Jevs-Garage

import { experimental_evaluate as evaluate } from 'ai';

const { answers } = await evaluate({
  model: 'typesafe-ai/jev',
  state,
  questions: {
    failure_domain: { type: 'choice', instructions: 'Identify the dominant failure domain supported by the complete incident snapshot.',
      criteria: { application_release: 'The active application release is the primary causal factor.', payment_provider: 'An external payment provider is the primary causal factor.', routing_configuration: 'Routing or timeout configuration is the primary causal factor.', capacity: 'Internal capacity exhaustion is the primary causal factor.', multi_factor: 'Several coupled causes prevent a single dominant attribution.', unknown: 'Evidence is insufficient for stable attribution.' } },
    customer_impact: { type: 'score', instructions: 'Score current customer and financial impact.',
      criteria: ['contained', 'minor', 'material', 'major', 'systemic'] },
    systemic_outage: { type: 'boolean', instructions: 'Is this a multi-region, customer-visible payment outage requiring incident command?' },
  },
});

import { experimental_evaluate as evaluate } from 'ai';

const { answers } = await evaluate({
  model: 'typesafe-ai/jev',
  state,
  questions: {
    change_risk: { type: 'score', instructions: 'Score the blast radius and reversibility risk of the selected intervention.',
      criteria: ['minimal', 'low', 'moderate', 'high', 'unacceptable'] },
    evidence_sufficient: { type: 'boolean', instructions: 'Is the evidence sufficient for operators to consider the selected intervention now?' },
  },
});

import { experimental_evaluate as evaluate } from 'ai';

const { answers } = await evaluate({
  model: 'typesafe-ai/jev',
  state,
  questions: {
    position: { type: 'choice', instructions: 'Choose the seismic hazard interpretation best supported by the source and prior consensus.',
      criteria: { background: 'Activity is consistent with ordinary global background seismicity.', elevated_cluster: 'A meaningful cluster or sequence warrants focused monitoring.', major_event: 'A major event creates credible disruption potential.', unclear: 'The evidence cannot support a stable hazard interpretation.' } },
    strength: { type: 'score', instructions: 'Score the operational strength of the seismic hazard signal.',
      criteria: ['negligible', 'weak', 'moderate', 'strong', 'extreme'] },
    supported: { type: 'boolean', instructions: 'Is this hazard interpretation directly supported by the supplied events?' },
  },
});

import { experimental_evaluate as evaluate } from 'ai';

const { answers } = await evaluate({
  model: 'typesafe-ai/jev',
  state,
  questions: {
    position: { type: 'choice', instructions: 'Choose the plausible exposure pattern after considering hazard and prior-round evidence.',
      criteria: { remote: 'Events are unlikely to disrupt significant infrastructure or population centers.', regional: 'One region could face meaningful disruption.', multi_region: 'Several regions or global networks could be affected.', unclear: 'Locations and impact context do not support a stable exposure judgment.' } },
    strength: { type: 'score', instructions: 'Score plausible infrastructure and population exposure.',
      criteria: ['negligible', 'low', 'moderate', 'high', 'extreme'] },
    supported: { type: 'boolean', instructions: 'Is this exposure judgment supported without inventing missing asset data?' },
  },
});