Refinement no longer trusts a failed evidence read
Triage refinement now treats an explicit attachment read failure as stronger evidence than an agent's later claim that it analyzed the file. During the final installed-provider image validation, Codex reported that its Windows sandbox helper could not open the supplied icon, but still returned a plausible proposal naming the icon in analyzedFiles. The proposal looked convincing because it inferred likely visual details, even though the provider log proved that the image tool had failed.
Pekan now reconciles those signals before presenting coverage. A file-specific read, open, load, access, permission, missing-file, or image-location failure removes that attachment from analyzedFiles and surfaces it as a not-analyzed ambiguity for review. The check is scoped to the named attachment and the failing output line, so an unrelated tool error does not erase valid evidence coverage. The installed Codex validation was then repeated through its supported image attachment channel and produced accurate, parseable refinement JSON based on the actual image.
Highlights
- Explicit file-read failures override hallucinated analyzedFiles claims.
- Unrelated provider errors do not erase valid attachment coverage.
- The Windows image refinement path is validated with installed Codex.