Redacted Sample Candidate-Discrepancy Memo
The purpose of this example is to illustrate the structure of a SpecShift review artifact, not to represent a real customer engagement.
This is a synthetic example showing the shape of a SpecShift candidate-discrepancy memo. It uses fictional facts only. It is not a real customer memo, not a certification, not a compliance audit, not a security review, not deployment approval, and not a guarantee of AI safety.
Review context
Workflow: customer-support refund escalation agent.
Claim reviewed: the agent claimed a refund exception was escalated to the correct human review queue.
Reviewed surface:
agent-visible task transcript
tool-call summary
timestamped workflow events
escalation status field
synthetic customer/account metadata
final completion statement
Not reviewed:
model internals
private chain-of-thought
source code
hidden prompts
production systems
real customer records
protected SpecShift methods
Candidate Findings
Finding 1
Claim reviewed
The workflow stated that the refund exception had been escalated to the correct human review queue.
Observed evidence
The reviewed workflow record contains a completion status but no corresponding escalation event within the observable materials reviewed.
Candidate discrepancy
The completion claim appears stronger than the observable evidence reviewed.
Reviewer note
This observation does not establish that an escalation did or did not occur. It identifies a mismatch between the reviewed evidence and the workflow record that may warrant additional engineering review.
Recommended follow-up
• Verify whether the escalation event occurred outside the reviewed workflow record.
• Confirm that completion status cannot be asserted before required escalation events are recorded.
• Review workflow boundaries to determine whether completion claims should depend on successful human handoff.
• Re-run the workflow using additional bounded synthetic review scenarios after any design changes.
Overall assessment
The reviewed workflow contains one candidate discrepancy between its completion claim and the observable workflow record reviewed.
This synthetic example does not conclude that the workflow failed. It identifies an observation that may warrant additional engineering review before broader deployment.
This document is a synthetic demonstration of the structure of a SpecShift candidate-discrepancy memo.
It illustrates how observable claims, evidence, and workflow behavior can be documented for human review. It is not a real customer report and should not be interpreted as validation, certification, or evidence of any production AI system.