# 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.