evidence-chain

name	evidence-chain
description	Multi-source evidence chain analysis. Extracts evidence from multiple independent sources, cross-validates, detects conflicts, evaluates confidence, and outputs analysis reports with root cause judgments. Use when: (1) analyzing client complaints against system records to find truth, (2) cross-validating data from 2+ sources (complaints, alerts, SLA agreements, operation logs), (3) detecting contradictions between sources, (4) producing confidence-scored root cause judgments. Triggers: evidence chain, cross-validation, multi-source analysis, conflict detection, confidence assessment, root cause inference, fault diagnosis analysis, complaint verification, alert correlation, evidence chain analysis.
name_cn	多源证据链分析组件
description_cn	从多个独立来源提取证据，交叉验证、识别冲突、评估置信度，输出带根因判断的分析报告
version	1.0.0
author	yuzhaopeng
license	Apache-2.0

Evidence-Chain

Core philosophy: Not single-source RAG answering from a knowledge base, but multi-source evidence chain — ordinary RAG answers from a knowledge base; advanced Skills cross-validate from multiple sources, detect conflicts, and evaluate confidence.

Component Orchestration

This Skill chains 4 components that must execute in strict sequence; each stage's output is the next stage's input:

Info-Extractor ──→ Data-Analyst ──→ Report-Generator ──→ Archive-Manager
    Phase 1            Phase 2            Phase 3              Phase 4
  Evidence        Cross-validation      Report             Archiving
  extraction      + inference          generation         & audit trail

Execution Rules:

• Each component must be loaded via the skill tool before execution; skipping or merging is prohibited
• Components pass intermediate results as structured JSON objects (see output contracts per Phase below)
• If any component fails to load, execute degradation strategy (see "Error Handling")

Detailed orchestration protocol: references/orchestration.md.

Input Parameters

Required

Parameter	Type	Description
evidence_sources	JSON array	Each element contains source_name, source_type, content
analysis_question	string	Core question, e.g. "Is there a persistent service quality issue with the network service?"

source_type enum: complaint_report / system_alert / contract_term / operation_log / other

Optional

Parameter	Type	Default	Description
conflict_sensitivity	enum	medium	high / medium / low
confidence_threshold	0-1	0.7	Below this value, root cause is annotated "⚠️ Needs further verification"
output_format	enum	markdown	markdown / json / table

Phase 1 — Info-Extractor: Evidence Extraction

Invocation: Load info-extractor skill via skill tool, execute extraction for each source

Input: Each element in evidence_sources

Processing:

1. Iterate evidence_sources, call Info-Extractor for each source
2. Extract structured fields: time, event, values, objects, location, etc.
3. Annotate each piece of evidence with source type and initial confidence

Source Type	Initial Confidence	Attribute
complaint_report	⭐⭐ (0.4)	Subjective statement
system_alert	⭐⭐⭐⭐ (0.8)	Objective data
contract_term	⭐⭐⭐ (0.6)	Authoritative reference
operation_log	⭐⭐⭐⭐ (0.8)	Objective data
other	⭐⭐⭐ (0.6)	Pending assessment

Phase 1 Output Contract (passed to Phase 2):

{
  "extracted_evidences": [
    {
      "evidence_id": "E-01",
      "source_name": "Source Name",
      "source_type": "complaint_report",
      "extracted_fields": { "time": "...", "event": "...", "value": "..." },
      "initial_confidence": 0.4,
      "raw_summary": "One-line summary"
    }
  ]
}

Phase 2 — Data-Analyst: Cross-Validation and Inference

Invocation: Load data-analyst skill via skill tool, use Phase 1 output as analysis input, execute cross-validation and inference per the sub-steps below

Input: Phase 1 output_phase1 object

Sub-steps:

2a - Timeline Alignment

• Sort extracted_evidences chronologically
• Identify multi-source records of the same event, annotate time deltas
• Output: timeline_events array

2b - Conflict Detection

• Compare descriptions of the same event from different sources
• Adjust detection granularity per conflict_sensitivity
• Each conflict annotated: conflict ID, type, description, involved sources, difference analysis
• Conflict detection rules: references/conflict-rules.md

2c - Confidence Assessment

• Formula: composite_confidence = source_confidence × cross_validation_score × time_decay
  • Cross-validation score: proportion of independent sources confirming the same fact (0-1)
  • Time decay: evidence older than 30 days decays by 0.95^months

2d - Root Cause Inference

• Three dimensions: Earliest Occurrence / Downstream Dependency / High Frequency
• Output: suspected root cause + confidence level (High/Medium/Low) + numeric value + basis
• Below confidence_threshold → annotate "⚠️ Needs further verification"

Phase 2 Output Contract (passed to Phase 3):

{
  "timeline_events": [...],
  "conflicts": [
    {
      "conflict_id": "C-01",
      "type": "value_conflict",
      "description": "...",
      "sources_involved": ["E-01", "E-03"],
      "difference": "delta=1 occurrence",
      "possible_reason": "..."
    }
  ],
  "confidence_scores": [
    { "evidence_id": "E-01", "source_confidence": 0.4, "cross_validation": 0.7, "time_decay": 1.0, "final_confidence": 0.28 }
  ],
  "root_cause": {
    "suspected": "...",
    "confidence_level": "High",
    "confidence_value": 0.85,
    "basis": ["Earliest occurrence", "Downstream dependency", "High frequency"],
    "needs_further_verification": false
  },
  "recommended_actions": [
    { "priority": "🔴 Urgent", "action": "...", "linked_evidence": ["E-04"] },
    { "priority": "🟡 Concurrent", "action": "...", "linked_evidence": ["E-01","E-05"] }
  ]
}

Phase 3 — Report-Generator: Generate Report

Invocation: Load report-generator skill via skill tool, generate report from Phase 2 analysis results per template

Input: Phase 2 output_phase2 object + Phase 1 output_phase1 object

Output Format: Selected per output_format parameter

Module 1: Evidence List Table

#	Source	Source Type	Time	Key Content	Confidence

Module 2: Conflict Detection Section

Each conflict: conflict ID + type + description + involved sources + difference analysis

Module 3: Root Cause Judgment

Suspected root cause + confidence (High/Medium/Low) + numeric value + basis + ⚠️ marker (if applicable)

Module 4: Recommended Actions

Priority	Recommended Action	Linked Evidence
🔴 Urgent	...	Evidence #n
🟡 Concurrent	...	Evidence #n
🟢 Deferred	...	Evidence #n

Module 5: Metadata

Analysis time / Evidence count / Conflict count / Max confidence

Phase 3 Output Contract (passed to Phase 4):

{
  "report_content": "Full report text (markdown/json/table)",
  "report_metadata": {
    "analysis_time": "2026-06-20T...",
    "evidence_count": 7,
    "conflict_count": 2,
    "max_confidence": 0.85
  }
}

Phase 4 — Archive-Manager: Archiving

Invocation: Load archive-manager skill via skill tool for archiving

Input: Phase 3 output_phase3 object

Archive Contents:

• Analysis process: Phase 1 extraction results + Phase 2 analysis results
• Analysis conclusion: Phase 3 full report
• Archive metadata: Analyst, analysis time, evidence source list

Pre-Archive Anonymization Required:

• Client name → "Client A"
• Contract IDs retained but financial details hidden

Component Load Failure Degradation Strategy

Component	Fallback when load fails
Info-Extractor	Manually extract structured fields per source type, annotate initial confidence
Data-Analyst	Manually execute Phase 2 sub-steps (timeline alignment / conflict detection / confidence assessment / root cause inference) per SKILL.md rules
Report-Generator	Manually generate report per Phase 3's 5-module template in SKILL.md
Archive-Manager	Save archive contents as local .md file, filename includes timestamp and analysis question

Degraded reports must annotate in metadata: "degraded": true, "degraded_components": ["info-extractor"]

Error Handling

Condition	Behavior
Source count = 0	Error: "At least 2 evidence sources are required for cross-validation"
Source count = 1	Degrade to single-source analysis + warning: "Only 1 source available; cross-validation not possible; conclusion confidence is limited"
All evidence missing time info	Skip Phase 2a + report annotation "Missing time dimension; chronological analysis not possible"
sensitivity=high but no conflicts	Output "No conflicts detected; all source descriptions are consistent"
Root cause confidence < threshold	Annotate "⚠️ Needs further verification" + list evidence that needs supplementation

Security Requirements

• Client complaint content must not be archived to public knowledge bases before anonymization
• SLA contract terms are confidential; must be anonymized during archiving
• Root cause judgments must include confidence level; low-confidence conclusions must not be used as sole basis for actions
• All archive records must include: analyst, analysis time, evidence source list

Demo Data

Full 3-source evidence chain example: references/demo-data.md.

Self-Check Checklist

• Can correctly extract structured fields from 3 different source types
• Can detect conflicts between client statements and system records
• Can produce confidence-scored root cause judgments
• Can distinguish 🔴 Urgent / 🟡 Concurrent / 🟢 Deferred action priorities
• Anonymized data correctly hides client names
• Archive records include complete evidence source list