meeting-lab/docs/bug-005-root-cause.md

BUG-005 Root Cause Analysis

Observed Behaviour

The final working protocol treats Björn as one of the "fehlende Teilnehmer":

• samples/benchmarks/meeting_context_v1/final_protocol_with_context/working_protocol.md:53

This contradicts Meeting Context, which lists Björn as an actual participant with attendance_status: "present":

• samples/real_live/project_process_meeting/meeting_context.yaml:45
• samples/real_live/project_process_meeting/meeting_context.yaml:52

Evidence

Meeting Context marks Björn present:

participant_id: "bjoern"
display_name: "Björn"
role: "Leiter Marketing"
attendance_status: "present"

The extraction prompt path does include Meeting Context:

• src/meeting_lab/extraction/extract_chunks.py:161 renders Meeting Context for the prompt when it is supplied.
• src/meeting_lab/models/meeting_context.py:108 renders the heading MEETING CONTEXT V1 (AUTHORITATIVE METADATA).
• src/meeting_lab/models/meeting_context.py:112 renders the rule The participant list is authoritative.
• src/meeting_lab/models/meeting_context.py:128 to src/meeting_lab/models/meeting_context.py:132 renders actual participants.

Execution metadata confirms chunk 08 used the Meeting Context file:

• samples/benchmarks/meeting_context_v1/full_context_run/chunk_08_extraction.metadata.json:29 to :32
• samples/benchmarks/meeting_context_v1/full_context_run/chunk_08_extraction.metadata.json:34 to :38

The source chunk does not say Björn was absent from the meeting. It says Giovanna and Björn had not yet understood or reviewed the discussed mail or process state:

• samples/benchmarks/meeting_context_v1/source_reconstruction/chunk_08_normalized.txt:211 to :215
• samples/benchmarks/meeting_context_v1/source_reconstruction/chunk_08_normalized.txt:229 to :245
• samples/benchmarks/meeting_context_v1/source_reconstruction/chunk_08_normalized.txt:257 to :267

The earliest generated artifact that treats Björn as absent is the raw chunk 08 extraction response:

• samples/benchmarks/meeting_context_v1/full_context_run/chunk_08_extraction.raw.txt:4 summarizes "Einbeziehung fehlender Teilnehmer wie Jovana und Björn".
• samples/benchmarks/meeting_context_v1/full_context_run/chunk_08_extraction.raw.txt:6 to :10 lists participants as only Martin, Lars and Malte.
• samples/benchmarks/meeting_context_v1/full_context_run/chunk_08_extraction.raw.txt:64 to :68 emits the open question Wie sollen fehlende Teilnehmer (Jovana, Björn) in den Prozess einbezogen werden?

The persisted extraction JSON keeps that open question:

• samples/benchmarks/meeting_context_v1/full_context_run/chunk_08_extraction.json:14 to :16

The persisted extraction JSON records only Meeting Context provenance, not the participant list or attendance status:

• samples/benchmarks/meeting_context_v1/full_context_run/chunk_08_extraction.json:23 to :27

The normalizer drops raw response fields such as participants and topics:

• src/meeting_lab/extraction/extract_chunks.py:318 to :365 returns only normalized facts, decisions, todos, questions, positions and technical.
• src/meeting_lab/extraction/extract_chunks.py:432 to :434 adds only provenance from Meeting Context after normalization.

Canonicalizer preserves the bad open question:

• samples/benchmarks/meeting_context_v1/canonicalizer/canonicalized_extractions.json:1633 to :1645

Semantic Consolidator output also preserves the bad open question:

• samples/benchmarks/meeting_context_v1/semantic_consolidator_repair_v1/consolidated_extractions.json:1669 to :1681

The renderer receives the repaired consolidated JSON as its only recorded input:

• samples/benchmarks/meeting_context_v1/final_protocol_with_context/metadata.json:2 to :4

The renderer prompt requires using only the provided input:

• prompts/working_protocol.md:7 to :12

Therefore the renderer did not receive Meeting Context attendance metadata that would let it distinguish a present participant from a mentioned-only or absent person.

Stage-by-Stage Verification

1. Does extraction receive Björn as a present participant?

Yes. The extraction code renders Meeting Context into the prompt when supplied, and the chunk 08 metadata records samples/real_live/project_process_meeting/meeting_context.yaml as the Meeting Context source.

2. Does extraction output preserve that information?

No. The raw chunk 08 response lists participants as Martin, Lars and Malte only, despite Björn being present in Meeting Context. The official persisted extraction JSON contains only a minimal context provenance object and does not preserve the authoritative participant list or attendance status.

3. Does Canonicalizer preserve it?

No. Canonicalizer input lacks the participant list and attendance status. The Canonicalizer preserves the already bad open question from chunk 08.

4. Does Semantic Consolidator preserve it?

No. The repaired consolidated JSON lacks Meeting Context participant metadata and preserves the bad open question.

5. Does the Renderer receive enough information to distinguish present from mentioned-only participants?

No. Renderer metadata records only semantic_consolidator_repair_v1/consolidated_extractions.json as input, and that file contains no Meeting Context participant list or attendance status.

Earliest Failing Pipeline Stage

The earliest failing stage is chunk extraction for chunk_08_normalized.txt.

More precisely, the raw model response for chunk 08 is the first artifact that both omits Björn from the participant list and groups Björn with absent or "fehlende" participants.

Verified Root Cause

The immediate root cause is ignored Meeting Context metadata during extraction for chunk 08. The extraction model received authoritative Meeting Context, but interpreted transcript evidence about not having reviewed or understood an email/process state as meeting absence.

The downstream cause is missing propagation of participant attendance metadata. After extraction, only Meeting Context provenance is persisted. Canonicalizer, Semantic Consolidator and Renderer do not receive the authoritative participant list or attendance status, so they cannot detect or repair the contradiction.

This is not primarily a renderer inference bug. The renderer preserved an open question already present in its input, and its prompt explicitly restricts it to the supplied consolidated input.

Cause Classification

• Missing propagation: verified.
• Ignored metadata: verified at extraction.
• Prompt wording: not verified as the direct cause.
• Renderer inference: disproved as the earliest cause.
• Lost provenance: partially verified; provenance remains, but the substantive participant metadata is not propagated.
• Another cause: not identified.

Confidence

High.

The conclusion is supported by Meeting Context, extraction metadata, raw chunk 08 model output, persisted extraction JSON, Canonicalizer output, Semantic Consolidator output and renderer metadata.

Recommended Fix

Concept only:

Propagate authoritative Meeting Context participant metadata, including attendance status, beyond extraction as structured data. Add validation that flags contradictions where generated items classify an actual participant as absent or mentioned-only. The validation should run before rendering, and ideally immediately after extraction so the contradiction is caught at the earliest stage.

Do not rely on the Working Protocol Renderer to correct attendance semantics from prose-only consolidated items.