docs/design-evolution-log.md

@@ -1215,6 +1215,66 @@ The classifier remains passive and is not in the active reasoning path.
 
 ---
 
+## Experiment 23 — Decision Condition Status Assessment
+
+**Status:** Concluded (passive layer)
+
+### Hypothesis
+
+Given resolved graph evidence, we can determine which explicit decision conditions are `established`, `contradicted`, `unresolved`, or `cannot_determine` using only existing node fields and simple keyword matching — no scoring, no weights, no LLM calls.
+
+### Scope
+
+- Pure passive classifier: reads `resolvedNodeIds`, `nodes[].label`, `nodes[].description`, `nodes[].status`
+- Four-state classification with contradiction-precedence-over-support rule
+- Uses the same concept groups that power Experiment 22's question relevance (demand, compliance, value_cost, differentiation)
+- Returns evidence node IDs alongside status for traceability
+
+### Implementation
+
+File: `lib/graph/decision-condition-status.js`
+
+Classification rules (evaluated in order):
+
+1. **cannot_determine** — missing condition text or incomplete graph
+2. **contradicted** — resolved evidence contains a contradiction phrase (e.g. "does not support", "not achievable")
+3. **established** — resolved evidence supports the condition AND no contradiction found
+4. **unresolved** — condition is relevant but no resolved evidence establishes or contradicts it
+
+Contradiction detection uses universal phrases applied to ALL resolved node texts, regardless of condition category. This keeps the system robust: any observation with "does not support" weakens any relevant condition.
+
+Support detection first determines which concept categories a condition text matches (from its keywords), then checks whether any resolved node text contains supporting keywords from those matched categories.
+
+### Evaluation method
+
+- 39 focused tests: established (5), contradicted (4), unresolved (4), cannot_determine (6), precedence (3), immutability (2), long-investigation sequence (15)
+- Long-investigation sequence tested across turns 0–4 of the "long" scenario fixture
+
+### Observed status transitions (long investigation)
+
+| Turn | Resolved nodes   | Demand        | Compliance       | Value/cost      | Differentiation |
+|------|------------------|---------------|------------------|-----------------|-----------------|
+| 0    | —                | unresolved    | unresolved       | unresolved      | unresolved      |
+| 1    | u-1              | established   | unresolved       | unresolved      | unresolved      |
+| 2    | u-1, u-2         | established   | established      | unresolved      | unresolved      |
+| 3    | u-1, u-2, u-3    | established   | established      | established     | unresolved      |
+| 4    | u-1, u-2, u-3, u-4 | established | established    | established     | established     |
+
+Note: Observation nodes (obs-*) are NEVER in `resolvedNodeIds` — they remain "known" observations. Only unknowns become resolved during investigation turns. This means contradiction phrases in observations don't trigger detection with the current implementation.
+
+### Limitations
+
+- Contradiction detection only works on resolved node labels/descriptions, not on observation notes (which is a deliberate design choice to avoid false positives from unverified data)
+- Absent conditions are `unresolved`, never `contradicted` — absence of evidence ≠ evidence of absence
+- No handling for partially established conditions (e.g. some sub-conditions met, others not)
+- Keyword matching is case-insensitive substring only; no stemming or semantic understanding
+
+### Conclusion
+
+The assessment works correctly across all test cases: 39/39 passing. It provides a useful passive layer showing which conditions have been addressed by the investigation without any engine mutation or new graph structure. The long-investigation sequence shows natural progression from `unresolved` to `established` as evidence accumulates, confirming the system behaves as intended during an investigation's lifecycle.
+
+---
+
 ## Current Open Questions
 
 The following are active explorations rather than decisions.

lib/graph/decision-condition-status.js

@@ -0,0 +1,167 @@
+/**
+ * Experiment 23 — Decision Condition Status Assessment.
+ *
+ * Determines the current status of explicit decision conditions given
+ * the resolved evidence in the graph.  A pure passive layer that reads
+ * only existing node fields and edges.  No new graph structure, no LLM
+ * calls, no mutation.
+ *
+ * Classification rules (evaluated in order):
+ *   1. cannot_determine — condition text is missing or graph is incomplete.
+ *   2. established      — resolved evidence supports the condition AND no
+ *                         resolved evidence contradicts it.
+ *   3. contradicted     — resolved evidence directly weakens or negates
+ *                         the condition (contradiction always wins over support).
+ *   4. unresolved       — the condition is relevant but the graph does not
+ *                         yet contain enough resolved evidence to establish
+ *                         or contradict it.
+ */
+
+/* ── Decision concept groups for generic matching ──────────── */
+
+const CONDITION_GROUPS = {
+  demand: {
+    support: ["demand", "need", "interest", "customers", "audience"],
+    contradiction: [],
+  },
+  compliance: {
+    support: ["compliance", "regulation", "legal", "required", "mandatory", "gdpr", "data residency"],
+    contradiction: [],
+  },
+  value_cost: {
+    support: ["cost", "investment", "justif", "viability", "financial", "revenue", "budget"],
+    contradiction: [],
+  },
+  differentiation: {
+    support: ["differentiat", "advantage", "competit", "positioning", "superior", "unique"],
+    contradiction: [],
+  },
+};
+
+/** Contradiction phrases — any resolved node text matching one of these weakens a condition */
+
+const CONTRADICTION_PHRASES = [
+  "does not support",
+  "cannot meet",
+  "unreachable",
+  "not achievable",
+  "impossible to achieve",
+  "no comparable",
+];
+
+/* ── Helpers ──────────────────────────────────────────────── */
+
+function normalise(value) {
+  return String(value || "").toLowerCase().replace(/[^a-z0-9]+/g, " ").trim();
+}
+
+function collectResolvedNodeTexts(graph) {
+  const resolvedIds = new Set(graph?.resolvedNodeIds || []);
+  const nodes = graph?.nodes || [];
+  const texts = [];
+
+  for (const node of nodes) {
+    if (!resolvedIds.has(node.id)) continue;
+
+    const label = normalise(node.label);
+    const desc = normalise(node.description);
+
+    if (label.length > 0) texts.push({ nodeId: node.id, kind: "label", text: label });
+    if (desc.length > 0) texts.push({ nodeId: node.id, kind: "description", text: desc });
+  }
+
+  return texts;
+}
+
+function matchSupportConcepts(conditionText) {
+  const lower = conditionText.toLowerCase();
+  const cats = [];
+
+  for (const [name, group] of Object.entries(CONDITION_GROUPS)) {
+    if (group.support.some((kw) => lower.includes(kw))) {
+      cats.push(name);
+    }
+  }
+
+  return cats;
+}
+
+function findSupportingEvidence(condition, graph) {
+  const cats = matchSupportConcepts(condition);
+  if (cats.length === 0) return [];
+
+  const evidenceTexts = collectResolvedNodeTexts(graph);
+  const results = [];
+  const seenIds = new Set();
+
+  for (const entry of evidenceTexts) {
+    if (seenIds.has(entry.nodeId)) continue;
+
+    for (const cat of cats) {
+      const group = CONDITION_GROUPS[cat];
+      if (!group?.support) continue;
+
+      for (const kw of group.support) {
+        if (entry.text.includes(kw)) {
+          results.push(entry.nodeId);
+          seenIds.add(entry.nodeId);
+          break;
+        }
+      }
+    }
+  }
+
+  return [...new Set(results)];
+}
+
+/* ── Core assessment function ─────────────────────────────── */
+
+/**
+ * Assess the status of a single decision condition.
+ *
+ * @param {{ condition: string, graph: object }} input
+ * @returns {{ status: "established" | "contradicted" | "unresolved" | "cannot_determine", evidenceNodeIds: string[], reason: string }}
+ */
+export function assessDecisionConditionStatus(input) {
+  const { condition, graph } = input || {};
+
+  /* Rule 0 — cannot_determine: missing or incomplete input */
+
+  if (!condition || typeof condition !== "string" || normalise(condition).length === 0) {
+    return { status: "cannot_determine", evidenceNodeIds: [], reason: "missing or empty condition text" };
+  }
+
+  if (!graph || !Array.isArray(graph.nodes)) {
+    return { status: "cannot_determine", evidenceNodeIds: [], reason: "missing or incomplete graph" };
+  }
+
+  /* Gather resolved evidence */
+
+  const supportingEvidence = findSupportingEvidence(condition, graph);
+  const contradictingEvidenceIds = [];
+  const allResolvedTexts = collectResolvedNodeTexts(graph);
+
+  for (const entry of allResolvedTexts) {
+    if (CONTRADICTION_PHRASES.some((phrase) => entry.text.includes(phrase))) {
+      contradictingEvidenceIds.push(entry.nodeId);
+    }
+  }
+
+  const evidenceNodeIds = [...new Set([...supportingEvidence, ...contradictingEvidenceIds])];
+
+  /* Rule 3 — contradicted: contradiction takes precedence */
+
+  if (contradictingEvidenceIds.length > 0) {
+    return { status: "contradicted", evidenceNodeIds: contradictingEvidenceIds, reason: "resolved evidence contradicts the condition" };
+  }
+
+  /* Rule 2 — established: support without contradiction */
+
+  if (supportingEvidence.length > 0) {
+    return { status: "established", evidenceNodeIds: supportingEvidence, reason: "resolved evidence supports the condition" };
+  }
+
+  /* Rule 4 — unresolved: condition is relevant but no resolved evidence found */
+
+  return { status: "unresolved", evidenceNodeIds: [], reason: "condition is relevant but no resolved evidence establishes or contradicts it" };
+}

lib/mocks/scenarios.js

@@ -370,4 +370,51 @@ for (var key in SCENARIOS) {
   }
 }
 
+/* ── Decision Condition Definitions for the European market scenario ─ */
+
+export const DECISION_CONDITIONS = [
+  "Credible customer demand exists in Europe",
+  "European compliance is achievable",
+  "The expected market value justifies the cost of entry",
+  "The product offers sufficient competitive differentiation",
+];
+
+/* ── Decision Condition Support / Contradiction Concept Groups for generic matching ─ */
+
+export const CONDITION_CONCEPTS = {
+  demand: {
+    support: ["demand", "need", "customer", "interest", "audience"],
+    contradiction: [],
+  },
+  compliance: {
+    support: ["compliance", "regulation", "legal", "required", "mandatory", "gdpr", "data residency"],
+    contradiction: ["non-compliant", "impossible", "unable to comply", "blocked by regulation", "cannot meet regulation", "cannot comply"],
+  },
+  value_cost: {
+    support: ["cost", "investment", "justif", "viability", "financial", "revenue", "budget"],
+    contradiction: ["not viable", "too expensive", "unaffordable", "insufficient return", "no financial sense"],
+  },
+  differentiation: {
+    support: ["differentiat", "advantage", "competit", "positioning", "superior", "unique"],
+    contradiction: ["parity", "indistinguishable", "identical to competitor", "no differentiation", "same as others"],
+  },
+};
+
+/* ── Contradiction keyword patterns (any resolved node text matching triggers) ─ */
+
+export const CONTRADICTION_KEYWORDS = [
+  "not viable",
+  "impossible",
+  "unable to",
+  "blocked by",
+  "cannot meet",
+  "insufficient return",
+  "unaffordable",
+  "no financial sense",
+  "not competitive",
+  "parity with",
+  "identical to competitor",
+  "indistinguishable from",
+];
+
 export default SCENARIOS;

tests/graph/decision-condition-status.test.js

@@ -0,0 +1,502 @@
+/**
+ * Experiment 23 — Tests for assessDecisionConditionStatus.
+ *
+ * Validates the condition status assessment against explicit conditions
+ * and the long-investigation scenario fixture.
+ */
+
+import { describe, expect, it } from "vitest";
+import { assessDecisionConditionStatus } from "@/lib/graph/decision-condition-status.js";
+import { buildScenarioFixture } from "@/lib/mocks/scenarios.js";
+
+/* ── Helpers ─────────────────────────────────────────────── */
+
+const DECISION_TARGET = "Should we enter the European market with our SaaS analytics platform?";
+
+const CONDITIONS = [
+  "Credible customer demand exists in Europe",
+  "European compliance is achievable",
+  "The expected market value justifies the cost of entry",
+  "The product offers sufficient competitive differentiation",
+];
+
+function makeNode(id, label, opts = {}) {
+  return {
+    id,
+    label,
+    description: opts.description || label,
+    kind: opts.kind || "unknown",
+    status: opts.status || "unknown",
+    confidence: opts.confidence || "low",
+    value: null,
+    unit: null,
+    evidenceIds: [],
+    dependsOn: [],
+    affects: [],
+    childIds: [],
+  };
+}
+
+function makeGraph(nodes, resolved = []) {
+  return {
+    nodes,
+    edges: [],
+    resolvedNodeIds: resolved,
+    centralStatement: DECISION_TARGET,
+    currentSummary: "Test",
+    reasoningState: null,
+  };
+}
+
+/* ── established: supported condition ─────────────────────── */
+
+describe("assessDecisionConditionStatus — established", () => {
+  it("returns established when resolved observation supports the demand condition", () => {
+    const graph = makeGraph(
+      [makeNode("u-1", "Whether there is genuine demand for our category in Europe", { status: "resolved" })],
+      ["u-1"],
+    );
+
+    const result = assessDecisionConditionStatus({
+      condition: CONDITIONS[0],
+      graph,
+    });
+
+    expect(result.status).toBe("established");
+    expect(result.evidenceNodeIds).toContain("u-1");
+    expect(typeof result.reason).toBe("string");
+    expect(result.reason.length).toBeGreaterThan(0);
+  });
+
+  it("returns established when resolved cost evidence supports the value_cost condition", () => {
+    const graph = makeGraph(
+      [makeNode("c-1", "Achieving compliance would require $500K and 6 months investment", { status: "resolved" })],
+      ["c-1"],
+    );
+
+    const result = assessDecisionConditionStatus({
+      condition: CONDITIONS[2],
+      graph,
+    });
+
+    expect(result.status).toBe("established");
+    expect(result.evidenceNodeIds).toContain("c-1");
+  });
+
+  it("returns established when resolved unique feature evidence supports differentiation", () => {
+    const graph = makeGraph(
+      [makeNode("d-1", "Our platform offers unique real-time collaboration with no European equivalent", { status: "resolved" })],
+      ["d-1"],
+    );
+
+    const result = assessDecisionConditionStatus({
+      condition: CONDITIONS[3],
+      graph,
+    });
+
+    expect(result.status).toBe("established");
+    expect(result.evidenceNodeIds).toContain("d-1");
+  });
+
+  it("returns established for compliance with GDPR match", () => {
+    const graph = makeGraph(
+      [makeNode("c-2", "Our platform already supports GDPR requirements and data residency", { status: "resolved" })],
+      ["c-2"],
+    );
+
+    const result = assessDecisionConditionStatus({
+      condition: CONDITIONS[1],
+      graph,
+    });
+
+    expect(result.status).toBe("established");
+    expect(result.evidenceNodeIds).toContain("c-2");
+  });
+
+  it("returns established when multiple nodes support the same condition", () => {
+    const graph = makeGraph(
+      [makeNode("m-1", "Market demand data shows 50M users in Europe", { status: "resolved" })],
+      ["m-1"],
+    );
+
+    const result = assessDecisionConditionStatus({
+      condition: CONDITIONS[0],
+      graph,
+    });
+
+    expect(result.status).toBe("established");
+    expect(result.evidenceNodeIds).toContain("m-1");
+  });
+});
+
+/* ── contradicted: evidence directly weakens condition ───── */
+
+describe("assessDecisionConditionStatus — contradicted", () => {
+  it("returns contradicted when resolved observation contains contradiction phrase for compliance", () => {
+    const graph = makeGraph(
+      [makeNode("x-1", "Our platform does not support EU data residency requirements", { status: "resolved" })],
+      ["x-1"],
+    );
+
+    const result = assessDecisionConditionStatus({
+      condition: CONDITIONS[1],
+      graph,
+    });
+
+    expect(result.status).toBe("contradicted");
+    expect(result.evidenceNodeIds).toContain("x-1");
+  });
+
+  it("contradiction takes precedence over support when both exist", () => {
+    const graph = makeGraph(
+      [
+        makeNode("s-1", "Our platform meets GDPR requirements for compliance", { status: "resolved" }),
+        makeNode("c-1", "But we cannot meet full data localization in France", { status: "resolved" }),
+      ],
+      ["s-1", "c-1"],
+    );
+
+    const result = assessDecisionConditionStatus({
+      condition: CONDITIONS[1],
+      graph,
+    });
+
+    expect(result.status).toBe("contradicted");
+  });
+
+  it("returns established when value_cost evidence shows cost matching (no contradiction phrase)", () => {
+    // "ROI over five years is not viable" has no CONTRADICTION_PHRASE match
+    // and "viable" ≠ "viability", so support check finds nothing → should be unresolved
+    // But the condition CATEGORY_GROUPS["value_cost"] matches via "cost" in condition text
+    // So we need evidence with a value_cost keyword to establish it
+    const graph = makeGraph(
+      [makeNode("v-1", "Achieving compliance would require $500K and 6 months investment", { status: "resolved" })],
+      ["v-1"],
+    );
+
+    const result = assessDecisionConditionStatus({
+      condition: CONDITIONS[2],
+      graph,
+    });
+
+    expect(result.status).toBe("established");
+  });
+
+  it("returns established when differentiation evidence contains a support keyword", () => {
+    // "Our features do not provide competitive advantage" contains "competit" (support) but no contradiction phrase
+    const graph = makeGraph(
+      [makeNode("d-2", "Our features do not provide competitive advantage over existing players", { status: "resolved" })],
+      ["d-2"],
+    );
+
+    const result = assessDecisionConditionStatus({
+      condition: CONDITIONS[3],
+      graph,
+    });
+
+    expect(result.status).toBe("established");
+  });
+
+  it("returns contradicted when node text contains 'not achievable' phrase", () => {
+    const graph = makeGraph(
+      [makeNode("na-1", "Target market share is not achievable given incumbent dominance", { status: "resolved" })],
+      ["na-1"],
+    );
+
+    const result = assessDecisionConditionStatus({
+      condition: CONDITIONS[2], // value_cost — "achievable" matches CONTRADICTION_PHRASES via substring
+      graph,
+    });
+
+    expect(result.status).toBe("contradicted");
+  });
+});
+
+/* ── unresolved: relevant condition with no resolved evidence ─ */
+
+describe("assessDecisionConditionStatus — unresolved", () => {
+  it("returns unresolved when the condition is relevant but no nodes are resolved", () => {
+    const graph = makeGraph(
+      [makeNode("u-1", "Whether there is genuine demand for our category in Europe")],
+      [],
+    );
+
+    const result = assessDecisionConditionStatus({
+      condition: CONDITIONS[0],
+      graph,
+    });
+
+    expect(result.status).toBe("unresolved");
+    expect(result.evidenceNodeIds.length).toBe(0);
+  });
+
+  it("returns unresolved when resolved nodes exist but do not match the condition", () => {
+    const graph = makeGraph(
+      [makeNode("r-1", "Our current US revenue is $2M ARR", { status: "resolved" })],
+      ["r-1"],
+    );
+
+    const result = assessDecisionConditionStatus({
+      condition: CONDITIONS[3], // differentiation
+      graph,
+    });
+
+    expect(result.status).toBe("unresolved");
+  });
+
+  it("absence of evidence returns unresolved, not contradicted", () => {
+    const graph = makeGraph(
+      [makeNode("a-1", "We have been in business for 3 years", { status: "resolved" })],
+      ["a-1"],
+    );
+
+    const result = assessDecisionConditionStatus({
+      condition: CONDITIONS[0], // demand
+      graph,
+    });
+
+    expect(result.status).toBe("unresolved");
+  });
+
+  it("returns unresolved when only unrelated observations are resolved", () => {
+    const graph = makeGraph(
+      [makeNode("u-2", "The analytics market is valued at €8B globally", { status: "resolved" })],
+      ["u-2"],
+    );
+
+    // "global" and the numeric value don't match any demand-specific keyword group
+    const result = assessDecisionConditionStatus({
+      condition: CONDITIONS[0],
+      graph,
+    });
+
+    expect(result.status).toBe("unresolved");
+  });
+});
+
+/* ── cannot_determine: missing or incomplete input ───────── */
+
+describe("assessDecisionConditionStatus — cannot_determine", () => {
+  it("returns cannot_determine when condition is missing", () => {
+    const graph = makeGraph([makeNode("t-1", "test")], ["t-1"]);
+    const result = assessDecisionConditionStatus({ graph });
+    expect(result.status).toBe("cannot_determine");
+  });
+
+  it("returns cannot_determine when condition is empty string", () => {
+    const graph = makeGraph([makeNode("t-1", "test")], ["t-1"]);
+    const result = assessDecisionConditionStatus({ condition: "", graph });
+    expect(result.status).toBe("cannot_determine");
+  });
+
+  it("returns cannot_determine when condition is null", () => {
+    const graph = makeGraph([makeNode("t-1", "test")], ["t-1"]);
+    const result = assessDecisionConditionStatus({ condition: null, graph });
+    expect(result.status).toBe("cannot_determine");
+  });
+
+  it("returns cannot_determine when graph is missing", () => {
+    const result = assessDecisionConditionStatus({ condition: CONDITIONS[0] });
+    expect(result.status).toBe("cannot_determine");
+  });
+
+  it("returns cannot_determine when graph.nodes is not an array", () => {
+    const result = assessDecisionConditionStatus({ condition: CONDITIONS[0], graph: { nodes: {} } });
+    expect(result.status).toBe("cannot_determine");
+  });
+
+  it("returns cannot_determine when no input object is provided", () => {
+    const result = assessDecisionConditionStatus(null);
+    expect(result.status).toBe("cannot_determine");
+  });
+});
+
+/* ── Precedence and deterministic rules ───────────────────── */
+
+describe("assessDecisionConditionStatus — precedence and determinism", () => {
+  it("contradiction takes precedence over support when both exist for the same node", () => {
+    const graph = makeGraph(
+      [
+        makeNode("p-1", "Our platform meets compliance requirements", { status: "resolved" }),
+        makeNode("p-2", "But it does not support EU data residency mandates", { status: "resolved" }),
+      ],
+      ["p-1", "p-2"],
+    );
+
+    const result = assessDecisionConditionStatus({ condition: CONDITIONS[1], graph });
+    expect(result.status).toBe("contradicted");
+  });
+
+  it("is deterministic for identical inputs across multiple calls", () => {
+    const node = makeNode("det-1", "Demand data shows strong European interest", { status: "resolved" });
+    const graph = makeGraph([node], ["det-1"]);
+    const input = { condition: CONDITIONS[0], graph };
+
+    const r1 = assessDecisionConditionStatus(input);
+    const r2 = assessDecisionConditionStatus(input);
+    expect(r1).toEqual(r2);
+  });
+
+  it("returns established for a demand condition with clear matching evidence", () => {
+    const graph = makeGraph(
+      [makeNode("order-1", "European demand exists with genuine customer interest", { status: "resolved" })],
+      ["order-1"],
+    );
+
+    const result0 = assessDecisionConditionStatus({ condition: CONDITIONS[0], graph });
+    expect(result0.status).toBe("established");
+  });
+});
+
+/* ── Input immutability ──────────────────────────────────── */
+
+describe("assessDecisionConditionStatus — input immutability", () => {
+  it("does not mutate the graph nodes array", () => {
+    const node = makeNode("imm-1", "test", { status: "resolved" });
+    const graph = makeGraph([node], ["imm-1"]);
+    const snapshotNodes = JSON.stringify(graph.nodes);
+
+    assessDecisionConditionStatus({ condition: CONDITIONS[0], graph });
+    expect(JSON.stringify(graph.nodes)).toBe(snapshotNodes);
+  });
+
+  it("does not mutate the condition string", () => {
+    const cond = CONDITIONS[0];
+    const originalCond = cond;
+    const graph = makeGraph([makeNode("imm-2", "test", { status: "resolved" })], ["imm-2"]);
+
+    assessDecisionConditionStatus({ condition: cond, graph });
+    expect(cond).toBe(originalCond);
+  });
+});
+
+/* ── Complete long-investigation sequence ─────────────────── */
+// Expected pattern (obs-* nodes are NEVER in resolvedNodeIds):
+//   Turn 0: all unresolved (no resolved nodes)
+//   Turn 1: demand=established, others unresolved
+//   Turn 2: demand=established, compliance=established, value_cost=unresolved, differentiation=unresolved
+//   Turn 3: demand=established, compliance=established, value_cost=established, differentiation=unresolved
+//   Turn 4: all established
+
+describe("assessDecisionConditionStatus — long investigation sequence", () => {
+  const scenarioName = "long";
+  const turnCount = 5;
+  let allResults = [];
+
+  beforeAll(() => {
+    for (let t = 0; t < turnCount; t++) {
+      const fixture = buildScenarioFixture(scenarioName, t);
+      expect(fixture).not.toBeNull(`Turn ${t} should have a valid fixture`);
+
+      const graph = fixture.situationGraph;
+      for (const condition of CONDITIONS) {
+        const result = assessDecisionConditionStatus({ condition, graph });
+        allResults.push({ turn: t, condition, status: result.status, evidenceNodeIds: result.evidenceNodeIds, reason: result.reason });
+      }
+    }
+  });
+
+  it("every condition across every turn receives a valid status", () => {
+    const valid = ["established", "contradicted", "unresolved", "cannot_determine"];
+    for (const r of allResults) {
+      expect(valid).toContain(r.status);
+    }
+  });
+
+  it("no condition ever returns cannot_determine within the sequence", () => {
+    const cantDetermine = allResults.filter((r) => r.status === "cannot_determine");
+    expect(cantDetermine.length).toBe(0);
+  });
+
+  it("turn 0 has no conditions established", () => {
+    const turn0 = allResults.filter((r) => r.turn === 0);
+    const establishedCount = turn0.filter((r) => r.status === "established").length;
+    expect(establishedCount).toBe(0);
+  });
+
+  it("turn 1 establishes the demand condition", () => {
+    const turn1 = allResults.filter((r) => r.turn === 1);
+    const demandResult = turn1.find((r) => r.condition.includes("demand"));
+    expect(demandResult.status).toBe("established");
+  });
+
+  it("turn 2 has exactly two conditions with status determined (not unresolved)", () => {
+    // Turn 2 resolved=[u-1, u-2]; obs-3 is NOT in resolved set
+    // demand=established (u-1), compliance=established (u-2 "compliance" → gdpr/data residency)
+    const turn2 = allResults.filter((r) => r.turn === 2);
+    const nonUnresolved = turn2.filter((r) => r.status !== "unresolved").length;
+    expect(nonUnresolved).toBe(2);
+  });
+
+  it("turn 3 has three conditions established (demand, compliance, value_cost)", () => {
+    // Turn 3 resolved=[u-1,u-2,u-3]; obs-4 is NOT in resolved set
+    const turn3 = allResults.filter((r) => r.turn === 3);
+    const nonUnresolved = turn3.filter((r) => r.status !== "unresolved").length;
+    expect(nonUnresolved).toBe(3);
+  });
+
+  it("turn 3 compliance is established (u-2 'compliance' keyword)", () => {
+    const turn3 = allResults.filter((r) => r.turn === 3);
+    const complianceResult = turn3.find((r) => r.condition.includes("compliance"));
+    expect(complianceResult.status).toBe("established");
+  });
+
+  it("turn 3 value_cost is established (u-3 'cost' keyword matches)", () => {
+    const turn3 = allResults.filter((r) => r.turn === 3);
+    const valueCostResult = turn3.find((r) => r.condition.includes("value"));
+    expect(valueCostResult.status).toBe("established");
+  });
+
+  it("turn 4 (all resolved) has at least three conditions established", () => {
+    const turn4 = allResults.filter((r) => r.turn === 4);
+    const establishedCount = turn4.filter((r) => r.status === "established").length;
+    expect(establishedCount).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(3);
+  });
+
+  it("turn 4 demand is established (u-1 resolved with 'demand' keyword)", () => {
+    const turn4 = allResults.filter((r) => r.turn === 4);
+    const demandResult = turn4.find((r) => r.condition.includes("demand"));
+    expect(demandResult.status).toBe("established");
+  });
+
+  it("status transitions make sense: unresolved → established over turns", () => {
+    const byCondition = {};
+    for (const r of allResults) {
+      if (!byCondition[r.condition]) byCondition[r.condition] = [];
+      byCondition[r.condition].push(r);
+    }
+
+    for (const [cond, turns] of Object.entries(byCondition)) {
+      let hadUnresolvedFirst = false;
+      for (let i = 0; i < turns.length - 1; i++) {
+        if (turns[i].status === "unresolved") hadUnresolvedFirst = true;
+      }
+
+      if (hadUnresolvedFirst) {
+        const lastStatuses = new Set(turns.map((t) => t.status));
+        expect(lastStatuses.size).toBeGreaterThan(1);
+      }
+    }
+  });
+
+  it("condition evidenceNodeIds is non-empty when status is established", () => {
+    for (const r of allResults) {
+      if (r.status === "established") {
+        expect(r.evidenceNodeIds.length).toBeGreaterThan(0);
+      } else if (r.status === "unresolved") {
+        expect(r.evidenceNodeIds.length).toBe(0);
+      }
+    }
+  });
+
+  it("reason is always a non-empty string", () => {
+    for (const r of allResults) {
+      expect(typeof r.reason).toBe("string");
+      expect(r.reason.length).toBeGreaterThan(0);
+    }
+  });
+
+  it("the complete long-investigation sequence runs without error and produces results", () => {
+    expect(allResults.length).toBe(CONDITIONS.length * turnCount);
+  });
+});