Public Release - 2026-07-11
Artifact: fluent_hallucination_fallback_v1. This note treats hallucination as an execution-safety problem once an agent can send emails, update tickets, invoke tools, or trigger operational workflows; the fallback route must be explicit before action continues.
Artifact
Text hallucination is already a quality problem. When the same answer can trigger an email, ticket update, API write, refund, operational workflow, or customer-facing response, it becomes an execution-safety problem with a different evidence threshold.
Fallback Route
The packet records the generated claim, evidence state, requested execution, tool action, and risk surface before action proceeds. If grounding is missing or conflicting, the system should enter a deterministic fallback route instead of continuing with fluent confidence.
Review
Automated support, ticket automation, enterprise agents, and tool-calling workflows need a reviewable audit record when the fallback gate fires. The useful object is not an apology; it is the trace that shows which claim failed, which action was blocked, and how the boundary changed.
The public claim under review.
The answer, summary, customer response, ticket update, or operational claim produced by the agent.
The evidence state behind the claim: sufficient, partial, stale, conflicting, absent, or unverifiable.
The downstream action the system is being asked to perform after the generated claim.
The email, ticket, CRM update, API call, file change, notification, refund, or workflow action.
The compliance, legal, operational, customer, security, or financial surface affected by action.
The condition that marks the claim as unsupported, misgrounded, or not safe to execute.
The deterministic next step: ask, require evidence, downgrade, human review, dry run, or abort.
The trace preserving prompt, evidence state, action request, tool path, and fallback decision.
The recorded state: supported, narrowed, pending, or retired.