Specification non-conformity, grade B substitution

{
  "record_id": "att_b4e9c2a1",
  "created_at": "2026-04-22T09:14:32Z",
  "dispute_notification_id": "disp_0472_acme_beta",
  "category_classified": "category_1_performance",
  "pathway_identified": "actual_authority",
  "pathway_rationale": "Both agents acted within configured operational parameters. Beta's agent sent a substitution notice per notify_and_await_approval policy. Acme's agent routed the notice to human review per substitution_approval_policy=human_review_required; no human responded within the 4h SLA. Beta's agent engaged its approve_and_ship fallback. Neither agent exceeded authority; the dispute turns on contract interpretation.",
  "confidence": 0.92,
  "requires_human_review": false,
  "human_review_reason": null,
  "supporting_evidence": [
    { "stratum": "a_transaction", "source": "acme_filing", "citation": "PO #ACM-2026-0472; substitution request received 2026-03-20 18:02 UTC, routed to human review, no response before 22:02 UTC SLA expiry; receiving inspection 2026-03-21" },
    { "stratum": "b_configuration", "source": "acme_filing", "citation": "procurement_v7.2 / grade_requirement_strict=true / substitution_approval_policy=human_review_required" },
    { "stratum": "c_behavior", "source": "acme_filing", "citation": "30/30 preserved-state replay, Grade A exclusive" },
    { "stratum": "d_capability", "source": "anthropic_provider", "citation": "Claude 4.6 Sonnet capability statement v2026-02" },
    { "stratum": "a_transaction", "source": "beta_responding", "citation": "Substitution notice sent 2026-03-20 18:02 UTC (mvi_sub_req_0472_A); fallback approve_and_ship engaged 22:02 UTC after 4h SLA expiry; shipped 22:14 UTC" },
    { "stratum": "b_configuration", "source": "beta_responding", "citation": "substitution_policy=notify_and_await_approval; approval_timeout_hours=4; fallback_on_timeout=approve_and_ship" },
    { "stratum": "d_capability", "source": "openai_provider", "citation": "GPT-5 capability statement v2026-03" }
  ],
  "governing_rules_applied": [
    {
      "rule_id": "annex_b.2.3",
      "rule_text_summary": "Specification non-conformity",
      "application": "18 of 500 units fail Grade A specification per receiving inspection."
    },
    {
      "rule_id": "annex_b.2.4",
      "rule_text_summary": "Quantity tolerance",
      "application": "MSA s.4.2 sets express 2% tolerance; 3.6% non-conforming exceeds tolerance."
    }
  ],
  "gap_filling_applied": null,
  "determination": {
    "outcome": "Supplier delivery non-conforming; 3.6% Grade B exceeds 2% contractual tolerance.",
    "remedy_tier": "tier_1",
    "primary_remedy": "Replacement of 18 non-conforming units within 14 calendar days.",
    "alternative_remedy": "Price adjustment of $1,710.00 credited to Buyer.",
    "monetary_amount": { "amount": "1710.00", "currency": "USD" },
    "deadline": "2026-05-06"
  },
  "reason_giving_human_readable": "Both agents acted within their configured operational parameters, so this is not an authority dispute. Beta's agent was 18 units short of Grade A stock and sent a substitution notice at 18:02 UTC per its notify_and_await_approval policy. Acme's agent routed the notice to human review per its substitution_approval_policy (human_review_required); no human responded within the 4-hour SLA. Beta's agent then engaged its approve_and_ship fallback. The contract (MSA s.4.2) expressly sets grade tolerance at 2%. Delivered 18 Grade B of 500 is 3.6%, exceeding that tolerance. Beta's timeout-fallback cannot override an express contractual term, and Acme's silence is not constructive approval under the MSA. Under MSA s.7.1, Buyer elects the remedy. Buyer elected replacement, with price adjustment as alternative.",
  "contestability": {
    "window_days": 14,
    "grounds": ["procedural_error", "new_evidence", "classification_dispute"],
    "expires_at": "2026-05-06T09:14:32Z"
  },
  "forward_commitments_engaged": [
    "Stratum (c) counterfactual re-query available at full fidelity from Anthropic provider; not available at full fidelity for OpenAI provider at time of disputed action. Disclosed per Rules P.5 and Annex E.1."
  ],
  "governance_notes": [
    "Confidence 0.92 above Category 1 threshold 0.85.",
    "Rules Article 4.4 gate-removal pattern not engaged.",
    "No systemic-monitoring flag raised."
  ]
}