# Preserve closure requests across monitoring-semantics enforcement

<!-- auto-oncall-optimization-record
{
  "schemaVersion": "auto-oncall-optimization-record-v1",
  "optimizationId": "monitoring-boundary-preserves-closure-2026-08-03",
  "problems": [
    {
      "problemId": "monitoring-semantics-fallback-drops-safe-closure-response",
      "summary": "When a customer asks to close a ticket while reporting an unverified upgrade association, the monitoring-semantics fallback preserves the causal boundary but overwrites the otherwise safe acknowledgement of the closure request.",
      "status": "optimized_verified",
      "issueKeys": ["TCID-12973"],
      "sourceRefs": [
        "auto-oncall-report:staging:daily:2026-07-27:case:TCID-12973#problem:ai_gap:6e11938f5c98eab0"
      ],
      "signalTextIncludesAny": [
        "未回应客户关闭诉求",
        "监控语义保护覆盖关单答复",
        "保持因果边界但未完成工单闭环"
      ],
      "observedThrough": "2026-08-03",
      "effectiveAt": "2026-08-03T10:13:22.000Z",
      "verifiedAt": "2026-08-05T04:05:15Z",
      "attemptedAction": "Preserve a fixed non-causal closure acknowledgement after the monitoring-semantics fallback only when the source draft contains both an explicit closure request and an explicit unverified-causality boundary.",
      "evidenceUrl": "https://tidb.atlassian.net/browse/TCID-12973?focusedCommentId=23327373"
    }
  ]
}
-->

- Optimization ID: `monitoring-boundary-preserves-closure-2026-08-03`
- Owner: auto-oncall-services
- Source reference: TCID-12973
- Implementation status: deployed to staging in aisupport PR `#602`, revision
  `e1808bcb0a7f293998b0a9dc25f7e44dab84e88f`
- Effective status: `optimized_verified`

## Bounded problem

The monitoring-semantics publication fallback correctly prevents an
implausible metric and an unverified upgrade association from becoming a
technical root cause. It previously replaced the complete customer draft,
including a safe acknowledgement that the customer wanted to close the ticket.

## Candidate implementation

Keep the fixed ordered validation checks and unconfirmed-cause language
unchanged. Append a fixed closure sentence only when the pre-fallback draft
contains both:

- an explicit close or end-follow-up request; and
- an explicit statement that the reported cause is unverified or only recorded
  from customer-provided context.

An unsafe draft that says the upgrade is confirmed does not retain any closure
text and still falls back to the original bounded monitoring template.

## Verification evidence

- Local TCID-12973 replay `/runs/62fa7b5d-8fa3-4e28-8e44-8c0015113de8`
  retained the three ordered monitoring checks, did not confirm the upgrade as
  root cause, and explicitly said the ticket could close at the customer's
  request.
- The replay remained `human_better` because the human reference asserted a
  probable technical cause. That remaining causal-evidence disagreement is
  outside this bounded closure-response problem.
- Full repository tests passed: 614 tests, 614 passed.
- The exact merged revision reached the staging Deployment at
  `2026-08-03T10:13:22Z`; the replacement Pod was Ready with zero restarts and
  both `/healthz` and `/readyz` returned HTTP 200.
- At the user's direction, the already verified draft was not regenerated with
  another replay. Jira internal comment `23327373` was updated in place by
  direct API `PUT`; readback confirmed the same comment ID, `public=false`, the
  safe closure acknowledgement, and `自动回答: 是；人工处理: 否`.
- TCID-12973 remained in Jira status `已解决`; no transition, duplicate comment,
  customer-visible reply, DB run, evaluation row, or Base history rewrite was
  performed.
- Post-deployment historical replay `5d19f30c-3778-4671-90c6-1987aef2f35d`
  explicitly acknowledged the customer's closure request while stating that
  the upgrade association was not verified and making no root-cause claim.
  That passes this bounded closure-response criterion even though the separate
  provider packet remained a bounded failure.
- Existing internal comment `23327373` was updated in place with the verified
  replay draft. API readback at `2026-08-05T04:05:15Z` confirmed the same ID,
  `public=false`, and the exact expected body.

## Unresolved gaps

- The separate disagreement over whether the upgrade was a probable technical
  cause remains outside this bounded closure-response problem.
- The replay's `diagnostic_scenario_packet_child_handoff_mismatch` belongs to
  the provider-evidence pipeline and does not weaken the fixed non-causal
  closure acknowledgement verified here.

## Next validation action

Monitor future explicit closure requests for regression. Keep provider
admission and causal-attribution findings in their separate problem records.