ADR-017: The chat states what the run did, not what it said 

Context 

An analysis of the backend chats on the Netresearch demo installation (NEXT-167) found four ways in which the chat left its reader with a wrong picture, each in real conversations:

• A change claimed, none made. Four times in one conversation the assistant answered "Erledigt" and listed the page and the content element it had changed, with uids — in runs that called no tool at all. The run records every write the DataHandler actually performed as a tool_write step (nr-llm ADR-182); nothing in the chat compared the answer with it.
• A configuration error shown to everyone. A provider without an API key surfaced as "API key identifier is required for provider OpenAI". That sentence helps an administrator and tells an editor nothing, and it named neither the place to fix it nor the person who can.
• Tools the model could not see. A configuration's tool groups held back sixteen tools. Asked which tools could not be used, the model said it saw no such list — and for a request one of those tools would have served, it could only answer that nothing could do it.
• "weiter" while an approval was pending. A message sent while a run waited for an approval abandoned the approval and started a second run over the same transcript. After a lost answer, "weiter", "alles approved" and "habe alles freigegeben" each made the model draft the same page again; four of those five re-drafts were approved.

Decision 

The run decides, the text only triggers. When a completed answer claims a change (German and English participles such as "erledigt", "gespeichert", "created", "updated", not preceded by a negation such as "nicht", "nichts", "kein" or "not" within three words) and the run wrote nothing, the assistant message is stored with the notice nothingSaved. The chat renders it as a label in the reader's language: "Nothing was saved in this step". The word list is generous on purpose: a match on an answer that only talks about a change still yields a true notice, because the run wrote nothing.

"The run wrote nothing" is read from the run's persisted event stream (AgentRuntimeInterface::events()), not from the result's steps: every resume starts a fresh trace, so a write carried out at the first approval of a turn is not in the steps of the segment that answers after the second. Two kinds of event count as a write: tool_write, which a builtin writer leaves (nr-llm ADR-182), and a call that executed without error directly after an approval with approved = true — a remote tool whose write needed approval leaves no write target, and every approval-bound call is write-declared (nr-llm ADR-134). A run that could not be persisted has no stream; its result's steps are the evidence then. A stream that cannot be read yields no notice rather than a guessed one.

The notice is for the reader. The model is told the same on the next turn: the flagged answer reaches it with a note appended — "the run behind this answer wrote no record" — built per turn and never stored, so the model does not build on its own claim. The system prompt adds the rule behind it: claim a change only on a successful write result, and never state a uid no tool returned.

A failure carries its kind. Next to error_message the conversation stores error_code: providerNotConfigured for nr-llm's ProviderConfigurationException and ProviderAuthenticationException (the exception chain is walked), chatNotConfigured for a missing Task, configuration or model — on an ordinary turn and on the continuation an approval starts alike. The request that shows the failure phrases it for the reader: an administrator gets the stored text and a link to the nr-llm providers or tasks module, everyone else a localised sentence that tells them to ask the administration. The code is data and the sentence is rendered per request, for the reason NEXT-159 moved the pause notice out of the stored field: a stored sentence is frozen in one language and for one reader.

The model is told which tools it is not given. Where nr-llm provides UnavailableToolsResolverInterface (its ADR-201), the system prompt lists the tools this user's run is not offered, one line each with the reason in plain words, and tells the model to say that such a tool exists and to point to an administrator. The service is looked up in the container by name and its absence yields an empty list, so the chat keeps working unchanged on an nr-llm without it. The list is information, never a gate. A builtin tool's trust-zone refusal in observe mode is offered and therefore not listed. Remote (MCP) tools are listed only when the chat user is an administrator: nr-llm leaves them out for everyone else, because their names are operator configuration.

"Go on" is not a new request, and not a decision. When the conversation waits for an approval and the whole message is one of a short, explicit list of "go on" and "I approved it" phrases, the chat asks the run where it stands before anything is written:

• still waiting: nothing is stored and no run starts; the reader is told that the decision is taken on the card — or in AI Tasks, for a reader who may not decide in the chat and therefore gets no card;
• decided elsewhere and still running: the same answer as any busy conversation;
• decided elsewhere and finished: the message is stored together with a line that names the records the run wrote (pages:10073, read from the run's tool_write events, which the privacy filter keeps at every level), and the conversation is idle. The line is stored language-neutral, for the model, with the notice runFinishedOutside and the records beside it; the reader sees the label in their own language, for the reason error_code exists. The next turn therefore knows the page exists;
• anything the run cannot answer: the ordinary path.

The message is never taken as the approval. An approval is a decision on the preview the card shows (nr-llm ADR-132, ADR-136); "habe alles freigegeben" is a statement about a decision the writer believes was already taken, and in the demo it was written about a run that had been decided in another module.

The second half of the duplicate guard is nr-llm's: the preview of create_page_draft warns when the parent already holds a page with the same title.

Stuck conversations were already covered: ai-chat:cleanup fails any conversation left in processing, locked or tool_loop for more than five minutes. The demo conversation that stayed in processing for weeks matches that condition, so the command cannot have run there in that time; whether and how it is scheduled on the demo is not in the exported data. The reset now also clears the failure code.

Consequences 

• An answer that claims a change the run did not make is visibly marked. An answer that describes a change a previous run made, in a turn that made none, is marked too — accurately, since nothing was saved in that step.
• The model still says what it says; the notice sits beside it. The prompt rule makes the false claim less likely, the notice makes it visible.
• The conversation table gains the column error_code. Existing rows have an empty code and are shown as before.
• Non-administrators learn the names of builtin tools they may not use, including administrator-only ones. Tool names and reasons are policy facts, not instance data. Remote tool names stay with administrators.
• A "go on" phrase outside the list is an ordinary request, and so is any longer sentence that contains one.