agent hallucinating answers not in source data for export the clause report

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

Fix this in the clause agent workflow by acting on the exact problem first: require the agent to quote the source clause text it used for the task to export the clause report for executed agreements, reject any answer whose quoted text is not found in the clause bank, rerun the step with retrieval only, and confirm every statement in the output traces to a retrieved clause. 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 hallucinating answers not in source data for export the clause report for executed agreements error hallucination failure

Use this when

• The agent workflow fails with this exact problem: agent hallucinating answers not in source data for export the clause report for executed agreements error hallucination 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 export the clause report for executed agreements 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: require the agent to quote the source clause text it used for the task to export the clause report for executed agreements, reject any answer whose quoted text is not found in the clause bank, rerun the step with retrieval only, and confirm every statement in the output traces to a retrieved clause. 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 hallucinating answers not in source data for export the clause report for executed agreements error hallucination 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 hallucinating answers not in source data for export the clause report for executed agreements error hallucination 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

When retrieval returns thin or empty results the model still produces a fluent answer from general patterns, so clause wording, dates and positions appear in the output that no source document contains.

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_YQwd79crHzZobItRLQx37Q

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_YQwd79crHzZobItRLQx37Q

Thread query: agent hallucinating answers not in source data for export the clause report for executed agreements error hallucination failure

TL;DR: Fix this in the clause agent workflow by acting on the exact problem first: require the agent to quote the source clause text it used for the task to export the clause report for executed agreements, reject any answer whose quoted text is not found in the clause bank, rerun the step with retrieval only, and confirm every statement in the output traces to a retrieved clause. 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 engagement results export agent by acting on the exact problem first: constrain every score and comment count in a manager export to a record the agent retrieved from the results dashboard, list the source team record beside each exported figure, and block an export whose figure matches no dashboard record for that team. Do not rerun the same survey, report or export unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one survey, team or department first, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the results.

agent hallucinating answers not in source data for export engagement results for managers error hallucination failure

Use this when

• The operation in engagement results export agent fails with this exact problem: agent hallucinating answers not in source data for export engagement results for managers error hallucination failure.
• The same failure repeats on retry with unchanged inputs.
• A survey launch, results dashboard, manager report or action plan 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 an interpretation call such as which driver to prioritise. That is a people analytics judgement, not this failure.

Steps

1. Reproduce the failure on one named survey, team or department in engagement results export agent and record the full problem text plus the survey, team or period 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: constrain every score and comment count in a manager export to a record the agent retrieved from the results dashboard, list the source team record beside each exported figure, and block an export whose figure matches no dashboard record for that team. Verify: the single failing survey, team or department now behaves as the fix predicts, or the corrected value is visible on the record.
3. Check neighbouring surveys, teams or departments that share the same distribution list, roster sync or dashboard, because this class of failure rarely affects only one group. Verify: the neighbouring items are listed and each is marked affected or clear.
4. Rerun the original operation in engagement results export 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 raw response record, the HR roster record or the survey platform 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 survey 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 hallucinating answers not in source data for export engagement results for managers error hallucination failure

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

How to fix - agent hallucinating answers not in source data for export engagement results for managers error hallucination failure

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

engagement results export 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

A manager export assembled from partial views can carry a plausible score for the wrong team, which is worse than a missing file, so each figure needs a retrieved dashboard record behind it before managers act on it.

Edge cases

• The survey was reopened, the roster was resynced or a team was restructured after the failing run started. Refresh the survey state and reapply the fix against the current values, not the values from the failed run.
• The single group proof passes but the full rerun still fails on other groups. Treat each remaining failure as its own scope, because a shared distribution list or dashboard can hide more than one cause.
• The source systems disagree on the correct value. The raw response record governs response counts, the HR roster governs who was invited, and the platform record governs what was sent or shown; record which source won and why.

Compatibility: engagement results export agent at current versions, plus the survey platform, roster or reporting tool 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_2A63feqa15kLq5yAeZkeGg

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_2A63feqa15kLq5yAeZkeGg

Thread query: agent hallucinating answers not in source data for export engagement results for managers error hallucination failure

TL;DR: Fix this in engagement results export agent by acting on the exact problem first: constrain every score and comment count in a manager export to a record the agent retrieved from the results dashboard, list the source team record beside each exported figure, and block an export whose figure matches no dashboard record for that team. Do not rerun the same survey, report or export unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one survey, team or department first, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the results.

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

Fix this in the agent workflow by acting on the exact problem first: discard the ungrounded answer, rerun the attempt to export addressable spend by category for procurement with every reported supplier, amount and payment required to point at a row in the source data, reject any claim the agent cannot tie to a source row, and compare the final list against a direct count from the source before accepting it. Do not rerun the same operation unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one category or export batch first, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the results.

agent hallucinating answers not in source data for export addressable spend by category for procurement 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 export addressable spend by category for procurement error hallucination failure.
• The same failure repeats on retry with unchanged inputs.
• Work described as an attempt to export addressable spend by category for procurement 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 an analytic or policy judgement in the result. That is an owner decision, not this failure.

Steps

1. Reproduce the failure on one category or export batch in the agent workflow and record the full problem text plus the record, group or period 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: discard the ungrounded answer, rerun the attempt to export addressable spend by category for procurement with every reported supplier, amount and payment required to point at a row in the source data, reject any claim the agent cannot tie to a source row, and compare the final list against a direct count from the source before accepting it. Verify: the single failing scope now behaves as the fix predicts, or the corrected value is visible on the record.
3. Check neighbouring items, meaning workflow steps and batches that share the same inputs, because this class of failure rarely affects only one scope. 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 source spend data and the exported file, 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 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 hallucinating answers not in source data for export addressable spend by category for procurement 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 export addressable spend by category for procurement 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

When the source data does not contain a clear answer, a language model fills the gap with plausible suppliers and figures instead of reporting the gap, so the attempt to export addressable spend by category for procurement returns answers that were never in the data.

Edge cases

• The underlying data, mapping or rules 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 scopes. Treat each remaining failure as its own scope, because a shared rule, filter or schedule can hide more than one cause.
• The source systems disagree on the correct value. The source of truth for this check is the source spend data and the exported file; record which source won and why.

Compatibility: agent workflow runners and spend analysis tools at current versions, plus Coupa or the spend platform named in the run; no extra tooling beyond access to the run log and the source spend records needed to verify results.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_s8pa7lJGZw-mCXmabyKqkA

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_s8pa7lJGZw-mCXmabyKqkA

Thread query: agent hallucinating answers not in source data for export addressable spend by category for procurement error hallucination failure

TL;DR: Fix this in the agent workflow by acting on the exact problem first: discard the ungrounded answer, rerun the attempt to export addressable spend by category for procurement with every reported supplier, amount and payment required to point at a row in the source data, reject any claim the agent cannot tie to a source row, and compare the final list against a direct count from the source before accepting it. Do not rerun the same operation unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one category or export batch first, then rerun the full scope and reconcile th