37 lines
1.2 KiB
Markdown
37 lines
1.2 KiB
Markdown
# Clarification Policy (v2.0.1)
|
|
|
|
## Purpose
|
|
|
|
Prevent over-triggering clarification for in-scope operational accounting questions.
|
|
|
|
## Execution Readiness Levels
|
|
|
|
- `executable`: enough information to run safely.
|
|
- `executable_with_soft_assumptions`: route is clear, missing details can be covered by safe context assumptions.
|
|
- `needs_clarification`: missing information blocks reliable routing/execution.
|
|
|
|
## When Clarification Is Not Required
|
|
|
|
- In-scope query with recognizable accounting area and problem type.
|
|
- Route can be selected deterministically.
|
|
- Colloquial accounting language still maps to scan/review/anomaly/rule-check intent.
|
|
- Period is missing but active period exists in session context.
|
|
|
|
## When Clarification Is Required
|
|
|
|
- Domain/scope unclear.
|
|
- Accounting area/object cannot be identified.
|
|
- Routing cannot be selected reliably.
|
|
- Critical period-dependent task and period cannot be inferred from session context.
|
|
- Conflicting mixed tasks that cannot be decomposed safely.
|
|
|
|
## Soft Assumptions
|
|
|
|
Allowed markers:
|
|
- `period_from_session_context`
|
|
- `company_scope_defaulted`
|
|
- `problem_scan_mode_enabled`
|
|
|
|
These assumptions allow execution without forcing clarification when risk is acceptable.
|
|
|