The context
A fictional bidding workflow used a tender, amendments and operational registers. Specialist reviews fed a synthesis and a receiving decision worker. One receiving packet deliberately omitted later records, allowing inspection of the difference between the context supplied and the fields returned.
What was done
Retain the actual hosted worker responses and compare the incomplete receiving condition with a source-bound condition. Inspect warnings, scalar fields and readiness recommendations separately.
Associate each current field with its required source identifiers. If the receiving packet lacks a required source, clear that field in the downstream projection, preserve its received value as unverified history and retain the untouched original response. Apply the rule selectively so an unrelated supported field is not erased.
Follow the information
Three views of a recorded synthetic tender handoff. This exhibit replays selected observations, not live inference or a full submission system.
Context to output
A warning did not protect the structured fields.
Original tender and an old note. Later amendments were missing.
- Current deadline
- 6 Nov 2026, 12:00 UTC
- Current cap
- EUR 180,000
The AI worker warned about missing updates and kept the case in preparation. Its structured deadline and cap still projected superseded values.
Context to output
Missing support becomes an explicit unknown.
The expected-source manifest is checked against the received packet.
- Current deadline
- Unknown until verified
- Current cap
- Unknown until verified
The source rule clears unsupported current values while preserving the raw output for inspection. It does not manufacture the missing amendment.
Context to output
Bind the current values to the amendment.
The source-complete handoff includes the amended deadline and revised cap.
- Current deadline
- 30 Oct 2026, 12:00 UTC
- Current cap
- EUR 165,000
The recorded source-bound output carried the revised fields and retained a hold for other gaps. Complete source context alone does not settle eligibility, capacity or approval.
What was observed
The incomplete-context worker explicitly warned that updates were unavailable and limited its recommendation to preparation. It nevertheless returned a superseded deadline and ceiling under fields labelled current. The observed failure was structured-field currentness, not an actual external submission.
The source-bound worker retained the amended fields while holding the case for other evidence and delivery gaps. A separate unambiguously ready synthetic control reached a local mock receipt. More complex recovery cases preserved disagreement over finished-package readiness even after unknown scalar fields were resolved.
What this establishes
The missing-source condition was evaluator-created. The records, approvals and receipts were fictional; the source rule checks coverage rather than interpretation or full bid readiness. Some authored readiness labels remain disputed.
What comes next
Use independently reviewed cases with separate labels for current facts, reconciled documents and approval applicability. Measure useful completion and review effort as well as incorrect commitments.