Procurement failure modes with Jev
Requesters write “need this vendor, they already know us.” Catalog, bid thresholds, and vendor master still own the buy. Jev scores policy-fit of the justification you paste. It does not raise POs or pick winners.
This unofficial page is the failure modes slice of the procurement path decisions pack. Intent: apply the Jev (TypeSafe System One) decision model to procurement path decisions failure modes. Primary search language: Procurement Jev failure modes. Confirm patterns on docs.typesafe.ai. This site does not sell, issue, or proxy TypeSafe keys. Use a credential you already have from the console or a documented gateway.
Independent angle (cover ≠ clone): Catalog vs bid vs exception as typed questions + policy excerpts — not a clone of a procurement-workflow SaaS sitemap.
Procurement use-case context
Procurement path decisions breaks in product-specific ways. This page lists those modes so you can write tests — not a generic “AI can be wrong” essay, and not a rival limitations-page clone.
Hub: Use cases. Compare, when the other tool is the real job: procurement workflows.
Failure Modes inputs
Many failures start as contract violations (distractors, missing purchase justification text). Canonical shape:
{
"req": { "id": "pr-77", "text": "Only Acme can integrate with our badge system by Friday." },
"policy": { "sole_source": "Sole-source needs a named alternative and a date risk, not brand preference." },
"bands": { "amount_band": "25-50k", "category": "security_hardware" }
}Decision signals and actions
- Procurement suites own catalogs, bids, and POs (compare).
- Jaggedness: do not ask Jev to compare three quote totals.
- A high policy Noul is not a competition-law opinion.
- Auto-creating a PO is usually the wrong irreversible — keep that floor unused until buyers agree.
- No invented savings percentages.
HTTP vs application:
| You see | Class | Procurement move |
|---|---|---|
| 401 / 422 / 429 / 529 | Documented HTTP | Fix key/body or back off — errors |
| 200 + flat confidence or Noul ≈ 0.5 | Low confidence | Hold; do not create a PO or award a vendor |
| Empty gather | Missing evidence | Skip Jev or ask “is enough information present?” |
Do not treat a Noul of 0.5 as a “medium” procurement path decisions score — it means yes and no are equally likely. Conjunctions stay in your code.
Guardrails and escalation
Fail closed: do not create a PO or award a vendor. Schema-safe answers are not factual correctness. TypeSafe’s confidence-gated examples use a lower bar for recoverable reads than for irreversible actions. Those numbers are illustrations. For procurement path decisions, treat auto_create_po as the high bar (creating a purchase order or awarding a vendor). Tune on labels — see offline evaluation.
Evaluation and rollout notes
Your canary set should include each bullet above.
- False sole-source on a preference-only canary
- False-hold (requester throughput)
- Agreement after policy-text edits
Pin jev-1.13.0 (the versioned id) after you fit thresholds. jev-latest and the marketing line jev-1.13 can move. Log the response model. TypeSafe’s published list price for jev-1.13 is $0.042 per million input tokens (vendor claim — confirm on the models page); output tokens are free on that same page. Unused distractors still bill as input.
Official Python and JavaScript SDKs read TYPESAFE_API_KEY and retry documented 429/529. This site does not sell, issue, or proxy TypeSafe keys. Use a credential you already have from the console or a documented gateway.
Pack map
| Slice | Page |
|---|---|
| Graph and primitives | decision workflow |
What may enter state |
input contracts |
| What to gather first | evidence collection |
| Atomic rules | policy checks |
| Act / review / abstain | confidence thresholds |
| Reviewer payload | human handoff |
| What to persist | audit trail |
| How it breaks | you are here |
| Labeled replay | evaluation |
| Shadow → canary | production rollout |
FAQ
If the API returns 200, is the decision good? 200 only means the call parsed. Low confidence, Noul ≈ 0.5, or a policy miss are application failures.
Where do official weaknesses live? TypeSafe’s jev-1.13 jaggedness note — distractors, arithmetic, adversarial content. We do not invent more.
Where is the rest of the Procurement pack? Start with Procurement evaluation and Procurement decision workflow. Cluster hub: Use cases.
Will Jev pick the cheapest vendor? No. Price compare in code or the bid tool. Jev judges the justification text.
Can we paste three PDF quotes? Not as images. Extract facts you need; keep state small. Unused tokens still bill (vendor claim — confirm models page).
What this page does not claim
- Not a procurement suite or savings calculator.
- Not competition-law advice.
- Not official TypeSafe.
- Official TypeSafe status, or that jev.pro issues API keys.
- That a schema-constrained answer is automatically factually correct.
Disclaimer
This is an independent unofficial site and is not affiliated with TypeSafe AI; official documentation is available at https://docs.typesafe.ai.
Primary documentation: https://docs.typesafe.ai. Hub: Use cases.
Sources
Public TypeSafe or adjacent documentation only. No private claims.