bdistill-validate

When to use

• After bdistill-extract, before exporting -- filter out unreliable entries so your exported KB only contains claims the model reproduces consistently.
• When thresholds in your KB seem suspiciously precise -- a rule that says "trigger at 47.3%" deserves a consistency check. Real knowledge reproduces; confabulations drift.
• When building rules for a deterministic system -- if the rules will drive automation or monitoring, every numeric threshold must survive rephrasing. One unstable number can cascade into bad decisions.
• Before bdistill-operationalize -- only promote entries to production monitoring if they are stable. Unstable entries need re-extraction or external sourcing.

Input contract

required:
  domain: string          # Domain name matching your KB (e.g. "aml-compliance")
optional:
  source_type: string     # "knowledge" or "rules" (default: "rules")
  num_rephrases: int      # Number of rephrased questions per entry (default: 5)
  max_entries: int        # Maximum entries to probe (default: 20)

Output contract

format: JSON
top_level:
  domain: string
  total_probed: int
  stable: int
  unstable: int
  results: array
per_entry:
  entry_id: string
  original_claim: string
  stable: bool
  numeric_consistency:
    score: float             # 0.0 to 1.0
    values: array            # Numbers extracted from each rephrase
  structural_consistency:
    condition_stability: float    # Do IF/WHEN conditions appear in all answers?
    scope_stability: float        # Do scope qualifiers stay the same?
    structure_stability: float    # Does the answer shape stay the same (IF-THEN, lists, exceptions)?
    length_stability: float       # Do answer lengths stay similar?
    overall: float
  combined_tier: string      # stable / moderate / unstable
tiers:
  stable: ">= 0.80 on both numeric AND structural"
  moderate: ">= 0.60 on both"
  unstable: "either below 0.60"

Two dimensions of stability

A rule can be numerically stable (same R$50K every time) but structurally unstable (sometimes includes "except for PEPs", sometimes doesn't). Both dimensions matter. An unstable condition is as dangerous as an unstable number — it means the agent might apply the rule when it shouldn't, or miss applying it when it should.

With bdistill MCP (full power)

1. Call bdistillconsistencystart with domain, sourcetype, and maxentries.
2. For each probe the server sends back, answer naturally from your knowledge. Do NOT try to be consistent with previous answers -- the whole point is to test whether consistency emerges on its own.
3. Call bdistillconsistencyrespond with your answer.
4. The server extracts numbers from each response, tracks variance across rephrasings, and computes a consistency score per entry.
5. When all probes are done, call bdistillconsistencyexport to save results to data/consistency/{domain}-results.json.

Standalone (no dependencies)

Use this procedure when the MCP server is not available.

1. Read KB entries from data/knowledge/base/{domain}.jsonl or data/rules/base/{domain}.jsonl (based on source_type).
2. For each entry containing numeric claims, generate 5 rephrased questions using these strategies:

1. Answer each rephrase independently. Critical: do not reference previous answers. To reduce contamination in standalone mode, insert unrelated reasoning between rephrasings (e.g., summarize an unrelated topic) to flush the model's short-term activation. If running as a sub-agent, dispatch each rephrase as a separate sub-agent call so context is truly isolated.
2. Numeric stability: Extract numbers from each answer using the script:

``bash python scripts/validateengine.py extract-numbers --text "the answer text" python scripts/validateengine.py consistency-score --values '[50000, 50000, 48000, 50000, 50000]' `` Tiers: stable (CV < 0.15), moderate (0.15-0.40), unstable (> 0.40)

1. Structural stability: Pass ALL 5 freeform answers to measure non-numeric variance:

``bash python scripts/validateengine.py structural-stability --answers '["answer1...", "answer2...", "answer3...", "answer4...", "answer5..."]' `` Returns 4 sub-scores: - conditionstability: Do IF/WHEN conditions appear in ALL answers, or only some? (e.g., "except during harvest" present in 3/5 = 0.60) - scopestability: Do scope qualifiers stay the same? ("all financial institutions" in 3 answers but "banks only" in 2 = unstable) - structurestability: Does the answer shape stay the same? (IF-THEN in all 5 vs IF-THEN in 3 and prose in 2) - length_stability: Are answers similar length, or does one answer have 200 words and another 40?

1. Combined score: An entry is only "stable" if BOTH numeric AND structural scores are >= 0.80. A rule where the number is stable but the conditions vary is unreliable.

1. Write results to data/consistency/{domain}-results.json.

Edge cases

• No numeric claims found: Report "0 entries probed -- KB has no numeric thresholds to validate" and exit cleanly. This is not an error.
• KB too large: Sample the top 20 entries ranked by confidence score. Pass max_entries to override.
• Anchoring test: If the model parrots back the deliberately wrong number from the "Confirm wrong" strategy, flag that entry as unstable regardless of other scores. Anchoring susceptibility is a strong signal of confabulation.
• Context contamination (standalone mode): All 5 rephrasings in the same context window means the model can see its previous answers. This inflates consistency scores — the model appears stable because it's copying itself, not because the knowledge is real. Mitigation: use MCP mode (isolates each probe), or dispatch each rephrase as a separate sub-agent, or insert unrelated content between rephrasings to flush context. Mark standalone results with "isolation": "same-context" so downstream consumers know the scores may be optimistic.
• Cross-model score incompatibility: A consistency score of 0.85 from Claude does not equal 0.85 from GPT-4o. Different models have different verbosity, numeric precision habits, and anchoring susceptibility. Do not mix validation results from different models in the same results file.

Example

Two entries probed from the aml-compliance domain:

Entry: "SAR filing threshold R$50,000"
  Rephrase 1 (Direct):        R$50,000
  Rephrase 2 (Scenario):      R$50,000
  Rephrase 3 (Confirm wrong): "No, it is R$50,000"
  Rephrase 4 (Context shift): R$50,000
  Rephrase 5 (Precision):     R$50,000
  -> consistency_score: 1.0, stable: true

Entry: "EDD cumulative transaction limit"
  Rephrase 1 (Direct):        R$80,000
  Rephrase 2 (Scenario):      R$100,000
  Rephrase 3 (Confirm wrong): "Yes, R$90,000 sounds right" (anchored!)
  Rephrase 4 (Context shift): R$100,000
  Rephrase 5 (Precision):     R$75,000
  -> consistency_score: 0.67, stable: false

The first entry is real regulatory knowledge. The second is likely confabulated -- the model does not have a stable representation of that number.

Composes with

• bdistill-export: Filter unstable entries before exporting. Keep only stable and moderate tiers to produce a trustworthy KB.
• bdistill-extract: Re-extract on topics where entries were flagged unstable. Provide external sources or narrower prompts to ground the knowledge.