{"receipt": {"headline": {"squeeze_mode": "verified", "ratio": 0.7436}, "integrity": {"raw_sha256": "a43cd6faa364814b3625e12a32a40465da55e0350200fde6c97c46017762094d", "output_sha256": "e1d3f7a1db9f510bc4d5f9ad2a8308278c5b510c3004364cfb83e98d15d0e248", "output_is_subsequence": true}, "quality": {"fidelity_score": 0.983, "min_window_posterior": 0.9317, "relaxed_ratio": 0.7009, "relax_steps": 1, "coverage_fraction": 1.0}, "counts": {"pins_protected": {"MODALITY": 11, "NEGATION": 16, "NUMERIC": 15, "REGISTER": 1, "TEMPORAL": 7}, "windows_total": 29, "exact_matches": 4, "windows_below_threshold": 0}, "debug": {"model_registry": {"llmlingua_q8": "6c9a3a1ecbd8fdd12bb12c5592df5e99a2637403f3f48a50a1a2660056122f2f", "llmlingua_tokenizer": "3a56def25aa40facc030ea8b0b87f3688e4b3c39eb8b45d5702b3a1300fe2a20", "nli_q8": "9a83251a7d2ad82cd11172ba53ff240f26bf2c1038299787c082c3106e02b5b0", "nli_tokenizer": "ff6f6cebf55bcccc4a80b52e956f16ae9d11b0bad02c7db4e7b36975488bf840"}}, "key_id": "e6b78dfeccea", "receipt_signature": "569fa59771ecc27f9751bb2f9fcdb893e768cb464de91336397849b6e5eb4d223839a757cee7ae2885223918ff77a7aadfe718371cf21b1cc04f739c99a5650d"}, "raw_input": "Incident memo: ticket 4471, vendor onboarding agent.\n\nOn 3 November an onboarding agent approved a supplier after screening. The context handed to the agent had been assembled from four sources: the supplier registration form, the sanctions screening result, two emails from the procurement officer, and a summary of the earlier correspondence. The registration form listed a trading address in Dubai. The screening result was clear. The summary, written eleven days earlier, described the beneficial owner as a resident of Cyprus; the screening record, refreshed the previous night, placed him in a jurisdiction under review. The agent approved. The reviewer who signed off an hour later had the same summary in front of her and no way to tell when it had been produced.\n\nThe failure was not in the screening service, which returned a correct and current result. It was in the assembly step: the summary was dense, accurate when written, and stale at the moment of use. Nothing in the record distinguished the two. The approval was reversed the following morning by a manual review, before any payment was released, and no loss resulted. The timeline below is reconstructed from the message queue.\n\nTimeline. 08:12 the screening refresh completes. 08:14 the assembly job builds context and compresses each source. 08:14 to 08:16 the agent reads 1,842 tokens and returns an approval. 09:31 the human reviewer signs. 10:05 a second screening refresh lands. Next morning, a compliance analyst reads the refreshed record and reverses the decision.\n\nWhat the evidence showed. The summary was the only source mentioning the beneficial owner's residence, and it was the oldest. The compressed version of the refresh arrived after the summary in the context window; the agent weighted the earlier statement, which was more specific. The assembly job kept no copy of the assembled context and wrote a ratio and a duration to its log. The reviewer asked for the text the agent had seen; it no longer existed.\n\nRecommendations. First, every assembled context must carry the vintage of each source and must not be compressed into a single undifferentiated block. Second, the last compression before an irreversible action must produce a record that a third party can check. Third, the reviewer must see the same bytes the agent saw, not a summary of them.", "compressed_output": "Incident memo: ticket 4471, vendor onboarding agent.\n3 November agent approved supplier after screening. context assembled from four sources: supplier registration form, sanctions screening result, two emails procurement officer, summary earlier correspondence. registration form listed trading address Dubai. screening result clear. summary, written eleven days earlier, described beneficial owner resident of Cyprus; screening record, refreshed placed jurisdiction under review. agent approved. reviewer signed hour later had same summary no way tell when produced.\nfailure not screening service, returned correct current result. assembly step: summary dense, accurate stale moment use. Nothing record distinguished two. approval reversed morning manual review, before any payment released, no loss resulted. timeline reconstructed message queue.\nTimeline. 08:12 screening refresh completes. 08:14 assembly job builds context compresses each source. 08:14 to 08:16 agent reads 1,842 tokens returns approval. 09:31 human reviewer signs. 10:05 a second screening refresh lands. Next morning, compliance analyst reads refreshed record reverses decision.\nevidence showed. summary only source mentioning beneficial owner's residence, oldest. compressed version refresh arrived after summary context window; agent weighted earlier statement, more specific. assembly job kept no copy assembled context wrote ratio duration log. reviewer asked text agent seen; no longer existed.\nRecommendations. every assembled context must carry vintage each source must not compressed single undifferentiated block. last compression before irreversible action must produce record third party can check. Third, reviewer must see same bytes agent saw, not summary."}