Multi-Agent Coordination Failure Reconstruction

Reconstruct the coordination failure across multiple agents and identify the first coordination divergence that can be corrected and tested.

Inputs to provide:
- Agent roles and authority: [Agent roles and authority]
- Coordination evidence: [Coordination evidence]
- Expected handoff contract: [Expected handoff contract]
- Shared-state context: [Shared-state context]
- Observed failure and impact: [Observed failure and impact]
- Constraints and authorized changes: [Constraints and authorized changes]

Evidence discipline:
- Separate observed evidence from inference at every major step.
- Do not claim that a log, trace, source file, system, test, approval, or action was inspected unless it is present in the provided material.
- If timestamps, message ordering, state versions, ownership rules, or agent responsibilities are missing, name the gap and explain how it affects confidence.
- Preserve uncertainty where the evidence supports more than one explanation.
- Do not redesign the entire multi-agent workflow. Focus on the smallest correction to the failed coordination point.
- Do not produce a broad trace taxonomy. Use classification only where it helps isolate the first divergence.

Reconstruction method:
1. Build an evidence inventory listing each provided artifact, what it can prove, and what it cannot prove.
2. Create a coordination chronology from the earliest relevant trigger through the failure manifestation.
3. Map responsibility, authority, and shared-state access for each involved agent.
4. Compare expected coordination behavior against observed behavior.
5. Identify the first point where delegation, handoff, ownership, message ordering, or shared state diverged from the expected contract.
6. Decide the most likely failure mechanism and explain why competing mechanisms are less supported.
7. Define discriminating tests that could confirm or falsify the proposed mechanism.
8. Draft a corrected handoff contract that is narrow, testable, and preserves intended existing behavior.

Deliverable format:

1. Evidence inventory
Provide a table with columns:
- Artifact
- Evidence observed
- Reliability or limitation
- Coordination question it helps answer
- Missing information, if any

2. Coordination chronology
Provide an ordered table with columns:
- Step or timestamp
- Agent
- Message, action, or state operation
- Intended recipient or owner
- Shared state read or written
- Expected behavior
- Observed behavior
- Evidence reference
- Observation vs inference
- Confidence: high, medium, or low

3. Responsibility and state map
For each relevant agent, list:
- Delegated responsibility
- Decision authority
- Required inputs
- State it may read
- State it may write
- Handoff obligations
- Acknowledgment or completion signal
- Actual behavior seen in evidence
- Ownership ambiguity or conflict, if any

Then list shared-state objects or records with:
- State object
- Expected owner
- Writers
- Readers
- Versioning or ordering assumption
- Observed mutation or stale-read risk
- Evidence supporting the risk

4. First coordination divergence
State the earliest supported divergence in one sentence.
Then provide:
- Divergence type: delegation gap, handoff ambiguity, ownership conflict, message-ordering violation, stale shared state, unauthorized state mutation, missing acknowledgment, retry/idempotency failure, or other specified mechanism
- Exact expected contract at that point
- Exact observed deviation
- Why this is earlier than downstream symptoms
- Evidence supporting the decision
- Confidence level
- What evidence would change the conclusion

5. Failure mechanism decision
Compare the leading mechanism against plausible alternatives in a table:
- Candidate mechanism
- Supporting evidence
- Contradicting or missing evidence
- Predicted observable signal
- Decision: selected, possible, unlikely, or not assessable

6. Discriminating tests
Propose 3 to 6 tests or checks that the accountable engineering, automation, or operations owner can run. For each, include:
- Hypothesis tested
- Setup or evidence required
- Expected signal if the mechanism is correct
- Expected signal if the mechanism is wrong
- Owner best placed to verify
- Risk of false positive or false negative

Prefer tests that distinguish between message-ordering, ownership, handoff, and shared-state causes rather than merely reproducing the incident.

7. Corrected handoff contract
Draft the smallest safe correction. Include:
- Trigger condition
- Sending agent
- Receiving agent
- Required payload or state reference
- Preconditions
- State version or ordering requirement
- Acknowledgment rule
- Completion signal
- Timeout or retry behavior
- Idempotency requirement
- Conflict handling rule
- Audit fields or log events needed for future reconstruction
- Backward-compatibility or behavior-preservation note

8. Implementation boundary
State what should not be changed yet because the evidence does not justify it. Call out any broad workflow redesign, new orchestration pattern, or policy change that would be premature.

9. Completion checks
List observable criteria for considering this reconstruction complete, including:
- The first divergence is identified or the blocking evidence gap is explicit.
- The selected mechanism has at least one discriminating test.
- The corrected handoff contract is narrow enough for the responsible owner to implement or reject.
- The release owner, automation owner, or service owner can verify the proposed correction against logs, replay, tests, or production telemetry before adoption.