agent hallucinating answers not in source data for route a matched invo

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

Fix this in handbook answer agent by acting on the exact problem first: constrain every answer to a handbook passage the agent retrieved, cite the page and section for each claim, compare each cited passage against the answer wording, and refuse to answer any part that no retrieved passage supports rather than filling the gap plausibly. Do not rerun the whole onboarding flow unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one hire or one task first, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the results.

agent hallucinating answers not in source data for answer a new hire question from the handbook error hallucination failure

Use this when

• The operation in handbook answer agent fails with this exact problem: agent hallucinating answers not in source data for answer a new hire question from the handbook error hallucination failure.
• The same failure repeats on retry with unchanged inputs.
• A new hire start, an onboarding task, a first day step or a first week 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 HR policy call such as eligibility or a start date decision. That is a people team decision, not this failure.

Steps

1. Reproduce the failure on one named hire or task in handbook answer agent and record the full problem text plus the hire, task or start date 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 answer to a handbook passage the agent retrieved, cite the page and section for each claim, compare each cited passage against the answer wording, and refuse to answer any part that no retrieved passage supports rather than filling the gap plausibly. Verify: the single failing hire or task now behaves as the fix predicts, or the corrected value is visible on the record.
3. Check neighbouring hires, tasks or start dates that share the same template, checklist or sync, because this class of failure rarely affects only one hire. Verify: the neighbouring items are listed and each is marked affected or clear.
4. Rerun the original operation in handbook answer 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 HRIS hire record, the signed offer or the current handbook page, 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 onboarding 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 answer a new hire question from the handbook error hallucination failure

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

How to fix - agent hallucinating answers not in source data for answer a new hire question from the handbook error hallucination failure

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

handbook answer 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

Asked for a policy answer with thin retrieval, an agent fills gaps with plausible wording that reads as policy, and passage level citation is the only check that separates handbook answers from invented ones.

Edge cases

• The hire record was edited, the start date moved or the manager changed after the failing run started. Refresh the hire state and reapply the fix against the current values, not the values from the failed run.
• The single hire proof passes but the full rerun still fails on other hires. Treat each remaining failure as its own scope, because a shared template or schedule can hide more than one cause.
• The source systems disagree on the correct value. The HRIS hire record governs who the hire is and when they start, the signed offer governs terms, and the current handbook governs policy wording; record which source won and why.

Compatibility: handbook answer agent at current versions, plus the HRIS, handbook or onboarding 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_FMuWtkVlidIJdwoBCoGtDg

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

Thread query: agent hallucinating answers not in source data for answer a new hire question from the handbook error hallucination failure

TL;DR: Fix this in handbook answer agent by acting on the exact problem first: constrain every answer to a handbook passage the agent retrieved, cite the page and section for each claim, compare each cited passage against the answer wording, and refuse to answer any part that no retrieved passage supports rather than filling the gap plausibly. Do not rerun the whole onboarding flow unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one hire or one task first, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the results.

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

Fix this agent run by acting on the exact failure first: discard any value that cannot be traced to a fetched source record, require a source record reference for every amount and quantity in the output, and rebuild the result only from records actually retrieved. Then complete the task in one verified pass: resolve the budget owner from the cost center on the matched invoice lines and route to that owner, not the requester. Do not restart the whole workflow unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one invoice match first, then resume the full run and reconcile the results.

agent hallucinating answers not in source data for route a matched invoice to the budget owner error hallucination failure

Use this when

• An agent run fails with this exact problem: agent hallucinating answers not in source data for route a matched invoice to the budget owner error hallucination failure.
• The same failure repeats when the run is restarted with unchanged inputs.
• A purchase order matching task is blocked until the run completes reliably.

Not for this skill when

• The notice is a platform outage from the vendor or the network. Resolve that first, then return here if this problem remains.
• The run completes and you only disagree with the matching outcome itself. That is a finance owner decision, not this failure.

Steps

1. Reproduce the failure on one named invoice match in the agent workflow and record the full problem text plus the run step, invoice and order 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 any value that cannot be traced to a fetched source record, require a source record reference for every amount and quantity in the output, and rebuild the result only from records actually retrieved. Then complete the task in one verified pass: resolve the budget owner from the cost center on the matched invoice lines and route to that owner, not the requester. Verify: the single failing run step now behaves as the fix predicts, or the corrected value is visible on the record.
3. Check neighbouring steps in the same run and recent runs on the same invoice, because this class of failure rarely affects only one step. Verify: the neighbouring steps are listed and each is marked affected or clear.
4. Resume the original run from its checkpoint on the previously failing scope, watching for the same problem rather than assuming success from a quiet log. Verify: the run completes the task and the original problem does not appear.
5. Compare the result against the source of truth, the purchase order, the goods receipt or the invoice 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 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 route a matched invoice to the budget owner error hallucination failure

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

How to fix - agent hallucinating answers not in source data for route a matched invoice to the budget owner error hallucination failure

The alternate 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

The run filled gaps in missing or unread source data with plausible values instead of reporting the gap, so the output contained figures no source record supports. In this run the affected task was routing a matched invoice to the budget owner, which is why the failure surfaces as a matching problem rather than a generic run error.

Edge cases

• The order, receipt or invoice changed while the run was stopped. Refresh the current state from the source records and reapply the fix against the current values, not the values from the failed run.
• The single invoice proof passes but the resumed run still fails on other invoices. Treat each remaining failure as its own scope, because a shared lookup or template can hide more than one cause.
• The run output and the source records disagree. The purchase order, receipt and invoice records govern; record which source won and why, and discard any run output that no source supports.

Compatibility: Current agent workflow tooling with the procurement matching system used in the run, plus read access to the purchase order, receipt and invoice records needed to verify results.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_cKcHIfN8Mt-clDTmVeeSbw

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_cKcHIfN8Mt-clDTmVeeSbw

Thread query: agent hallucinating answers not in source data for route a matched invoice to the budget owner error hallucination failure

TL;DR: Fix this agent run by acting on the exact failure first: discard any value that cannot be traced to a fetched source record, require a source record reference for every amount and quantity in the output, and rebuild the result only from records actually retrieved. Then complete the task in one verified pass: resolve the budget owner from the cost center on the matched invoice lines and route to that owner, not the requester. Do not restart the whole workflow unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one invoice match first, then resume the full run and recon

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 score a new vendor from its security questionnaire, 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 score a new vendor from its security questionnaire 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 score a new vendor from its security questionnaire 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 score a new vendor from its security questionnaire, 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 score a new vendor from its security questionnaire 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 score a new vendor from its security questionnaire 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_MnhuXUVK-s1VqmipL7vNtg

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_MnhuXUVK-s1VqmipL7vNtg

Thread query: agent hallucinating answers not in source data for score a new vendor from its security questionnaire 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 score a new vendor from its security questionnaire, 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.