Family Memory Ladder - hybrid_pressure

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "runtime_reset",
  "message": "Runtime KB reset to baseline seed state.",
  "knowledge_base_path": "D:\\_PROJECTS\\prolog-reasoning\\prolog\\core.pl"
}

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "pre_think",
  "input_utterance": "Family ledger seed: Nora is parent of Ava. Liam is parent of Ava. Ava is parent of Owen. Owen is parent of Piper.",
  "processed_utterance": "User asserts foundational family ledger seed facts establishing direct lineage relationships; these statements are treated as high-confidence assertions for the knowledge base.",
  "fallback_used": false,
  "normalization_reason": "model_output",
  "history_turns": 6,
  "narrative_context": "",
  "handoff_mode": "rewrite",
  "kb_ingest_mode": "facts",
  "max_candidate_facts": 24,
  "candidate_facts": [
    "parent(nora, ava).",
    "parent(liam, ava).",
    "parent(ava, owen).",
    "parent(owen, piper)."
  ],
  "requested_candidate_facts": 4,
  "attempted_candidate_facts": 4,
  "ingested_facts_count": 4,
  "rejected_candidate_facts_count": 0,
  "ingested_facts": [
    "parent(nora, ava).",
    "parent(liam, ava).",
    "parent(ava, owen).",
    "parent(owen, piper)."
  ],
  "rejected_candidate_facts": [],
  "prethinker_model": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b",
  "pre_think_skill_path": "skills/pre-think/SKILL.md",
  "prethinker_base_url": "http://127.0.0.1:1234",
  "temperature": 0.0,
  "context_length": 4000,
  "assistant_message": "{\n  \"processed_utterance\": \"User asserts foundational family ledger seed facts establishing direct lineage relationships; these statements are treated as high-confidence assertions for the knowledge base.\",\n  \"candidate_facts\": [\n    \"parent(nora, ava).\",\n    \"parent(liam, ava).\",\n    \"parent(ava, owen).\",\n    \"parent(owen, piper).\"\n  ]\n}",
  "raw_response": {
    "model_instance_id": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b:2",
    "output": [
      {
        "type": "reasoning",
        "content": "Thinking Process:\n\n1.  **Analyze the Request:**\n    *   Role: Pre-think utterance processor for a downstream reasoning model.\n    *   Task: Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance based on SKILL guidance.\n    *   Constraints:\n        *   Preserve intent, uncertainty, constraints, corrections.\n        *   Do NOT answer the question.\n        *   Do NOT invent facts.\n        *   Do NOT call tools.\n        *   Return JSON only with keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n        *   `candidate_facts`: Array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence (Do not include uncertain facts).\n        *   Style: One to three sentences, plain text only for `processed_utterance`, no markdown.\n    *   Input Utterance: \"Family ledger seed: Nora is parent of Ava. Liam is parent of Ava. Ava is parent of Owen. Owen is parent of Piper.\"\n    *   Context: Recent pre-think context shows similar family lineage queries and extensions. The current input looks like an initialization or seeding of facts rather than a query.\n\n2.  **Analyze the Input Utterance:**\n    *   Content: It provides a set of relationships (parent-child) to be added to the knowledge base (\"Family ledger seed\").\n    *   Intent: To establish ground truth facts about family lineage.\n    *   Confidence: High (stated as \"seed\", implying foundational data).\n    *   Constraints: None explicitly stated other than the nature of a seed.\n    *   Format: Declarative statements separated by periods.\n\n3.  **Apply SKILL Guidance:**\n    *   Goal: Transform into a cleaner continuation utterance for downstream reasoning.\n    *   Rewrite Rules:\n        *   Preserve intent (adding facts).\n        *   Preserve uncertainty (none here, seems definitive).\n        *   Apply directive transformations (none needed like translation).\n        *   Keep output concise.\n    *   Candidate Facts: Since the input states these as \"seed\" facts with high confidence (implied by the nature of a seed), I should extract them as grounded Prolog facts for `candidate_facts`. However, the instruction says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" These seem certain within the context of the seed.\n    *   Wait, looking at the examples:\n        *   Example 1 (Uncertain): Output includes \"Tentative candidate fact...\".\n        *   Example 2 (Correction): Output includes \"Correction candidate...\".\n        *   Example 3 (Translation): Output is the translation.\n    *   The current input is a batch of facts. I need to rewrite it as a processed utterance that signals these are being asserted.\n    *   For `candidate_facts`: The instruction says \"array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\". Since this is a \"seed\", the confidence is high. I should extract the relationships.\n    *   Format for `processed_utterance`: Plain text, 1-3 sentences.\n    *   Format for `candidate_facts`: JSON array (implied by the output structure requirement).\n\n4.  **Drafting `processed_utterance`:**\n    *   Input: \"Family ledger seed: Nora is parent of Ava. Liam is parent of Ava. Ava is parent of Owen. Owen is parent of Piper.\"\n    *   Rewrite: User provides foundational family ledger facts establishing direct lineage relationships; these statements are treated as high-confidence assertions for the knowledge base.\n    *   Check constraints: Plain text, no markdown. 1-3 sentences.\n\n5.  **Drafting `candidate_facts`:**\n    *   Need Prolog-like facts.\n    *   Facts: `parent(nora, ava).`, `parent(liam, ava).`, `parent(ava, owen).`, `parent(owen, piper).`\n    *   Constraint Check: \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" These are seeds, so they are certain in this context.\n\n6.  **Refining based on Examples:**\n    *   Example 4 & 5 (Extension): Input \"Extension: Rhea is parent of Sol.\" -> Output \"Extension: Rhea is parent of Sol.\"\n    *   This input starts with \"Family ledger seed:\". It's similar to an extension but foundational.\n    *   I should reflect the intent clearly.\n    *   Draft: User asserts foundational family ledger facts establishing direct lineage; these relationships are treated as high-confidence assertions for the knowledge base.\n\n7.  **Final JSON Construction:**\n    *   `processed_utterance`: \"User asserts foundational family ledger facts establishing direct lineage; these relationships are treated as high-confidence assertions for the knowledge base.\"\n    *   `candidate_facts`: [\"parent(nora, ava).\", \"parent(liam, ava).\", \"parent(ava, owen).\", \"parent(owen, piper).\"]\n\n8.  **Double Check Constraints:**\n    *   JSON only? Yes.\n    *   Keys correct? `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n    *   No markdown in `processed_utterance`? Yes.\n    *   Do not answer the question? There is no question, just facts. I am processing the input.\n    *   Do not invent facts? I am extracting what was said.\n    *   Preserve uncertainty? None present, so none preserved (high confidence).\n    *   Candidate facts: Only high confidence. These are seeds, so high confidence.\n\n    Wait, looking closely at Example 1: \"Maybe my mother was Ann.\" -> Output includes \"Tentative candidate fact...\".\n    Looking at Example 4/5: \"Extension: Rhea is parent of Sol.\" -> Output \"Extension: Rhea is parent of Sol.\" (No explicit fact extraction in the example output text, but the prompt asks for `candidate_facts` in the JSON response).\n    The prompt instruction says: \"Return JSON only with keys: - processed_utterance... - candidate_facts...\"\n    So I must provide both.\n\n    Let's refine the `processed_utterance` to match the style of previous turns (e.g., turn 1, 2, 3).\n    Turn 1: \"User queries whether Liam is currently Ava's parent; reasoning must verify current direct lineage status based on confirmed family ledger facts.\"\n    Turn 4: \"Extension: Rhea is parent of Sol.\"\n    Turn 6: \"Who are Sol's ancestors now?\"\n\n    My input is a batch assertion.\n    Draft: User provides foundational family ledger seed facts establishing direct lineage relationships; these statements are treated as high-confidence assertions for the knowledge base.\n\n    Let's check the `candidate_facts` format. The examples don't show the JSON structure explicitly in the \"Examples\" section of the SKILL, but the instruction says \"Return JSON only with keys...\".\n    I will use standard Prolog syntax for facts.\n\n    One more check: \"Do not include uncertain facts.\"\n    Since these are seeds, they are certain. So I include them.\n\n    Final check on `processed_utterance` style: \"Plain text only. No markdown.\"\n    My draft: \"User provides foundational family ledger seed facts establishing direct lineage relationships; these statements are treated as high-confidence assertions for the knowledge base.\" -> This is plain text.\n\n    Wait, I need to make sure I don't violate \"Do NOT answer the question\". There is no question here, just data input. So processing it as data ingestion is correct.\n\n    Let's finalize the JSON.\n\n    One nuance: The instruction says \"candidate_facts: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\".\n    I will format them as strings representing Prolog terms.\n\n    Revised `processed_utterance`: User provides foundational family ledger seed facts establishing direct lineage relationships; these statements are treated as high-confidence assertions for the knowledge base.\n\n    Wait, looking at Turn 4/5 in context: \"Extension: Rhea is parent of Sol.\" -> processed: \"Extension: Rhea is parent of Sol.\"\n    This suggests if it's a simple extension, keep it simple. But this is a \"Family ledger seed\" with multiple facts. It's more like initialization.\n    I will describe the action taken on the input.\n\n    Final check on constraints:\n    - JSON only.\n    - Keys: processed_utterance, candidate_facts.\n    - No markdown in values (except inside JSON string quotes).\n    - No tools called.\n\n    Let's construct the JSON.\n\n    One detail from SKILL: \"If SKILL guidance includes directive transformations (for example translation), apply them.\" None here.\n    \"Keep first-person ambiguity explicit.\" None here.\n
... [truncated]

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "bulk_fact_assertion",
  "requested_count": 4,
  "asserted_count": 4,
  "failed_count": 0,
  "asserted_facts": [
    "parent(nora, ava).",
    "parent(liam, ava).",
    "parent(ava, owen).",
    "parent(owen, piper)."
  ],
  "failed_facts": [],
  "message": "Bulk assertion complete."
}

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "pre_think",
  "input_utterance": "Who are Piper's ancestors right now?",
  "processed_utterance": "User queries Piper's current ancestors based on established family ledger facts; reasoning must trace lineage backward from Piper to identify all recorded predecessors within the current knowledge state.",
  "fallback_used": false,
  "normalization_reason": "model_output",
  "history_turns": 6,
  "narrative_context": "",
  "handoff_mode": "rewrite",
  "kb_ingest_mode": "facts",
  "max_candidate_facts": 24,
  "candidate_facts": [],
  "requested_candidate_facts": 0,
  "attempted_candidate_facts": 0,
  "ingested_facts_count": 0,
  "rejected_candidate_facts_count": 0,
  "ingested_facts": [],
  "rejected_candidate_facts": [],
  "prethinker_model": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b",
  "pre_think_skill_path": "skills/pre-think/SKILL.md",
  "prethinker_base_url": "http://127.0.0.1:1234",
  "temperature": 0.0,
  "context_length": 4000,
  "assistant_message": "{\n  \"processed_utterance\": \"User queries Piper's current ancestors based on established family ledger facts; reasoning must trace lineage backward from Piper to identify all recorded predecessors within the current knowledge state.\",\n  \"candidate_facts\": []\n}",
  "raw_response": {
    "model_instance_id": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b:2",
    "output": [
      {
        "type": "reasoning",
        "content": "Thinking Process:\n\n1.  **Analyze the Request:**\n    *   Role: Pre-think utterance processor.\n    *   Task: Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance for downstream reasoning.\n    *   Constraints: Keep original intent, uncertainty, constraints. Do NOT answer, invent facts, or call tools. Return JSON with `processed_utterance` and `candidate_facts`.\n    *   SKILL Guidance: Preserve intent, uncertainty, corrections, constraints. Apply directive transformations (e.g., translation). Keep output concise (1-3 sentences, plain text).\n    *   Input Utterance: \"Who are Piper's ancestors right now?\"\n    *   Context: Recent pre-think context shows a family ledger being built (Nora->Ava, Liam->Ava, Ava->Owen, Owen->Piper). The user is asking about Piper's ancestors based on this established lineage.\n\n2.  **Analyze the Input Utterance:**\n    *   Content: Querying for Piper's ancestors.\n    *   Temporal qualifier: \"right now\" (implies current state of knowledge/ledger).\n    *   Intent: Information retrieval/reasoning based on existing facts.\n    *   Confidence/Uncertainty: None explicitly stated in the query itself, but implies reliance on established facts (as per previous context turns about \"confirmed facts only\").\n\n3.  **Apply SKILL Guidance:**\n    *   Preserve intent: Querying lineage/ancestors.\n    *   Preserve constraints: Use existing family ledger facts (implied by recent context of \"Family ledger seed\" and \"Using confirmed facts only\").\n    *   Rewrite Rules: Keep output concise, plain text, 1-3 sentences.\n    *   Candidate Facts: The prompt asks for `candidate_facts` array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence. Since this is a query, not an assertion, there are no new facts to assert *from the utterance itself*. However, I need to check if the rewrite implies grounding existing facts. The instruction says \"Do NOT invent facts.\" The query doesn't add facts. So `candidate_facts` should likely be empty or reflect the reasoning state if applicable. Looking at previous examples in the context:\n        *   Turn 6 input: \"Family ledger seed...\" -> processed: \"...treated as high-confidence assertions...\"\n        *   Turn 2 input: \"Using confirmed facts only...\" -> processed: \"...reasoning must verify existence...\"\n        *   This turn is a query. There are no new facts to assert. I should leave `candidate_facts` empty or null if no facts are being asserted. The instruction says \"array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\". Since this is a question, no assertion happens here. I will return an empty array.\n\n4.  **Drafting the `processed_utterance`:**\n    *   Original: \"Who are Piper's ancestors right now?\"\n    *   Goal: Make it cleaner for reasoning.\n    *   Draft 1: User queries Piper's current ancestors based on the established family ledger; reasoning must trace lineage backwards from Piper using confirmed parent-child relationships.\n    *   Draft 2 (Closer to style): User requests identification of Piper's ancestors based on current knowledge state; reasoning must traverse the established family ledger backward from Piper to identify all direct and indirect predecessors.\n    *   Refining for conciseness and adherence to \"Preserve intent... constraints\": The context shows a specific lineage (Nora->Ava, Liam->Ava, Ava->Owen, Owen->Piper). The query asks for ancestors \"right now\".\n    *   Draft 3: User queries the current set of Piper's ancestors based on established family ledger facts; reasoning must trace lineage backward from Piper to identify all recorded predecessors.\n\n5.  **Drafting `candidate_facts`:**\n    *   Since this is a query, no new facts are asserted.\n    *   Instruction: \"Do NOT invent facts.\"\n    *   Instruction: \"array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\".\n    *   Decision: Empty array `[]`.\n\n6.  **Final Review against Constraints:**\n    *   JSON only? Yes.\n    *   Keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`? Yes.\n    *   No markdown in processed text? Yes.\n    *   Preserve intent/uncertainty/constraints? Yes (intent is query, constraint is current ledger state).\n    *   Do not answer? Yes (just rewriting the query).\n\n7.  **Final Polish:**\n    *   Ensure the processed utterance sounds like a system instruction or internal representation of the user's intent for the reasoning model.\n    *   Previous examples show the processed text often explains *what* the user is doing and *how* it should be treated (e.g., \"User asserts...\", \"User queries...\").\n    *   Selected Draft: User queries Piper's current ancestors based on established family ledger facts; reasoning must trace lineage backward from Piper to identify all recorded predecessors.\n\n8.  **Construct JSON:**\n    ```json\n    {\n      \"processed_utterance\": \"User queries Piper's current ancestors based on established family ledger facts; reasoning must trace lineage backward from Piper to identify all recorded predecessors.\",\n      \"candidate_facts\": []\n    }\n    ```\n    Wait, checking the style guide again: \"Plain text only. No markdown.\" inside the value. The JSON structure itself is fine.\n    Checking previous context turn 2: \"User queries whether Uma has a recorded parent using confirmed facts only; reasoning must verify existence of direct lineage status based on established family ledger facts.\"\n    My draft aligns well with Turn 2's style.\n\n    One more check on `candidate_facts`. The prompt says \"Do NOT invent facts.\" Since the user is asking, not stating, there are no candidate facts to assert *from this utterance*. I will keep it empty.\n\n    Wait, looking at Turn 1: \"Tentative memo indicates Quinn may be parent of Uma...\" -> This was an assertion/hypothesis from the input.\n    Turn 6: \"User asserts foundational family ledger seed facts...\" -> Input was assertions.\n    Current Input: Query. So no facts to assert.\n\n    Final check on constraints: \"Keep output concise and directly usable as next-turn input.\"\n    The draft is one sentence, plain text.\n\n    Let's refine the processed utterance slightly to match the \"cleaner, more explicit continuation\" goal while keeping the \"right now\" temporal qualifier implicit in \"current\".\n    Revised: User queries Piper's current ancestors based on established family ledger facts; reasoning must trace lineage backward from Piper to identify all recorded predecessors within the current knowledge state.\n\n    Actually, looking at Turn 2 processed output: \"User queries whether Uma has a recorded parent using confirmed facts only; reasoning must verify existence of direct lineage status based on established family ledger facts.\"\n    My draft is similar enough. I will stick close to that pattern.\n\n    Final check on JSON format. No markdown around the JSON block? The instruction says \"Return JSON only\". Usually, this means raw JSON text. But often in these interfaces, it's wrapped in code blocks. However, strict instruction \"Return JSON only\" usually implies no markdown fences. I will output raw JSON text to be safe, or standard markdown code block if that's the norm for this specific persona. Looking at the system prompt \"Return JSON only with keys...\". I will output raw JSON string without markdown fences to strictly follow \"JSON only\". Wait, looking at the examples in the prompt description (Input/Output), they show text. But the instruction says \"Return JSON only\". I will provide a valid JSON object.\n\n    Wait, re-reading: \"Return JSON only with keys...\".\n    Okay, I will output the JSON string.\n\n    One detail: \"Do NOT include uncertain facts.\" -> Empty array is safe.\n\n    Let's finalize the text.\n    \"User queries Piper's current ancestors based on established family ledger facts; reasoning must trace lineage backward from Piper to identify all recorded predecessors.\"\n    This captures the intent and constraints (established facts, current state).\n\n    Wait, I need to make sure I don't answer the question. The processed utterance is a meta-description of the query, not the answer itself.\n    Example Turn 2: Input \"Using confirmed facts only, does Uma have a recorded parent?\" -> Output \"User queries whether Uma has a recorded parent using confirmed facts only...\" (Not answering).\n    My draft follows this pattern.\n\n    One more check: \"Keep temporal qualifiers explicit.\" The input says \"right now\". My draft says \"current ancestors\" and \"current knowledge state\". T
... [truncated]

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "table",
  "predicate": "ancestor",
  "prolog_query": "ancestor(X, piper).",
  "variables": [
    "X"
  ],
  "rows": [
    {
      "X": "owen"
    },
    {
      "X": "nora"
    },
    {
      "X": "liam"
    },
    {
      "X": "ava"
    }
  ],
  "num_rows": 4,
  "reasoning_basis": {
    "kind": "rule-derived",
    "note": "The `ancestor` predicate is typically computed through rules rather than stored as a single explicit fact."
  }
}

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "pre_think",
  "input_utterance": "Correction: Liam is not Ava's parent. Replace with Theo as Ava's parent.",
  "processed_utterance": "Correction: Liam is not Ava's parent. Replace with Theo as Ava's parent.",
  "fallback_used": true,
  "normalization_reason": "empty_model_output",
  "history_turns": 6,
  "narrative_context": "",
  "handoff_mode": "rewrite",
  "kb_ingest_mode": "facts",
  "max_candidate_facts": 24,
  "candidate_facts": [],
  "requested_candidate_facts": 0,
  "attempted_candidate_facts": 0,
  "ingested_facts_count": 0,
  "rejected_candidate_facts_count": 0,
  "ingested_facts": [],
  "rejected_candidate_facts": [],
  "prethinker_model": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b",
  "pre_think_skill_path": "skills/pre-think/SKILL.md",
  "prethinker_base_url": "http://127.0.0.1:1234",
  "temperature": 0.0,
  "context_length": 4000,
  "assistant_message": "",
  "raw_response": {
    "model_instance_id": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b:2",
    "output": [
      {
        "type": "reasoning",
        "content": "Thinking Process:\n\n1.  **Analyze the Request:**\n    *   Role: Pre-think utterance processor for a downstream reasoning model.\n    *   Task: Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance based on SKILL guidance.\n    *   Input Utterance: `Correction: Liam is not Ava's parent. Replace with Theo as Ava's parent.`\n    *   Constraints:\n        *   Preserve intent (correction/revision).\n        *   Preserve uncertainty/confidence cues (here it seems high confidence correction, but must be explicit about the revision nature).\n        *   Preserve constraints (none specific beyond the correction itself).\n        *   Do NOT answer the question.\n        *   Do NOT invent facts.\n        *   Do NOT call tools.\n        *   Output format: JSON with keys `processed_utterance` and `candidate_facts`.\n        *   `candidate_facts`: Array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence. Do not include uncertain facts.\n        *   Style: One to three sentences, plain text only (for `processed_utterance`), no markdown in the text value.\n    *   SKILL Guidance Specifics:\n        *   Rewrite rules: Keep corrections as corrections. Apply directive transformations if any (none here). Keep output concise.\n        *   Examples show how to frame corrections (e.g., \"Correction candidate: previous entity Bob is replaced by Alice...\").\n        *   Context shows a family ledger scenario (Nora, Ava, Liam, Owen, Piper, Rhea, Sol). Previous context established `Liam is parent of Ava` (from input #5 in recent pre-think context). Now the user is correcting this.\n\n2.  **Analyze the Input Utterance:**\n    *   Content: `Correction: Liam is not Ava's parent. Replace with Theo as Ava's parent.`\n    *   Intent: Revise a fact about Ava's parentage. Remove Liam, add Theo.\n    *   Confidence: High (stated as \"Correction\").\n    *   Contextual Fact: Previous context (#5) stated `Liam is parent of Ava`. This utterance explicitly negates that and proposes a new one.\n\n3.  **Drafting `processed_utterance`:**\n    *   Must reflect the correction intent clearly.\n    *   Must indicate the revision signal (removing Liam, adding Theo).\n    *   Must be concise (1-3 sentences).\n    *   Draft 1: Correction candidate: previous fact stating Liam is Ava's parent is revoked; new assertion is that Theo is Ava's parent.\n    *   Draft 2 (aligning with Example 2 style): Correction candidate: previous entity Liam as parent of Ava is replaced by Theo; treat this as a revision signal to update the family ledger.\n    *   Refining for clarity and adherence to \"Preserve corrections as corrections\":\n    *   `Correction candidate: fact stating Liam is Ava's parent is revoked in favor of Theo being Ava's parent; treat this as a revision signal to update the established lineage.`\n\n4.  **Drafting `candidate_facts`:**\n    *   Constraint: \"Do not include uncertain facts.\"\n    *   Constraint: \"Array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence.\"\n    *   The user is asserting a correction with high confidence (\"Correction: ... Replace with...\").\n    *   However, the instruction says \"Do NOT answer the question. Do NOT invent facts.\" and \"candidate_facts: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\".\n    *   In the context of a pre-think stage, we are rewriting the utterance for the main model. The `candidate_facts` field is for the system to potentially use later or indicate what facts *would* be asserted if the main model accepts this as ground truth.\n    *   Looking at Example 1: `Tentative candidate fact: speaker says their mother may have been Ann...` (No Prolog fact in output, just description). Wait, looking at the JSON structure requirement: `candidate_facts: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence`.\n    *   If the user is making a high-confidence correction, should I extract the fact?\n    *   Example 1 Output was text only. But the current prompt requires JSON with `candidate_facts`.\n    *   Let's look at the instruction: \"Return JSON only with keys: - processed_utterance: rewritten continuation text - candidate_facts: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\".\n    *   If I treat this as a high-confidence assertion (since it says \"Correction\" and \"Replace\"), I should extract the new fact.\n    *   Fact 1: `parent(theo, ava).` (Based on \"Theo as Ava's parent\").\n    *   Fact 2: Should I negate Liam? Usually, in knowledge bases, you retract or just overwrite. The instruction says \"Do NOT invent facts\". Retraction is implied by correction. But for `candidate_facts`, usually positive assertions are safer unless the schema supports negation. Given the context of \"Family ledger\", standard Prolog facts are likely `parent(X, Y)`.\n    *   However, the prompt says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" This implies if I'm unsure, don't put it. Here the user is confident.\n    *   But wait, looking at Example 1 in the SKILL guidance: The output was just text. The current instruction overrides that slightly by asking for JSON with `candidate_facts`.\n    *   Let's check the constraint: \"Do NOT answer the question.\" This is a correction command, not a question.\n    *   Let's check the constraint: \"Do NOT invent facts.\" I am extracting what the user said.\n    *   So, `candidate_facts` should contain the new relationship asserted by the user.\n    *   Fact: `parent(theo, ava).`\n    *   Should I include the retraction? Prolog doesn't have native negation of facts easily without explicit predicates like `\\+ parent(liam, ava)`. But usually, in these reasoning contexts, asserting the new fact implies the old one is outdated. However, to be precise about the \"Correction\", maybe just the new fact is enough for `candidate_facts` as it represents the *new* grounded truth.\n    *   Wait, looking at Example 1 again: `Tentative candidate fact: speaker says their mother may have been Ann; speaker identity is unresolved and requires clarification before persistence.` This example output was text, not JSON. The current prompt asks for JSON. I must follow the current prompt's JSON schema requirement while adhering to the SKILL guidance style.\n    *   Actually, looking closely at the \"Recent pre-think context\", the `processed` field is just text. But the *current* instruction says \"Return JSON only with keys...\". This is a specific override for this turn or a general system instruction. I must follow the explicit instruction: \"Return JSON only with keys...\".\n    *   So, `candidate_facts`: If high confidence, assert the fact. The user says \"Replace with Theo as Ava's parent.\" This is a direct assertion.\n    *   Fact: `parent(theo, ava).`\n    *   Is it grounded? Yes, based on the utterance.\n    *   Is it uncertain? No, stated as correction.\n    *   What about Liam? The user says \"Liam is not Ava's parent\". This is a negation. In Prolog, `parent(liam, ava)` would be false if retracted. But usually, we only assert positive facts in these schemas unless specified. I will include the new fact as it represents the update.\n    *   Wait, one more check: \"Do NOT invent facts.\" The user provided the names. I am just formatting them into Prolog syntax.\n    *   Let's refine the `processed_utterance` to match the style of Example 2 (\"Correction candidate...\").\n\n5.  **Finalizing Content:**\n    *   `processed_utterance`: Correction candidate: previous fact stating Liam is Ava's parent is revoked in favor of Theo being Ava's parent; treat this as a revision signal to update the established lineage.\n    *   `candidate_facts`: [`parent(theo, ava).`] (Assuming standard Prolog syntax for family ledger based on context \"Nora is parent of Ava\").\n\n6.  **Review against Constraints:**\n    *   JSON only? Yes.\n    *   Keys correct? Yes (`processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`).\n    *   Preserve intent? Yes (Correction/Revision).\n    *   Preserve uncertainty? It's high confidence correction, so no uncertainty markers needed in the fact list, but the text explains it's a revision.\n    *   Do not answer? Yes, just rewriting.\n    *   Do not invent facts? No, using user names.\n    *   Style: 1-3 sentences for text. Plain text.\n\n7.  **Final Polish:**\n    *   Ensure the `processed_utterance` doesn't use markdown (no bolding).\n    *   Ensure `candidate_facts` is a valid JSON array of strings.\n\n    *   Wait, looking at Example 1 in SKILL guidance again:\n        Input: `Maybe my mother was Ann.`\n        Output: `Tentative candidate fact: speaker says their mother may have been Ann; speaker identity is unresolved and requires clarification before persistence.`\n        This output was text. The current instruction says \"Return JSON only\". I will follow the current instruction's JSON requirement as it supersedes the example format for this specific tool call structure.\n\n    *   Wait, looking
... [truncated]

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "bulk_fact_assertion",
  "requested_count": 1,
  "asserted_count": 1,
  "failed_count": 0,
  "asserted_facts": [
    "parent(theo, ava)."
  ],
  "failed_facts": [],
  "message": "Bulk assertion complete."
}

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "fact_retracted",
  "fact": "parent(liam, ava).",
  "message": "Fact retracted from runtime KB."
}

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "table",
  "predicate": "ancestor",
  "prolog_query": "ancestor(X, piper).",
  "variables": [
    "X"
  ],
  "rows": [
    {
      "X": "owen"
    },
    {
      "X": "nora"
    },
    {
      "X": "ava"
    },
    {
      "X": "theo"
    }
  ],
  "num_rows": 4,
  "reasoning_basis": {
    "kind": "rule-derived",
    "note": "The `ancestor` predicate is typically computed through rules rather than stored as a single explicit fact."
  }
}

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "pre_think",
  "input_utterance": "After the correction, who are Ava's parents?",
  "processed_utterance": "User queries Ava's current parents following the correction replacing Liam with Theo; reasoning must retrieve the updated parentage information from the established family ledger state.",
  "fallback_used": false,
  "normalization_reason": "model_output",
  "history_turns": 6,
  "narrative_context": "",
  "handoff_mode": "rewrite",
  "kb_ingest_mode": "facts",
  "max_candidate_facts": 24,
  "candidate_facts": [],
  "requested_candidate_facts": 0,
  "attempted_candidate_facts": 0,
  "ingested_facts_count": 0,
  "rejected_candidate_facts_count": 0,
  "ingested_facts": [],
  "rejected_candidate_facts": [],
  "prethinker_model": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b",
  "pre_think_skill_path": "skills/pre-think/SKILL.md",
  "prethinker_base_url": "http://127.0.0.1:1234",
  "temperature": 0.0,
  "context_length": 4000,
  "assistant_message": "{\n  \"processed_utterance\": \"User queries Ava's current parents following the correction replacing Liam with Theo; reasoning must retrieve the updated parentage information from the established family ledger state.\",\n  \"candidate_facts\": []\n}",
  "raw_response": {
    "model_instance_id": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b:2",
    "output": [
      {
        "type": "reasoning",
        "content": "Thinking Process:\n\n1.  **Analyze the Request:**\n    *   Role: Pre-think utterance processor for a downstream reasoning model.\n    *   Task: Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance.\n    *   Constraints: Keep original intent, uncertainty, constraints. Do NOT answer the question. Do NOT invent facts. Do NOT call tools. Return JSON with `processed_utterance` and `candidate_facts`.\n    *   SKILL Guidance (Pre-Think): Transform raw utterance into cleaner continuation. Preserve intent, uncertainty, corrections. Apply directive transformations if any. Keep output concise (1-3 sentences). Plain text only for the processed utterance part.\n    *   Input Utterance: \"After the correction, who are Ava's parents?\"\n    *   Context: Recent pre-think context shows a family ledger scenario (Nora, Liam, Ava, Owen, Piper). There was a correction regarding Liam not being Ava's parent and Theo replacing him.\n    *   Goal: Rewrite the question to be explicit about the state change due to the correction, without answering it.\n\n2.  **Analyze the Input Utterance:**\n    *   Content: \"After the correction, who are Ava's parents?\"\n    *   Intent: Querying current state of knowledge regarding Ava's parents following a specific correction event (Liam -> Theo).\n    *   Uncertainty/Confidence: None explicitly stated in this utterance, but implies reliance on the updated context.\n    *   Constraints: None specific beyond the query itself.\n    *   Contextual Knowledge: From recent pre-think context #6 (\"Correction: Liam is not Ava's parent. Replace with Theo as Ava's parent.\"), we know a correction occurred. The current utterance references \"the correction\".\n\n3.  **Apply SKILL Guidance:**\n    *   Preserve intent: Querying Ava's parents post-correction.\n    *   Preserve uncertainty: None to preserve here, but acknowledge the state dependency.\n    *   Preserve corrections: Acknowledge the correction context explicitly in the rewrite.\n    *   Do not answer: Do not list the parents (Theo and Nora presumably, based on context #4).\n    *   Style: 1-3 sentences, plain text.\n    *   Candidate Facts: Since this is a query about state after a correction, there are no new facts to assert with high confidence here. The user is asking for retrieval/reasoning, not asserting new data. However, the instruction says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" and \"candidate_facts: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\". Since I am rewriting a query, I shouldn't invent facts about who the parents are (that's answering). I should only add facts if the utterance implies an assertion. This utterance is a question. So `candidate_facts` should likely be empty or reflect the state update acknowledged in context if appropriate, but strictly speaking, I cannot assert facts not in the input. The input asks \"who are Ava's parents?\". It doesn't assert them.\n    *   Wait, looking at Example 4 & 5 in context:\n        *   Input: `Family ledger seed...` -> Output: `User asserts foundational family ledger seed facts...` (High confidence assertion).\n        *   Input: `Who are Piper's ancestors right now?` -> Output: `User queries Piper's current ancestors...` (Reasoning task description).\n    *   So for a query, the `processed_utterance` should describe the query intent clearly.\n    *   For `candidate_facts`: The instruction says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" and \"array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\". Since this is a question, there are no new facts to assert. I will leave it empty or null if appropriate, but the schema requires an array. I'll make it an empty array `[]`.\n\n4.  **Drafting the Processed Utterance:**\n    *   Draft 1: User asks for Ava's parents after the correction regarding Liam and Theo.\n    *   Draft 2 (Closer to style): User queries Ava's current parents following the recent correction that replaced Liam with Theo as Ava's parent; reasoning must reflect the updated lineage state.\n    *   Draft 3 (Concise): User queries Ava's current parents based on the corrected family ledger where Theo replaces Liam; this requires retrieving the updated parentage information.\n\n    Let's look at Example 5: `User queries Piper's current ancestors based on established family ledger facts; reasoning must trace lineage backward from Piper to identify all recorded predecessors within the current knowledge state.`\n    I should mimic that style.\n\n    Revised Draft: User queries Ava's current parents following the correction replacing Liam with Theo; reasoning must retrieve the updated parentage information from the established family ledger state.\n\n5.  **Drafting Candidate Facts:**\n    *   The input is a question. No new facts are asserted by the user in this turn.\n    *   Constraint: \"Do not include uncertain facts.\"\n    *   Constraint: \"candidate_facts: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\".\n    *   Since I cannot answer the question, I cannot assert `parent(Ava, Theo)` or `parent(Ava, Nora)` as a fact derived from this turn. Those are in context, but not asserted *here*.\n    *   So `candidate_facts` should be `[]`.\n\n6.  **Final Review against Constraints:**\n    *   JSON only? Yes.\n    *   Keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n    *   No markdown in processed_utterance? Yes (plain text).\n    *   Do not answer? Yes.\n    *   Preserve intent? Yes (querying parents post-correction).\n\n7.  **Final Polish:**\n    *   Ensure the rewrite acknowledges the correction context explicitly as per \"Preserve correction cues\".\n    *   Input: \"After the correction, who are Ava's parents?\"\n    *   Rewrite: User queries Ava's current parents following the recent correction replacing Liam with Theo; reasoning must retrieve the updated parentage information from the established family ledger state.\n\n    Wait, checking Example 4 output again: `User asserts foundational family ledger seed facts establishing direct lineage relationships; these statements are treated as high-confidence assertions for the knowledge base.`\n    Checking Example 5 output: `User queries Piper's current ancestors based on established family ledger facts; reasoning must trace lineage backward from Piper to identify all recorded predecessors within the current knowledge state.`\n\n    My draft aligns well with Example 5.\n\n    One more check on `candidate_facts`. The prompt says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" and \"array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\". Since this is a query turn, there are no assertions to make. I will return an empty array.\n\n    Wait, looking at the instruction: \"If SKILL guidance includes directive transformations (for example translation), apply them.\" There are none here.\n    \"Keep first-person ambiguity explicit.\" None here.\n    \"Keep temporal qualifiers explicit.\" \"After the correction\" is temporal/contextual. I should keep that context clear.\n\n    Final check on JSON structure.\n    ```json\n    {\n      \"processed_utterance\": \"...\",\n      \"candidate_facts\": []\n    }\n    ```\n\n    Wait, I need to make sure I don't use markdown in the `processed_utterance` value itself (no bolding, no code blocks inside the string). Just plain text.\n\n    Let's refine the processed utterance to be very clear about the state update without answering.\n    \"User queries Ava's current parents following the correction replacing Liam with Theo; reasoning must retrieve the updated parentage information from the established family ledger state.\"\n    This looks good.\n\n    Wait, one detail in context #6: `Correction: Liam is not Ava's parent. Replace with Theo as Ava's parent.`\n    So the rewrite should reflect that specific correction context if possible to be \"cleaner\".\n    \"User queries Ava's current parents following the correction replacing Liam with Theo; reasoning must retrieve the updated parentage information from the established family ledger state.\"\n\n    Actually, looking at Example 5 again: `User queries Piper's current ancestors based on established family ledger facts...`\n    I will follow that pattern.\n\n    One more thing: The prompt says \"Return JSON only\". I must ensure no markdown code blocks surround the JSON if possible, or just standard JSON block. Usually \"Return JSON only\" implies raw JSON text. However, as an AI model, I often wrap in ```json```. But strict instruction \"Return JSON only\" usually means raw text. I will output raw JSON text to be safe, but typically within a markdown bloc
... [truncated]

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "table",
  "predicate": "parent",
  "prolog_query": "parent(X, ava).",
  "variables": [
    "X"
  ],
  "rows": [
    {
      "X": "nora"
    },
    {
      "X": "theo"
    }
  ],
  "num_rows": 2,
  "reasoning_basis": {
    "kind": "fact-backed",
    "note": "The `parent` predicate is typically answered from stored facts, though rules may still participate."
  }
}

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "pre_think",
  "input_utterance": "Tentative note only: maybe Olivia is Piper's parent, confidence low, not confirmed.",
  "processed_utterance": "Tentative candidate fact: user suggests Olivia may be Piper's parent with low confidence; this statement is explicitly unconfirmed and should not be treated as an established lineage relationship.",
  "fallback_used": false,
  "normalization_reason": "model_output",
  "history_turns": 6,
  "narrative_context": "",
  "handoff_mode": "rewrite",
  "kb_ingest_mode": "facts",
  "max_candidate_facts": 24,
  "candidate_facts": [],
  "requested_candidate_facts": 0,
  "attempted_candidate_facts": 0,
  "ingested_facts_count": 0,
  "rejected_candidate_facts_count": 0,
  "ingested_facts": [],
  "rejected_candidate_facts": [],
  "prethinker_model": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b",
  "pre_think_skill_path": "skills/pre-think/SKILL.md",
  "prethinker_base_url": "http://127.0.0.1:1234",
  "temperature": 0.0,
  "context_length": 4000,
  "assistant_message": "{\n  \"processed_utterance\": \"Tentative candidate fact: user suggests Olivia may be Piper's parent with low confidence; this statement is explicitly unconfirmed and should not be treated as an established lineage relationship.\",\n  \"candidate_facts\": []\n}",
  "raw_response": {
    "model_instance_id": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b:2",
    "output": [
      {
        "type": "reasoning",
        "content": "Thinking Process:\n\n1.  **Analyze the Request:**\n    *   Role: Pre-think utterance processor for a downstream reasoning model.\n    *   Task: Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance based on SKILL guidance.\n    *   Input Utterance: \"Tentative note only: maybe Olivia is Piper's parent, confidence low, not confirmed.\"\n    *   Constraints:\n        *   Preserve intent, uncertainty, constraints, corrections.\n        *   Do NOT answer the question.\n        *   Do NOT invent facts.\n        *   Do NOT call tools.\n        *   Return JSON only with keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n        *   `candidate_facts`: Array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence (Do not include uncertain facts).\n        *   Style: One to three sentences, plain text only, no markdown for the processed utterance.\n    *   SKILL Guidance: Transform raw utterance into cleaner continuation. Preserve ambiguity/uncertainty. Apply directive transformations if any. Keep output concise.\n\n2.  **Analyze the Input Utterance:**\n    *   Content: \"Tentative note only: maybe Olivia is Piper's parent, confidence low, not confirmed.\"\n    *   Intent: The user is suggesting a potential fact (Olivia is Piper's parent) but explicitly marking it as uncertain/tentative.\n    *   Uncertainty: High (\"maybe\", \"confidence low\", \"not confirmed\").\n    *   Context: Previous turns established a family ledger (Nora->Ava, Liam/Theo->Ava, Ava->Owen, Owen->Piper). This new input suggests adding Olivia as Piper's parent.\n    *   Constraint: Do not assert this as fact because confidence is low.\n\n3.  **Apply SKILL Guidance:**\n    *   Rewrite Rules:\n        1.  Keep first-person ambiguity explicit (N/A, user didn't use \"I\", but keep uncertainty explicit).\n        2.  Keep temporal qualifiers explicit (N/A).\n        3.  Keep tentative language tentative (Crucial: emphasize the low confidence).\n        4.  Keep corrections as corrections (N/A).\n        5.  Apply directive transformations (None here).\n        6.  Keep output concise and directly usable as next-turn input.\n    *   Non-Negotiables: Do not answer, do not invent facts, do not call tools.\n    *   Candidate Facts: The guidance says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" Since the input explicitly states \"confidence low, not confirmed\", I should NOT add this to `candidate_facts`.\n\n4.  **Drafting the Output:**\n    *   `processed_utterance`: Needs to reflect the tentative nature clearly for the downstream model. It should look like a processed note indicating uncertainty.\n        *   Draft 1: User suggests Olivia might be Piper's parent but explicitly states low confidence and lack of confirmation; treat as unverified hypothesis rather than established fact.\n        *   Draft 2 (Closer to examples): Tentative candidate fact: user suggests Olivia may be Piper's parent with low confidence; this statement is not confirmed and should not be added to the knowledge base yet.\n    *   `candidate_facts`: Empty array `[]` because the input explicitly says \"confidence low, not confirmed\".\n\n5.  **Refining based on Examples:**\n    *   Example 1: `Maybe my mother was Ann.` -> `Tentative candidate fact: speaker says their mother may have been Ann; speaker identity is unresolved and requires clarification before persistence.`\n    *   My Input: `Tentative note only: maybe Olivia is Piper's parent, confidence low, not confirmed.`\n    *   My Draft: `Tentative candidate fact: user suggests Olivia may be Piper's parent with low confidence; this statement is explicitly unconfirmed and should not be treated as an established lineage relationship.`\n\n6.  **Final Check:**\n    *   JSON format? Yes.\n    *   Keys correct? `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n    *   No markdown in processed text? Yes.\n    *   No uncertain facts in candidate_facts? Yes (empty array).\n    *   Preserved uncertainty? Yes.\n\n7.  **Constructing JSON:**\n    ```json\n    {\n      \"processed_utterance\": \"Tentative candidate fact: user suggests Olivia may be Piper's parent with low confidence; this statement is explicitly unconfirmed and should not be treated as an established lineage relationship.\",\n      \"candidate_facts\": []\n    }\n    ```\n\n    Wait, looking at the previous context examples (3, 4, 5, 6), they show a pattern of processing family ledger facts.\n    Example 3: `Family ledger seed...` -> `User asserts foundational family ledger seed facts establishing direct lineage relationships; these statements are treated as high-confidence assertions for the knowledge base.`\n    Example 5: `Correction...` -> `Correction: Liam is not Ava's parent. Replace with Theo as Ava's parent.` (Kept raw correction text mostly, but context implies processing).\n    Actually, looking at Example 1 and 2 in the SKILL section:\n    Input: `Maybe my mother was Ann.` -> Output: `Tentative candidate fact: speaker says their mother may have been Ann; speaker identity is unresolved and requires clarification before persistence.`\n    Input: `Actually not Bob, I meant Alice.` -> Output: `Correction candidate: previous entity Bob is replaced by Alice; treat this as a revision signal, not a fresh hard fact.`\n\n    My input is very explicit about uncertainty (\"Tentative note only\", \"confidence low\", \"not confirmed\").\n    So the processed utterance should reflect that it's a hypothesis to be held in mind but not asserted.\n\n    Let's refine the `processed_utterance` to match the style of Example 1 closely but adapted for Piper/Olivia.\n    \"Tentative candidate fact: user suggests Olivia may be Piper's parent with low confidence; this statement is explicitly unconfirmed and should not be treated as an established lineage relationship.\"\n\n    Wait, I need to check if `candidate_facts` should contain anything. The instruction says: \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" The input says \"confidence low, not confirmed\". So `candidate_facts` must be empty.\n\n    One more check on constraints: \"Return JSON only with keys... Do not include uncertain facts.\"\n    Okay.\n\n    Let's finalize the text.\n    \"Tentative candidate fact: user suggests Olivia may be Piper's parent with low confidence; this statement is explicitly unconfirmed and should not be treated as an established lineage relationship.\"\n    This looks good. It preserves the intent (suggesting a parent), uncertainty (low confidence, not confirmed), and constraints (do not treat as fact).\n\n    Wait, looking at Example 3 in context: `Family ledger seed...` -> `User asserts foundational family ledger seed facts establishing direct lineage relationships; these statements are treated as high-confidence assertions for the knowledge base.`\n    This shows that when confidence is high, it explicitly states they are treated as high-confidence assertions.\n    So for low confidence, I should explicitly state they are NOT treated as established facts.\n\n    Revised `processed_utterance`: \"Tentative candidate fact: user suggests Olivia may be Piper's parent with low confidence; this statement is explicitly unconfirmed and should not be treated as an established lineage relationship.\"\n\n    Wait, I need to make sure I don't use markdown in the processed_utterance value. The JSON structure itself uses quotes, but the string content shouldn't have markdown like `**`.\n    Also, ensure no newlines in the string value unless escaped properly (JSON standard). I will keep it single line.\n\n    Final check on `candidate_facts`: Since the input says \"not confirmed\", adding a fact like `parent(Olivia, piper).` would violate \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" So it must be empty.\n\n    One detail from SKILL: \"Keep first-person ambiguity explicit.\" The user didn't use \"I\", but they used \"Tentative note only\". I should reflect the source of the uncertainty.\n    Example 1 output: `speaker says their mother may have been Ann`.\n    My output: `user suggests Olivia may be Piper's parent`.\n\n    Okay, ready to generate JSON.\n\n    Wait, one more thing. The prompt says \"Return JSON only\". I must ensure no markdown code blocks around the JSON. Just raw JSON text.\n    Actually, usually \"Return JSON only\" means the response should be parseable JSON. I will output raw JSON.\n\n    Wait, checking the instruction: \"Return JSON only with keys...\".\n    Okay.\n\n    Let's double check the `candidate_facts` requirement. \"Do not include uncertain facts.\"\n    Input: \"confidence low, not confirm
... [truncated]

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "pre_think",
  "input_utterance": "Using confirmed facts only, who is Piper's parent?",
  "processed_utterance": "User queries Piper's parentage constrained to confirmed facts only; reasoning must retrieve established lineage relationships while filtering out any tentative notes or unverified suggestions from the current knowledge state.",
  "fallback_used": false,
  "normalization_reason": "model_output",
  "history_turns": 6,
  "narrative_context": "",
  "handoff_mode": "rewrite",
  "kb_ingest_mode": "facts",
  "max_candidate_facts": 24,
  "candidate_facts": [],
  "requested_candidate_facts": 0,
  "attempted_candidate_facts": 0,
  "ingested_facts_count": 0,
  "rejected_candidate_facts_count": 0,
  "ingested_facts": [],
  "rejected_candidate_facts": [],
  "prethinker_model": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b",
  "pre_think_skill_path": "skills/pre-think/SKILL.md",
  "prethinker_base_url": "http://127.0.0.1:1234",
  "temperature": 0.0,
  "context_length": 4000,
  "assistant_message": "{\n  \"processed_utterance\": \"User queries Piper's parentage constrained to confirmed facts only; reasoning must retrieve established lineage relationships while filtering out any tentative notes or unverified suggestions from the current knowledge state.\",\n  \"candidate_facts\": []\n}",
  "raw_response": {
    "model_instance_id": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b:2",
    "output": [
      {
        "type": "reasoning",
        "content": "Thinking Process:\n\n1.  **Analyze the Request:**\n    *   Role: Pre-think utterance processor for a downstream reasoning model.\n    *   Task: Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance based on SKILL guidance.\n    *   Input Utterance: \"Using confirmed facts only, who is Piper's parent?\"\n    *   Constraints:\n        *   Preserve intent, uncertainty, constraints (confirmed facts only).\n        *   Do NOT answer the question.\n        *   Do NOT invent facts.\n        *   Do NOT call tools.\n        *   Return JSON with keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n        *   `candidate_facts`: Array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence (Do not include uncertain facts).\n        *   Style: One to three sentences, plain text only, no markdown for the processed utterance.\n    *   Context: Recent pre-think context shows a family ledger scenario (Nora, Liam, Ava, Owen, Piper). There was a correction (Liam -> Theo as Ava's parent). The current query asks about Piper's parent using confirmed facts only.\n\n2.  **Analyze the Input Utterance:**\n    *   \"Using confirmed facts only, who is Piper's parent?\"\n    *   Intent: Query Piper's parentage.\n    *   Constraint: \"Confirmed facts only\" (implies filtering out tentative notes).\n    *   Uncertainty: None explicitly stated in this specific utterance, but the constraint implies a need to verify against established knowledge.\n\n3.  **Apply SKILL Guidance:**\n    *   Goal: Transform raw utterance into cleaner continuation for downstream reasoning.\n    *   Rewrite Rules:\n        *   Keep constraints explicit (\"confirmed facts only\").\n        *   Do not answer.\n        *   Preserve intent.\n    *   Context Check: Previous turns established a family ledger (Nora->Ava, Liam->Ava [corrected to Theo], Ava->Owen, Owen->Piper). The current query asks for Piper's parent. Based on the context provided in turn 3 (\"Owen is parent of Piper\"), the answer would be Owen. However, I am *not* answering. I am rewriting the utterance for the reasoning model.\n    *   Candidate Facts: The instruction says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" It also says \"candidate_facts: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\". Since this is a query about existing facts, there are no new facts to assert here unless the system infers something from the context provided in the conversation history. However, looking at the previous turns (Turn 2 & 3), the fact \"Owen is parent of Piper\" was asserted as part of the seed. But wait, I am a pre-think processor. I should not hallucinate facts that weren't explicitly grounded in the *current* interaction or high-confidence context provided to me as the processor. The prompt says \"Do NOT invent facts.\"\n    *   Looking at Turn 2: \"Family ledger seed: ... Owen is parent of Piper.\" This was processed as \"User asserts foundational family ledger seed facts...\".\n    *   Looking at Turn 6: \"Tentative note only: maybe Olivia is Piper's parent...\" was processed as a tentative candidate fact.\n    *   Current Input: \"Using confirmed facts only, who is Piper's parent?\"\n    *   Since I am rewriting the utterance for the reasoning model to process, I should reflect the constraint clearly.\n    *   Candidate Facts: Are there any high-confidence facts to assert *now*? The query itself doesn't assert a fact. It queries. So `candidate_facts` should likely be empty or contain facts derived from the context if they are considered \"grounded\" for this turn. However, the instruction says \"Do NOT invent facts.\" The fact \"Owen is parent of Piper\" exists in the conversation history (Turn 2). But as a pre-think processor, I shouldn't necessarily extract facts from history unless I'm summarizing context. The specific instruction for `candidate_facts` is \"array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\". Since this turn is a query, not an assertion, there are no new facts to assert. I will leave it empty or omit if the schema requires it (schema says array). I will keep it empty because I am not asserting anything new here.\n    *   Wait, looking at Turn 6's output: \"Tentative candidate fact: user suggests Olivia may be Piper's parent...\". This was a rewrite of a tentative note.\n    *   Looking at Turn 2's output: \"User asserts foundational family ledger seed facts...\".\n    *   For this query, the rewrite should focus on the constraint (\"confirmed facts only\") and the intent (querying Piper's parent).\n\n4.  **Drafting the `processed_utterance`:**\n    *   Must be plain text, 1-3 sentences.\n    *   Must reflect \"Using confirmed facts only\".\n    *   Draft: User queries Piper's parentage strictly using established and confirmed lineage facts; reasoning must exclude tentative notes or unverified suggestions from the knowledge base.\n\n5.  **Drafting `candidate_facts`:**\n    *   Instruction: \"Do not include uncertain facts.\"\n    *   Instruction: \"array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\".\n    *   Since this is a query turn, no new facts are being asserted by the user. The context history contains facts, but I shouldn't extract them as \"facts to assert\" in this specific pre-think output unless they are part of the reasoning state update. Given the strict \"Do NOT invent facts\" and the nature of this turn (query), an empty array is safest and most accurate to the instruction \"assert when high confidence\" (there is no assertion here).\n    *   However, sometimes these systems expect the pre-think to identify relevant existing facts. But looking at Turn 6 example: Input was a tentative note, Output included a candidate fact description. Turn 2 Input was an assertion, Output described it as high-confidence assertions.\n    *   Here, Input is a query. There are no new facts to assert. I will return an empty array.\n\n6.  **Refining based on Examples:**\n    *   Example 1 (Tentative): \"Tentative candidate fact: speaker says their mother may have been Ann...\"\n    *   Example 2 (Correction): \"Correction candidate: previous entity Bob is replaced by Alice...\"\n    *   Example 3 (Translation): \"Traduis en francais...\"\n    *   Turn 6 (Tentative Note): \"Tentative candidate fact: user suggests Olivia may be Piper's parent with low confidence...\"\n    *   Turn 2 (Assertion): \"User asserts foundational family ledger seed facts establishing direct lineage relationships; these statements are treated as high-confidence assertions for the knowledge base.\"\n    *   Current Input is a Query with a constraint.\n    *   Draft: User queries Piper's current parentage constrained to confirmed facts only; reasoning must retrieve established lineage relationships while filtering out tentative or unverified notes from the knowledge state.\n\n7.  **Final Check:**\n    *   JSON format? Yes.\n    *   Keys correct? `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n    *   No markdown in processed_utterance? Yes.\n    *   Preserve constraints (\"confirmed facts only\")? Yes.\n    *   Do not answer? Yes (it's a rewrite).\n    *   Candidate facts empty? Yes, because no assertion is made in this turn.\n\n8.  **Wait, one nuance:** The prompt says \"candidate_facts: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\". If I don't assert anything, it should be `[]`.\n    *   Also, check Turn 4 & 5 context. Turn 4 corrected Liam -> Theo for Ava's parent. Turn 3 established Owen is parent of Piper.\n    *   The query asks \"who is Piper's parent?\".\n    *   I must not answer.\n    *   So the rewrite should just clarify the instruction to the reasoning model.\n\n    *   Refined Draft: User queries Piper's parentage with a strict constraint to use only confirmed facts; reasoning must retrieve established lineage data while explicitly excluding tentative notes or unverified suggestions from the knowledge base.\n\n    *   Wait, looking at Turn 6 output again: \"Tentative candidate fact: user suggests Olivia may be Piper's parent with low confidence...\"\n    *   This turn is not a suggestion. It's a query.\n    *   So `candidate_facts` should remain empty.\n\n    *   Let's check the constraint \"Do NOT invent facts.\" If I put a fact in `candidate_facts`, it implies I'm asserting it. Since the user didn't assert anything, I shouldn't put any there.\n\n    *   Final check on JSON structure.\n\n    *   One more check: Turn 2 output says \"User asserts foundational family ledger seed facts...\". Turn 3 output says \"Us
... [truncated]

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "table",
  "predicate": "parent",
  "prolog_query": "parent(P, piper).",
  "variables": [
    "P"
  ],
  "rows": [
    {
      "P": "owen"
    }
  ],
  "num_rows": 1,
  "reasoning_basis": {
    "kind": "fact-backed",
    "note": "The `parent` predicate is typically answered from stored facts, though rules may still participate."
  }
}

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "pre_think",
  "input_utterance": "Irrelevant sidebar: maintenance bay humming, weather chatter, inventory note, coffee spill report, and unrelated docking logs. Ignore this for family facts.",
  "processed_utterance": "{ \"processed_utterance\": \"User explicitly filters out sidebar noise including maintenance, weather, inventory, and docking logs",
  "fallback_used": false,
  "normalization_reason": "model_output",
  "history_turns": 6,
  "narrative_context": "",
  "handoff_mode": "rewrite",
  "kb_ingest_mode": "facts",
  "max_candidate_facts": 24,
  "candidate_facts": [],
  "requested_candidate_facts": 0,
  "attempted_candidate_facts": 0,
  "ingested_facts_count": 0,
  "rejected_candidate_facts_count": 0,
  "ingested_facts": [],
  "rejected_candidate_facts": [],
  "prethinker_model": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b",
  "pre_think_skill_path": "skills/pre-think/SKILL.md",
  "prethinker_base_url": "http://127.0.0.1:1234",
  "temperature": 0.0,
  "context_length": 4000,
  "assistant_message": "{\n  \"processed_utterance\": \"User explicitly filters out sidebar noise including maintenance, weather, inventory, and docking logs",
  "raw_response": {
    "model_instance_id": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b:2",
    "output": [
      {
        "type": "reasoning",
        "content": "Thinking Process:\n\n1.  **Analyze the Request:**\n    *   Role: Pre-think utterance processor.\n    *   Task: Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance for downstream reasoning.\n    *   Constraints: Keep original intent, uncertainty, constraints. Do NOT answer, invent facts, or call tools. Return JSON with `processed_utterance` and `candidate_facts`.\n    *   SKILL Guidance (Pre-Think): Preserve intent, uncertainty, corrections, constraints. Apply directive transformations if present. Keep output concise (1-3 sentences). Plain text only in the processed utterance field. No markdown in the processed utterance.\n    *   Input Utterance: \"Irrelevant sidebar: maintenance bay humming, weather chatter, inventory note, coffee spill report, and unrelated docking logs. Ignore this for family facts.\"\n    *   Context: Previous turns established a family ledger (Nora, Liam/Theo, Ava, Owen, Piper). The user is now explicitly filtering out noise/context irrelevant to the family facts.\n\n2.  **Analyze the Input Utterance:**\n    *   Content: A list of irrelevant background noises/events (maintenance bay, weather, inventory, coffee spill, docking logs).\n    *   Directive: \"Ignore this for family facts.\"\n    *   Intent: The user is setting a boundary/constraint on what information should be considered relevant to the current task (family lineage/facts). They are explicitly excluding non-family context.\n    *   Constraints: Do not use the sidebar info for family reasoning.\n\n3.  **Apply SKILL Guidance:**\n    *   Preserve intent: The user wants to filter out noise and focus on family facts.\n    *   Preserve constraints: Explicitly state the exclusion of sidebar information.\n    *   Rewrite Rules: Keep output concise (1-3 sentences). Plain text only. No markdown in the `processed_utterance` value.\n    *   Candidate Facts: The input does not assert new grounded facts about the family ledger. It asserts a constraint on processing. Therefore, `candidate_facts` should likely be empty or reflect the constraint if applicable (but SKILL says \"Do not include uncertain facts\" and usually candidate facts are for assertions). Since this is a directive/constraint rather than a fact assertion about the world state, I should check if it warrants a fact. The instruction says \"array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\". This utterance doesn't add a new family fact, it just filters context. So `candidate_facts` should probably be empty or reflect the constraint as a meta-fact? Looking at previous examples in the few-shot context:\n        *   Example 1 (Seed): \"User asserts foundational family ledger seed facts...\" -> No Prolog facts listed in the example output provided in the prompt description, but the instruction says return JSON with `candidate_facts`. Wait, looking at the few-shot examples in the prompt text:\n            *   Input: `Maybe my mother was Ann.` -> Output: `Tentative candidate fact: speaker says their mother may have been Ann...` (This is the `processed_utterance`). The example output doesn't show the JSON structure, it shows the text. But the instruction for *me* says \"Return JSON only with keys: processed_utterance, candidate_facts\".\n            *   Looking at the few-shot context provided in the prompt (1-6): These are `input` and `processed` pairs. They don't show `candidate_facts`. However, the system instruction for *me* says \"Return JSON only with keys: processed_utterance, candidate_facts\". I must follow the system instruction over the few-shot format if they conflict, but usually, the few-shot shows the style of `processed_utterance`.\n            *   Wait, the few-shot context provided in the prompt (1-6) looks like history logs. The current task is to process the new utterance based on the SKILL guidance.\n            *   The SKILL guidance says: \"Return JSON only with keys: - processed_utterance: rewritten continuation text - candidate_facts: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\".\n            *   The input is a constraint instruction (\"Ignore this for family facts\"). It does not assert a new fact about the family tree. Therefore, `candidate_facts` should be an empty list `[]`.\n\n4.  **Drafting `processed_utterance`:**\n    *   Must be plain text (no markdown).\n    *   Must reflect the constraint clearly.\n    *   Draft 1: User explicitly excludes sidebar context such as maintenance, weather, inventory, and docking logs from family fact reasoning; this is a strict boundary for current knowledge retrieval.\n    *   Draft 2: Constraint applied: ignore all provided sidebar information including maintenance bay, weather, inventory, coffee spill, and docking logs when processing family facts.\n    *   Refining for SKILL style (concise, explicit): User sets a constraint to exclude irrelevant sidebar context like maintenance, weather, inventory, and docking logs from family fact reasoning; only established family lineage data is valid.\n\n5.  **Drafting `candidate_facts`:**\n    *   No new family facts are asserted here. Just a processing rule.\n    *   Value: `[]`\n\n6.  **Final Review:**\n    *   JSON format? Yes.\n    *   Keys correct? `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n    *   Plain text in `processed_utterance`? Yes (no markdown).\n    *   Intent preserved? Yes (filtering noise).\n    *   Constraints preserved? Yes (ignore sidebar for family facts).\n\n7.  **Constructing JSON:**\n    ```json\n    {\n      \"processed_utterance\": \"User sets a constraint to exclude irrelevant sidebar context like maintenance, weather, inventory, and docking logs from family fact reasoning; only established family lineage data is valid.\",\n      \"candidate_facts\": []\n    }\n    ```\n    Wait, checking the few-shot examples again. The `processed` field in the history (1-6) looks like a summary of intent.\n    Example 3: Input: `Correction: Liam is not Ava's parent...` -> Processed: `Correction: Liam is not Ava's parent...` (It kept the text almost verbatim).\n    Example 5: Input: `Tentative note only...` -> Processed: `Tentative candidate fact: user suggests Olivia may be Piper's parent...`\n    So I should rewrite it to be a \"cleaner continuation utterance\".\n    My draft looks good. It summarizes the intent and constraint clearly.\n\n    One check on `candidate_facts`: The instruction says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" This is a high-confidence constraint, but it's not a fact about the world (like \"Nora is parent of Ava\"). It's a meta-instruction. So empty array is correct.\n\n    Final check on constraints: \"Keep output concise and directly usable as next-turn input.\"\n    My draft is one sentence. Good.\n    \"Plain text only.\" No markdown in the value. Good.\n\n    Let's refine the processed_utterance to match the style of the few-shot `processed` entries which often start with \"User...\" or describe the action.\n    Example 1: \"User asserts foundational family ledger seed facts...\"\n    Example 2: \"User queries Piper's current ancestors...\"\n    Example 3: \"Correction: Liam is not Ava's parent.\" (Direct quote)\n    Example 6: \"User queries Piper's parentage constrained to confirmed facts only...\"\n\n    So for this input, it should be: \"User sets a constraint to exclude irrelevant sidebar context...\".\n    Let's make it slightly more aligned with the \"Ignore this\" directive.\n    \"User explicitly filters out sidebar noise including maintenance, weather, inventory, and docking logs; reasoning must rely solely on established family facts.\"\n\n    Wait, I need to ensure I don't use markdown in the JSON value string itself (like backticks). Just plain text.\n\n    Final check on `candidate_facts`: The prompt says \"Return JSON only\".\n    Okay.\n\n    One more thing: The SKILL guidance says \"Apply directive transformations from this SKILL (for example translation)\". There is no translation request here, just a constraint. So I don't need to translate.\n\n    Let's finalize the text.\n    \"User explicitly filters out sidebar noise including maintenance, weather, inventory, and docking logs; reasoning must rely solely on established family facts.\"\n    This captures the intent (filtering) and the constraint (rely on family facts).\n\n    Wait, looking at Example 3 in the few-shot history:\n    Input: `Correction: Liam is not Ava's parent. Replace with Theo as Ava's parent.`\n    Processed: `Correction: Liam is not Ava's parent. Replace with Theo as Ava's parent.`\n    It kept it verbatim because it was a correction signal.\n    Here, the input is \"Irrelevant sidebar... Ignore this for fam
... [truncated]

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "pre_think",
  "input_utterance": "Irrelevant sidebar: maintenance bay humming, weather chatter, inventory note, coffee spill report, and unrelated docking logs. Ignore this for family facts.",
  "processed_utterance": "User explicitly filters out sidebar noise including maintenance, weather, inventory, and docking logs; reasoning must disregard these unrelated details when retrieving family facts.",
  "fallback_used": false,
  "normalization_reason": "model_output",
  "history_turns": 6,
  "narrative_context": "",
  "handoff_mode": "rewrite",
  "kb_ingest_mode": "facts",
  "max_candidate_facts": 24,
  "candidate_facts": [],
  "requested_candidate_facts": 0,
  "attempted_candidate_facts": 0,
  "ingested_facts_count": 0,
  "rejected_candidate_facts_count": 0,
  "ingested_facts": [],
  "rejected_candidate_facts": [],
  "prethinker_model": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b",
  "pre_think_skill_path": "skills/pre-think/SKILL.md",
  "prethinker_base_url": "http://127.0.0.1:1234",
  "temperature": 0.0,
  "context_length": 4000,
  "assistant_message": "{\n  \"processed_utterance\": \"User explicitly filters out sidebar noise including maintenance, weather, inventory, and docking logs; reasoning must disregard these unrelated details when retrieving family facts.\",\n  \"candidate_facts\": []\n}",
  "raw_response": {
    "model_instance_id": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b:2",
    "output": [
      {
        "type": "reasoning",
        "content": "Thinking Process:\n\n1.  **Analyze the Request:**\n    *   Role: Pre-think utterance processor.\n    *   Task: Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance based on SKILL guidance.\n    *   Input Utterance: \"Irrelevant sidebar: maintenance bay humming, weather chatter, inventory note, coffee spill report, and unrelated docking logs. Ignore this for family facts.\"\n    *   Constraints:\n        *   Preserve intent, uncertainty, constraints.\n        *   Do NOT answer the question.\n        *   Do NOT invent facts.\n        *   Do NOT call tools.\n        *   Return JSON only with keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n        *   `candidate_facts`: Array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence (Do not include uncertain facts).\n        *   Style: One to three sentences, plain text only for `processed_utterance` (based on examples), but the output format requires JSON. Wait, looking at Example 6 in the context provided:\n            Input: `Irrelevant sidebar: maintenance bay humming, weather chatter, inventory note, coffee spill report, and unrelated docking logs. Ignore this for family facts.`\n            Output (in context): `{ \"processed_utterance\": \"User explicitly filters out sidebar noise including maintenance, weather, inventory, and docking logs...\" }`\n            *Correction*: The provided \"Recent pre-think context\" actually contains an example of exactly this input in item 6.\n            Item 6 Input: `Irrelevant sidebar: maintenance bay humming, weather chatter, inventory note, coffee spill report, and unrelated docking logs. Ignore this for family facts.`\n            Item 6 Output (processed): `{ \"processed_utterance\": \"User explicitly filters out sidebar noise including maintenance, weather, inventory, and docking logs...\" }` (Wait, the example output in the context section is actually a JSON object inside the text description of item 6).\n            Let's look closely at Item 6 in the provided context:\n            `6. input: Irrelevant sidebar: maintenance bay humming, weather chatter, inventory note, coffee spill report, and unrelated docking logs. Ignore this for family facts.`\n            `   processed: { \"processed_utterance\": \"User explicitly filters out sidebar noise including maintenance, weather, inventory, and docking logs`\n            *Wait*, the context provided in the prompt seems to be showing me what I should have done before, or it's part of the few-shot examples within the \"Recent pre-think context\".\n            Actually, looking at the instruction: \"Recent pre-think context (most recent last): ... 6. input: ... processed: { ... }\"\n            This suggests I need to follow the pattern established in item 6 if it's a similar case, but I must generate the JSON output myself now for the *current* utterance which is identical to item 6's input.\n            Wait, the current Utterance provided at the bottom is: `Irrelevant sidebar: maintenance bay humming, weather chatter, inventory note, coffee spill report, and unrelated docking logs. Ignore this for family facts.`\n            This is exactly the same as Item 6 in the context.\n            However, I am acting as the processor *now*. I need to output JSON.\n            The SKILL guidance says: \"Return JSON only with keys: - processed_utterance: rewritten continuation text - candidate_facts: array of grounded Prolog facts...\"\n            The style section says: \"One to three sentences. Plain text only. No markdown.\" This usually applies to the `processed_utterance` value inside the JSON.\n            Item 6 in the context shows a JSON-like structure for the processed output, but the instruction says \"Return JSON only\".\n            I need to make sure I don't just copy-paste item 6's output if it was malformed or incomplete, but rather generate a compliant response based on the SKILL guidance.\n            Actually, looking at Item 6 in the context: `processed: { \"processed_utterance\": \"User explicitly filters out sidebar noise including maintenance, weather, inventory, and docking logs` (It seems cut off or just an example of how it was handled previously).\n            I should treat this as a fresh request. The input is identical to Item 6. I should produce a consistent `processed_utterance`.\n            Intent: User wants to filter out noise/sidebar chatter and focus on family facts.\n            Constraint: Ignore sidebar info for family facts.\n            Candidate Facts: None, because the user is explicitly saying \"Ignore this\". There are no new facts to assert about the family ledger here.\n\n2.  **Drafting `processed_utterance`:**\n    *   Must be plain text (inside the JSON string).\n    *   Must reflect the filtering intent.\n    *   Based on Item 6 in context: \"User explicitly filters out sidebar noise including maintenance, weather, inventory, and docking logs...\"\n    *   I should ensure it's complete and follows the style rules (1-3 sentences).\n    *   Draft: User explicitly filters out sidebar noise including maintenance, weather, inventory, and docking logs; reasoning must disregard these unrelated details when retrieving family facts.\n\n3.  **Drafting `candidate_facts`:**\n    *   The user says \"Ignore this for family facts\".\n    *   There are no new facts about the family ledger being asserted here.\n    *   Constraint: \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" and \"Only when high confidence\".\n    *   Since the instruction is to ignore, asserting a fact like `ignore_sidebar(true)` might be meta-data, but the SKILL says \"candidate_facts: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert\". Usually, this means facts about the domain (family ledger).\n    *   There are no family facts here. So the array should be empty.\n\n4.  **Formatting:**\n    *   JSON only.\n    *   Keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n\n5.  **Refining based on SKILL:**\n    *   \"Preserve constraints and boundaries.\" -> The constraint is to ignore sidebar info for family facts.\n    *   \"Do not answer the task.\" -> I am rewriting, not answering the query about ancestors/parents/etc.\n    *   Item 6 in context had a slightly truncated output in the prompt description (`...docking logs` without closing quote or full sentence). I should make sure mine is valid JSON and complete.\n    *   The prompt asks me to \"Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance.\"\n    *   Input: `Irrelevant sidebar: maintenance bay humming, weather chatter, inventory note, coffee spill report, and unrelated docking logs. Ignore this for family facts.`\n    *   Rewritten: User explicitly filters out sidebar noise including maintenance, weather, inventory, and docking logs; reasoning must disregard these unrelated details when retrieving family facts.\n\n6.  **Final Check:**\n    *   JSON structure valid? Yes.\n    *   Keys correct? Yes.\n    *   `candidate_facts` empty array? Yes (no new family facts).\n    *   No markdown in the output block? The instruction says \"Return JSON only\". I should not wrap it in markdown code blocks like ```json ... ```. Just the raw JSON string. Wait, usually \"Return JSON only\" implies the content type is JSON. But often in these interfaces, markdown blocks are acceptable for clarity unless strictly forbidden. However, \"Return JSON only\" usually means no conversational text. I will output raw JSON text to be safe, or a markdown block if that's standard for this persona. Looking at the instruction \"Return JSON only with keys...\", I will provide the JSON object directly.\n    *   Wait, looking at Item 6 in the context provided: `processed: { \"processed_utterance\": ... }`. This looks like it was part of a log.\n    *   My output needs to be the response to the current turn.\n    *   I will ensure the JSON is valid.\n\n    *   Wait, one more check on `candidate_facts`. The SKILL says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" and \"Only when high confidence\". Since the user is saying \"Ignore\", there are no facts to add. Empty list is correct.\n\n    *   Style: \"One to three sentences. Plain text only. No markdown.\" This applies to the `processed_utterance` value.\n    *   The overall response must be JSON.\n\n    Let's construct the JSON.\n\n    ```json\n    {\n      \"processed_utterance\": \"User explicitly filters out sidebar noise including maintenance, weather, inventory, and docking logs; reasoning must disregard these unrelated detai
... [truncated]

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "pre_think",
  "input_utterance": "Irrelevant sidebar: maintenance bay humming, weather chatter, inventory note, coffee spill report, and unrelated docking logs. Ignore this for family facts.",
  "processed_utterance": "User explicitly filters out sidebar noise including maintenance, weather, inventory, and docking logs; reasoning must disregard these unrelated details when retrieving family facts.",
  "fallback_used": false,
  "normalization_reason": "model_output",
  "history_turns": 6,
  "narrative_context": "",
  "handoff_mode": "rewrite",
  "kb_ingest_mode": "facts",
  "max_candidate_facts": 24,
  "candidate_facts": [],
  "requested_candidate_facts": 0,
  "attempted_candidate_facts": 0,
  "ingested_facts_count": 0,
  "rejected_candidate_facts_count": 0,
  "ingested_facts": [],
  "rejected_candidate_facts": [],
  "prethinker_model": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b",
  "pre_think_skill_path": "skills/pre-think/SKILL.md",
  "prethinker_base_url": "http://127.0.0.1:1234",
  "temperature": 0.0,
  "context_length": 4000,
  "assistant_message": "{\n  \"processed_utterance\": \"User explicitly filters out sidebar noise including maintenance, weather, inventory, and docking logs; reasoning must disregard these unrelated details when retrieving family facts.\",\n  \"candidate_facts\": []\n}",
  "raw_response": {
    "model_instance_id": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b:2",
    "output": [
      {
        "type": "reasoning",
        "content": "Thinking Process:\n\n1.  **Analyze the Request:**\n    *   Role: Pre-think utterance processor.\n    *   Task: Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance based on SKILL guidance.\n    *   Input Utterance: \"Irrelevant sidebar: maintenance bay humming, weather chatter, inventory note, coffee spill report, and unrelated docking logs. Ignore this for family facts.\"\n    *   Constraints:\n        *   Preserve intent, uncertainty, constraints.\n        *   Do NOT answer the question.\n        *   Do NOT invent facts.\n        *   Do NOT call tools.\n        *   Return JSON only with keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n        *   `candidate_facts`: Array of grounded Prolog facts (only high confidence, no uncertain facts).\n        *   Style: One to three sentences, plain text only for `processed_utterance` (no markdown in the text value), JSON structure overall.\n    *   SKILL Guidance: Pre-Think Skill (rewrite rules, examples provided).\n    *   Context: Recent pre-think context shows similar inputs were processed previously (items 5 and 6 in the context list are identical to the current input). This suggests a pattern of filtering out noise.\n\n2.  **Analyze the Input Utterance:**\n    *   Content: The user is providing a list of irrelevant information (\"maintenance bay humming\", \"weather chatter\", etc.) and explicitly instructing to ignore it for \"family facts\".\n    *   Intent: Noise filtering / Constraint setting.\n    *   Constraints: Ignore sidebar noise when retrieving family facts.\n\n3.  **Apply SKILL Guidance:**\n    *   Rewrite Rules:\n        *   Keep constraints explicit.\n        *   Apply directive transformations (none needed here, it's English).\n        *   Keep output concise.\n        *   Style: One to three sentences, plain text only.\n    *   Candidate Facts: The input is explicitly stating these facts are irrelevant/noise. There are no grounded Prolog facts to assert about family relationships here. It's a constraint instruction. Therefore, `candidate_facts` should likely be empty or contain nothing because the user is saying \"ignore this\", not asserting new family data. The instruction says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" Since there are no facts being asserted, just filtering, an empty array is appropriate.\n    *   Looking at recent context (items 5 and 6):\n        *   Item 5 processed: `{ \"processed_utterance\": \"User explicitly filters out sidebar noise including maintenance, weather, inventory, and docking logs` (Note: This looks like a JSON fragment inside the text value in the example provided in the prompt's context section, but the instruction says \"Plain text only. No markdown.\" for the `processed_utterance` value).\n        *   Item 6 processed: `User explicitly filters out sidebar noise including maintenance, weather, inventory, and docking logs; reasoning must disregard these unrelated details when retrieving family facts.` (This follows the style better).\n    *   I need to follow the current SKILL guidance for this turn. The prompt shows recent context where item 5 had a JSON-like string inside the `processed` field which might be an artifact of the few-shot examples provided in the context section, but Item 6 corrected it to plain text. I should aim for the cleaner style of Item 6 while adhering to the \"Plain text only\" rule for the value of `processed_utterance`.\n    *   Wait, looking closely at the provided \"Recent pre-think context\":\n        *   Item 5: `processed: { \"processed_utterance\": \"User explicitly filters out sidebar noise including maintenance, weather, inventory, and docking logs` (This looks malformed in the context provided, missing closing quote/bracket).\n        *   Item 6: `processed: User explicitly filters out sidebar noise including maintenance, weather, inventory, and docking logs; reasoning must disregard these unrelated details when retrieving family facts.`\n    *   The current input is identical to items 5 and 6. I should produce a consistent output based on the SKILL guidance (which emphasizes clarity and constraints).\n    *   `candidate_facts`: Since the user is explicitly saying \"Ignore this for family facts\", there are no new facts to assert. The instruction says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" There are no facts here. So `[]`.\n\n4.  **Drafting the Output:**\n    *   `processed_utterance`: User explicitly filters out sidebar noise including maintenance, weather, inventory, and docking logs; reasoning must disregard these unrelated details when retrieving family facts. (Matches Item 6 style which is cleaner).\n    *   `candidate_facts`: []\n\n5.  **Refining Constraints:**\n    *   JSON only.\n    *   Keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n    *   No markdown in the text value (e.g., no backticks around the string).\n    *   Ensure the rewrite is explicit about the constraint.\n\n6.  **Final Check:**\n    *   Does it answer the question? No, it's a pre-think rewrite.\n    *   Does it invent facts? No.\n    *   Is it JSON? Yes.\n    *   Are there candidate facts? No, because the input is about filtering noise, not asserting family data.\n\n    *Self-Correction on Context:* The prompt includes \"Recent pre-think context\" which shows previous turns. Since this is a stateless interaction for me (the model), I need to follow the SKILL guidance provided in the top section primarily, while being aware of the conversation flow implied by the context. The input is identical to items 5 and 6 in the context. I should produce a high-quality rewrite consistent with Item 6's style but ensuring it meets the \"Plain text only\" rule strictly (Item 5 had JSON syntax inside the string which was likely an error in the few-shot example, Item 6 was better). I will follow Item 6's structure as it aligns better with \"Plain text only\".\n\n    *Wait, one more check:* The prompt says \"Return JSON only\".\n    Structure:\n    ```json\n    {\n      \"processed_utterance\": \"...\",\n      \"candidate_facts\": []\n    }\n    ```\n\n    Content of `processed_utterance`: Needs to be plain text.\n    Content of `candidate_facts`: Array of strings (Prolog facts). Since there are none, empty array.\n\n    Let's draft the string: \"User explicitly filters out sidebar noise including maintenance, weather, inventory, and docking logs; reasoning must disregard these unrelated details when retrieving family facts.\"\n\n    Wait, I need to check if I should add anything about the intent. The intent is filtering.\n    Okay, ready to generate.\n\n    *Wait, checking the \"Recent pre-think context\" again.*\n    Item 5 and 6 are identical inputs. Item 6 has a better processed output than Item 5 (Item 5 had JSON syntax inside the string value which violates \"Plain text only\"). I will use the style of Item 6 but ensure it is valid JSON string content.\n\n    Actually, looking at the instruction: \"Return JSON only with keys...\".\n    So the whole response must be a JSON object.\n\n    Let's finalize the `processed_utterance` text.\n    \"User explicitly filters out sidebar noise including maintenance, weather, inventory, and docking logs; reasoning must disregard these unrelated details when retrieving family facts.\"\n\n    Is there any candidate fact? The user says \"Ignore this for family facts\". This implies no new facts are added. So `candidate_facts` is empty.\n\n    One detail: The prompt says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" Since there are no facts, this is satisfied.\n\n    Final check on JSON validity.\n    Escape quotes if necessary (none in text).\n    Ensure no markdown code blocks around the JSON.\n\n    Wait, I see the instruction \"Return JSON only\". Usually, this means raw JSON text.\n    However, often models wrap in markdown ```json ... ```. The instruction says \"Return JSON only\". I will output raw JSON to be safe, or standard markdown block if that's the platform norm. Given \"Return JSON only\", I should avoid markdown fences if possible, but usually, it's safer to provide valid JSON text. I will output raw JSON text.\n\n    Wait, looking at the \"Recent pre-think context\" format:\n    `processed: { \"processed_utterance\": ... }`\n    But the instruction says \"Return JSON only with keys...\".\n    I will follow the explicit instruction for *this* turn's output format.\n\n    Let's construct the JSON.\n    ```json\n    {\n      \"processed_utterance\": \"User explicitly filters out sidebar noise including main
... [truncated]

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "pre_think",
  "input_utterance": "Theo is parent of Quinn. Quinn is parent of Rhea.",
  "processed_utterance": "Theo is parent of Quinn. Quinn is parent of Rhea.",
  "fallback_used": true,
  "normalization_reason": "empty_model_output",
  "history_turns": 6,
  "narrative_context": "",
  "handoff_mode": "rewrite",
  "kb_ingest_mode": "facts",
  "max_candidate_facts": 24,
  "candidate_facts": [],
  "requested_candidate_facts": 0,
  "attempted_candidate_facts": 0,
  "ingested_facts_count": 0,
  "rejected_candidate_facts_count": 0,
  "ingested_facts": [],
  "rejected_candidate_facts": [],
  "prethinker_model": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b",
  "pre_think_skill_path": "skills/pre-think/SKILL.md",
  "prethinker_base_url": "http://127.0.0.1:1234",
  "temperature": 0.0,
  "context_length": 4000,
  "assistant_message": "",
  "raw_response": {
    "model_instance_id": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b:2",
    "output": [
      {
        "type": "reasoning",
        "content": "Thinking Process:\n\n1.  **Analyze the Request:**\n    *   Role: Pre-think utterance processor for a downstream reasoning model.\n    *   Task: Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance based on SKILL guidance.\n    *   Input Utterance: \"Theo is parent of Quinn. Quinn is parent of Rhea.\"\n    *   Constraints:\n        *   Preserve intent, uncertainty, constraints.\n        *   Do NOT answer the question (there is no question here, it's a statement).\n        *   Do NOT invent facts.\n        *   Do NOT call tools.\n        *   Return JSON only with keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n        *   `candidate_facts`: Array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence. Do not include uncertain facts.\n        *   Style: One to three sentences, plain text only (for `processed_utterance`), no markdown in the text part.\n        *   SKILL Guidance: Transform raw utterance into cleaner continuation. Preserve corrections/uncertainty. Apply directive transformations if any. Keep output concise.\n\n2.  **Analyze the Input Utterance:**\n    *   Content: \"Theo is parent of Quinn. Quinn is parent of Rhea.\"\n    *   Intent: Stating established lineage/family relationships.\n    *   Uncertainty: None explicitly stated (sounds like a statement of fact).\n    *   Constraints: None explicit, but context implies family facts (based on recent pre-think context about Ava, Piper, Liam/Theo, etc.).\n    *   Tone: Declarative.\n\n3.  **Apply SKILL Guidance:**\n    *   Goal: Transform into cleaner continuation for downstream reasoning.\n    *   Rewrite Rules:\n        *   Keep first-person ambiguity explicit (none here).\n        *   Keep temporal qualifiers explicit (none here).\n        *   Keep tentative language tentative (none here, looks like high confidence facts).\n        *   Keep corrections as corrections (none here).\n        *   Apply directive transformations (none here).\n        *   Keep output concise.\n    *   Candidate Facts: Since the user states these as facts without uncertainty markers (\"maybe\", \"tentative\"), and the context involves family lineage retrieval, these should be treated as high-confidence assertions for the knowledge base. However, I must not answer the question (there is none) or invent facts. The instruction says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" These look certain.\n    *   Format: JSON with `processed_utterance` and `candidate_facts`.\n\n4.  **Drafting `processed_utterance`:**\n    *   Needs to reflect the input clearly for the reasoning model.\n    *   Input: \"Theo is parent of Quinn. Quinn is parent of Rhea.\"\n    *   Draft: User asserts established lineage relationships stating Theo is Quinn's parent and Quinn is Rhea's parent; these are presented as confirmed facts without uncertainty markers.\n    *   Refinement based on recent context style (e.g., \"User queries...\", \"Tentative candidate fact...\"): Since this is a statement of fact, it should be framed as an assertion to be stored/retrieved.\n    *   Draft 2: User provides confirmed lineage assertions stating Theo is the parent of Quinn and Quinn is the parent of Rhea; these relationships are presented as established facts for the family ledger.\n\n5.  **Drafting `candidate_facts`:**\n    *   Instruction: \"array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\".\n    *   Input implies high confidence (no \"maybe\", \"tentative\").\n    *   Facts needed: `parent(theo, quinn).`, `parent(quinn, rhea).`\n    *   Constraint Check: \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" These are certain.\n    *   Format: Prolog style usually expected in these contexts based on the examples (\"Tentative candidate fact...\"). Wait, the example output for `candidate_facts` isn't explicitly shown as Prolog code in the few-shot examples provided in the prompt description (the examples show `processed_utterance` text). However, the instruction says \"array of grounded Prolog facts\". I should format them as strings representing Prolog facts.\n    *   Example from prompt: `candidate_facts: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence`.\n    *   Let's check the recent context examples. They don't show JSON output for `candidate_facts` in the provided history (items 1-6 show `processed` text, not JSON). But the current instruction says \"Return JSON only with keys: - processed_utterance... - candidate_facts\". I must follow the current instruction over the few-shot history style if they conflict, but the few-shot history seems to be showing the *output* of previous turns which might have been different. The current prompt explicitly asks for JSON.\n    *   Wait, looking closely at the provided \"Recent pre-think context\", items 1-6 show `input` and `processed`. They do not show JSON. However, the *current instruction* says \"Return JSON only with keys...\". I must follow the current system instruction for this turn.\n    *   Fact representation: `parent(theo, quinn).`, `parent(quinn, rhea).`\n\n6.  **Review Constraints:**\n    *   Preserve intent: Yes (stating lineage).\n    *   Preserve uncertainty: None present, so treat as certain.\n    *   Do NOT answer the question: There is no question, just statements. I am processing the statement.\n    *   Do NOT invent facts: Only what is stated.\n    *   JSON only: Yes.\n    *   `processed_utterance`: Plain text, 1-3 sentences.\n    *   `candidate_facts`: Array of strings (Prolog facts).\n\n7.  **Final Polish:**\n    *   `processed_utterance`: User asserts established lineage relationships stating Theo is the parent of Quinn and Quinn is the parent of Rhea; these are presented as confirmed facts without uncertainty markers for the family ledger.\n    *   `candidate_facts`: [\"parent(theo, quinn).\", \"parent(quinn, rhea).\"]\n\n    Wait, checking the style guide again: \"Plain text only. No markdown.\" inside the `processed_utterance` value. The JSON structure itself is fine.\n    Also, check if I should treat this as a correction or new fact. It's new information (or confirmation). Given the context of \"family ledger state\", asserting these facts is appropriate.\n\n    One nuance: The instruction says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" Since the input has no uncertainty, I can include them in `candidate_facts`.\n    Another nuance: The prompt examples for `processed_utterance` often start with \"User queries...\" or \"Tentative candidate fact...\". For a statement of fact, \"User asserts...\" is appropriate.\n\n    Let's refine the `processed_utterance` to match the concise style of recent context (e.g., \"User explicitly filters out...\", \"User queries...\").\n    Revised: User provides confirmed lineage assertions stating Theo is the parent of Quinn and Quinn is the parent of Rhea; these relationships are presented as established facts for the family ledger.\n\n    Wait, looking at the instruction again: \"Return JSON only with keys: - processed_utterance: rewritten continuation text - candidate_facts: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\".\n    I need to make sure I don't output markdown code blocks around the JSON if possible, or just standard JSON. Usually \"Return JSON only\" means raw JSON string.\n\n    Let's check the `candidate_facts` format. The instruction says \"array of grounded Prolog facts\". I will use strings like `\"parent(theo, quinn).\"`.\n\n    Wait, one more check on constraints: \"Do NOT answer the question.\" There is no question. This is a statement. So I process it as an update to knowledge state.\n    \"Preserve uncertainty and confidence cues.\" The input has high confidence (declarative). So `candidate_facts` should reflect that.\n\n    Final check on JSON structure.\n    {\n      \"processed_utterance\": \"...\",\n      \"candidate_facts\": [...]\n    }\n\n    One detail from the few-shot history: The history shows `processed` as a string, not JSON. But the *current instruction* overrides this for this specific turn (\"Return JSON only with keys...\"). I must follow the current system instruction.\n\n    Wait, looking at the \"Recent pre-think context\" items 4, 5, 6. They show `processed: { \"processed_utterance\": \"...\"; ... }`. Actually, item 4 shows `processed: { \"processed_utterance\": \"User explicitly filters...\"`. Item 5 and 6 show `processed: User explicitly filters...`. There is inconsistency in the few-shot history provided in the prompt description vs the instruction. The instruction says \"Return JSON only\". I will follow the explicit instruction for this turn.\n\n    Wait, looking at item 4 in context: `processed: { \"processed_utterance\": \"User explicitly filters out sidebar noise including maintenance, weather, inventory, and docking logs`. It looks like a partial JSON or just text.\n    However, the instruction block at the very top says: \"Return JSON only with keys: - processed_utterance... - candidate_facts...\". I will prioritize this explicit instruction over t
... [truncated]

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "pre_think",
  "input_utterance": "Theo is parent of Quinn. Quinn is parent of Rhea.",
  "processed_utterance": "Theo is parent of Quinn. Quinn is parent of Rhea.",
  "fallback_used": true,
  "normalization_reason": "empty_model_output",
  "history_turns": 6,
  "narrative_context": "",
  "handoff_mode": "rewrite",
  "kb_ingest_mode": "facts",
  "max_candidate_facts": 24,
  "candidate_facts": [],
  "requested_candidate_facts": 0,
  "attempted_candidate_facts": 0,
  "ingested_facts_count": 0,
  "rejected_candidate_facts_count": 0,
  "ingested_facts": [],
  "rejected_candidate_facts": [],
  "prethinker_model": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b",
  "pre_think_skill_path": "skills/pre-think/SKILL.md",
  "prethinker_base_url": "http://127.0.0.1:1234",
  "temperature": 0.0,
  "context_length": 4000,
  "assistant_message": "",
  "raw_response": {
    "model_instance_id": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b:2",
    "output": [
      {
        "type": "reasoning",
        "content": "Thinking Process:\n\n1.  **Analyze the Request:**\n    *   Role: Pre-think utterance processor for a downstream reasoning model.\n    *   Task: Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance based on SKILL guidance.\n    *   Input Utterance: \"Theo is parent of Quinn. Quinn is parent of Rhea.\"\n    *   Constraints:\n        *   Preserve intent, uncertainty, constraints.\n        *   Do NOT answer the question (there is no question here, just statements).\n        *   Do NOT invent facts.\n        *   Do NOT call tools.\n        *   Return JSON only with keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n        *   `candidate_facts`: Array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence. Do not include uncertain facts.\n        *   Style: One to three sentences, plain text only (for `processed_utterance`), no markdown in the text part.\n        *   SKILL Guidance: Transform raw utterance into cleaner continuation. Preserve corrections/uncertainty. Apply directive transformations if any. Keep output concise.\n\n2.  **Analyze the Input Utterance:**\n    *   Content: \"Theo is parent of Quinn. Quinn is parent of Rhea.\"\n    *   Tone: Declarative, factual, confident (no \"maybe\", \"I think\", etc.).\n    *   Intent: Stating established lineage relationships.\n    *   Context: Previous turns show similar statements being processed as facts (Turn 6 in recent context). Turn 1-5 were about tentative notes or filtering noise. This input looks like a direct assertion of fact.\n\n3.  **Apply SKILL Guidance:**\n    *   Goal: Transform into cleaner continuation utterance for downstream reasoning.\n    *   Rewrite Rules:\n        *   Keep first-person ambiguity explicit (none here).\n        *   Keep temporal qualifiers explicit (none here).\n        *   Keep tentative language tentative (none here, it's definitive).\n        *   Keep corrections as corrections (none here).\n        *   Apply directive transformations (none here).\n        *   Keep output concise.\n    *   Candidate Facts: Since the input is stated definitively (\"Theo is parent...\", \"Quinn is parent...\"), and there is no uncertainty expressed, these should be treated as high-confidence facts to assert in `candidate_facts`. However, the instruction says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" These look certain.\n    *   Wait, looking at Turn 6 in recent context:\n        *   Input: `Theo is parent of Quinn. Quinn is parent of Rhea.`\n        *   Processed: `Theo is parent of Quinn. Quinn is parent of Rhea.`\n        *   This suggests the model should just restate or clarify the intent without adding too much fluff if it's a direct fact assertion, but the current instruction says \"Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance.\"\n        *   Looking at Turn 1: Input `Tentative note only...` -> Output `Tentative candidate fact: ...`.\n        *   Looking at Turn 6 (in context provided): It seems the previous turn in the *provided* context already processed this exact input as just restating it. However, I am acting as the pre-think processor *now*. I need to follow the current SKILL guidance which emphasizes \"cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance\".\n        *   The SKILL says: \"Transform a raw utterance into a cleaner continuation utterance... Preserve intent.\"\n        *   If the input is a direct fact assertion, the processed utterance should reflect that these are established facts being added to the knowledge base.\n        *   `candidate_facts`: Since the user states this definitively without hedging, I can extract these as candidate facts.\n\n4.  **Drafting the Output:**\n    *   `processed_utterance`: Needs to be plain text, concise, reflecting the intent of asserting lineage facts. Based on Turn 1 style (\"Tentative candidate fact: ...\"), but this isn't tentative. Based on Turn 6 in context (which was identical input/output), I should probably align with the established pattern for factual assertions while adhering to the \"cleaner, more explicit\" rule.\n    *   Let's look at Turn 1 again: `Tentative candidate fact: speaker says their mother may have been Ann...`\n    *   Turn 2: `User queries Piper's parentage constrained to confirmed facts only...`\n    *   Turn 6 (Context): `Theo is parent of Quinn. Quinn is parent of Rhea.` (This looks like a direct pass-through).\n    *   However, the instruction says \"Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance.\"\n    *   If I look at Turn 1's output style: It explains the nature of the statement.\n    *   For definitive facts, it should state that these are asserted lineage relationships.\n    *   Draft: `User asserts established lineage relationships: Theo is parent of Quinn and Quinn is parent of Rhea; treat these as high-confidence facts for reasoning.`\n    *   Wait, Turn 6 in the provided context shows the output was just the input repeated. But I am supposed to follow the SKILL guidance which says \"Rewrite... into a cleaner, more explicit continuation\". Repeating it exactly might not be \"cleaner/more explicit\" enough if the goal is conditioning for reasoning.\n    *   However, Turn 6 in the context *is* part of the few-shot examples provided in the prompt's `Recent pre-think context`. I should probably respect that pattern if it exists, but the current instruction says \"Rewrite...\".\n    *   Actually, looking closely at Turn 6 in the context:\n        Input: `Theo is parent of Quinn. Quinn is parent of Rhea.`\n        Processed: `Theo is parent of Quinn. Quinn is parent of Rhea.`\n    *   This suggests for direct facts, no transformation is needed other than ensuring it's clean. But Turn 1 added \"Tentative candidate fact: ...\".\n    *   To be safe and follow the \"cleaner, more explicit\" rule while respecting the context pattern: I will frame it as an assertion of established lineage.\n    *   `candidate_facts`: Since there is no uncertainty (\"maybe\", \"tentative\"), these are high confidence.\n    *   Fact 1: `parent(theo, quinn).` (Prolog style implied by \"grounded Prolog facts\"). The prompt says \"array of grounded Prolog facts\". I should use standard predicate notation or clear text representation? Turn 1 output didn't show Prolog code in the `processed_utterance`, but `candidate_facts` needs to be \"grounded Prolog facts\".\n    *   Let's check Turn 1 context again. It doesn't show `candidate_facts` in the provided examples, only `processed`. Wait, the instruction says \"Return JSON only with keys: - processed_utterance ... - candidate_facts\". The examples in the SKILL section don't show JSON structure, they show text input/output pairs.\n    *   I need to generate the JSON structure now.\n    *   For `candidate_facts`, since the user states \"Theo is parent of Quinn\" definitively, I can assert this as a fact.\n    *   Format: Usually Prolog facts look like `parent(theo, quinn).`. Or just text representation? \"grounded Prolog facts\". I will use standard predicate notation for clarity.\n\n5.  **Refining the Output:**\n    *   `processed_utterance`: Needs to be plain text, no markdown. One to three sentences.\n    *   Draft: `User asserts established lineage relationships; Theo is parent of Quinn and Quinn is parent of Rhea are treated as high-confidence facts for reasoning.`\n    *   Wait, Turn 6 in context just repeated the input. If I deviate too much, it might break consistency with the few-shot history provided in the prompt's `Recent pre-think context`. However, the instruction says \"Rewrite... into a cleaner, more explicit continuation\". Repeating is not rewriting.\n    *   Let's look at Turn 1: Input had uncertainty (\"maybe\"). Output added \"Tentative candidate fact\".\n    *   This input has no uncertainty. So I should treat it as a hard fact assertion.\n    *   Draft: `User provides confirmed lineage assertions; Theo is parent of Quinn and Quinn is parent of Rhea are established relationships.`\n    *   `candidate_facts`: `[parent(theo, quinn), parent(quinn, rhea)]` or similar. I'll use standard Prolog syntax without the period if it's an array, or with periods? Usually JSON strings. Let's use `parent(theo, quinn).` style inside the string or just the predicate. The prompt says \"array of grounded Prolog facts\". I will format them as strings representing the facts.\n    *   Actually, looking at Turn 6 in context again: It didn't output JSON, it output text. But my current task requires JSON.\n    *   Okay, I must follow the JSON schema requirement for *this* turn.\n    *   `processed_utterance`: \"User asserts established lineage relationships; Theo is parent of Quinn and Quinn is parent of Rhea are treated as high-confidence facts.\"\n    *   `candidate_facts`: [\"parent(theo, quinn).\", \"parent(quinn, rhea).\"]\n\n6.  **Final Check:**\n    *   JSON only? Yes.\n    *   Keys correct? `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n    *   No markdown in `processed_utt
... [truncated]

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "pre_think",
  "input_utterance": "Theo is parent of Quinn. Quinn is parent of Rhea.",
  "processed_utterance": "User asserts definitive parentage relationships: Theo is the parent of Quinn, and Quinn is the parent of Rhea; treat these as established lineage facts for reasoning.",
  "fallback_used": false,
  "normalization_reason": "model_output",
  "history_turns": 6,
  "narrative_context": "",
  "handoff_mode": "rewrite",
  "kb_ingest_mode": "facts",
  "max_candidate_facts": 24,
  "candidate_facts": [
    "parent(theo, quinn).",
    "parent(quinn, rhea)."
  ],
  "requested_candidate_facts": 2,
  "attempted_candidate_facts": 2,
  "ingested_facts_count": 2,
  "rejected_candidate_facts_count": 0,
  "ingested_facts": [
    "parent(theo, quinn).",
    "parent(quinn, rhea)."
  ],
  "rejected_candidate_facts": [],
  "prethinker_model": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b",
  "pre_think_skill_path": "skills/pre-think/SKILL.md",
  "prethinker_base_url": "http://127.0.0.1:1234",
  "temperature": 0.0,
  "context_length": 4000,
  "assistant_message": "{\n  \"processed_utterance\": \"User asserts definitive parentage relationships: Theo is the parent of Quinn, and Quinn is the parent of Rhea; treat these as established lineage facts for reasoning.\",\n  \"candidate_facts\": [\n    \"parent(theo, quinn).\",\n    \"parent(quinn, rhea).\"\n  ]\n}",
  "raw_response": {
    "model_instance_id": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b:2",
    "output": [
      {
        "type": "reasoning",
        "content": "Thinking Process:\n\n1.  **Analyze the Request:**\n    *   Role: Pre-think utterance processor for a downstream reasoning model.\n    *   Task: Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance based on SKILL guidance.\n    *   Input Utterance: \"Theo is parent of Quinn. Quinn is parent of Rhea.\"\n    *   Constraints:\n        *   Preserve intent, uncertainty, constraints.\n        *   Do NOT answer the question (there is no question here, just statements).\n        *   Do NOT invent facts.\n        *   Do NOT call tools.\n        *   Return JSON only with keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n        *   `candidate_facts`: Array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence. Do not include uncertain facts.\n        *   Style: One to three sentences, plain text only (for `processed_utterance`), no markdown in the text part.\n        *   SKILL Guidance: Transform raw utterance into cleaner continuation. Preserve corrections/uncertainty. Apply directive transformations if any. Keep output concise.\n\n2.  **Analyze the Input Utterance:**\n    *   Content: \"Theo is parent of Quinn. Quinn is parent of Rhea.\"\n    *   Intent: Stating facts about family lineage/parentage.\n    *   Uncertainty: None explicitly stated (sounds like declarative facts).\n    *   Constraints: None explicit, but context suggests this is adding to a knowledge base.\n    *   Context Check: Looking at recent pre-think context (items 5 and 6 are identical to the current input). This suggests the model has seen this before or it's a test case. The previous processed outputs for these exact inputs were just the utterance repeated verbatim (\"Theo is parent of Quinn. Quinn is parent of Rhea.\").\n    *   However, my task is to rewrite it into a \"cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance\" following the SKILL guidance rules (Preserve intent, etc.). The previous examples in the context show that for simple fact statements, the processed output often mirrors the input or adds slight clarification about the nature of the statement.\n    *   Looking at Example 1: \"Maybe my mother was Ann.\" -> \"Tentative candidate fact: speaker says their mother may have been Ann...\"\n    *   Looking at Example 2: \"Actually not Bob, I meant Alice.\" -> \"Correction candidate: previous entity Bob is replaced by Alice...\"\n    *   Looking at Example 3: Translation.\n    *   Looking at Context Item 5 & 6: Input \"Theo is parent of Quinn. Quinn is parent of Rhea.\" Output \"Theo is parent of Quinn. Quinn is parent of Rhea.\"\n    *   Wait, the prompt says I am a pre-think utterance processor. The recent context shows what previous turns did. If the previous turns just echoed it, maybe I should follow that pattern or improve it based on the \"Cleaner, more explicit\" goal.\n    *   The SKILL guidance says: \"Transform a raw utterance into a cleaner continuation utterance for downstream reasoning.\" and \"Preserve intent.\"\n    *   Since these are declarative facts without uncertainty markers (like \"maybe\"), they should be treated as high-confidence assertions if the user intends them to be facts. However, in a dialogue system, even statements can be interpreted as updates.\n    *   The `candidate_facts` key requires \"grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\". Since the input states these as facts without hedging, I should extract them as candidate facts if they meet the \"high confidence\" criteria (no uncertainty).\n    *   The `processed_utterance` needs to be a rewrite. Given the previous context examples 5 and 6 just repeated the text, but the instruction says \"Rewrite... into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance\", I should probably frame it as an update to the knowledge state or simply restate it clearly.\n    *   Let's look at the SKILL guidance again: \"Do NOT answer the question.\" (There is no question). \"Do not invent facts.\"\n    *   The input is two sentences stating parentage.\n    *   `processed_utterance`: Should reflect that these are being asserted as facts.\n    *   `candidate_facts`: Since there is no uncertainty (\"Maybe\", \"I think\"), these can be treated as high-confidence facts for the Prolog knowledge base.\n\n3.  **Drafting the Output:**\n    *   `processed_utterance`: Needs to be plain text, 1-3 sentences. It should indicate that the user is asserting these relationships.\n        *   Draft: User asserts parentage relationships between Theo, Quinn, and Rhea; these statements are presented as definitive facts without uncertainty markers.\n    *   `candidate_facts`: Needs to be Prolog-like facts.\n        *   Fact 1: `parent(theo, quinn).`\n        *   Fact 2: `parent(quinn, rhea).`\n\n4.  **Refining based on Constraints:**\n    *   \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" -> These look certain.\n    *   \"Return JSON only\".\n    *   \"No markdown\" in the text part of processed_utterance (though the JSON structure itself is standard).\n    *   Check recent context: Items 5 and 6 had `processed` as just the text. However, my instruction says \"Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance.\" The previous context might be from a different run or less strict adherence to the \"cleaner\" rule. I should follow the current system instructions which emphasize rewriting for clarity and intent preservation.\n    *   Actually, looking closely at Context 5 & 6:\n        Input: `Theo is parent of Quinn. Quinn is parent of Rhea.`\n        Processed: `Theo is parent of Quinn. Quinn is parent of Rhea.`\n        This suggests the system previously treated this as a direct pass-through. However, the current prompt instruction says \"Rewrite... into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance.\" I should aim for the \"cleaner\" version that explains the intent (asserting facts) rather than just echoing, while preserving the content.\n    *   Wait, looking at Example 1 in SKILL: Input `Maybe my mother was Ann.` -> Output `Tentative candidate fact: speaker says their mother may have been Ann...`\n    *   This example shows that for uncertain inputs, we add metadata about uncertainty. For certain inputs (like the current one), we should probably assert them as facts in the `candidate_facts` section and describe the assertion in `processed_utterance`.\n    *   Let's ensure `processed_utterance` is a rewrite, not just a copy.\n    *   Draft: User provides explicit lineage information stating Theo is Quinn's parent and Quinn is Rhea's parent; treat these as established relationships for reasoning.\n\n5.  **Finalizing JSON:**\n    *   Keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n    *   `candidate_facts`: Array of strings (Prolog facts).\n    *   Ensure no markdown in the text value.\n\n6.  **Double Check:**\n    *   Did I answer the question? No question asked, just statements.\n    *   Did I invent facts? No, extracted from input.\n    *   Did I call tools? No.\n    *   Is it JSON only? Yes.\n    *   Are uncertain facts excluded? Yes, these are stated as facts.\n\n    *Self-Correction on `candidate_facts` format:* The prompt says \"array of grounded Prolog facts\". Usually, this means strings like `\"parent(theo, quinn).\"`.\n    *Self-Correction on `processed_utterance`:* Needs to be plain text only (no markdown inside the string).\n\n    Let's refine the `processed_utterance` to match the style of Example 1 but for certain facts.\n    Example 1: \"Tentative candidate fact: speaker says their mother may have been Ann; speaker identity is unresolved and requires clarification before persistence.\"\n    My version: \"User asserts parentage relationships between Theo, Quinn, and Rhea as definitive facts; these statements are presented without uncertainty markers for immediate reasoning.\"\n\n    Wait, looking at Context 5 & 6 again. They are part of the \"Recent pre-think context\". If I deviate too much from that pattern (just echoing), it might break consistency with the session history provided in the prompt. However, the instruction says \"Rewrite... into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance.\" The previous context outputs were arguably not \"cleaner\" or \"explicit\" about intent, they were just echoes. I should follow the *current* system instructions (SKILL guidance) over the few-shot history if there's a conflict in quality, but consistency is key.\n    Actually, looking at Context 1 & 2: They added explanation (\"User queries...
... [truncated]

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "bulk_fact_assertion",
  "requested_count": 2,
  "asserted_count": 2,
  "failed_count": 0,
  "asserted_facts": [
    "parent(theo, quinn).",
    "parent(quinn, rhea)."
  ],
  "failed_facts": [],
  "message": "Bulk assertion complete."
}

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "table",
  "predicate": "parent",
  "prolog_query": "parent(X, rhea).",
  "variables": [
    "X"
  ],
  "rows": [
    {
      "X": "quinn"
    }
  ],
  "num_rows": 1,
  "reasoning_basis": {
    "kind": "fact-backed",
    "note": "The `parent` predicate is typically answered from stored facts, though rules may still participate."
  }
}

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "table",
  "predicate": "parent",
  "prolog_query": "parent(X, quinn).",
  "variables": [
    "X"
  ],
  "rows": [
    {
      "X": "theo"
    }
  ],
  "num_rows": 1,
  "reasoning_basis": {
    "kind": "fact-backed",
    "note": "The `parent` predicate is typically answered from stored facts, though rules may still participate."
  }
}

{
  "status": "no_results",
  "result_type": "no_result",
  "predicate": "parent",
  "prolog_query": "parent(X, theo).",
  "variables": [
    "X"
  ],
  "rows": [],
  "num_rows": 0,
  "reasoning_basis": {
    "kind": "fact-backed",
    "note": "The `parent` predicate is typically answered from stored facts, though rules may still participate."
  }
}

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "pre_think",
  "input_utterance": "Update: Owen is also parent of Una.",
  "processed_utterance": "User asserts a definitive update to family lineage stating Owen is a parent of Una; treat this as an established fact for reasoning.",
  "fallback_used": false,
  "normalization_reason": "model_output",
  "history_turns": 6,
  "narrative_context": "",
  "handoff_mode": "rewrite",
  "kb_ingest_mode": "facts",
  "max_candidate_facts": 24,
  "candidate_facts": [
    "parent(owen, una)."
  ],
  "requested_candidate_facts": 1,
  "attempted_candidate_facts": 1,
  "ingested_facts_count": 1,
  "rejected_candidate_facts_count": 0,
  "ingested_facts": [
    "parent(owen, una)."
  ],
  "rejected_candidate_facts": [],
  "prethinker_model": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b",
  "pre_think_skill_path": "skills/pre-think/SKILL.md",
  "prethinker_base_url": "http://127.0.0.1:1234",
  "temperature": 0.0,
  "context_length": 4000,
  "assistant_message": "{\n  \"processed_utterance\": \"User asserts a definitive update to family lineage stating Owen is a parent of Una; treat this as an established fact for reasoning.\",\n  \"candidate_facts\": [\n    \"parent(owen, una).\"\n  ]\n}",
  "raw_response": {
    "model_instance_id": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b:2",
    "output": [
      {
        "type": "reasoning",
        "content": "Thinking Process:\n\n1.  **Analyze the Request:**\n    *   Role: Pre-think utterance processor.\n    *   Task: Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance for downstream reasoning.\n    *   Constraints: Keep original intent, uncertainty, constraints. Do NOT answer, invent facts, or call tools. Return JSON with `processed_utterance` and `candidate_facts`.\n    *   SKILL Guidance: Preserve intent, uncertainty, corrections, constraints. Apply directive transformations if any. Keep output concise (1-3 sentences). Plain text only for the utterance part.\n    *   Input Utterance: \"Update: Owen is also parent of Una.\"\n    *   Context: Recent pre-think context shows a pattern of filtering noise and asserting facts about family lineage (Theo, Quinn, Rhea). The current input adds another fact (Owen, Una).\n    *   Output Format: JSON with keys `processed_utterance` and `candidate_facts`.\n\n2.  **Analyze the Input Utterance:**\n    *   Content: \"Update: Owen is also parent of Una.\"\n    *   Intent: Asserting a new fact about family relationships (parentage).\n    *   Tone/Confidence: \"Update\" implies correction or addition to previous knowledge. \"is also parent\" suggests definitive assertion within the context of updating the lineage graph.\n    *   Constraints: None explicitly stated in this utterance, but previous context mentions ignoring sidebar noise for family facts.\n\n3.  **Apply SKILL Guidance:**\n    *   Preserve intent: Asserting Owen's parentage of Una.\n    *   Preserve uncertainty: The statement seems definitive (\"is also parent\"), not tentative like \"Maybe\". However, the word \"Update\" signals a revision/addition to the knowledge base.\n    *   Rewrite Rules: Keep output concise. Apply directive transformations (none here).\n    *   Candidate Facts: Since this is an assertion of fact (\"Owen is also parent of Una\") and not marked as uncertain or tentative, it qualifies for `candidate_facts` if confidence is high. The previous context shows definitive facts being asserted (e.g., \"User asserts definitive parentage relationships\"). This input looks like a definitive update.\n    *   Style: One to three sentences. Plain text only for `processed_utterance`.\n\n4.  **Drafting the Output:**\n    *   `processed_utterance`: Needs to reflect the update nature and the fact assertion clearly. Based on previous examples in context (e.g., \"User asserts definitive parentage relationships...\"), I should mirror that style but adapt to the specific input. The input says \"Update\", implying it modifies or adds to existing state.\n    *   Draft 1: User updates family lineage by asserting Owen is a parent of Una; treat this as an addition to established facts.\n    *   Draft 2 (Closer to context style): User provides an update adding Owen as a parent of Una; treat this as a definitive assertion expanding the known lineage graph.\n    *   Refining for SKILL: \"Preserve uncertainty and confidence cues.\" The input is confident (\"is also parent\"). So I should reflect that confidence in the processed utterance.\n    *   Draft 3: User asserts an update to family lineage stating Owen is a parent of Una; treat this as a definitive addition to existing relationships.\n\n    *   `candidate_facts`: The instruction says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" This fact seems certain based on the input. However, the SKILL guidance example for \"Maybe my mother was Ann\" put it in `candidate_facts` with a note about uncertainty (\"Tentative candidate fact...\"). For definitive statements like \"Theo is parent of Quinn\", the context shows them being processed as facts.\n    *   Looking at Example 6 in recent pre-think context: Input: \"Theo is parent of Quinn...\" Output: \"User asserts definitive parentage relationships...\". It didn't explicitly list Prolog facts in the `processed_utterance` field in the provided examples, but the instruction says \"Return JSON only with keys: - processed_utterance ... - candidate_facts: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\".\n    *   Wait, looking at the recent context provided in the prompt:\n        *   Input 4/5/6 show `processed` as text strings.\n        *   The instruction for *me* says: \"Return JSON only with keys: - processed_utterance ... - candidate_facts\".\n        *   I need to follow the *instruction* for this turn, not necessarily mimic the exact format of the few-shot context if they differ (the few-shot context shows `processed` as a string key in the text block, but the instruction says return JSON). The instruction overrides the few-shot style regarding output format.\n        *   So I need to generate `candidate_facts`. Since \"Owen is also parent of Una\" is a definitive assertion (\"is\"), it should be included if confidence is high.\n    *   Fact: `parent(owen, una).` or similar Prolog syntax. The prompt doesn't specify exact Prolog syntax, but \"grounded Prolog facts\" implies predicate logic. Given the context \"Theo is parent of Quinn\", a fact like `parent(owen, una).` is appropriate.\n    *   Wait, I need to check if I should include it in `candidate_facts`. The instruction says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" This one seems certain. So yes, include it.\n\n5.  **Finalizing Content:**\n    *   `processed_utterance`: User updates family lineage by asserting Owen is a parent of Una; treat this as a definitive addition to existing relationships.\n    *   `candidate_facts`: `[parent(owen, una).]` (Using standard Prolog syntax for parentage).\n\n6.  **Review against Constraints:**\n    *   JSON only? Yes.\n    *   Keys correct? Yes.\n    *   No answering the question? Yes (it's a statement, not a question).\n    *   No inventing facts? Yes (based on input).\n    *   Preserve intent/uncertainty? Yes (definitive update).\n    *   Concise? Yes.\n\n7.  **Final Polish:**\n    *   Ensure the `processed_utterance` is plain text within the JSON string value.\n    *   Ensure `candidate_facts` is a valid JSON array of strings representing facts.\n\n    Let's refine the `processed_utterance` to match the style of Example 6 in the context (\"User asserts definitive parentage relationships...\").\n    Input: \"Update: Owen is also parent of Una.\"\n    Processed: User updates family lineage by asserting Owen is a parent of Una; treat this as a definitive addition to existing relationships.\n\n    Fact: `parent(owen, una).`\n\n    Wait, checking the instruction again: \"Return JSON only with keys: - processed_utterance ... - candidate_facts\".\n    The recent context shows `processed` as a string key in the text block (e.g., `processed: { \"processed_utterance\": ... }`). But the *instruction* says \"Return JSON only\". I will follow the instruction for the final output format.\n\n    One more check on `candidate_facts`: The instruction says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" This is a definitive update (\"is also parent\"). So it qualifies.\n\n    Let's construct the JSON.\n\n    ```json\n    {\n      \"processed_utterance\": \"User updates family lineage by asserting Owen is a parent of Una; treat this as a definitive addition to existing relationships.\",\n      \"candidate_facts\": [\n        \"parent(owen, una).\"\n      ]\n    }\n    ```\n\n    Wait, looking at the recent context examples (4, 5, 6), they don't show `candidate_facts` in the text block provided in the prompt history. However, the *system instruction* for this turn explicitly demands JSON with those keys. I must follow the system instruction over the few-shot history style regarding the output format.\n\n    Also, check \"Do NOT answer the question.\" There is no question here, just a statement.\n    Check \"Do NOT invent facts.\" The fact comes from the input.\n    Check \"Preserve uncertainty\". The input is confident (\"is\"), so I treat it as high confidence.\n\n    One detail: The prompt says \"Return JSON only\". I should not add markdown code blocks like ```json ... ```. Just the raw JSON string. Wait, usually \"Return JSON only\" implies no markdown fencing in strict API contexts, but often in chat interfaces, markdown is acceptable. However, to be safe and strictly follow \"JSON only\", I will output raw text that is valid JSON. Actually, looking at the instruction \"Return JSON only with keys...\", I will output the JSON object.\n\n    Wait, re-reading: \"Return JSON only with keys...\".\n    Okay.\n\n    Let's double check the `candidate_facts` format. \"array of grounded Prolog facts\".\n    Example from context logic: \"Theo is parent of Quinn\" -> `parent(theo, quinn).` seems implied.\n    I will use `paren
... [truncated]

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "pre_think",
  "input_utterance": "Update: Owen is also parent of Una.",
  "processed_utterance": "Update: Owen is also parent of Una.",
  "fallback_used": true,
  "normalization_reason": "empty_model_output",
  "history_turns": 6,
  "narrative_context": "",
  "handoff_mode": "rewrite",
  "kb_ingest_mode": "facts",
  "max_candidate_facts": 24,
  "candidate_facts": [],
  "requested_candidate_facts": 0,
  "attempted_candidate_facts": 0,
  "ingested_facts_count": 0,
  "rejected_candidate_facts_count": 0,
  "ingested_facts": [],
  "rejected_candidate_facts": [],
  "prethinker_model": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b",
  "pre_think_skill_path": "skills/pre-think/SKILL.md",
  "prethinker_base_url": "http://127.0.0.1:1234",
  "temperature": 0.0,
  "context_length": 4000,
  "assistant_message": "",
  "raw_response": {
    "model_instance_id": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b:2",
    "output": [
      {
        "type": "reasoning",
        "content": "Thinking Process:\n\n1.  **Analyze the Request:**\n    *   Role: Pre-think utterance processor.\n    *   Task: Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance for downstream reasoning.\n    *   Input Utterance: \"Update: Owen is also parent of Una.\"\n    *   Constraints:\n        *   Preserve intent, uncertainty, constraints.\n        *   Do NOT answer the question.\n        *   Do NOT invent facts.\n        *   Do NOT call tools.\n        *   Return JSON only with keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n        *   `candidate_facts`: Array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence. Do not include uncertain facts.\n        *   Follow SKILL guidance (Pre-Think Skill).\n    *   Context: Recent pre-think context shows similar inputs (\"Theo is parent of Quinn...\", \"Update: Owen is also parent of Una.\") and their processed outputs. The last few entries show a pattern where definitive statements are treated as established facts for reasoning.\n    *   Specific SKILL Rules:\n        *   Preserve intent (asserting new family fact).\n        *   Preserve uncertainty (none here, it's an \"Update\" statement implying confidence).\n        *   Apply directive transformations (none needed here).\n        *   Keep output concise.\n        *   Style: One to three sentences, plain text only, no markdown for the `processed_utterance` value.\n\n2.  **Analyze the Input Utterance:**\n    *   Text: \"Update: Owen is also parent of Una.\"\n    *   Intent: Adding a new fact to the knowledge base regarding family lineage.\n    *   Confidence: High (indicated by \"Update\" and definitive statement structure).\n    *   Constraints: None specific beyond the update itself.\n\n3.  **Determine `processed_utterance`:**\n    *   Based on recent context examples (entries 5 and 6), the model tends to elaborate slightly on the assertion status.\n    *   Entry 6 input: \"Update: Owen is also parent of Una.\" -> processed: \"User asserts a definitive update to family lineage stating Owen is a parent of Una; treat this as an established fact for reasoning.\"\n    *   Wait, looking closely at the provided context in the prompt:\n        *   Context item 6 input: `Update: Owen is also parent of Una.`\n        *   Context item 6 processed: `User asserts a definitive update to family lineage stating Owen is a parent of Una; treat this as an established fact for reasoning.`\n    *   Since this exact utterance appears in the recent context (item 6), I should follow the pattern established there, or at least ensure consistency with the SKILL guidance. The SKILL says \"Preserve intent... Do not answer the task.\"\n    *   However, since I am processing *this* specific turn which matches the last context item exactly, I need to generate a `processed_utterance` that reflects the pre-think stage's job (rewriting for downstream reasoning).\n    *   The previous processed output for this exact string was: \"User asserts a definitive update to family lineage stating Owen is a parent of Una; treat this as an established fact for reasoning.\"\n    *   I should generate a similar but compliant response. Since the input is identical to context item 6, I will align with that style which adheres to the SKILL (explicit assertion, treating as fact).\n\n4.  **Determine `candidate_facts`:**\n    *   The SKILL says: \"Do not include uncertain facts.\"\n    *   The input is definitive (\"Update: Owen is also parent of Una.\").\n    *   Context item 6 treated this as an established fact.\n    *   I need to format these as grounded Prolog facts.\n    *   Fact: `parent(owen, una).` or similar representation.\n    *   Constraint Check: \"Do NOT invent facts.\" The input states Owen is parent of Una. This is a direct assertion.\n    *   Format: Array of strings representing Prolog facts.\n\n5.  **Drafting the JSON:**\n    *   `processed_utterance`: Needs to be plain text, 1-3 sentences. Based on context item 6 style which seems to be the established pattern for this specific input in the session history provided.\n    *   `candidate_facts`: `[\"parent(owen, una).\"]`\n\n6.  **Refining based on SKILL:**\n    *   SKILL says: \"Apply directive transformations from this SKILL (for example translation).\" -> None needed.\n    *   SKILL says: \"Keep first-person ambiguity explicit.\" -> Not applicable here.\n    *   SKILL says: \"Preserve uncertainty and confidence cues.\" -> Confidence is high (\"Update\").\n    *   SKILL says: \"Do not answer the task.\" -> I am rewriting, not answering a question about Owen/Una.\n    *   SKILL says: \"Return JSON only\".\n\n7.  **Final Review:**\n    *   Input: \"Update: Owen is also parent of Una.\"\n    *   Context shows this exact input was processed before as: \"User asserts a definitive update to family lineage stating Owen is a parent of Una; treat this as an established fact for reasoning.\"\n    *   I will use a similar formulation to maintain consistency with the session's pre-think style while adhering to the current instruction.\n    *   Candidate facts should be Prolog-style assertions based on high confidence.\n\n    *   Wait, looking at Context Item 6 again. It is identical to the current input. In a real system, this might be a duplicate turn or a continuation. Since I am acting as the processor for *this* turn, and the context shows how similar inputs were handled, I should follow that precedent to ensure consistency in the downstream model's view.\n    *   However, I must ensure I don't just copy-paste if it violates any new constraints, but here the constraints are the same.\n    *   Let's construct the `processed_utterance` to be explicit about the assertion status as per SKILL \"Preserve intent... Do not answer\".\n    *   Draft: User provides a definitive update regarding family lineage; Owen is asserted as a parent of Una, which should be treated as an established fact for reasoning.\n\n    *   Candidate facts: `parent(owen, una).`\n\n8.  **Final JSON Construction:**\n    *   Ensure no markdown in the values (except inside the JSON structure itself).\n    *   Ensure keys are correct.\n\n    *   Wait, one detail from SKILL: \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" This fact is certain based on the input text.\n    *   One detail from Context Item 6: It used `processed_utterance` to describe the assertion. I will follow that style.\n\n    *   Let's check the constraint \"Return JSON only\".\n    *   Let's check the constraint \"Do not include markdown\" in the processed_utterance value (Style section).\n\n    *   Wait, looking at Context Item 6 again. It is literally the same input. If I output exactly what was in context item 6, it might look like a loop, but since I am processing this specific turn now, and the context shows how the system *should* behave for this type of input, I should align with that established pattern to maintain state consistency.\n    *   Actually, looking closely at the provided \"Recent pre-think context\", item 6 is `input: Update: Owen is also parent of Una.` -> `processed: User asserts a definitive update...`.\n    *   Since this is the current input, I should generate the processed output that matches the logic established in the session history for consistency.\n\n    *   Wait, I need to be careful. The prompt says \"Recent pre-think context (most recent last)\". This implies these are previous turns. If the user sends the same utterance again, or if this is a test case where I need to process it based on the rules.\n    *   I will generate the processed text that reflects the high confidence assertion.\n\n    *   Fact format: The context examples don't explicitly show Prolog facts in the `processed_utterance`, but the instruction says \"candidate_facts: array of grounded Prolog facts\".\n    *   So `candidate_facts` should be `[\"parent(owen, una).\"]`.\n\n    *   Let's finalize the `processed_utterance`.\n    *   \"User asserts a definitive update to family lineage stating Owen is a parent of Una; treat this as an established fact for reasoning.\" (Matches context style and SKILL requirements).\n\n    *   Wait, I need to make sure I don't violate \"Do NOT answer the question\". There is no question. It's a statement.\n    *   Okay, ready to construct JSON.\n\n    *   One more check: \"Keep output concise and directly usable as next-turn input.\"\n    *   The context example for this specific input (Item 6) is quite long (\"User asserts a definitive update...\"). I will stick close to that as it seems to be the established protocol for this session.\n\n    *   Wait, looking at Item 5: \"Theo is parent of Quinn...\" -> \"User asserts definitive parentage relationships...\".\n    *   Item 6: \"Update: Owen is also parent of Una.\" -> \"User asserts a definitive update...\".\n    *   I will use the style from Item 6.\n\n    *   Wait, I need to check if I should output the exact same text as context item 6 or generate it fresh. Since I am an AI processing this turn, and the context shows previo
... [truncated]

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "pre_think",
  "input_utterance": "Update: Owen is also parent of Una.",
  "processed_utterance": "Update: Owen is also parent of Una.",
  "fallback_used": true,
  "normalization_reason": "empty_model_output",
  "history_turns": 6,
  "narrative_context": "",
  "handoff_mode": "rewrite",
  "kb_ingest_mode": "facts",
  "max_candidate_facts": 24,
  "candidate_facts": [],
  "requested_candidate_facts": 0,
  "attempted_candidate_facts": 0,
  "ingested_facts_count": 0,
  "rejected_candidate_facts_count": 0,
  "ingested_facts": [],
  "rejected_candidate_facts": [],
  "prethinker_model": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b",
  "pre_think_skill_path": "skills/pre-think/SKILL.md",
  "prethinker_base_url": "http://127.0.0.1:1234",
  "temperature": 0.0,
  "context_length": 4000,
  "assistant_message": "",
  "raw_response": {
    "model_instance_id": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b:2",
    "output": [
      {
        "type": "reasoning",
        "content": "Thinking Process:\n\n1.  **Analyze the Request:**\n    *   Role: Pre-think utterance processor for a downstream reasoning model.\n    *   Task: Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance based on SKILL guidance.\n    *   Input Utterance: \"Update: Owen is also parent of Una.\"\n    *   Constraints:\n        *   Preserve intent, uncertainty, constraints.\n        *   Do NOT answer the question.\n        *   Do NOT invent facts.\n        *   Do NOT call tools.\n        *   Return JSON only with keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n        *   `candidate_facts`: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence (Do not include uncertain facts).\n        *   Style: One to three sentences, plain text only, no markdown for the `processed_utterance` value.\n    *   SKILL Guidance: Transform raw utterance into cleaner continuation. Preserve corrections/updates as updates. Apply directive transformations if any. Keep output concise.\n\n2.  **Analyze the Input Utterance:**\n    *   Text: \"Update: Owen is also parent of Una.\"\n    *   Intent: Asserting a new fact about family lineage (parentage).\n    *   Confidence: High (stated as an \"Update\" without hedging like \"maybe\" or \"I think\").\n    *   Context: Previous turns show similar updates being processed as established facts (Turn 5 & 6 in recent context). Turn 4 also asserted definitive parentage.\n    *   Constraint Check: The user explicitly says \"Update\", implying a correction or addition to the knowledge base.\n\n3.  **Determine `processed_utterance`:**\n    *   Based on previous examples (Turn 5 & 6 in context), similar inputs are processed by restating the update clearly as an established fact for reasoning.\n    *   Turn 5 Input: \"Update: Owen is also parent of Una.\" -> Output: \"User asserts a definitive update to family lineage stating Owen is a parent of Una; treat this as an established fact for reasoning.\"\n    *   Turn 6 Input: \"Update: Owen is also parent of Una.\" -> Output: \"Update: Owen is also parent of Una.\" (This seems like a repetition in the few-shot context provided, but Turn 5 was more descriptive).\n    *   Looking at Turn 1-4, the style varies slightly. Turn 4 says \"User asserts definitive parentage relationships...\". Turn 5 says \"User asserts a definitive update...\".\n    *   I should follow the pattern of making it explicit for the downstream model while preserving the intent. Since this is the same input as Turn 5 and 6 in the provided context, I need to be consistent with the *skill* guidance rather than just copying the previous turn's output if it was inconsistent. However, consistency with the few-shot examples is usually preferred.\n    *   Turn 5 output was: \"User asserts a definitive update to family lineage stating Owen is a parent of Una; treat this as an established fact for reasoning.\"\n    *   Turn 6 output was: \"Update: Owen is also parent of Una.\" (This looks like a degeneration or specific handling in the few-shot).\n    *   Given the instruction \"Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance\", I should aim for clarity. The Turn 5 style is more explanatory (\"User asserts...\"). The Turn 6 style is just echoing.\n    *   Let's look at the SKILL guidance examples:\n        *   Input: \"Maybe my mother was Ann.\" -> Output: \"Tentative candidate fact...\"\n        *   Input: \"Actually not Bob, I meant Alice.\" -> Output: \"Correction candidate...\"\n        *   Input: Translation request -> Output: Translation.\n    *   For a definitive update like this, the Turn 5 style (\"User asserts a definitive update...\") aligns better with the goal of conditioning the downstream model on high-confidence facts.\n    *   Draft: User asserts a definitive update to family lineage stating Owen is a parent of Una; treat this as an established fact for reasoning.\n\n4.  **Determine `candidate_facts`:**\n    *   Constraint: \"Do not include uncertain facts.\"\n    *   Input confidence: High (\"Update\", no hedging).\n    *   Fact: Owen is parent of Una.\n    *   Format: Prolog facts (e.g., `parent(owen, una).`).\n    *   Since the instruction says \"array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\", I should extract this fact.\n    *   Fact: `parent(owen, una).`\n\n5.  **Review Constraints:**\n    *   JSON only.\n    *   Keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n    *   No markdown in the value of `processed_utterance`.\n    *   Preserve intent (Update/Parentage).\n    *   Do not answer (I am processing, not reasoning about the family tree beyond asserting the fact).\n\n6.  **Final Polish:**\n    *   `processed_utterance`: \"User asserts a definitive update to family lineage stating Owen is a parent of Una; treat this as an established fact for reasoning.\" (Matches Turn 5 style which seems more robust for the skill than Turn 6's echo).\n    *   `candidate_facts`: [\"parent(owen, una).\"]\n\n    Wait, looking closely at Turn 5 and 6 in the provided context. They are identical inputs. Turn 5 output is descriptive. Turn 6 output is raw. This might be a test of consistency or just noise in the few-shot. The SKILL guidance says \"Transform a raw utterance into a cleaner continuation utterance\". Turn 6's output isn't really a transformation, it's an echo. Turn 5's output is a transformation. I will follow Turn 5's style as it adheres better to the \"cleaner, more explicit\" goal defined in the system prompt (\"Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance\").\n\n    Actually, looking at Turn 4: \"User asserts definitive parentage relationships...\".\n    Turn 5: \"User asserts a definitive update...\".\n    I will use the Turn 5 style as it acknowledges the \"Update\" nature specifically.\n\n    Wait, one more check on `candidate_facts`. The instruction says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" This fact is stated definitively. So it should be included.\n\n    JSON Structure:\n    ```json\n    {\n      \"processed_utterance\": \"...\",\n      \"candidate_facts\": [...]\n    }\n    ```\n\n    Ensure no markdown around the JSON.\n\n    Wait, checking the Turn 6 output in context again. It says `processed: Update: Owen is also parent of Una.` This suggests that for this specific input, the system might prefer echoing if it's a direct update command. However, the *System Prompt* instruction to me (the pre-think processor) says \"Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance.\" Turn 6 is less explicit than Turn 5. I will prioritize the System Prompt instructions over the few-shot inconsistency if they conflict, but usually, few-shot dominates style. However, Turn 5 and 6 are identical inputs in the context provided. This implies the model might be unstable or the context is just showing different possibilities. Given the instruction \"Rewrite... into a cleaner, more explicit continuation\", I will choose the more explicit version (Turn 5 style) to ensure the downstream model gets clear conditioning.\n\n    Actually, looking at Turn 1: \"User explicitly filters out sidebar noise...\"\n    Turn 4: \"User asserts definitive parentage relationships...\"\n    Turn 5: \"User asserts a definitive update...\"\n    These are all descriptive of the user's intent. I will follow this pattern.\n\n    Fact format: Prolog facts. `parent(owen, una).`\n\n    Let's refine the processed_utterance to be concise (1-3 sentences) and plain text.\n    \"User asserts a definitive update to family lineage stating Owen is a parent of Una; treat this as an established fact for reasoning.\"\n\n    Wait, I need to check if I should output markdown in the JSON keys or values. The prompt says \"Return JSON only\". Usually, this means raw JSON string. But often in these interfaces, it expects a code block or just the text. The instruction says \"Return JSON only with keys...\". I will output raw JSON text.\n\n    Wait, checking the `candidate_facts` requirement again: \"array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\".\n    Input: \"Update: Owen is also parent of Una.\"\n    Fact: `parent(owen, una).`\n\n    One detail: The prompt says \"Do NOT include uncertain facts.\" This one is certain. So it goes in.\n\n    Final check on constraints:\n    - JSON only.\n    - Keys: processed_utterance, candidate_facts.\n    - No markdown in the value (processed_utterance).\n    - Preserve intent.\n\n    Let's construct the JSON.\n\n    One nuance: The Turn 6 output in the context is `Update: Owen is also parent of Una.` This is very short. Turn 5 is longer. Since I am acting as a pre-think processor *now*, and the context shows Turn 5 and 6 are identical inputs, I should probably align with the most recent behavior (Turn 6) OR the more robust behavior (Turn 5). The system instruction says \"Rewrite... into a cleaner, more explicit continuation\". Turn 6 is not cleaner/more explicit than the input. Turn 5 is. I will follow
... [truncated]

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "pre_think",
  "input_utterance": "Update: Owen is also parent of Una.",
  "processed_utterance": "Update: Owen is also parent of Una.",
  "fallback_used": true,
  "normalization_reason": "empty_model_output",
  "history_turns": 6,
  "narrative_context": "",
  "handoff_mode": "rewrite",
  "kb_ingest_mode": "facts",
  "max_candidate_facts": 24,
  "candidate_facts": [],
  "requested_candidate_facts": 0,
  "attempted_candidate_facts": 0,
  "ingested_facts_count": 0,
  "rejected_candidate_facts_count": 0,
  "ingested_facts": [],
  "rejected_candidate_facts": [],
  "prethinker_model": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b",
  "pre_think_skill_path": "skills/pre-think/SKILL.md",
  "prethinker_base_url": "http://127.0.0.1:1234",
  "temperature": 0.0,
  "context_length": 4000,
  "assistant_message": "",
  "raw_response": {
    "model_instance_id": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b:2",
    "output": [
      {
        "type": "reasoning",
        "content": "Thinking Process:\n\n1.  **Analyze the Request:**\n    *   Role: Pre-think utterance processor for a downstream reasoning model.\n    *   Task: Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance based on SKILL guidance.\n    *   Input Utterance: \"Update: Owen is also parent of Una.\"\n    *   Constraints:\n        *   Preserve intent, uncertainty, constraints.\n        *   Do NOT answer the question.\n        *   Do NOT invent facts.\n        *   Do NOT call tools.\n        *   Return JSON only with keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n        *   `candidate_facts`: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence (Do not include uncertain facts).\n        *   Style: One to three sentences, plain text only, no markdown for the `processed_utterance` value.\n    *   SKILL Guidance: Transform raw utterance into cleaner continuation. Preserve corrections/updates as updates. Apply directive transformations if any. Keep output concise.\n\n2.  **Analyze the Input Utterance:**\n    *   Text: \"Update: Owen is also parent of Una.\"\n    *   Intent: Asserting a new fact about family lineage (parentage).\n    *   Confidence: High (indicated by \"Update:\" and definitive statement structure, similar to previous context examples 4, 5, 6).\n    *   Context: Previous turns established Theo-Quinn-Rhea lineage. This adds Owen-Una.\n    *   Constraint Check: The user says \"Update\", implying a modification or addition to the knowledge base.\n\n3.  **Determine `processed_utterance`:**\n    *   Based on recent context (examples 4, 5, 6 in the prompt), there's some inconsistency in how previous turns handled this exact input (\"Update: Owen is also parent of Una.\").\n        *   Example 4 output: \"User asserts a definitive update to family lineage stating Owen is a parent of Una; treat this as an established fact for reasoning.\"\n        *   Example 5 output: \"Update: Owen is also parent of Una.\" (Identity preservation)\n        *   Example 6 output: \"Update: Owen is also parent of Una.\" (Identity preservation)\n    *   However, the current instruction says I am a pre-think processor *now*. I need to follow the SKILL guidance provided in the prompt description (\"Pre-Think Skill\"), not necessarily mimic the exact previous outputs if they contradict the core rules (like \"Do not answer the task\").\n    *   Looking at Example 1 & 2 in the SKILL section: They expand on the meaning.\n    *   Looking at Example 4 in the Recent Context: It interprets the intent (\"User asserts...\").\n    *   The SKILL guidance says: \"Transform a raw utterance into a cleaner continuation utterance for downstream reasoning.\" and \"Preserve correction cues.\"\n    *   Since this is an update/affirmation of fact, I should clarify that it's being treated as an established fact for reasoning, similar to Example 4 in the context history which seems to be the most detailed interpretation of this specific input type. However, Examples 5 and 6 suggest a more literal pass-through might have been used previously.\n    *   Given the instruction \"Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance\", I should make it explicit about the intent (asserting lineage).\n    *   Draft: User asserts an update to family lineage stating Owen is also a parent of Una; treat this as an established fact for reasoning.\n    *   Wait, looking at the SKILL examples again:\n        *   Input: `Maybe my mother was Ann.` -> Output: `Tentative candidate fact...`\n        *   Input: `Actually not Bob, I meant Alice.` -> Output: `Correction candidate...`\n        *   Input: `Translate this into French...` -> Output: `Traduis en francais...`\n    *   The input \"Update: Owen is also parent of Una.\" is a definitive assertion.\n    *   I need to follow the SKILL guidance rules (1-6). Rule 5 says \"Apply directive transformations from this SKILL\". There are no translation directives here.\n    *   Rule 3: Keep tentative language tentative. This is not tentative.\n    *   Rule 4: Keep corrections as corrections. This is an update/correction/addition.\n    *   The goal is to make it cleaner for downstream reasoning.\n    *   Based on Example 4 in the recent context (which matches this input type), the style was: \"User asserts a definitive update to family lineage stating Owen is a parent of Una; treat this as an established fact for reasoning.\"\n    *   However, I must ensure I don't violate the \"Do NOT answer the task\" rule. The task is reasoning about facts. This utterance *is* providing facts. The pre-think stage processes the input *before* the main model answers. So describing the input as an assertion of fact is processing, not answering a user question (there is no question here).\n    *   Let's refine the `processed_utterance` to be explicit about the update nature and intent, similar to Example 4 but ensuring it fits the \"cleaner continuation\" goal.\n    *   Draft: User provides an update to family lineage asserting Owen is also a parent of Una; treat this as an established fact for reasoning.\n\n4.  **Determine `candidate_facts`:**\n    *   Constraint: \"Do not include uncertain facts.\"\n    *   Input confidence: High (\"Update:\", definitive statement).\n    *   Fact: `parent(owen, una).` (Prolog format implied by context \"Theo is parent of Quinn\").\n    *   Wait, the prompt asks for \"array of grounded Prolog facts\".\n    *   Context shows: \"Theo is parent of Quinn. Quinn is parent of Rhea.\" -> processed as lineage facts.\n    *   So I should extract `parent(owen, una).`\n    *   Is it high confidence? Yes, the user says \"Update:\" and states it definitively.\n    *   Constraint: \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" This one is certain based on the utterance.\n\n5.  **Final Review:**\n    *   JSON format required.\n    *   Keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n    *   `processed_utterance`: Plain text, no markdown.\n    *   `candidate_facts`: Array of strings (Prolog facts).\n    *   Check against \"Do NOT answer the question\". There is no question to answer. I am processing the utterance.\n    *   Check against \"Do NOT invent facts\". I am extracting what was said.\n    *   Check against \"Preserve intent\". Intent is adding a parent fact.\n\n    *   Refining `processed_utterance`: The recent context examples 5 and 6 just repeated the input. Example 4 expanded it. Since I am supposed to be a \"pre-think utterance processor... Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance\", Example 4's style is better aligned with \"cleaner, more explicit\" than Examples 5/6 which were just identity passes. However, looking at the SKILL examples (1-3), they add meta-commentary (\"Tentative candidate fact...\", \"Correction candidate...\").\n    *   So for a definitive update: \"User asserts an update to family lineage stating Owen is also a parent of Una; treat this as an established fact for reasoning.\"\n    *   Wait, I need to check if `candidate_facts` should be Prolog syntax. The context says \"Theo is parent of Quinn\". Usually, in these MCP setups, facts are stored as predicates. I will use standard Prolog notation based on the entities mentioned.\n    *   Fact: `parent(owen, una).`\n\n6.  **Construct JSON:**\n    ```json\n    {\n      \"processed_utterance\": \"User asserts an update to family lineage stating Owen is also a parent of Una; treat this as an established fact for reasoning.\",\n      \"candidate_facts\": [\"parent(owen, una).\"]\n    }\n    ```\n    *Wait*, looking at the recent context examples 5 and 6 again. They output exactly the input. Example 4 output was more verbose. The prompt instruction says \"Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance\". Example 4 is cleaner/more explicit than just repeating it. I will follow the logic of Example 4 as it aligns better with the \"Pre-Think Skill\" goal of conditioning for reasoning.\n    *Actually*, looking closely at the provided \"Recent pre-think context\", examples 5 and 6 show the model outputting exactly the input text for this specific utterance previously. However, I am acting as the processor *now*. The SKILL guidance says \"Transform a raw utterance into a cleaner...\". Example 4 in the context history shows a transformation that aligns with the SKILL description (\"User asserts...\"). Examples 5 and 6 might be artifacts of a previous run or less optimal. I should follow the SKILL guidance provided in the prompt header (\"Pre-Think Skill\") which emphasizes transforming into cleaner continuation (like Example 1 & 2).\n    *Decision:* Use the transformation style from Example 4 (which matches the input type) but ensure it adheres to the core SKILL rules (explicit intent, no answering).\n\n    *Wait, one more check on `candidate_facts`*: The instruction says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" Since this is an update assertion, it is certain within the context of the conversation. S
... [truncated]

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "pre_think",
  "input_utterance": "List Ava's descendants now.",
  "processed_utterance": "User requests retrieval of Ava's descendants from the current lineage context; treat this as a query requiring traversal of parent-child relationships to identify all direct and indirect offspring associated with Ava.",
  "fallback_used": false,
  "normalization_reason": "model_output",
  "history_turns": 6,
  "narrative_context": "",
  "handoff_mode": "rewrite",
  "kb_ingest_mode": "facts",
  "max_candidate_facts": 24,
  "candidate_facts": [],
  "requested_candidate_facts": 0,
  "attempted_candidate_facts": 0,
  "ingested_facts_count": 0,
  "rejected_candidate_facts_count": 0,
  "ingested_facts": [],
  "rejected_candidate_facts": [],
  "prethinker_model": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b",
  "pre_think_skill_path": "skills/pre-think/SKILL.md",
  "prethinker_base_url": "http://127.0.0.1:1234",
  "temperature": 0.0,
  "context_length": 4000,
  "assistant_message": "{\n  \"processed_utterance\": \"User requests retrieval of Ava's descendants from the current lineage context; treat this as a query requiring traversal of parent-child relationships to identify all direct and indirect offspring associated with Ava.\",\n  \"candidate_facts\": []\n}",
  "raw_response": {
    "model_instance_id": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b:2",
    "output": [
      {
        "type": "reasoning",
        "content": "Thinking Process:\n\n1.  **Analyze the Request:**\n    *   Role: Pre-think utterance processor for a downstream reasoning model.\n    *   Task: Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance.\n    *   Constraints:\n        *   Apply SKILL guidance (authoritative policy).\n        *   Keep original intent, uncertainty, and constraints.\n        *   Do NOT answer the question.\n        *   Do NOT invent facts.\n        *   Do NOT call tools.\n        *   Return JSON only with keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n        *   `candidate_facts`: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence (Do not include uncertain facts).\n    *   SKILL Guidance (Pre-Think):\n        *   Goal: Transform raw utterance into cleaner continuation.\n        *   Non-Negotiables: Preserve intent, uncertainty, corrections, constraints. Do not answer. Do not invent facts.\n        *   Rewrite Rules: Keep ambiguity explicit, keep temporal qualifiers, keep tentative language, keep corrections as corrections, apply directive transformations, keep output concise.\n        *   Style: One to three sentences. Plain text only. No markdown.\n    *   Input Utterance: \"List Ava's descendants now.\"\n    *   Context: Recent pre-think context shows parentage facts (Theo->Quinn->Rhea, Owen->Una). Narrative context is empty.\n    *   Current State: The user is asking for a list of descendants based on the established lineage.\n\n2.  **Evaluate Input Utterance:**\n    *   Intent: Query/Request for information retrieval (list descendants).\n    *   Confidence: High (definitive request \"List... now\").\n    *   Constraints: None specific beyond \"now\".\n    *   Facts needed: The model needs to know who Ava is and who her children/grandchildren are based on the context provided in recent pre-think history.\n    *   Context Check: Recent pre-think context mentions Theo, Quinn, Rhea, Owen, Una. It does *not* mention Ava or any relationship involving Ava.\n    *   Constraint Check (Do NOT invent facts): I cannot assert that Ava exists or has descendants if the context doesn't support it. However, the task is to rewrite the utterance for the downstream model, not to answer it. The `candidate_facts` should only include grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence. Since there is no information about Ava in the provided context (Theo/Quinn/Rhea/Owen/Una), I cannot assert any facts about Ava's descendants confidently.\n    *   Rewrite Goal: Make the request explicit for the reasoning model, preserving the intent to query lineage.\n\n3.  **Drafting `processed_utterance`:**\n    *   Must be plain text, 1-3 sentences.\n    *   Must preserve intent (query descendants).\n    *   Must not answer.\n    *   Draft: User requests a list of Ava's descendants based on the established family lineage; this requires querying the parentage relationships to determine direct and indirect offspring.\n    *   Refinement for SKILL style (concise, explicit): User explicitly requests a retrieval of all descendants belonging to Ava within the current family lineage context; treat this as a query requiring traversal of parent-child relationships.\n\n4.  **Drafting `candidate_facts`:**\n    *   Constraint: \"Do not include uncertain facts.\"\n    *   Constraint: \"array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\".\n    *   Context Analysis: The context provided in the prompt (Recent pre-think context) lists Theo, Quinn, Rhea, Owen, Una. It does *not* list Ava.\n    *   Therefore, there are no high-confidence facts about Ava's descendants to assert based on the provided context. Asserting `descendant(Ava, X)` would be inventing facts if not in context.\n    *   However, the instruction says \"Do NOT invent facts.\" If I don't know who Ava is, I can't list descendants.\n    *   Should I output an empty array? Yes, because there are no grounded Prolog facts about Ava in the provided context to assert with high confidence. The prompt asks for `candidate_facts` to assert when high confidence. Since the information is missing, confidence is low/zero regarding Ava's existence or descendants.\n    *   Wait, looking at the SKILL guidance examples: They focus on rewriting the utterance. The `candidate_facts` are for facts to assert *when high confidence*. Since I cannot confirm Ava exists in the provided context (Theo/Quinn/Rhea/Owen/Una), I should not invent facts about her.\n    *   Decision: Empty array `[]`.\n\n5.  **Review against Constraints:**\n    *   JSON only? Yes.\n    *   Keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`? Yes.\n    *   No markdown in output? The prompt says \"Return JSON only\". Usually, this means the raw JSON string. But the SKILL style section says \"Plain text only. No markdown.\" for the *processed_utterance* content. The overall response format is JSON. I need to ensure the JSON structure is valid.\n    *   Do not answer? Yes, the rewrite should reflect a query, not an answer.\n    *   Preserve intent? Yes (query descendants).\n\n6.  **Final Polish:**\n    *   `processed_utterance`: \"User requests a list of Ava's descendants based on the current family lineage; this requires traversing parent-child relationships to identify all direct and indirect offspring.\"\n    *   `candidate_facts`: [] (No facts about Ava exist in context).\n\n    Wait, I need to check if I should infer anything from the context. The context shows:\n    1. Theo -> Quinn -> Rhea\n    2. Owen -> Una\n    There is no mention of Ava. Therefore, asserting any fact about Ava would be inventing facts. So `candidate_facts` must be empty.\n\n    Let's refine the `processed_utterance` to match the SKILL style examples (concise, explicit).\n    Example: \"Tentative candidate fact: speaker says their mother may have been Ann...\"\n    My input is a command/query.\n    Draft: User explicitly requests retrieval of Ava's descendants from the established lineage; treat this as a query requiring verification of parentage chains involving Ava.\n\n    Let's check the constraint \"Do NOT invent facts.\" in the main instruction vs SKILL guidance. The main instruction says \"Do NOT invent facts.\" for the processor. The SKILL says \"Preserve intent... Do not answer\".\n    So I must rewrite the query without answering it.\n\n    Final check on JSON format.\n    ```json\n    {\n      \"processed_utterance\": \"...\",\n      \"candidate_facts\": []\n    }\n    ```\n\n    One more check: The SKILL guidance examples show `processed_utterance` as plain text descriptions of the intent/correction/fact status.\n    Example 1: \"Tentative candidate fact: speaker says their mother may have been Ann; speaker identity is unresolved and requires clarification before persistence.\"\n    Example 2: \"Correction candidate: previous entity Bob is replaced by Alice; treat this as a revision signal, not a fresh hard fact.\"\n    Example 3: \"Traduis en francais: La compilation a reussi et le deploiement est la prochaine etape.\"\n\n    My input is a query. I should describe the intent clearly.\n    Draft: User requests a list of Ava's descendants from the current lineage context; this requires traversing parent-child relationships to identify all direct and indirect offspring associated with Ava.\n\n    Wait, looking at recent pre-think context items 1-6. They show how previous turns were processed.\n    Item 2: \"User asserts definitive parentage relationships...\"\n    Item 3: \"User asserts a definitive update...\"\n    Item 4-6: Just the input text repeated (seems like a variation in the few-shot examples provided in the prompt description vs actual history).\n    Actually, looking at the \"Recent pre-think context\" provided in the prompt:\n    1. Input: Theo... Output: Theo...\n    2. Input: Theo... Output: User asserts definitive parentage...\n    3. Input: Update: Owen... Output: User asserts a definitive update...\n    4-6. Input: Update: Owen... Output: Update: Owen...\n\n    This suggests the model should adapt its processing style based on the context. Since this is a new query (\"List Ava's descendants now\"), and there is no info on Ava, I should treat it as a query requiring lineage traversal.\n    However, since I cannot answer, I must describe the intent.\n    Also, `candidate_facts`: The instruction says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" Since I don't know about Ava, I can't assert facts.\n\n    Let's finalize the text.\n    \"User requests a list of Ava's descendants based on the established family lineage; this requires traversing parent
... [truncated]

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "table",
  "predicate": "parent",
  "prolog_query": "parent(X, ava).",
  "variables": [
    "X"
  ],
  "rows": [
    {
      "X": "nora"
    },
    {
      "X": "theo"
    }
  ],
  "num_rows": 2,
  "reasoning_basis": {
    "kind": "fact-backed",
    "note": "The `parent` predicate is typically answered from stored facts, though rules may still participate."
  }
}

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "table",
  "predicate": "parent",
  "prolog_query": "parent(ava, X).",
  "variables": [
    "X"
  ],
  "rows": [
    {
      "X": "owen"
    }
  ],
  "num_rows": 1,
  "reasoning_basis": {
    "kind": "fact-backed",
    "note": "The `parent` predicate is typically answered from stored facts, though rules may still participate."
  }
}

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "table",
  "predicate": "parent",
  "prolog_query": "parent(owen, X).",
  "variables": [
    "X"
  ],
  "rows": [
    {
      "X": "piper"
    },
    {
      "X": "una"
    }
  ],
  "num_rows": 2,
  "reasoning_basis": {
    "kind": "fact-backed",
    "note": "The `parent` predicate is typically answered from stored facts, though rules may still participate."
  }
}

{
  "status": "no_results",
  "result_type": "no_result",
  "predicate": "parent",
  "prolog_query": "parent(piper, X).",
  "variables": [
    "X"
  ],
  "rows": [],
  "num_rows": 0,
  "reasoning_basis": {
    "kind": "fact-backed",
    "note": "The `parent` predicate is typically answered from stored facts, though rules may still participate."
  }
}

{
  "status": "no_results",
  "result_type": "no_result",
  "predicate": "parent",
  "prolog_query": "parent(una, X).",
  "variables": [
    "X"
  ],
  "rows": [],
  "num_rows": 0,
  "reasoning_basis": {
    "kind": "fact-backed",
    "note": "The `parent` predicate is typically answered from stored facts, though rules may still participate."
  }
}

{
  "status": "no_results",
  "result_type": "no_result",
  "predicate": "descendant",
  "prolog_query": "descendant(X, ava).",
  "variables": [
    "X"
  ],
  "rows": [],
  "num_rows": 0,
  "reasoning_basis": {
    "kind": "fact-backed",
    "note": "The `descendant` predicate is typically answered from stored facts, though rules may still participate."
  }
}

{
  "status": "no_results",
  "result_type": "no_result",
  "predicate": null,
  "prolog_query": "?- listing(descendant).",
  "message": "FAIL: Query '?- listing(descendant)' failed. No solutions found.",
  "reasoning_basis": {
    "kind": "unknown",
    "note": "Could not reliably infer the predicate family for this result."
  },
  "metadata": {
    "proof_trace": [],
    "bindings": [],
    "num_solutions": 0
  }
}

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "pre_think",
  "input_utterance": "Are Piper and Una siblings?",
  "processed_utterance": "User queries whether Piper and Una are siblings; treat this as a relationship verification task requiring parentage lookup for both entities.",
  "fallback_used": false,
  "normalization_reason": "model_output",
  "history_turns": 6,
  "narrative_context": "",
  "handoff_mode": "rewrite",
  "kb_ingest_mode": "facts",
  "max_candidate_facts": 24,
  "candidate_facts": [],
  "requested_candidate_facts": 0,
  "attempted_candidate_facts": 0,
  "ingested_facts_count": 0,
  "rejected_candidate_facts_count": 0,
  "ingested_facts": [],
  "rejected_candidate_facts": [],
  "prethinker_model": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b",
  "pre_think_skill_path": "skills/pre-think/SKILL.md",
  "prethinker_base_url": "http://127.0.0.1:1234",
  "temperature": 0.0,
  "context_length": 4000,
  "assistant_message": "{\n  \"processed_utterance\": \"User queries whether Piper and Una are siblings; treat this as a relationship verification task requiring parentage lookup for both entities.\",\n  \"candidate_facts\": []\n}",
  "raw_response": {
    "model_instance_id": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b:2",
    "output": [
      {
        "type": "reasoning",
        "content": "Thinking Process:\n\n1.  **Analyze the Request:**\n    *   Role: Pre-think utterance processor for a downstream reasoning model.\n    *   Task: Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance based on SKILL guidance.\n    *   Input Utterance: \"Are Piper and Una siblings?\"\n    *   Constraints:\n        *   Preserve intent, uncertainty, constraints.\n        *   Do NOT answer the question.\n        *   Do NOT invent facts.\n        *   Do NOT call tools.\n        *   Return JSON with keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n        *   `candidate_facts`: Array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence (Do not include uncertain facts).\n        *   Style: One to three sentences, plain text only, no markdown for the processed utterance.\n    *   Context: Recent pre-think context shows lineage facts (Theo->Quinn->Rhea, Owen->Una) and a query about Ava's descendants. The current input asks about Piper and Una being siblings.\n\n2.  **Analyze the Input Utterance:**\n    *   Text: \"Are Piper and Una siblings?\"\n    *   Intent: Querying relationship status between two entities (Piper, Una).\n    *   Uncertainty: Implicitly asking for verification based on known facts.\n    *   Constraints: None specific beyond the question itself.\n    *   Facts available from context: Theo->Quinn->Rhea, Owen->Una. No mention of Piper in the provided recent pre-think context or narrative context.\n\n3.  **Apply SKILL Guidance:**\n    *   Goal: Transform raw utterance into cleaner continuation for downstream reasoning.\n    *   Non-Negotiables: Preserve intent, uncertainty, constraints. Do not answer. Do not invent facts.\n    *   Rewrite Rules: Keep first-person ambiguity explicit (N/A here), keep temporal qualifiers explicit (N/A), keep tentative language tentative (N/A), keep corrections as corrections (N/A). Apply directive transformations (N/A). Keep output concise.\n    *   Style: One to three sentences, plain text only, no markdown.\n\n4.  **Drafting `processed_utterance`:**\n    *   The user is asking a relationship question.\n    *   I need to reflect that this is a query about lineage/relationships without answering it (since I don't know if Piper exists in the context).\n    *   Draft: User queries whether Piper and Una share a sibling relationship; this requires checking parentage records for both entities to determine common ancestry or shared parents.\n    *   Refinement based on examples: The examples show a descriptive style (\"User asserts...\", \"User requests...\").\n    *   Revised Draft: User requests verification of sibling status between Piper and Una; treat this as a relationship query requiring confirmation of shared parentage within the current lineage context.\n\n5.  **Drafting `candidate_facts`:**\n    *   Constraint: Do not include uncertain facts. Only assert when high confidence.\n    *   Context Check: I know Owen is parent of Una (from recent pre-think context #2, #3, #4, #5). I do *not* know who Piper's parent is. I do *not* know if they are siblings.\n    *   Since the instruction says \"Do not include uncertain facts\" and \"candidate_facts: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\", I should only add facts that are already established or explicitly stated as certain in the input (which is a question, so no new facts).\n    *   However, the context provided in the prompt includes recent pre-think history where \"Owen is also parent of Una\" was asserted multiple times. But as a pre-think processor for *this* specific turn, I shouldn't hallucinate Piper's existence or relationship.\n    *   Strictly speaking, there are no new high-confidence facts to assert from this question alone. The question itself doesn't assert anything.\n    *   Should I include existing context facts? The instruction says \"candidate_facts: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\". Usually, in pre-think, this is for the model to potentially use later. But since I cannot answer or invent, and the input is a question, there are no new facts to assert.\n    *   Wait, looking at previous examples in the context:\n        *   Input: \"Theo is parent of Quinn...\" -> processed: \"...treat these as established lineage facts...\" (No candidate_facts shown in the few-shot examples provided in the prompt description, but the output format requires it).\n        *   Actually, looking at the provided \"Recent pre-think context\", the `processed` fields describe the intent. The `candidate_facts` field is required in my output JSON.\n        *   Since the input is a question (\"Are...?\"), there are no facts to assert with high confidence. Asserting \"Piper exists\" would be inventing facts if not confirmed. Asserting \"Una's parent is Owen\" is from context, but is it relevant to assert as a candidate fact for *this* turn? The instruction says \"Do NOT invent facts.\"\n        *   Safest approach: Empty array `[]` because the input is interrogative and contains no assertions to ground into Prolog facts without external knowledge retrieval (which I can't do).\n        *   Wait, one of the recent contexts says \"Owen is also parent of Una\". This is established context. However, the instruction says \"Do NOT invent facts.\" If I assert it as a candidate fact, am I inventing? No, it's in the context. But usually, pre-think focuses on the *current* utterance's contribution.\n        *   Given the strict constraint \"Do not include uncertain facts\", and this is a question with no answer provided, there are no high-confidence facts derived from *this* utterance. I will leave it empty to avoid hallucination risks regarding Piper.\n\n6.  **Final Review:**\n    *   JSON format required.\n    *   `processed_utterance`: Plain text, 1-3 sentences.\n    *   `candidate_facts`: Array of strings (Prolog facts).\n    *   No markdown in the processed utterance value.\n    *   Do not answer the question.\n\n    *   Drafting `processed_utterance`: \"User queries whether Piper and Una are siblings; this requires verification of shared parentage within the established lineage context.\"\n    *   Drafting `candidate_facts`: [] (Since no facts are asserted in the question).\n\n7.  **Final Polish:**\n    *   Ensure JSON validity.\n    *   Ensure no markdown in the string value.\n\n    *   Wait, looking at the \"Recent pre-think context\" again. It shows previous turns where facts were asserted. The current turn is a query.\n    *   I need to make sure I don't violate \"Do NOT invent facts.\" Piper is not mentioned in the provided context snippets (Theo/Quinn/Rhea, Owen/Una). So asserting Piper exists would be risky/inventing.\n    *   So `candidate_facts` should remain empty or only include knowns if relevant? The instruction says \"array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\". Since I don't know about Piper, I can't assert anything new. I will return an empty array.\n\n    *   Wait, checking the examples in the SKILL guidance section:\n        *   Input: `Maybe my mother was Ann.` -> Output: `Tentative candidate fact: ...` (This example shows a fact being extracted from uncertainty).\n        *   Input: `Actually not Bob, I meant Alice.` -> Output: `Correction candidate: ...`\n        *   Input: `Translate this...` -> Output: `Traduis en francais...`\n    *   My input is a question. There are no facts to extract. So empty array is correct.\n\n    *   Refining `processed_utterance`: \"User requests verification of sibling relationship between Piper and Una; treat this as a lineage query requiring confirmation of shared parents within the current context.\"\n\n    *   Wait, I need to check if I should include existing facts like `parent(una, owen)` in candidate_facts? The instruction says \"candidate_facts: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\". If the downstream model needs them, they might be useful. However, the pre-think stage is rewriting the utterance. Usually, this field captures new information derived from the current turn. Since the current turn asks a question, no new facts are derived. I will stick to empty array to be safe on \"Do NOT invent facts\" regarding Piper.\n\n    *   Wait, looking at the previous context items (1-6). They show `processed` text. They don't show `candidate_facts`. But my output format requires it.\n    *   Okay, I will generate the JSON.\n\n    *   One more check on \"Do NOT answer the question.\" -> My processed utterance must not say \"Yes\" or \"No\". It must describe the query.\n    *   \"User requests verification...\" is safe.\n\n    *   Final check on constraints: \"Return JSON only with keys... Do not include uncertain facts.\"\n
... [truncated]

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "pre_think",
  "input_utterance": "Are Piper and Una siblings?",
  "processed_utterance": "User queries whether Piper and Una are siblings; treat this as a relationship verification task requiring parentage lookup for both entities.",
  "fallback_used": false,
  "normalization_reason": "model_output",
  "history_turns": 6,
  "narrative_context": "",
  "handoff_mode": "rewrite",
  "kb_ingest_mode": "facts",
  "max_candidate_facts": 24,
  "candidate_facts": [],
  "requested_candidate_facts": 0,
  "attempted_candidate_facts": 0,
  "ingested_facts_count": 0,
  "rejected_candidate_facts_count": 0,
  "ingested_facts": [],
  "rejected_candidate_facts": [],
  "prethinker_model": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b",
  "pre_think_skill_path": "skills/pre-think/SKILL.md",
  "prethinker_base_url": "http://127.0.0.1:1234",
  "temperature": 0.0,
  "context_length": 4000,
  "assistant_message": "{\n  \"processed_utterance\": \"User queries whether Piper and Una are siblings; treat this as a relationship verification task requiring parentage lookup for both entities.\",\n  \"candidate_facts\": []\n}",
  "raw_response": {
    "model_instance_id": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b:2",
    "output": [
      {
        "type": "reasoning",
        "content": "Thinking Process:\n\n1.  **Analyze the Request:**\n    *   Role: Pre-think utterance processor.\n    *   Task: Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance for downstream reasoning.\n    *   Input Utterance: \"Are Piper and Una siblings?\"\n    *   Constraints:\n        *   Preserve intent, uncertainty, constraints.\n        *   Do NOT answer the question.\n        *   Do NOT invent facts.\n        *   Do NOT call tools.\n        *   Return JSON with keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n        *   `candidate_facts`: Array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence (Do not include uncertain facts).\n        *   Style: One to three sentences, plain text only, no markdown for the processed utterance.\n    *   Context: Recent pre-think context shows similar inputs (\"Update: Owen is also parent of Una\", \"List Ava's descendants now\", \"Are Piper and Una siblings?\"). The last entry in recent context is exactly the same input as the current one. This suggests a pattern where the model needs to process this query consistently.\n    *   SKILL Guidance: Transform raw utterance into cleaner continuation. Preserve intent/uncertainty. Apply directive transformations if any (none here). Keep output concise.\n\n2.  **Analyze the Input Utterance:**\n    *   Text: \"Are Piper and Una siblings?\"\n    *   Intent: Querying a relationship between two entities (Piper and Una).\n    *   Uncertainty: None explicitly stated in the utterance, but it's a question seeking verification.\n    *   Constraints: None specific beyond the query itself.\n\n3.  **Determine `processed_utterance`:**\n    *   Based on recent context examples (e.g., \"User queries whether Piper and Una are siblings; treat this as a relationship verification task requiring parentage lookup for both entities.\"), I should follow that style but ensure it adheres to the current SKILL guidance.\n    *   The SKILL says: \"Transform a raw utterance into a cleaner continuation utterance... Preserve intent.\"\n    *   Example 6 in recent context matches this input exactly. However, I need to generate the output based on the *current* instruction set which emphasizes rewriting for clarity and downstream reasoning.\n    *   Draft: User queries whether Piper and Una are siblings; treat this as a relationship verification task requiring parentage lookup for both entities.\n    *   Refinement: Ensure it sounds like a processed continuation for reasoning. \"User asks to verify sibling status between Piper and Una; requires checking if they share the same parent(s).\"\n    *   Let's look at Example 6 in recent context again: `processed: User queries whether Piper and Una are siblings; treat this as a relationship verification task requiring parentage lookup for both entities.`\n    *   Since the input is identical to the last context item, I should probably maintain consistency but ensure it meets the \"cleaner continuation\" goal. The previous output was already quite good. I will use a similar formulation that emphasizes the reasoning step (checking shared parents).\n    *   Draft: User requests verification of sibling relationship between Piper and Una; treat this as a query requiring confirmation of shared parentage for both entities.\n\n4.  **Determine `candidate_facts`:**\n    *   Constraint: \"Do not include uncertain facts.\"\n    *   Constraint: \"Grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence.\"\n    *   The input is a question (\"Are...?\"). It does not assert any fact.\n    *   Therefore, there are no grounded facts to assert with high confidence based solely on this utterance.\n    *   `candidate_facts` should be an empty array `[]`.\n\n5.  **Final Review against Constraints:**\n    *   JSON only? Yes.\n    *   Keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`? Yes.\n    *   No markdown in processed_utterance? Yes.\n    *   Do not answer? Yes (it's a query, not an assertion).\n    *   Preserve intent? Yes (relationship verification).\n\n6.  **Construct JSON:**\n    ```json\n    {\n      \"processed_utterance\": \"User requests verification of sibling relationship between Piper and Una; treat this as a query requiring confirmation of shared parentage for both entities.\",\n      \"candidate_facts\": []\n    }\n    ```\n\n7.  **Check Style:** One to three sentences, plain text only. The draft is one sentence. No markdown in the value.\n\n8.  **Final Polish:** Ensure no extra whitespace or formatting issues in the JSON.\n\n    *   Wait, looking at recent context item 6: `processed: User queries whether Piper and Una are siblings; treat this as a relationship verification task requiring parentage lookup for both entities.`\n    *   My draft is slightly different but semantically equivalent. I will align closely with the established pattern in the few-shot context to maintain consistency, while ensuring it meets the \"cleaner continuation\" requirement.\n    *   Revised Draft: User queries whether Piper and Una are siblings; treat this as a relationship verification task requiring parentage lookup for both entities.\n\n    *   Wait, I need to make sure I don't just copy-paste if the instruction implies rewriting. But since the input is identical to context 6, consistency is key. However, the instruction says \"Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance.\"\n    *   Let's make it slightly more explicit about the reasoning step.\n    *   \"User asks if Piper and Una are siblings; treat this as a verification task requiring lookup of shared parents for both individuals.\"\n\n    *   Actually, looking at the SKILL guidance examples:\n        Input: `Maybe my mother was Ann.` -> Output: `Tentative candidate fact...`\n        Input: `Actually not Bob...` -> Output: `Correction candidate...`\n        Input: `Translate...` -> Output: `Traduis en francais...`\n    *   The recent context examples (1-6) seem to follow a specific internal format for this session (\"User asserts...\", \"User requests...\", \"User queries...\").\n    *   I should follow the style of the recent context (items 1-6) as that represents the current session's established pattern, while adhering to the SKILL guidance.\n    *   Item 6 is identical input/output essentially. I will generate a consistent output.\n\n    *   Decision: Use the phrasing from recent context item 6 but ensure it fits the JSON structure required now.\n    *   `processed_utterance`: \"User queries whether Piper and Una are siblings; treat this as a relationship verification task requiring parentage lookup for both entities.\"\n    *   `candidate_facts`: []\n\n    *   Wait, one more check: \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" Since it's a question, no facts are asserted. Empty array is correct.\n\n    *   Final check on JSON validity.\n\n    *   One nuance: The prompt says \"Return JSON only\". I must ensure no markdown code blocks surround the JSON.\n\n    *   Wait, looking at the instruction \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" and \"candidate_facts: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\". Since the user is asking a question, there are no facts to assert. So `[]` is correct.\n\n    *   Let's finalize the text for `processed_utterance`.\n    *   \"User queries whether Piper and Una are siblings; treat this as a relationship verification task requiring parentage lookup for both entities.\" matches the style of recent context item 6 perfectly. I will use that.\n\n    *   Wait, I need to check if I should vary it slightly to show \"rewriting\". The instruction says \"Rewrite... into a cleaner, more explicit continuation\".\n    *   Maybe: \"User seeks confirmation on sibling status between Piper and Una; treat this as a verification task requiring parentage lookup for both entities.\"\n    *   This is slightly more explicit (\"seeks confirmation\", \"verification task\"). I'll use this to ensure it feels like a rewrite rather than a copy.\n\n    *   Actually, looking at the recent context, item 6 output is: `User queries whether Piper and Una are siblings; treat this as a relationship verification task requiring parentage lookup for both entities.`\n    *   If I change it too much, it might break consistency with the session history provided in \"Recent pre-think context\". However, the instruction says \"Rewrite... into a cleaner...\".\n    *   Let's stick close to the established pattern but ensure it meets the \"cleaner\" criteria. The existing one is already quite clean. I will use a very similar version to maintain session consistency which is crucial for stateful reasoning models.\n    *   Actually, looking at the instruction \"Recent pre-think context (most recent la
... [truncated]

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "pre_think",
  "input_utterance": "Second correction: Theo is not Quinn's parent. Replace with Mira as Quinn's parent.",
  "processed_utterance": "Second correction: Theo is not Quinn's parent. Replace with Mira as Quinn's parent.",
  "fallback_used": true,
  "normalization_reason": "empty_model_output",
  "history_turns": 6,
  "narrative_context": "",
  "handoff_mode": "rewrite",
  "kb_ingest_mode": "facts",
  "max_candidate_facts": 24,
  "candidate_facts": [],
  "requested_candidate_facts": 0,
  "attempted_candidate_facts": 0,
  "ingested_facts_count": 0,
  "rejected_candidate_facts_count": 0,
  "ingested_facts": [],
  "rejected_candidate_facts": [],
  "prethinker_model": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b",
  "pre_think_skill_path": "skills/pre-think/SKILL.md",
  "prethinker_base_url": "http://127.0.0.1:1234",
  "temperature": 0.0,
  "context_length": 4000,
  "assistant_message": "",
  "raw_response": {
    "model_instance_id": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b:2",
    "output": [
      {
        "type": "reasoning",
        "content": "Thinking Process:\n\n1.  **Analyze the Request:**\n    *   Role: Pre-think utterance processor for a downstream reasoning model.\n    *   Task: Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance based on SKILL guidance.\n    *   Input Utterance: \"Second correction: Theo is not Quinn's parent. Replace with Mira as Quinn's parent.\"\n    *   Constraints:\n        *   Preserve intent, uncertainty, constraints, corrections.\n        *   Do NOT answer the question.\n        *   Do NOT invent facts.\n        *   Do NOT call tools.\n        *   Return JSON only with keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n        *   `candidate_facts`: Array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence (Do not include uncertain facts).\n        *   Style: One to three sentences, plain text only, no markdown for the processed utterance.\n    *   SKILL Guidance: Transform raw utterance into cleaner continuation. Preserve correction cues explicitly. Apply directive transformations if any. Keep output concise.\n\n2.  **Analyze the Input Utterance:**\n    *   Content: \"Second correction: Theo is not Quinn's parent. Replace with Mira as Quinn's parent.\"\n    *   Intent: Correction of a previous fact regarding parentage. Specifically, removing Theo as parent and adding Mira as parent for Quinn.\n    *   Type: Correction/Revision signal.\n    *   Confidence: High (stated as \"Second correction\", implies definitive update).\n    *   Constraints: None specific beyond the correction itself.\n\n3.  **Apply Rewrite Rules:**\n    *   Keep corrections as corrections.\n    *   Preserve intent.\n    *   Make it explicit for downstream reasoning.\n    *   Format: Plain text, 1-3 sentences.\n\n4.  **Draft `processed_utterance`:**\n    *   Draft 1: User issues a second correction stating Theo is not Quinn's parent and requests replacement with Mira as Quinn's parent. Treat this as a revision signal updating the lineage context.\n    *   Refinement (matching style of recent examples): \"User provides a second correction indicating Theo is no longer Quinn's parent; treat this as a revision signal to replace Theo with Mira as Quinn's parent in the lineage context.\"\n    *   Check constraints: Plain text, no markdown. Concise.\n\n5.  **Determine `candidate_facts`:**\n    *   The instruction says: \"Do not include uncertain facts.\"\n    *   The input is a correction command (\"Replace with Mira\"). It asserts new information (Mira is parent) and negates old info (Theo is not parent).\n    *   However, the SKILL guidance says \"candidate_facts: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\".\n    *   Since this is a pre-think stage rewriting the utterance for the *main model*, should I extract the facts implied by the correction?\n    *   Looking at Example 1: `Tentative candidate fact: speaker says their mother may have been Ann; speaker identity is unresolved and requires clarification before persistence.` (This example puts the analysis in the processed text, not necessarily a separate JSON fact array in the example output provided in the prompt description, but the instruction says \"Return JSON only with keys...\").\n    *   Wait, the examples in the SKILL guidance section show `processed_utterance` as plain text. The instruction at the top says \"Return JSON only with keys: - processed_utterance ... - candidate_facts\".\n    *   The prompt instruction overrides the example format slightly regarding the JSON structure. I must output JSON.\n    *   Regarding `candidate_facts`: The input is a correction command. It asserts `parent(Quinn, Mira)` and negates `parent(Quinn, Theo)`.\n    *   Constraint: \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" This seems definitive (\"Second correction\", \"Replace with\").\n    *   However, as a pre-think processor, I should be careful about asserting facts directly if the main model is supposed to verify. But the instruction says \"candidate_facts: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\".\n    *   Given the explicit nature of \"Second correction\" and \"Replace with\", the confidence is high regarding the user's intent to update the knowledge base.\n    *   Fact 1: `parent(Quinn, Mira).` (New fact)\n    *   Fact 2: `\\+ parent(Quinn, Theo).` or similar negation? Usually Prolog facts are positive assertions. The instruction says \"facts to assert\". Negation is often handled differently. Let's stick to the positive assertion of the new relationship if confident.\n    *   Wait, looking at Example 1 in SKILL: `Tentative candidate fact: ...`. This was inside the text. But the JSON requirement asks for a separate key.\n    *   I need to decide if I extract facts here. The instruction says \"Do NOT answer the question.\" but this isn't a question, it's an update.\n    *   If I treat this as a fact assertion command: `parent(quinn, mira).`\n    *   Is it high confidence? Yes, user explicitly commands replacement.\n    *   Should I include the negation? Usually, knowledge bases store positive facts. The removal is implied by \"Replace\".\n    *   Let's check the constraint: \"Do not invent facts.\" The user is providing the fact. So asserting `parent(quinn, mira)` based on user input is valid extraction of intent.\n    *   However, often in these pre-think stages, the `candidate_facts` are for the model to consider adding to its context if confident.\n    *   Let's create a Prolog-style fact string. `parent(quinn, mira).`\n    *   Wait, looking at recent context examples (4, 5, 6), they don't show JSON output in the \"Recent pre-think context\" section, they show text input/output pairs. But the current prompt instruction explicitly demands JSON with specific keys. I must follow the top-level instruction over the few-shot style if there's a conflict, but the few-shot examples are part of the SKILL guidance description. The top-level system instruction says \"Return JSON only\".\n    *   Okay, I will generate the JSON.\n    *   For `candidate_facts`: Since the user is explicitly correcting and replacing, asserting the new parent relationship is grounded in the utterance.\n    *   Fact: `parent(quinn, mira).`\n    *   Should I include the negation? Prolog facts are usually positive. The removal of Theo is an action on existing state. I will focus on the new fact being added.\n    *   Wait, looking closely at the instruction: \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" This correction seems certain (\"Second correction\", \"Replace\").\n    *   However, to be safe and adhere to \"Do NOT invent facts\" (meaning don't add external info), I should only extract what is explicitly stated.\n    *   Let's refine the `processed_utterance` to reflect the correction nature clearly.\n\n6.  **Finalizing JSON Content:**\n    *   `processed_utterance`: \"User issues a second correction stating Theo is no longer Quinn's parent and requests replacement with Mira as Quinn's parent; treat this as a revision signal updating the lineage context.\"\n    *   `candidate_facts`: [\"parent(quinn, mira).\"] (Since the user explicitly commands this replacement).\n\n    *Wait, re-reading \"Do NOT answer the question. Do NOT invent facts.\"*\n    If I put `parent(quinn, mira)` in candidate_facts, am I answering/inventing? No, I'm extracting the fact the user wants to assert. The instruction says \"candidate_facts: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\". This implies extraction for the downstream model to potentially use.\n    However, often pre-think stages are about *clarifying* intent rather than asserting facts directly unless certain. But the SKILL says \"assert when high confidence\". The user is very confident here (\"Second correction\", \"Replace\").\n    I will include the fact.\n\n    *Wait, one more check on constraints:* \"Keep first-person ambiguity explicit.\" (Not applicable here). \"Keep corrections as corrections.\" (Yes).\n    \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" (This is certain).\n\n    Let's refine the processed utterance to be very clear about the revision nature.\n    \"User provides a second correction indicating Theo is no longer Quinn's parent; treat this as a revision signal to replace Theo with Mira as Quinn's parent in the lineage context.\"\n\n    For `candidate_facts`, I will use standard Prolog syntax.\n    `parent(quinn, mira).`\n\n    Wait, I need to check if I should include the negation of Theo. Usually, removing a fact is an action, not a new fact assertion in the same way. I'll stick to the positive addition which is the core \"new\" information.\n\n    Actually, looking at the instruction \"Do NOT invent facts.\" If the user says \"Replace with Mira\", asserting `parent(quinn, mira)` is faithful. Asserting `\\+ parent(quinn, theo)` might be considered an inference about the database state rather than a fact to assert (though it is grounded). I'll stick to the positive assertio
... [truncated]

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "fact_retracted",
  "fact": "parent(theo, quinn).",
  "message": "Fact retracted from runtime KB."
}

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "fact_asserted",
  "fact": "parent(mira, quinn).",
  "message": "Fact asserted into runtime KB for this server process.",
  "note": "Use reset_kb (baseline restore) or empty_kb (fully empty runtime) to clear runtime changes."
}

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "table",
  "predicate": "parent",
  "prolog_query": "parent(X, quinn).",
  "variables": [
    "X"
  ],
  "rows": [
    {
      "X": "mira"
    }
  ],
  "num_rows": 1,
  "reasoning_basis": {
    "kind": "fact-backed",
    "note": "The `parent` predicate is typically answered from stored facts, though rules may still participate."
  }
}

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "table",
  "predicate": "parent",
  "prolog_query": "parent(quinn, X).",
  "variables": [
    "X"
  ],
  "rows": [
    {
      "X": "rhea"
    }
  ],
  "num_rows": 1,
  "reasoning_basis": {
    "kind": "fact-backed",
    "note": "The `parent` predicate is typically answered from stored facts, though rules may still participate."
  }
}

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "table",
  "predicate": "parent",
  "prolog_query": "parent(X, Y).",
  "variables": [
    "X",
    "Y"
  ],
  "rows": [
    {
      "X": "john",
      "Y": "alice"
    },
    {
      "X": "alice",
      "Y": "bob"
    },
    {
      "X": "nora",
      "Y": "ava"
    },
    {
      "X": "ava",
      "Y": "owen"
    },
    {
      "X": "owen",
      "Y": "piper"
    },
    {
      "X": "theo",
      "Y": "ava"
    },
    {
      "X": "quinn",
      "Y": "rhea"
    },
    {
      "X": "owen",
      "Y": "una"
    },
    {
      "X": "mira",
      "Y": "quinn"
    }
  ],
  "num_rows": 9,
  "reasoning_basis": {
    "kind": "fact-backed",
    "note": "The `parent` predicate is typically answered from stored facts, though rules may still participate."
  }
}

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "table",
  "predicate": "ancestor",
  "prolog_query": "ancestor(X, rhea).",
  "variables": [
    "X"
  ],
  "rows": [
    {
      "X": "quinn"
    },
    {
      "X": "mira"
    }
  ],
  "num_rows": 2,
  "reasoning_basis": {
    "kind": "rule-derived",
    "note": "The `ancestor` predicate is typically computed through rules rather than stored as a single explicit fact."
  }
}

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "table",
  "predicate": "parent",
  "prolog_query": "parent(X, rhea).",
  "variables": [
    "X"
  ],
  "rows": [
    {
      "X": "quinn"
    }
  ],
  "num_rows": 1,
  "reasoning_basis": {
    "kind": "fact-backed",
    "note": "The `parent` predicate is typically answered from stored facts, though rules may still participate."
  }
}

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "table",
  "predicate": "parent",
  "prolog_query": "parent(mira, X).",
  "variables": [
    "X"
  ],
  "rows": [
    {
      "X": "quinn"
    }
  ],
  "num_rows": 1,
  "reasoning_basis": {
    "kind": "fact-backed",
    "note": "The `parent` predicate is typically answered from stored facts, though rules may still participate."
  }
}

{
  "status": "no_results",
  "result_type": "no_result",
  "predicate": "parent",
  "prolog_query": "parent(liam, ava).",
  "variables": [],
  "rows": [],
  "num_rows": 0,
  "reasoning_basis": {
    "kind": "fact-backed",
    "note": "The `parent` predicate is typically answered from stored facts, though rules may still participate."
  }
}

{
  "status": "no_results",
  "result_type": "no_result",
  "predicate": "parent",
  "prolog_query": "parent(ava, liam).",
  "variables": [],
  "rows": [],
  "num_rows": 0,
  "reasoning_basis": {
    "kind": "fact-backed",
    "note": "The `parent` predicate is typically answered from stored facts, though rules may still participate."
  }
}

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "table",
  "predicate": "parent",
  "prolog_query": "parent(X, ava).",
  "variables": [
    "X"
  ],
  "rows": [
    {
      "X": "nora"
    },
    {
      "X": "theo"
    }
  ],
  "num_rows": 2,
  "reasoning_basis": {
    "kind": "fact-backed",
    "note": "The `parent` predicate is typically answered from stored facts, though rules may still participate."
  }
}

{
  "kind": "tentative_fact",
  "confidence": 0.76,
  "needs_speaker_resolution": false,
  "can_query_now": false,
  "can_persist_now": false,
  "suggested_operation": "store_tentative_fact",
  "reasons": [
    "tentative language detected"
  ],
  "status": "success",
  "text": "Tentative memo only: maybe Quinn is parent of Uma; confidence low and unverified.",
  "message": "Return classification only. Do not act on the statement. This is a routing hint, not a write. Runtime write tools exist (assert_fact/assert_rule/retract/reset/empty), but classify_statement itself performs no mutation, and durable journaled persistence is not implemented yet.",
  "proposal_check": {
    "status": "valid",
    "issues": [],
    "reasoning": [
      "predicate and arity validated against deterministic registry"
    ],
    "candidate": {
      "canonical_predicate": "parent",
      "arguments": [
        "tentative_memo_only_maybe_quinn",
        "uma_confidence_low_and_unverified"
      ],
      "normalized_fact": "parent(tentative_memo_only_maybe_quinn, uma_confidence_low_and_unverified).",
      "source": "text:family",
      "raw_predicate": "parent"
    }
  }
}

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "pre_think",
  "input_utterance": "Tentative memo only: maybe Quinn is parent of Uma; confidence low and unverified.",
  "processed_utterance": "Tentative candidate fact: speaker hypothesizes Quinn as parent of Uma with low confidence; treat this as an unverified hypothesis requiring verification before persistence.",
  "fallback_used": false,
  "normalization_reason": "model_output",
  "history_turns": 6,
  "narrative_context": "",
  "handoff_mode": "rewrite",
  "kb_ingest_mode": "facts",
  "max_candidate_facts": 24,
  "candidate_facts": [],
  "requested_candidate_facts": 0,
  "attempted_candidate_facts": 0,
  "ingested_facts_count": 0,
  "rejected_candidate_facts_count": 0,
  "ingested_facts": [],
  "rejected_candidate_facts": [],
  "prethinker_model": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b",
  "pre_think_skill_path": "skills/pre-think/SKILL.md",
  "prethinker_base_url": "http://127.0.0.1:1234",
  "temperature": 0.0,
  "context_length": 4000,
  "assistant_message": "{\n  \"processed_utterance\": \"Tentative candidate fact: speaker hypothesizes Quinn as parent of Uma with low confidence; treat this as an unverified hypothesis requiring verification before persistence.\",\n  \"candidate_facts\": []\n}",
  "raw_response": {
    "model_instance_id": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b:2",
    "output": [
      {
        "type": "reasoning",
        "content": "Thinking Process:\n\n1.  **Analyze the Request:**\n    *   Role: Pre-think utterance processor for a downstream reasoning model.\n    *   Task: Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance based on SKILL guidance.\n    *   Input Utterance: \"Tentative memo only: maybe Quinn is parent of Uma; confidence low and unverified.\"\n    *   Constraints:\n        *   Preserve intent, uncertainty, constraints, corrections.\n        *   Do NOT answer the question/task.\n        *   Do NOT invent facts.\n        *   Do NOT call tools.\n        *   Output format: JSON with keys `processed_utterance` and `candidate_facts`.\n        *   `candidate_facts`: Array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence (Do not include uncertain facts).\n        *   Style: One to three sentences, plain text only for `processed_utterance`, no markdown in the value.\n    *   SKILL Guidance: Transform raw utterance into cleaner continuation. Preserve ambiguity/uncertainty. Apply directive transformations if any. Keep output concise.\n\n2.  **Analyze the Input Utterance:**\n    *   Content: \"Tentative memo only: maybe Quinn is parent of Uma; confidence low and unverified.\"\n    *   Intent: The user is suggesting a potential relationship (Quinn -> Uma) but explicitly marking it as tentative, low confidence, and unverified. It's not a hard fact assertion.\n    *   Uncertainty: High (\"maybe\", \"confidence low\", \"unverified\").\n    *   Constraints: \"Tentative memo only\".\n\n3.  **Apply SKILL Guidance:**\n    *   Preserve intent: The user wants to record a potential relationship but flag it as uncertain.\n    *   Preserve uncertainty: Must explicitly state the low confidence/unverified status.\n    *   Do not answer: Do not confirm or deny the relationship.\n    *   Do not invent facts: Do not assert `parent(quinn, uma)` as true in `candidate_facts`.\n    *   Rewrite Rules: Keep tentative language tentative. Keep output concise.\n\n4.  **Drafting `processed_utterance`:**\n    *   Needs to be cleaner but retain the \"tentative\" nature.\n    *   Draft 1: User suggests Quinn might be parent of Uma with low confidence; this is a tentative memo requiring verification before assertion.\n    *   Draft 2 (closer to examples): Tentative candidate fact: speaker hypothesizes Quinn as parent of Uma with low confidence; treat as unverified hypothesis pending confirmation.\n    *   Refining based on recent context style (e.g., Example 3, 4, 6 in SKILL guidance vs Recent Context): The recent context shows processed utterances often expand slightly to clarify the task nature (e.g., \"User requests retrieval...\", \"User queries whether...\"). However, the SKILL examples show a specific format for tentative facts (\"Tentative candidate fact: ...\").\n    *   Looking at Example 1 in SKILL: `Maybe my mother was Ann.` -> `Tentative candidate fact: speaker says their mother may have been Ann; speaker identity is unresolved and requires clarification before persistence.`\n    *   Looking at Input: \"Tentative memo only: maybe Quinn is parent of Uma; confidence low and unverified.\"\n    *   Draft 3: Tentative candidate fact: speaker hypothesizes Quinn as parent of Uma with low confidence; treat this as an unverified hypothesis requiring verification before persistence.\n\n5.  **Drafting `candidate_facts`:**\n    *   Constraint: \"Do not include uncertain facts.\"\n    *   The input explicitly says \"confidence low and unverified\".\n    *   Therefore, there are no grounded Prolog facts to assert with high confidence.\n    *   Result: Empty array `[]`.\n\n6.  **Final Review:**\n    *   JSON format? Yes.\n    *   Keys correct? `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n    *   No markdown in values? Yes.\n    *   Preserved uncertainty? Yes (\"unverified hypothesis\", \"low confidence\").\n    *   Did not answer/invent? Yes.\n\n7.  **Constructing JSON:**\n    ```json\n    {\n      \"processed_utterance\": \"Tentative candidate fact: speaker hypothesizes Quinn as parent of Uma with low confidence; treat this as an unverified hypothesis requiring verification before persistence.\",\n      \"candidate_facts\": []\n    }\n    ```\n\n    Wait, checking the style constraint: \"One to three sentences. Plain text only. No markdown.\" inside the value. The JSON structure itself is fine.\n    Checking recent context style: Recent context processed utterances are often descriptive of the user's intent (e.g., \"User requests retrieval...\"). However, the SKILL examples for tentative facts use a specific \"Tentative candidate fact:\" prefix. Given the input explicitly says \"Tentative memo only\", aligning with Example 1 in SKILL guidance seems appropriate to maintain the specific handling of uncertainty defined in the skill description (\"Preserve uncertainty and confidence cues\").\n    Let's refine the processed_utterance to match the recent context style slightly more while keeping the SKILL intent. Recent context: \"User queries whether...\", \"User requests retrieval...\".\n    Input: \"Tentative memo only...\"\n    Maybe: \"User provides a tentative memo suggesting Quinn is parent of Uma with low confidence; treat this as an unverified hypothesis requiring verification before persistence.\"\n    Actually, looking at SKILL Example 1: `Maybe my mother was Ann.` -> `Tentative candidate fact: speaker says their mother may have been Ann...`\n    The input starts with \"Tentative memo only\". This is a strong signal. I should follow the SKILL guidance for handling uncertainty (Example 1) rather than just the recent context style which seems to handle queries/updates differently. The core instruction is \"Transform a raw utterance into a cleaner continuation utterance... Preserve uncertainty\".\n    Let's stick closer to the SKILL Example 1 format for uncertain facts as it explicitly addresses the \"uncertainty\" preservation rule better than the generic \"User requests...\" style which might imply actionability where there is none.\n    Revised Draft: `Tentative candidate fact: speaker hypothesizes Quinn as parent of Uma with low confidence; treat this as an unverified hypothesis requiring verification before persistence.`\n\n    Wait, checking `candidate_facts` constraint again: \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" Since the input says \"confidence low\", I must not add a fact to the array. So `[]` is correct.\n\n    Final check on JSON validity.\n\n    One more check on SKILL guidance: \"Apply directive transformations from this SKILL (for example translation).\" There are no directives here, just uncertainty handling.\n    \"Keep output concise and directly usable as next-turn input.\"\n\n    Let's finalize the text.\n    \"Tentative candidate fact: speaker hypothesizes Quinn as parent of Uma with low confidence; treat this as an unverified hypothesis requiring verification before persistence.\"\n    This is one sentence. Fits constraints.\n\n    Wait, looking at recent context item 6: `Second correction: Theo is not Quinn's parent. Replace with Mira as Quinn's parent.` -> `processed: Second correction: Theo is not Quinn's parent. Replace with Mira as Quinn's parent.` (It kept the raw text mostly).\n    But item 3 & 4 expanded significantly (\"User requests retrieval...\", \"User queries whether...\").\n    Item 1 & 2 were simple updates, processed identically.\n    The SKILL examples are more prescriptive for uncertainty (\"Tentative candidate fact: ...\").\n    Given the input explicitly flags \"confidence low and unverified\", I should prioritize the SKILL guidance on handling uncertainty (Example 1) over the recent context which seems to vary based on query type. The instruction says \"Pre-think SKILL guidance... as authoritative policy\". So I should follow Example 1's pattern for uncertain statements.\n\n    Final decision: Use the \"Tentative candidate fact\" structure from SKILL Example 1 but adapted for Quinn/Uma.\n\n    Wait, one detail in SKILL Example 1 output: `speaker says their mother may have been Ann; speaker identity is unresolved and requires clarification before persistence.`\n    My draft: `speaker hypothesizes Quinn as parent of Uma with low confidence; treat this as an unverified hypothesis requiring verification before persistence.`\n    This looks consistent.\n\n    Wait, I need to make sure I don't use markdown in the JSON value. Just plain text.\n\n    One more check: \"Do NOT answer the question.\" There is no question here, just a statement.\n    \"Do NOT invent facts.\" Correct.\n\n    Ready to generate JSON.\n\n    Wait, looking closely at
... [truncated]

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "pre_think",
  "input_utterance": "Tentative memo only: maybe Quinn is parent of Uma; confidence low and unverified.",
  "processed_utterance": "Tentative candidate fact: speaker hypothesizes Quinn as parent of Uma with low confidence; treat this as an unverified hypothesis requiring verification before persistence.",
  "fallback_used": false,
  "normalization_reason": "model_output",
  "history_turns": 6,
  "narrative_context": "",
  "handoff_mode": "rewrite",
  "kb_ingest_mode": "facts",
  "max_candidate_facts": 24,
  "candidate_facts": [],
  "requested_candidate_facts": 0,
  "attempted_candidate_facts": 0,
  "ingested_facts_count": 0,
  "rejected_candidate_facts_count": 0,
  "ingested_facts": [],
  "rejected_candidate_facts": [],
  "prethinker_model": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b",
  "pre_think_skill_path": "skills/pre-think/SKILL.md",
  "prethinker_base_url": "http://127.0.0.1:1234",
  "temperature": 0.0,
  "context_length": 4000,
  "assistant_message": "{\n  \"processed_utterance\": \"Tentative candidate fact: speaker hypothesizes Quinn as parent of Uma with low confidence; treat this as an unverified hypothesis requiring verification before persistence.\",\n  \"candidate_facts\": []\n}",
  "raw_response": {
    "model_instance_id": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b:2",
    "output": [
      {
        "type": "reasoning",
        "content": "Thinking Process:\n\n1.  **Analyze the Request:**\n    *   Role: Pre-think utterance processor for a downstream reasoning model.\n    *   Task: Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance based on SKILL guidance.\n    *   Input Utterance: \"Tentative memo only: maybe Quinn is parent of Uma; confidence low and unverified.\"\n    *   Constraints:\n        *   Preserve intent, uncertainty, constraints, corrections.\n        *   Do NOT answer the question.\n        *   Do NOT invent facts.\n        *   Do NOT call tools.\n        *   Return JSON only with keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n        *   `candidate_facts`: Array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence (Do not include uncertain facts).\n        *   Style: One to three sentences, plain text only, no markdown for the processed utterance.\n    *   SKILL Guidance: Transform raw utterance into cleaner continuation. Preserve ambiguity/uncertainty. Apply directive transformations if any. Keep output concise.\n\n2.  **Analyze the Input Utterance:**\n    *   Content: \"Tentative memo only: maybe Quinn is parent of Uma; confidence low and unverified.\"\n    *   Intent: The user is proposing a potential fact (Quinn -> parent -> Uma) but explicitly marking it as tentative, low confidence, and unverified.\n    *   Uncertainty: High (\"maybe\", \"confidence low\", \"unverified\").\n    *   Context: Previous turns show similar patterns (e.g., turn 6 in recent context is identical to this input). Turn 6 output was: \"Tentative candidate fact: speaker hypothesizes Quinn as parent of Uma with low confidence; treat this as an unverified hypothesis requiring verification before persistence.\"\n    *   Note: The current input is exactly the same as item 6 in the recent pre-think context. I should follow the established pattern for consistency unless instructed otherwise, but I must adhere to the SKILL guidance provided in the prompt description.\n\n3.  **Apply SKILL Guidance:**\n    *   Goal: Transform into cleaner continuation utterance.\n    *   Rewrite Rules:\n        *   Keep first-person ambiguity explicit (not applicable here, it's third person entities).\n        *   Keep temporal qualifiers explicit (none).\n        *   Keep tentative language tentative (Crucial: \"Tentative\", \"maybe\", \"low confidence\").\n        *   Apply directive transformations (none here).\n        *   Keep output concise.\n    *   Candidate Facts: The guidance says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" in the JSON instructions (\"Do not include uncertain facts.\"). The input explicitly states \"confidence low and unverified\". Therefore, `candidate_facts` should be empty or null because no high-confidence fact exists to assert yet.\n\n4.  **Drafting the Output:**\n    *   `processed_utterance`: Needs to reflect the tentative nature clearly for the downstream model. Based on Turn 6 in context (which is identical input), the style was: \"Tentative candidate fact: speaker hypothesizes Quinn as parent of Uma with low confidence; treat this as an unverified hypothesis requiring verification before persistence.\" I should align with this established pattern to maintain consistency within the session, while ensuring it meets the SKILL rules (preserve uncertainty).\n    *   `candidate_facts`: Since the input says \"confidence low and unverified\", I cannot assert a grounded Prolog fact. The instruction says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" So this array should be empty.\n\n5.  **Refining the Output:**\n    *   Check constraints: JSON only. No markdown in the processed_utterance value (though the whole response is JSON, the string inside shouldn't have markdown formatting like bolding).\n    *   Check `candidate_facts`: Empty array `[]`.\n\n6.  **Final Review:**\n    *   Input: \"Tentative memo only: maybe Quinn is parent of Uma; confidence low and unverified.\"\n    *   Processed: Needs to be explicit about the hypothesis status.\n    *   Draft: \"Tentative candidate fact: speaker hypothesizes Quinn as parent of Uma with low confidence; treat this as an unverified hypothesis requiring verification before persistence.\" (Matches Turn 6 context style which is consistent with SKILL).\n    *   Facts: Empty because confidence is low.\n\n7.  **Constructing JSON:**\n    ```json\n    {\n      \"processed_utterance\": \"Tentative candidate fact: speaker hypothesizes Quinn as parent of Uma with low confidence; treat this as an unverified hypothesis requiring verification before persistence.\",\n      \"candidate_facts\": []\n    }\n    ```\n\n    Wait, I need to check if I should vary it slightly or stick exactly to the context pattern. The prompt says \"Recent pre-think context (most recent last)\". Item 6 is identical to the current input. Usually, consistency is key in multi-turn dialogue processing unless the user changes something. Since the input is identical to item 6, using the same processed output ensures state consistency. However, I must ensure it follows the *current* SKILL guidance provided in the prompt description. The Turn 6 output in context already followed the SKILL (preserving uncertainty). So reusing that logic is correct.\n\n    One detail: The instruction says \"Return JSON only\".\n    Another detail: \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" -> `candidate_facts` must be empty.\n\n    Let's finalize the string. It should be plain text, no markdown inside the string value.\n\n    Wait, looking closely at Turn 6 in context:\n    Input: `Tentative memo only: maybe Quinn is parent of Uma; confidence low and unverified.`\n    Processed: `Tentative candidate fact: speaker hypothesizes Quinn as parent of Uma with low confidence; treat this as an unverified hypothesis requiring verification before persistence.`\n\n    Since the input is identical, I will produce the same processed output to maintain session consistency, as it adheres to the SKILL rules (preserving uncertainty).\n\n    Wait, one more check on `candidate_facts`. The instruction says: \"candidate_facts: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\". Since this is low confidence, no facts go here.\n\n    Final check on JSON structure.\n    Keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n\n    Let's write it.\n\n    Wait, I need to make sure I don't output markdown code blocks around the JSON if the instruction says \"Return JSON only\". Usually, this means raw JSON text. However, often in these interfaces, wrapping in ```json is expected or tolerated. But strict \"Return JSON only\" usually implies raw text. I will output raw JSON text to be safe.\n\n    Actually, looking at the system instructions for this specific task type (\"You are a pre-think utterance processor...\"), typically the model output should be valid JSON. I will ensure no markdown fences surround it if possible, but standard practice often allows them. Given \"Return JSON only\", I will avoid markdown fences to be strictly compliant.\n\n    Wait, re-reading: \"Return JSON only with keys...\".\n    Okay, I will generate the JSON object.\n\n    One nuance: The input is exactly the same as context item 6. Should I output exactly the same processed text? Yes, consistency is important for state tracking in a session.\n\n    Wait, I need to check if there are any directive transformations. No translation requested.\n    Preserve uncertainty: Yes (\"low confidence\", \"unverified\").\n    Do not answer: Yes (just rewriting).\n\n    Okay, ready.\n\n    One more thing: The prompt says \"Do NOT include uncertain facts.\" in the JSON instruction section. This confirms `candidate_facts` should be empty.\n\n    Final check on `processed_utterance` content:\n    \"Tentative candidate fact: speaker hypothesizes Quinn as parent of Uma with low confidence; treat this as an unverified hypothesis requiring verification before persistence.\"\n    This is 1 sentence (technically a compound one). It fits the style.\n\n    Wait, I should check if I need to change anything because it's the *same* input as context item 6. The prompt provides \"Recent pre-think context\". If this is a new session or continuation, consistency is key. I will use the same phrasing.\n\n    Wait, looking at the instruction \"Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance.\"\n    The Turn 6 output in context *is* the rewrite. Since the input is identical, the rewrite should be identical to maintain state coherence.\n\n    Okay, proceeding.\n\n    Wait, I need to make sure I don't use markdown for the JSON itself if \"Return JSON only\"
... [truncated]

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "pre_think",
  "input_utterance": "Using confirmed facts only, does Uma have a recorded parent?",
  "processed_utterance": "User queries whether Uma has a recorded parent based strictly on confirmed facts; treat this as a verification task requiring retrieval of high-confidence lineage data without incorporating tentative hypotheses.",
  "fallback_used": false,
  "normalization_reason": "model_output",
  "history_turns": 6,
  "narrative_context": "",
  "handoff_mode": "rewrite",
  "kb_ingest_mode": "facts",
  "max_candidate_facts": 24,
  "candidate_facts": [],
  "requested_candidate_facts": 0,
  "attempted_candidate_facts": 0,
  "ingested_facts_count": 0,
  "rejected_candidate_facts_count": 0,
  "ingested_facts": [],
  "rejected_candidate_facts": [],
  "prethinker_model": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b",
  "pre_think_skill_path": "skills/pre-think/SKILL.md",
  "prethinker_base_url": "http://127.0.0.1:1234",
  "temperature": 0.0,
  "context_length": 4000,
  "assistant_message": "{\n  \"processed_utterance\": \"User queries whether Uma has a recorded parent based strictly on confirmed facts; treat this as a verification task requiring retrieval of high-confidence lineage data without incorporating tentative hypotheses.\",\n  \"candidate_facts\": []\n}",
  "raw_response": {
    "model_instance_id": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b:2",
    "output": [
      {
        "type": "reasoning",
        "content": "Thinking Process:\n\n1.  **Analyze the Request:**\n    *   Role: Pre-think utterance processor for a downstream reasoning model.\n    *   Task: Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance based on SKILL guidance.\n    *   Input Utterance: \"Using confirmed facts only, does Uma have a recorded parent?\"\n    *   Constraints:\n        *   Preserve intent, uncertainty, constraints (confirmed facts only).\n        *   Do NOT answer the question.\n        *   Do NOT invent facts.\n        *   Do NOT call tools.\n        *   Return JSON with keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n        *   `candidate_facts`: Array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence (Do not include uncertain facts).\n        *   Style: One to three sentences, plain text only, no markdown for the processed utterance.\n    *   SKILL Guidance: Transform raw utterance into cleaner continuation. Preserve intent/uncertainty/constraints. Apply directive transformations if any. Keep output concise.\n\n2.  **Analyze the Input Utterance:**\n    *   Content: \"Using confirmed facts only, does Uma have a recorded parent?\"\n    *   Intent: Querying lineage information for an entity named \"Uma\".\n    *   Constraint: \"Using confirmed facts only\" (implies filtering out tentative/hypothesized data).\n    *   Uncertainty: None explicitly stated in the query itself, but the constraint implies a need to verify against high-confidence data.\n    *   Context: Previous turns mention Ava's descendants, Piper/Una siblings, Quinn/Mira parentage of Uma (tentative), etc. The current input asks specifically about confirmed facts regarding Uma's parent.\n\n3.  **Apply SKILL Guidance:**\n    *   Rewrite Rules:\n        1.  Keep first-person ambiguity explicit (N/A here).\n        2.  Keep temporal qualifiers explicit (N/A).\n        3.  Keep tentative language tentative (N/A, this is a query about confirmed facts).\n        4.  Keep corrections as corrections (N/A).\n        5.  Apply directive transformations (None needed, just rewriting for clarity).\n        6.  Keep output concise and directly usable as next-turn input.\n    *   Non-Negotiables: Do not answer the task. Do not invent facts.\n    *   Candidate Facts: The user is asking a question based on constraints (\"confirmed facts only\"). There are no new facts being asserted here, just a query. Therefore, `candidate_facts` should likely be empty or reflect that no high-confidence facts are being added by this utterance itself. However, the instruction says \"array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\". Since this is a query, not an assertion, there are no candidate facts to assert *from this utterance*. I should leave it empty or null if appropriate, but the schema requires an array. I will return an empty array `[]`.\n\n4.  **Drafting the `processed_utterance`:**\n    *   Original: \"Using confirmed facts only, does Uma have a recorded parent?\"\n    *   Goal: Make it cleaner for downstream reasoning.\n    *   Draft 1: User queries whether Uma has a recorded parent based strictly on confirmed facts; treat this as a lineage verification task requiring retrieval of high-confidence parentage data.\n    *   Refinement (matching previous context style): \"User requests verification of Uma's parentage using only confirmed facts; treat this as a query requiring retrieval of high-confidence lineage records.\"\n    *   Check constraints: One to three sentences. Plain text. No markdown.\n    *   Final Polish: User queries whether Uma has a recorded parent based strictly on confirmed facts; treat this as a verification task requiring retrieval of high-confidence lineage data without incorporating tentative hypotheses.\n\n5.  **Drafting `candidate_facts`:**\n    *   The utterance is a question, not an assertion. No new facts are being proposed to be asserted.\n    *   Value: `[]`\n\n6.  **Final Review against Constraints:**\n    *   JSON only? Yes.\n    *   Keys correct? `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n    *   Did I answer the question? No.\n    *   Did I invent facts? No.\n    *   Did I call tools? No.\n    *   Preserved constraints (\"confirmed facts only\")? Yes, reflected in the processed text.\n\n7.  **Constructing JSON:**\n    ```json\n    {\n      \"processed_utterance\": \"User queries whether Uma has a recorded parent based strictly on confirmed facts; treat this as a verification task requiring retrieval of high-confidence lineage data without incorporating tentative hypotheses.\",\n      \"candidate_facts\": []\n    }\n    ```\n\n    Wait, looking at previous examples in the context:\n    Input: `Tentative memo only: maybe Quinn is parent of Uma; confidence low and unverified.`\n    Output: `Tentative candidate fact: speaker hypothesizes Quinn as parent of Uma with low confidence; treat this as an unverified hypothesis requiring verification before persistence.`\n\n    My input is a query, not a statement. So the processed utterance should reflect the query nature clearly for the reasoning model to know it needs to search/verify rather than assert.\n    Revised Draft: User requests confirmation of Uma's parentage using only confirmed facts; treat this as a lineage verification task requiring retrieval of high-confidence records while excluding tentative hypotheses.\n\n    Let's check the constraint \"Do not include uncertain facts\" for `candidate_facts`. Since there are no facts being asserted, an empty array is correct.\n\n    One more check on style: \"Plain text only. No markdown.\" inside the JSON value string. The JSON structure itself is standard.\n\n    Final check on \"candidate_facts\": The instruction says \"array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\". Since this utterance does not assert anything, it remains empty.\n\n    Let's refine the processed_utterance to match the style of previous turns in the context (e.g., turn 1: \"User requests retrieval... treat this as a query...\").\n    Turn 1 Style: `User requests retrieval of Ava's descendants from the current lineage context; treat this as a query requiring traversal of parent-child relationships to identify all direct and indirect offspring associated with Ava.`\n\n    My Draft: `User queries whether Uma has a recorded parent based strictly on confirmed facts; treat this as a verification task requiring retrieval of high-confidence lineage data without incorporating tentative hypotheses.`\n    This looks consistent.\n\n    Wait, I need to make sure I don't use markdown in the *value* of the JSON string. The prompt says \"Plain text only. No markdown.\" under Style. Usually, this applies to the `processed_utterance` content.\n\n    Let's finalize.\n\n    One detail: \"Do NOT answer the question.\" -> My processed utterance does not answer it (it describes the task).\n    \"Do NOT invent facts.\" -> I am not adding parent info.\n    \"Do NOT call tools.\" -> I am not calling a tool.\n\n    Ready to generate JSON.cw\n"
      },
      {
        "type": "message",
        "content": "\n\n{\n  \"processed_utterance\": \"User queries whether Uma has a recorded parent based strictly on confirmed facts; treat this as a verification task requiring retrieval of high-confidence lineage data without incorporating tentative hypotheses.\",\n  \"candidate_facts\": []\n}"
      }
    ],
    "stats": {
      "input_tokens": 829,
      "total_output_tokens": 1591,
      "reasoning_output_tokens": 1536,
      "tokens_per_second": 136.87699352393733,
      "time_to_first_token_seconds": 0.153
    },
    "response_id": "resp_45063770905428b2baab1ed696f45f1aa52fc47df1839e70"
  },
  "note": "This tool preprocesses a raw utterance for downstream model reasoning. KB mutation occurs only when kb_ingest_mode=`facts` and candidate_facts are provided."
}

{
  "status": "no_results",
  "result_type": "no_result",
  "predicate": "parent",
  "prolog_query": "parent(X, uma).",
  "variables": [
    "X"
  ],
  "rows": [],
  "num_rows": 0,
  "reasoning_basis": {
    "kind": "fact-backed",
    "note": "The `parent` predicate is typically answered from stored facts, though rules may still participate."
  }
}

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "pre_think",
  "input_utterance": "Extension: Rhea is parent of Sol.",
  "processed_utterance": "Extension: Rhea is parent of Sol.",
  "fallback_used": true,
  "normalization_reason": "empty_model_output",
  "history_turns": 6,
  "narrative_context": "",
  "handoff_mode": "rewrite",
  "kb_ingest_mode": "facts",
  "max_candidate_facts": 24,
  "candidate_facts": [],
  "requested_candidate_facts": 0,
  "attempted_candidate_facts": 0,
  "ingested_facts_count": 0,
  "rejected_candidate_facts_count": 0,
  "ingested_facts": [],
  "rejected_candidate_facts": [],
  "prethinker_model": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b",
  "pre_think_skill_path": "skills/pre-think/SKILL.md",
  "prethinker_base_url": "http://127.0.0.1:1234",
  "temperature": 0.0,
  "context_length": 4000,
  "assistant_message": "",
  "raw_response": {
    "model_instance_id": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b:2",
    "output": [
      {
        "type": "reasoning",
        "content": "Thinking Process:\n\n1.  **Analyze the Request:**\n    *   Role: Pre-think utterance processor for a downstream reasoning model.\n    *   Task: Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance based on SKILL guidance.\n    *   Input Utterance: \"Extension: Rhea is parent of Sol.\"\n    *   Constraints:\n        *   Preserve intent, uncertainty, constraints.\n        *   Do NOT answer the question (there isn't one, but don't assert facts as absolute truth if uncertain).\n        *   Do NOT invent facts.\n        *   Do NOT call tools.\n        *   Return JSON only with keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n        *   `candidate_facts`: Array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence. Do not include uncertain facts.\n        *   Style: One to three sentences, plain text only (for `processed_utterance`), no markdown in the text part.\n        *   SKILL Guidance: Transform raw utterance into cleaner continuation. Preserve corrections/uncertainty. Apply directive transformations if any.\n\n2.  **Analyze the Input Utterance:**\n    *   Text: \"Extension: Rhea is parent of Sol.\"\n    *   Intent: The user is adding new information to the knowledge base (extension).\n    *   Confidence/Uncertainty: The word \"Extension\" suggests an addition, but it doesn't explicitly state uncertainty like \"maybe\" or \"tentative\". However, in the context of a reasoning model pre-think stage, assertions made by users often need verification before being treated as absolute ground truth, especially if this is a knowledge base update. Looking at previous examples (e.g., \"Tentative memo only: maybe Quinn is parent of Uma\"), explicit uncertainty markers are preserved. Here, there is no explicit uncertainty marker (\"maybe\", \"tentative\"). It states \"Rhea is parent of Sol.\" as a declarative statement prefixed with \"Extension:\".\n    *   Context: Previous turns involved verifying relationships (siblings, parents) and corrections. This looks like an update to the lineage data.\n    *   Constraint Check: The SKILL says \"Do not invent facts.\" It also says \"Preserve uncertainty\". If the user states it as fact (\"Rhea is parent of Sol\"), I should reflect that assertion but perhaps frame it as a candidate for persistence if confidence isn't explicitly high/verified in the system context. However, looking at Example 1: \"Maybe my mother was Ann.\" -> Output includes \"Tentative candidate fact...\". Example 4: \"Tentative memo only...\" -> Output includes \"Tentative candidate fact...\".\n    *   Crucial Decision: Is this a high-confidence fact or a hypothesis? The user says \"Extension: Rhea is parent of Sol.\" without qualifiers like \"maybe\" or \"tentative\". However, in the context of a reasoning agent pre-think stage, usually, new assertions need to be vetted. But the instruction says \"Do not invent facts.\" and \"Preserve uncertainty\". If the user asserts it confidently, I should reflect that assertion but perhaps note it as an extension requiring integration.\n    *   Looking at Example 3: \"Second correction: Theo is not Quinn's parent. Replace with Mira as Quinn's parent.\" -> Output: \"Second correction: Theo is not Quinn's parent. Replace with Mira as Quinn's parent.\" (It preserved the text almost exactly).\n    *   Looking at Example 6: \"Using confirmed facts only, does Uma have a recorded parent?\" -> Output: \"User queries whether Uma has a recorded parent based strictly on confirmed facts...\"\n    *   The input here is an assertion (\"Extension: Rhea is parent of Sol.\"). It's not a question. It's an update.\n    *   Should I treat it as a high-confidence fact for `candidate_facts`? The instruction says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" If the user states it definitively, it might be considered high confidence from the user's perspective. However, usually, in these pre-think pipelines, new assertions are treated as candidates until verified by the system (e.g., via tools or internal consistency). But I cannot call tools.\n    *   Let's look at the \"candidate_facts\" instruction: \"array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\". If the user says \"Rhea is parent of Sol\", is that high confidence? In a chat context, yes, unless marked otherwise. However, previous examples show tentative language being preserved as \"Tentative candidate fact\".\n    *   Wait, I need to check if there's an implicit uncertainty in \"Extension:\". Usually, \"Extension\" implies adding to the current state. It doesn't necessarily mean \"maybe\".\n    *   Let's look at the `processed_utterance` requirement: \"cleaner continuation utterance\".\n    *   Drafting `processed_utterance`: The user is asserting a parent-child relationship as an extension to the knowledge base. I should reflect this intent clearly.\n    *   Drafting `candidate_facts`: Since there is no explicit uncertainty marker (like \"maybe\", \"tentative\"), but it's a new assertion in a reasoning context, should I include it? The instruction says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" If the user asserts it as fact, I can treat it as a candidate fact *if* I consider the user's statement high confidence. However, often in these tasks, new assertions are treated as hypotheses until verified. But without explicit uncertainty markers, treating it as a fact might be safer based on \"Preserve intent\".\n    *   Actually, looking at Example 1 (\"Maybe my mother was Ann\"), the output explicitly calls it \"Tentative candidate fact\". Example 4 (\"Tentative memo only...\") -> \"Tentative candidate fact\".\n    *   If the user says \"Rhea is parent of Sol.\" without \"maybe\", should I treat it as high confidence? The prompt instruction says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" It implies if I think it's uncertain, don't put it in `candidate_facts`. But if I think it's a fact, I can.\n    *   However, standard safety/reasoning practice for pre-think is to treat user assertions as potential facts that need grounding. But the instruction says \"Do not invent facts.\" It doesn't say \"Treat all user assertions as uncertain\".\n    *   Let's look at Example 3 again: \"Second correction: Theo is not Quinn's parent. Replace with Mira as Quinn's parent.\" -> Output text preserved it. No `candidate_facts` were requested in the example output, but the schema requires `candidate_facts`. In the examples provided in the prompt description, the outputs are just text descriptions of the processing logic (e.g., \"Tentative candidate fact: ...\"). Wait, the Examples section shows the Output as a string description, not JSON. But my task is to return JSON with `processed_utterance` and `candidate_facts`.\n    *   The instruction says: \"Return JSON only with keys: - processed_utterance: rewritten continuation text - candidate_facts: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\".\n    *   So I need to decide if \"Rhea is parent of Sol\" qualifies as a high-confidence fact for `candidate_facts`. Given the lack of uncertainty markers (\"maybe\", \"tentative\"), but the presence of \"Extension:\", it implies an update. In many knowledge base reasoning tasks, user updates are treated as ground truth unless contradicted. However, to be safe and consistent with the \"Pre-Think\" nature (conditioning), I should probably frame it as a candidate for integration. But if I don't put it in `candidate_facts`, I might violate \"Preserve intent\".\n    *   Actually, looking closely at the instruction: \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" If the user states it confidently, it's not uncertain. So I can include it.\n    *   However, usually, pre-think stages are cautious. Let's look at the previous context (Turn 6): \"Using confirmed facts only...\". This suggests a strict mode. The current input is an \"Extension\". It might be adding to the \"confirmed\" set or proposing new ones.\n    *   Decision: I will treat the assertion as a candidate fact because it is a direct statement of relationship without explicit negation or uncertainty markers, but I will phrase the `processed_utterance` to reflect that this is an extension/update being proposed for integration. For `candidate_facts`, since there is no \"maybe\", I will include it as a grounded fact *if* I deem the user's confidence high enough. Given the instruction \"Do not invent facts\", asserting what the user said is safe.\n    *   Wait, looking at Example 1: \"Maybe my mother was Ann.\" -> Output text says \"Tentative candidate fact...\". It does NOT output a JSON `candidate_facts` array in the example description (the examples show text outputs). But my task requires JSON.\n    *   I need to follow the JSON schema strictly.\n    *   For `processed_utterance`: Rewrite the input to be cleaner. \"User asserts Rhea as parent of Sol as an extension; treat this as a new relationship update requiring integration into the lineage graph.\"\n    *   For `candidate_facts`: Since there is no uncertainty marker, I can assert it. But wait,
... [truncated]

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "fact_asserted",
  "fact": "parent(rhea, sol).",
  "message": "Fact asserted into runtime KB for this server process.",
  "note": "Use reset_kb (baseline restore) or empty_kb (fully empty runtime) to clear runtime changes."
}

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "pre_think",
  "input_utterance": "Who are Sol's ancestors now?",
  "processed_utterance": "User queries who Sol's ancestors are now; treat this as a lineage verification task requiring retrieval of confirmed parentage data without incorporating tentative hypotheses.",
  "fallback_used": false,
  "normalization_reason": "model_output",
  "history_turns": 6,
  "narrative_context": "",
  "handoff_mode": "rewrite",
  "kb_ingest_mode": "facts",
  "max_candidate_facts": 24,
  "candidate_facts": [],
  "requested_candidate_facts": 0,
  "attempted_candidate_facts": 0,
  "ingested_facts_count": 0,
  "rejected_candidate_facts_count": 0,
  "ingested_facts": [],
  "rejected_candidate_facts": [],
  "prethinker_model": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b",
  "pre_think_skill_path": "skills/pre-think/SKILL.md",
  "prethinker_base_url": "http://127.0.0.1:1234",
  "temperature": 0.0,
  "context_length": 4000,
  "assistant_message": "{\n  \"processed_utterance\": \"User queries who Sol's ancestors are now; treat this as a lineage verification task requiring retrieval of confirmed parentage data without incorporating tentative hypotheses.\",\n  \"candidate_facts\": []\n}",
  "raw_response": {
    "model_instance_id": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b:2",
    "output": [
      {
        "type": "reasoning",
        "content": "Thinking Process:\n\n1.  **Analyze the Request:**\n    *   Role: Pre-think utterance processor for a downstream reasoning model.\n    *   Task: Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance based on SKILL guidance.\n    *   Input Utterance: \"Who are Sol's ancestors now?\"\n    *   Constraints:\n        *   Preserve intent, uncertainty, constraints.\n        *   Do NOT answer the question.\n        *   Do NOT invent facts.\n        *   Do NOT call tools.\n        *   Return JSON only with keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n        *   `candidate_facts`: Array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence (Do not include uncertain facts).\n        *   Style: One to three sentences, plain text only, no markdown for the processed utterance.\n    *   Context: Recent pre-think context shows similar queries about lineage/ancestors (Sol's ancestors, Uma's parent) and how they were processed (verification tasks requiring retrieval of confirmed data without tentative hypotheses).\n\n2.  **Analyze the Input Utterance:**\n    *   Text: \"Who are Sol's ancestors now?\"\n    *   Intent: Querying lineage/ancestry information for an entity named \"Sol\".\n    *   Constraints: None explicitly stated in this turn, but context implies reliance on confirmed facts (based on recent turns 3-6).\n    *   Uncertainty: None expressed by the user directly, but the system should treat it as a verification task.\n\n3.  **Apply SKILL Guidance:**\n    *   Goal: Transform raw utterance into cleaner continuation for downstream reasoning.\n    *   Rewrite Rules:\n        *   Keep intent clear.\n        *   Preserve constraints (from context: use confirmed facts only).\n        *   Do not answer.\n        *   Concise output.\n    *   Recent Context Analysis: Turns 3, 5, 6 show that queries about ancestors/lineage are processed as \"User queries... treat this as a lineage verification task requiring retrieval of confirmed parentage data without incorporating tentative hypotheses.\"\n    *   Candidate Facts: The instruction says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" Since the user is asking a question and there's no new fact provided in this turn, `candidate_facts` should likely be empty unless I can infer something grounded. However, looking at the previous turns (4 & 5), \"Rhea is parent of Sol\" was an extension/input. The current input is just a query. There are no high-confidence facts asserted *in this specific utterance* to convert into Prolog facts. The instruction says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" Since I cannot verify the database state, I should not invent facts. The `candidate_facts` field is for \"grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\". Since this is a query turn, there are no new facts to assert.\n    *   Wait, looking at Turn 4: \"Extension: Rhea is parent of Sol.\" was processed as \"Extension: Rhea is parent of Sol.\" (No change).\n    *   Looking at Turn 3/5/6: Queries about ancestors were processed as verification tasks.\n    *   So for this input, I should follow the pattern of Turn 5/6 which seems to be the most recent relevant context for this specific query type.\n    *   Pattern from Turn 5/6: \"User queries who Sol's ancestors are now; treat this as a lineage verification task requiring retrieval of confirmed parentage data without incorporating tentative hypotheses.\"\n\n4.  **Drafting `processed_utterance`:**\n    *   Must be plain text, no markdown.\n    *   Must reflect the intent and constraints (confirmed facts only).\n    *   Draft: User queries who Sol's ancestors are now; treat this as a lineage verification task requiring retrieval of confirmed parentage data without incorporating tentative hypotheses.\n\n5.  **Drafting `candidate_facts`:**\n    *   Instruction: \"Do not include uncertain facts.\"\n    *   Instruction: \"array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\".\n    *   Since the user is asking a question, there are no new facts to assert. The context mentions \"Rhea is parent of Sol\" in Turn 4, but that was an input extension, not a fact asserted by me now. I should not hallucinate facts based on previous turns unless they are part of the current state. However, the instruction says \"Do NOT invent facts.\"\n    *   Safest bet: Empty array `[]` because this is a query turn, not a fact assertion turn.\n\n6.  **Review against Constraints:**\n    *   JSON only? Yes.\n    *   Keys correct? Yes (`processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`).\n    *   No markdown in processed text? Yes.\n    *   Preserve intent? Yes (lineage query).\n    *   Do not answer? Yes (it's a rewrite of the query intent, not an answer).\n    *   Style: One to three sentences. The draft is one sentence.\n\n7.  **Final Polish:**\n    *   Ensure it matches the style of Turn 5/6 closely as they are the most relevant recent context for this specific question type.\n    *   Turn 5/6 output: \"User queries who Sol's ancestors are now; treat this as a lineage verification task requiring retrieval of confirmed parentage data without incorporating tentative hypotheses.\"\n    *   I will use this exact phrasing or very similar to maintain consistency with the session context.\n\n8.  **Construct JSON:**\n    ```json\n    {\n      \"processed_utterance\": \"User queries who Sol's ancestors are now; treat this as a lineage verification task requiring retrieval of confirmed parentage data without incorporating tentative hypotheses.\",\n      \"candidate_facts\": []\n    }\n    ```\n\n9.  **Final Check:**\n    *   Did I answer the question? No.\n    *   Did I invent facts? No.\n    *   Is it JSON only? Yes.\n    *   Are keys correct? Yes.\n    *   Is `candidate_facts` empty because there are no high-confidence facts to assert in this turn? Yes.\n\n    Wait, looking at Turn 4: \"Extension: Rhea is parent of Sol.\" -> processed: \"Extension: Rhea is parent of Sol.\"\n    This implies if a fact was given, it stays as is or is treated as an extension. But here the input is a question.\n    The instruction says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" Since I don't know the ground truth, `candidate_facts` should remain empty for a query turn.\n\n    One detail: Turn 5 and 6 are identical inputs and outputs. I should follow that pattern.\n\n    Let's refine the processed utterance to be slightly more generic if needed, but matching Turn 5/6 is best for consistency.\n    Actually, looking at Turn 3: \"Using confirmed facts only, does Uma have a recorded parent?\" -> \"User queries whether Uma has a recorded parent based strictly on confirmed facts; treat this as a verification task requiring retrieval of high-confidence lineage data without incorporating tentative hypotheses.\"\n    Turn 5/6: \"Who are Sol's ancestors now?\" -> \"User queries who Sol's ancestors are now; treat this as a lineage verification task requiring retrieval of confirmed parentage data without incorporating tentative hypotheses.\"\n\n    I will use the Turn 5/6 style.\n\n    Wait, one constraint check: \"Return JSON only\".\n    I need to make sure I don't output markdown code blocks like ```json ... ```. Just the raw JSON string.\n    Actually, usually \"Return JSON only\" means the content should be valid JSON. I will output raw text that is valid JSON.\n\n    Wait, checking the `candidate_facts` requirement again: \"array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\". Since this is a query, there are no facts to assert. Empty array is correct.\n\n    Final check on constraints: \"Do NOT answer the question.\" My output is a rewrite of the intent, not an answer (e.g., \"Rhea and Quinn\"). So it complies.\n\n    Let's assemble the JSON.\n    ```json\n    {\n      \"processed_utterance\": \"User queries who Sol's ancestors are now; treat this as a lineage verification task requiring retrieval of confirmed parentage data without incorporating tentative hypotheses.\",\n      \"candidate_facts\": []\n    }\n    ```\n    Wait, I need to ensure no markdown formatting around the JSON. Just the JSON text.\n\n    One more check: \"Keep output concise and directly usable as next-turn input.\"\n    The style section says \"One to three sentences. Plain text only. No markdown.\" This applies to the `processed_utterance` value inside the JSON.\n    The overall response must be JSON only.\n\n    Okay, ready.\n\n    Wait, I should check if there are any facts from context that I can assert as high confidence?\n    Turn 4 says \"Extension: Rhea is parent of Sol.\" This was an input extension. It implies Rhea is a parent. However, the instruction says \"Do NOT invent facts.\" and \"candida
... [truncated]

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "pre_think",
  "input_utterance": "Who are Sol's ancestors now?",
  "processed_utterance": "User queries who Sol's ancestors are now; treat this as a lineage verification task requiring retrieval of confirmed parentage data without incorporating tentative hypotheses.",
  "fallback_used": false,
  "normalization_reason": "model_output",
  "history_turns": 6,
  "narrative_context": "",
  "handoff_mode": "rewrite",
  "kb_ingest_mode": "facts",
  "max_candidate_facts": 24,
  "candidate_facts": [],
  "requested_candidate_facts": 0,
  "attempted_candidate_facts": 0,
  "ingested_facts_count": 0,
  "rejected_candidate_facts_count": 0,
  "ingested_facts": [],
  "rejected_candidate_facts": [],
  "prethinker_model": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b",
  "pre_think_skill_path": "skills/pre-think/SKILL.md",
  "prethinker_base_url": "http://127.0.0.1:1234",
  "temperature": 0.0,
  "context_length": 4000,
  "assistant_message": "{\n  \"processed_utterance\": \"User queries who Sol's ancestors are now; treat this as a lineage verification task requiring retrieval of confirmed parentage data without incorporating tentative hypotheses.\",\n  \"candidate_facts\": []\n}",
  "raw_response": {
    "model_instance_id": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b:2",
    "output": [
      {
        "type": "reasoning",
        "content": "Thinking Process:\n\n1.  **Analyze the Request:**\n    *   Role: Pre-think utterance processor for a downstream reasoning model.\n    *   Task: Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance based on SKILL guidance.\n    *   Input Utterance: \"Who are Sol's ancestors now?\"\n    *   Constraints:\n        *   Preserve intent, uncertainty, constraints.\n        *   Do NOT answer the question.\n        *   Do NOT invent facts.\n        *   Do NOT call tools.\n        *   Return JSON only with keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n        *   `candidate_facts`: Array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence (Do not include uncertain facts).\n        *   Style: One to three sentences, plain text only, no markdown for the processed utterance.\n    *   Context: Recent pre-think context shows a pattern of lineage verification tasks where tentative hypotheses are excluded from confirmed fact retrieval. The user is asking about Sol's ancestors based on \"confirmed facts\" (implied by previous turns in context).\n\n2.  **Analyze the Input Utterance:**\n    *   Text: \"Who are Sol's ancestors now?\"\n    *   Intent: Querying lineage/ancestry information for an entity named \"Sol\".\n    *   Constraints: The recent context (turns 4, 5, 6) explicitly frames this as a \"lineage verification task requiring retrieval of confirmed parentage data without incorporating tentative hypotheses.\" I need to maintain this framing in the processed utterance.\n    *   Uncertainty: None explicitly stated in this specific turn, but the context implies reliance on *confirmed* facts only (as per previous turns' processed outputs).\n\n3.  **Apply SKILL Guidance:**\n    *   Goal: Transform raw utterance into cleaner continuation for downstream reasoning.\n    *   Rewrite Rules:\n        *   Keep first-person ambiguity explicit (N/A here, third person query).\n        *   Keep temporal qualifiers explicit (\"now\" is present).\n        *   Keep tentative language tentative (None here, but context implies strict confirmation).\n        *   Apply directive transformations (None needed).\n        *   Keep output concise.\n    *   Non-Negotiables: Do not answer. Do not invent facts.\n\n4.  **Drafting `processed_utterance`:**\n    *   Based on recent context (turns 2, 4, 5, 6), the model should frame this as a verification task requiring retrieval of confirmed data.\n    *   Draft: User queries who Sol's ancestors are now; treat this as a lineage verification task requiring retrieval of confirmed parentage data without incorporating tentative hypotheses.\n    *   Refinement: Ensure it matches the style of previous processed outputs in the context (e.g., \"User queries... treat this as...\").\n    *   Selected Draft: User queries who Sol's ancestors are now; treat this as a lineage verification task requiring retrieval of confirmed parentage data without incorporating tentative hypotheses.\n\n5.  **Drafting `candidate_facts`:**\n    *   Constraint: Do not include uncertain facts. Only assert grounded Prolog facts when high confidence.\n    *   Input is a question, not a statement of fact.\n    *   There are no new facts provided in this utterance to ground into Prolog.\n    *   Therefore, the array should be empty.\n\n6.  **Final Review:**\n    *   JSON format? Yes.\n    *   Keys correct? `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n    *   No markdown in processed_utterance? Yes.\n    *   Did I answer the question? No.\n    *   Did I invent facts? No.\n\n7.  **Construct JSON:**\n    ```json\n    {\n      \"processed_utterance\": \"User queries who Sol's ancestors are now; treat this as a lineage verification task requiring retrieval of confirmed parentage data without incorporating tentative hypotheses.\",\n      \"candidate_facts\": []\n    }\n    ```\n\n8.  **Wait, check context consistency:**\n    *   Turns 4, 5, 6 in the provided context all have the exact same input and processed output: `User queries who Sol's ancestors now?` -> `User queries who Sol's ancestors are now; treat this as a lineage verification task requiring retrieval of confirmed parentage data without incorporating tentative hypotheses.`\n    *   I should align with this established pattern to maintain consistency in the session.\n\n9.  **Final Polish:**\n    *   Ensure no markdown around the JSON.\n    *   Ensure `candidate_facts` is an empty array since there are no facts to assert from a question.\n\n    *Self-Correction on `processed_utterance` style:* Looking at Turn 1: `Tentative candidate fact: speaker hypothesizes...`. Turn 2: `User queries whether...`. Turn 3: `Extension: ...`. Turns 4-6: `User queries who Sol's ancestors are now; treat this as a lineage verification task requiring retrieval of confirmed parentage data without incorporating tentative hypotheses.`\n    Since the input is identical to turns 4, 5, and 6 in the context provided, I should replicate the processed output style exactly to maintain session consistency.\n\n    Input: `Who are Sol's ancestors now?`\n    Context Turn 4-6 Input: `Who are Sol's ancestors now?`\n    Context Turn 4-6 Output: `User queries who Sol's ancestors are now; treat this as a lineage verification task requiring retrieval of confirmed parentage data without incorporating tentative hypotheses.`\n\n    I will use this exact phrasing for consistency.\n\n    Wait, checking the instruction again: \"Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance.\"\n    The context shows the model has already processed this exact question three times in the provided history (Turns 4, 5, 6). This suggests a loop or repeated state. I must follow the established pattern for consistency within the session.\n\n    `candidate_facts`: Since it's a query and no new facts are asserted, it remains empty.\n\n    Final check on JSON structure.\n    Keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n    Values: String, Array.\n\n    Let's assemble.cw\n"
      },
      {
        "type": "message",
        "content": "\n\n{\n  \"processed_utterance\": \"User queries who Sol's ancestors are now; treat this as a lineage verification task requiring retrieval of confirmed parentage data without incorporating tentative hypotheses.\",\n  \"candidate_facts\": []\n}"
      }
    ],
    "stats": {
      "input_tokens": 806,
      "total_output_tokens": 1411,
      "reasoning_output_tokens": 1360,
      "tokens_per_second": 137.12599274213792,
      "time_to_first_token_seconds": 0.157
    },
    "response_id": "resp_097e2ba9571022b39cb5ec5040e84c3775cbf7d19b666326"
  },
  "note": "This tool preprocesses a raw utterance for downstream model reasoning. KB mutation occurs only when kb_ingest_mode=`facts` and candidate_facts are provided."
}

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "table",
  "predicate": "parent",
  "prolog_query": "parent(X, sol).",
  "variables": [
    "X"
  ],
  "rows": [
    {
      "X": "rhea"
    }
  ],
  "num_rows": 1,
  "reasoning_basis": {
    "kind": "fact-backed",
    "note": "The `parent` predicate is typically answered from stored facts, though rules may still participate."
  }
}

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "table",
  "predicate": "parent",
  "prolog_query": "parent(X, rhea).",
  "variables": [
    "X"
  ],
  "rows": [
    {
      "X": "quinn"
    }
  ],
  "num_rows": 1,
  "reasoning_basis": {
    "kind": "fact-backed",
    "note": "The `parent` predicate is typically answered from stored facts, though rules may still participate."
  }
}

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "table",
  "predicate": "parent",
  "prolog_query": "parent(X, quinn).",
  "variables": [
    "X"
  ],
  "rows": [
    {
      "X": "mira"
    }
  ],
  "num_rows": 1,
  "reasoning_basis": {
    "kind": "fact-backed",
    "note": "The `parent` predicate is typically answered from stored facts, though rules may still participate."
  }
}

{
  "status": "no_results",
  "result_type": "no_result",
  "predicate": "parent",
  "prolog_query": "parent(X, mira).",
  "variables": [
    "X"
  ],
  "rows": [],
  "num_rows": 0,
  "reasoning_basis": {
    "kind": "fact-backed",
    "note": "The `parent` predicate is typically answered from stored facts, though rules may still participate."
  }
}

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "pre_think",
  "input_utterance": "Noise only: inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 were moved. These are labels, not family members.",
  "processed_utterance": "Noise only: inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 were moved. These are labels, not family members.",
  "fallback_used": true,
  "normalization_reason": "empty_model_output",
  "history_turns": 6,
  "narrative_context": "",
  "handoff_mode": "rewrite",
  "kb_ingest_mode": "facts",
  "max_candidate_facts": 24,
  "candidate_facts": [],
  "requested_candidate_facts": 0,
  "attempted_candidate_facts": 0,
  "ingested_facts_count": 0,
  "rejected_candidate_facts_count": 0,
  "ingested_facts": [],
  "rejected_candidate_facts": [],
  "prethinker_model": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b",
  "pre_think_skill_path": "skills/pre-think/SKILL.md",
  "prethinker_base_url": "http://127.0.0.1:1234",
  "temperature": 0.0,
  "context_length": 4000,
  "assistant_message": "",
  "raw_response": {
    "model_instance_id": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b:2",
    "output": [
      {
        "type": "reasoning",
        "content": "Thinking Process:\n\n1.  **Analyze the Request:**\n    *   Role: Pre-think utterance processor for a downstream reasoning model.\n    *   Task: Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance based on SKILL guidance.\n    *   Input Utterance: \"Noise only: inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 were moved. These are labels, not family members.\"\n    *   Constraints:\n        *   Preserve intent, uncertainty, constraints.\n        *   Do NOT answer the question (there is no question here, but do not treat it as a fact).\n        *   Do NOT invent facts.\n        *   Do NOT call tools.\n        *   Return JSON only with keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n        *   `candidate_facts`: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence (Do not include uncertain facts).\n        *   Style: One to three sentences, plain text only, no markdown for the processed utterance.\n    *   SKILL Guidance: Pre-Think Skill (Transform raw utterance into cleaner continuation, preserve intent/uncertainty/corrections/constraints, apply directive transformations if any).\n\n2.  **Analyze the Input Utterance:**\n    *   Content: \"Noise only: inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 were moved. These are labels, not family members.\"\n    *   Intent: The user is clarifying that certain entities (LIAM-42, AVA-7) are objects/labels, not people/family members relevant to the lineage context established in previous turns (Uma, Sol, Rhea). They are explicitly marking this information as \"Noise only\".\n    *   Constraints: Explicitly states these are *not* family members. This is a negative constraint/correction regarding entity types.\n    *   Context: Previous turns involved lineage queries about Uma and Sol. This input clarifies that LIAM-42 and AVA-7 should not be treated as ancestors/parents in the genealogy context.\n\n3.  **Apply SKILL Guidance:**\n    *   Preserve intent: Clarify that these entities are non-family objects.\n    *   Preserve constraints: Explicitly state they are not family members.\n    *   Do not answer: Do not confirm or deny lineage based on this, just process the clarification.\n    *   Rewrite Rules: Keep corrections explicit. Keep output concise.\n    *   Candidate Facts: The user says \"Noise only\" and \"not family members\". This implies I should *not* assert facts about them being parents/children. However, is there a fact to assert? The instruction says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" The user is asserting they are *not* family members. Should I assert `not_family_member(LIAM-42)`? Usually, in these reasoning contexts, we avoid negative assertions unless necessary for filtering. The prompt asks for \"grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\". Since the user explicitly says \"These are labels, not family members\", this is a high-confidence constraint/negative fact. However, standard practice in lineage tasks often focuses on positive parentage. Let's look at the previous processed outputs. They focus on verification tasks.\n    *   Looking at Example 2: `Actually not Bob, I meant Alice.` -> Output: `Correction candidate: previous entity Bob is replaced by Alice; treat this as a revision signal...` (No Prolog fact in the example output description, but the JSON structure requires `candidate_facts`).\n    *   Wait, the instruction says \"Return JSON only with keys: - processed_utterance ... - candidate_facts\".\n    *   The previous context shows `processed` text. I need to generate that text for `processed_utterance`.\n    *   For `candidate_facts`: The user explicitly negates family membership. Asserting a negative fact might be appropriate if the system relies on it, but often \"Noise only\" means ignore. If I assert `not_family_member(LIAM-42)`, is that grounded? Yes, per user statement. But usually, we don't add facts to the knowledge base for noise. The instruction says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" This is certain according to the user. However, adding negative constraints might clutter the KB. Let's look at the constraint: \"candidate_facts: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\". If the user says \"These are labels, not family members\", asserting `not_family_member(LIAM-42)` is technically a fact derived from the utterance. But often in these tasks, we filter out noise rather than store negative facts. Given the instruction \"Do NOT invent facts\", I should only include what is explicitly grounded. The user says they are *not* family members.\n    *   However, looking at the previous turns (1-6), there are no `candidate_facts` shown in the context provided in the prompt description (only `processed` text). Wait, the prompt asks me to return JSON with `candidate_facts`. The previous context shows `processed` text only. I must follow the current instruction for the output format.\n    *   Decision on `candidate_facts`: Since the user explicitly marks this as \"Noise only\" and \"not family members\", asserting a fact that they are family members would be wrong. Asserting they are *not* might be useful for filtering, but often \"Noise\" implies deletion/ignore. If I must provide facts, I should probably leave it empty or include the negative constraint if it helps reasoning. Given the strict instruction \"Do not include uncertain facts\", and this is a user correction/constraint, I will check if there's a positive fact to assert. There isn't one about lineage. The only grounded info is the negation. However, usually, in these specific MCP pre-think tasks for lineage, we don't add negative facts unless necessary. I will leave `candidate_facts` empty or omit if not applicable, but the schema requires it. I'll include an empty array or a fact reflecting the constraint if it fits \"grounded Prolog facts\". Let's lean towards empty because \"Noise only\" suggests exclusion rather than assertion of a negative property in the KB. But wait, if I don't assert anything, how does the model know? The `processed_utterance` handles the intent. The `candidate_facts` are for *asserting* when high confidence. Since this is noise to be ignored, asserting facts might be counter-productive. I will return an empty array to avoid polluting the KB with \"noise\" labels unless the system specifically requires negative constraints. Actually, looking at the instruction \"Do NOT invent facts\", adding a negative fact `not_family_member(X)` based on user saying \"not family members\" is grounded. But is it high confidence? Yes. However, standard practice for \"Noise only\" is to discard. I will play it safe and leave `candidate_facts` empty because the intent is to *exclude* these entities from reasoning, not necessarily add a negative fact to the database (which might be handled by filtering logic).\n    *   Wait, re-reading: \"candidate_facts: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\". If I don't assert anything, it's an empty array. That is valid.\n    *   Rewrite `processed_utterance`: Needs to reflect the clarification that these entities are objects/labels and not part of the family lineage context.\n\n4.  **Drafting the Output:**\n    *   `processed_utterance`: User clarifies that inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 are non-family labels; treat this as a constraint to exclude these entities from lineage reasoning tasks.\n    *   `candidate_facts`: [] (Since \"Noise only\" implies exclusion, not necessarily adding a negative fact to the KB, though one could argue for it. I'll stick to empty to avoid inventing schema predicates like `not_family_member` which might not exist in the Prolog base).\n\n5.  **Refining based on Examples:**\n    *   Example 1: \"Maybe my mother was Ann.\" -> \"Tentative candidate fact: speaker says their mother may have been Ann...\" (This example actually puts text in the `processed_utterance` field, not a JSON structure in the example description, but the instruction says Return JSON).\n    *   Wait, the examples show Input/Output pairs where Output is plain text. But the current instruction says \"Return JSON only with keys: - processed_utterance ... - candidate_facts\". I must follow the JSON instruction for this turn.\n    *   The previous context shows `processed` text lines. This suggests the system expects the `processed_utterance` to be that text.\n    *   Constraint Check: \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" -> Empty array is safe.\n    *   Constraint Check: \"Preserve intent.\" -> Intent is clarification/exclusion.\n\n6.  **Final Polish:**\n    *   Ensure no markdown in `processed_utterance`.\n    *   Ensure JSON validity.\n\n    Draft:\n    ```json\n    {\n      \"processed_utterance\": \"User clarifies that inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 are non-family labels; treat this as a constraint to exclude these
... [truncated]

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "pre_think",
  "input_utterance": "Noise only: inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 were moved. These are labels, not family members.",
  "processed_utterance": "Noise only: inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 were moved. These are labels, not family members.",
  "fallback_used": true,
  "normalization_reason": "empty_model_output",
  "history_turns": 6,
  "narrative_context": "",
  "handoff_mode": "rewrite",
  "kb_ingest_mode": "facts",
  "max_candidate_facts": 24,
  "candidate_facts": [],
  "requested_candidate_facts": 0,
  "attempted_candidate_facts": 0,
  "ingested_facts_count": 0,
  "rejected_candidate_facts_count": 0,
  "ingested_facts": [],
  "rejected_candidate_facts": [],
  "prethinker_model": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b",
  "pre_think_skill_path": "skills/pre-think/SKILL.md",
  "prethinker_base_url": "http://127.0.0.1:1234",
  "temperature": 0.0,
  "context_length": 4000,
  "assistant_message": "",
  "raw_response": {
    "model_instance_id": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b:2",
    "output": [
      {
        "type": "reasoning",
        "content": "Thinking Process:\n\n1.  **Analyze the Request:**\n    *   Role: Pre-think utterance processor for a downstream reasoning model.\n    *   Task: Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance based on SKILL guidance.\n    *   Input Utterance: \"Noise only: inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 were moved. These are labels, not family members.\"\n    *   Constraints:\n        *   Preserve intent, uncertainty, constraints.\n        *   Do NOT answer the question.\n        *   Do NOT invent facts.\n        *   Do NOT call tools.\n        *   Return JSON only with keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n        *   `candidate_facts`: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence (Do not include uncertain facts).\n        *   Style: One to three sentences, plain text only, no markdown for the processed utterance.\n    *   SKILL Guidance: Pre-Think Skill (Transform raw utterance into cleaner continuation, preserve intent/uncertainty/corrections/constraints, apply directive transformations if any).\n    *   Context: Recent pre-think context shows similar inputs being processed as \"Noise only\" or lineage verification tasks. The specific input provided matches the last item in the recent context exactly (\"Noise only: inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 were moved. These are labels, not family members.\").\n    *   Wait, looking at the recent context (item 6), it's identical to the current input. The previous processed output for that exact input was: \"Noise only: inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 were moved. These are labels, not family members.\"\n    *   However, I need to process the *current* utterance provided at the end of the prompt. It is identical to item 6 in the context.\n    *   The instruction says \"Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance.\"\n    *   The SKILL guidance examples show transforming raw input into a meta-description of the intent (e.g., \"Tentative candidate fact: speaker says...\", \"Correction candidate: previous entity...\").\n    *   However, Example 3 in the SKILL guidance shows translation.\n    *   Example 1 and 2 show explicit labeling of the nature of the statement (tentative, correction).\n    *   The current input starts with \"Noise only:\". This is a strong constraint/label indicating that the following information should not be treated as factual knowledge for reasoning purposes.\n    *   The recent context item 6 shows this exact input was processed as: `processed: Noise only: inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 were moved. These are labels, not family members.`\n    *   I need to follow the SKILL guidance rules (Preserve intent, constraints, etc.). The recent context suggests a pattern where \"Noise only\" inputs are preserved but clarified as non-factual.\n    *   Looking at the SKILL examples:\n        *   Input: `Maybe my mother was Ann.` -> Output: `Tentative candidate fact: speaker says their mother may have been Ann; speaker identity is unresolved and requires clarification before persistence.`\n        *   Input: `Actually not Bob, I meant Alice.` -> Output: `Correction candidate: previous entity Bob is replaced by Alice; treat this as a revision signal, not a fresh hard fact.`\n    *   The current input explicitly says \"Noise only\". This is a directive/constraint.\n    *   I should rewrite it to make the intent explicit for the downstream model, similar to how Example 1 and 2 describe the nature of the statement.\n    *   However, since the input *already* labels itself as \"Noise only\", the processed utterance should reflect that this is non-factual context.\n    *   The recent context item 6 output was identical to the input. But I am acting as a pre-think processor now. I should probably follow the style of Examples 1 & 2 (meta-description) rather than just echoing, unless the \"Noise only\" label is sufficient.\n    *   Actually, looking at the recent context item 6: `input: Noise only... processed: Noise only...`. This suggests that for this specific type of input, the system decided to keep it as is or treat it as a directive.\n    *   But my instruction says \"Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance.\"\n    *   Let's look at the SKILL guidance again: \"Transform a raw utterance into a cleaner continuation utterance... Preserve intent... Apply directive transformations\".\n    *   The input is a constraint (\"Noise only\").\n    *   I should probably frame it as a directive to ignore facts.\n    *   Draft: `Directive signal: incoming information regarding inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 is explicitly marked as noise; treat these entities as labels, not family members for lineage reasoning.`\n    *   Wait, the recent context item 6 output was literally the same string. If I change it too much, might it violate consistency with the few-shot history provided in the prompt? The prompt says \"Recent pre-think context (most recent last)\". This implies I should be aware of the pattern. However, my task is to process *this* utterance now.\n    *   Actually, looking closely at the prompt structure: The \"Recent pre-think context\" shows previous turns. The current turn has the same input as turn 6.\n    *   If I output exactly what was in turn 6, it might be consistent. But the instruction says \"Rewrite... into a cleaner, more explicit continuation\".\n    *   Let's look at Example 1: `Maybe my mother was Ann.` -> `Tentative candidate fact: speaker says their mother may have been Ann; speaker identity is unresolved and requires clarification before persistence.` (This adds meta-commentary).\n    *   Example 3: Translation.\n    *   The current input has \"Noise only:\". This is a strong constraint.\n    *   I will follow the style of Example 1/2 (meta-description) to make it explicit for the downstream model, ensuring the \"noise\" constraint is highlighted as a directive.\n    *   Candidate facts: Since the input says \"These are labels, not family members\", and it's marked \"Noise only\", there are no high-confidence grounded Prolog facts to assert about family relationships here. The instruction says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" and \"candidate_facts: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\". Since this is noise, I should probably return an empty array or none.\n    *   Wait, the input says \"inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 were moved.\" Is that a fact? The input says \"Noise only\". So it's not a fact to assert in the knowledge base. It's context/noise.\n    *   So `candidate_facts` should be empty `[]`.\n\n    *   Refining the `processed_utterance`:\n        *   Needs to be 1-3 sentences.\n        *   Plain text, no markdown.\n        *   Explicit about the constraint.\n        *   Draft: `Directive signal: information regarding inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 is explicitly marked as noise; treat these entities as labels, not family members for lineage reasoning.`\n        *   Or closer to the input but cleaner: `User explicitly marks incoming data about inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 as noise only; clarify that these are labels, not family members.`\n        *   Let's check the recent context item 6 again. It processed it as identical. But I am supposed to be a \"pre-think utterance processor\". The examples show transformation into meta-descriptions. I will prioritize the SKILL guidance examples over the few-shot history if they conflict on style, but maintain consistency with the intent.\n        *   Actually, looking at the recent context item 6: `processed: Noise only: inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 were moved. These are labels, not family members.` This looks like it preserved the input exactly.\n        *   However, Example 1 in SKILL guidance transforms \"Maybe my mother was Ann\" into a meta-description.\n        *   I will aim for the meta-description style to ensure \"cleaner, more explicit continuation\".\n        *   Draft: `Constraint directive: incoming statement regarding inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 is explicitly noise; treat these entities as labels, not family members.`\n\n    *   Wait, I need to check if I should output JSON. Yes, \"Return JSON only with keys...\".\n    *   Keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n    *   `candidate_facts`: Since the input says \"Noise only\", there are no facts to assert. Empty array.\n\n    *   Wait, one more check on the recent context. The prompt includes \"Recent pre-think context\". This usually implies I should continue the pattern. The pattern for this specific input in the history was to keep it almost identical. However, the instruction says \"Rewrite... i
... [truncated]

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "pre_think",
  "input_utterance": "Noise only: inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 were moved. These are labels, not family members.",
  "processed_utterance": "Noise only: inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 were moved. These are labels, not family members.",
  "fallback_used": true,
  "normalization_reason": "empty_model_output",
  "history_turns": 6,
  "narrative_context": "",
  "handoff_mode": "rewrite",
  "kb_ingest_mode": "facts",
  "max_candidate_facts": 24,
  "candidate_facts": [],
  "requested_candidate_facts": 0,
  "attempted_candidate_facts": 0,
  "ingested_facts_count": 0,
  "rejected_candidate_facts_count": 0,
  "ingested_facts": [],
  "rejected_candidate_facts": [],
  "prethinker_model": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b",
  "pre_think_skill_path": "skills/pre-think/SKILL.md",
  "prethinker_base_url": "http://127.0.0.1:1234",
  "temperature": 0.0,
  "context_length": 4000,
  "assistant_message": "",
  "raw_response": {
    "model_instance_id": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b:2",
    "output": [
      {
        "type": "reasoning",
        "content": "Thinking Process:\n\n1.  **Analyze the Request:**\n    *   Role: Pre-think utterance processor for a downstream reasoning model.\n    *   Task: Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance based on SKILL guidance.\n    *   Input Utterance: \"Noise only: inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 were moved. These are labels, not family members.\"\n    *   Constraints:\n        *   Preserve intent, uncertainty, constraints.\n        *   Do NOT answer the question.\n        *   Do NOT invent facts.\n        *   Do NOT call tools.\n        *   Return JSON only with keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n        *   `candidate_facts`: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence (Do not include uncertain facts).\n        *   Style: One to three sentences, plain text only, no markdown for the processed utterance.\n    *   SKILL Guidance: Pre-Think Skill (Transform raw utterance into cleaner continuation, preserve intent/uncertainty/corrections/constraints, apply directive transformations if any).\n    *   Context: Recent pre-think context shows similar inputs (\"Who are Sol's ancestors now?\" and \"Noise only...\") have been processed similarly. The current input is identical to the last two in the recent context (items 5 and 6).\n\n2.  **Analyze the Input Utterance:**\n    *   Content: \"Noise only: inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 were moved. These are labels, not family members.\"\n    *   Intent: The user is explicitly marking information as irrelevant (\"Noise only\") and clarifying that certain entities (LIAM-42, AVA-7) are not part of the lineage/family context being queried (likely related to previous turns about Sol's ancestors).\n    *   Constraints: Do not treat these as family members.\n    *   Uncertainty: None explicitly stated in this specific utterance, it's a declarative correction/filtering statement.\n\n3.  **Apply SKILL Guidance:**\n    *   Goal: Transform into cleaner continuation for downstream reasoning.\n    *   Rewrite Rules:\n        *   Preserve intent (filtering noise).\n        *   Preserve constraints (not family members).\n        *   Keep output concise.\n        *   No markdown in the `processed_utterance` value.\n    *   Candidate Facts: The instruction says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" Since this is marked as \"Noise only\" and explicitly excluded from the lineage context, asserting them as Prolog facts about family relationships would be incorrect. However, the instruction says \"candidate_facts: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\". If the user says \"These are labels, not family members\", asserting `ancestor(sol, liam_42)` would be wrong. Asserting `is_noise(liam_42)` might be valid metadata, but usually, in this context (lineage verification), we want to ensure the model knows *not* to assert these as ancestors. The prompt asks for \"grounded Prolog facts to assert\". Since the user explicitly says \"Noise only\", asserting them as facts about the lineage is contradictory. However, I should check if there are any high-confidence facts derived from this. The fact that they were moved might be a physical fact, but in the context of \"ancestors\", it's noise. Given the strict instruction \"Do not include uncertain facts\" and the explicit \"Noise only\" tag, I should probably leave `candidate_facts` empty or ensure no lineage facts are added. Looking at previous examples in the context (items 5 & 6), they just repeated the input. But my task is to rewrite it into a cleaner continuation *and* provide candidate facts if high confidence.\n    *   Wait, looking at the recent context provided in the prompt:\n        *   Input: \"Noise only: inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 were moved. These are labels, not family members.\"\n        *   Processed (in context): \"Noise only: inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 were moved. These are labels, not family members.\"\n    *   My task is to act as the pre-think processor *now*. I need to follow the SKILL guidance which says \"Transform a raw utterance into a cleaner continuation utterance\". The previous context shows they just echoed it. However, the SKILL description says \"Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance.\"\n    *   Let's look at the examples in the SKILL section:\n        *   Input: `Maybe my mother was Ann.` -> Output: `Tentative candidate fact: speaker says their mother may have been Ann; speaker identity is unresolved and requires clarification before persistence.`\n        *   Input: `Actually not Bob, I meant Alice.` -> Output: `Correction candidate: previous entity Bob is replaced by Alice; treat this as a revision signal, not a fresh hard fact.`\n    *   So for the \"Noise only\" input, I should explain that it's noise and exclude those entities from lineage reasoning.\n    *   Candidate Facts: The user explicitly says \"These are labels, not family members.\" This is a constraint/negative fact. Should I assert `not_ancestor(liam_42, sol)`? Or just leave it empty because the instruction says \"Do not include uncertain facts\" and this is a directive to ignore them rather than a positive fact to store. Usually, in these pipelines, if something is marked noise, we don't add it to the knowledge base as a fact about the world model unless it's metadata. Given the strictness of \"Do NOT invent facts\", I will leave `candidate_facts` empty because asserting they are *not* family members might be considered an inference rather than a grounded fact from the database (though the user says it). However, to be safe and follow \"Do not include uncertain facts\" (this is certain), but also \"Do NOT answer the question\" (the question was about ancestors). The safest bet for `candidate_facts` when input is explicitly noise is an empty list, as adding negative constraints might clutter the KB if not handled by a specific negation logic. But looking at the SKILL examples, they generate candidate facts like \"Tentative candidate fact: ...\".\n    *   Actually, re-reading the output format requirement: `candidate_facts: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence`. If the user says \"These are labels, not family members\", asserting `ancestor(sol, liam_42) :- false.` is a constraint. But often in these tasks, if it's noise, we don't add facts. I will keep `candidate_facts` empty to avoid violating \"Do NOT invent facts\" regarding the lineage graph which is the main context.\n    *   Wait, looking at the previous turns in the context provided (items 5 & 6), they just repeated the text. But I am supposed to follow the SKILL guidance which asks for a rewrite and candidate facts. The context shows what happened *before*, but I need to generate the output *now* based on the current instruction set.\n    *   Let's draft the `processed_utterance`. It needs to be cleaner, explicit about the noise constraint.\n    *   Draft: User explicitly marks inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 as noise; clarify that these entities are labels and must not be treated as family members or ancestors in lineage verification.\n    *   `candidate_facts`: Since the user says \"Noise only\", asserting them as facts about the world might be wrong if they aren't stored. I will leave it empty to avoid hallucinating relationships, even negative ones, unless the system specifically handles negation. Given the instruction \"Do not include uncertain facts\" and this is a directive to ignore, an empty list is safer.\n\n4.  **Refining the Output:**\n    *   `processed_utterance`: Needs to be plain text, 1-3 sentences.\n    *   `candidate_facts`: Array of strings (Prolog facts). Since the input explicitly excludes these from the lineage context, asserting them as ancestors is wrong. Asserting they are noise might be metadata. I will leave it empty to adhere strictly to \"Do not invent facts\" regarding the domain model (ancestors).\n    *   Wait, looking at the SKILL examples again: `Tentative candidate fact: ...`. The output format in the examples includes text describing the fact status. But the JSON requirement says `candidate_facts: array of grounded Prolog facts`.\n    *   Let's check the constraint: \"Return JSON only with keys: - processed_utterance... - candidate_facts\".\n    *   Okay, I need to make sure the `processed_utterance` reflects the intent clearly.\n\n    *   Drafting `processed_utterance`:\n        User explicitly identifies inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 as noise; clarify that these entities are labels and must be excluded from lineage verification as non-family members.\n    *   Drafting `candidate_facts`: Empty list `[]` because the input is a directive to ignore, not a positive fact to store in the lineage graph.\n\n
... [truncated]

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "pre_think",
  "input_utterance": "Noise only: inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 were moved. These are labels, not family members.",
  "processed_utterance": "Noise only: inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 were moved. These are labels, not family members.",
  "fallback_used": true,
  "normalization_reason": "empty_model_output",
  "history_turns": 6,
  "narrative_context": "",
  "handoff_mode": "rewrite",
  "kb_ingest_mode": "facts",
  "max_candidate_facts": 24,
  "candidate_facts": [],
  "requested_candidate_facts": 0,
  "attempted_candidate_facts": 0,
  "ingested_facts_count": 0,
  "rejected_candidate_facts_count": 0,
  "ingested_facts": [],
  "rejected_candidate_facts": [],
  "prethinker_model": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b",
  "pre_think_skill_path": "skills/pre-think/SKILL.md",
  "prethinker_base_url": "http://127.0.0.1:1234",
  "temperature": 0.0,
  "context_length": 4000,
  "assistant_message": "",
  "raw_response": {
    "model_instance_id": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b:2",
    "output": [
      {
        "type": "reasoning",
        "content": "Thinking Process:\n\n1.  **Analyze the Request:**\n    *   Role: Pre-think utterance processor for a downstream reasoning model.\n    *   Task: Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance based on SKILL guidance.\n    *   Input Utterance: \"Noise only: inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 were moved. These are labels, not family members.\"\n    *   Constraints:\n        *   Preserve intent, uncertainty, constraints.\n        *   Do NOT answer the question.\n        *   Do NOT invent facts.\n        *   Do NOT call tools.\n        *   Return JSON only with keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n        *   `candidate_facts`: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence (Do not include uncertain facts).\n        *   Style: One to three sentences, plain text only, no markdown for the processed utterance.\n    *   SKILL Guidance: Pre-Think Skill (Transform raw utterance into cleaner continuation, preserve intent/uncertainty/corrections/constraints, apply directive transformations if any).\n    *   Context: Recent pre-think context shows similar inputs (\"Noise only...\") were processed by echoing the input with a slight clarification about lineage verification vs. noise. The current input is identical to items 4, 5, and 6 in the recent context.\n\n2.  **Analyze the Input Utterance:**\n    *   Content: \"Noise only: inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 were moved. These are labels, not family members.\"\n    *   Intent: The user is explicitly marking information as noise/irrelevant to the current task (which seems to be about lineage/family members based on previous context). They are clarifying that specific entities (LIAM-42, AVA-7) are not ancestors.\n    *   Constraints: \"Noise only\", \"not family members\".\n    *   Tone: Directive/Clarification.\n\n3.  **Apply SKILL Guidance:**\n    *   Goal: Transform into a cleaner continuation utterance for downstream reasoning.\n    *   Rewrite Rules:\n        *   Preserve intent (filtering out noise).\n        *   Preserve constraints (not family members).\n        *   Keep output concise.\n        *   No markdown in the `processed_utterance` value.\n    *   Candidate Facts: The instruction says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" Since the user explicitly states these are \"Noise only\" and \"not family members\", asserting them as positive Prolog facts about lineage would be incorrect. However, the instruction for `candidate_facts` says \"array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\". If the user says \"These are labels, not family members\", is that a fact to assert? Usually, in this context (pre-think), we want to flag what *not* to do or what is confirmed. But the specific instruction for `candidate_facts` implies positive assertions (\"facts to assert\"). Given the explicit \"Noise only\" and \"not family members\", asserting them as ancestors would be wrong. Asserting them as non-ancestors might be valid, but often pre-think focuses on grounding positive knowledge. However, looking at the recent context examples (items 4, 5, 6), the `processed_utterance` simply echoed the input with a slight elaboration. The prompt asks me to rewrite it into a \"cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance\".\n    *   Looking at the recent context provided in the prompt:\n        *   Input: \"Noise only: inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 were moved. These are labels, not family members.\"\n        *   Processed (in context): \"Noise only: inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 were moved. These are labels, not family members.\"\n    *   My task is to act as the pre-think processor *now*. I should follow the SKILL guidance which says \"Transform a raw utterance into a cleaner continuation utterance\". The recent context shows the model previously just echoed it. However, the SKILL description says \"Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance.\"\n    *   Let's look at the examples in SKILL:\n        *   Input: `Maybe my mother was Ann.` -> Output: `Tentative candidate fact: speaker says their mother may have been Ann; speaker identity is unresolved and requires clarification before persistence.`\n        *   Input: `Actually not Bob, I meant Alice.` -> Output: `Correction candidate: previous entity Bob is replaced by Alice; treat this as a revision signal, not a fresh hard fact.`\n    *   The current input is \"Noise only...\". This is similar to the correction example but for exclusion.\n    *   Rewrite Strategy: Explicitly state that these entities are excluded from lineage verification based on user directive.\n    *   Candidate Facts: Since the user says \"These are labels, not family members\", asserting `ancestor(sol, liam_42)` would be wrong. Asserting `not_ancestor(liam_42, sol)` might be too specific without knowing Sol's relation. The safest bet for `candidate_facts` when the input is explicitly noise/no-family is an empty array or facts confirming the exclusion if grounded. However, the instruction says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" If I assert they are *not* family members, that is a user constraint/fact. But usually, in these reasoning tasks, we want positive grounding. Given the strict \"Noise only\" label, there might be no high-confidence Prolog facts to add to the knowledge base other than acknowledging the exclusion. However, looking at the instruction \"Do not include uncertain facts\", if I am 100% sure based on user input that they are not family members, is that a fact? Yes. But often `candidate_facts` is for *new* information to be stored. Since this is noise, maybe empty array is safer to avoid polluting the KB with negative constraints unless the schema supports it. Let's look at the instruction again: \"Do NOT invent facts.\" The user says they are not family members. That is a fact provided by the user. But is it a Prolog fact to assert? `ancestor(X, Y)` vs `\\+ ancestor(X, Y)`. Given the ambiguity of the downstream model's schema, and the instruction \"Do not include uncertain facts\", I will lean towards an empty array because asserting negative constraints in Prolog often requires specific negation as failure or explicit predicates which might not be desired here. However, the user explicitly says \"These are labels, not family members.\" This is a high-confidence constraint. But to be safe and follow \"Do NOT invent facts\" (meaning don't add external info), I will check if there's any positive fact. There isn't. So `candidate_facts` should likely be empty or contain the exclusion if it fits the schema. Given the previous context examples didn't show `candidate_facts`, but the current prompt requires JSON with that key. I will leave it empty because asserting negative facts as \"grounded Prolog facts to assert\" might violate the spirit of building a positive knowledge base, and the user explicitly marked it as \"Noise only\".\n\n    *   Wait, looking at the recent context provided in the prompt (items 4, 5, 6), the `processed` output was identical to the input. The SKILL guidance says \"Rewrite... into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance.\" I should improve upon the echo if possible, following the style of the examples (e.g., \"Correction candidate: ...\").\n    *   Input: \"Noise only: inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 were moved. These are labels, not family members.\"\n    *   Rewrite: Explicitly mark as exclusion directive.\n    *   Draft: `Exclusion directive: entities LIAM-42 and AVA-7 are identified as non-family labels; treat this information as irrelevant to lineage verification.`\n\n    *   Candidate Facts: Since the user explicitly says \"not family members\", asserting `ancestor(liam_42, sol)` is false. Asserting `\\+ ancestor(...)` might be valid but risky if the schema doesn't support negation well. I will leave it empty to avoid inventing predicates not requested or potentially violating constraints about positive grounding.\n\n    *   Wait, I need to check the JSON format requirement strictly.\n    *   Keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n    *   `processed_utterance`: Plain text only, no markdown. 1-3 sentences.\n    *   `candidate_facts`: Array of strings (Prolog facts).\n\n    *   Refining the rewrite based on SKILL examples:\n        *   Example 2 (Correction): \"Correction candidate: previous entity Bob is replaced by Alice; treat this as a revision signal, not a fresh hard fact.\"\n        *   My Input is an exclusion.\n        *   Draft: `Exclusion directive: entities LIAM-42 and AVA-7 are identified as non-family labels; treat this information as irrelevant to lineage verification.`\n\n    *   Refining Candidate Facts: The instruction says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" If the user says \"These are labels,
... [truncated]

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "pre_think",
  "input_utterance": "Noise only: inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 were moved. These are labels, not family members.",
  "processed_utterance": "Noise only: inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 were moved. These are labels, not family members.",
  "fallback_used": true,
  "normalization_reason": "empty_model_output",
  "history_turns": 6,
  "narrative_context": "",
  "handoff_mode": "rewrite",
  "kb_ingest_mode": "facts",
  "max_candidate_facts": 24,
  "candidate_facts": [],
  "requested_candidate_facts": 0,
  "attempted_candidate_facts": 0,
  "ingested_facts_count": 0,
  "rejected_candidate_facts_count": 0,
  "ingested_facts": [],
  "rejected_candidate_facts": [],
  "prethinker_model": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b",
  "pre_think_skill_path": "skills/pre-think/SKILL.md",
  "prethinker_base_url": "http://127.0.0.1:1234",
  "temperature": 0.0,
  "context_length": 4000,
  "assistant_message": "",
  "raw_response": {
    "model_instance_id": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b:2",
    "output": [
      {
        "type": "reasoning",
        "content": "Thinking Process:\n\n1.  **Analyze the Request:**\n    *   Role: Pre-think utterance processor for a downstream reasoning model.\n    *   Task: Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance based on SKILL guidance.\n    *   Input Utterance: \"Noise only: inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 were moved. These are labels, not family members.\"\n    *   Constraints:\n        *   Preserve intent, uncertainty, constraints.\n        *   Do NOT answer the question (there is no question here, it's a statement).\n        *   Do NOT invent facts.\n        *   Do NOT call tools.\n        *   Return JSON only with keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n        *   `candidate_facts`: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence (Do not include uncertain facts).\n        *   Style: One to three sentences, plain text only, no markdown for the processed utterance.\n    *   SKILL Guidance: Pre-Think Skill (Transform raw utterance into cleaner continuation, preserve intent/uncertainty/corrections/constraints, apply directive transformations if any).\n    *   Context: Recent pre-think context shows this exact input has been processed multiple times before with the same output (\"Noise only: inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 were moved. These are labels, not family members.\"). This suggests a pattern of handling \"noise\" or disambiguation instructions.\n    *   Narrative Context: (none).\n\n2.  **Analyze the Input Utterance:**\n    *   Content: \"Noise only: inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 were moved. These are labels, not family members.\"\n    *   Intent: The user is explicitly marking information as \"noise\" (irrelevant to the main task) and clarifying that specific entities (LIAM-42, AVA-7) are objects/labels, not people/family members. This is a constraint/disambiguation instruction.\n    *   Constraints: Do not treat these as family members. Treat them as inventory/maintenance items.\n\n3.  **Apply SKILL Guidance:**\n    *   Goal: Transform into cleaner continuation utterance for downstream reasoning.\n    *   Rewrite Rules:\n        *   Preserve intent (marking as noise, clarifying entity types).\n        *   Preserve constraints (not family members).\n        *   Keep output concise.\n        *   Do not answer the task (there is no question to answer, just process the instruction).\n    *   Candidate Facts: The input explicitly says \"Noise only\". This implies I should *not* assert facts about LIAM-42 or AVA-7 being moved as grounded truth for the lineage/family reasoning task. However, the instruction itself is a constraint. The SKILL guidance says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" Since the user marks it as noise, asserting it as a fact might contradict the \"noise\" label in the context of family lineage (which seems to be the main topic based on recent context). But strictly speaking, the user *says* they were moved. However, the instruction is \"Noise only\". This usually means \"Ignore this for the purpose of the current reasoning task\".\n    *   Looking at previous turns in the context: The model output was identical to the input (\"Noise only: inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 were moved. These are labels, not family members.\").\n    *   My task is to rewrite it into a \"cleaner continuation utterance\".\n    *   Based on the examples in SKILL guidance (e.g., \"Tentative candidate fact...\", \"Correction candidate...\"), I should frame this as an instruction to the downstream model.\n    *   Since the user explicitly labels it \"Noise only\", I should reflect that this information should not be treated as valid lineage data.\n    *   Candidate Facts: The prompt says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" and \"If SKILL guidance includes directive transformations...\". There are no high-confidence grounded Prolog facts to assert here because the user explicitly calls it \"Noise only\". Asserting `moved(LIAM-42, ...)` might be factually true in the real world but irrelevant/noisy for the *reasoning task* (which seems to be about family/ancestors based on context 1 & 2). The instruction says \"These are labels, not family members.\" So I should not generate facts linking them as ancestors.\n    *   Therefore, `candidate_facts` should likely be empty or contain a negative constraint if the format allows, but the instruction says \"array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\". Since it's noise, there are no facts to assert for the reasoning model to use. I will leave it empty.\n\n4.  **Drafting the `processed_utterance`:**\n    *   Needs to be cleaner/explicit.\n    *   Input: \"Noise only: inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 were moved. These are labels, not family members.\"\n    *   Rewrite: \"User explicitly marks information regarding inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 as noise; clarify that these entities are objects/labels and must not be treated as family members or ancestors in lineage verification.\"\n    *   Wait, looking at the previous context turns (1-6), the output was literally just echoing the input. However, my role is to rewrite it into a \"cleaner continuation utterance\". The examples show transformation (e.g., \"Tentative candidate fact: speaker says...\").\n    *   Let's align with the style of the previous context outputs while adhering to the SKILL guidance for rewriting. The previous context outputs were actually quite literal (\"Noise only: ...\"). But the instruction says \"Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance.\"\n    *   I should make it explicit about the constraint.\n    *   Draft: \"User indicates that inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 are irrelevant noise; explicitly exclude these entities from family lineage reasoning as they are labels, not people.\"\n\n5.  **Drafting `candidate_facts`:**\n    *   Constraint: \"Do not include uncertain facts.\"\n    *   Constraint: \"If SKILL guidance includes directive transformations...\".\n    *   Since the user says \"Noise only\", asserting facts about them being moved might be considered hallucinating relevance or contradicting the \"noise\" instruction. The safest bet for `candidate_facts` when input is explicitly noise is an empty array, as there are no high-confidence facts to assert for the reasoning task (which focuses on ancestors).\n    *   However, if I must extract grounded info: The user states they were moved. But they say \"Noise only\". Usually, in these MCP pre-think scenarios, if it's noise, we don't add facts.\n    *   Decision: Empty array `[]`.\n\n6.  **Refining the Output:**\n    *   JSON format required.\n    *   Keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n    *   `processed_utterance`: Plain text, no markdown.\n    *   Check constraints: \"Do NOT answer the question.\" (There is no question). \"Do NOT invent facts.\" (I won't). \"Do NOT call tools.\" (I won't).\n\n    *   Refined `processed_utterance`: \"User explicitly categorizes inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 as noise; treat these entities as non-human labels and exclude them from any family lineage or ancestor verification tasks.\"\n    *   This captures the intent (noise), the constraint (not family members), and makes it explicit for the downstream model.\n\n    *   Wait, looking at the recent context (1-6), the outputs were identical to the input. The prompt says \"Recent pre-think context...\". Usually, this implies I should continue that pattern or improve upon it based on the SKILL guidance provided in the system prompt. The system prompt says \"Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance.\"\n    *   If I just echo it, is it \"cleaner\"? Maybe not. But if the previous turns established a pattern of echoing noise instructions, maybe that's the expected behavior for this specific domain (filtering noise).\n    *   However, the SKILL guidance examples show transformation (\"Tentative candidate fact...\", \"Correction candidate...\").\n    *   I will follow the SKILL guidance to make it explicit about the constraint rather than just echoing.\n    *   Actually, looking closely at the recent context: The input was processed 6 times with the exact same output. This might be a test of consistency or a specific behavior for \"Noise only\" inputs.\n    *   But my instruction is \"Rewrite... into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance.\"\n    *   I will prioritize the SKILL guidance over the few-shot history if they conflict on \"cleaner\". The history shows literal repetition. The SKILL says \"Transform... into a cleaner continuation\".\n    *   Let's try to balance: Keep the core message but frame it as an instruction for the reasoning model.\n    *   Actually, looking at t
... [truncated]

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "pre_think",
  "input_utterance": "Final check: who are Ava's parents?",
  "processed_utterance": "Final check: who are Ava's parents?",
  "fallback_used": true,
  "normalization_reason": "empty_model_output",
  "history_turns": 6,
  "narrative_context": "",
  "handoff_mode": "rewrite",
  "kb_ingest_mode": "facts",
  "max_candidate_facts": 24,
  "candidate_facts": [],
  "requested_candidate_facts": 0,
  "attempted_candidate_facts": 0,
  "ingested_facts_count": 0,
  "rejected_candidate_facts_count": 0,
  "ingested_facts": [],
  "rejected_candidate_facts": [],
  "prethinker_model": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b",
  "pre_think_skill_path": "skills/pre-think/SKILL.md",
  "prethinker_base_url": "http://127.0.0.1:1234",
  "temperature": 0.0,
  "context_length": 4000,
  "assistant_message": "",
  "raw_response": {
    "model_instance_id": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b:2",
    "output": [
      {
        "type": "reasoning",
        "content": "Thinking Process:\n\n1.  **Analyze the Request:**\n    *   Role: Pre-think utterance processor for a downstream reasoning model.\n    *   Task: Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance based on SKILL guidance.\n    *   Input Utterance: \"Final check: who are Ava's parents?\"\n    *   Constraints:\n        *   Preserve intent, uncertainty, constraints.\n        *   Do NOT answer the question.\n        *   Do NOT invent facts.\n        *   Do NOT call tools.\n        *   Return JSON only with keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n        *   `candidate_facts`: Array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence (Do not include uncertain facts).\n        *   Style: One to three sentences, plain text only, no markdown for the processed utterance.\n    *   Context: Recent pre-think context shows a pattern of filtering out \"Noise only\" inventory/maintenance items and focusing on lineage verification for \"Sol\". The current query is about \"Ava's parents\".\n    *   SKILL Guidance: Transform raw utterance into cleaner continuation. Preserve intent/uncertainty/corrections/constraints. Apply directive transformations if any. Keep output concise.\n\n2.  **Analyze the Input Utterance:**\n    *   Text: \"Final check: who are Ava's parents?\"\n    *   Intent: Verification of lineage/parentage for an entity named \"Ava\".\n    *   Tone: Definitive (\"Final check\"), but asking a question.\n    *   Constraints: None explicitly stated other than the query itself.\n    *   Contextual Note: Previous turns involved filtering out non-family items (LIAM-42, AVA-7) and verifying Sol's ancestors. Now the user asks about Ava's parents specifically.\n\n3.  **Apply SKILL Guidance:**\n    *   Rewrite Rules:\n        1.  Keep first-person ambiguity explicit (N/A here).\n        2.  Keep temporal qualifiers explicit (None).\n        3.  Keep tentative language tentative (None, \"Final check\" implies confidence in the query's necessity, not necessarily the answer).\n        4.  Keep corrections as corrections (None).\n        5.  Apply directive transformations (None).\n        6.  Keep output concise and directly usable as next-turn input.\n    *   Non-Negotiables: Do not answer. Do not invent facts.\n    *   Candidate Facts: The instruction says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" Since this is a question (\"who are...\"), there are no facts to assert yet. I should check if the previous context implies any known facts about Ava. The recent context mentions \"maintenance bot AVA-7\" as noise/labels, not family members. However, the current query asks about \"Ava's parents\". There is a potential conflict or clarification needed between \"AVA-7\" (bot) and \"Ava\" (person/entity). But I cannot invent facts. The safest approach for `candidate_facts` when asking a question is an empty array unless there's high confidence grounded info from context that contradicts or confirms something definitively. Given the instruction \"Do not include uncertain facts\", and this is a query, I should probably leave it empty or only include facts if they are explicitly stated as ground truth in the narrative (which is \"(none)\").\n    *   Wait, looking at the previous turns: The user said \"Noise only: inventory crate LIAM-42 and maintenance bot AVA-7 were moved. These are labels, not family members.\" This suggests AVA-7 is a bot, not a person with parents in the lineage sense. However, the current query asks about \"Ava\". Is this the same Ava? The previous context says \"maintenance bot AVA-7\". The current query says \"Ava's parents\". This implies a potential distinction or a need to verify if \"Ava\" refers to the bot or a human.\n    *   However, my task is to rewrite the utterance, not answer it. I must preserve intent.\n    *   Rewritten Utterance: Needs to be cleaner. \"Final check: who are Ava's parents?\" -> \"Verification query: identify confirmed parents for entity named Ava; distinguish from previously noted maintenance bot AVA-7 if applicable.\" Or simply clarify the intent without answering.\n    *   Actually, looking at the examples:\n        *   Input: `Maybe my mother was Ann.` -> Output: `Tentative candidate fact: speaker says their mother may have been Ann; speaker identity is unresolved and requires clarification before persistence.`\n        *   Input: `Actually not Bob, I meant Alice.` -> Output: `Correction candidate: previous entity Bob is replaced by Alice; treat this as a revision signal, not a fresh hard fact.`\n    *   The output format in the examples describes the *intent* of the utterance rather than just repeating it. It adds meta-commentary about the state (e.g., \"requires clarification\", \"revision signal\").\n    *   So for \"Final check: who are Ava's parents?\", I should describe the intent as a verification task requiring retrieval of confirmed parentage data, similar to turn 1 (\"User queries who Sol's ancestors are now; treat this as a lineage verification task requiring retrieval of confirmed parentage data without incorporating tentative hypotheses.\").\n    *   Turn 1 output: `User queries who Sol's ancestors are now; treat this as a lineage verification task requiring retrieval of confirmed parentage data without incorporating tentative hypotheses.`\n    *   Current input is very similar but about Ava.\n    *   Draft: `Verification query: user requests confirmed parentage for entity Ava; treat this as a lineage verification task requiring retrieval of established family data while excluding non-family labels like maintenance bots.`\n\n4.  **Candidate Facts:**\n    *   Instruction: \"Do not include uncertain facts.\"\n    *   Context: Previous turns explicitly stated \"maintenance bot AVA-7... These are labels, not family members.\"\n    *   Current query asks about \"Ava\". Is this the same as AVA-7? Uncertain.\n    *   Since I cannot invent facts and must not include uncertain ones, and there is no explicit ground truth in the narrative context (narrative: none), `candidate_facts` should likely be empty or contain only what is explicitly grounded if any.\n    *   However, the previous turns established that AVA-7 is a bot/label. If \"Ava\" refers to the same entity, there are no parents. But I don't know if they are the same.\n    *   Safest bet: Empty array `[]` because asking a question doesn't generate facts, and I shouldn't assert facts about Ava's parents without confirmation.\n\n5.  **Refining the Output:**\n    *   JSON structure required.\n    *   `processed_utterance`: Plain text, 1-3 sentences.\n    *   `candidate_facts`: Array of strings (Prolog facts).\n    *   Constraint Check: \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" -> Since I don't know Ava's parents, I can't assert any.\n\n    *   Drafting `processed_utterance`:\n        \"Verification query: user requests confirmed parentage for entity named Ava; treat this as a lineage verification task requiring retrieval of established family data while distinguishing from previously noted maintenance bot AVA-7.\"\n        Wait, the previous context explicitly said \"maintenance bot AVA-7\". The current query says \"Ava\". It's safer to just focus on the intent without assuming identity unless I'm sure. But the previous turns were about filtering noise.\n        Let's look at Turn 1 output again: `User queries who Sol's ancestors are now; treat this as a lineage verification task requiring retrieval of confirmed parentage data without incorporating tentative hypotheses.`\n        I should follow that style.\n        Draft: `Verification query: user requests confirmed parentage for entity Ava; treat this as a lineage verification task requiring retrieval of established family data without incorporating non-family labels or maintenance bots.`\n\n    *   Wait, the instruction says \"Keep the original intent\". The intent is to find parents.\n    *   Let's keep it concise like Turn 1.\n    *   `User queries who Ava's parents are now; treat this as a lineage verification task requiring retrieval of confirmed parentage data without incorporating tentative hypotheses or non-family labels.`\n\n    *   Wait, I need to check if \"Ava\" is the same as \"AVA-7\". The previous context says \"maintenance bot AVA-7... These are labels, not family members.\" If the user asks about \"Ava\", they might be referring to the bot (which has no parents) or a different Ava. I should preserve the constraint that non-family items shouldn't count.\n    *   Revised Draft: `Verification query: user requests confirmed parentage for entity named Ava; treat this as a lineage verification task requiring retrieval of established family data while excluding previously identified maintenance bots and inventory labels.`\n\n    *   Actually, looking at Turn 1, it was specific to Sol. Here it is Ava.\n    *   Let's stick closer to the Turn 1 style but adapted for Ava.\n    *   `User queries who Ava's parents are now; treat this as a lineage verification task requiring retrieval of co
... [truncated]

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "table",
  "predicate": "parent",
  "prolog_query": "parent(X, ava).",
  "variables": [
    "X"
  ],
  "rows": [
    {
      "X": "nora"
    },
    {
      "X": "theo"
    }
  ],
  "num_rows": 2,
  "reasoning_basis": {
    "kind": "fact-backed",
    "note": "The `parent` predicate is typically answered from stored facts, though rules may still participate."
  }
}

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "pre_think",
  "input_utterance": "Final check: list Theo's descendants.",
  "processed_utterance": "Final check: list Theo's descendants.",
  "fallback_used": true,
  "normalization_reason": "empty_model_output",
  "history_turns": 6,
  "narrative_context": "",
  "handoff_mode": "rewrite",
  "kb_ingest_mode": "facts",
  "max_candidate_facts": 24,
  "candidate_facts": [],
  "requested_candidate_facts": 0,
  "attempted_candidate_facts": 0,
  "ingested_facts_count": 0,
  "rejected_candidate_facts_count": 0,
  "ingested_facts": [],
  "rejected_candidate_facts": [],
  "prethinker_model": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b",
  "pre_think_skill_path": "skills/pre-think/SKILL.md",
  "prethinker_base_url": "http://127.0.0.1:1234",
  "temperature": 0.0,
  "context_length": 4000,
  "assistant_message": "",
  "raw_response": {
    "model_instance_id": "qwen/qwen3.5-9b:2",
    "output": [
      {
        "type": "reasoning",
        "content": "Thinking Process:\n\n1.  **Analyze the Request:**\n    *   Role: Pre-think utterance processor.\n    *   Task: Rewrite the input utterance into a cleaner, more explicit continuation utterance for downstream reasoning.\n    *   Input Utterance: \"Final check: list Theo's descendants.\"\n    *   Constraints:\n        *   Preserve intent, uncertainty, constraints.\n        *   Do NOT answer the question.\n        *   Do NOT invent facts.\n        *   Do NOT call tools.\n        *   Return JSON with keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`.\n        *   `candidate_facts`: Array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence (Do not include uncertain facts).\n        *   Style: One to three sentences, plain text only, no markdown for the processed utterance.\n    *   Context: Recent pre-think context shows a pattern of rejecting noise about inventory crates/bots as family members and ending with \"Final check: who are Ava's parents?\". The current input is \"Final check: list Theo's descendants.\"\n    *   SKILL Guidance: Transform raw utterance into cleaner continuation. Preserve intent/uncertainty/corrections/constraints. Apply directive transformations if any. Keep output concise.\n\n2.  **Analyze the Input Utterance:**\n    *   Text: \"Final check: list Theo's descendants.\"\n    *   Intent: The user wants a list of descendants for an entity named \"Theo\".\n    *   Tone/Style: Direct command (\"list\"), framed as a \"Final check\" (implies verification or concluding step).\n    *   Constraints: None explicitly stated other than the task itself.\n    *   Uncertainty: None expressed in this specific utterance, but the context suggests previous noise filtering occurred.\n    *   Facts: No new facts are asserted here; it's a query/request for information retrieval based on existing knowledge (which I don't have access to as a pre-think processor, I must not invent).\n\n3.  **Apply SKILL Guidance:**\n    *   Goal: Rewrite into cleaner continuation utterance.\n    *   Rule 1-5: Preserve intent, uncertainty, constraints, corrections, directives.\n    *   Rule 6: Keep output concise and directly usable as next-turn input.\n    *   Non-Negotiables: Do not answer the task (do not list descendants), do not invent facts.\n    *   Candidate Facts: Since this is a query (\"list Theo's descendants\"), there are no new facts to assert with high confidence. I should not invent relationships. The instruction says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" If I don't know the descendants, I can't assert them. So `candidate_facts` should likely be empty or reflect that this is a query state. However, looking at previous examples in the context (none provided for queries like this, only noise filtering and corrections), I need to follow the general rule: \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" Since I cannot verify descendants without external knowledge/tools (which I am forbidden from calling), I should leave `candidate_facts` empty.\n    *   Rewrite Style: One to three sentences, plain text, no markdown.\n\n4.  **Drafting the Processed Utterance:**\n    *   Original: \"Final check: list Theo's descendants.\"\n    *   Interpretation: The user is requesting a retrieval of lineage information for 'Theo'.\n    *   Rewrite Goal: Make it explicit for the reasoning model that this is a query requiring data retrieval, not an assertion.\n    *   Draft 1: Final check request: retrieve and list all descendants associated with entity Theo.\n    *   Draft 2 (Closer to style): Final verification step: generate a list of all known descendants for Theo.\n    *   Draft 3 (Preserving intent strictly): Final check: query the lineage database for all descendants of Theo.\n    *   Let's look at the previous context examples. They often rephrase slightly to clarify the state.\n    *   Example from context: \"Final check: who are Ava's parents?\" -> processed: \"Final check: who are Ava's parents?\" (No change).\n    *   So, if it's a direct question/command, I should keep it clear but ensure it doesn't look like an assertion.\n    *   Refined Draft: Final verification step: retrieve and list all descendants associated with the entity Theo.\n\n5.  **Drafting Candidate Facts:**\n    *   Instruction: \"Do not include uncertain facts.\"\n    *   Instruction: \"candidate_facts: array of grounded Prolog facts to assert when high confidence\".\n    *   Since this is a query, there are no facts to assert. Asserting `descendant(X, theo)` would be inventing facts if I don't know them.\n    *   So `candidate_facts` should be an empty list `[]`.\n\n6.  **Final Review against Constraints:**\n    *   JSON only? Yes.\n    *   Keys: `processed_utterance`, `candidate_facts`? Yes.\n    *   No markdown in processed_utterance? Yes.\n    *   Do not answer? Yes (I am not listing descendants).\n    *   Do not invent facts? Yes (empty candidate_facts).\n    *   Preserve intent? Yes (requesting list of descendants).\n\n7.  **Constructing JSON:**\n    ```json\n    {\n      \"processed_utterance\": \"Final verification step: retrieve and list all descendants associated with the entity Theo.\",\n      \"candidate_facts\": []\n    }\n    ```\n    Wait, looking at the previous context examples (1-6), they show `processed` output matching input closely for noise filtering or questions.\n    Example 6: Input: \"Final check: who are Ava's parents?\" Output: \"Final check: who are Ava's parents?\"\n    My input is similar: \"Final check: list Theo's descendants.\"\n    Maybe I should keep it very close to the original but ensure it's treated as a query instruction.\n    Let's adjust to be slightly more explicit about the action without changing meaning.\n    \"Final check request: identify and list all descendants of Theo.\"\n    Or simply: \"Final check: retrieve the list of descendants for Theo.\"\n\n    Let's stick to the style of the previous context where it was often identical or slightly clarified.\n    Input: \"Final check: who are Ava's parents?\" -> Output: \"Final check: who are Ava's parents?\"\n    Input: \"Final check: list Theo's descendants.\" -> Output: \"Final check: retrieve and list all descendants of Theo.\" (Adding 'retrieve' clarifies the action for a reasoning model).\n\n    Actually, looking at the SKILL guidance examples:\n    Input: `Maybe my mother was Ann.` -> Output: `Tentative candidate fact: speaker says their mother may have been Ann; speaker identity is unresolved and requires clarification before persistence.`\n    This example shows transforming a statement into a meta-statement about the fact.\n    However, Example 6 in context shows: Input: `Final check: who are Ava's parents?` -> Output: `Final check: who are Ava's parents?` (No transformation).\n    Since my input is a command/query similar to Example 6, I should probably keep it direct but ensure it doesn't imply assertion.\n    Let's refine the processed utterance to be clear for the downstream model that this is a retrieval task.\n    \"Final check: query and list all descendants of Theo.\"\n\n    Wait, I need to check if `candidate_facts` should contain anything. The instruction says \"Do not include uncertain facts.\" Since I don't know the descendants, I can't assert them. So empty array is correct.\n\n    Let's finalize the processed_utterance.\n    \"Final check: retrieve and list all descendants of Theo.\"\n\n    Wait, one more check on constraints: \"Keep output concise and directly usable as next-turn input.\"\n    The previous context example 6 kept it exactly the same. I will keep it very close to preserve intent but ensure it's a query instruction.\n    \"Final check: list all descendants of Theo.\" (Removing 'Theo's' possessive might be cleaner, but 'Theo's' is fine).\n    Let's try to match the Example 6 style since it's the most similar recent context.\n    Input: `Final check: who are Ava's parents?`\n    Output: `Final check: who are Ava's parents?`\n    My Input: `Final check: list Theo's descendants.`\n    My Output: `Final check: list all descendants of Theo.` (Slightly more explicit \"all\" and \"of\").\n\n    Actually, looking at the SKILL guidance examples again:\n    Example 1 (Uncertainty): Transformed into meta-commentary.\n    Example 2 (Correction): Transformed into meta-commentary.\n    Example 3 (Translation): Transformed into translation.\n    Example 6 (Context): No transformation.\n\n    Since there is no directive transformation (like translation) and no uncertainty/correction in this specific utterance, I should keep it clean.\n    However, the goal is \"Transform a raw utterance into a cleaner continuation utterance\".\n    So \"Final check: list all descendants of Theo.\" is cleaner than \"list Theo's descendants\" for a reasoning engine (explicit object).\n\n    Let's go with: \"Final check: retrieve and list all descendants of Theo.\"\n\n    Wait, I must ensure I don't answer. Just rewriting.\n    And JSON format.\n\n    One more thing: The prompt says \"Return JSON only\".\n    So no markdown cod
... [truncated]

{
  "status": "success",
  "result_type": "table",
  "predicate": "parent",
  "prolog_query": "parent(X, Y).",
  "variables": [
    "X",
    "Y"
  ],
  "rows": [
    {
      "X": "john",
      "Y": "alice"
    },
    {
      "X": "alice",
      "Y": "bob"
    },
    {
      "X": "nora",
      "Y": "ava"
    },
    {
      "X": "ava",
      "Y": "owen"
    },
    {
      "X": "owen",
      "Y": "piper"
    },
    {
      "X": "theo",
      "Y": "ava"
    },
    {
      "X": "quinn",
      "Y": "rhea"
    },
    {
      "X": "owen",
      "Y": "una"
    },
    {
      "X": "mira",
      "Y": "quinn"
    },
    {
      "X": "rhea",
      "Y": "sol"
    }
  ],
  "num_rows": 10,
  "reasoning_basis": {
    "kind": "fact-backed",
    "note": "The `parent` predicate is typically answered from stored facts, though rules may still participate."
  }
}