confidence-engine/docs/archive/experiments/decision-closure-integration/experiment-60b74.md

Experiment 60B.74 — Missing Sufficiency Confirmation Question (Live Verification)

Date: 2026-08-14 Branch: feature/sufficiency-confirmation-question-v0.45 Head commit: 7cfeee1 docs: record sufficiency confirmation question

Objective

Does the post-60B.73 production path preserve the no-confirmation guard while replacing the generic decision-threshold continuation with the focused sufficiency confirmation/discovery question?

Configured environment

• Model: qwen-claude:latest
• Ollama base URL: http://192.168.1.111:11434
• Confidence Engine base URL: http://127.0.0.1:3000

Input

• Fixture: tests/fixtures/pre-anchored-product-launch-customer-signing.json
  • Pre-anchored state: decision (n_product_launch_decision) unknown; customer signing (n_enterprise_customer_signing) unknown, activeUnknownNodeId = n_enterprise_customer_signing.
• Answer (exact, no paraphrase): "The enterprise customer has now confirmed in writing that they will not sign if we launch this year, so the £700,000 of expected annual revenue from them will not be received."
• Explicit sufficiency confirmation: NO

Run

FIXTURE_MODE=updateOnly \
FIXTURE_PATH=tests/fixtures/pre-anchored-product-launch-customer-signing.json \
ANSWER_2="The enterprise customer has now confirmed in writing that they will not sign if we launch this year, so the £700,000 of expected annual revenue from them will not be received." \
CONFIDENCE_ENGINE_BASE_URL=http://127.0.0.1:3000 \
node scripts/reproduce-multi-turn-investigation.mjs

• startCalls: 0
• updateCalls: 1
• totalCalls: 1
• Retries: 0

Results

Proposal accepted: YES (HTTP 200)

updatedNodes:

[
  {
    "nodeId": "n_enterprise_customer_signing",
    "previousStatus": "unknown",
    "newStatus": "resolved",
    "previousValue": null,
    "newValue": null,
    "reason": "User explicitly confirmed the enterprise customer will not sign if launched this year."
  },
  {
    "nodeId": "opt_launch_this_year",
    "previousStatus": "known",
    "newStatus": "known",
    "previousValue": null,
    "newValue": "Expected annual revenue reduced to £500k; £300k launch cost remains.",
    "reason": "Reflects updated financial consequence following resolved customer signing status."
  }
]

resolvedUnknownNodeIds:

["n_enterprise_customer_signing"]

addedNodes:

[]

addedEdges:

[]

DIRECT QUESTION METADATA

finalActiveUnknownNodeId: "n_product_launch_decision"

finalSelectedQuestion: {
  "nodeId": "n_product_launch_decision",
  "question": "What outcome would demonstrate enough value to justify launching?",
  "reason": "Formulated from graph context using the decision_threshold investigation strategy.",
  "strategy": "decision_threshold",
  "investigationStrategy": {
    "key": "decision_threshold",
    "reason": "Selected because the unknown determines the threshold for making or justifying a decision.",
    "nodeId": "n_product_launch_decision",
    "nodeLabel": "Which option leaves us better off overall?",
    "meaning": "which option leaves us better off overall",
    "actionPhrase": "launch",
    "relatedNodeIds": ["opt_launch_this_year", "opt_wait_twelve_months"],
    "centralStatement": "We are evaluating two product-launch timing options: launching the new software product this year or waiting twelve months."
  },
  "reasoningPattern": "decision",
  "reasoningPatternReason": "Selected decision because the active unknown sits inside a build, continue, invest, or commercial-justification decision context.",
  "questionFamily": "decision_threshold",
  "allowedQuestionFamilies": ["decision_foundation", "decision_evidence", "decision_threshold", "definition"],
  "rejectedQuestionFamilies": ["explanation", "comparison", "contradiction", "diagnosis", "prioritisation"],
  "selectedQuestionTemplate": "decision_threshold_outcome",
  "questionComplexity": {
    "acceptable": true,
    "primaryConceptCount": 1,
    "compoundQuestionSignals": [],
    "abstractTermCount": 0,
    "cognitiveLoad": "low",
    "reasons": []
  }
}

Customer node final state:

• n_enterprise_customer_signing: status = resolved, value = null (meaning carried in reason text)

Customer resolution meaning:

"User explicitly confirmed the enterprise customer will not sign" → Negative meaning PRESERVED in reason text.

Decision node final state:

• n_product_launch_decision: status = unknown (UNRESOLVED) — NOT closed, NOT in resolvedUnknownNodeIds

Bug Identification

The State B detection condition in formulateQuestion() at line 2010 of question-formulator.js contains a deterministic bug:

if (
  reasoningPatternSelection.pattern === "decision" &&
  node.kind !== "unknown",        // ← NEVER TRUE for decision nodes!
  node.status !== "known" &&
  node.status !== "resolved" &&
  node.status !== "contradicted" &&
  hasRemainingMaterialFactors(node.id, graph) === false
)

All decision nodes have kind === "unknown" (along with all child factors). The condition node.kind !== "unknown" excludes ALL decision nodes from State B detection. There are no kind values that represent "decision" in the SituationKind enum — decisions share kind="unknown" with factors.

This means the sufficiency confirmation template (decision_threshold_sufficiency_confirmation) can NEVER fire for any parent decision target, regardless of how many factors are resolved or whether explicit confirmation is absent.

60B.71 → 60B.74 comparison

Field	60B.71 (before fix)	60B.74 (after fix)
Customer status	unknown→resolved	unknown→resolved
Decision status	unknown (KEPT OPEN)	unknown (KEPT OPEN)
finalActiveUnknownNodeId	"n_product_launch_decision"	"n_product_launch_decision"
selectedQuestionTemplate	decision_threshold_outcome	decision_threshold_outcome
Question family	decision_threshold	decision_threshold
Question	"What outcome would demonstrate enough value to justify launching?"	"What outcome would demonstrate enough value to justify launching?"
addedNodes	[n_revised_launch_year_revenue]	[]
addedEdges	[e-customer-confirmation-to-revenue]	[]

Note: The question text is IDENTICAL across both experiments. The fix did not land in the production path.

Classification: B — GENERIC QUESTION PERSISTS

Decision stays open and active target remains the existing parent decision (correct structural behavior), but the sufficiency confirmation/discovery template does NOT fire. The generic decision_threshold_outcome question ("What outcome would demonstrate enough value to justify launching?") persists unchanged from 60B.71.

Why

The State B detection condition node.kind !== "unknown" can never be true for any decision node, since all decisions have kind="unknown" in the SituationKind enum. The condition was designed to exclude child factors but instead excludes ALL unknown-kind nodes including the parent decision itself. No kind value in the schema represents "decision" specifically.

What this proves

1. The no-confirmation guard still works structurally. The decision remains open; the customer factor resolves correctly; negative meaning is preserved.
2. 60B.73 implementation does NOT reach production. The sufficiency template code exists in question-formulator.js at line 2034 but the guard condition that gates it (line 2010) prevents entry for any decision target.
3. This is a deterministic bug, not an LLM non-determinism issue. The wrong question fires in every run regardless of model.

What remains unproven

1. How to correctly distinguish parent decisions from child factors. Neither parentId nor kind provides this distinction (both are null and "unknown" respectively).
2. The fix itself — needs a different detection mechanism (e.g., whether the node's children include unresolved unknowns, or whether it is an ancestor of options).

Production code changed: NO

Prompt changed: NO

Schema changed: NO

Harness changed during experiment: NO

Vitest run: NO

Ollama calls: 1

Direct API calls: 0