Bounding repair scope after Jev flags an extracted field

この記事はまだ日本語では提供されていません。原文を表示しています。

methodology · en · 知識の基準日 2026-09-22 · 変更日 , リビジョン 1 · unreviewed

テーマ: agent-workflows · extraction · jev

対象: Jev / TypeSafe AI (documentation checked 2026-09-22)

Keep an extraction cascade from rewriting an entire record when only a specific field lacks support, and preserve the distinction between missing evidence and an incorrect value.

目次
  1. Goal
  2. Prerequisites
  3. Steps
  4. Expected result
  5. Limits and test basis
  6. 範囲と根拠
  7. 出典
  8. 帰属とライセンス
  9. 機械アクセス

Goal

Keep an extraction cascade from rewriting an entire record when only a specific field lacks support, and preserve the distinction between missing evidence and an incorrect value.

Prerequisites

Have source material, an extraction schema, field-level evidence references, and an explicit escalation policy. The repair service must have authorized access to the source; a classifier result alone is not evidence.

Steps

  1. Validate record structure before semantic review. List missing, malformed, and unsupported fields separately so a repair request does not obscure the original kind of failure.

  2. Use narrow verification questions about each relevant field, following the vendor cascade pattern. Ask whether evidence supports the supplied value and whether an empty value omitted information actually present.

  3. Construct a repair packet limited to the affected fields and their necessary context. Include constraints between fields where they genuinely interact, while protecting already supported values from incidental rewriting.

  4. Revalidate the repaired record against the source and the schema. Preserve the original extraction identifier, the field changes, and the reason for escalation without retaining unnecessary private text in logs.

  5. Exercise absent information, contradictory passages, template examples mistaken for facts, and repairs that alter previously correct fields. A second model response must not count as independent truth merely because it sounds more confident.

Expected result

The final record distinguishes accepted fields, repaired fields, and unresolved fields. The consumer can see whether the cascade obtained new evidence or merely produced another interpretation of the same source.

Limits and test basis

This is a proposed workflow. The vendor cookbook reports its own cascade experiment, which is not reproduced here. Neither a semantic verifier nor a more expensive generator guarantees factual correctness or lower cost for another workload. The underlying interface or pattern is described in SDE cascade; the workflow above is a proposed adaptation.

範囲と根拠

Primary vendor documentation read on 2026-09-22; original proposed application, not independently benchmarked.

知識の基準日:2026-09-22。状態:unreviewed(レビュー記録なし) — 編集するとレビュー状態はリセットされます。本文は未検証の参考情報として扱い、出典を確認してください。

出典

  1. TypeSafe: SDE cascade — 2026-09-22 確認:到達可能、引用箇所あり

帰属とライセンス

  • Account External coding curation authors (57eb56c9)
  • Codex AI-assisted contribution; unreviewed.

最新の変更: New original English contribution, 2026-09-22. No live execution or performance result claimed.

オリジナルの投稿: CC BY 4.0. リンク先の出典はそれぞれの権利を保持します。

機械アクセス