Commit graph

4 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
991131be3f feat(provenance): a run records which external service it actually called
The egress declaration (Trekk B3) says what a run MAY contact. It cannot say what
it DID: after the run, nothing distinguished "the agents queried the price
register" from "the agents ignored it", and a proposal resting on an external
service should be traceable to it.

ToolCallRecorder(FunctionMiddleware) mirrors BudgetMiddleware(ChatMiddleware) one
layer down — that one observes the debate's chat calls, this one its tool calls.
It observes only: call_next is always awaited, so a trace can never alter the run
it traces. The record lands on ProvenanceStamp.external_calls, read AFTER the
debate so it is a record rather than an intention.

MEASURED, not assumed, before any of it was written: FunctionMiddleware fires for
a tool served over a REAL MCP stdio subprocess, and context.function.name carries
the BARE tool name with no server prefix. That measurement decided the design —
MAF cannot tell us which server a tool came from, so attribution comes from our own
config, and a name allowed by two servers is recorded UNATTRIBUTED (server="")
rather than credited to the first match. Naming a service that may never have been
contacted is the one place a guess must not go.

Only CONFIGURED tools are recorded. The middleware fires for every function the
agents invoke, including the in-process retrieve_cost_docs on the road path;
logging those would turn the record into a false egress claim. An empty list is a
positive statement — nothing outside this process was contacted — which is why it
is always serialized rather than omitted.

Honesty limit, written on ExternalCall itself: this is the call and its source. It
is NOT evidence that the service's answer reached the proposal, nor a verified
rendering of that answer.

One finding, and it is the reason for measuring rather than trusting green: the
road-path negative test was VACUOUS. Its scripted tool call named an argument the
tool does not declare (code vs query), MAF rejected the call before invocation, and
the test asserted an empty record against a run where no tool ran at all — green
under the exact mutation it existed to catch. It now spies on the recorder and
asserts the invocation genuinely reached it before asserting it was not recorded.
This is last session's lesson again: a scenario that cannot distinguish two
implementations proves nothing.

The tool-call double is registered in test_scripted_client_consolidation.py's
_DELEGATING_OVERRIDES — it cannot live in the reply_selector seam, which returns a
reply STRING, and a response that is not text is its whole subject.

Load-bearing MEASURED (tests/test_b4_mcp_call_trace_loadbearing.py) against the
whole 755-test suite, four mutations all red: detach the recorder from the debate
middleware · record every function invocation · attribute an ambiguous name to the
first server · stop reading the recorder into provenance. Control: a run with no
configured servers records nothing, so the empty record is a real answer and not
the only one the seam can produce.

Ran it, not just tested it: the real recorder against a real MCP server subprocess
returns ExternalCall(server='prisregister', tool='lookup_unit_price'), and a
scripted CLI run's outbox artefact carries the empty list.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01VtRd8y1PDPGwkrRXFhubqr
2026-08-05 21:37:29 +02:00
455d93d33e feat(outbox): every evaluated approach becomes something an expert can judge
A run commissioned to evaluate three approaches wrote ONE proposal artefact, so
only the approach it selected could ever receive a verdict. The other two were
evaluated, reported in the settlement, and then taught the learning loop nothing.

The defect class is a key collapse, and it had two halves — fixing either alone
leaves it intact:

* the WRITER wrote one pair per run, so the non-selected approaches never existed
  on disk;
* the READER (hitl._read_outbox_proposals) joins proposal to outcome on the
  run_id FIELD read from file CONTENT, never the filename. Three files sharing
  one run_id collapse onto one dict key, last write wins — so widening only the
  filename would have produced three artefacts and still one pending row. This is
  the S3.2 collision class: two rows under one key silently become one.

Artefacts are now keyed {run_id}-{approach_id}-*.json AND carry approach_id in the
payload; the join key is (run_id, approach_id). Two properties make them genuinely
judgeable rather than merely present:

* verdict_id is minted per approach (verdicts.verdict_key, the S3.2 content hash)
  — reusing the run's single id would let one delivered verdict clear all three
  from the queue;
* provenance.validator_decision follows ITS OWN approach — the run's stamp would
  report a rejected candidate as validated, and nothing downstream could correct it.

verdicts.verdict_key is public so a run can stamp the key a verdict WILL arrive
under without capturing a decision nobody has made; it delegates to _mint_id
rather than restating the hash (the (p) rule: one keying rule, one copy).

The per-approach set REPLACES the run-level pair rather than joining it — the
selected approach is already among them, and writing both would count it twice in
hitl pending. The selected one carries the run's final outcome, so the outbox can
never disagree with the RunResult; the others carry the validator's verdict, the
only falsifier that ran on them.

mandate.py is deliberately untouched: hanging a ValidatedProposal off a coverage
row would drag validator — and pulp — into a module kept to pydantic+stdlib for
D7 portability, so _evaluate_mandate returns the evaluated outcomes alongside.

Ran it, not just tested it: a real CLI run wrote six artefacts and hitl pending
listed three rows. It also showed the honest edge — three approaches that produce
an identical candidate share one content-hash key, so one verdict settles all
three. That is correct (they were one candidate), and it is now documented.

Load-bearing MEASURED (tests/test_a5_per_approach_artifacts_loadbearing.py) against
the whole 750-test suite, five mutations all red: detach the per-approach writer ·
drop approach_id from the join key · reuse the run's verdict id · reuse the run's
provenance stamp · widen the filename but not the payload. Control: on a full
detach exactly the 5 new tests fail and 745 pre-existing ones stay green — the
no-mandate path is inert, and writes neither the filename segment nor the field.

Docs: bestille-en-kjoring.md (what the commissioner gets) + ekspert-svar.md (what
the expert's queue looks like, and that "rejected" is the validator's verdict on
the numbers, never a professional judgement of the idea).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01VtRd8y1PDPGwkrRXFhubqr
2026-08-05 21:12:09 +02:00
9668e17f2f feat(mcp): concrete MCP servers become tools the agents can call during a run
Krav 3, and the operator chose the run path explicitly: the external service must
be reachable WHILE the run works, not only when documents are ingested. Until now
the run path had one in-process tool against a local folder — and on the bundle
path the agents had no tools at all.

MAF already ships the client (MCPStdioTool / MCPStreamableHTTPTool, verified in
the pinned 1.9.0 with allowed_tools and request_timeout), so `mcp_tools.py` owns
only what MAF cannot decide for us: which servers a run may contact, which of
their tools it may call, how long it waits, and where the credential comes from.
This is a DIFFERENT seam from ingest_mcp.py on purpose — that one pulls source
documents before a run and speaks to null-argument tools. Same protocol, different
job.

Every refusal is a live hazard, not tidiness. An empty allowlist would let the far
end decide what the agents may call, so naming the tools is mandatory. A
non-positive timeout is an unbounded wait against a third party. An unknown field
is refused rather than ignored, which is also what keeps a literal secret from
being parked in the config — there is no field for one, only the NAME of an env
var. A named-but-unset credential refuses instead of calling anonymously, because
an anonymous call can succeed with the wrong scope.

Egress is declared, always. Every server and permitted tool is named in the run
announcement before the first call — including when no --mandate is given, which
was a real hole: the announcement only printed with a commission, so configuring
servers without one would have contacted third parties with nothing printed at
all. --live-dry-run still opens nothing, because the tools are entered after the
dry-run cut: the promise to stop before the first call now covers egress too.

Threaded through BOTH modes. A flag accepted in one mode and silently dropped in
the other is the defect class this CLI refuses by name.

Load-bearing MEASURED against the whole 744-test suite, four mutations all red:
build the tools but never hand them to the agents (2) · never enter the
AsyncExitStack, so they are constructed and useless (1) · never declare the egress
(2) · drop the allowlist on the built client (1).

Two live docs claimed MCP was unwired in the run path; both corrected rather than
left to rot.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01ULCqjLF61rehj5cZmdUoR3
2026-08-05 16:53:07 +02:00
30bcdd3544 docs(mandate): how a domain expert commissions a run — and one honesty fix the run itself exposed
`docs/bestille-en-kjoring.md` is the commissioning half of the expert-facing pair
(`ekspert-svar.md` is the judging half): the mandate file field by field, how to
run it, and — separated deliberately — what a commission does NOT do. It directs
what is evaluated, never what is approved.

Registered in _LIVE_DOCS, so it cannot silently fall behind the code.

The example output in it is COPIED FROM A REAL RUN, not composed, and running
that run is what found the defect fixed here: three approaches against the same
cost line each validated at 30000 NOK, and the settlement printed
"Validated total: 90000 NOK". Commissioned approaches are ALTERNATIVES — they
usually attack the same line — so summing them reports money the project cannot
realise. A domain expert reading that total would reasonably believe the run
found 90k.

The settlement now reports how many approaches held and which one the run
carries: a selection, not an arithmetic claim. That also removes the last money
addition from this module, which is the right place for it not to be.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01ULCqjLF61rehj5cZmdUoR3
2026-08-05 16:31:27 +02:00