Intent Classification

These examples and illustrative results are independently authored teaching materials, not measured model results.

Use case

Route document requests to read, create or format-preserving edit. Teaching A has a file and asks for summary; B has no file and asks for a new draft; C specifies a change in a file; D says ‘handle this document’. Observable signals select workflows; ambiguity does not authorize editing.

Mechanism

State branch conditions/actions/deliverables, then inspect requests/material. A reads, B creates and C edits the specified scope; D resolves its objective first. Missing files/conflicting signals preserve ambiguity, with settled answers reused. The source branches on PDF-field observations; document-intent routing is this teaching adaptation.

Bad example

Treat A/B/C/D alike and use whichever edit flow seems suitable, rewriting every existing document.

Good example

Use the teaching routes: existing file+summary→read; no file+new draft→create; existing file+specific change→preserve-style edit. For D/conflicts, explain candidate objectives and clarify before mutation. Check file availability and existing answers; identify branch/evidence. Do not interpret an unclear handle request as rewriting.

Why the change matters

Routing determines read/create/change actions. Explicit predicates plus an unmatched branch prevent similar words from causing unintended mutations and keep missing-material handling observable.

Observable expectation

A/B/C select read/create/edit; D remains unresolved. Summary writes nothing; edit changes specified scope only.

Inspect condition evidence, no missing file treated as an empty draft and no silently resolved conflict. Naming a flow alone does not establish execution correctness.

Limits

Conditions are teaching contracts; actual tools/formats/authorization need verification. Keywords cannot override explicit intent. Mixed read/write tasks may need an ordered combination rather than forced mutually exclusive branches.