNS.flatMap((candidatePattern) =>
+    (
+      QUESTION_FAMILIES_BY_PATTERN[candidatePattern] || [candidatePattern]
+    ).filter((family) => !allowed.has(family)),
+  ).filter((family, index, list) => list.indexOf(family) === index);
+}
+
+function constrainStrategyToReasoningPattern(strategy, reasoningPattern) {
+  if (!strategy) return null;
+  const allowedStrategies = STRATEGIES_BY_PATTERN[reasoningPattern] || [];
+  return allowedStrategies.includes(strategy.key) ? strategy : null;
+}
+
+function selectQuestionFamily({
+  node,
+  graph,
+  reasoningPattern,
+  investigationStrategy,
+}) {
+  const text = normaliseText(`${node?.label || ""} ${node?.description || ""}`);
+
+  if (reasoningPattern === "definition") {
+    return { family: "definition", template: "definition_meaning" };
+  }
+
+  if (reasoningPattern === "contradiction") {
+    if (/\b(period|timing|basis|scale|measure|measured)\b/.test(text)) {
+      return {
+        family: "comparison",
+        template: "comparison_reconcile_measurement",
+      };
+    }
+    return {
+      family: "contradiction",
+      template: "contradiction_resolve_opposition",
+    };
+  }
+
+  if (reasoningPattern === "explanation") {
+    return {
+      family: "explanation",
+      template: "explanation_broad_investigation",
+    };
+  }
+
+  if (reasoningPattern === "comparison") {
+    return /\b(period|timing)\b/.test(text) &&
+      !/\bhow the two observations were measured|measurement\b/.test(text)
+      ? { family: "comparison", template: "comparison_timing_basis" }
+      : { family: "comparison", template: "comparison_measurement_basis" };
+  }
+
+  if (reasoningPattern === "decision") {
+    if (
+      /\b(audience|customer|user|buyer|stakeholder|recipient|who experiences)\b/.test(
+        text,
+      )
+    ) {
+      return { family: "decision_foundation", template: "decision_audience" };
+    }
+    if (
+      /\b(alternative|alternatives|better than|different from|deal with)\b/.test(
+        text,
+      )
+    ) {
+      return {
+        family: "decision_foundation",
+        template: "decision_current_alternatives",
+      };
+    }
+    if (/\b(problem|need|demand)\b/.test(text)) {
+      return {
+        family: "decision_foundation",
+        template: "decision_problem_existence",
+      };
+    }
+    if (investigationStrategy?.key === "decision_threshold") {
+      return {
+        family: "decision_threshold",
+        template: "decision_threshold_outcome",
+      };
+    }
+    return {
+      family: "decision_evidence",
+      template: "decision_evidence_clarification",
+    };
+  }
+
+  if (reasoningPattern === "prioritisation") {
+    return { family: "prioritisation", template: "prioritisation_tradeoff" };
+  }
+
+  return investigationStrategy?.key === "baseline_reconstruction"
+    ? { family: "comparison", template: "diagnosis_baseline_comparison" }
+    : { family: "diagnosis", template: "diagnosis_evidence" };
+}
+
+function buildQuestionFromFamily({
+  node,
+  graph,
+  reasoningPattern,
+  questionFamily,
+  selectedQuestionTemplate,
+  investigationStrategy,
+}) {
+  const meaning = extractMeaning(node);
+
+  if (reasoningPattern === "decision") {
+    if (selectedQuestionTemplate === "decision_audience") {
+      return "Who experiences this problem?";
+    }
+    if (selectedQuestionTemplate === "decision_current_alternatives") {
+      return "How do people deal with this today?";
+    }
+    if (selectedQuestionTemplate === "decision_problem_existence") {
+      return "What makes you think this is a real problem?";
+    }
+    if (selectedQuestionTemplate === "decision_threshold_outcome") {
+      return buildQuestionFromStrategy(
+        investigationStrategy || {
+          key: "decision_threshold",
+          meaning,
+          actionPhrase: null,
+        },
+      );
+    }
+    return `What evidence would clarify ${stripTrailingPunctuation(meaning)}?`;
+  }
+
+  if (questionFamily === "definition") {
+    return `What does ${meaning} mean in this situation?`;
+  }
+
+  if (reasoningPattern === "comparison") {
+    if (selectedQuestionTemplate === "comparison_timing_basis") {
+      return `What evidence would clarify whether ${stripTrailingPunctuation(meaning)}?`;
+    }
+    if (selectedQuestionTemplate === "comparison_measurement_basis") {
+      return `What evidence would clarify ${stripTrailingPunctuation(meaning)}?`;
+    }
+    return `What evidence would clarify ${stripTrailingPunctuation(meaning)}?`;
+  }
+
+  if (reasoningPattern === "contradiction") {
+    return investigationStrategy?.key === "contradiction_resolution"
+      ? buildQuestionFromStrategy(investigationStrategy)
+      : `What fact would resolve the contradiction about ${stripTrailingPunctuation(meaning)}?`;
+  }
+
+  if (reasoningPattern === "explanation") {
+    return buildBroadInvestigationQuestion(graph);
+  }
+
+  if (reasoningPattern === "prioritisation") {
+    return `Which option should be investigated first, and why?`;
+  }
+
+  return investigationStrategy
+    ? buildQuestionFromStrategy(investigationStrategy)
+    : buildNeutralClarificationQuestion(meaning);
+}
+
 export function formulateTieResolutionQuestion({ graph }) {
   const comparability = assessComparability(graph);
   if (comparability.comparabilityStatus === "uncertain") {
@@ -747,6 +1178,14 @@ export function formulateTieResolutionQuestion({ graph }) {
       relationshipStatus: deferredRelationship.relationshipStatus,
       relationshipReason: deferredRelationship.reason,
       relationshipAssessed: deferredRelationship.relationshipAssessed,
+      reasoningPattern: "comparison",
+      reasoningPatternReason:
+        "Tie resolution is using the comparison family because comparability is still unresolved.",
+      allowedQuestionFamilies: allowedQuestionFamiliesForPattern("comparison"),
+      rejectedQuestionFamilies:
+        rejectedQuestionFamiliesForPattern("comparison"),
+      questionFamily: "comparison",
+      selectedQuestionTemplate: "comparison_tie_resolution",
       questionRequired: true,
       reasoningStages: deferredRelationship.reasoningStages,
     };
@@ -766,6 +1205,14 @@ export function formulateTieResolutionQuestion({ graph }) {
       relationshipReason: relationship.reason,
       relationshipAssessed: relationship.relationshipAssessed,
       contradictionReasoningAllowed: relationship.contradictionReasoningAllowed,
+      reasoningPattern: "comparison",
+      reasoningPatternReason:
+        "Tie resolution remains in the comparison family because no distinct winning unknown exists.",
+      allowedQuestionFamilies: allowedQuestionFamiliesForPattern("comparison"),
+      rejectedQuestionFamilies:
+        rejectedQuestionFamiliesForPattern("comparison"),
+      questionFamily: "comparison",
+      selectedQuestionTemplate: "comparison_no_question_required",
       questionRequired: relationship.questionRequired,
       questionSuppressedReason: relationship.questionSuppressedReason,
       reasoningStages: relationship.reasoningStages,
@@ -786,6 +1233,14 @@ export function formulateTieResolutionQuestion({ graph }) {
       relationshipReason: relationship.reason,
       relationshipAssessed: relationship.relationshipAssessed,
       contradictionReasoningAllowed: relationship.contradictionReasoningAllowed,
+      reasoningPattern: "explanation",
+      reasoningPatternReason:
+        "Tie resolution is using the explanation family because the observations appear related and need a neutral explanation question.",
+      allowedQuestionFamilies: allowedQuestionFamiliesForPattern("explanation"),
+      rejectedQuestionFamilies:
+        rejectedQuestionFamiliesForPattern("explanation"),
+      questionFamily: "explanation",
+      selectedQuestionTemplate: "explanation_broad_investigation",
       questionRequired: relationship.questionRequired,
       reasoningStages: relationship.reasoningStages,
     };
@@ -812,6 +1267,14 @@ export function formulateTieResolutionQuestion({ graph }) {
     relationshipReason: relationship.reason,
     relationshipAssessed: relationship.relationshipAssessed,
     contradictionReasoningAllowed: relationship.contradictionReasoningAllowed,
+    reasoningPattern: "contradiction",
+    reasoningPatternReason:
+      "Tie resolution is using the contradiction family because the graph is trying to distinguish incompatible explanations.",
+    allowedQuestionFamilies: allowedQuestionFamiliesForPattern("contradiction"),
+    rejectedQuestionFamilies:
+      rejectedQuestionFamiliesForPattern("contradiction"),
+    questionFamily: "contradiction",
+    selectedQuestionTemplate: "contradiction_distinguishing_change",
     questionRequired: relationship.questionRequired,
     reasoningStages: relationship.reasoningStages,
   };
@@ -899,6 +1362,9 @@ function buildInvestigationStrategy({
 }
 
 export function selectInvestigationStrategy({ node, graph, context = {} }) {
+  const effectiveReasoningPattern =
+    context.reasoningPattern ||
+    selectReasoningPattern({ node, graph, context }).pattern;
   const relatedNodes = collectRelatedNodes(node, graph);
   const meaning = extractMeaning(node);
   const combinedText = [
@@ -949,8 +1415,10 @@ export function selectInvestigationStrategy({ node, graph, context = {} }) {
   const hasPrimaryBaselineLanguage =
     /\b(before|previous|baseline|prior|comparable state)\b/.test(nodeText);
 
+  let selectedStrategy = null;
+
   if (hasBaselineLanguage && hasPrimaryBaselineLanguage) {
-    return buildInvestigationStrategy({
+    selectedStrategy = buildInvestigationStrategy({
       key: "baseline_reconstruction",
       reason:
         "Selected because the unknown explicitly references a missing previous or baseline state.",
@@ -991,8 +1459,11 @@ export function selectInvestigationStrategy({ node, graph, context = {} }) {
         relatedNode.kind === "conclusion",
     );
 
-  if (hasPrimaryDefinitionLanguage || hasDefinitionLanguage) {
+  if (
-    return buildInvestigationStrategy({
+    !selectedStrategy &&
+    (hasPrimaryDefinitionLanguage || hasDefinitionLanguage)
+  ) {
+    selectedStrategy = buildInvestigationStrategy({
       key: "definition",
       reason:
         "Selected because the unknown is primarily about clarifying what a term means in this case.",
@@ -1004,8 +1475,8 @@ export function selectInvestigationStrategy({ node, graph, context = {} }) {
     });
   }
 
-  if (hasDecisionValueLanguage || hasCriteriaLanguage) {
+  if (!selectedStrategy && (hasDecisionValueLanguage || hasCriteriaLanguage)) {
-    return buildInvestigationStrategy({
+    selectedStrategy = buildInvestigationStrategy({
       key: "decision_threshold",
       reason:
         "Selected because the unknown determines the threshold for making or justifying a decision.",
@@ -1017,8 +1488,11 @@ export function selectInvestigationStrategy({ node, graph, context = {} }) {
     });
   }
 
-  if (hasPrimaryBaselineLanguage || hasBaselineLanguage) {
+  if (
-    return buildInvestigationStrategy({
+    !selectedStrategy &&
+    (hasPrimaryBaselineLanguage || hasBaselineLanguage)
+  ) {
+    selectedStrategy = buildInvestigationStrategy({
       key: "baseline_reconstruction",
       reason:
         "Selected because reconstructing the prior state is the most direct way to resolve the unknown.",
@@ -1030,8 +1504,8 @@ export function selectInvestigationStrategy({ node, graph, context = {} }) {
     });
   }
 
-  if (hasContradictionLanguage) {
+  if (!selectedStrategy && hasContradictionLanguage) {
-    return buildInvestigationStrategy({
+    selectedStrategy = buildInvestigationStrategy({
       key: "contradiction_resolution",
       reason:
         "Selected because the graph context indicates conflicting claims or inconsistent states that must be reconciled.",
@@ -1043,8 +1517,11 @@ export function selectInvestigationStrategy({ node, graph, context = {} }) {
     });
   }
 
-  if (hasEvidenceLanguage || hasMeasurementLanguage || hasConstraintLanguage) {
+  if (
-    return buildInvestigationStrategy({
+    !selectedStrategy &&
+    (hasEvidenceLanguage || hasMeasurementLanguage || hasConstraintLanguage)
+  ) {
+    selectedStrategy = buildInvestigationStrategy({
       key: "evidence_gathering",
       reason:
         hasConstraintLanguage && hasPrimaryConstraintLanguage
@@ -1058,7 +1535,10 @@ export function selectInvestigationStrategy({ node, graph, context = {} }) {
     });
   }
 
-  return null;
+  return constrainStrategyToReasoningPattern(
+    selectedStrategy,
+    effectiveReasoningPattern,
+  );
 }
 
 function buildQuestionFromStrategy(strategy) {
@@ -1232,8 +1712,22 @@ export function formulateQuestion({ node, graph, context = {} }) {
     return formulateTieResolutionQuestion({ graph });
   }
 
+  const reasoningPatternSelection = selectReasoningPattern({
+    node,
+    graph,
+    context,
+  });
+  const allowedQuestionFamilies = allowedQuestionFamiliesForPattern(
+    reasoningPatternSelection.pattern,
+  );
+  const rejectedQuestionFamilies = rejectedQuestionFamiliesForPattern(
+    reasoningPatternSelection.pattern,
+  );
   const foundationalDirectQuestion = buildFoundationalDirectQuestion(node);
-  if (foundationalDirectQuestion) {
+  if (
+    foundationalDirectQuestion &&
+    reasoningPatternSelection.pattern === "decision"
+  ) {
     const plainLanguage = applyPlainLanguageNormalisations(
       sanitizeQuestionText(foundationalDirectQuestion),
     );
@@ -1249,6 +1743,12 @@ export function formulateQuestion({ node, graph, context = {} }) {
         "Formulated as a direct foundational question because this child unknown should be answered one step at a time.",
       strategy: null,
       investigationStrategy: null,
+      reasoningPattern: reasoningPatternSelection.pattern,
+      reasoningPatternReason: reasoningPatternSelection.reason,
+      questionFamily: "decision_foundation",
+      allowedQuestionFamilies,
+      rejectedQuestionFamilies,
+      selectedQuestionTemplate: "decision_foundation_direct_child",
       questionComplexity,
       plainLanguageNormalisations: plainLanguage.normalisations,
     };
@@ -1257,14 +1757,27 @@ export function formulateQuestion({ node, graph, context = {} }) {
   const investigationStrategy = selectInvestigationStrategy({
     node,
     graph,
-    context,
+    context: {
+      ...context,
+      reasoningPattern: reasoningPatternSelection.pattern,
+    },
   });
 
-  let question = investigationStrategy
+  const questionFamilySelection = selectQuestionFamily({
-    ? buildQuestionFromStrategy(investigationStrategy)
+    node,
-    : isRelationshipExplanationUnknown(node, graph)
+    graph,
-      ? buildBroadInvestigationQuestion(graph)
+    reasoningPattern: reasoningPatternSelection.pattern,
-      : buildNeutralClarificationQuestion(extractMeaning(node));
+    investigationStrategy,
+  });
+
+  let question = buildQuestionFromFamily({
+    node,
+    graph,
+    reasoningPattern: reasoningPatternSelection.pattern,
+    questionFamily: questionFamilySelection.family,
+    selectedQuestionTemplate: questionFamilySelection.template,
+    investigationStrategy,
+  });
 
   question = sanitizeQuestionText(question);
   const plainLanguage = applyPlainLanguageNormalisations(question);
@@ -1310,6 +1823,12 @@ export function formulateQuestion({ node, graph, context = {} }) {
       : "Formulated as a neutral clarification question because no narrower investigation strategy clearly applied.",
     strategy: investigationStrategy?.key ?? null,
     investigationStrategy,
+    reasoningPattern: reasoningPatternSelection.pattern,
+    reasoningPatternReason: reasoningPatternSelection.reason,
+    questionFamily: questionFamilySelection.family,
+    allowedQuestionFamilies,
+    rejectedQuestionFamilies,
+    selectedQuestionTemplate: questionFamilySelection.template,
     questionComplexity,
     plainLanguageNormalisations: plainLanguage.normalisations,
   };

tests/graph/question-formulator.test.js

@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ import {
   assessUnknownAtomicity,
   formulateQuestion,
   formulateTieResolutionQuestion,
+  selectReasoningPattern,
   selectInvestigationStrategy,
 } from "@/lib/graph/question-formulator.js";
 import { makeEdge, makeGraph, makeNode } from "@/lib/graph/schema.js";
@@ -105,6 +106,8 @@ describe("formulateQuestion", () => {
     const result = formulateQuestion({ node: unknown, graph });
 
     expect(result.strategy).toBe("decision_threshold");
+    expect(result.reasoningPattern).toBe("decision");
+    expect(result.questionFamily).toBe("decision_threshold");
     expect(result.question).toContain("What outcome");
     expect(result.question.toLowerCase()).toContain("justify");
   });
@@ -144,6 +147,8 @@ describe("formulateQuestion", () => {
     });
 
     expect(result.strategy).toBe("definition");
+    expect(result.reasoningPattern).toBe("definition");
+    expect(result.questionFamily).toBe("definition");
     expect(result.question).toMatch(/^What does /);
   });
 
@@ -213,9 +218,68 @@ describe("formulateQuestion", () => {
     });
 
     expect(result.strategy).toBe("contradiction_resolution");
+    expect(result.reasoningPattern).toBe("contradiction");
     expect(result.question).toContain("resolve the contradiction");
   });
 
+  it("reasoning pattern selection marks commercial validation as decision rather than explanation", () => {
+    const unknown = makeNode({
+      id: "n-commercial-pattern",
+      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 more, we need to know whether continuing development is commercially justified.",
+    });
+
+    const result = selectReasoningPattern({ node: unknown, graph });
+
+    expect(result.pattern).toBe("decision");
+  });
+
+  it("comparison scenario selects the comparison pattern", () => {
+    const unknown = makeNode({
+      id: "n-comparison-pattern",
+      label: "How the two observations were measured",
+      description:
+        "Need evidence about the measure used for each observation, because that could help explain the difference.",
+      kind: "unknown",
+      status: "unknown",
+      confidence: "medium",
+    });
+    const graph = makeGraphFor(unknown, {
+      centralStatement: "Traffic increased, but sales stayed flat.",
+      nodes: [
+        makeNode({
+          id: "n-traffic-observation",
+          label: "Traffic increased.",
+          description: "Traffic increased.",
+          kind: "observation",
+          status: "supported",
+          confidence: "high",
+        }),
+        makeNode({
+          id: "n-sales-observation",
+          label: "Sales stayed flat.",
+          description: "Sales stayed flat.",
+          kind: "observation",
+          status: "supported",
+          confidence: "high",
+        }),
+      ],
+    });
+
+    const result = selectReasoningPattern({ node: unknown, graph });
+
+    expect(result.pattern).toBe("comparison");
+  });
+
   it("constraint unknown uses evidence-gathering within the fixed strategy set", () => {
     const unknown = makeNode({
       id: "n-constraint",
@@ -445,6 +509,7 @@ describe("formulateQuestion", () => {
       node: unknown,
       graph: makeGraphFor(unknown),
     });
+    expect(result.reasoningPattern).toBe("diagnosis");
     expect(result.strategy).toBeNull();
     expect(result.question).toBe(
       "What would clarify possible causes of the divergence in this situation?",

tests/graph/question-simplicity.test.js

@@ -126,6 +126,11 @@ describe("question simplicity", () => {
     expect(result.selectedQuestion.question).toBe(
       "Who experiences this problem?",
     );
+    expect(result.selectedQuestion.reasoningPattern).toBe("decision");
+    expect(result.selectedQuestion.questionFamily).toBe("decision_foundation");
+    expect(result.selectedQuestion.selectedQuestionTemplate).toBe(
+      "decision_foundation_direct_child",
+    );
     expect(result.selectedQuestion.question.match(/\?/g) || []).toHaveLength(1);
     expect(result.questionComplexityAccepted).toBe(true);
     expect(result.primaryConceptCount).toBe(1);

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,
+    );
+  });
+});