docs/current-handoff.md

@@ -3492,3 +3492,18 @@ The no-confirmation guard works live post-refactor. Parent decision stays open w
 
 
 ---
+
+---
+
+---
+
+### Experiment 60B.72 — Missing Sufficiency Confirmation Question Diagnosis (READ-ONLY)
+
+**Date:** 2026-08-14
+**Branch:** `feature/decision-sufficiency-module-v0.44`
+**Parent:** 60B.71 (no-confirmation guard confirmed working)
+**Type:** Read-only reasoning diagnosis
+
+Inverses the question-target problem of 60B.71: when the guard correctly keeps the decision open, the next question should be a sufficiency-confirmation question — not a generic decision_threshold continuation. Currently it cannot distinguish "need to confirm no remaining factors" from "need to investigate an unresolved factor."
+
+**Status:** pending Rob's review. Full analysis in docs/experiment-60b72.md.

docs/experiment-60b72.md

@@ -0,0 +1,131 @@
+# Experiment 60B.72 — Missing Sufficiency Confirmation Question Diagnosis
+
+**Date:** 2026-08-14
+**Branch:** `feature/decision-sufficiency-module-v0.44`
+**Parent:** 60B.71 (no-confirmation guard confirmed working)
+**Type:** Read-only reasoning diagnosis
+
+## Problem Statement
+
+When no material factors remain but the user has not explicitly confirmed sufficiency,
+the engine asks a generic decision_threshold question ("What outcome would demonstrate
+enough value to justify X?") instead of asking whether what's already been presented
+is sufficient.
+
+The core distinction: State A (genuine unresolved factor exists) and State B (no
+factor remains, no confirmation given) both collapse to `decision_threshold` because
+`selectInvestigationStrategy` does not consult `hasRemainingMaterialFactors()`.
+
+## Fixed Diagnosis
+
+- `hasRemainingMaterialFactors(decisionNodeId, graph) === false` for State B ✓
+- `isUserConfirmationOfNoRemainingUncertainty(answer) === false` for State B ✓
+- Decision status remains unknown ✓
+- Selector sees unresolved decision → selector does not see remaining-factor state
+- `decision_threshold` wins by normal unresolved-decision logic
+
+## Candidate Assessment
+
+### Candidate A — KEEP CURRENT DECISION_THRESHOLD
+Architecture fit: HIGH | Premature-closure risk: MEDIUM | Generic-loop risk: HIGH
+Reopening resolved evidence risk: LOW | User burden: MEDIUM
+New state field: NO | New question family: NO | Existing target reusable: YES
+Principal weakness: "What outcome would demonstrate enough value to justify X?" is a
+continuation prompt (asks for MORE justification) rather than the missing sufficiency
+confirmation. Creates high generic-loop risk when no factors remain.
+
+### Candidate B — DIRECT SUFFICIENCY CONFIRMATION
+Architecture fit: MEDIUM | Premature-closure risk: LOW | Generic-loop risk: MEDIUM
+Reopening resolved evidence risk: LOW | User burden: MEDIUM
+New state field: NO | New question family: PARTIAL (one new template) | Existing target reusable: YES
+Principal weakness: Binary yes/no framing may elicit "yes" without specifics.
+
+### Candidate C — DISCOVER A MISSING FACTOR
+Architecture fit: MEDIUM | Premature-closure risk: LOW | Generic-loop risk: LOW
+Reopening resolved evidence risk: MEDIUM | User burden: HIGH
+New state field: NO | New question family: PARTIAL (one new template) | Existing target reusable: YES
+Principal weakness: Puts all discovery burden on the user. Silent if user forgets something.
+
+### Candidate D — CLOSE ANYWAY
+Architecture fit: LOW | Premature-closure risk: HIGH | Generic-loop risk: NONE
+Reopening resolved evidence risk: NONE | User burden: NONE
+New state field: NO | New question family: NO | Existing target reusable: NO (target should transition)
+Principal weakness: Directly contradicts 60B.71's conservative guard. Closes without explicit confirmation.
+
+### Candidate E — MODEL CHOOSES BETWEEN B/C
+Architecture fit: LOW | Premature-closure risk: UNPROVEN | Generic-loop risk: UNPROVEN
+Reopening resolved evidence risk: UNPROVEN | User burden: MEDIUM
+New state field: NO | New question family: YES | Existing target reusable: MAYBE
+Principal weakness: Adds non-determinism where determinism is possible. The distinction
+between B vs C IS deterministically knowable from `hasRemainingMaterialFactors()`.
+
+## Winning Intent: D — BOTH CONFIRMATION + DISCOVERY IN ONE QUESTION
+
+Structure: "Is there anything else material you haven't mentioned that could change
+which option is better?"
+
+This asks about sufficiency (confirmation) while allowing identification of a remaining
+factor (discovery). Deterministic branching on the answer:
+- "No" → closure proceeds
+- Names factor → that factor becomes next unknown
+
+## Existing Question Machinery
+
+Family reusable: decision_threshold (or decision_evidence) — PARTIAL reuse needed.
+One new deterministic template suffices. No new family required.
+
+The `decision_threshold` family maps `{family: "decision_threshold", template: "decision_threshold_outcome"}`
+and produces questions via `buildQuestionFromStrategy({key: "decision_threshold"})`.
+Adding a new State B template here changes the question text without affecting which
+strategy is selected or which target is active.
+
+## State Representation
+
+Choice: B — TRANSIENT DETERMINISTIC BRANCH IS SUFFICIENT
+
+All four signals available at selection time:
+1. `target.kind === "unknown"` and target is decision
+2. `hasRemainingMaterialFactors(target.id, graph) === false`
+3. Raw confirmation absent from answer context
+4. Active target still unknown (not closed/resolved)
+
+No persisted field required. The state exists entirely in the current turn's context.
+
+## Branch Location: C — QUESTION FORMULATION
+
+Location A (active-target selection): Too high-level. Target identity logic should not
+depend on remaining-factor state. MEDIUM coupling.
+
+Location B (investigation strategy selection): Addresses root cause but mixes text-pattern
+matching with graph-quantitative logic. HIGH coupling.
+
+Location C (question formulation): Cleanest boundary. Changes only the question OUTPUT
+without affecting inputs or control flow. LOW coupling.
+
+Preferred: C — `buildQuestionFromFamily` receives all needed signals (node, graph,
+investigationStrategy) and is where "how to ask" decisions belong.
+
+## Conservative Behaviour
+
+- One confirmation/discovery turn supported: YES
+- False-open-over-false-closed preserved: YES
+- Resolved factors stay closed: UNPROVEN (theoretical risk if user mentions resolved item, but it's user-initiated)
+- New genuine factor can be surfaced: YES
+
+## Critical Distinction: B — MISSING CONFIRMATION NEEDS DISTINCT QUESTION INTENT
+
+Current `decision_threshold` asks "what MORE justification is needed?" when the correct
+question for State B is "is what we have sufficient?" These are different information goals.
+
+## Minimum Corrective Boundary: C — ONE NEW TEMPLATE IN EXISTING FAMILY
+
+Transitive deterministic branch + one new template in `decision_threshold` family.
+
+Prevents premature closure (one more turn), prevents generic looping (distinct intent),
+asks only for missing information, leaves decision identity stable.
+
+## Implementation Readiness: A — READY FOR BOUNDED IMPLEMENTATION
+
+No unresolved design question. Smallest boundary: add State B detection at formulation
+time + one new sufficiency confirmation/discovery template in `decision_threshold` family.
+