fix(reasoning): support uncertainty-over propositions

lib/graph/question-formulator.js

@@ -102,6 +102,7 @@ function extractMeaning(node) {
   const strippedDescription = stripTrailingPunctuation(description)
     .replace(/^uncertainty regarding\s+/i, "")
     .replace(/^uncertainty about\s+/i, "")
+    .replace(/^uncertainty over\s+/i, "")
     .replace(/^unknown\s+/i, "")
     .replace(/^uncertain\s+/i, "")
     .trim();

tests/graph/question-formulator.test.js

@@ -796,7 +796,7 @@ describe("formulateQuestion", () => {
     );
   });
 
-  // ── 60B.28: uncertainty-prefix coverage ────────────────────────────
+  // ── 60B.28 / 60B.30: uncertainty-prefix coverage ───────────────────
 
   it("60B.27 regression: 'Unknown whether...' preserves full proposition", () => {
     const unknown = makeNode({
@@ -846,6 +846,53 @@ describe("formulateQuestion", () => {
     );
   });
 
+  it("60B.29 regression: 'Uncertainty over whether...' preserves full proposition", () => {
+    const unknown = makeNode({
+      id: "unc-60b29",
+      label: "Prospective enterprise customer signing status",
+      description:
+        "Uncertainty over whether the prospective enterprise customer will sign if we launch this year, because their contract accounts for approximately £700,000 of the expected first-year revenue and could materially flip the net-value comparison.",
+      kind: "unknown",
+      status: "unknown",
+      confidence: "medium",
+    });
+
+    const graph = makeGraphFor(unknown, {
+      centralStatement:
+        "We need to decide which launch timing option provides superior net value.",
+    });
+
+    const result = formulateQuestion({ node: unknown, graph });
+
+    expect(result.question).toBe(
+      "What evidence would clarify whether the prospective enterprise customer will sign if we launch this year?",
+    );
+    expect(result.question).not.toContain("£700,000");
+    expect(result.question).not.toContain("expected first-year revenue");
+    expect(result.question).not.toContain("materially flip");
+    expect(result.question).not.toContain("because their contract");
+  });
+
+  it("'Uncertainty over whether...' without rationale uses evidence framing", () => {
+    const unknown = makeNode({
+      id: "unc-over",
+      label: "Supplier renewal status",
+      description: "Uncertainty over whether the supplier will renew.",
+      kind: "unknown",
+      status: "unknown",
+      confidence: "medium",
+    });
+
+    const result = formulateQuestion({
+      node: unknown,
+      graph: makeGraphFor(unknown),
+    });
+
+    expect(result.question).toBe(
+      "What evidence would clarify whether the supplier will renew?",
+    );
+  });
+
   it("bare 'Whether...' remains unchanged (existing behaviour)", () => {
     const unknown = makeNode({
       id: "unc-bare-whether",
@@ -928,7 +975,9 @@ describe("formulateQuestion", () => {
 
     const result = formulateQuestion({ node: unknown, graph });
 
-    expect(result.question).toBe("Will our largest client leave if we relocate?");
+    expect(result.question).toBe(
+      "Will our largest client leave if we relocate?",
+    );
   });
 
   it("nominal label without explicit 'whether...' falls back to label-based extraction", () => {