Controlled drafting · Agent concept

Controlled Drafting Agent

Prepare reviewable drafts from approved evidence while surfacing unsupported claims and unresolved requirements.

AgentConcept0.1.0-concept

Nothing in this preview is executable and no credentials are issued. This record is Concept — documentation preview only

When to use it

Check that it fits before you look at the detail.

Consider this when

Accept drafting requirements and an approved evidence set.
Create draft sections linked to supporting evidence.
Flag unsupported claims and unresolved requirements.

Do not use it to

Export or send an unreviewed draft.
Make commitments, approvals, or representations of unsupported capability.
Use evidence that the caller did not approve.

Who this is for

Technical evaluatorsInstitutional buyersImplementation partnersQualified reviewers

A team needs a draft assembled from an approved evidence set without hiding unsupported claims or bypassing review.

Assumes: Ability to inspect structured outputs, evidence, limitations, and the stated human-review boundary.

Who decides what

What this concept may decide on its own, and what it may not.

A person decides

A named reviewer approves the evidence mapping, draft content, and any external use.

Drafting assistance does not transfer accountability for claims, commitments, or approvals.

It is not for

Unreviewed external communication
Automatic commitment or approval
Unsupported capability claim

What you get back

The shape of the exchange, and what happens when it is not sure.

You send

example_idrequirementsapproved_evidencedrafting_instructionsprohibited_claim_rules

You receive

example_idstatusdraft_sectionsunsupported_claim_flagsunresolved_requirementsapproval_stateexternal_export_allowed

Shape taken from the synthetic supported answer example. It is not a stable contract.

Evidence

Each material draft section is designed to identify the approved evidence used.

Uncertainty

Missing requirements and unsupported claims remain visible rather than being silently completed.

draft sectionsevidence linksunsupported-claim flagsunresolved requirementsapproval state

Next step

Continue with the evidence you need.

Inspect the reference

The human-guided workflow, its approval points, and the information contract.

Read the evidence

Four made-up cases — one answer it can support, and the three ways it declines to give one.

Information contract

Reference

No base path, method, or schema is validated. The fields below describe intended information needs, not a stable contract.

Field	Type	Constraint
`requirements`	array	Named sections or requirements to address.
`approved_evidence`	array	Evidence identifiers that the workflow may use.
`drafting_instructions`	object	Audience, format, tone, and boundaries.
`prohibited_claim_rules`	array	Claims the draft must not make.
`template_structure`	object	Approved section order or response template.

Workflow

Produce a controlled draft from approved evidence and route it through explicit review.

Context

The caller provides requirements and an approved source set.

Agent work

The concept produces evidence-linked output and surfaces uncertainty.

Approval

A qualified reviewer interprets, approves, and decides any next action.

Approval points

review of evidence mapping
approval before export or external use

Outputs

draft sectionsevidence linksunsupported-claim flagsunresolved requirementsapproval state

Each material draft section is designed to identify the approved evidence used.

Error and limit states

State	Meaning
`invalid_input`	Required input is missing or malformed.
`unsupported_request`	The request falls outside the documented capability or human decision boundary.
`unavailable_source`	A required source or supplied representation is unavailable.
`review_required`	Qualified review is required before interpretation, decision, commitment, or external use.
`service_unavailable`	Reserved for a later executable interface; not applicable to this documentation preview.

Data handling is not defined

Do not send production client data, confidential documents, credentials, or secrets through the public preview.

storage	Not yet defined
retention	Not yet defined
logging	Not yet defined
deletion	Not yet defined

Accepted data classes

Synthetic or intentionally generic data for public examples

Access

Availability	Documentation preview only
Eligibility	Developers, technical evaluators, institutional buyers, and implementation partners may discuss a bounded use case.
Onboarding	No credentials, SLA, pricing, or production integration are offered in V1.
Contact route	Email me

Synthetic evaluation set

Evidence

Each scenario is fictional or intentionally generic. Together they show a supported answer and the three ways this concept declines to give one — invalid input, abstention, and escalation to human review. No live request is sent.

Supported answer

Draft a reviewable implementation note from approved fictional evidence

Demonstrates drafting from an approved evidence set with an explicit review gate.

Request

{
  "example_id": "controlled-drafting-agent-happy-path",
  "requirements": [
    {
      "id": "REQ-1",
      "text": "Describe the planned review step."
    }
  ],
  "approved_evidence": [
    {
      "evidence_id": "SYN-EVID-001",
      "text": "A named reviewer checks each draft before external release.",
      "source_label": "Example Workflow Note"
    }
  ],
  "drafting_instructions": {
    "format": "short implementation note",
    "tone": "plain language"
  },
  "prohibited_claim_rules": [
    "Do not claim production availability.",
    "Do not add commitments not present in approved evidence."
  ]
}

Response

{
  "example_id": "controlled-drafting-agent-happy-path",
  "status": "draft_ready_for_review",
  "draft_sections": [
    {
      "section_id": "SEC-1",
      "text": "Each draft is checked by a named reviewer before it is released externally.",
      "evidence_links": [
        "SYN-EVID-001"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "unsupported_claim_flags": [],
  "unresolved_requirements": [],
  "approval_state": "review_pending",
  "external_export_allowed": false
}

Invalid input

Reject drafting without approved evidence

Shows that the agent does not invent claims when evidence is absent.

Request

{
  "example_id": "controlled-drafting-agent-invalid-input",
  "requirements": [
    {
      "id": "REQ-1",
      "text": "Describe delivery capability."
    }
  ],
  "approved_evidence": [],
  "drafting_instructions": {
    "format": "proposal paragraph"
  },
  "prohibited_claim_rules": []
}

Response

{
  "example_id": "controlled-drafting-agent-invalid-input",
  "status": "invalid_input",
  "error": {
    "code": "APPROVED_EVIDENCE_REQUIRED",
    "message": "Provide at least one approved evidence item or mark the requirement unresolved.",
    "field": "approved_evidence"
  },
  "approval_state": "blocked"
}

Abstains

Flag a service-level claim that is not in the approved evidence

Demonstrates abstention on unsupported commercial commitments.

Request

{
  "example_id": "controlled-drafting-agent-abstention",
  "requirements": [
    {
      "id": "REQ-1",
      "text": "State the promised response time."
    }
  ],
  "approved_evidence": [
    {
      "evidence_id": "SYN-EVID-002",
      "text": "The team discusses support expectations during pilot scoping.",
      "source_label": "Example Pilot Note"
    }
  ],
  "drafting_instructions": {
    "format": "one sentence"
  },
  "prohibited_claim_rules": [
    "Do not invent an SLA or response time."
  ]
}

Response

{
  "example_id": "controlled-drafting-agent-abstention",
  "status": "completed_with_unresolved_requirements",
  "draft_sections": [],
  "unsupported_claim_flags": [
    {
      "requirement_id": "REQ-1",
      "reason": "The approved evidence does not state a response-time commitment."
    }
  ],
  "unresolved_requirements": [
    "Confirm whether an approved response-time commitment exists."
  ],
  "approval_state": "blocked"
}

Human review

Block external release until a named approver reviews the draft

Shows the approval point that remains outside automation.

Request

{
  "example_id": "controlled-drafting-agent-human-review",
  "requirements": [
    {
      "id": "REQ-1",
      "text": "Prepare a client-facing delivery statement."
    }
  ],
  "approved_evidence": [
    {
      "evidence_id": "SYN-EVID-003",
      "text": "The proposed pilot scope will be confirmed after technical and privacy review.",
      "source_label": "Example Scope Note"
    }
  ],
  "drafting_instructions": {
    "format": "client-facing statement"
  },
  "prohibited_claim_rules": [
    "Do not represent proposed scope as approved."
  ]
}

Response

{
  "example_id": "controlled-drafting-agent-human-review",
  "status": "review_required",
  "draft_sections": [
    {
      "section_id": "SEC-1",
      "text": "The proposed pilot scope remains subject to technical and privacy review.",
      "evidence_links": [
        "SYN-EVID-003"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "unsupported_claim_flags": [],
  "unresolved_requirements": [
    "Assign the named approver."
  ],
  "approval_state": "named_approver_required",
  "external_export_allowed": false
}

What this record does not yet state

These facts have no value yet. They are listed rather than hidden, so the gap is visible before anyone relies on the record.

Fact	Group
Named owner	Lifecycle
Operational contract review	Lifecycle
Last review date	Lifecycle
Storage	Trust
Retention	Trust
Logging	Trust
Deletion	Trust
Allowed tools	Technical
Memory and persistence	Technical

Provenance

Source	Scope	Result
`SRC-REQ-001`	Purpose, input/output categories, proof requirement, examples, boundaries, and release posture.	Verified against supplied specification
`SRC-CAND-DRAFTING-001`	Executable contract, source behaviour, supported limits, and operational evidence.	Defer

Source products

Product	Source	Verification
RFP, credit-paper, or comparable controlled-drafting workflow	`SRC-CAND-DRAFTING-001`	Not yet supplied

Version record

0.1.0-concept

Initial concept record derived from the approved content specification.

Last reviewed	Never reviewed
Content aligned	12 Aug 2026

Publication blockers

Controlled-drafting workflow not supplied
Approval and export controls not validated
Owner and reviewer not assigned
Data-handling posture not defined

Overview

Consider this when

Do not use it to

Who this is for

It is not for

Continue with the evidence you need.

Reference

Workflow

Approval points

Outputs

Error and limit states

Data handling is not defined

Accepted data classes

Access

Evidence

Draft a reviewable implementation note from approved fictional evidence

Request

Response

Reject drafting without approved evidence

Request

Response

Flag a service-level claim that is not in the approved evidence

Request

Response

Block external release until a named approver reviews the draft

Request

Response

What this record does not yet state

Provenance

Source products

0.1.0-concept

Publication blockers