Follow the answer from draft to catalog decision
All products, records, drafts and evaluation cases shown here are synthetic. The prepared scenarios supply their atomic claims. UI labels such as Verified describe catalog matching in this demonstration; they do not establish independent external verification.
Worked example: one TV answer, two different decisions
The shopper asks whether the synthetic Vega television supports HDR10+ and 120Hz. The prepared draft answers both questions confidently. The catalog supports the refresh rate but records a different HDR standard, so the answer needs a selective correction.
Prepared assistant draft
Yes, the Vega 65" OLED supports HDR10+ and a 120Hz refresh rate.
1. Compare each assertion with its catalog attribute
The HDR assertion and refresh-rate assertion arrive as separate supplied claims. Each is compared with its own product attribute, rather than giving the entire sentence one approval label. The catalog values below have verified confidence labels in the fixture; those labels are authored metadata.
| Attribute | Draft assertion | Catalog value | Decision | Effect on the answer |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HDR standard | HDR10+ | HDR10 | Correct | Replace the contradicted standard |
| Refresh rate | 120Hz | 120Hz | Pass | Keep the supported detail |
2. Compose the answer from those individual decisions
The gate produces the following displayed answer. The HDR correction names both the recorded value and the rejected assertion; the refresh-rate statement survives. Matching the catalog is the demonstrated check, while the quality of that catalog remains a separate responsibility.
Displayed answer
Vega 65" OLED TV: HDR is HDR10, not HDR10+ (corrected). Vega 65" OLED TV: Refresh Rate = 120Hz (verified).
3. Inspect what changed in the receipt
The JSON and printable HTML receipt retain the original draft, displayed answer and two decision rows, including asserted values, catalog values, confidence labels and fixture references. A reviewer can check that the correction did not silently discard the supported refresh rate. The timestamp and hash-derived identifier identify this generated record; they do not make it signed, immutable or durably archived.
An unknown rating needs uncertainty, not a replacement value
The synthetic Summit Ridge jacket draft promises full waterproofing, while its waterproof-rating attribute is unknown. The gate abstains on that promise. It does not conclude that the jacket is not waterproof or invent a rating. A catalog team would need suitable product evidence before making the stronger claim.
A configured implication can reveal an omitted claim
The synthetic Nimbus laptop draft calls it a fantastic gaming laptop and states that it has 16GB RAM. Its supplied claim list contains only RAM. A deterministic completeness rule maps the gaming language to a dedicated-GPU assertion, then compares that added assertion with the catalog's integrated Intel Arc graphics. RAM passes; the configured GPU implication is corrected. This illustrates one finite interpretation rule, not complete semantic extraction or a judgment about every game.
A product record cannot establish a drug-interaction answer
In the synthetic MagCalm scenario, the query asks about a blood thinner. A configured regex screen overrides the product answer with a refusal and text naming a licensed pharmacist as the proposed review destination. The drug-interactions field is also unknown. This demonstrates the decision to withhold the product answer; no professional handoff is executed and no medical recommendation is validated.
Read the benchmark with its test units attached
The fixed evaluation sends 60 already-decomposed claim fixtures directly to the gate and seven separate query fixtures to the screen. It tests local rules against authored expected labels. It does not test model extraction, unseen shopper traffic, source authentication or production performance.
| Measurement | Result | What was counted |
|---|---|---|
| Claim verdict matches | 60/60 | 32 pass, 15 correct, 10 abstain and 3 outside-coverage fixture labels |
| True-claim preservation | 32/32 | True-labeled claims that remain pass |
| Seeded false-claim interception | 28/28 | Non-pass-labeled claims given correct, abstain or outside-coverage; corrected values can still be served |
| Reference presence | 47/47 | Pass/correct records carrying a nonempty fixture reference string |
| Query-screen matches | 7/7 | Five configured triggers and two ordinary product queries |
The ledger combines different test units. Its total of 67 does not mean 67 product claims or 67 specialist escalations. Reference-string presence explains where a fixture decision points; it does not authenticate an external manufacturer source.
