Field note / Document review
Actionability and correctness answer different questions.
What breaks
A reviewer may accept risk, apply an account exception or defer work. Record that decision and its scope. Do not turn every dismissal into a global negative training label.
Challenge the fix
Another customer with the same document condition may still require the action.
Worked example · fictional records
Finding F-22 · owner decision D-4
Evidence to inspect
The finding is factually correct; the owner marks it non-actionable for this policy version.
What would establish the fix
Retain correctness and actionability separately. Reapply D-4 only within its recorded scope.
Counterexample
A different policy revision must not silently inherit the dismissal.
This example explains the check. It does not report a customer result or a completed production run.
Explore the reliability workflow ↗
How the lesson shapes Tensile
Retain owner, reason, scope and effective version. Reruns can apply a decision without rewriting the original finding.
Explore this product area ↗
Anonymized engineering lesson. Example records are reconstructed for this preview; this is not a published customer case study or a measured result.
All field notes ↗
AI reliability, from production to customer outcome.