No terminology found in the provided document chunk.
No technology references found in the provided document chunk.
No operational procedures found in the provided document chunk.
Insufficient content to assign scores; document consists only of a title.
No inconsistencies detected as no substantive content exists.
Cannot validate alignment due to lack of content in the provided document chunk.
{
"badge_class": "score-green",
"chunk_id": "78c611b6-3952-5399-ac23-7f4a55ca0480",
"confidence": 87.79,
"contextual_qna": [
{
"answer": "It serves as a test document for knowledge governance.",
"question": "What is the purpose of this document?"
},
{
"answer": "No, it is explicitly labeled as a \u0027test document\u0027.",
"question": "Is this a real policy document?"
},
{
"answer": "The text contains no specific guidelines beyond the test label.",
"question": "Are there any specific guidelines mentioned?"
},
{
"answer": "A JSON object with specific keys and constraints.",
"question": "What is the expected format for this analysis?"
},
{
"answer": "The text does not specify access levels or public status.",
"question": "Is this document publicly accessible?"
},
{
"answer": "The output must include core_answers, contextual_qna, domain_scores, score_evidence, and temporal_signals.",
"question": "What fields are required in the output?"
},
{
"answer": "Each answer must be a short, factual sentence of 40 words or fewer.",
"question": "What are the constraints on the core_answers?"
},
{
"answer": "They must be integer values for technical, operational, and regulatory dimensions.",
"question": "How are domain_scores defined?"
}
],
"contradictions": [],
"core_answers": {
"What is the main idea?": "This document is a test file for evaluating knowledge governance.",
"What processes or procedures are described?": "The document outlines the structure required for test document analysis.",
"What risks or threats are discussed?": "The document does not discuss any specific risks or threats."
},
"decay_score": 0.1221,
"decay_summary": {
"anomaly": {
"evidence": [],
"status": "NO"
},
"archive_suggestion": false,
"counts": {
"legacy_indicators": 0,
"outdated_terms": 0
},
"legacy": [],
"outdated_terms": [],
"regulatory_gap": true,
"regulatory_score": 0,
"rollup": {
"text": "0 outdated \u00b7 0 legacy \u00b7 anomaly: no \u00b7 validation: uncertain \u00b7 reg: gap"
},
"severity": "MEDIUM",
"validation": {
"reason": "Cannot validate alignment due to lack of content in the provided document chunk.",
"status": "UNCERTAIN"
}
},
"domain_scores": {
"operational": 0,
"regulatory": 0,
"technical": 1
},
"explanation": "This document is a test file for evaluating knowledge governance.",
"is_archived": false,
"ops": 0.0,
"prompt_diagnostics": {
"prompt_1": {
"evidence": [],
"status": "ANALYSIS_COMPLETE",
"summary": "No terminology found in the provided document chunk.",
"terms": []
},
"prompt_10": {
"evidence": [],
"status": "UNCERTAIN",
"summary": "Cannot validate alignment due to lack of content in the provided document chunk."
},
"prompt_2": {
"evidence": [],
"references": [],
"status": "ANALYSIS_COMPLETE",
"summary": "No technology references found in the provided document chunk."
},
"prompt_4": {
"evidence": [],
"status": "UNDEFINED",
"summary": "No operational procedures found in the provided document chunk."
},
"prompt_6": {
"evidence": [],
"scores": {
"operational": 0,
"regulatory": 0,
"technical": 0
},
"status": "ANALYSIS_COMPLETE",
"summary": "Insufficient content to assign scores; document consists only of a title."
},
"prompt_9": {
"evidence": [],
"status": "NO_ANOMALY",
"summary": "No inconsistencies detected as no substantive content exists."
}
},
"reg": 0.0,
"score_evidence": [
{
"dimension": "technical",
"phrase_from_text": "Knowledge governance test document."
}
],
"summary": "This document is a test file for evaluating knowledge governance.",
"supersedence": [],
"tech": 0.0,
"temporal_signals": []
}
The text explicitly names 'production documents' and 'Legacy documents'. 'Production documents' is the standard term used in the current rule. 'Legacy' is a descriptor used in the second rule but refers to a subset of documents that are already established, hence LEGACY-VALID rather than purely OUTDATED, as the rule dictates an action for them.
The specific time threshold '180 days' appears in the context of marking documents for review, implying a standard cycle that is being referenced. While '180 days' itself isn't a technology, in the context of document lifecycle management, it represents a legacy metric against which 'production documents' (every 90 days) are compared. It is treated here as a legacy parameter for classification purposes.
The document outlines a standard procedure for reviewing production documents every 90 days and a specific protocol for older legacy documents, representing a standard operational practice.
The text is primarily operational regarding document review cycles. Technically, the rules are abstract without specific software protocols, leading to a moderate score. Regulatory compliance is implied by the mandatory 'must' phrasing but lacks specific legal citations, resulting in a lower score.
The two rules provided are consistent. The first rule applies to current production documents (90 days), and the second applies to older legacy documents (180 days), covering the entire document lifecycle without contradiction.
The document aligns with best practices by establishing clear review intervals for both active and legacy documents, ensuring no documents exceed a certain age without attention.
{
"badge_class": "score-yellow",
"chunk_id": "37025f22-da61-5bbf-933d-2b8797d2ad13",
"confidence": 67.29,
"contextual_qna": [
{
"answer": "All production documents must be reviewed every 90 days.",
"question": "How often must production documents be reviewed?"
},
{
"answer": "Legacy documents older than 180 days should be marked for review.",
"question": "What status should be assigned to documents older than 180 days?"
},
{
"answer": "All production documents must be reviewed every 90 days.",
"question": "What is the time limit for the initial review?"
},
{
"answer": "Legacy documents older than 180 days should be marked for review.",
"question": "What defines a legacy document in this context?"
},
{
"answer": "Legacy documents older than 180 days should be marked for review.",
"question": "What is the specific action required for old documents?"
},
{
"answer": "All production documents must be reviewed every 90 days.",
"question": "What is the maximum time before review is required?"
},
{
"answer": "Legacy documents older than 180 days should be marked for review.",
"question": "What specific wording indicates the need for marking?"
}
],
"contradictions": [],
"core_answers": {
"What is the main idea?": "Production documents require periodic review every 90 days, while those older than 180 days need marking.",
"What processes or procedures are described?": "Review all production documents every 90 days and mark legacy documents older than 180 days.",
"What risks or threats are discussed?": "Overdue document reviews or unmarked legacy documents may lead to compliance issues."
},
"decay_score": 0.3271,
"decay_summary": {
"anomaly": {
"evidence": [],
"status": "NO"
},
"archive_suggestion": false,
"counts": {
"legacy_indicators": 2,
"outdated_terms": 0
},
"legacy": [
{
"label": "Legacy documents",
"tag": "LEGACY-VALID"
},
{
"label": "180 days",
"tag": "LEGACY-EOL"
}
],
"outdated_terms": [],
"regulatory_gap": false,
"regulatory_score": 6,
"rollup": {
"text": "0 outdated \u00b7 2 legacy \u00b7 anomaly: no \u00b7 validation: valid \u00b7 reg: 6"
},
"severity": "LOW",
"validation": {
"reason": "The document aligns with best practices by establishing clear review intervals for both active and legacy documents, ensuring no documents exceed a certain age without attention.",
"status": "VALID"
}
},
"domain_scores": {
"operational": 1,
"regulatory": 1,
"technical": 0
},
"explanation": "Production documents require periodic review every 90 days, while those older than 180 days need marking.",
"is_archived": false,
"ops": 8.0,
"prompt_diagnostics": {
"prompt_1": {
"evidence": [
"All production documents",
"Legacy documents"
],
"explanation": "The text explicitly names \u0027production documents\u0027 and \u0027Legacy documents\u0027. \u0027Production documents\u0027 is the standard term used in the current rule. \u0027Legacy\u0027 is a descriptor used in the second rule but refers to a subset of documents that are already established, hence LEGACY-VALID rather than purely OUTDATED, as the rule dictates an action for them.",
"terms": [
{
"category": "CURRENT",
"term": "production documents"
},
{
"category": "LEGACY-VALID",
"term": "Legacy documents"
}
]
},
"prompt_10": {
"evidence": [
"All production documents must be reviewed every 90 days",
"Legacy documents older than 180 days should be marked for review"
],
"status": "VALID",
"summary": "The document aligns with best practices by establishing clear review intervals for both active and legacy documents, ensuring no documents exceed a certain age without attention."
},
"prompt_2": {
"evidence": [
"older than 180 days"
],
"explanation": "The specific time threshold \u0027180 days\u0027 appears in the context of marking documents for review, implying a standard cycle that is being referenced. While \u0027180 days\u0027 itself isn\u0027t a technology, in the context of document lifecycle management, it represents a legacy metric against which \u0027production documents\u0027 (every 90 days) are compared. It is treated here as a legacy parameter for classification purposes.",
"references": [
{
"category": "LEGACY-EOL",
"item": "180 days"
}
]
},
"prompt_4": {
"evidence": [
"All production documents must be reviewed every 90 days",
"Legacy documents older than 180 days should be marked for review"
],
"status": "STANDARD_PRACTICE",
"summary": "The document outlines a standard procedure for reviewing production documents every 90 days and a specific protocol for older legacy documents, representing a standard operational practice."
},
"prompt_6": {
"evidence": [
"All production documents must be reviewed every 90 days",
"Legacy documents older than 180 days should be marked for review"
],
"scores": {
"operational": 8,
"regulatory": 6,
"technical": 5
},
"summary": "The text is primarily operational regarding document review cycles. Technically, the rules are abstract without specific software protocols, leading to a moderate score. Regulatory compliance is implied by the mandatory \u0027must\u0027 phrasing but lacks specific legal citations, resulting in a lower score."
},
"prompt_9": {
"evidence": [],
"status": "NO_ANOMALY",
"summary": "The two rules provided are consistent. The first rule applies to current production documents (90 days), and the second applies to older legacy documents (180 days), covering the entire document lifecycle without contradiction."
}
},
"reg": 6.0,
"score_evidence": [
{
"dimension": "operational",
"phrase_from_text": "All production documents must be reviewed every 90 days."
},
{
"dimension": "operational",
"phrase_from_text": "Legacy documents older than 180 days should be marked for review."
}
],
"summary": "Production documents require periodic review every 90 days, while those older than 180 days need marking.",
"supersedence": [],
"tech": 5.0,
"temporal_signals": [
"90 days",
"180 days",
"every"
]
}