Refusal

Problem

A helpful-by-default agent answers these out-of-scope questions anyway, producing plausible-sounding but unauthorised content: a stock pick from a system that has no business giving one, a dosage suggestion from a tool that is not a medical device, a confident wrong answer in a domain the model has not been validated against. Silently routing such requests through the model also strips the user of the signal that the agent has a boundary. Without an explicit, kind refusal at the named boundary, the agent drifts into territory that erodes trust and exposes the operator.

Solution

Define refusal triggers (policy violation, out-of-scope, capability gap, regulatory boundary). Return a clear, kind, specific refusal that names the boundary and (when possible) suggests an alternative. Log refusals for review.

When to use

• Requests fall outside scope, capability, or policy and helpful-by-default would harm.
• Clear refusal triggers can be defined (policy violation, out-of-scope, regulatory boundary).
• Refusals can name the boundary and suggest an alternative when possible.