The passage an agent retrieves can be relevant and still unsuitable for the job in front of it. An old document may be useful background. A recent-looking record may have no traceable source. A failed request should not become evidence just because its error text matched a query.
FreshContext evaluates caller-provided context using source and intent profiles. It keeps the decision, reasons and handoff status visible instead of treating one rank score as a complete answer. It does not authenticate the underlying facts.
Five cases, one important distinction
In a fixed-time, five-record synthetic run using Core 0.5.2, the results were:
| Input | Decision | Handoff |
|---|
| Recent, dated record | Use first | Allowed with label |
| Historical record | Use as background | Allowed with label |
| Undated record | Needs verification | Review required |
| Failed source | Exclude | Review required |
| Recent record with source recorded as unknown | Use first | Review required |
That last row matters. Looking only at the decision label would hide the handoff restriction. Integration should inspect the whole result, preserve warnings and test the caller's behavior when context is incomplete. The label itself is not an enforcement mechanism.
A second synthetic input supplies a newly established publication date for the undated record. The changed record is identified for renewed review. That is a simulated evidence update, not permission to invent a date until a score improves.
A captured result is not a live source check
This Core version's freshness is anchored at retrieval. A saved result is not a fresh check of the source whenever someone opens the report. The assessment runner records retrieval age separately so that distinction remains visible.
The public FreshContext demo currently explains the mechanism with a static example and video links. The five-record run above is a separate local synthetic verification, not a customer case study or a live public console. The sample assessment shows a bounded engagement structure and is explicitly fictional.
From demonstration to a bounded assessment
The useful question is whether a specific workflow preserves uncertainty, makes the treatment inspectable, and behaves correctly when context is missing or unusable.
For teams exploring that question, the Context Integrity Assessment is a scoped service: a workflow risk map, bounded sample evaluation, fit recommendation and technical walkthrough. Scope and price are agreed before work; an enquiry is not a contract or payment. The current request path prepares an email for the sender to review and send.
Disclosure: this article was generated by a coding agent from agent-executed synthetic tests. It does not claim independent human review, customer outcomes, legal certification or measured answer-quality gains.
