agent hallucinating figures not in source data for onboard a new suppl

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

Fix this in Coupa onboarding agent by acting on the exact problem first: require every figure and date in the onboarding to come from a retrieved source, the W-9 for tax details, the bank letter for account numbers and the agreement for terms, add a check that compares each loaded value against its source document, and remove any loaded value that has no matching source before submitting the supplier. Do not rerun the whole workflow unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one vendor first, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the results.

agent hallucinating figures not in source data for onboard a new supplier in Coupa

Use this when

• The operation in Coupa onboarding agent fails with this exact problem: agent hallucinating figures not in source data for onboard a new supplier in Coupa.
• The same failure repeats on retry with unchanged inputs.
• A vendor onboarding, payment setup, screening or vendor record step is blocked until this is resolved.

Not for this skill when

• The notice is a platform outage from the vendor of the tool. Resolve that first, then return here if this problem remains.
• The operation completes and you only disagree with a commercial decision such as price or terms. That is a negotiation, not this failure.

Steps

1. Reproduce the failure on one named vendor in Coupa onboarding agent and record the full problem text plus the vendor, supplier record or onboarding case involved. Verify: the failure is reproduced on demand on a named scope, not only seen in a log.
2. Apply the specific fix for this problem: require every figure and date in the onboarding to come from a retrieved source, the W-9 for tax details, the bank letter for account numbers and the agreement for terms, add a check that compares each loaded value against its source document, and remove any loaded value that has no matching source before submitting the supplier. Verify: the single failing vendor now behaves as the fix predicts, or the corrected value is visible on the record.
3. Check neighbouring vendors, supplier records or onboarding cases that share the same automation, template or sync, because this class of failure rarely affects only one vendor. Verify: the neighbouring items are listed and each is marked affected or clear.
4. Rerun the original operation in Coupa onboarding agent on the previously failing scope, watching for the same problem rather than assuming success from a quiet log. Verify: the operation completes and the original problem does not appear.
5. Compare the result against the source of truth, the vendor master record, the signed tax form or the compliance document, so a silent partial success is caught. Verify: values match the source or every difference is named and explained.
6. Record the fix, the triggering input and the verification result on the vendor record so the next occurrence is recognised immediately. Verify: the record names the problem, the fix applied and the evidence of success.

Variant phrasings

agent hallucinating figures not in source data for onboard a new supplier in Coupa

The verbatim form searchers paste from the console, report or run log. Treat it identically: same fix, same single vendor proof, then the full rerun.

How to fix - agent hallucinating figures not in source data for onboard a new supplier in Coupa error hallucination failure

The how to phrasing for the same failure in Coupa onboarding agent. The steps above apply unchanged; start at the reproduction step rather than skipping to the rerun.

Coupa onboarding agent troubleshooting for this failure

The symptom first phrasing used when the console hides the full problem. Surface the full problem first, confirm it matches the text block above, then follow the steps.

Why it happens

When a lookup or a parse returns empty, an agent can fill the gap with a plausible value, and only a field by field comparison against the source documents separates real supplier details from invented ones.

Edge cases

• The vendor was merged, renamed or given new banking details after the failing run started. Refresh the vendor state and reapply the fix against the current values, not the values from the failed run.
• The single vendor proof passes but the full rerun still fails on other vendors. Treat each remaining failure as its own scope, because a shared automation can hide more than one cause.
• The source systems disagree on the correct value. The vendor master record governs identity and payment details, the signed tax document governs classification and withholding, and the compliance screening governs approval status; record which source won and why.

Compatibility: Coupa onboarding agent at current versions, plus the procurement, ERP or screening platform the query names; no extra tooling beyond access to the source records needed to verify results.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_8ydx-LfxeR3tLFSRVX27Sw

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_8ydx-LfxeR3tLFSRVX27Sw

Thread query: agent hallucinating figures not in source data for onboard a new supplier in Coupa error hallucination failure

TL;DR: Fix this in Coupa onboarding agent by acting on the exact problem first: require every figure and date in the onboarding to come from a retrieved source, the W-9 for tax details, the bank letter for account numbers and the agreement for terms, add a check that compares each loaded value against its source document, and remove any loaded value that has no matching source before submitting the supplier. Do not rerun the whole workflow unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one vendor first, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the results.

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

Fix this in sanctions screening agent by acting on the exact problem first: report the screening outcome only from the screening service response for this vendor, quote its status and reference in the vendor record, and block any summary that names a clearance or a match the response does not contain. Do not rerun the whole workflow unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one vendor first, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the results.

agent hallucinating figures not in source data for run sanctions screening on a new vendor

Use this when

• The operation in sanctions screening agent fails with this exact problem: agent hallucinating figures not in source data for run sanctions screening on a new vendor.
• The same failure repeats on retry with unchanged inputs.
• A vendor onboarding, payment setup, screening or vendor record step is blocked until this is resolved.

Not for this skill when

• The notice is a platform outage from the vendor of the tool. Resolve that first, then return here if this problem remains.
• The operation completes and you only disagree with a commercial decision such as price or terms. That is a negotiation, not this failure.

Steps

1. Reproduce the failure on one named vendor in sanctions screening agent and record the full problem text plus the vendor, supplier record or onboarding case involved. Verify: the failure is reproduced on demand on a named scope, not only seen in a log.
2. Apply the specific fix for this problem: report the screening outcome only from the screening service response for this vendor, quote its status and reference in the vendor record, and block any summary that names a clearance or a match the response does not contain. Verify: the single failing vendor now behaves as the fix predicts, or the corrected value is visible on the record.
3. Check neighbouring vendors, supplier records or onboarding cases that share the same automation, template or sync, because this class of failure rarely affects only one vendor. Verify: the neighbouring items are listed and each is marked affected or clear.
4. Rerun the original operation in sanctions screening agent on the previously failing scope, watching for the same problem rather than assuming success from a quiet log. Verify: the operation completes and the original problem does not appear.
5. Compare the result against the source of truth, the vendor master record, the signed tax form or the compliance document, so a silent partial success is caught. Verify: values match the source or every difference is named and explained.
6. Record the fix, the triggering input and the verification result on the vendor record so the next occurrence is recognised immediately. Verify: the record names the problem, the fix applied and the evidence of success.

Variant phrasings

agent hallucinating figures not in source data for run sanctions screening on a new vendor

The verbatim form searchers paste from the console, report or run log. Treat it identically: same fix, same single vendor proof, then the full rerun.

How to fix - agent hallucinating figures not in source data for run sanctions screening on a new vendor error hallucination failure

The how to phrasing for the same failure in sanctions screening agent. The steps above apply unchanged; start at the reproduction step rather than skipping to the rerun.

sanctions screening agent troubleshooting for this failure

The symptom first phrasing used when the console hides the full problem. Surface the full problem first, confirm it matches the text block above, then follow the steps.

Why it happens

Screening outcomes are binary compliance facts, and an agent that infers a likely clearance from a clean looking name invents the one fact the whole step exists to prove.

Edge cases

• The vendor was merged, renamed or given new banking details after the failing run started. Refresh the vendor state and reapply the fix against the current values, not the values from the failed run.
• The single vendor proof passes but the full rerun still fails on other vendors. Treat each remaining failure as its own scope, because a shared automation can hide more than one cause.
• The source systems disagree on the correct value. The vendor master record governs identity and payment details, the signed tax document governs classification and withholding, and the compliance screening governs approval status; record which source won and why.

Compatibility: sanctions screening agent at current versions, plus the procurement, ERP or screening platform the query names; no extra tooling beyond access to the source records needed to verify results.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/psttRvvuwYAI5pLsRxyeDjjg

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/psttRvvuwYAI5pLsRxyeDjjg

Thread query: agent hallucinating figures not in source data for run sanctions screening on a new vendor error hallucination failure

TL;DR: Fix this in sanctions screening agent by acting on the exact problem first: report the screening outcome only from the screening service response for this vendor, quote its status and reference in the vendor record, and block any summary that names a clearance or a match the response does not contain. Do not rerun the whole workflow unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one vendor first, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the results.

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

Fix this by acting on the exact problem first: require the agent to cite the exact source line, document or record for every answer it uses to screen a new supplier against sanctions lists, reject any answer with no source, and rerun the task checking each cited source against the original vendor data. Do not rerun the same operation unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one agent run for one vendor first, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the results.

agent hallucinating answers not in source data for screen a new supplier against sanctions lists error hallucination failure

Use this when

• The operation in the agent workflow fails with this exact problem: agent hallucinating answers not in source data for screen a new supplier against sanctions lists error hallucination failure.
• The same failure repeats on retry with unchanged inputs.
• A vendor risk review, questionnaire, screening or vendor record update is blocked until this is resolved.

Not for this skill when

• The notice is a platform outage from the vendor. Resolve that first, then return here if this problem remains.
• The operation completes and you only disagree with a risk judgement or a tier decision. That is a risk owner decision, not this failure.

Steps

1. Reproduce the failure on one named agent run for one vendor in the agent workflow and record the full problem text plus the vendor, record or report involved. Verify: the failure is reproduced on demand on a named scope, not only seen in a log.
2. Apply the specific fix for this problem: require the agent to cite the exact source line, document or record for every answer it uses to screen a new supplier against sanctions lists, reject any answer with no source, and rerun the task checking each cited source against the original vendor data. Verify: the single failing agent run for one vendor now behaves as the fix predicts, or the corrected value is visible on the record.
3. Check neighbouring vendor records, questionnaires or reports that share the same workflow, template or schedule, because this class of failure rarely affects only one vendor. Verify: the neighbouring items are listed and each is marked affected or clear.
4. Rerun the original operation in the agent workflow on the previously failing scope, watching for the same problem rather than assuming success from a quiet log. Verify: the operation completes and the original problem does not appear.
5. Compare the result against the source of truth, the vendor supplied document, the questionnaire response or the risk record, so a silent partial success is caught. Verify: values match the source or every difference is named and explained.
6. Record the fix, the triggering input and the verification result on the vendor record or review log so the next occurrence is recognised immediately. Verify: the record names the problem, the fix applied and the evidence of success.

Variant phrasings

agent hallucinating answers not in source data for screen a new supplier against sanctions lists error hallucination failure

The verbatim form searchers paste from the console, report or run log. Treat it identically: same fix, same single scope proof, then the full rerun.

How to fix - agent hallucinating answers not in source data for screen a new supplier against sanctions lists error hallucination failure

The how to phrasing for the same failure in the agent workflow. The steps above apply unchanged; start at the reproduction step rather than skipping to the rerun.

The agent workflow troubleshooting for this failure

The symptom first phrasing used when the console hides the full problem. Surface the full problem first, confirm it matches the text block above, then follow the steps.

Why it happens

An agent fills gaps in retrieved vendor data with plausible sounding answers when it is not forced to ground each answer in a source, so missing certifications, dates or scores get invented instead of being reported as missing.

Edge cases

• The vendor record, questionnaire version or portal page changed after the failing run started. Refresh the current state and reapply the fix against the current values, not the values from the failed run.
• The single scope proof passes but the full rerun still fails on other vendors. Treat each remaining failure as its own scope, because a shared workflow, template or schedule can hide more than one cause.
• The source systems disagree on the correct value. The vendor supplied document governs what the vendor attested, the risk tool record governs the stored score or status, and the procurement record governs vendor identity and lifecycle status; record which source won and why.

Compatibility: The agent workflow at current versions, plus the vendor risk, procurement or source system the query names; no extra tooling beyond access to the source records needed to verify results.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_N1zsxfQ8NIiq2252OT180w

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_N1zsxfQ8NIiq2252OT180w

Thread query: agent hallucinating answers not in source data for screen a new supplier against sanctions lists error hallucination failure

TL;DR: Fix this by acting on the exact problem first: require the agent to cite the exact source line, document or record for every answer it uses to screen a new supplier against sanctions lists, reject any answer with no source, and rerun the task checking each cited source against the original vendor data. Do not rerun the same operation unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one agent run for one vendor first, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the results.