论文库

原文摘要

Career-support assistants must distinguish user claims from evidence of current ability and withhold judgments when evidence is insufficient. DrawOffer separates language-model observation extraction from deterministic inference over source-linked records to maintain uncertain ability estimates, experience assessments, and revisable issues. We evaluate 102 fictional personas with 580 scored checkpoints, a historical full-context and Mem0 comparison, and three auxiliary knowledge-tracing datasets. On 37 test personas, DrawOffer passes 169/210 checkpoints; checkpoint-defined issue precision and recall are 0.875 and 0.636. Across three development simulations, 87.0% of checkpoint verdicts agree, including persistent failures. A cache-only development ablation replacing answer-evidence requirements with confidence-only settlement reduces majority-vote passes from 306 to 293 of 370 and issue precision from 0.927 to 0.725. Equalizing positive source weights improves predictive metrics without changing total passes; removing decay gives mixed results. These findings support an exploratory systems contribution centered on evidence sufficiency. Developer-authored scenarios, unmatched baseline models, historical test exposure, and incomplete public artifacts limit generalization and independent reproduction.