The handover contract, specified

Five fields, handed over at the moment Fin stops. This page specifies each one: what it is for, what Fin already computes, what the human does with it, and what happens when it is missing.

Fin already computes one of the five. The other four are the proposal, and say so on the card. Both replay pages render the contract from validated scenario data, never from markup.

The five fields

In CONTRACT_FIELDS order, under the headings briefing.mjs gives them. A check binds this page to both modules, so a field added to the schema without this document is a red build.

What Fin tried

What it is for: Compressing what has already been attempted into something readable in one pass, so the receiving human does not reconstruct it from the transcript.
What Fin already computes: Nothing that fills this field. Fin holds the transcript, and the transcript is the thing this field exists to replace. Designed for the scenario, and marked as designed on the card.
What the human does with it: Reads it first when Fin was wrong, because it says which advice is already in play before they say anything to the customer.
What happens when it is absent: The human scrolls. On the recovery scenario that is four turns of diagnosis, given twice, before they can tell that the customer has already changed a setting on Fin’s advice.

Why it stopped

What it is for

Stating the decision Fin took as a decision, with the rule behind it, so the human does not have to infer it from where the conversation ends.

What Fin already computes

This field, and only this field. Fin’s router makes a three-way decision on every interaction, and one model predicts the decision, the reason and the guideline citations together.

When escalating due to a guideline match, we cite the specific guideline.

C-9 · SOURCED · fetched 2026-08-12

Both scenarios carry this value with its citations attached. It is the only row on the card that is evidence.

What the human does with it

Knows whether they were handed the conversation or picked it up, and which rule fired if one did. That decides whether the first thing they do is answer or investigate.

What happens when it is absent

The recovery scenario is the answer. Nothing escalated, so Fin logged no reason and cited no guideline, and the field reads “Nothing stopped it.” The empty rows are the finding rather than a gap in the card.

Confidence

What it is for: Saying what is not settled. It is the only field in the set that reports an absence, and an absence is the thing a transcript structurally cannot hand over.
What Fin already computes: Nothing this field is allowed to use. Fin publishes accuracy figures for the escalation model, and those describe the model across a population, while this is one conversation. A per-conversation number attributed to Fin would be an invented internal, refused by d-016. The field is qualitative and declares itself designed.
What the human does with it: Learns which part of the problem nobody has decided yet, and therefore what not to treat as already answered.
What happens when it is absent: The human reads the last thing said as the answer. On the recovery scenario the diagnosis was given twice with nothing behind it, and no turn in the conversation says so.

What the customer has been told

What it is for: Recording the commitments already made to the customer, in the customer’s own terms.
What Fin already computes: Nothing that fills this field. What was said is in the transcript; what it committed anyone to is not. Designed for the scenario.
What the human does with it: Avoids re-announcing a handover the customer already knows about. When Fin was wrong, this is the list of things that have to be corrected before anything else.
What happens when it is absent: The human repeats the commitment or contradicts it. On the recovery scenario the customer has been told the timezone was the cause and has acted on that twice, and nothing flags either.

What not to repeat

What it is for: Naming the paths already walked, so the second responder does not send the customer back down one of them.
What Fin already computes: Nothing that fills this field. It is a judgement about what failed, which is a different object from the record of what was tried. Designed for the scenario.
What the human does with it: Skips the first minute of re-asking, which is the cost this whole concept is an argument about.
What happens when it is absent: The human asks for something the customer has already given, or re-issues advice that has already failed. Both are in the two scenarios, one per page.

The record of the set

All five stand. The set was tested twice: once where Fin escalated cleanly, once where it was wrong and nothing flagged it. Each call below cites its entry.

Confidence stays qualitative (d-016, d-021). A number attributed to Fin would assert an internal nobody published, so the field states what is settled and the card marks it “Designed for this scenario”.

What the customer has been told nearly failed (d-021, d-025): on the first scenario it adds no fact. On the second it carries what has to be corrected, which is what kept it.

No sixth field was added. What was added is structure: provenance on every claim-bearing value (d-015), the beat’s heading moved into the data (d-026), a hedge on any named reason label (d-012, d-013), and a cited guideline only when one fired (d-026).

When the human is correcting Fin rather than continuing it, the recovery scenario captures what they wrote and prices it.

d-030 · The contract document specifies the schema's own field set, and a check reads both modules

Decision: The document specifies the schema's own field set, checked against both modules.
Because: Document and prototype are two renderings of one list.
Rejected: Bind the document to the prototype by review
Would measure: Whether the group ever fires where another already would.