dedup agent dropped the original filing, kept only the amendment

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

A dedup agent that keeps only the amendment loses the original filing's facts that the amendment did not restate. Treat amendments as superseding only the sections they restate: keep the original, apply the amendment as a delta, and link both in the briefing.

The error

dedup: kept 10-K/A (amended), dropped 10-K (original)
briefing missing FY2024 segment data that the amendment did not restate.

Fix it

1. Recover the original filing from the EDGAR archive using the original accession number from the amendment's explanatory note. Expected: Expected: the original 10-K is retrieved with its full fact set.

2. Change the dedup rule: an amendment supersedes the original only for the items it explicitly restates; everything else comes from the original. Expected: Expected: the merged fact set contains the amendment's corrections plus the original's untouched sections.

3. Have the agent read the amendment's explanatory note first to learn exactly which items changed before deciding what to keep. Expected: Expected: the agent cites the changed items instead of guessing.

4. Link both filings in the briefing's sources so readers can see the amendment chain. Expected: Expected: the briefing shows original plus amendment with a clear supersession note.

When to use

• Your dedup pipeline kept the 10-K/A and lost facts only in the original.
• You need amendment handling that merges instead of replaces.
• You brief on companies with frequent restatements.

When not to use

• The amendment is a complete restatement of all items - then replacing is correct.
• The original filing was withdrawn - then dropping it is correct.
• You only need the latest numbers - then the amendment alone suffices.

Why it happens

Amendments (10-K/A) typically restate only the affected items and incorporate the rest by reference. A naive dedup sees two filings for the same period and keeps the newer one, silently dropping every fact the amendment did not repeat. The data loss is invisible because the briefing still looks complete.

Variant phrasings

dedup dropped original filing amendment

Same failure and fix; some searchers phrase the query this way.

amendment superseded original lost data

Same failure and fix; some searchers phrase the query this way.

Edge cases

• Some amendments restate the financial statements but not the MD&A; the split is item-by-item.
• Multiple amendments chain (10-K/A, 10-K/A-2); apply them in order, each as a delta.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pstr-dA8ruLlAPSW7_WN-xZQ

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pstr-dA8ruLlAPSW7_WN-xZQ

Thread query: dedup agent dropped the original filing, kept only the amendment

TL;DR: A dedup agent that keeps only the amendment loses the original filing's facts that the amendment did not restate. Treat amendments as superseding only the sections they restate: keep the original, apply the amendment as a delta, and link both in the briefing.

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR: Extract each amendment into a compact per-amendment summary (what changed, effective date) and load those summaries instead of full amendment text, reserving full text only for the amendments the question actually needs. The agent was loading amendments newest-first until the window filled, so the oldest ones, which often set governing law and the original term, silently fell off.

long contract plus full amendment history overflowed context  -  the agent quietly dropped the earliest amendments, the ones that set governing law

1. Confirm which amendments the agent actually saw. Ask it to list the amendments it considered, with effective dates. Expected: the list starts at some recent amendment and the earliest ones are missing, with no warning that anything was dropped.
2. Build a compact amendment ledger. For each amendment, extract a short record: amendment number, effective date, and a one-to-three sentence summary of what it changed. This ledger should fit in a fraction of the full text. Expected: the full history compresses to a few hundred lines the agent can always hold.
3. Change the loading order. Load the base agreement plus the amendment ledger first, then pull full text only for the specific amendments relevant to the question at hand. Never load amendments newest-first until the window fills. Expected: the agent can name every amendment and its effective date even when full texts do not fit.
4. Re-run the failing question and check the answer against the early amendments. For governing law specifically, verify the answer cites the amendment that actually set it. Expected: the agent now references the earliest relevant amendment instead of acting like it does not exist.
5. Add a completeness assertion to the pipeline. Before answering, the agent must confirm the amendment ledger covers the full known history (count of amendments matches the source folder). Expected: a missing amendment blocks the answer with a warning instead of silently narrowing the agent's view of history.

Use this when

• the agent's answers ignore the earliest amendments in a long amendment chain
• governing law, original term, or initial pricing comes back wrong on heavily amended contracts
• the pipeline loads amendments in recency order and the context window is tight
• the agent cannot enumerate the full amendment history when asked

Not for this skill when

• there is only one amendment and the agent still gets it wrong (check extraction or cross-reference resolution instead)
• the amendments are separate files the pipeline never collected (fix document collection first)
• the agent reads all amendments but resolves conflicts between them incorrectly (that is a precedence-logic problem)

Variant phrasings

• agent dropped the original amendment history and only knew the recent ones
• earliest amendments fell out of context on a long contract chain
• agent answered governing law from the base agreement, missing the amendment that changed it
• amendment history too long for context, old amendments silently skipped

Why it happens

Amendment text is verbose and mostly restates unchanged language, so a long chain eats the window fast. Loading newest-first feels natural (recent changes matter most), but the earliest amendments are the ones that establish the baseline everything else modifies. Dropping them does not just lose old news, it loses the foundation the later amendments assume.

Edge cases

• Amendments that restate the entire agreement ("amended and restated") make the ledger approach essential. Flag these in the ledger so the agent knows the restatement supersedes piecemeal history.
• Effective dates can precede signature dates. Sort and reason by effective date, not by file date or upload order.
• Side letters and email amendments often live outside the numbered amendment sequence. The ledger must include them or the history is silently incomplete.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_1jE69REra6kxRJut9VW7Tw

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_1jE69REra6kxRJut9VW7Tw

Thread query: long contract plus full amendment history overflowed context - the agent quietly dropped the earliest amendments, the ones that set governing law

TL;DR:

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

Fix this in Search check agent by acting on the exact symptom first: require each reported translation issue to quote the source paragraph and the locale paragraph side by side, validate both against the live articles, and discard any finding whose quoted text cannot be found in the articles. Do not repeat the same edit, search or run unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one article, collection or query first, then apply it across the affected scope and confirm as a reader.

Agent invented a translation update not present in source data

Use this when

• Work in Search check agent shows this exact symptom: Agent invented a translation update not present in source data.
• The same symptom repeats after a retry with unchanged inputs.
• Readers or support agents are blocked until this item is corrected.

Not for this skill when

• The help center platform itself is down or returning outage notices. Resolve that first, then return here if this symptom remains.
• The content is correct and you only want a style or tone rewrite. That is an editorial pass, not this fix.

Steps

1. Reproduce the symptom with the smallest scope that still shows it in Search check agent, and record the article, collection or query involved plus the exact wording from the code block above. Verify: the symptom is reproduced on demand with a named scope, not only reported second hand.
2. Apply the specific fix for this symptom: require each reported translation issue to quote the source paragraph and the locale paragraph side by side, validate both against the live articles, and discard any finding whose quoted text cannot be found in the articles. Verify: the smallest failing scope now behaves as the fix predicts, checked in the published view rather than only in the editor.
3. Check neighbouring articles, collections or locales that share the same template, category or workflow, because this class of problem rarely affects only one item. Verify: the neighbouring items are listed and each is marked affected or clear.
4. Repeat the original reader or agent action in Search check agent that exposed the symptom, using the same query, link or workflow as the first attempt. Verify: the action completes and the original symptom does not appear.
5. Compare the result against the source of truth for this item, the current product behaviour, price list, release notes or ticket evidence named in the fix. Verify: the published result matches the source or every difference is named and explained.
6. Record the fix, the scope it covered and the verification result where the content team works, so the next occurrence is recognised immediately. Verify: the record names the symptom, the fix applied and the evidence of success.

Variant phrasings

Agent invented a translation update not present in source data

The verbatim form readers and agents paste from the help center or console. Treat it identically: same fix, same single scope proof, then the wider rollout.

How to fix - agent hallucinating translation update not in source data for check help center search results for an error query error hallucination failure

The how to phrasing for the same problem in Search check agent. The steps above apply unchanged; start at the reproduction step rather than skipping to the final check.

Search check agent troubleshooting for this symptom

The symptom first phrasing used when the full message is hidden. Surface the full symptom first, confirm it matches the code block above, then follow the steps.

Why it happens

Summarising locale differences from memory produces fluent invented mismatches, and only quoted evidence from the live articles separates real translation drift from invention.

Edge cases

• The symptom appears in one locale, collection or audience view only. Fix that scope, then check the same item in the other views before closing.
• A cached or indexed copy keeps showing the old state after the fix. Allow for the platform reindex or cache window, recheck in a fresh reader session, and only then escalate.
• Two items have near identical titles. Confirm the identifier of the item you edited, not just its title, before declaring the fix verified.

Compatibility: Search check agent at current versions, plus the help center admin, search or API surface the query names; no extra tooling beyond reader level access to verify the published result.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_ioR1X7VyfJU41megevPSZg

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_ioR1X7VyfJU41megevPSZg

Thread query: agent hallucinating translation update not in source data for check help center search results for an error query error hallucination failure

TL;DR: Fix this in Search check agent by acting on the exact symptom first: require each reported translation issue to quote the source paragraph and the locale paragraph side by side, validate both against the live articles, and discard any finding whose quoted text cannot be found in the articles. Do not repeat the same edit, search or run unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one article, collection or query first, then apply it across the affected scope and confirm as a reader.