Four faults, all surfaced within an hour of the first live Azure OpenAI call
on 2026-08-27, all invisible under NO_LLM_STUB because the stub supplied the
very fields that turned out to be missing.
1. The classifier few-shot showed eight replies of {"question_class": ...}
alone. A few-shot reply is a shape the model copies, so it omitted
confidence, which defaulted to 0.0, fell below the 0.7 threshold, and EVERY
non-procedural question downgraded to UNCLEAR. The replies now carry the
complete payload the system prompt asks for. Confidences are varied and the
traps carry alternatives: a constant teaches the model to emit that
constant, and the tie rule in apply_safety_rules only has something to work
with if the runners-up are populated.
2. procedure{} was the one part of the procedural payload not assembled from
evidence, contrary to _assemble's own stated rule. The model returned
effective_date "" - neither a date nor None - so ProceduralAnswer rejected
the answer, the single regeneration failed identically, and every procedural
question returned 422.
3. title and authorising_role came back "" for the same reason: the model was
asked for header fields it had never been shown.
4. documented_limits[].citation arrived as the string "WRPS-DEMO-003, Section
4" where a Citation was required, because the schema hint said only
"documented_limits": [] and told the model nothing about the shape.
procedure_identity now takes no `generated` argument at all: there is no path
by which a model can name a revision an operator does not hold. documented_
limits attaches the real Citation by matching source_file against what was
actually retrieved, and DROPS a limit matching nothing - a limit carries the
authority of the document behind it, and misattributing one is worse than
omitting it.
Both live in contracts.py rather than agent.py because they are contract
rules, and because agent.py imports langgraph, which would make the test suite
unrunnable on a bare checkout.
The prompt also now separates two things it was conflating: retrieval
returning nothing (say so and stop) from retrieval returning a document marked
draft, demo or superseded (identify it, quote it, and state the marking).
Including the header chunk made the model read "NOT A CONTROLLED DOCUMENT" and
answer "no controlled procedure was retrieved" while citing one. The marking is
information the operator needs, not a reason to withhold what was found.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Build spec and host brief carried in from C:\Claude and WRPS/02-env; the
plant model (equipment, tags, alarm bitmask, enums, unit conversions) is
derived from WRPS/04-plc/register-map.csv, WRPS/05-scada/modbus/scada-points.csv
and WRPS-CTL-003.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
