agent hallucinating answers not in source data for find the approved inde

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 find the approved indemnification clause for a customer contract, 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 find the approved indemnification clause for a customer contract error hallucination failure

Use this when

• The agent workflow fails with this exact problem: agent hallucinating answers not in source data for find the approved indemnification clause for a customer contract 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 find the approved indemnification clause for a customer contract 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 find the approved indemnification clause for a customer contract, 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 find the approved indemnification clause for a customer contract 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 find the approved indemnification clause for a customer contract 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/pstzJ9FmBJei83LKe7xJ4z6w

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pstzJ9FmBJei83LKe7xJ4z6w

Thread query: agent hallucinating answers not in source data for find the approved indemnification clause for a customer contract 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 find the approved indemnification clause for a customer contract, 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 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.

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.