CONTEXT ENGINEERING · PILOT V2

Repairing LLM Context

A nine-endpoint pilot on errors that survive downstream.

THE FINDING The source was gone. The error stayed.

Downstream turns had already absorbed it.

SOURCE ONLY 152 / 162

derailed outcomes recovered

RECOMPUTE 161 / 162

derailed outcomes recovered

WHOLE SUBGRAPH 162 / 162

derailed outcomes recovered

ONE CONTROLLED CASE

One bad value became conversation state.

A verified recount changed 30 parts per crate to 24. A later false turn reversed it, and three descendants repeated the stale value. The correct total was 107; the contaminated chain said 131.

1

Verify

30 becomes 24.

2

Pollute

A false turn restores 30.

3

Propagate

Later turns derive 120 and 131.

4

Delete

The false source is removed.

5

Ask again

Three of nine endpoints still answer 131.

Five graph conditions in the context repair flagship case
The final question never changes. Only the graph state does.
WHY THE WIRES MATTER

Editing context means repairing consequences.

Deleting the bad source changes what should be believed. It does not rewrite text that was already generated from it. An editable graph exposes the source, its descendants, and the order in which they can be rebuilt.

Recovery rates for three context repair strategies
A NARROW CLAIM

Not a model leaderboard. A test of graph intervention.

The pilot used synthetic, objectively scored tasks. It does not explain hidden reasoning, and it does not prove that every conversation needs a graph. It shows that propagated context errors require more than source deletion, and that graph operations make the repair testable.

See exactly what the model sees. Then change it.

ThoughtDAG is the open-source reference interface used to inspect and reproduce these graph interventions.