# ADR-0013: Use request-local candidate handles for semantic reconciliation

**Status:** Accepted
**Date:** 2026-08-09

## Context

Several typed normalize stage modules need semantic reconciliation after
deterministic preprocessing: a model can judge whether source-backed candidates
refer to the same underlying entity, while application code remains responsible
for constructing the normalized artifact. Requiring the model to reproduce a
candidate's full contextual selector makes the response larger and introduces
avoidable formatting, ordering, and transcription failure modes.

Reconciliation must preserve the exact typed artifact boundary established by
[ADR-0003](0003-typed-interfaces-with-two-zone-data-model.md), the domain-neutral
framework and concrete-domain dependency direction established by
[ADR-0004](0004-package-modules-by-domain.md), and the distinction in
[ADR-0009](0009-minimal-evidence-grounded-extraction-artifacts.md) between source
evidence and auxiliary identity context. It also needs a concrete, narrowly
scoped application of the request-local-label exception allowed by
[ADR-0012](0012-resolve-opaque-entity-identifiers-deterministically.md).

## Decision

Semantic reconciliation will be a domain-neutral framework mechanism used by
typed normalize stage modules. A consuming artifact family will retain
ownership of its typed records, identity rules, consolidation policy, durable
IDs, and domain warnings; the framework mechanism will not infer those rules
from arbitrary data.

For each reconciliation request, deterministic code will assign every eligible
model-visible candidate a contiguous, one-based integer handle. The model may
receive the candidate's contextual label, source references, and bounded source
context needed to judge identity, but its structured response will identify
candidates only by those supplied handles. A handle is local to one request,
does not represent entity identity, and must never enter a durable artifact or
be used to derive a durable ID.

The model will propose duplicate groups and select one supplied member of each
group as canonical. Deterministic code will resolve the handles through the
retained request mapping, validate the complete proposal, discard unsafe
groups, and apply only validated groups through typed domain-owned policy. The
model will not synthesize replacement records or directly mutate an artifact.

Every reconciliation prompt will combine a mandatory framework-owned protocol
and safety policy with an explicitly selected semantic policy. The semantic
policy may be the conservative generic policy or a domain-owned policy, but it
cannot replace the shared response protocol or deterministic safety boundary.

## Alternatives considered

- Return durable application IDs. Opaque IDs do not help semantic judgment,
  expose application identity mechanics, and make model output reproduce data
  that deterministic code already owns.
- Return names alone or copied contextual selectors. Names can be ambiguous,
  while reproducing labels and source ranges adds response complexity and
  creates mismatches without adding semantic information. Request-local
  handles preserve exact selection without either failure mode.
- Ask the model to return synthesized canonical replacement records. This
  would transfer typed artifact construction, provenance consolidation, and
  durable identity policy to a probabilistic boundary.
- Reconcile reflection-discovered fields or arbitrary JSON. This would weaken
  the typed artifact contract and move domain semantics into generic code.
- Hide reconciliation inside extraction or another stage. This would obscure
  stage ownership and create cross-stage behavior outside the fixed pipeline;
  reconciliation remains explicit normalize-stage behavior.
- Let each domain replace the complete prompt protocol. This would duplicate
  safety mechanics and allow domain policy to bypass the common response and
  validation contract.

## Consequences

Model responses become smaller and easier to validate, while deterministic
application code retains authority over identity, provenance, ordering, and
typed artifact construction. The framework requires a request-local mapping,
bounded context preparation, a private integer response contract, proposal
assessment, and shared prompt assets. Each consuming artifact family still
requires a typed adapter for its irreducibly domain-specific rules.

Request-local handles are deliberately unsuitable for persistence, logging as
entity identity, checkpoint contracts, or cross-request correlation. Changes
to shared protocol and policy assets must participate in the normal prompt,
schema, and checkpoint fingerprint mechanisms.

Acceptance of this decision does not imply that the shared mechanism or its
consumer migrations are implemented. The
[feature roadmap](../roadmap/semantic-reconciliation.md) owns target behavior
and status, and the
[implementation plan](../roadmap/implementation.md) owns delivery sequence
until the work is complete.
