132 lines
6.3 KiB
Markdown
132 lines
6.3 KiB
Markdown
# 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.
|
|
|