Evaluate the decision-sufficient closure for selective repair

Evaluate whether the proposed decision-sufficient closure improves selective-repair performance by comparing the original repair packet, the decision-sufficient closure, and full structured repair under matched budgets.

Background

The paper introduces a decision-sufficient closure that augments the affected repair set with relevant hard constraints, decision rubrics, surviving alternative justifications, risks, unresolved objections, and minimal evidence spans. This augmentation is intended to address the pilot’s six abstentions, which occurred when selective repair lacked enough boundary context to reconstruct a complete decision.

The proposed closure was defined conceptually but was not included in the reported pilot evaluation. The paper therefore identifies a concrete unresolved evaluation problem: determine whether the closure improves successful decision synthesis relative to the original packet construction and full structured repair when the compared methods receive matched budgets.

References

The reported numbers therefore evaluate the earlier packet construction, not the full \operatorname{DSC} rule. A future replication must compare the original packet, the closure above, and full structured repair under matched budgets.

— BoardroomAI: Dependency-Aware Human-Steerable Multi-Agent Deliberation through Evolving Decision Graphs  (2608.13046 - Manivannan, 13 Aug 2026) in Section 3.4, subsection “Decision-Sufficient Repair Packets”; Section 4, subsection “Exploratory Validation”

On MuSiQue, residual retrieval recovers additional complete chains, but the gap between coverage after expansion and final Chain@5 shows that selecting the final evidence set remains an open problem.

— EviReform: Evidence-Guided Query Reformulation for Multi-Hop Graph Retrieval  (2608.13006 - Xu et al., 13 Aug 2026) in Section Limitations