agent's JSON schema rejected a clause with two governing-law juris

Not specified by the original author.

JSON schema drops the whole clause when one field fails: two governing-law jurisdictions

TL;DR

Declare repeatable fields as arrays and validate field-by-field so one bad field becomes a review flag instead of a dropped section. Validators default to all-or-nothing, so a clause naming two governing-law jurisdictions kills the entire extraction. Always keep the raw clause text on the record so nothing is unrecoverable.

ValidationError: governing_law expected string, got 2 jurisdictions - section 14 dropped from output

1. Make repeatable fields arrays. Change governing_law from a single string to a list of jurisdiction strings in the schema. Expected: the two-jurisdiction clause validates cleanly.

2. Validate field-by-field and keep partial records. On a field error, set that field to null, mark the record "needsreview", and keep everything else. Expected: the rerun keeps section 14 with governinglaw flagged instead of dropping it.

3. Store the raw clause text on every record. Expected: every structured record carries its source text even when validation partially fails.

4. Version-check the schema against the extractor. Fail the run loudly when the extractor model and the schema disagree on field shapes. Expected: a shape mismatch stops the pipeline before extraction, not after.

5. Re-extract the dropped sections. Query your raw-text store for sections with no structured record and run them through the fixed schema. Expected: previously dropped sections reappear, flagged for review.

Use this when

• valid clause text disappears from output with a validation error in the logs
• a clause has multiple values for a field your schema declares singular
• one bad field takes down an entire section instead of just the field
• you cannot recover what was dropped because the raw text was not stored

Not for this skill when

• the clause is missing because extraction never ran (a parsing or OCR failure)
• the schema is correct and the source data is genuinely malformed - fix the source
• you are designing a schema from scratch and want general schema-design advice

Variant phrasings

• json schema validation dropped entire clause one field failed
• validation error loses whole section contract extraction
• governing law multiple jurisdictions schema rejects
• partial extraction record field level validation fallback

Why it happens

Schema validators are all-or-nothing by default: one field violation fails the whole record. Contract text routinely violates tidy singular-field assumptions (two governing laws, three notice addresses, split caps), so a strict schema silently eats real clauses. Without stored raw text, the dropped section is gone for good.

Edge cases

• Arrays invite a new failure: an empty list vs null. Decide what each means before you ship.
• Field-level fallback can mask systematic extractor bugs. Track the flag rate per field.
• If two jurisdictions conflict legally, flag for a human. The schema fix is about not losing data, not resolving the conflict.
• Keep the schema version in the output or old and new records will not compare.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_FEDuqwXU7JKDNP6IoI3baQ

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_FEDuqwXU7JKDNP6IoI3baQ

Thread query: agent's JSON schema rejected a clause with two governing-law jurisdictions - it dropped the entire section instead of the field

TL;DR: Declare repeatable fields as arrays and validate field-by-field so one bad field becomes a review flag instead of a dropped section. Validators default to all-or-nothing, so a clause naming two governing-law jurisdictions kills the entire extraction. Always keep the raw clause text on the record so nothing is unrecoverable.

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

Fix this in the clause agent workflow by acting on the exact problem first: add a progress check to the looping step so the agent compares the result of each attempt to search the clause bank for governing law language against the previous one, exits when two results are identical, and moves to the fallback path of asking for the clause by its library identifier; confirm the run finishes instead of repeating. Do not rerun the same workflow unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one workflow run first, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the results.

agent stuck loop detected repeating the same step while trying to search the clause bank for governing law language error failure

Use this when

• The agent workflow fails with this exact problem: agent stuck loop detected repeating the same step while trying to search the clause bank for governing law language error failure.
• The same failure repeats on retry with unchanged inputs.
• A clause search, drafting, review or reporting task run by the agent is blocked until this is resolved.

Not for this skill when

• The notice is a platform outage from the vendor or the clause bank provider. Resolve that first, then return here if this problem remains.
• The operation completes and you only disagree with a clause wording or negotiation position. That is a legal owner decision, not this failure.

Steps

1. Reproduce the failure on one named run of the task to search the clause bank for governing law language and record the full problem text plus the contract or clause set involved. Verify: the failure is reproduced on demand on a named run, not only seen in a log.
2. Apply the specific fix for this problem: add a progress check to the looping step so the agent compares the result of each attempt to search the clause bank for governing law language against the previous one, exits when two results are identical, and moves to the fallback path of asking for the clause by its library identifier; confirm the run finishes instead of repeating. Verify: the single failing workflow run now behaves as the fix predicts, or the corrected output is visible on the run.
3. Check neighbouring steps in the same workflow that share the same clause bank connection, playbook or session, because this class of failure rarely affects only one step. Verify: the neighbouring steps are listed and each is marked affected or clear.
4. Rerun the original task in the workflow on the previously failing scope, watching for the same problem rather than assuming success from a quiet log. Verify: the task completes and the original problem does not appear.
5. Compare the result against the source of truth, the clause bank record, the playbook position or the source 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 workflow run 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 stuck loop detected repeating the same step while trying to search the clause bank for governing law language error failure

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

How to fix - agent stuck loop detected repeating the same step while trying to search the clause bank for governing law language error failure

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

The clause 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

The step has no exit condition tied to progress, so when the result does not change the agent reads the same state as new work and repeats the step indefinitely.

Edge cases

• The clause bank, playbook or source document 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 workflow run proof passes but the full rerun still fails on other contracts. Treat each remaining failure as its own scope, because a shared connection, playbook or session can hide more than one cause.
• The source systems disagree on the correct value. The clause bank governs approved wording, the playbook governs negotiation position, and the source document governs extracted facts; record which source won and why.

Compatibility: Clause library and agent workflow tooling at current versions, plus the clause bank, playbook or document source 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/pstw0pESyJNuSNF9aomLWseA

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pstw0pESyJNuSNF9aomLWseA

Thread query: agent stuck loop detected repeating the same step while trying to search the clause bank for governing law language error failure

TL;DR: Fix this in the clause agent workflow by acting on the exact problem first: add a progress check to the looping step so the agent compares the result of each attempt to search the clause bank for governing law language against the previous one, exits when two results are identical, and moves to the fallback path of asking for the clause by its library identifier; confirm the run finishes instead of repeating. Do not rerun the same workflow unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one workflow run first, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the results.

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

Fix this in the clause agent workflow by acting on the exact problem first: open the run log for the attempt to search the clause bank for governing law language, find the first step that returned an error instead of retrying the whole workflow, correct that step input such as the clause search terms or the target library, rerun that single step, and confirm it returns a result before resuming. Do not rerun the same workflow unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one workflow run first, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the results.

agent failed to search the clause bank for governing law language error failure timeout

Use this when

• The agent workflow fails with this exact problem: agent failed to search the clause bank for governing law language error failure timeout.
• The same failure repeats on retry with unchanged inputs.
• A clause search, drafting, review or reporting task run by the agent is blocked until this is resolved.

Not for this skill when

• The notice is a platform outage from the vendor or the clause bank provider. Resolve that first, then return here if this problem remains.
• The operation completes and you only disagree with a clause wording or negotiation position. That is a legal owner decision, not this failure.

Steps

1. Reproduce the failure on one named run of the task to search the clause bank for governing law language and record the full problem text plus the contract or clause set involved. Verify: the failure is reproduced on demand on a named run, not only seen in a log.
2. Apply the specific fix for this problem: open the run log for the attempt to search the clause bank for governing law language, find the first step that returned an error instead of retrying the whole workflow, correct that step input such as the clause search terms or the target library, rerun that single step, and confirm it returns a result before resuming. Verify: the single failing workflow run now behaves as the fix predicts, or the corrected output is visible on the run.
3. Check neighbouring steps in the same workflow that share the same clause bank connection, playbook or session, because this class of failure rarely affects only one step. Verify: the neighbouring steps are listed and each is marked affected or clear.
4. Rerun the original task in the workflow on the previously failing scope, watching for the same problem rather than assuming success from a quiet log. Verify: the task completes and the original problem does not appear.
5. Compare the result against the source of truth, the clause bank record, the playbook position or the source 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 workflow run 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 failed to search the clause bank for governing law language error failure timeout

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

How to fix - agent failed to search the clause bank for governing law language error failure timeout

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

The clause 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

The workflow treats every step failure the same way and retries the whole run, so one bad input at the step that handles this task fails the entire attempt and the timeout hides which input was wrong.

Edge cases

• The clause bank, playbook or source document 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 workflow run proof passes but the full rerun still fails on other contracts. Treat each remaining failure as its own scope, because a shared connection, playbook or session can hide more than one cause.
• The source systems disagree on the correct value. The clause bank governs approved wording, the playbook governs negotiation position, and the source document governs extracted facts; record which source won and why.

Compatibility: Clause library and agent workflow tooling at current versions, plus the clause bank, playbook or document source 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_fn5ZsGWeDl5RQ7swdo8sSA

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_fn5ZsGWeDl5RQ7swdo8sSA

Thread query: agent failed to search the clause bank for governing law language error failure timeout

TL;DR: Fix this in the clause agent workflow by acting on the exact problem first: open the run log for the attempt to search the clause bank for governing law language, find the first step that returned an error instead of retrying the whole workflow, correct that step input such as the clause search terms or the target library, rerun that single step, and confirm it returns a result before resuming. Do not rerun the same workflow unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one workflow run first, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the results.