A_I_WORKFLOW

" Corrections and updates Workflow platforms and AI tooling change quickly. This policy explains how errors and outdated technical details should be corrected. Contents When a page should be updated How corrections are made How readers can report a problem What does not count as a correction When a page should be updated A primary source changes platform behavior relevant to the guide. A documented limit, authentication method or retry behavior changes. A security recommendation becomes outdated or incomplete. A broken internal link prevents the intended diagnostic path. A technical statement is found to be unsupported or misleading. How corrections are made The incorrect or outdated statement should be replaced rather than hidden behind vague language. Where the change materially affects the diagnosis or recommended action, the surrounding section should be re-reviewed for consistency. If an article depends on a product behavior that can no longer be verified, that ...

" Evidence policy Technical reliability content is only useful when readers can distinguish platform-documented behavior from recommendations, examples and inference. Contents Preferred source order How claims are labeled in practice Version-sensitive content What is not acceptable evidence Preferred source order Official platform documentation for current product behavior. Primary security guidance for security controls and threat boundaries. Peer-reviewed or standards-based research when the topic requires broader technical evidence. Community reports for problem discovery, not as sole proof of a technical requirement. How claims are labeled in practice A platform requirement should only be described as a requirement when the source supports that wording. A recommended design pattern is presented as a recommendation, not as a universal rule. A troubleshooting possibility is treated as a hypothesis until the execution evidence supports it. Version-sensitive content...

" Research methodology Every technical page follows a resolution method designed to separate evidence from assumption and to avoid publishing a fix that cannot be verified. Contents The resolution sequence Source hierarchy How article scope is controlled How AI-assisted drafting is handled Verification is mandatory The resolution sequence Define the observable symptom. Preserve the failing input, execution ID, timestamp and downstream effect. Identify the last expected state and first unexpected state. Classify likely causes by failure type. Apply the smallest controlled correction. Replay the original failing case. Check for hidden side effects, duplicates or permission changes. Monitor for recurrence. Source hierarchy Primary documentation is preferred for platform behavior, limits, authentication, retry behavior and security controls. Security architecture is grounded in recognized primary guidance such as OWASP where relevant. Community discussions may reveal re...

" Operations and recovery A workflow change is not verified because the editor shows green once. Verification means the original failure condition no longer produces the unwanted outcome and the correction does not break adjacent cases. Resolution rule Change one boundary at a time. Preserve the failing evidence, apply the smallest safe correction, then replay the known case and check the business effect as well as the technical run status. Contents What the symptom actually proves Evidence to collect before changing the workflow Likely failure paths Resolution sequence Prevention design Verify the fix Decision table Sources and scope What the symptom actually proves A workflow change is not verified because the editor shows green once. Verification means the original failure condition no longer produces the unwanted outcome and the correction does not break adjacent cases. A useful diagnosis begins by separating what is directly observed from what is only suspecte...

" Operations and recovery A useful postmortem does not exist to assign blame. It records enough evidence to explain how the failure reached the business, why controls did not catch it earlier and what will change. Resolution rule Change one boundary at a time. Preserve the failing evidence, apply the smallest safe correction, then replay the known case and check the business effect as well as the technical run status. Contents What the symptom actually proves Evidence to collect before changing the workflow Likely failure paths Resolution sequence Prevention design Verify the fix Decision table Sources and scope What the symptom actually proves A useful postmortem does not exist to assign blame. It records enough evidence to explain how the failure reached the business, why controls did not catch it earlier and what will change. A useful diagnosis begins by separating what is directly observed from what is only suspected. Execution status, HTTP codes, model output,...

" Operations and recovery A self-hosted workflow platform adds infrastructure failure modes to workflow failure modes. Changing container settings, database state and workflow logic at the same time makes diagnosis harder. Resolution rule Change one boundary at a time. Preserve the failing evidence, apply the smallest safe correction, then replay the known case and check the business effect as well as the technical run status. Contents What the symptom actually proves Evidence to collect before changing the workflow Likely failure paths Resolution sequence Prevention design Verify the fix Decision table Sources and scope What the symptom actually proves A self-hosted workflow platform adds infrastructure failure modes to workflow failure modes. Changing container settings, database state and workflow logic at the same time makes diagnosis harder. A useful diagnosis begins by separating what is directly observed from what is only suspected. Execution status, HTTP co...

" Operations and recovery An agent loop can alternate between tools, repeatedly reconsider the same state or keep retrying a failed plan. The safest design assumes a loop is possible and bounds it before production. Resolution rule Change one boundary at a time. Preserve the failing evidence, apply the smallest safe correction, then replay the known case and check the business effect as well as the technical run status. Contents What the symptom actually proves Evidence to collect before changing the workflow Likely failure paths Resolution sequence Prevention design Verify the fix Decision table Sources and scope What the symptom actually proves An agent loop can alternate between tools, repeatedly reconsider the same state or keep retrying a failed plan. The safest design assumes a loop is possible and bounds it before production. A useful diagnosis begins by separating what is directly observed from what is only suspected. Execution status, HTTP codes, model out...