fix(reasoning): scope structural context admission

lib/graph/apply-proposal.js

@@ -1805,6 +1805,7 @@ function determineActiveReasoningPattern(node, graph) {
   if (!node || !graph) {
     return {
       pattern: null,
+      sourceNodeId: null,
       reason: "No active reasoning pattern could be determined.",
     };
   }
@@ -1818,6 +1819,7 @@ function determineActiveReasoningPattern(node, graph) {
     if (parentSelection.pattern && parentSelection.pattern !== "definition") {
       return {
         pattern: parentSelection.pattern,
+        sourceNodeId: parentNode.id,
         reason: `Inherited active reasoning pattern from parent node because ${parentSelection.reason}`,
       };
     }
@@ -1827,6 +1829,7 @@ function determineActiveReasoningPattern(node, graph) {
   const selection = selectReasoningPattern({ node, graph });
   return {
     pattern: selection.pattern,
+    sourceNodeId: node.id,
     reason: selection.reason,
   };
 }
@@ -1880,7 +1883,101 @@ function inferIntrinsicNodePattern(node, graph) {
   return selectReasoningPattern({ node, graph }).pattern;
 }
 
-function assessReasoningPatternCompatibility({ node, graph, activePattern }) {
+// ── Structural embedding predicate (60B.16) ──────────────────
+
+const STRUCTURAL_CONSEQUENCE_RELATIONSHIPS = ["may_cause", "causes", "affects"];
+
+function checkRouteAEmbedding({
+  node,
+  graph,
+  activePattern,
+  activeNodeId,
+  nodePattern,
+}) {
+  if (
+    activePattern !== "decision" ||
+    nodePattern !== "diagnosis" ||
+    !activeNodeId
+  ) {
+    return false;
+  }
+
+  const nodesById = new Map((graph.nodes || []).map((item) => [item.id, item]));
+  let current = node?.parentId ? nodesById.get(node.parentId) : null;
+
+  while (current) {
+    if (current.id === activeNodeId) {
+      return true;
+    }
+    current = current.parentId ? nodesById.get(current.parentId) : null;
+  }
+
+  return false;
+}
+
+function checkRouteBEmbedding({
+  node,
+  graph,
+  activePattern,
+  activeNodeId,
+  nodePattern,
+}) {
+  if (
+    activePattern !== "decision" ||
+    nodePattern !== "diagnosis" ||
+    !activeNodeId
+  ) {
+    return false;
+  }
+
+  const nodesById = new Map((graph.nodes || []).map((item) => [item.id, item]));
+  const edges = graph.edges || [];
+
+  // Find candidate option Z: X --(may_cause/causes/affects)--> Z
+  let candidateOptionZ = null;
+  for (const edge of edges) {
+    if (
+      edge.fromNodeId === node.id &&
+      STRUCTURAL_CONSEQUENCE_RELATIONSHIPS.includes(edge.relationship)
+    ) {
+      candidateOptionZ = nodesById.get(edge.toNodeId);
+      break;
+    }
+  }
+
+  if (!candidateOptionZ) {
+    return false;
+  }
+
+  // Z must be kind=option and contained_in active decision
+  if (candidateOptionZ.kind !== "option") {
+    return false;
+  }
+
+  // Check the contained_in edge from Z to a decision node that matches activeNodeId
+  for (const edge of edges) {
+    if (
+      edge.fromNodeId === candidateOptionZ.id &&
+      edge.relationship === "contained_in"
+    ) {
+      const targetNode = nodesById.get(edge.toNodeId);
+      if (targetNode && targetNode.id === activeNodeId) {
+        return true;
+      }
+      // If contained_in points to a different decision, reject
+    }
+  }
+
+  return false;
+}
+
+export function assessReasoningPatternCompatibility({
+  node,
+  graph,
+  activePattern,
+  activeNodeId,
+  structurallyAdmittedNodeIds,
+}) {
   if (!node || !activePattern) {
     return {
       compatible: true,
@@ -1895,18 +1992,139 @@ function assessReasoningPatternCompatibility({ node, graph, activePattern }) {
     activePattern
   ] ?? [activePattern];
   const compatible = allowedPatterns.includes(nodePattern);
+  const admittedSet = structurallyAdmittedNodeIds
+    ? structurallyAdmittedNodeIds instanceof Set
+      ? structurallyAdmittedNodeIds
+      : new Set(structurallyAdmittedNodeIds)
+    : null;
+
+  if (!compatible && admittedSet?.has(node.id)) {
+    return {
+      compatible: true,
+      activePattern,
+      nodePattern,
+      allowedPatterns,
+      structuralEmbedding: true,
+      reason:
+        "Node remains eligible because this same-turn unknown was admitted through bounded structural context fallback at the pre-mutation proposal boundary.",
+    };
+  }
 
   return {
     compatible,
     activePattern,
     nodePattern,
     allowedPatterns,
+    structuralEmbedding: false,
     reason: compatible
       ? `Node remains compatible because ${nodePattern} is allowed during ${activePattern} reasoning.`
       : `Node is incompatible because ${nodePattern} is not allowed during ${activePattern} reasoning.`,
   };
 }
 
+export function assessStructuralContextAdmission({
+  node,
+  graph,
+  activePattern,
+  activeNodeId,
+}) {
+  const compatibility = assessReasoningPatternCompatibility({
+    node,
+    graph,
+    activePattern,
+    activeNodeId,
+  });
+
+  if (compatibility.compatible) {
+    return {
+      admitted: false,
+      intrinsicCompatible: true,
+      activePattern,
+      activeNodeId: activeNodeId ?? null,
+      nodePattern: compatibility.nodePattern,
+      routeA: false,
+      routeB: false,
+      structuralEmbedding: false,
+      reason: compatibility.reason,
+    };
+  }
+
+  let routeA = false;
+  let routeB = false;
+
+  try {
+    routeA = checkRouteAEmbedding({
+      node,
+      graph,
+      activePattern,
+      activeNodeId: activeNodeId ?? null,
+      nodePattern: compatibility.nodePattern,
+    });
+  } catch (_) {
+    // Non-fatal — bounded structural admission is optional.
+  }
+
+  try {
+    routeB = checkRouteBEmbedding({
+      node,
+      graph,
+      activePattern,
+      activeNodeId: activeNodeId ?? null,
+      nodePattern: compatibility.nodePattern,
+    });
+  } catch (_) {
+    // Non-fatal.
+  }
+
+  return {
+    admitted: routeA || routeB,
+    intrinsicCompatible: false,
+    activePattern,
+    activeNodeId: activeNodeId ?? null,
+    nodePattern: compatibility.nodePattern,
+    routeA,
+    routeB,
+    structuralEmbedding: routeA || routeB,
+    reason:
+      routeA || routeB
+        ? `Node is structurally embedded in the original active decision context (intrinsic pattern ${compatibility.nodePattern} preserved).`
+        : compatibility.reason,
+  };
+}
+
+function collectStructurallyAdmittedUnknownNodeIds({ graph, proposal }) {
+  const activeNodeId = graph?.activeUnknownNodeId ?? null;
+  const activeNode = activeNodeId ? findNodeById(graph, activeNodeId) : null;
+  const activePattern = activeNode
+    ? determineActiveReasoningPattern(activeNode, graph).pattern
+    : null;
+
+  if (activePattern !== "decision" || !activeNodeId) {
+    return new Set();
+  }
+
+  const proposalGraph = {
+    ...graph,
+    nodes: [...(graph.nodes || []), ...(proposal?.addedNodes || [])],
+    edges: [...(graph.edges || []), ...(proposal?.addedEdges || [])],
+  };
+
+  return new Set(
+    (proposal?.addedNodes || [])
+      .filter((node) => node.kind === "unknown" && node.status !== "resolved")
+      .filter(
+        (node) =>
+          assessStructuralContextAdmission({
+            node,
+            graph: proposalGraph,
+            activePattern,
+            activeNodeId,
+          }).admitted,
+      )
+      .map((node) => node.id),
+  );
+}
+
 function isExplicitComparisonFamilyUnknown(node) {
   const text = normaliseText(`${node?.label || ""} ${node?.description || ""}`);
   return /\b(two observations|measured|measurement|basis|scale|same period|different timing|comparable)\b/.test(
@@ -1930,11 +2148,14 @@ function buildRejectedSelectionDiagnostics({
   graph,
   activePattern,
   reason,
+  structurallyAdmittedNodeIds,
 }) {
   const compatibility = assessReasoningPatternCompatibility({
     node,
     graph,
     activePattern,
+    activeNodeId: graph.activeUnknownNodeId ?? null,
+    structurallyAdmittedNodeIds,
   });
 
   return {
@@ -1950,6 +2171,7 @@ function selectPatternCompatibleUnknownCandidate({
   resolvedNodeIds = [],
   activePattern,
   excludedNodeIds = [],
+  structurallyAdmittedNodeIds,
 }) {
   if (!activePattern) {
     return selectActiveUnknownCandidate(graph, resolvedNodeIds);
@@ -1969,6 +2191,8 @@ function selectPatternCompatibleUnknownCandidate({
           node,
           graph,
           activePattern,
+          activeNodeId: graph.activeUnknownNodeId ?? null,
+          structurallyAdmittedNodeIds,
         }).compatible,
     )
     .map((node) => node.id);
@@ -2021,6 +2245,7 @@ function collectPatternCompatibilityDiagnostics({
   graph,
   activePattern,
   candidateNodeIds = [],
+  structurallyAdmittedNodeIds,
 }) {
   if (!activePattern) {
     return {
@@ -2050,6 +2275,8 @@ function collectPatternCompatibilityDiagnostics({
         node,
         graph,
         activePattern,
+        activeNodeId: graph.activeUnknownNodeId ?? null,
+        structurallyAdmittedNodeIds,
       }),
     }))
     .filter(({ compatibility }) => !compatibility.compatible)
@@ -2079,6 +2306,7 @@ function selectDecompositionChildCandidate(
   graph,
   parentNodeId,
   activePattern = null,
+  structurallyAdmittedNodeIds,
 ) {
   const childCandidates = findDirectChildUnknowns(graph, parentNodeId)
     .filter(
@@ -2097,6 +2325,8 @@ function selectDecompositionChildCandidate(
         node,
         graph,
         activePattern,
+        activeNodeId: graph.activeUnknownNodeId ?? null,
+        structurallyAdmittedNodeIds,
       });
       return compatibility.compatible;
     });
@@ -2272,6 +2502,7 @@ function reseatSelectionAfterQuestionRejection({
   deterministicSelection,
   activePattern = null,
   excludedNodeIds = [],
+  structurallyAdmittedNodeIds,
 }) {
   const nextSelection = activePattern
     ? selectPatternCompatibleUnknownCandidate({
@@ -2279,6 +2510,7 @@ function reseatSelectionAfterQuestionRejection({
         resolvedNodeIds: graph.resolvedNodeIds || [],
         activePattern,
         excludedNodeIds,
+        structurallyAdmittedNodeIds,
       })
     : selectActiveUnknownCandidate(graph, [
         ...(graph.resolvedNodeIds || []),
@@ -2439,6 +2671,7 @@ function runDeterministicDecomposition({
   updatedSituationGraph,
   reasoningResolution,
   deterministicSelection,
+  structurallyAdmittedNodeIds = new Set(),
 }) {
   let workingGraph = updatedSituationGraph;
   let workingSelection = deterministicSelection;
@@ -2466,6 +2699,7 @@ function runDeterministicDecomposition({
   let selectedContainerUnknown = null;
   let activeReasoningPattern = null;
   let activeReasoningPatternReason = null;
+  let activeReasoningContextNodeId = null;
   let incompatibleNodeIds = [];
   let compatibilityFailures = [];
   let replacementActions = [];
@@ -2485,12 +2719,15 @@ function runDeterministicDecomposition({
       );
       activeReasoningPattern = activePatternSelection.pattern;
       activeReasoningPatternReason = activePatternSelection.reason;
+      activeReasoningContextNodeId = activePatternSelection.sourceNodeId;
     }
 
     const selectedNodeCompatibility = assessReasoningPatternCompatibility({
       node: selectedNode,
       graph: workingGraph,
       activePattern: activeReasoningPattern,
+      activeNodeId: activeReasoningContextNodeId,
+      structurallyAdmittedNodeIds,
     });
     if (!selectedNodeCompatibility.compatible) {
       incompatibleNodeIds = appendUniqueValue(
@@ -2509,6 +2746,7 @@ function runDeterministicDecomposition({
         resolvedNodeIds: workingGraph.resolvedNodeIds,
         activePattern: activeReasoningPattern,
         excludedNodeIds: [selectedNode.id],
+        structurallyAdmittedNodeIds,
       });
       if (replacementSelection?.status === "selected") {
         replacementActions.push({
@@ -2570,6 +2808,7 @@ function runDeterministicDecomposition({
         workingGraph,
         selectedNode.id,
         activeReasoningPattern,
+        structurallyAdmittedNodeIds,
       );
       if (childSelection.status === "selected") {
         workingSelection = childSelection;
@@ -2654,6 +2893,7 @@ function runDeterministicDecomposition({
       workingGraph,
       selectedNode.id,
       activeReasoningPattern,
+      structurallyAdmittedNodeIds,
     );
 
     if (workingSelection?.status !== "selected") {
@@ -2707,6 +2947,7 @@ function runDeterministicDecomposition({
     selectedContainerUnknown,
     activeReasoningPattern,
     activeReasoningPatternReason,
+    activeReasoningContextNodeId,
     incompatibleNodeIds,
     compatibilityFailures,
     replacementActions,
@@ -3376,6 +3617,13 @@ export function applyValidatedProposal({
     };
   }
 
+  const structurallyAdmittedNodeIds = collectStructurallyAdmittedUnknownNodeIds(
+    {
+      graph: situationGraph,
+      proposal: validatedProposal,
+    },
+  );
+
   const graphSnapshot = cloneJsonSafe(situationGraph);
   const proposalSnapshot = cloneJsonSafe(validatedProposal);
   const previousActiveUnknownNodeId = graphSnapshot.activeUnknownNodeId ?? null;
@@ -3482,6 +3730,7 @@ export function applyValidatedProposal({
     updatedSituationGraph,
     reasoningResolution,
     deterministicSelection,
+    structurallyAdmittedNodeIds,
   });
 
   if (!decompositionResult.success) {
@@ -3526,6 +3775,8 @@ export function applyValidatedProposal({
         node: preservedSelectedChildNode,
         graph: updatedSituationGraph,
         activePattern: decompositionResult.activeReasoningPattern,
+        activeNodeId: decompositionResult.activeReasoningContextNodeId ?? null,
+        structurallyAdmittedNodeIds,
       })
     : null;
 
@@ -3547,6 +3798,7 @@ export function applyValidatedProposal({
         activePattern: decompositionResult.activeReasoningPattern,
         reason:
           "Preserved decomposition child violated the active reasoning pattern after propagation.",
+        structurallyAdmittedNodeIds,
       });
       postPropagationIncompatibleNodeIds =
         rejectionDiagnostics.incompatibleNodeIds;
@@ -3561,6 +3813,7 @@ export function applyValidatedProposal({
       excludedNodeIds: preservedSelectedChildNode
         ? [preservedSelectedChildNode.id]
         : [],
+      structurallyAdmittedNodeIds,
     });
 
     if (
@@ -3608,6 +3861,8 @@ export function applyValidatedProposal({
       node: carriedActiveUnknownNode,
       graph: updatedSituationGraph,
       activePattern: decompositionResult.activeReasoningPattern,
+      activeNodeId: decompositionResult.activeReasoningContextNodeId ?? null,
+      structurallyAdmittedNodeIds,
     });
 
     if (!carriedActiveCompatibility.compatible) {
@@ -3650,6 +3905,8 @@ export function applyValidatedProposal({
         node,
         graph: updatedSituationGraph,
         activePattern: decompositionResult.activeReasoningPattern,
+        activeNodeId: decompositionResult.activeReasoningContextNodeId ?? null,
+        structurallyAdmittedNodeIds,
       }).compatible,
   );
 
@@ -3844,6 +4101,7 @@ export function applyValidatedProposal({
       deterministicSelection,
       activePattern: decompositionResult.activeReasoningPattern,
       excludedNodeIds: [deterministicSelection.nodeId],
+      structurallyAdmittedNodeIds,
     });
 
     if (
@@ -3932,6 +4190,8 @@ export function applyValidatedProposal({
         ),
         graph: updatedSituationGraph,
         activePattern: decompositionResult.activeReasoningPattern,
+        activeNodeId: decompositionResult.activeReasoningContextNodeId ?? null,
+        structurallyAdmittedNodeIds,
       })
     : null;
 

tests/graph/reasoning-context-compatibility.test.js

@@ -0,0 +1,682 @@
+import { describe, expect, it } from "vitest";
+import {
+  applyValidatedProposal,
+  assessReasoningPatternCompatibility,
+  assessStructuralContextAdmission,
+} from "@/lib/graph/apply-proposal.js";
+import { selectReasoningPattern } from "@/lib/graph/question-formulator.js";
+import { makeGraph, makeNode } from "@/lib/graph/schema.js";
+
+// ── Helpers ──────────────────────────────────────────────
+
+function buildDecisionContext() {
+  const decision = makeNode({
+    id: "n_relocation_decision",
+    label: "Whether continuing development is commercially justified",
+    description:
+      "Need to know whether continuing development is commercially justified before committing resources.",
+    kind: "unknown",
+    status: "unknown",
+    confidence: "medium",
+  });
+
+  return makeGraph({
+    centralStatement:
+      "Relocation decision context for structural embedding tests.",
+    nodes: [decision],
+    edges: [],
+    activeUnknownNodeId: decision.id,
+    resolvedNodeIds: [],
+    currentSummary: "Decision fixture",
+  });
+}
+
+function addOption(graph, optionId) {
+  const option = makeNode({
+    id: optionId,
+    label: "Relocate to new office",
+    description: "Move operations to a new location.",
+    kind: "option",
+    status: "provisional",
+  });
+  graph.nodes.push(option);
+  graph.edges.push({
+    id: `${optionId}_contained_in`,
+    fromNodeId: optionId,
+    toNodeId: graph.activeUnknownNodeId,
+    relationship: "contained_in",
+    confidence: "high",
+    description: "Option belongs to this decision.",
+  });
+}
+
+function resolveActivePattern(graph) {
+  const activeNode = graph.nodes.find(
+    (n) => n.id === graph.activeUnknownNodeId,
+  );
+  if (!activeNode) return null;
+  return selectReasoningPattern({ node: activeNode, graph }).pattern;
+}
+
+function assessBoundedAdmission(graph, node, overrides = {}) {
+  return assessStructuralContextAdmission({
+    node,
+    graph,
+    activePattern: overrides.activePattern ?? resolveActivePattern(graph),
+    activeNodeId: overrides.activeNodeId ?? graph.activeUnknownNodeId,
+  });
+}
+
+function buildApplyProposalDecisionFixture() {
+  const decision = makeNode({
+    id: "n_active_decision",
+    label: "Whether relocating is commercially justified",
+    description:
+      "Need to evaluate whether relocating is commercially justified.",
+    kind: "unknown",
+    status: "unknown",
+    confidence: "medium",
+  });
+
+  return makeGraph({
+    centralStatement: "Relocation follow-up fixture.",
+    nodes: [decision],
+    edges: [],
+    activeUnknownNodeId: decision.id,
+    resolvedNodeIds: [],
+    currentSummary: "Decision apply-proposal fixture",
+  });
+}
+
+// ── Tests ────────────────────────────────────────────────
+
+describe("reasoning-context compatibility — bounded structural admission (60B.19)", () => {
+  it("Test 1 - Route A: newly-added decision unknown admitted via parent/ancestor chain", () => {
+    const decision = makeNode({
+      id: "n_decision_a",
+      label: "Investment context A",
+      description: "A parent context for the option under review.",
+      kind: "unknown",
+      status: "unknown",
+      confidence: "medium",
+    });
+
+    const parentOption = makeNode({
+      id: "opt_parent_a",
+      label: "Parent option A",
+      description: "An option for the decision.",
+      kind: "option",
+      status: "provisional",
+      parentId: "n_decision_a",
+    });
+
+    const childUnknown = makeNode({
+      id: "n_child_embedded",
+      label: "What practical issue is blocking progress",
+      description:
+        "Need to identify the specific blocking issue before continuing this line of work.",
+      kind: "unknown",
+      status: "unknown",
+      confidence: "medium",
+      parentId: "opt_parent_a",
+    });
+
+    const graph = makeGraph({
+      centralStatement: "Market entry decision.",
+      nodes: [decision, parentOption],
+      edges: [],
+      activeUnknownNodeId: "n_decision_a",
+      resolvedNodeIds: [],
+      currentSummary: "Route A fixture",
+    });
+
+    // childUnknown is not yet in graph.nodes; add it so we can build the chain
+    const compat = assessBoundedAdmission(
+      { ...graph, nodes: [...graph.nodes, childUnknown] },
+      childUnknown,
+      { activePattern: "decision", activeNodeId: "n_decision_a" },
+    );
+
+    expect(compat.admitted).toBe(true);
+    expect(compat.structuralEmbedding).toBe(true);
+    expect(compat.routeA).toBe(true);
+  });
+
+  it("Test 2 - Route B may_cause admitted", () => {
+    const graph = buildDecisionContext();
+    addOption(graph, "opt_relocate");
+
+    const newUnknown = makeNode({
+      id: "n_client_retention_uncertainty",
+      label: "What practical risk affects this option",
+      description:
+        "Need to identify the concrete risk factor affecting this option.",
+      kind: "unknown",
+      status: "unknown",
+      confidence: "medium",
+    });
+
+    graph.nodes.push(newUnknown);
+    graph.edges.push({
+      id: "n_client_retention_uncertainty_may_cause_opt_relocate",
+      fromNodeId: "n_client_retention_uncertainty",
+      toNodeId: "opt_relocate",
+      relationship: "may_cause",
+      confidence: "medium",
+      description: "May cause option consequence.",
+    });
+
+    const compat = assessBoundedAdmission(graph, newUnknown);
+
+    expect(compat.admitted).toBe(true);
+    expect(compat.structuralEmbedding).toBe(true);
+    expect(compat.routeB).toBe(true);
+  });
+
+  it("Test 3 - Route B causes admitted", () => {
+    const graph = buildDecisionContext();
+    addOption(graph, "opt_relocate");
+
+    // Add the node and edge into the graph for traversal.
+    const newUnknown = makeNode({
+      id: "n_client_retention_uncertainty",
+      label: "What practical risk affects this option",
+      description:
+        "Need to identify the concrete risk factor affecting this option.",
+      kind: "unknown",
+      status: "unknown",
+      confidence: "medium",
+    });
+
+    graph.nodes.push(newUnknown);
+    graph.edges.push({
+      id: "n_client_retention_uncertainty_causes_opt_relocate",
+      fromNodeId: "n_client_retention_uncertainty",
+      toNodeId: "opt_relocate",
+      relationship: "causes",
+      confidence: "medium",
+      description: "Causal link.",
+    });
+
+    const compat = assessBoundedAdmission(graph, newUnknown);
+
+    expect(compat.admitted).toBe(true);
+    expect(compat.structuralEmbedding).toBe(true);
+    expect(compat.routeB).toBe(true);
+  });
+
+  it("Test 4 - Route B affects admitted", () => {
+    const graph = buildDecisionContext();
+    addOption(graph, "opt_relocate");
+
+    const newUnknown = makeNode({
+      id: "n_client_retention_uncertainty",
+      label: "What practical risk affects this option",
+      description:
+        "Need to identify the concrete risk factor affecting this option.",
+      kind: "unknown",
+      status: "unknown",
+      confidence: "medium",
+    });
+
+    graph.nodes.push(newUnknown);
+    graph.edges.push({
+      id: "n_client_retention_uncertainty_affects_opt_relocate",
+      fromNodeId: "n_client_retention_uncertainty",
+      toNodeId: "opt_relocate",
+      relationship: "affects",
+      confidence: "medium",
+      description: "Impact link.",
+    });
+
+    const compat = assessBoundedAdmission(graph, newUnknown);
+
+    expect(compat.admitted).toBe(true);
+    expect(compat.structuralEmbedding).toBe(true);
+    expect(compat.routeB).toBe(true);
+  });
+
+  it("Test 5 - supports does NOT qualify as structural embedding", () => {
+    const graph = buildDecisionContext();
+    addOption(graph, "opt_relocate");
+
+    const newUnknown = makeNode({
+      id: "n_supporting_factor",
+      label: "What causes the revenue discrepancy?",
+      description: "Need to understand root cause of divergence.",
+      kind: "unknown",
+      status: "unknown",
+      confidence: "medium",
+    });
+
+    graph.nodes.push(newUnknown);
+    graph.edges.push({
+      id: "n_supporting_factor_supports_opt_relocate",
+      fromNodeId: "n_supporting_factor",
+      toNodeId: "opt_relocate",
+      relationship: "supports",
+      confidence: "medium",
+      description: "Support link.",
+    });
+
+    const compat = assessBoundedAdmission(graph, newUnknown);
+
+    expect(compat.admitted).toBe(false);
+    expect(compat.structuralEmbedding).toBe(false);
+  });
+
+  it("Test 6 - measures does NOT qualify as structural embedding", () => {
+    const graph = buildDecisionContext();
+    addOption(graph, "opt_relocate");
+
+    const newUnknown = makeNode({
+      id: "n_measuring_node",
+      label: "What causes the revenue discrepancy?",
+      description: "Need to understand root cause of divergence.",
+      kind: "unknown",
+      status: "unknown",
+      confidence: "medium",
+    });
+
+    graph.nodes.push(newUnknown);
+    graph.edges.push({
+      id: "n_measuring_node_measures_opt_relocate",
+      fromNodeId: "n_measuring_node",
+      toNodeId: "opt_relocate",
+      relationship: "measures",
+      confidence: "medium",
+      description: "Measurement link.",
+    });
+
+    const compat = assessBoundedAdmission(graph, newUnknown);
+
+    expect(compat.admitted).toBe(false);
+    expect(compat.structuralEmbedding).toBe(false);
+  });
+
+  it("Test 7 - depends_on does NOT qualify as structural embedding", () => {
+    const graph = buildDecisionContext();
+    addOption(graph, "opt_relocate");
+
+    const newUnknown = makeNode({
+      id: "n_depends_node",
+      label: "What causes the revenue discrepancy?",
+      description: "Need to understand root cause of divergence.",
+      kind: "unknown",
+      status: "unknown",
+      confidence: "medium",
+    });
+
+    graph.nodes.push(newUnknown);
+    graph.edges.push({
+      id: "n_depends_node_depends_on_opt_relocate",
+      fromNodeId: "n_depends_node",
+      toNodeId: "opt_relocate",
+      relationship: "depends_on",
+      confidence: "medium",
+      description: "Dependency link.",
+    });
+
+    const compat = assessBoundedAdmission(graph, newUnknown);
+
+    expect(compat.admitted).toBe(false);
+    expect(compat.structuralEmbedding).toBe(false);
+  });
+
+  it("Test 8 - arbitrary graph connectivity does NOT produce compatibility", () => {
+    const graph = buildDecisionContext();
+    addOption(graph, "opt_relocate");
+
+    const intermediateNode = makeNode({
+      id: "n_intermediate",
+      label: "Some unrelated factor",
+      description: "Not relevant.",
+      kind: "unknown",
+      status: "unknown",
+      confidence: "medium",
+    });
+
+    const newUnknown = makeNode({
+      id: "n_arbitrary_path",
+      label: "What causes the revenue discrepancy?",
+      description: "Need to understand root cause of divergence.",
+      kind: "unknown",
+      status: "unknown",
+      confidence: "medium",
+    });
+
+    graph.nodes.push(intermediateNode, newUnknown);
+    graph.edges.push({
+      id: "n_arbitrary_path_may_cause_intermediate",
+      fromNodeId: "n_arbitrary_path",
+      toNodeId: "n_intermediate",
+      relationship: "may_cause",
+      confidence: "medium",
+      description: "Connects to intermediate, not an option.",
+    });
+
+    const compat = assessBoundedAdmission(graph, newUnknown);
+
+    expect(compat.admitted).toBe(false);
+    expect(compat.structuralEmbedding).toBe(false);
+  });
+
+  it("Test 9 - wrong decision context rejects", () => {
+    const otherDecision = makeNode({
+      id: "n_other_decision",
+      label: "Should we launch product B?",
+      description: "Different decision.",
+      kind: "unknown",
+      status: "unknown",
+      confidence: "medium",
+    });
+
+    const baseGraph = makeGraph({
+      centralStatement: "Testing wrong decision context.",
+      nodes: [buildDecisionContext().nodes[0], otherDecision],
+      edges: [],
+      activeUnknownNodeId: "n_relocation_decision",
+      resolvedNodeIds: [],
+      currentSummary: "Wrong context fixture",
+    });
+
+    const wrongOption = makeNode({
+      id: "opt_wrong_context",
+      label: "Launch product B option",
+      description: "Belongs to other decision.",
+      kind: "option",
+      status: "provisional",
+    });
+
+    baseGraph.nodes.push(wrongOption);
+    baseGraph.edges.push({
+      id: "opt_wrong_context_contained_in_other",
+      fromNodeId: "opt_wrong_context",
+      toNodeId: "n_other_decision",
+      relationship: "contained_in",
+      confidence: "high",
+      description: "Wrong decision membership.",
+    });
+
+    const newUnknown = makeNode({
+      id: "n_wrong_context_unknown",
+      label: "What practical risk affects this option",
+      description:
+        "Need to identify the concrete risk factor affecting this option.",
+      kind: "unknown",
+      status: "unknown",
+      confidence: "medium",
+    });
+
+    baseGraph.nodes.push(newUnknown);
+    baseGraph.edges.push({
+      id: "n_wrong_context_unknown_may_cause_opt",
+      fromNodeId: "n_wrong_context_unknown",
+      toNodeId: "opt_wrong_context",
+      relationship: "may_cause",
+      confidence: "medium",
+      description: "May cause wrong option.",
+    });
+
+    const compat = assessBoundedAdmission(baseGraph, newUnknown);
+
+    expect(compat.admitted).toBe(false);
+    expect(compat.structuralEmbedding).toBe(false);
+  });
+
+  it("Test 10 - already-compatible pattern remains unchanged", () => {
+    const decision = makeNode({
+      id: "n_decision_10",
+      label: "Whether proceeding is commercially justified",
+      description:
+        "Need to evaluate whether proceeding is commercially justified.",
+      kind: "unknown",
+      status: "unknown",
+      confidence: "medium",
+    });
+
+    const definitionNode = makeNode({
+      id: "n_definition_node",
+      label: "Definition of commercially justified",
+      description: "Define what commercially justified means. Define the term.",
+      kind: "unknown",
+      status: "unknown",
+      confidence: "medium",
+    });
+
+    const graph = makeGraph({
+      centralStatement: "Decision context.",
+      nodes: [decision, definitionNode],
+      edges: [],
+      activeUnknownNodeId: "n_decision_10",
+      resolvedNodeIds: [],
+      currentSummary: "Already compatible fixture",
+    });
+
+    const compat = assessBoundedAdmission(graph, definitionNode);
+
+    expect(compat.intrinsicCompatible).toBe(true);
+    expect(compat.admitted).toBe(false);
+    expect(compat.structuralEmbedding).toBe(false);
+  });
+
+  it("Test 11 - genuine incompatible child under explanation is rejected", () => {
+    const explanationUnknown = makeNode({
+      id: "n_explanation",
+      label: "Explanation for why revenue increased by 18%",
+      description:
+        "Need to understand what change or event could explain these observations.",
+      kind: "unknown",
+      status: "unknown",
+      confidence: "medium",
+    });
+
+    const graph = makeGraph({
+      centralStatement:
+        "Revenue increased by 18%, but cash in the bank fell over the same period.",
+      nodes: [
+        explanationUnknown,
+        makeNode({
+          id: "n_revenue_obs",
+          label: "Revenue increased by 18%.",
+          description: "Revenue increased by 18%.",
+          kind: "observation",
+          status: "supported",
+          confidence: "high",
+        }),
+        makeNode({
+          id: "n_cash_obs",
+          label: "Cash in the bank fell over the same period.",
+          description: "Cash in the bank fell.",
+          kind: "observation",
+          status: "supported",
+          confidence: "high",
+        }),
+      ],
+      edges: [],
+      activeUnknownNodeId: "n_explanation",
+      resolvedNodeIds: [],
+      currentSummary: "Explanation fixture",
+    });
+
+    const diagnosisChild = makeNode({
+      id: "n_diagnosis_child",
+      label: "What practical issue is blocking progress",
+      description:
+        "Need to identify the specific blocking issue before continuing this line of work.",
+      kind: "unknown",
+      status: "unknown",
+      confidence: "medium",
+      parentId: "n_explanation",
+    });
+
+    graph.nodes.push(diagnosisChild);
+
+    const compat = assessBoundedAdmission(graph, diagnosisChild);
+    const compatibility = assessReasoningPatternCompatibility({
+      node: diagnosisChild,
+      graph,
+      activePattern: resolveActivePattern(graph),
+      activeNodeId: graph.activeUnknownNodeId,
+    });
+
+    expect(compat.admitted).toBe(false);
+    expect(compat.nodePattern).toBe("diagnosis");
+    expect(compat.structuralEmbedding).toBe(false);
+    expect(compatibility.compatible).toBe(false);
+  });
+
+  it("Test 12 - pre-existing unknown does not enter fallback", () => {
+    const graph = buildApplyProposalDecisionFixture();
+    const preExisting = makeNode({
+      id: "n_preexisting_diagnosis",
+      label: "What practical risk affects this option",
+      description:
+        "Need to identify the concrete risk factor affecting this option.",
+      kind: "unknown",
+      status: "unknown",
+      confidence: "medium",
+      parentId: graph.activeUnknownNodeId,
+    });
+    graph.nodes.push(preExisting);
+
+    const result = applyValidatedProposal({
+      situationGraph: graph,
+      proposal: {
+        addedNodes: [],
+        updatedNodes: [
+          {
+            nodeId: graph.activeUnknownNodeId,
+            previousStatus: "unknown",
+            newStatus: "known",
+            previousValue: null,
+            newValue: "Decision anchor updated for selection.",
+            reason: "Makes the parent answer-derived for the test.",
+          },
+        ],
+        addedEdges: [],
+        removedEdgeIds: [],
+        resolvedUnknownNodeIds: [],
+        affectedNodeIds: [],
+        selectedQuestion: {
+          nodeId: "n_preexisting_diagnosis",
+          question: "What practical risk affects this option?",
+          reason: "Pre-existing node should not gain fallback admission.",
+        },
+      },
+    });
+
+    expect(result.success).toBe(true);
+  });
+
+  it("Test 13 - admitted node survives later result validation", () => {
+    const graph = buildApplyProposalDecisionFixture();
+
+    const result = applyValidatedProposal({
+      situationGraph: graph,
+      answer: "We need to identify the practical risk affecting this option.",
+      previousQuestion: "Should we relocate?",
+      proposal: {
+        addedNodes: [
+          makeNode({
+            id: "n_added_route_a",
+            label: "What practical risk affects this option",
+            description:
+              "Need to identify the concrete risk factor affecting this option because it matters to the decision.",
+            kind: "unknown",
+            status: "unknown",
+            confidence: "medium",
+            parentId: graph.activeUnknownNodeId,
+          }),
+        ],
+        updatedNodes: [
+          {
+            nodeId: graph.activeUnknownNodeId,
+            previousStatus: "unknown",
+            newStatus: "provisional",
+            previousValue: null,
+            newValue: "Decision remains open pending factor clarification.",
+            reason: "The answer introduces a concrete follow-up factor.",
+          },
+        ],
+        addedEdges: [],
+        removedEdgeIds: [],
+        resolvedUnknownNodeIds: [],
+        affectedNodeIds: [],
+        selectedQuestion: {
+          nodeId: "n_added_route_a",
+          question: "What practical risk affects this option?",
+          reason: "New factor introduced this turn.",
+        },
+        answerMeaning: {
+          userSupportedMeaning:
+            "We need to identify the practical risk affecting this option.",
+          possibleInference: null,
+          supportCategory: null,
+          resolutionGuidance: null,
+        },
+        structuralActionRequired: true,
+      },
+    });
+
+    expect(result.success).toBe(true);
+    expect(result.selectedQuestion?.nodeId).toBe("n_added_route_a");
+  });
+
+  it("Test 14 - non-pattern validations still apply", () => {
+    const graph = buildApplyProposalDecisionFixture();
+
+    const result = applyValidatedProposal({
+      situationGraph: graph,
+      answer: "We need to identify the practical risk affecting this option.",
+      previousQuestion: "Should we relocate?",
+      proposal: {
+        addedNodes: [
+          makeNode({
+            id: "n_added_invalid",
+            label: "What practical risk affects this option",
+            description:
+              "Need to identify the concrete risk factor affecting this option because it matters to the decision.",
+            kind: "unknown",
+            status: "unknown",
+            confidence: "medium",
+            parentId: graph.activeUnknownNodeId,
+          }),
+        ],
+        updatedNodes: [
+          {
+            nodeId: graph.activeUnknownNodeId,
+            previousStatus: "unknown",
+            newStatus: "provisional",
+            previousValue: null,
+            newValue: "Decision remains open pending factor clarification.",
+            reason: "The answer introduces a concrete follow-up factor.",
+          },
+        ],
+        addedEdges: [],
+        removedEdgeIds: [],
+        resolvedUnknownNodeIds: [],
+        affectedNodeIds: [],
+        selectedQuestion: {
+          nodeId: "n_added_invalid",
+          question:
+            "What practical risk affects this option, and how severe is it?",
+          reason: "Compound question should still fail.",
+        },
+        answerMeaning: {
+          userSupportedMeaning:
+            "We need to identify the practical risk affecting this option.",
+          possibleInference: null,
+          supportCategory: null,
+          resolutionGuidance: null,
+        },
+        structuralActionRequired: true,
+      },
+    });
+
+    expect(result.success).toBe(false);
+    expect(result.errors.join(" ")).toContain(
+      "selectedQuestion must be a single non-compound question",
+    );
+  });
+});