NO KEY / FOUR DECISIONS
Jev beginner practice: design a safe decision in four steps
Choose what the application should do before revealing the reasoning. Numbers here are hypothetical teaching examples, never results from a Jev API run.
Exercises run locally, make no Jev call, and store progress only in this browser.
01 / STATE
✓A parcel is marked delivered but missing. What belongs in state?
Customer says the parcel is missing. The application has not verified order ownership or the carrier record.
What should code do before automatic routing?
Verify facts the application can check. Keep missing signer data unknown. Jev may help choose a queue; it cannot retrieve unprovided records or authorize a refund.
If order ownership cannot be confirmed, gather information or request review instead of guessing.
Code fetches facts and enforces access; Jev judges the state actually provided.
02 / QUESTION
✓Choose the first support team
The defined teams are shipping, billing, technical, and review. One team must receive the ticket first.
Which question shape matches the required answer?
This is a bounded selection, so Choice fits. Define distinct options and a review path. Urgency can be a separate Noul against the same state.
To decide both team and urgency, ask two atomic questions in one request.
Jev returns a typed judgment; code maps team keys to real queues.
03 / ACTION
✓The answer says shipping. May code route it?
Hypothetical example: Choice returns shipping with confidence 0.62. A threshold of 0.80 was provisionally chosen from a separate labeled set. Ownership is verified.
What does this example policy do next?
0.62 is below the hypothetical gate. Confidence is not a measured accuracy rate. Tune the gate on labeled data and evaluate on untouched cases.
Even if confidence changes to 0.91, access rules still guard irreversible actions; this example permits only reversible routing.
Jev provides a signal; code owns gates, permissions, fallback, and logs.
04 / EVIDENCE
✓A RAG excerpt looks relevant. Can you answer?
The user asks when a refund arrives. The retrieved passage says eligible orders may request a refund, with no timing information.
What avoids mistaking relevance for supporting evidence?
A related passage does not support a specific arrival time. Check whether evidence covers the claim before generating or citing an answer.
If a policy later states a timing rule, check its region, effective date, and whether it applies to this order.
Jev can assist filtering; retrieval, final answers, and citation checks remain separate steps.
Keep learning
Model and code boundary：state → question → code policy → evaluation.