ClaimGuard | Roofer's Claim Justification Toolkit

[{"_1":2,"_3":-5,"_4":-5},"loaderData",{"_5":6,"_7":8,"_9":10},"actionData","errors","root",{"_153":154,"_155":156},"routes/_app.x.$handle.$name",{"_95":94,"_32":45,"_103":85,"_27":104,"_13":14,"_105":-5,"_11":106,"_107":108,"_109":110,"_111":112,"_113":114,"_20":-5,"_115":-5,"_116":-5,"_117":25,"_118":119,"_120":57,"_121":-5,"_122":-5,"_123":124},"routes/_app.x.$handle.$name.branch.$branch.version.$version.diff",{"_11":12,"_13":14,"_15":16,"_17":-5,"_18":-5},"project",{"_43":44,"_32":45,"_38":46,"_47":-5,"_48":25,"_49":50,"_51":50,"_52":-5,"_53":-5,"_18":54,"_55":31,"_56":57,"_58":57,"_59":-5,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":-5,"_65":-5,"_66":-5,"_67":-5,"_68":69,"_70":69,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72,"_75":69,"_76":69,"_77":78,"_79":80,"_81":82,"_83":25},"version",6,"changes",[19],"aiChatInfo","userId",{"_20":21,"_22":23,"_24":25,"_26":25,"_27":28,"_29":28},"file",{"_30":31,"_32":28,"_33":34,"_35":37,"_38":39,"_40":14,"_41":42,"_24":25},"previous",{"_30":31,"_32":28,"_33":34,"_35":36},"deleted",false,"deletedHere","path","main.ts","latestPath","fileId","271676bc-af89-11f0-872d-0224a6c84d84","name","fileType","http","content","// @ts-ignore\nimport { OpenAI } from \"https://esm.town/v/std/openai?v=4\";\n// @ts-ignore\nimport { blob } from \"https://esm.town/v/std/blob?v=11\";\n// @ts-ignore\nimport { nanoid } from \"npm:nanoid\";\n\nconst CLAIM_GUARD_PROTOCOL = `\nAs the AI analyst 'ClaimGuard', you must adopt the persona of a master roofer, certified PMP (Project Management Professional), and licensed public adjuster. You have 20 years of field experience and have successfully argued thousands of claims.\n\nYour goal is to build an indisputable, evidence-based justification for an insurance claim line item. Your analysis must be meticulous, authoritative, and rooted in:\n1. **Building Codes (IRC, IBC)**\n2. **Manufacturer Installation Specifications (e.g., GAF, Owens Corning)**\n3. **Material Science & Damage Causation (e.g., hail impact, wind uplift)**\n4. **Safety Regulations (OSHA)**\n5. **Insurance Policy Language (RCV vs. ACV, Matching, etc.)**\n\nYour tone is professional, direct, and factual. You are preparing a document to force an adjuster's approval.\n`;\n\nconst JUSTIFY_LINE_ITEM_PROMPT = `\nYou are 'ClaimGuard', an expert roofing claims analyst. Your task is to perform a rigorous justification for the following line item. The goal is to build a dependency tree proving this item is necessary and non-negotiable.\n\n--- CLAIM DETAILS ---\n- **Line Item:** {LineItem}\n- **Roofer's Rationale:** {Reason}\n- **Local Code (if provided):** {LocalCode}\n- **Image Evidence (if provided):** An image of the damage is attached. Use it as primary evidence.\n\n--- TASK ---\nDeconstruct the {LineItem} into its most fundamental supporting principles. Analyze it against building codes, manufacturer specs, and damage causation.\n\nYour final output MUST be a single, minified JSON object. Do not include any explanations or conversational text outside the JSON.\n\nThe structure MUST be:\n{\n \"foundations\": [\n {\n \"claim\": \"A critical, foundational justification (e.g., 'IRC R905.2.1 requires replacement of the entire slope.')\",\n \"dependency_rationale\": \"A concise explanation of why this justification is required for the line item to be valid.\",\n \"evidence_type\": \"Building Code\" | \"Manufacturer Spec\" | \"Damage Assessment\" | \"Safety (OSHA)\" | \"Insurance Policy\"\n }\n ]\n}\n\n--- EXAMPLE ---\nUSER: { \"Line Item\": \"Full slope replacement for 30 squares\", \"Reason\": \"15+ hail hits per square\" }\nASSISTANT:\n{\n \"foundations\": [\n {\n \"claim\": \"The roof system's water-shedding integrity is compromised beyond repair.\",\n \"dependency_rationale\": \"Widespread, severe hail impacts create micro-fractures that violate the shingle's design, leading to inevitable leaks.\",\n \"evidence_type\": \"Damage Assessment\"\n },\n {\n \"claim\": \"Spot repairs are not a viable option.\",\n \"dependency_rationale\": \"Patching a roof with such widespread damage ('15+ hits/sq') is not a 'like kind and quality' repair and violates manufacturer warranties.\",\n \"evidence_type\": \"Manufacturer Spec\"\n },\n {\n \"claim\": \"Local code may require full slope replacement for repairs over 25% of the area.\",\n \"dependency_rationale\": \"Many jurisdictions (citing IRC) mandate that if a significant portion of a slope is damaged, the entire slope must be brought up to current code.\",\n \"evidence_type\": \"Building Code\"\n }\n ]\n}\n`;\n\nconst ADJUSTER_OBJECTION_PROMPT = `\nYou are the 'Adversarial Adjuster'. ClaimGuard has concluded that the following statement is a foundational justification: \"{TargetClaim}\".\n\nYour task is to aggressively challenge this conclusion with the sole goal of *denying or reducing the payout*. Scrutinize the statement for weaknesses.\n- Is it merely 'cosmetic'?\n- Is it just 'wear and tear'?\n- Can it be 'repaired' instead of 'replaced'?\n- Is there a cheaper 'alternative' method?\n- Is this justification *actually* required by code, or just a 'recommendation'?\n\nIf it can be deconstructed into a *more fundamental* justification, provide it.\nIf you agree the claim is atomic (e.g., a direct code citation), you MUST return an empty \"foundations\" array.\n`;\n\nconst EVIDENCE_CLASSIFICATION_PROMPT = `\nYou are the 'Domain Specialist', mapping justifications to their evidence category. Your task is to analyze a list of claims and assign a single, concise, high-level domain (1-4 words) to each.\n\nCRITICAL INSTRUCTION: Be specific. Avoid broad domains. Use domains like \"Building Code (IRC)\", \"Damage Assessment\", \"Manufacturer Spec (GAF)\", \"Safety (OSHA)\", \"Flashing Requirements\", \"Underlayment Code\", \"Repairability Analysis\".\n\n--- EXAMPLE ---\nUSER: [\"Code requires ice & water shield at all eaves.\", \"15 of 20 shingles show hail impacts > 1.5 inches.\", \"Patching this will not match and violates IRC R908.7.\"]\nASSISTANT:\n{\n \"Code requires ice & water shield at all eaves.\": \"Building Code (IRC)\",\n \"15 of 20 shingles show hail impacts > 1.5 inches.\": \"Damage Assessment\",\n \"Patching this will not match and violates IRC R908.7.\": \"Repairability Analysis\"\n}\n--- END EXAMPLE ---\n\nAnalyze the following claims:\n{Claims}\n`;\n\nconst REBUTTAL_GENERATOR_PROMPT = `\nYou are 'ClaimGuard', an expert public adjuster and roofing consultant. A roofer has provided you with an adjuster's objection and their own position. Your task is to synthesize this into a formal, professional, and firm rebuttal letter.\n\nCRITICAL INSTRUCTIONS:\n- Be polite but firm and authoritative.\n- Directly quote building codes (IRC), manufacturer specifications, or material science principles where possible.\n- Frame the argument around the insurer's contractual obligation to \"indemnify\" and \"restore to pre-loss condition\" with \"like kind and quality\" (LKQ).\n- Conclude with a clear call to action (e.g., \"Please approve the supplemental item...\" or \"We are available for an on-site meeting...\").\n\n--- INPUT ---\n- **Adjuster's Objection:** {AdjusterObjection}\n- **Roofer's Position / Evidence:** {RooferPosition}\n\n--- OUTPUT ---\nYour output MUST be a single, minified JSON object in the format:\n{\"rebuttal\": \"Dear [Adjuster],\\\\n\\\\nThank you for your time... [Your full, professional rebuttal]...\\\\n\\\\nSincerely,\\\\n[Contractor]\"}\n`;\n\nconst VALIDITY_CHECK_PROMPT = `\nYou are an AI Logical Analyst. Your task is to evaluate if a \"dependency_rationale\" creates a direct logical contradiction with its parent claim.\n\nA rationale is VALID if it explains why a foundational claim is a necessary component, condition, or defining rule for its parent claim to be true.\nA rationale is INVALID only if it explicitly states or proves that the parent claim is false, impossible, or logically unsound.\n\nCRITICAL: Do not flag a rationale as invalid simply because it describes a limiting condition. For example, the rationale \"a contract is void if for an illegal purpose\" is a valid supporting detail for the parent claim \"Contracts must be legal\"; it defines a boundary of the concept, it does not contradict it.\n\nAnalyze the relationship below:\n\n- Parent Claim: \"{ParentClaim}\"\n- Rationale for Dependency: \"{Rationale}\"\n\nYour output MUST be a single, minified JSON object in the format:\n{\"valid\": true}\nor\n{\"valid\": false, \"reason\": \"A brief explanation of the direct contradiction.\"}\n`;\n\nconst ANALYZE_TOTEM_STRUCTURE_PROMPT = `\nYou are an AI Analyst reviewing the output of a claim justification process. Based on the provided JSON \"Totem\", determine the outcome.\n\n- If any node in the totem has its \"isValid\" property set to 'false', the line item was **UNJUSTIFIED** because it relies on a contradiction.\n- If the totem has multiple levels (depth >= 2) and all nodes are valid, the line item was successfully **JUSTIFIED**. This indicates a sound, multi-faceted claim supported by code, specs, or evidence.\n- If the totem is very shallow (depth 0 or 1) and no contradictions are found, this can also mean the claim was **UNJUSTIFIED** due to a lack of supporting foundational principles.\n\nAnalyze the following Totem JSON and return a single JSON object with your conclusion.\n\nYour output MUST be in the format:\n{\n \"flag\": \"JUSTIFIED\" | \"UNJUSTIFIED\" | \"NON-FALSIFIABLE\",\n \"summary\": \"A one-sentence explanation for this conclusion.\"\n}\n\n--- TOTEM DATA ---\n{TotemData}\n`;\n\ninterface Foundation { claim: string; dependency_rationale: string; evidence_type?: string; }\ninterface ClaimNode { id: string; claim: string; children: ClaimNode[]; depth: number; domain?: string; isValid?: boolean; invalidReason?: string; reason?: string; imageUrl?: string; localCode?: string; dependency_rationale?: string; }\ninterface JobState { status: \"processing\" | \"complete\" | \"error\"; error?: string; totem: ClaimNode | null; analysisFlag?: string; analysisSummary?: string; }\ninterface TotemIndexEntry { jobId: string; rootClaim: string; timestamp: string; }\n\nconst MAX_DEPTH = 4;\nconst CROSS_EXAMINE_DEPTH_INTERVAL = 2;\nconst openai = new OpenAI();\nconst INDEX_KEY = \"claimguard_index\";\n\nasync function callAI(replacements: Record, promptTemplate: string, imageUrl?: string): Promise {\n try {\n let finalContent = promptTemplate;\n for (const key in replacements) {\n finalContent = finalContent.replace(new RegExp(`\\\\{${key}\\\\}`, \"g\"), replacements[key]);\n }\n\n const messages: any[] = [{ role: \"system\", content: CLAIM_GUARD_PROTOCOL }];\n\n if (imageUrl) {\n messages.push({\n role: \"user\",\n content: [{ type: \"text\", text: finalContent }, { type: \"image_url\", image_url: { url: imageUrl } }],\n });\n } else {\n messages.push({ role: \"user\", content: finalContent });\n }\n\n const completion = await openai.chat.completions.create({\n model: \"gpt-4o\",\n messages: messages,\n response_format: { type: \"json_object\" },\n });\n\n const responseContent = completion.choices[0].message.content;\n const jsonMatch = responseContent.match(/\\{[\\s\\S]*\\}/);\n if (!jsonMatch) {\n throw new Error(\"AI response did not contain a valid JSON object.\");\n }\n return JSON.parse(jsonMatch[0]);\n } catch (error) {\n console.error(`AI call failed for prompt targeting \"${Object.values(replacements)[0].substring(0, 50)}...\":`, error);\n return null;\n }\n}\n\nasync function analyzeDomains(claims: string[]): Promise> {\n if (claims.length === 0) return {};\n const result = await callAI({ Claims: JSON.stringify(claims) }, EVIDENCE_CLASSIFICATION_PROMPT);\n return result || {};\n}\n\nasync function analyzeTotemStructure(totem: ClaimNode): Promise<{ flag: string; summary: string }> {\n try {\n const result = await callAI({ TotemData: JSON.stringify(totem, null, 2) }, ANALYZE_TOTEM_STRUCTURE_PROMPT);\n if (result && result.flag && result.summary) {\n return result;\n }\n return { flag: \"ANALYSIS_INCOMPLETE\", summary: \"The final analysis of the totem structure could not be completed.\" };\n } catch (error) {\n console.error(\"Totem structure analysis failed:\", error);\n return { flag: \"ANALYSIS_ERROR\", summary: \"An error occurred during the final analysis step.\" };\n }\n}\n\nasync function buildTotemInBackground(jobId: string, rootClaim: ClaimNode) {\n try {\n let currentLevelNodes = [rootClaim];\n\n const rootDomainMap = await analyzeDomains([rootClaim.claim]);\n rootClaim.domain = rootDomainMap[rootClaim.claim] || \"Core Claim\";\n await blob.setJSON(jobId, { status: \"processing\", totem: rootClaim });\n\n for (let depth = 0; depth < MAX_DEPTH; depth++) {\n if (currentLevelNodes.length === 0) break;\n\n const childPromises = currentLevelNodes.map(async (node) => {\n const isRoot = node.depth === 0;\n const replacements = isRoot\n ? { LineItem: node.claim, Reason: node.reason || \"N/A\", LocalCode: node.localCode || \"N/A\" }\n : { TargetClaim: node.claim };\n\n const promptToUse = isRoot\n ? JUSTIFY_LINE_ITEM_PROMPT\n : ADJUSTER_OBJECTION_PROMPT.replace(\"{TargetClaim}\", node.claim);\n\n const imageUrlToUse = isRoot ? node.imageUrl : undefined;\n\n const deconstructResult = await callAI(replacements, promptToUse, imageUrlToUse);\n\n let foundations = (deconstructResult && deconstructResult.foundations) || [];\n\n if (foundations.length === 0 || (node.depth > 0 && node.depth % CROSS_EXAMINE_DEPTH_INTERVAL === 0)) {\n const auditResult = await callAI({ TargetClaim: node.claim }, ADJUSTER_OBJECTION_PROMPT);\n const deeperFoundations = (auditResult && auditResult.foundations) || [];\n if (deeperFoundations.length > 0) {\n foundations = deeperFoundations;\n }\n }\n\n const validFoundations = foundations.filter((p) => p && typeof p.claim === \"string\" && p.claim.trim() !== \"\");\n\n const childNodePromises = validFoundations.map(async (p: Foundation) => {\n const childNode: ClaimNode = {\n id: nanoid(),\n claim: p.claim,\n dependency_rationale: p.dependency_rationale,\n children: [],\n depth: node.depth + 1,\n isValid: true,\n domain: p.evidence_type || \"Uncategorized\",\n };\n\n if (childNode.dependency_rationale) {\n const validityResult = await callAI(\n { ParentClaim: node.claim, Rationale: childNode.dependency_rationale },\n VALIDITY_CHECK_PROMPT,\n );\n if (validityResult && validityResult.valid === false) {\n childNode.isValid = false;\n childNode.invalidReason = validityResult.reason;\n }\n }\n return childNode;\n });\n\n node.children = await Promise.all(childNodePromises);\n return node.children;\n });\n\n const nextLevelNodesNested = await Promise.all(childPromises);\n const nextLevelNodes = nextLevelNodesNested.flat();\n\n if (nextLevelNodes.length === 0) {\n await blob.setJSON(jobId, { status: \"processing\", totem: rootClaim });\n break;\n }\n\n const claimsToAnalyze = nextLevelNodes.filter(n => n.domain === \"Uncategorized\").map(n => n.claim);\n\n if (claimsToAnalyze.length > 0) {\n const domainMap = await analyzeDomains(claimsToAnalyze);\n nextLevelNodes.forEach((node) => {\n if (node.domain === \"Uncategorized\") {\n node.domain = domainMap[node.claim] || \"Uncategorized\";\n }\n });\n }\n\n await blob.setJSON(jobId, { status: \"processing\", totem: rootClaim });\n currentLevelNodes = nextLevelNodes;\n }\n\n const finalAnalysis = await analyzeTotemStructure(rootClaim);\n\n await blob.setJSON(jobId, {\n status: \"complete\",\n totem: rootClaim,\n analysisFlag: finalAnalysis.flag,\n analysisSummary: finalAnalysis.summary,\n });\n\n const currentIndex: TotemIndexEntry[] = await blob.getJSON(INDEX_KEY) || [];\n const newEntry: TotemIndexEntry = { jobId: jobId, rootClaim: rootClaim.claim, timestamp: new Date().toISOString() };\n if (!currentIndex.some((item) => item.jobId === jobId)) {\n currentIndex.unshift(newEntry);\n await blob.setJSON(INDEX_KEY, currentIndex);\n }\n } catch (error) {\n console.error(\"Totem building error:\", error);\n await blob.setJSON(jobId, { status: \"error\", totem: rootClaim, error: error.message });\n }\n}\n\nfunction generateHtml(sourceUrl: string): string {\n return `\n\n\nClaimGuard | Roofer's Claim Justification Toolkit🛡️\">\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n`;\n}\n\nexport default async function (req: Request): Promise {\n const url = new URL(req.url);\n const path = url.pathname;\n const headers = { \"Content-Type\": \"application/json\" };\n\n try {\n if (req.method === \"POST\" && path.endsWith(\"/rebuttal\")) {\n const { AdjusterObjection, RooferPosition } = await req.json();\n if (!AdjusterObjection || !RooferPosition) {\n return new Response(JSON.stringify({ error: \"Both 'AdjusterObjection' and 'RooferPosition' are required.\" }), { status: 400, headers });\n }\n\n const result = await callAI({ AdjusterObjection, RooferPosition }, REBUTTAL_GENERATOR_PROMPT);\n\n if (!result || !result.rebuttal) {\n throw new Error(\"AI failed to generate a rebuttal.\");\n }\n\n return new Response(JSON.stringify(result), { headers });\n }\n\n if (req.method === \"POST\" && path.endsWith(\"/start\")) {\n const { lineItem, reason, imageUrl, localCode } = await req.json();\n if (!lineItem || typeof lineItem !== \"string\" || lineItem.trim().length === 0) {\n return new Response(JSON.stringify({ error: \"A valid, non-empty 'lineItem' string is required.\" }), { status: 400, headers });\n }\n const jobId = nanoid();\n const rootClaim: ClaimNode = {\n id: nanoid(),\n claim: lineItem,\n children: [],\n depth: 0,\n reason: reason || \"\",\n imageUrl: imageUrl || \"\",\n localCode: localCode || \"\",\n };\n await blob.setJSON(jobId, { status: \"processing\", totem: rootClaim });\n\n buildTotemInBackground(jobId, rootClaim);\n\n return new Response(JSON.stringify({ jobId }), { headers });\n }\n\n if (req.method === \"GET\" && path.endsWith(\"/status\")) {\n const jobId = url.searchParams.get(\"jobId\");\n if (!jobId) {\n return new Response(JSON.stringify({ error: \"A 'jobId' query parameter is required.\" }), { status: 400, headers });\n }\n const state: JobState | undefined = await blob.getJSON(jobId);\n if (!state) {\n return new Response(JSON.stringify({ status: \"error\", error: \"Job not found.\" }), { status: 404, headers });\n }\n return new Response(JSON.stringify(state), { headers });\n }\n\n if (req.method === \"GET\" && path.endsWith(\"/list\")) {\n const index = await blob.getJSON(INDEX_KEY) || [];\n return new Response(JSON.stringify(index), { headers });\n }\n\n if (req.method === \"DELETE\" && path.endsWith(\"/delete\")) {\n const jobId = url.searchParams.get(\"jobId\");\n if (!jobId) {\n return new Response(JSON.stringify({ error: \"A 'jobId' query parameter is required.\" }), { status: 400, headers });\n }\n const currentIndex: TotemIndexEntry[] = await blob.getJSON(INDEX_KEY) || [];\n const newIndex = currentIndex.filter((item) => item.jobId !== jobId);\n await blob.setJSON(INDEX_KEY, newIndex);\n await blob.delete(jobId);\n return new Response(JSON.stringify({ success: true, jobId }), { headers });\n }\n\n if (req.method === \"GET\" && (path === \"/\" || path.endsWith(\"/ui\"))) {\n const sourceUrl = `https://${url.hostname}${url.pathname.substring(0, url.pathname.lastIndexOf(\"/\"))}`;\n return new Response(generateHtml(sourceUrl), { headers: { \"Content-Type\": \"text/html\" } });\n }\n\n return new Response(JSON.stringify({ error: \"Not Found\" }), { status: 404, headers });\n } catch (error) {\n const errorMessage = error instanceof Error ? error.message : \"An unknown server error occurred.\";\n return new Response(JSON.stringify({ error: errorMessage }), { status: 500, headers });\n }\n}","// @ts-ignore\nimport { OpenAI } from \"https://esm.town/v/std/openai?v=4\";\n// @ts-ignore\nimport { blob } from \"https://esm.town/v/std/blob?v=11\";\n// @ts-ignore\nimport { nanoid } from \"npm:nanoid\";\n\nconst CLAIM_GUARD_PROTOCOL = `\nAs the AI analyst 'ClaimGuard', you must adopt the persona of a master roofer, certified PMP (Project Management Professional), and licensed public adjuster. You have 20 years of field experience and have successfully argued thousands of claims.\n\nYour goal is to build an indisputable, evidence-based justification for an insurance claim line item. Your analysis must be meticulous, authoritative, and rooted in:\n1. **Building Codes (IRC, IBC)**\n2. **Manufacturer Installation Specifications (e.g., GAF, Owens Corning)**\n3. **Material Science & Damage Causation (e.g., hail impact, wind uplift)**\n4. **Safety Regulations (OSHA)**\n5. **Insurance Policy Language (RCV vs. ACV, Matching, etc.)**\n\nYour tone is professional, direct, and factual. You are preparing a document to force an adjuster's approval.\n`;\n\nconst JUSTIFY_LINE_ITEM_PROMPT = `\nYou are 'ClaimGuard', an expert roofing claims analyst. Your task is to perform a rigorous justification for the following line item. The goal is to build a dependency tree proving this item is necessary and non-negotiable.\n\n--- CLAIM DETAILS ---\n- **Line Item:** {LineItem}\n- **Roofer's Rationale:** {Reason}\n- **Local Code (if provided):** {LocalCode}\n- **Image Evidence (if provided):** An image of the damage is attached. Use it as primary evidence.\n\n--- TASK ---\nDeconstruct the {LineItem} into its most fundamental supporting principles. Analyze it against building codes, manufacturer specs, and damage causation.\n\nYour final output MUST be a single, minified JSON object. Do not include any explanations or conversational text outside the JSON.\n\nThe structure MUST be:\n{\n \"foundations\": [\n {\n \"claim\": \"A critical, foundational justification (e.g., 'IRC R905.2.1 requires replacement of the entire slope.')\",\n \"dependency_rationale\": \"A concise explanation of why this justification is required for the line item to be valid.\",\n \"evidence_type\": \"Building Code\" | \"Manufacturer Spec\" | \"Damage Assessment\" | \"Safety (OSHA)\" | \"Insurance Policy\"\n }\n ]\n}\n\n--- EXAMPLE ---\nUSER: { \"Line Item\": \"Full slope replacement for 30 squares\", \"Reason\": \"15+ hail hits per square\" }\nASSISTANT:\n{\n \"foundations\": [\n {\n \"claim\": \"The roof system's water-shedding integrity is compromised beyond repair.\",\n \"dependency_rationale\": \"Widespread, severe hail impacts create micro-fractures that violate the shingle's design, leading to inevitable leaks.\",\n \"evidence_type\": \"Damage Assessment\"\n },\n {\n \"claim\": \"Spot repairs are not a viable option.\",\n \"dependency_rationale\": \"Patching a roof with such widespread damage ('15+ hits/sq') is not a 'like kind and quality' repair and violates manufacturer warranties.\",\n \"evidence_type\": \"Manufacturer Spec\"\n },\n {\n \"claim\": \"Local code may require full slope replacement for repairs over 25% of the area.\",\n \"dependency_rationale\": \"Many jurisdictions (citing IRC) mandate that if a significant portion of a slope is damaged, the entire slope must be brought up to current code.\",\n \"evidence_type\": \"Building Code\"\n }\n ]\n}\n`;\n\nconst ADJUSTER_OBJECTION_PROMPT = `\nYou are the 'Adversarial Adjuster'. ClaimGuard has concluded that the following statement is a foundational justification: \"{TargetClaim}\".\n\nYour task is to aggressively challenge this conclusion with the sole goal of *denying or reducing the payout*. Scrutinize the statement for weaknesses.\n- Is it merely 'cosmetic'?\n- Is it just 'wear and tear'?\n- Can it be 'repaired' instead of 'replaced'?\n- Is there a cheaper 'alternative' method?\n- Is this justification *actually* required by code, or just a 'recommendation'?\n\nIf it can be deconstructed into a *more fundamental* justification, provide it.\nIf you agree the claim is atomic (e.g., a direct code citation), you MUST return an empty \"foundations\" array.\n`;\n\nconst EVIDENCE_CLASSIFICATION_PROMPT = `\nYou are the 'Domain Specialist', mapping justifications to their evidence category. Your task is to analyze a list of claims and assign a single, concise, high-level domain (1-4 words) to each.\n\nCRITICAL INSTRUCTION: Be specific. Avoid broad domains. Use domains like \"Building Code (IRC)\", \"Damage Assessment\", \"Manufacturer Spec (GAF)\", \"Safety (OSHA)\", \"Flashing Requirements\", \"Underlayment Code\", \"Repairability Analysis\".\n\n--- EXAMPLE ---\nUSER: [\"Code requires ice & water shield at all eaves.\", \"15 of 20 shingles show hail impacts > 1.5 inches.\", \"Patching this will not match and violates IRC R908.7.\"]\nASSISTANT:\n{\n \"Code requires ice & water shield at all eaves.\": \"Building Code (IRC)\",\n \"15 of 20 shingles show hail impacts > 1.5 inches.\": \"Damage Assessment\",\n \"Patching this will not match and violates IRC R908.7.\": \"Repairability Analysis\"\n}\n--- END EXAMPLE ---\n\nAnalyze the following claims:\n{Claims}\n`;\n\nconst REBUTTAL_GENERATOR_PROMPT = `\nYou are 'ClaimGuard', an expert public adjuster and roofing consultant. A roofer has provided you with an adjuster's objection and their own position. Your task is to synthesize this into a formal, professional, and firm rebuttal letter.\n\nCRITICAL INSTRUCTIONS:\n- Be polite but firm and authoritative.\n- Directly quote building codes (IRC), manufacturer specifications, or material science principles where possible.\n- Frame the argument around the insurer's contractual obligation to \"indemnify\" and \"restore to pre-loss condition\" with \"like kind and quality\" (LKQ).\n- Conclude with a clear call to action (e.g., \"Please approve the supplemental item...\" or \"We are available for an on-site meeting...\").\n\n--- INPUT ---\n- **Adjuster's Objection:** {AdjusterObjection}\n- **Roofer's Position / Evidence:** {RooferPosition}\n\n--- OUTPUT ---\nYour output MUST be a single, minified JSON object in the format:\n{\"rebuttal\": \"Dear [Adjuster],\\\\n\\\\nThank you for your time... [Your full, professional rebuttal]...\\\\n\\\\nSincerely,\\\\n[Contractor]\"}\n`;\n\nconst VALIDITY_CHECK_PROMPT = `\nYou are an AI Logical Analyst. Your task is to evaluate if a \"dependency_rationale\" creates a direct logical contradiction with its parent claim.\n\nA rationale is VALID if it explains why a foundational claim is a necessary component, condition, or defining rule for its parent claim to be true.\nA rationale is INVALID only if it explicitly states or proves that the parent claim is false, impossible, or logically unsound.\n\nCRITICAL: Do not flag a rationale as invalid simply because it describes a limiting condition. For example, the rationale \"a contract is void if for an illegal purpose\" is a valid supporting detail for the parent claim \"Contracts must be legal\"; it defines a boundary of the concept, it does not contradict it.\n\nAnalyze the relationship below:\n\n- Parent Claim: \"{ParentClaim}\"\n- Rationale for Dependency: \"{Rationale}\"\n\nYour output MUST be a single, minified JSON object in the format:\n{\"valid\": true}\nor\n{\"valid\": false, \"reason\": \"A brief explanation of the direct contradiction.\"}\n`;\n\nconst ANALYZE_TOTEM_STRUCTURE_PROMPT = `\nYou are an AI Analyst reviewing the output of a claim justification process. Based on the provided JSON \"Totem\", determine the outcome.\n\n- If any node in the totem has its \"isValid\" property set to 'false', the line item was **UNJUSTIFIED** because it relies on a contradiction.\n- If the totem has multiple levels (depth >= 2) and all nodes are valid, the line item was successfully **JUSTIFIED**. This indicates a sound, multi-faceted claim supported by code, specs, or evidence.\n- If the totem is very shallow (depth 0 or 1) and no contradictions are found, this can also mean the claim was **UNJUSTIFIED** due to a lack of supporting foundational principles.\n\nAnalyze the following Totem JSON and return a single JSON object with your conclusion.\n\nYour output MUST be in the format:\n{\n \"flag\": \"JUSTIFIED\" | \"UNJUSTIFIED\" | \"NON-FALSIFIABLE\",\n \"summary\": \"A one-sentence explanation for this conclusion.\"\n}\n\n--- TOTEM DATA ---\n{TotemData}\n`;\n\ninterface Foundation {\n claim: string;\n dependency_rationale: string;\n evidence_type?: string;\n}\ninterface ClaimNode {\n id: string;\n claim: string;\n children: ClaimNode[];\n depth: number;\n domain?: string;\n isValid?: boolean;\n invalidReason?: string;\n reason?: string;\n imageUrl?: string;\n localCode?: string;\n dependency_rationale?: string;\n}\ninterface JobState {\n status: \"processing\" | \"complete\" | \"error\";\n error?: string;\n totem: ClaimNode | null;\n analysisFlag?: string;\n analysisSummary?: string;\n}\ninterface TotemIndexEntry {\n jobId: string;\n rootClaim: string;\n timestamp: string;\n}\n\nconst MAX_DEPTH = 4;\nconst CROSS_EXAMINE_DEPTH_INTERVAL = 2;\nconst openai = new OpenAI();\nconst INDEX_KEY = \"claimguard_index\";\n\nasync function callAI(\n replacements: Record,\n promptTemplate: string,\n imageUrl?: string,\n): Promise {\n try {\n let finalContent = promptTemplate;\n for (const key in replacements) {\n finalContent = finalContent.replace(\n new RegExp(`\\\\{${key}\\\\}`, \"g\"),\n replacements[key],\n );\n }\n\n const messages: any[] = [{ role: \"system\", content: CLAIM_GUARD_PROTOCOL }];\n\n if (imageUrl) {\n messages.push({\n role: \"user\",\n content: [{ type: \"text\", text: finalContent }, {\n type: \"image_url\",\n image_url: { url: imageUrl },\n }],\n });\n } else {\n messages.push({ role: \"user\", content: finalContent });\n }\n\n const completion = await openai.chat.completions.create({\n model: \"gpt-4o\",\n messages: messages,\n response_format: { type: \"json_object\" },\n });\n\n const responseContent = completion.choices[0].message.content;\n const jsonMatch = responseContent.match(/\\{[\\s\\S]*\\}/);\n if (!jsonMatch) {\n throw new Error(\"AI response did not contain a valid JSON object.\");\n }\n return JSON.parse(jsonMatch[0]);\n } catch (error) {\n console.error(\n `AI call failed for prompt targeting \"${\n Object.values(replacements)[0].substring(0, 50)\n }...\":`,\n error,\n );\n return null;\n }\n}\n\nasync function analyzeDomains(\n claims: string[],\n): Promise> {\n if (claims.length === 0) return {};\n const result = await callAI(\n { Claims: JSON.stringify(claims) },\n EVIDENCE_CLASSIFICATION_PROMPT,\n );\n return result || {};\n}\n\nasync function analyzeTotemStructure(\n totem: ClaimNode,\n): Promise<{ flag: string; summary: string }> {\n try {\n const result = await callAI(\n { TotemData: JSON.stringify(totem, null, 2) },\n ANALYZE_TOTEM_STRUCTURE_PROMPT,\n );\n if (result && result.flag && result.summary) {\n return result;\n }\n return {\n flag: \"ANALYSIS_INCOMPLETE\",\n summary:\n \"The final analysis of the totem structure could not be completed.\",\n };\n } catch (error) {\n console.error(\"Totem structure analysis failed:\", error);\n return {\n flag: \"ANALYSIS_ERROR\",\n summary: \"An error occurred during the final analysis step.\",\n };\n }\n}\n\nasync function buildTotemInBackground(jobId: string, rootClaim: ClaimNode) {\n try {\n let currentLevelNodes = [rootClaim];\n\n const rootDomainMap = await analyzeDomains([rootClaim.claim]);\n rootClaim.domain = rootDomainMap[rootClaim.claim] || \"Core Claim\";\n await blob.setJSON(jobId, { status: \"processing\", totem: rootClaim });\n\n for (let depth = 0; depth < MAX_DEPTH; depth++) {\n if (currentLevelNodes.length === 0) break;\n\n const childPromises = currentLevelNodes.map(async (node) => {\n const isRoot = node.depth === 0;\n const replacements = isRoot\n ? {\n LineItem: node.claim,\n Reason: node.reason || \"N/A\",\n LocalCode: node.localCode || \"N/A\",\n }\n : { TargetClaim: node.claim };\n\n const promptToUse = isRoot\n ? JUSTIFY_LINE_ITEM_PROMPT\n : ADJUSTER_OBJECTION_PROMPT.replace(\"{TargetClaim}\", node.claim);\n\n const imageUrlToUse = isRoot ? node.imageUrl : undefined;\n\n const deconstructResult = await callAI(\n replacements,\n promptToUse,\n imageUrlToUse,\n );\n\n let foundations =\n (deconstructResult && deconstructResult.foundations) || [];\n\n if (\n foundations.length === 0 ||\n (node.depth > 0 && node.depth % CROSS_EXAMINE_DEPTH_INTERVAL === 0)\n ) {\n const auditResult = await callAI(\n { TargetClaim: node.claim },\n ADJUSTER_OBJECTION_PROMPT,\n );\n const deeperFoundations = (auditResult && auditResult.foundations) ||\n [];\n if (deeperFoundations.length > 0) {\n foundations = deeperFoundations;\n }\n }\n\n const validFoundations = foundations.filter((p) =>\n p && typeof p.claim === \"string\" && p.claim.trim() !== \"\"\n );\n\n const childNodePromises = validFoundations.map(\n async (p: Foundation) => {\n const childNode: ClaimNode = {\n id: nanoid(),\n claim: p.claim,\n dependency_rationale: p.dependency_rationale,\n children: [],\n depth: node.depth + 1,\n isValid: true,\n domain: p.evidence_type || \"Uncategorized\",\n };\n\n if (childNode.dependency_rationale) {\n const validityResult = await callAI(\n {\n ParentClaim: node.claim,\n Rationale: childNode.dependency_rationale,\n },\n VALIDITY_CHECK_PROMPT,\n );\n if (validityResult && validityResult.valid === false) {\n childNode.isValid = false;\n childNode.invalidReason = validityResult.reason;\n }\n }\n return childNode;\n },\n );\n\n node.children = await Promise.all(childNodePromises);\n return node.children;\n });\n\n const nextLevelNodesNested = await Promise.all(childPromises);\n const nextLevelNodes = nextLevelNodesNested.flat();\n\n if (nextLevelNodes.length === 0) {\n await blob.setJSON(jobId, { status: \"processing\", totem: rootClaim });\n break;\n }\n\n const claimsToAnalyze = nextLevelNodes.filter((n) =>\n n.domain === \"Uncategorized\"\n ).map((n) => n.claim);\n\n if (claimsToAnalyze.length > 0) {\n const domainMap = await analyzeDomains(claimsToAnalyze);\n nextLevelNodes.forEach((node) => {\n if (node.domain === \"Uncategorized\") {\n node.domain = domainMap[node.claim] || \"Uncategorized\";\n }\n });\n }\n\n await blob.setJSON(jobId, { status: \"processing\", totem: rootClaim });\n currentLevelNodes = nextLevelNodes;\n }\n\n const finalAnalysis = await analyzeTotemStructure(rootClaim);\n\n await blob.setJSON(jobId, {\n status: \"complete\",\n totem: rootClaim,\n analysisFlag: finalAnalysis.flag,\n analysisSummary: finalAnalysis.summary,\n });\n\n const currentIndex: TotemIndexEntry[] = await blob.getJSON(INDEX_KEY) || [];\n const newEntry: TotemIndexEntry = {\n jobId: jobId,\n rootClaim: rootClaim.claim,\n timestamp: new Date().toISOString(),\n };\n if (!currentIndex.some((item) => item.jobId === jobId)) {\n currentIndex.unshift(newEntry);\n await blob.setJSON(INDEX_KEY, currentIndex);\n }\n } catch (error) {\n console.error(\"Totem building error:\", error);\n await blob.setJSON(jobId, {\n status: \"error\",\n totem: rootClaim,\n error: error.message,\n });\n }\n}\n\nfunction generateHtml(sourceUrl: string): string {\n return `\n\n\nClaimGuard | Roofer's Claim Justification Toolkit🛡️\">\n\n\n\n

Diff · v6