confidence-engine/tests/graph/prompt-builder.test.js

import { describe, expect, it } from "vitest";
import { buildGraphUpdatePrompt } from "@/lib/graph/prompt-builder.js";
import { makeEdge, makeGraph, makeNode } from "@/lib/graph/schema.js";

function makeContext() {
  const unknown = makeNode({
    id: "n-unknown",
    label: "Complaint rate denominator",
    description: "Need the denominator to compare complaint rates",
    kind: "unknown",
    status: "unknown",
    confidence: "high",
  });
  const observation = makeNode({
    id: "n-obs",
    label: "Complaints up 35%",
    description: "Complaints increased by 35%",
    kind: "observation",
    status: "supported",
    confidence: "high",
  });

  return {
    situationGraph: makeGraph({
      centralStatement: "Complaints increased while production increased.",
      nodes: [unknown, observation],
      edges: [
        makeEdge({
          id: "e1",
          fromNodeId: observation.id,
          toNodeId: unknown.id,
          relationship: "supports",
          confidence: "high",
          description: "Observation informs the unknown",
        }),
      ],
      activeUnknownNodeId: unknown.id,
      resolvedNodeIds: [],
      currentSummary:
        "Nodes: 1 observation, 1 unknown | Edges: 1 total | Unknowns: 1 unresolved",
    }),
    previousQuestion: "What denominator is being used for the complaint rate?",
    answer:
      "The complaint rate fell from 2.0 complaints per 100 units to 1.9 complaints per 100 units.",
  };
}

describe("buildGraphUpdatePrompt", () => {
  it("includes the current graph", () => {
    const prompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());
    expect(prompt).toContain(
      "Complaints increased while production increased.",
    );
    expect(prompt).toContain("Complaint rate denominator");
  });

  it("includes previous question and answer", () => {
    const prompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());
    expect(prompt).toContain(
      "What denominator is being used for the complaint rate?",
    );
    expect(prompt).toContain(
      "The complaint rate fell from 2.0 complaints per 100 units to 1.9 complaints per 100 units.",
    );
  });

  it("contains exact schema keys", () => {
    const prompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());
    expect(prompt).toContain("addedNodes");
    expect(prompt).toContain("updatedNodes");
    expect(prompt).toContain("addedEdges");
    expect(prompt).toContain("removedEdgeIds");
    expect(prompt).toContain("resolvedUnknownNodeIds");
    expect(prompt).toContain("affectedNodeIds");
    expect(prompt).toContain("selectedQuestion");
    expect(prompt).toContain("answerMeaning");
  });

  it("lists enum values", () => {
    const prompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());
    expect(prompt).toContain(
      "observation | reported_claim | metric | state | transition | relationship | assumption | unknown | conclusion",
    );
    expect(prompt).toContain(
      "known | unknown | provisional | supported | weakened | contradicted | resolved",
    );
    expect(prompt).toContain(
      "supports | weakens | contradicts | depends_on | causes | may_cause | measures | compares_with | updates | other",
    );
  });

  it("forbids full-graph replacement", () => {
    const prompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());
    expect(prompt).toContain("Never return a replacement graph");
    expect(prompt).toContain("Propose changes only");
  });

  it("requires JSON only", () => {
    const prompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());
    expect(prompt).toContain("Return JSON only");
    expect(prompt).toContain("Return one JSON object only");
  });

  it("describes controlled emergent unknown rules", () => {
    const prompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());
    expect(prompt).toContain("Add at most 3 new unknown nodes");
    expect(prompt).toContain("Resolve the answered unknown first");
    expect(prompt).toContain(
      "selectedQuestion.question must be one narrow non-compound question",
    );
    expect(prompt).toContain(
      "the engine will deterministically choose final priority after validation",
    );
  });

  it("instructs the model to preserve user-supported meaning separately from inference", () => {
    const prompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());
    expect(prompt).toContain(
      "answerMeaning.userSupportedMeaning must state only what the user's answer directly supports",
    );
    expect(prompt).toContain(
      "Put any stronger interpretation in answerMeaning.possibleInference",
    );
    expect(prompt).toContain(
      "supportCategory and resolutionGuidance are optional descriptive hints only",
    );
    expect(prompt).toContain(
      "leave them null rather than inventing rigid category labels",
    );
  });
});

// ── Semantic-to-mutation contract (57J.39) ──────────────

describe("buildGraphUpdatePrompt — semantic-to-mutation MUST rule", () => {
  it("contains the explicit structural-materialization MUST rule", () => {
    const prompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());
    expect(prompt).toContain("MUST express its effect through structural mutation");
  });

  it("rule permits update/refine of existing structure", () => {
    const prompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());
    expect(prompt).toContain("update/refinement of existing structure");
  });

  it("rule permits resolving an existing unknown", () => {
    const prompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());
    expect(prompt).toContain("resolution of an existing unknown");
  });

  it("rule permits genuinely new unknown when needed", () => {
    const prompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());
    expect(prompt).toContain("a genuinely new unknown");
  });

  it("rule explicitly states answerMeaning alone is not sufficient", () => {
    const prompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());
    expect(prompt).toContain("answerMeaning alone is not sufficient");
  });

  it("rule does NOT force adding a new node", () => {
    const prompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());
    // The rule should be silent about forcing new nodes — this is preserved by existing rule #7.
    // Verify the MUST rule exists but doesn't contain "must add a new node" or similar.
    const mustRuleMatch = prompt.match(
      /6\..*?(?=\n7\.)/s,
    );
    expect(mustRuleMatch).not.toBe(null);
    expect(mustRuleMatch[0]).not.toContain("must add a new node");
  });

  it("does not imply possibleInference alone triggers mutation", () => {
    const prompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());
    // The rule must reference userSupportedMeaning specifically, not possibleInference as a trigger.
    const mustRuleMatch = prompt.match(
      /6\..*?(?=\n7\.)/s,
    );
    expect(mustRuleMatch[0]).toContain("userSupportedMeaning");
  });

  // ── 57J.43 — no surviving semantic-only/no-op conflict ──

  it("PASS: no direct contradiction — MUST rule is not undermined by empty-array permission", () => {
    const prompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());

    // The MUST rule must exist...
    expect(prompt).toContain(
      "MUST express its effect through structural mutation",
    );

    // ...and the empty-array permission must NOT be unconditional.
    // It must reference rule #6 as a condition, meaning it cannot apply
    // when the MUST rule fires.
    const additionalGuidance = prompt.split("## Additional Guidance")[1];

    // The old conflicting wording must be absent:
    expect(additionalGuidance).not.toContain(
      "If the answer does not justify a change, return empty arrays",
    );

    // The new permission must reference rule #6:
    expect(additionalGuidance).toContain("rule #6");
  });

  it("PASS: legitimate true no-op preserved — empty mutation allowed when rule #6 does not apply", () => {
    const prompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());
    const additionalGuidance = prompt.split("## Additional Guidance")[1];

    // The corrected bullet must still allow empty arrays, but only
    // when rule #6 does not apply (no consequential meaning).
    expect(additionalGuidance).toContain(
      "return empty arrays for every category",
    );
    // And it must be conditioned:
    expect(additionalGuidance).toContain("does not apply");
  });

  it("PASS: answerMeaning is not structural progress", () => {
    const prompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());
    const additionalGuidance = prompt.split("## Additional Guidance")[1];

    // Must explicitly separate answerMeaning from graph mutation:
    expect(additionalGuidance).toContain("preserves semantic fidelity");
    // And must not say answerMeaning alone can substitute for mutation:
    expect(additionalGuidance).not.toContain(
      "even when the graph change remains unresolved",
    );
  });

  it("PASS: duplicate protection preserved — no weakening of existing-duplicate rules", () => {
    const prompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());
    // Rule #4 and rule #11 must still exist with their substance:
    expect(prompt).toContain("genuinely new concepts");
    expect(prompt).toContain("duplicate unknowns");
    // Additional Guidance preference for update over add:
    const additionalGuidance = prompt.split("## Additional Guidance")[1];
    expect(additionalGuidance).toContain("prefer updatedNodes and resolvedUnknownNodeIds over creating duplicate nodes");
  });

  it("PASS: update/refine route preserved — no new mandatory-add requirement", () => {
    const prompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());

    // The MUST rule permits update/refine (not just add):
    expect(prompt).toContain("update/refinement of existing structure");
    // Additional guidance still encourages preferring updates:
    const additionalGuidance = prompt.split("## Additional Guidance")[1];
    expect(additionalGuidance).toContain("prefer updatedNodes and resolvedUnknownNodeIds over creating duplicate nodes");
    expect(additionalGuidance).toContain("update that node rather than creating only a parallel observation");
  });

  it("PASS: possibleInference separation preserved — not converted to mandatory mutation", () => {
    const fullPrompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());

    // Rule #27 must still separate possibleInference from userSupportedMeaning:
    expect(fullPrompt).toContain(
      "Put any stronger interpretation in answerMeaning.possibleInference, not in userSupportedMeaning",
    );

    // The corrected Additional Guidance must reference the mutation trigger via rule #6
    // (which itself references userSupportedMeaning), not possibleInference:
    const additionalGuidance = fullPrompt.split("## Additional Guidance")[1];
    expect(additionalGuidance).toContain("rule #6");
    expect(additionalGuidance).not.toContain("possibleInference");

    // Rule #27 exists in the prompt (separation preserved):
    expect(fullPrompt).toContain("answerMeaning.possibleInference, not in userSupportedMeaning");
  });

  it("PASS: no action-selection machinery added — no keyword routing or node-kind decision table", () => {
    const fullPrompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());

    // Confirm we did not add new provider-specific routing:
    expect(fullPrompt).not.toContain("qwen");
    expect(fullPrompt).not.toContain("claude");
    expect(fullPrompt).not.toContain("gpt");

    // No keyword-based node-kind decision table:
    expect(fullPrompt).not.toContain("keyword");

    // No mandatory-add logic:
    expect(fullPrompt).not.toContain("must add a new node");
  });
});

// ── Experiment 57J.46 — existing-first uncertainty fallback ───

describe("buildGraphUpdatePrompt — 57J.46 existing-first uncertainty fallback", () => {
  function getAdditionalGuidance(prompt) {
    return prompt.split("## Additional Guidance")[1];
  }

  // Test 1 — existing-first ordering exists
  it("test 1: assembled prompt explicitly says to check for an equivalent unresolved unknown first", () => {
    const prompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());
    const guidance = getAdditionalGuidance(prompt);
    expect(guidance).toContain("first check whether an existing unresolved node");
    expect(guidance).toContain("represents the same uncertainty");
  });

  // Test 2 — reuse path explicit
  it("test 2: prompt says update/refine existing structure rather than add a duplicate when equivalent exists", () => {
    const prompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());
    const guidance = getAdditionalGuidance(prompt);
    expect(guidance).toContain("if so, update/refine that existing structure");
    expect(guidance).toContain("rather than adding a duplicate");
  });

  // Test 3 — fallback-to-add explicit
  it("test 3: prompt explicitly requires adding a new unknown when no equivalent unresolved unknown exists", () => {
    const prompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());
    const guidance = getAdditionalGuidance(prompt);
    expect(guidance).toContain("if no such node exists");
    expect(guidance).toContain("add a new unknown that directly represents the unresolved uncertainty");
  });

  // Test 4 — ordered fallback means: existing first, otherwise add
  it("test 4: full ordered fallback is present in the assembled prompt", () => {
    const prompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());
    const guidance = getAdditionalGuidance(prompt);
    // The entire rule must be present as a single coherent instruction:
    expect(guidance).toContain(
      "When rule #6 applies to explicitly unresolved uncertainty: first check whether an existing unresolved node already represents the same uncertainty; if so, update/refine that existing structure rather than adding a duplicate; if no such node exists, add a new unknown that directly represents the unresolved uncertainty; do not use an edge alone to represent a previously unrepresented uncertainty.",
    );
  });

  // Test 5 — merely related node is insufficient
  it("test 5: prompt does not imply a general related state/cost node counts as representing the same uncertainty", () => {
    const prompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());
    const guidance = getAdditionalGuidance(prompt);
    // The rule requires "same uncertainty" — not "related" or "similar":
    expect(guidance).toContain("same uncertainty");
    // Must not use weaker criteria:
    expect(guidance).not.toContain("similar");
    expect(guidance).not.toContain("related to");
  });

  // Test 6 — edge-only insufficient
  it("test 6: prompt explicitly prevents using an edge alone to represent previously unrepresented uncertainty", () => {
    const prompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());
    const guidance = getAdditionalGuidance(prompt);
    expect(guidance).toContain(
      "do not use an edge alone to represent a previously unrepresented uncertainty",
    );
  });

  // Test 7 — possibleInference does not create unknowns
  it("test 7: existing possibleInference separation remains intact — rule #27 still separates interpretation from userSupportedMeaning", () => {
    const prompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());
    expect(prompt).toContain(
      "Put any stronger interpretation in answerMeaning.possibleInference, not in userSupportedMeaning",
    );
    // The 57J.46 rule must NOT reference possibleInference as a trigger:
    const guidance = getAdditionalGuidance(prompt);
    expect(guidance).not.toContain("possibleInference");
  });

  // Test 8 — actual resolution path preserved
  it("test 8: prompt still allows resolution when the user's answer genuinely resolves an existing unknown", () => {
    const prompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());
    // The "resolve existing" guidance must remain intact:
    expect(prompt).toContain(
      "include that existing node ID in resolvedUnknownNodeIds",
    );
    expect(prompt).toContain("update that node rather than creating only a parallel observation");
    // Rule #5 (resolve answered unknown first) must still exist:
    expect(prompt).toContain("Resolve the answered unknown first when the answer supports it");
  });

  // Test 9 — duplicate validator/contract preserved
  it("test 9: existing duplicate-avoidance wording remains unchanged", () => {
    const prompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());
    expect(prompt).toContain("Do not add duplicate unknowns");
    expect(prompt).toContain("genuinely new concepts");
    const guidance = getAdditionalGuidance(prompt);
    expect(guidance).toContain("prefer updatedNodes and resolvedUnknownNodeIds over creating duplicate nodes");
  });

  // Test 10 — scope remains uncertainty-only (not universal to all categories)
  it("test 10: the new action-order rule does not apply universally to facts, constraints, decisions, or other meaning categories", () => {
    const prompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());
    const guidance = getAdditionalGuidance(prompt);
    // The rule must be scoped to "unresolved uncertainty" specifically:
    expect(guidance).toContain("explicitly unresolved uncertainty");
    // It must not say "any answer" or "all categories":
    expect(guidance).not.toContain("any answer");
    expect(guidance).not.toContain("every change");
    expect(guidance).not.toContain("all categories");
    // Rule #7 (new unknown conditions) and other category rules must be untouched:
    expect(prompt).toContain(
      "Add new unknown nodes only when the answer introduces a new decision, claim, object, measure, dependency, or unresolved term directly relevant to the case",
    );
  });

  // Test 11 — fidelity / possibleInference separation preserved
  it("test 11: fidelity rule separating userSupportedMeaning from possibleInference is untouched", () => {
    const prompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());
    expect(prompt).toContain(
      "answerMeaning.userSupportedMeaning must state only what the user's answer directly supports",
    );
  });

  // Test 12 — traceability preserved
  it("test 12: traceability requirement for new unknowns remains intact", () => {
    const prompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());
    expect(prompt).toContain(
      "Every new unknown must be directly traceable to the user's answer and its description must state why that uncertainty matters",
    );
  });

  // Test 13 — no noop validator changed
  it("test 13: the 'rule #6 does not apply → empty arrays' permission is preserved unchanged", () => {
    const prompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());
    const guidance = getAdditionalGuidance(prompt);
    expect(guidance).toContain(
      "If rule #6 does not apply (the answer contains no user-supported meaning that requires graph progress) and there is no other justification for change, return empty arrays for every category",
    );
  });

  // Test 14 — no semantic classifier or keyword logic added
  it("test 14: no new deterministic semantic matcher or keyword matching was added", () => {
    const prompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());
    expect(prompt).not.toContain("threshold");
    expect(prompt).not.toContain("synonym");
    expect(prompt).not.toContain("keyword match");
  });

  // Test 15 — provider-agnostic preserved
  it("test 15: no provider-specific wording added", () => {
    const prompt = buildGraphUpdatePrompt(makeContext());
    expect(prompt).not.toContain("qwen");
    expect(prompt).not.toContain("claude");
    expect(prompt).not.toContain("gpt");
    expect(prompt).not.toContain("ollama");
  });
});