Answers and explanations · Draft only supported claims

A. The named fixture has an authored rule and an exact source match, so it renders the reviewed sentence. The unknown ID has no rule; the missing-source packet cannot meet the rule's evidence contract. Both abstain for their stated reasons. The course author wrote the claim text. model_used is false; the method is not a neural generator or question classifier.

B. The unconditional renewal point contradicts the hold condition. The laptop point lacks supporting source evidence. A supported response is: “The supplied policy permits one seven-day renewal only if no other member has placed a hold; ask the help desk before the due date (renewals-v1, version1). The supplied handbook does not establish a laptop-loan policy, so ask the help desk about that separate question.” Do not replace missing policy with “laptops are forbidden,” which is also unsupported.

C. days also occurs in the laptop question, so the caller can select a renewal template for the wrong intent. The exact renewal source can still be present and valid; its fingerprint does not validate the mapping from question text to question ID. The guard checks source identity/presence for one reviewed question contract. It does not infer meaning, select an intent reliably or prove general answer relevance.

D. One acceptable design has input fields for instructions, user question and evidence records (id, source, version, quote); output fields for status, claims and citation IDs. Record the exact model/interface and tokenizer versions, full prompt format, decoding settings and source snapshot. Review omitted conditions and invented object-specific policies, and count malformed output/citation failures separately. A schema constrains shape, while an instruction requests behavior; neither is a semantic proof. No actual model experiment is reported by this design exercise.