What state and tool actions can an interactive evidence environment contain?
An interactive environment can model evidence attachment, review holds and package closure as state transitions with explicit permissions and preconditions.
A utilities environment could represent an evidence package with `package_id`, `service_case_id`, `status`, `hold_reason`, `attached_record_ids` and `revision`. Related records can include service requests, completion events and exception approvals. The output remains generated material throughout the environment.
Expose actions such as `attach_record`, `remove_attachment`, `raise_review_hold` and `request_closure`. Each action should return a structured result containing the affected identifier, the new revision and any unmet precondition. Closure might require every mandatory claim to have a disposition and every active hold to be resolved by an authorised role.
The state machine can distinguish draft, under review, held and closed. An agent that attaches a missing approval should not automatically clear a hold raised for an unrelated discrepancy. Likewise, a rejected closure request should leave the package state intact.
A task pack can supply the initial state and a permitted action vocabulary alongside the generated records. This supports evaluations of operational behaviour as well as final answers: whether the agent uses the tools correctly, responds to rejection messages and leaves the review in a valid state.
Evaluate whether agents can assemble evidence through business tools while respecting the conditions for closing a review.
- Audience:
- Evaluation teams
- Content type:
- Integration
- Buyer question:
- What can be generated
Content release: r-a220eb6e099b243b
Related questions
- What generated artefacts can define the evidence package an agent must produce?
- What can generated material contain beyond approvals and attachments?
- Can a task pack represent evidence that should exist but cannot be found?
- How can generated exports preserve precise evidence references?
- How can generated records represent corrections without erasing earlier evidence?
- How can generated policy and authority records create a useful evidence task?