# Unclear Cases Generated: 2026-09-13T04:39:38.836Z Source build: local Canonical docs: https://teammately.ai/docs --- id: troubleshooting.unclear-cases title: Unclear Cases summary: Repair Cases that informed reviewers cannot interpret consistently from the supplied input, context, and output identity. kind: error product_area: troubleshooting status: stable updated: 2026-08-23 canonical: /docs/troubleshooting/unclear-cases --- # Unclear Cases ## Symptoms - Reviewers ask what they are supposed to judge. - The same Case produces incompatible readings because a source, prior turn, time boundary, or user state is absent. - A candidate answer is visible, but it is unclear whether it is the judged output or reference behavior. - The Case title or metadata implies context that the review presentation does not contain. - Experts can answer only by inventing assumptions. ## Likely causes - A prior conversation turn, source, time boundary, or user state is missing. - Candidate and reference outputs are swapped or unlabeled. - One Case combines multiple situations or requested judgments. - Important instructions live in metadata or private project knowledge instead of visible context. ## Diagnose the Case, not the reviewer 1. Open the Case in its normal review presentation and read only what the assigned expert can see. 2. Identify the judged input and output separately. For conversations, confirm the turn order and which response is under review. 3. List every fact required to make the judgment, then verify each fact is present as Case content, context, source material, or an explicitly linked standard. 4. Check whether metadata is being used as hidden instruction rather than visible context. 5. Compare reviewer rationale. Repeated invented assumptions usually reveal the missing boundary. ## Fix - Add or map the missing context when it belongs to the real situation. - Correct the output attachment when candidate and reference behavior were swapped. - Split a Case that combines two independently judged situations. - Narrow the question or applicability boundary when multiple interpretations are legitimate. - Mark the Case unresolved or keep it as candidate material when authoritative evidence is unavailable. - Create a new Case version when the reviewable content changes; do not silently rewrite evidence used by an existing Snapshot. After correction, have a reviewer who did not author the Case explain the situation and requested judgment. If they must rely on private project knowledge, the Case is still incomplete. ## Prevention Review the Case through the same presentation an expert will see, label output identity explicitly, and include every fact required for judgment. Sample imported and generated Cases before Benchmark selection, and version content changes after evidence exists. {% example-demo title="Example: recommendation without the user's equipment" %} A Case asks whether a product is compatible but omits the equipment model mentioned in an earlier conversation turn. Reviewers alternate between pass and fail. The operator restores the prior turn, confirms the candidate output identity, versions the Case, and repeats the affected review. The old Snapshot retains the earlier ambiguous version. {% /example-demo %} ## Source confidence Code-backed: Cases, Case review, Contribution preview, and Case-content schemas establish the separate input, contextual-material, and presentation boundaries used here. Whether the supplied facts are sufficient for a domain judgment remains reviewer-owned. ## Related task pages {% related-card-grid title="Related workflows" %} - [Case model overview](/docs/assets) - [Complete an Expert Contribution](/docs/expert-contributions/complete-contribution) - [Boundary Cases](/docs/coverage-engineering/boundary-cases) - [Case Versioning](/docs/governance/case-versioning) {% /related-card-grid %} ## Related reference pages {% related-card-grid title="Related reference" %} - [Cases](/docs/object-model/cases) - [Represent conversations in Cases](/docs/object-model/represent-conversations-in-cases) - [Metadata and context](/docs/reference/metadata-and-context) {% /related-card-grid %} --- id: assets.cases title: Cases summary: Understand canonical project cases, their input and materials, and how they become members of benchmark datasets. kind: reference product_area: assets status: stable updated: 2026-08-22 canonical: /docs/assets/cases --- # Cases ## Definition A Case is a project-level situation used for expert contribution, benchmark coverage, or candidate evaluation. It has canonical input content and may include declared supporting materials. Cases live in the Assets pool and can be selected into one or more benchmark datasets. The Project Input Schema determines how the primary input and materials are represented. A benchmark snapshot determines which selected cases belong to one versioned evidence boundary. ## Fields, states, or lifecycle rules - Canonical primary input is stored under `content.input`. - Optional supporting values or artifacts are stored under `content.case_materials` according to the project's declared keys. - `record_content.case_view` is a rendered projection used for inspection and delivery; it is not a second editable payload. - Inputs can use plain-text, chat, or structured architecture as configured by the project. - Materials can include admitted artifact families and must satisfy any required-field and file-extension rules. - A project Case is not automatically part of every benchmark. Benchmark Datasets owns selection and snapshots. - Generated or imported Cases should be reviewed for clarity, source authority, and schema conformance before they are trusted as benchmark evidence. - Static case materials and executable Worlds remain separate. A document supplied to a Harness does not become a world merely because it affects execution. ## Case identity and change Treat the persisted case identity as opaque. Do not construct IDs in client code or documentation. When case content changes materially, benchmark interpretation must use a snapshot or version boundary that makes the selected content clear. Responses produced by a Harness are evaluation outputs attached to a Run. They are not the primary case input. Expert-authored acceptable examples can inform standards or contribution work, but the current evaluation contract should remain explicit about which candidate produced each response. {% example-demo title="Example: multimaterial case" %} A chat case asks whether an exception applies. Its required `current_policy` PDF and optional `account_history` table are stored as case materials admitted by Project Input Schema. The rendered case view presents the conversation and both materials. A benchmark snapshot selects the case, and a Run records the evaluated Harness response separately. {% /example-demo %} ## Source confidence Code-backed: the active Assets Cases route and case-content services define canonical input, case materials, and the rendered case view. Public import or export APIs are outside this reference unless separately documented. ## Related task pages {% related-card-grid title="Related task pages" %} - [Configure Project Input Schema](/docs/project-settings/input-schema) - [Work with Benchmark Datasets](/docs/benchmark-datasets) - [Manage benchmark coverage](/docs/coverage-management) {% /related-card-grid %} --- id: expert-contributions.complete title: Complete an Expert Contribution summary: Work through form, chat, interview, case-review, and checkpoint tasks while keeping specialist judgment attributable. kind: task product_area: expert_contributions status: stable updated: 2026-08-22 canonical: /docs/expert-contributions/complete-contribution --- # Complete an Expert Contribution Complete a Contribution by following its prepared task sequence and making the requested specialist judgments from the evidence shown. The expert experience can adapt between structured forms, agent chat, interviews, case review, and checkpoints. ## Prerequisites - A valid Contribution link or authenticated expert entry point. - Access to the Contribution and its assigned tasks. - Enough source and case context to explain each answer. - A stable connection when the task uses realtime agent interaction. ## Steps 1. Open the Contribution and read its objective, selected cases, and expected components before answering. 2. Complete each task according to its type. Planned activities can be Case Review, Form, Chat, or Interview; Curation, Comparative, and Trajectory components shape the prepared work those activities present. 3. Use attachments and visible case materials as the evidence boundary. State uncertainty when the supplied material does not resolve the question. 4. At a checkpoint, inspect the proposed summary or artifact meaning. Checkpoints prepare and reconcile requirements, consolidator or Policy statements, interview requests or records, and Rubrics. Confirm only what matches your judgment; retry, revise, or leave unresolved anything that does not. 5. Continue through the task handoff until the Contribution reaches its final step. 6. Review the completion state. If the experience shows a waiting, retry, or synchronization state, do not assume the administrator has received final evidence until the product confirms it. ## Object and state changes Answers create durable task responses and can advance task sessions, checkpoints, handoffs, and Contribution status. Chat or interview activity can produce transcripts and structured learning. Case review can attach judgment to selected cases. Completion makes the contribution available for reconciliation and materialization but does not itself make every proposed artifact governed. Review tasks can be `PREPARING`, `BLOCKED`, `READY`, `IN_PROGRESS`, `COMPLETED`, `SKIPPED`, or `SUPERSEDED`. The expert runtime can be `PREPARING`, `READY`, `ACTIVE`, `FINAL_CHECKPOINT`, `COMPLETED`, or `EXHAUSTED`. Checkpoints can be preparing, ready, or reconciled, with individual requirements pending, retryable, materialized, empty, or failed. These layered states explain why a Contribution can be active while one task is blocked or a final checkpoint is still pending. ## Success criteria - Every answer addresses the Contribution objective and cites the visible evidence where needed. - Case-level judgments remain connected to the relevant case. - Checkpoints distinguish accepted, revised, and unresolved meaning. - The final state is visibly complete rather than inferred from navigation. - Uncertainty or source conflict remains explicit for the administrator. ## Common failure modes - Answering from private background without identifying that the supplied evidence is incomplete. - Treating an agent summary as accurate without checking the checkpoint. - Leaving a form or chat task in a local unsynchronized state. - Continuing after a stale task handoff instead of following the current Contribution route. - Assuming that completion directly changes policies, rubrics, cases, or coverage. {% example-demo title="Example: checkpoint correction" %} An interview summary says that every expired agreement should be ignored. The expert corrects the checkpoint: expired agreements may still be relevant when the current agreement explicitly incorporates them. The corrected statement remains attributable and prevents an overbroad policy from being materialized. {% /example-demo %} ## Related reference pages {% related-card-grid title="Related reference pages" %} - [Expert Contributions](/docs/expert-contributions) - [Contributed Artifacts](/docs/expert-contributions/contributed-artifacts) - [Human Approval Boundaries](/docs/governance/human-approval-boundaries) {% /related-card-grid %} ## Related troubleshooting pages {% related-card-grid title="Related troubleshooting pages" %} - [Expert Contribution problems](/docs/troubleshooting/expert-contributions) - [Permissions](/docs/troubleshooting/permissions) - [Authentication](/docs/troubleshooting/authentication) {% /related-card-grid %} ## Source confidence Code-backed: the current expert experience supports form, chat, interview, case-review, checkpoint, completion, waiting, and task-handoff routes with durable command and reconciliation behavior. --- id: coverage.boundary-cases title: Boundary Cases summary: Use edge and ambiguous cases to sharpen policies, applicability logic, and rubrics. kind: concept product_area: coverage_engineering status: stable updated: 2026-09-07 canonical: /docs/coverage-engineering/boundary-cases --- # Boundary Cases ## Definition A Boundary Case sits near a meaningful change in expected behavior: a Policy exception, an applicability edge, conflicting source authority, missing information, an escalation threshold, or another condition where a small contextual change should alter the correct output or action. Boundary Cases are not simply unusual examples. They are deliberate tests of a named distinction in the benchmark's coverage and correctness model. ## Why it matters Ordinary Cases can make a weak rule appear reliable because they never force the team to decide where it stops applying. Boundary Cases expose vague Policy scope, overlapping Rubrics, missing exceptions, and unsupported assumptions before those problems are hidden inside aggregate results. ## Where it appears in the product Coverage Stories can name a boundary as a missing or thin behavior slice. Case Foundry or another sourcing workflow can prepare candidate Cases against that need. Case Review checks whether the input, materials, and contrast are realistic. If the expected judgment is unclear, route the selected Cases into an Expert Contribution instead of inventing the answer during case construction. ## Artifacts it affects A useful Boundary Case records the exact contextual feature that changes the expectation, the controlling source material, the relevant Coverage Facets, and the Policy or Rubric question it exercises. Admission to the current Benchmark Dataset is a separate selection decision; admission to a Snapshot is a later immutable evidence decision. ## Operational check Compare the Boundary Case with a nearby ordinary Case. The pair should differ in the intended condition, not in several unrelated dimensions. Confirm that specialists can explain why the expected behavior changes, that the Rubric tests one observable criterion, and that the Case materials make the boundary visible to the evaluated system. {% example-demo title="Current versus superseded source" %} Two Cases ask the same eligibility question. One contains only the current policy document; the other also contains a plausible superseded document with conflicting terms. Specialists confirm that the response must follow the controlling current source or state uncertainty. The pair becomes a Boundary Case set for source authority, and its Rubric fails unsupported blending rather than generic factual error. {% /example-demo %} ## Related workflows {% related-card-grid title="Related workflows" %} - [Manage Coverage Stories](/docs/coverage-management/coverage-stories) - [Review prepared Cases](/docs/coverage-management/case-review) - [Applicability Logic](/docs/object-model/applicability-logic) - [Comparison Directions](/docs/assets/comparison-directions) - [Product quickstart](/docs/quickstart) - [Task index](/docs/operating-manual/task-index) {% /related-card-grid %} ## Source confidence Code-backed: Coverage Stories can represent named coverage needs, Case Review exposes prepared Cases and materials, and Case sourcing types preserve coverage targets and source context. Specialist authority and evaluator approval remain separate workflows.