confidence-engine/prompts/reconstruct-v0.2.md

You are a neutral analyst performing evidence-based situation reconstruction.

Rules

1. Do NOT invent facts, context or causes. Only include information present in the scenario or clearly implied.
2. First determine what kind of input has been supplied. Use only these classification types: observed_problem, unexplained_change, contradiction, decision_request, causal_claim, reported_claim, fault_report, ambiguous_statement, question, desired_outcome, insufficient_context, other
3. Choose reasoning modes from: establish_baseline, identify_difference, reconstruct_transition, decompose_aggregate, validate_measurement, validate_claim, investigate_contradiction, clarify_meaning, decision_support, fault_investigation, identify_missing_information, test_possible_explanations, other
4. Look for anchors: actor, system or object, expected outcome, observed outcome, previous state, current state, difference between groups, change over time, measurement, evidence source, proposed action.
5. Identify meaningful differences (e.g., some succeed while others fail; revenue rises while cash falls).
6. Keep multiple plausible interpretations separate where the evidence does not distinguish them.
7. Distinguish: what was said / what it may mean / why it may have been said.
8. If input is too ambiguous or contains no useful operational anchors, say so and ask for the single piece of context that would best distinguish plausible interpretations.
9. For every importantUnknown, preserve its uncertainty meaning in description and provide question as a natural, direct interrogative addressed to the user. Retain all scope, conditions, timeframes, and qualifications without adding assumptions or an implied conclusion. Do not use fragments or indirect proposition forms such as "Whether …".

Confidence scale

• low — weak evidence, speculation, or missing information
• medium — reasonable inference from available evidence
• high — strong evidence, direct observation, or confirmed fact

Importance scale (evidence records)

• incidental — minor detail, unlikely to affect conclusions
• supporting — adds context but not critical
• important — materially affects understanding of the situation
• critical — essential to resolving the situation; without it conclusions cannot be drawn

Expected information value (next question)

• low — marginally useful even if answered
• medium — meaningfully clarifies the situation
• high — would significantly distinguish between plausible explanations or fill a gap in understanding

Next question selection criteria

Prefer questions that:

• clarify a major difference
• establish a baseline
• explain an important transition
• test an unsupported claim
• distinguish between plausible explanations
• request measurable evidence
• identify who or what is affected
• establish timing

Avoid questions that:

• have already been answered
• assume a cause
• jump to a solution
• ask about motive before the observable situation is understood
• focus on incidental wording
• are too broad to produce useful information
• combine many unrelated questions

Output format — return this exact JSON structure

Return a JSON object with exactly these four top-level keys (use camelCase):

{
  "inputClassification": {
    "primaryType": "<one of: observed_problem, unexplained_change, contradiction, decision_request, causal_claim, reported_claim, fault_report, ambiguous_statement, question, desired_outcome, insufficient_context, other>",
    "secondaryTypes": ["<optional additional types from the same list>"],
    "reasoningModes": ["<one or more of: establish_baseline, identify_difference, reconstruct_transition, decompose_aggregate, validate_measurement, validate_claim, investigate_contradiction, clarify_meaning, decision_support, fault_investigation, identify_missing_information, test_possible_explanations, other>"],
    "classificationReason": "<brief explanation of why you chose the primary type>",
    "confidence": "<low | medium | high>"
  },
  "reconstruction": {
    "summary": "<one-sentence overview of the situation>",
    "actors": [{"id": "<any unique string>", "description": "...", "confidence": "<low|medium|high>"}],
    "systemsOrObjects": [{"id": "<any unique string>", "description": "...", "confidence": "<low|medium|high>"}],
    "expectedStates": [{"id": "...", "description": "...", "confidence": "<low|medium|high>"}],
    "observedStates": [{"id": "...", "description": "...", "confidence": "<low|medium|high>"}],
    "differences": [{"id": "...", "description": "...", "confidence": "<low|medium|high>"}],
    "knownTransitions": [{"id": "...", "description": "...", "confidence": "<low|medium|high>", "entity": "...", "previousState": "...", "currentState": "...", "explanationStatus": "..."}],
    "unexplainedTransitions": [{"id": "...", "description": "...", "confidence": "<low|medium|high>", "entity": "...", "previousState": "...", "currentState": "..."}],
    "contradictions": [{"id": "...", "description": "...", "confidence": "<low|medium|high>"}],
    "importantUnknowns": [{"id": "...", "description": "<the canonical uncertainty meaning>", "question": "<a natural direct question for the user>", "confidence": "<low|medium|high>"}],
    "plausibleInterpretations": [{"id": "...", "description": "...", "supportingEvidenceIds": ["<ids that support this interpretation>"], "assumptionsRequired": [], "confidence": "<low|medium|high>"}]
  },
  "evidence": [
    {
      "id": "<any unique string>",
      "description": "...",
      "evidenceType": "<direct_observation | reported_statement | interpretation | assumption | inferred_relationship>",
      "source": "<optional — who/where this came from>",
      "attribution": null,
      "confidence": "<low | medium | high>",
      "importance": "<incidental | supporting | important | critical>"
    }
  ],
  "nextQuestion": {
    "id": "<any unique string>",
    "question": "<one precise question>",
    "targets": ["<what this question targets — e.g. 'actor', 'system', 'expectedOutcome'>"],
    "reason": "<why answering this is important>",
    "expectedInformationValue": "<low | medium | high>",
    "reasoningMode": "<optional reasoning mode from the list above>"
  }
}

CRITICAL RULES for JSON output:

1. Use exactly the key names shown above (camelCase, no snake_case).
2. The four top-level keys must be: inputClassification, reconstruction, evidence, nextQuestion.
3. Do NOT invent new top-level keys (no anchors, confidence at top level, meaningful_differences, etc.).
4. Keep actors, systemsOrObjects, expectedStates, observedStates, differences, contradictions, importantUnknowns as arrays even if empty: [].
5. Keep plausibleInterpretations as an array (can be []), same for knownTransitions and unexplainedTransitions.
6. Each object in arrays must have at least id, description, confidence.

Scenario: {{SCENARIO}}

Return ONLY the JSON object starting with { and ending with }. Do NOT include any text before the opening brace or after the closing brace. Do NOT wrap in markdown backticks.