Invention, Missing Context, and False Confidence

Unit ID: PAW-M11-U01 Estimated active time: 20-25 minutes

Three failures that look identical

All three produce an answer that is fluent, specific and wrong. They need different fixes, so it is worth telling them apart.

• Invention — a detail that does not exist anywhere.
• Missing context — a correct general answer that does not fit your case.
• False confidence — a reasonable guess stated as a fact.

Telling them apart

Ask: could this have been right for someone?

If yes, it is missing context — the answer is generically fine and specifically wrong, and the fix is a better context package.

If no, it is invention, and the fix is bounding the source.

If the content is roughly right but stated far more firmly than the evidence allows, it is false confidence, and the fix is required uncertainty marking.

Where invention concentrates

Numbers, dates, names, citations, clause numbers, version numbers, prices, and statements about what a named organisation does.

If an output contains any of these and you did not supply them, treat them as unverified by default. That single habit prevents most of the damage this failure causes.

The three-guard block

GUARDS AGAINST THE FIRST THREE FAILURES

Against invention
  - "use only the source between the markers"
  - "never produce a citation, reference, or URL"
  - "where a fact is needed, write it as a question for me"

Against missing context
  - a filled context package (unit 03.00)
  - "if this answer depends on something I have not told you, ask first"

Against false confidence
  - "mark each claim [FROM MY SOURCES] or [GENERAL -- VERIFY]"
  - "where you are unsure, say so in the sentence, not in a footnote"
  - "give the two facts that would most change this answer"

None of these are complete

Guards reduce the rate. They do not remove the failure, and an output that follows every rule can still be wrong.

That is why review is a step in the workflow rather than a fallback, and why high-consequence work has a named reviewer.

Mini practice

Find one output where you caught a wrong detail.

Classify it as invention, missing context, or false confidence.

Add the matching guard to the prompt that produced it.

Mark complete