Yes, this is much closer to the kind of third case I was looking for.
The support / sales / spam routing boundary is a good fit because the downstream risk is not “bad extracted data,” but the workflow taking the wrong action without throwing a hard error.
For the current narrow Phase 1 test, the cleanest first version is:
webhook-triggered input
target schema like { class: enum[‘support’,‘sales’,‘spam’], confidence: float }
route only if the result passes the boundary, otherwise stop safely
If you’re open to it, the smallest next step would be:
a rough sample payload shape
the target schema you would actually use
one short note on what the downstream action would be for each class
A short outline is enough first — no need for a full payload yet.
If easier, feel free to DM.
This gives me enough to treat it as the next candidate case on my side.
The webhook shape, schema, and downstream actions are all clear, and this is a good fit because the main risk is wrong downstream branching/action rather than just bad extracted data.
On my side I’m separating it into two narrow layers:
schema / enum / malformed-structure boundary
threshold-policy boundary
So the first checks are things like:
valid structured output passes
invalid enum or malformed output stops safely
Then I can treat the confidence rule as the next policy layer:
route if confidence > 0.8
otherwise send to review
One thing I’ll keep explicit on my side:
schema-valid but semantically wrong classification is still a separate limitation unless there’s an expected-label or stronger routing-policy contract.
One quick clarification:
should I treat the 0.8 threshold as an example policy, or as the intended routing rule for this case?
I’ll treat the threshold as a configurable policy parameter, not a fixed contract.
So on my side I’ll keep the case split into:
schema / enum / malformed-structure boundary
threshold-policy boundary
And I’ll keep semantic-but-schema-valid wrong classification as a separate current limitation unless a stronger expected-label or routing-policy contract exists.
This is already enough for me to move the case forward on my side.
Thanks again.
I was able to use your example as the third materially different case in my narrow Phase 1 evaluation.
I kept the scope intentionally narrow on my side:
schema-boundary observation
provisional threshold-policy observation
I’m not treating it as proof of semantic correctness or a fixed threshold contract, but it was more than enough to move the case forward in a meaningful way.
I really appreciate you taking the time to spell out the payload shape, schema, downstream actions, and threshold guidance.