feat: treat disputed extracted values as unverified in constructability and critic prompts

backend/agents/construct_agent.py

@@ -47,6 +47,7 @@ class ConstructabilityAgent:
                 "assertions": dumps(cluster["assertions"]),
                 "clusters": dumps(slim_clusters([cluster])),
                 "conflicts": dumps(scope.payload.get("conflicts") or []),
+                "disputes": dumps(cluster.get("disputed_attributes") or []),
             }
             for key, value in substitutions.items():
                 instruction = instruction.replace("{" + key + "}", value)

backend/pipeline/conflict_checker.py

@@ -32,6 +32,16 @@ def _evidence_block(cluster: Dict) -> str:
             f"{a.get('attribute','')} = {a.get('value','')} | "
             f"\"{a.get('source_text','')}\""
         )
+    disputes = cluster.get("disputed_attributes") or []
+    if disputes:
+        lines.append("")
+        for d in disputes:
+            lines.append(
+                "DISPUTED VALUE (possible extraction misread): "
+                f"attribute={d.get('attribute','')} "
+                f"values={' | '.join(d.get('values') or [])} "
+                f"(assertions {', '.join(d.get('assertion_ids') or [])})"
+            )
     return "\n".join(lines)
 
 

backend/prompts.py

@@ -410,6 +410,9 @@ What is NOT a conflict:
 - Anything not supported with drawing evidence.
 Be conservative:
 - Only flag genuine disagreements.
+- When a value is marked DISPUTED (possible extraction misread), verify it against
+  the sheet images before relying on either reading; if the images do not resolve
+  it, do not assert a conflict from one reading alone.
 - A clean cluster with no contradiction must return an empty conflicts array.
 - missing_element requires evidence that another discipline would reasonably be expected to show the missing item.
 For each conflict:
@@ -545,6 +548,12 @@ Flag:
 Rules:
 - Only flag issues supported by drawing evidence.
 - Be specific about the location and why it is a constructability risk.
+- Assertions are machine-extracted from sheet images and may contain misread values,
+  especially quantities and member sizes (e.g. "(2) 2x6" vs "(5) 2x6").
+- When the cluster lists disputed_attributes, or two evidence items disagree on a
+  numeric value, do NOT assert a buildability conclusion from one reading. Report the
+  ambiguity itself (category "detail_gap", confidence "low") and state that the value
+  needs verification against the sheet.
 - Use plain ASCII only.
 Respond only with valid JSON."""
 
@@ -554,7 +563,8 @@ Respond ONLY with a valid JSON object - no markdown fences, no explanation:
 If no constructability issues are found, return: { "issues": [] }
 Extracted assertions: {assertions}
 Clusters: {clusters}
-Cross-discipline conflicts already found: {conflicts}"""
+Cross-discipline conflicts already found: {conflicts}
+Disputed extracted values in this cluster (possible vision misreads - treat as unverified): {disputes}"""
 
 
 # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------