confidence-engine/docs/archive/experiments/decision-closure-integration/experiment-60b72.md

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.