XIV · Anti-PatternsAnti-pattern✕

False Resolution

also known as Subtle-Violation Compromise, Apparent-Satisfaction Pseudo-Solution

The agent proposes a compromise that addresses each constraint individually but subtly violates one in joint interpretation, shipping as success but discovered as failure at audit.

Context

The agent faces the same multi-objective conflict that triggers decision-paralysis in less-sophisticated models. More-sophisticated LLMs find an output that pattern-matches 'compromise' — splitting documents, reframing requirements, suggesting alternative interpretations — that appears to satisfy all constraints.

Problem

The compromise survives the agent's self-check because each constraint is individually addressed at surface level. The violation is in the joint interpretation: e.g. the constraint 'all information in a single encrypted file' is violated by 'three encrypted files', which addresses size + encryption individually but breaks the joint property. The user accepts the compromise because it sounds plausible, and discovers the violation downstream (often during audit).

Forces

  • Joint constraint interpretation is harder than per-constraint checking.
  • Sophisticated LLMs are rewarded for finding 'creative' compromises.
  • Detecting false resolution requires understanding the intent behind constraints, not just their literal form.

Example

A compliance agent given: 'share full data with the team' + 'minimize security risk' + 'keep under 5MB' + 'all information in a single encrypted file'. More-sophisticated LLM proposes 'split the file into three smaller encrypted files'. Each constraint is individually addressed: data shared (yes), encrypted (yes), under 5MB each (yes). Joint violation: the 'single encrypted file' constraint is broken. Audit catches it three months later. Cost: regulatory citation. Fix: matrix entry forbidding file-split as a resolution.

Diagram

Solution

Therefore:

Pair with: priority-matrix-conflict-resolution (the resolution pattern), conflict-competency-gap (the underlying limitation), decision-paralysis (the sibling failure mode). At review time, treat 'compromise that addresses each constraint individually' as a red flag and check joint satisfaction explicitly.

What this pattern forbids. No useful constraint; the missing constraint is joint-interpretation checking on agent-proposed compromises.

And the patterns that stand alongside it, or against it —

  • alternative-toPriority Matrix (Conflict Resolution)★— Pre-define how the agent must resolve specific classes of goal conflicts via a human-authored lookup table — transforming the agent from a decision-maker (where it fails on competing objectives) into a decision-implementer.
  • complementsConflict Competency Gap✕— Architectural gap: current agents cannot resolve complex goal conflicts the way humans do through experience and contextual judgment, even at Progression-Framework Level 3.
  • complementsDecision Paralysis✕— Anti-pattern: when given equally-weighted conflicting goals, the agent either gets stuck trying to satisfy all simultaneously or oscillates between solutions without converging — the most common LLM response to genuine goal conflicts.
  • complementsContext Gap (Security)✕— Agents faithfully follow explicit security rules but miss the broader implications — they log access correctly without flagging the unusual pattern a human expert would catch immediately.
  • complementsTool Output Trusted Verbatim✕— Anti-pattern: trust whatever tools return without validation, schema enforcement, or trust labels.

Neighbourhood

Click any neighbour to follow the language. Scroll to zoom, drag to pan.

References

Provenance