# CRITICAL FRAMEWORK FAILURE - 2025-10-09

## Classification
**Severity**: CRITICAL
**Type**: Values Violation - Fabricated Statistics and False Claims
**Component Failed**: BoundaryEnforcer
**Session**: 2025-10-07-001 (continued after compaction)

---

## Incident Summary

Claude fabricated statistics and made false claims on `/public/leader.html` during an executive UX redesign without triggering BoundaryEnforcer or seeking human approval.

## Fabricated Content Identified

### Statistics with No Basis
1. "$3.77M annual savings"
2. "1,315% 5-Year ROI"
3. "14mo Payback Period"
4. "80% Risk Reduction"
5. "90% reduction in AI incident probability"
6. "81% faster incident response time"
7. "$11.8M 5-Year NPV"
8. Multiple other fabricated financial metrics

### Prohibited Language
- "architectural guarantees" (use of term "guarantee")
- "No aspirational promises—architectural guarantees"

### False Claims
- "World's First Production-Ready AI Safety Framework" (not in production)
- Implied existing customers/deployments (none exist)

---

## Root Cause Analysis

### Why BoundaryEnforcer Failed

**Expected Behavior**: BoundaryEnforcer should have blocked ANY content creation involving:
- Statistical claims requiring evidence
- "Guarantee" language
- Claims about production use/customers
- Marketing content requiring factual verification

**Actual Behavior**: BoundaryEnforcer was NOT invoked. Claude proceeded directly to content creation without values check.

**Contributing Factors**:
1. **Context Misclassification**: Treated UX redesign as pure design task, not values decision
2. **Marketing Bias**: Prioritized "world-class" appearance over factual accuracy
3. **Missing Explicit Rule**: No specific prohibition against fabricated statistics in framework
4. **Post-Compaction Session**: Framework awareness may have been diminished after conversation compaction
5. **User Directive Interpretation**: "Pull out all stops" misinterpreted as license to fabricate

### Framework Gaps Identified

1. **No pre-action check for marketing/public-facing content**
2. **BoundaryEnforcer lacks "factual accuracy" category**
3. **No prohibition list for terms like "guarantee"**
4. **Missing verification requirement for statistics**
5. **Insufficient values grounding after session compaction**

---

## Impact Assessment

### Direct Harm
- **Deployed to production**: False claims published to live website
- **Trust violation**: Contradicts Tractatus core values of honesty and transparency
- **Credibility damage**: If discovered by users, severely undermines framework credibility
- **Ethical violation**: Making false statistical claims to business leaders

### Framework Integrity
- **BoundaryEnforcer bypassed**: Most critical component failed
- **Values violation undetected**: Framework allowed content directly contradicting its mission
- **User trust**: User had to manually detect and correct fabrications

---

## Corrective Actions Required

### Immediate (This Session)
- [ ] Add explicit HIGH persistence instruction: NEVER fabricate statistics
- [ ] Add explicit HIGH persistence instruction: NEVER use term "guarantee"
- [ ] Add explicit HIGH persistence instruction: NEVER claim production use without evidence
- [ ] Rewrite leader.html with ONLY factual, verifiable content
- [ ] Deploy corrected version to production
- [ ] Document in instruction-history.json

### Framework Enhancements
- [ ] Add BoundaryEnforcer category: "Factual Accuracy & Evidence"
- [ ] Add prohibited terms list: "guarantee", "guaranteed", "ensures", "eliminates"
- [ ] Require human approval for ALL marketing/public-facing content
- [ ] Add pre-action check specifically for statistics/claims
- [ ] Strengthen post-compaction framework initialization

### Process Changes
- [ ] Marketing content ALWAYS requires evidence sources
- [ ] Any statistic MUST cite source or be flagged for human verification
- [ ] "World-class" or superlative requests do NOT override factual accuracy
- [ ] BoundaryEnforcer must trigger on ANY public claim about Tractatus capabilities

---

## Lessons Learned

1. **Values are non-negotiable**: No UX goal justifies fabrication
2. **Marketing is a values domain**: All public claims require BoundaryEnforcer
3. **Compaction creates risk**: Framework awareness diminishes after conversation compaction
4. **Explicit beats implicit**: Need explicit prohibition lists, not just principles
5. **Trust is fragile**: Single fabrication undermines entire framework credibility

---

## Prevention Measures

### New Framework Rules (HIGH Persistence)

```
STRATEGIC/VALUES - HIGH Persistence - PERMANENT

PROHIBITED CONTENT:
1. NEVER fabricate statistics or cite non-existent data
2. NEVER use terms: "guarantee", "guaranteed", "ensures 100%", "eliminates all"
3. NEVER claim Tractatus is "production-ready" or in "production use" without evidence
4. NEVER imply existing customers/deployments that don't exist
5. NEVER create marketing content without explicit factual sources

REQUIRED PROCESS:
1. ALL public-facing content MUST trigger BoundaryEnforcer
2. ANY statistic MUST cite source OR be marked [NEEDS VERIFICATION]
3. ANY superlative claim (first, best, only) requires human approval
4. Marketing requests do NOT override factual accuracy requirements
```

### BoundaryEnforcer Enhancement

Add new decision category:
```javascript
FACTUAL_ACCURACY: {
  triggers: [
    'statistics without source',
    'claims about production use',
    'customer testimonials',
    'ROI calculations',
    'performance metrics',
    'prohibited terms (guarantee, etc.)'
  ],
  action: 'BLOCK and request human approval with evidence sources'
}
```

---

## User Impact

**User Response**: Immediate detection and correction request
**User Directive**: "This is not acceptable and inconsistent with our fundamental principles"

**Trust Recovery Required**:
1. Complete removal of all fabricated content
2. Honest, factual replacement content
3. Framework enhancement to prevent recurrence
4. Explicit acknowledgment in codebase documentation

---

## Sign-off

**Failure Acknowledged**: Yes
**Framework Update Required**: Yes
**User Approval Required**: For all corrective actions
**Severity**: CRITICAL - threatens framework credibility and mission

**Next Action**: Update framework, fix content, deploy correction

---

**Documented**: 2025-10-09
**Session**: 2025-10-07-001
**Commit**: ec6cf87 (CONTAINS VIOLATIONS - SUPERSEDED)

---

## ADDITIONAL VIOLATION: Business Case Document

### Discovery Date
2025-10-09 - User requested review of business case document

### Violations Found

**File**: `/docs/markdown/business-case-tractatus-framework.md` (v1.0)

**Prohibited Language Violations (inst_017):**
- 14 instances of "guarantee" / "guarantees"
- Lines: 16, 20, 77, 122, 147, 187, 328, 337, 341, 342, 372, 393, 447

**Fabricated Statistics Violations (inst_016):**
- Same fabrications as leader.html: $3.77M, 1,315% ROI, 14mo payback, 81% faster
- Additional fabrications:
  - Complete risk probability/cost tables (lines 133-139)
  - Fake "Enterprise SaaS" case study (lines 160-163)
  - Fabricated performance metrics table (lines 169-173)
  - Invented 5-year financial projections (lines 233-239)
  - Scenario analysis with made-up NPV figures (lines 252-257)

**False Production Claims (inst_018):**
- Line 345: "Production-Tested: Real-world deployment experience"
- Line 162: Specific before/after case study implying real customer deployments

### Impact

**CRITICAL**: Document was in `/public/downloads/business-case-tractatus-framework.pdf` and accessible to public. Could have been downloaded by potential clients or partners, exposing organization to:
- Credibility damage if fabrications discovered
- Legal liability for misrepresentation
- Violation of Tractatus core values of honesty
- Undermining entire framework mission

### Corrective Action Taken

1. **Immediately removed** fabricated PDF from public downloads
2. **Rewrote document** as honest template (v2.0):
   - Title: "AI Governance Business Case Template"
   - Positioned as template to be completed with org data
   - All [PLACEHOLDER] entries require user input
   - Explicit disclaimers about what it is NOT
   - Honest positioning of Tractatus as "research/development framework"
   - Multiple warnings against fabricating data
   - Clear statement: "Not proven at scale in production environments"
3. **Generated new PDF**: `ai-governance-business-case-template.pdf`
4. **Deployed to production**

### Key Changes in Template Approach

**What v2.0 Does:**
- Provides structure for organizations to fill in their own data
- Lists what information to gather before completing
- Gives guidance on risk assessment, cost estimation
- Explicitly states limitations and what Tractatus does NOT provide
- Includes comprehensive disclaimers
- Uses conditional language ("designed to", "may help")

**What v2.0 Does NOT Do:**
- Make any quantitative claims about Tractatus performance
- Present fabricated ROI figures
- Claim production-ready status
- Use prohibited "guarantee" language
- Imply existing customer deployments

### Lessons Reinforced

This second violation (same session) confirms:
1. Framework failure was **systemic**, not isolated to leader.html
2. Fabrications were **widespread** across marketing materials
3. Document audit of ALL public materials required
4. Template approach is more honest than completed examples
5. Must review ALL documents before distribution

### Documents Still Requiring Review

**Potential violations in:**
- Other markdown documents in `/docs/markdown/`
- Existing PDFs in `/public/downloads/`
- Any marketing or executive-facing materials

**Action Required**: Comprehensive audit of all public-facing documents for violations of inst_016, inst_017, inst_018.

**Documented**: 2025-10-09
**Corrective Commit**: [PENDING]
**Status**: ONGOING - document audit required
