LEN-0270
Reconciliation Lens
Evaluates whether structural changes align with declared authority updates, version changes, or reconciliation rules.
Primary Pattern Matches
Authority Merge Conflict
A structural condition where multiple authority states are combined over a shared scope without a declared merge, precedence, or reconciliation rule.
Lens Application
The Reconciliation Lens is a strong inspection mechanism for Authority Merge Conflict because it focuses on whether authority changes were structurally reconciled before multiple states were combined. It helps surface missing precedence, mismatched version updates, or undeclared merge behavior across a shared scope.
Inspect For
- Declared reconciliation or merge rules
- Version changes tied to authority updates
- Precedence handling across the shared scope
- Conflicting authority states combined without alignment
Avoid
Treat multiple authority states as an inspection signal, not confirmation of Authority Merge Conflict, until reconciliation expectations, merge rules, or precedence handling are checked.
Authority-State Mismatch
A structural condition where observed system state no longer aligns with the declared authority state that is supposed to govern it.
Lens Application
The Reconciliation Lens is a primary inspection mechanism for Authority-State Mismatch because it examines whether observed state changes align with the authority records, version transitions, or reconciliation rules that claim to govern them. It helps surface where declared authority and operational state appear to diverge.
Inspect For
- State changes without matching authority updates
- Version records that do not match observed behavior
- Reconciliation rules skipped, delayed, or inconsistently applied
- Conflicting authority sources governing the same state
Avoid
Treat mismatches as inspection signals requiring traceability review, not proof that Authority-State Mismatch has occurred.
Contract Drift
A structural condition where a declared contract changes but connected structures, implementations, consumers, or expectations do not update in sync.
Lens Application
The Reconciliation Lens is a strong inspection mechanism for Contract Drift because it examines whether declared contract changes have been reconciled across connected structures, implementations, and expectations. It helps surface mismatches between authority updates, version signals, implementation behavior, and consumer assumptions.
Inspect For
- Contract changes without matching implementation updates
- Version or authority updates not reflected downstream
- Consumers relying on older expectations
- Reconciliation rules skipped or inconsistently applied
Avoid
Treat mismatch signals as prompts for closer inspection, not confirmation of Contract Drift, until the update path, dependency context, and reconciliation rules are checked.
Secondary Pattern Matches
Authority Collision
A structural condition where multiple authorities claim governance over the same region without a declared precedence or resolution rule.
Lens Application
The Reconciliation Lens applies indirectly to Authority Collision by inspecting whether shared or overlapping authority claims have been reconciled through explicit structural updates. It can surface gaps where governance changes, authority versions, or handoff rules fail to align, supporting inspection of a possible unresolved authority conflict.
Inspect For
- Conflicting authority versions governing the same region
- Missing reconciliation rules after authority changes
- Structural updates without matching governance updates
- Unclear handoff, precedence, or override records
Avoid
Treat reconciliation gaps as inspection signals, not confirmation that Authority Collision is present.
Authority Shadowing
A structural condition where a declared authority is functionally overridden by another authority without an explicit override rule.
Lens Application
The Reconciliation Lens applies indirectly to Authority Shadowing by examining whether functional authority changes were reconciled with declared authority records. It can surface gaps where a new actor, system, or workflow overrides the named authority without corresponding versioning, update history, or reconciliation logic.
Inspect For
- Authority behavior that changed without declared authority updates
- Version history that omits practical override changes
- Reconciliation rules that fail to address competing authorities
- Structural changes routed through an undeclared decision source
Avoid
Treat missing reconciliation evidence as a signal for further inspection, not proof that Authority Shadowing is present.
Convergence Failure
A structural condition where sequential or parallel states fail to resolve into an equivalent or coherent structure under shared authority and constraints.
Lens Application
The Reconciliation Lens applies indirectly to Convergence Failure by highlighting where competing or sequential structures were expected to reconcile but lack aligned authority, version handling, or rule application. It may surface contributing conditions without directly establishing that convergence has failed.
Inspect For
- Conflicting authority updates across branches or states
- Version changes that do not reconcile equivalent structures
- Reconciliation rules applied inconsistently or incompletely
- Residual divergence after merge, sync, or approval steps
Avoid
Treat reconciliation gaps as supporting inspection signals, not a standalone determination that Convergence Failure is present.
Missing Authority
A structural condition where a region, action, state, or decision path exists without a declared governing authority.
Lens Application
As a secondary lens, the Reconciliation Lens supports inspection of Missing Authority by comparing changed regions, actions, states, or decision paths against authority declarations, version records, and reconciliation rules. It may surface places where governance did not move with the structure.
Inspect For
- Structural changes without matching authority updates
- Version changes that leave authority references unchanged
- Reconciliation rules that omit new decision paths
- Changed states governed only by inherited or unclear authority
Avoid
Treat missing reconciliation evidence as a signal for further authority inspection, not as proof that authority is absent.
Related Issues
Action Triggered by Confidence Score
A confidence score, certainty label, risk level, or probability-like value triggers an action without enough approval, calibration, or authority control.
Actual Policy Differs From Declared Policy
The policy the AI or workflow actually follows differs from the policy that is documented, declared, displayed, or expected.
Agent Cannot Choose Tool Without Tool Result
The agent needs a tool result to choose the right tool, but cannot obtain that result without choosing a tool first.
Agent Gets Conflicting Tool Authority
An agent receives conflicting authority signals about whether, when, or how it may use a tool, connector, function, or integration.
Agent Keeps Expanding the Task
The agent repeatedly expands the task, plan, scope, or next-step list instead of completing the declared work.
Agent Never Settles on Final Answer
The agent keeps revising, rechecking, planning, or branching instead of converging on a final answer or completed result.
Agent Permission Expands Over Steps
An agent begins with limited permission but gains, assumes, or exercises broader authority as the workflow continues.
AI Forgets Earlier Constraints
A constraint, instruction, preference, or decision that should persist through the task stops affecting later output.
AI Memory Has No Governance
Saved or persistent AI memory affects output without clear rules for ownership, scope, review, update, expiry, or removal.
AI Memory Updated Without Asking
AI memory, saved context, preference, or durable state is updated without the user clearly asking for or approving that update.
Approval Depends on Output That Needs Approval
A required approval depends on an AI output or workflow result that itself cannot be produced or trusted until approval is granted.
Automation Skips Required Approval
An automated AI or workflow step proceeds past an approval gate that should have been required before action.
Behavior Does Not Match Declared Role
The AI or agent behaves outside, below, or differently from the role, authority, responsibility, or permission posture declared for it.
Cannot Identify Authoritative State
The user or workflow cannot tell which state, version, review result, decision, source, or output is currently authoritative.
Conflicting Instructions From Different Authorities
Instructions from different sources, roles, policies, prompts, tools, or workflow authorities conflict without a clear rule for which one governs.
Context Changes After Restore
Restoring, reopening, resuming, or reloading a task changes the context that the AI uses to continue the work.
Declared Owner Cannot Control Outcome
A person, role, system, or policy is declared responsible for an outcome but does not have the actual authority or control needed to govern it.
Early Model Output Gets Overweighted Downstream
An early AI output receives too much authority in later workflow steps, decisions, reviews, or generated artifacts.
Fallback Authority Is Missing
The system does not declare who or what has authority when the primary owner, rule, tool, source, or decision path is unavailable or inconclusive.
Hidden Rule Overrides Visible Instruction
A hidden, upstream, system, policy, tool, or product rule changes or overrides the visible instruction the user expects the AI to follow.
Human Review and Automation Disagree
A human review result and an automated AI or workflow result disagree without a declared rule for resolving the difference.
Local Exception Grows Into Policy
A local exception, special case, or one-off allowance begins to function like a general policy.
Merge Step Leaves Unresolved Differences
A merge, reconciliation, or consolidation step combines outputs or reviews but leaves important differences unresolved.
Missing Fallback for Unavailable Information
The task does not declare what the AI should do when required information, sources, tools, fields, or evidence are unavailable.
Model and Workflow Disagree on Next Step
The AI model recommends or selects a next step that conflicts with the workflow state, required handoff, routing rule, or process sequence.
Model Output Triggers Unapproved Action
AI output causes, recommends, or triggers an action that has not passed the required approval, permission, or authority check.
Multiple Policies Say the Same Thing
Multiple policies, rules, or guidance documents express the same requirement, creating redundancy and uncertainty about which one governs.
No Owner for Agent Action
An agent action can affect the system without a declared responsible owner, authority, or accountable decision path.
Old Output Expectations Survive Migration
Expectations from a prior model, prompt, schema, tool, or workflow survive a migration and continue shaping review or downstream handling after they should be replaced.
Output Breaks After Model Change
Output that previously worked begins failing after a model, mode, runtime, or product behavior changes.
Output Changed Without Declared Change
Output shape, content, format, fields, or behavior changes without a declared change to the prompt, schema, model, workflow, or governing rule.
Parallel Reviews Never Agree
Parallel AI, human, workflow, or tool reviews keep producing different results without resolving into a shared decision state.
Permissions Conflict After Being Combined
Permissions, approvals, roles, policies, or authority rules that seem valid separately conflict when combined in the same workflow or AI action.
Policy Decision Depends on Itself
A policy decision requires the outcome of the same policy decision before it can be made.
Policy Update Not Reflected in Output
A policy, rule, standard, or instruction has been updated, but the AI output still follows the older version.
Prompt Behavior Changed Without Version Change
A prompt begins producing different behavior even though no prompt version, model version, workflow version, or declared dependency change is recorded.
Prompt Changed but Workflow Did Not
A prompt changes but the workflow, parser, review step, routing rule, or downstream expectation still assumes the old prompt behavior.
Review Escalates Without Stop Condition
A review process keeps escalating, re-reviewing, or adding scrutiny without a declared condition for stopping.
Review Queue Becomes Bottleneck
A review queue, approval path, or validation stage accumulates too much work and begins blocking the workflow.
Revoked Approval Still Treated as Active
An approval, permission, exception, or authorization that was revoked continues to affect AI behavior or workflow decisions as if it were still active.
Risk Score Triggers Wrong Escalation
A risk score, severity label, confidence value, or threshold result triggers the wrong escalation path.
Risk Signal Escalates Beyond Evidence
A risk signal, warning, score, or concern escalates farther than the available evidence supports.
Routing Overrides Task Intent
Routing, mode selection, agent behavior, or workflow classification sends the task down a path that overrides what the user was trying to accomplish.
Routing Path Cycles Back to Start
A routing path sends the case back to the starting point or an earlier step without resolving the condition that caused the route.
Rubric Changed but Results Did Not
A review rubric, scoring rule, evaluation standard, or classification criterion changes, but AI results continue to reflect the old rubric.
Same Case Has Conflicting Policies
The same case appears to be governed by multiple policies, rules, or standards that point to incompatible outcomes.
Same Contract Name Has Different Meanings
The same prompt, schema, field, policy, tool, or workflow contract name is used in different places with different meanings.
Same Rule Declared in Multiple Places
The same rule, constraint, instruction, or policy appears in multiple places, creating redundancy and possible drift.
Same Workflow Check Happens Twice
The same review, validation, approval, routing, or safety check occurs more than once in the workflow without a clear reason.
Saved Reference No Longer Works
A saved source, citation, file reference, prompt reference, or workflow pointer previously worked but no longer resolves to the expected object or meaning.
Severity Increases Without New Evidence
The severity, risk, confidence, or escalation level increases even though no new evidence has been added.
Similar Cases Route to Different Outcomes
Similar inputs, cases, prompts, or workflow states are routed to different outcomes without a declared difference that explains the split.
Single Step Carries Too Many Decisions
One prompt, workflow step, review stage, or agent action carries too many decisions for the system or user to evaluate cleanly.
Small Change Produces Large Downstream Effects
A small prompt, schema, policy, output, or workflow change creates unexpectedly large effects in downstream steps.
Stale Context Affects Output
Old context, prior instructions, outdated references, or earlier task state continue to affect output after they should no longer apply.
Task Progress Is Lost Midway
The AI loses track of completed work, prior decisions, current position, or remaining steps before the task is finished.
Tool Can Act Without Responsible Authority
A tool, connector, function, or integration can perform an action without a declared responsible authority for that action.
Tool Result Not Integrated Correctly
The AI receives a tool result but misreads, ignores, overwrites, misplaces, or fails to incorporate it correctly into the final output or workflow state.
Tool Rules and Prompt Rules Conflict
Tool, connector, function, or MCP rules conflict with prompt instructions, causing the AI or agent to face incompatible requirements.
Version Change Breaks Existing Prompt
A prompt that previously produced usable results stops working after a version change in the model, tool, policy, schema, product surface, or workflow.
Workflow Loops Through Review Without Resolution
A workflow repeatedly sends work through review, repair, or escalation without reaching an approved, rejected, or otherwise resolved state.
Workflow Step Has No Decision Owner
A workflow step requires a decision, approval, judgment, or routing choice, but no owner is declared for making it.
Workflow Waits on Step That Waits Back
A workflow step waits for another step that also waits on the first step, creating a blocking loop.