# "ClauseWatch: an agent that refuses to give you one number" > Source: > Published: 2026-09-19 13:21:05+00:00 *This is a submission for the [Sanity Challenge, Path One: Ship an Agent That Queries Real Content](https://dev.to/challenges/sanity-2026-09-16)* Ask any model how long you must keep AI system logs under the EU AI Act. It will say six months. That is true, and it is not the answer. One instrument sets a floor. Another sets a ceiling. Neither says where the other one sits. The honest answer is a period you can justify against both — plus a record of who decided it. ClauseWatch gives that answer. It reads a structured model of obligations and the prose of the instruments behind them, and when two sources pull in opposite directions it shows both with their citations and reports that the decision is **unmade**: Both clauses stand until someone signs. The dataset keeps a `decidedBy` and a `decidedAt` field for exactly that, and they are empty. This is the part that needed structured content. A keyword search over the same texts returns Art. 19 and stops. It cannot know that a clause in a *different regulation* constrains the same artifact from the opposite direction, because that fact is not inside either document. It is in the relationship between them — which is to say, in the schema. ``` git clone https://github.com/oleg-vdv/clausewatch && cd clausewatch/agent npm install && npm run web # http://localhost:4173 ``` **No credentials.** No login, no token, no API key. The dataset is public, so a fresh clone reads it over the public query API and renders the full report. The knowledge base and the LLM agent do need a Context token, which you cannot have — so `--check` and the page footer say which of the two sources the answer came from, rather than crediting one they never touched. It also runs with no model at all: ``` npm run ask -- --profile biometric-access --no-llm # provider, high-risk, KZ → EU npm run ask -- --profile support-agent --no-llm # deployer, risk class unset ``` Two elements of the viewer do the arguing. **The pressure bar** — a solid edge on the left where Art. 19 states six months, and a hatched, edgeless right where the GDPR caps the period without naming one. Drawing a tidy range there would be a lie about the law. **The signature block** — every conflict prints a *decided by* and a *date* rule. Resolved, they carry a name and a date. Open, they are two empty lines in a compliance report. The thesis as a form field rather than a paragraph. The Studio is live at **[https://clausewatch.sanity.studio/](https://clausewatch.sanity.studio/)**, with open conflicts on the first screen, because that is the one thing an editor of this dataset actually does. [https://github.com/oleg-vdv/clausewatch](https://github.com/oleg-vdv/clausewatch) ``` studio/ schema, desk structure, seed dataset agent/ MCP client, domain layer, LLM agent, deterministic report, viewer demo/ saved runs with their tool calls attached source an instrument: binding status, official URL, version label provision one citable unit: "Art. 19", verbatim text, effective date, roles bound requirement a normalised obligation: "retain automatically generated logs" └ claim[] what each instrument asserts — direction (floor/ceiling/none), period if stated, condition, and a reference to its provision conflict two clauses that cannot both be satisfied, plus resolution, rationale, decidedBy, decidedAt systemProfile roles, jurisdictions, risk class, agentic or not ``` Three decisions carry the weight. **Claims sit apart from requirements.** One obligation, many instruments, and disagreement between them is content — not a data-quality problem to be cleaned up. **`direction` on a claim.** An earlier version bucketed claims by *does it state a number*, which filed GDPR Art. 5(1)(e) under silence. It is not silent: it caps the period without naming one. Floor, ceiling and duty-only are three different answers. **A conflict holds a decision, not a resolution rule.** An agent that silently picks the stricter number is guessing on your behalf. One that shows both sides and cites a named, dated decision produces something an auditor can accept. Two website sources, both crawled to exact paths rather than wildcards: | Source | Paths | Documents | |---|---|---| | artificialintelligenceact.eu | Arts. 3, 6, 9, 11–14, 16–21, 26, 27, 72, 73, 99 and Annexes I, III, IV | 21 | | gdpr-info.eu | Arts. 5, 17, 25, 30, 32 | 5 | 26 documents, indexed into **10 entries**. Curated on purpose — and also capped, because the Context beta allows 150 indexed documents on this plan and I hit that twice before narrowing properly. The indexing surprised me. Entries are topic nodes rather than chunks: each carries an article range, a topic list, cross-references (`excludes: … see `) and a numbered Sources block with a URL behind every statement. Two endpoints, because **one endpoint serves one mode**. Attaching a Knowledge Base to an endpoint that already served a dataset replaced the GROQ tools entirely. | Endpoint | Tools | Job | |---|---|---| | `clausewatch-data` | `initial_context` ,`groq_query` ,`schema_explorer` ,`array_field_reader` | *which* obligations bind this system | | `clausewatch-docs` | `initial_context` ,`knowledge_base_read` | *what the clause says* , with its source link | Both carry the same endpoint Instructions — the citation discipline the agent must follow, delivered before it sees any data. The rule that matters most: Never fill a gap from your own legal knowledge. If it is not in the dataset or the knowledge base, say that it is not there. Beyond the tools I leaned on two Context features: **Issues**, which surfaced a contradiction in the corpus, and **Instructions**, which corrected a fact at the source instead of in my code. Both stories are below. A real tool-use loop. Nothing is pre-fetched: the model gets the two endpoints and has to go and look. A typical run: ``` 1. initial_context (dataset — schema and the citation rules) 2. kb_initial_context (knowledge base — the outline of 10 entries) 3. groq_query (the logging requirement, its claims, its conflicts) 4. kb_knowledge_base_read (design_documentation, post_market_obligations) 5. groq_query (jurisdictions, extraterritoriality) 6. kb_knowledge_base_read (high_risk_categories) 7. groq_query (system profiles) ``` Seven calls across both endpoints. The answer states it cannot give one number, shows the floor and the ceiling with citations and effective dates, reports the conflict as open with nobody named, and notes the obligation does not bite until 2 December 2027. In a second run the agent found the matching system profile unprompted, treated `riskClass: unknown` as load-bearing, separated provider duties from deployer ones, and closed with a section titled *What I can't answer from these sources*. Saved runs with their tool calls are in [`demo/`](https://github.com/oleg-vdv/clausewatch/tree/main/demo). The answer alone cannot show that a number came from the endpoints rather than from the model, so the tool calls travel with it. The dataset side does the reasoning that a prose search cannot: claims are filtered by the jurisdictions a system touches **and** the roles it holds, so a deployer is shown Art. 26(6) and a provider Art. 19. Telling a deployer that Art. 19 is their duty is not a rounding error, it is the wrong party. While indexing, Context flagged that an entry claimed Annex I lists 21 harmonisation instruments while the source shows 20 — item 1 deleted by amendment, item 21 added. I checked against the source: true. It also proposed a Section A/B split that I could **not** verify, because EUR-Lex blocks automated retrieval. So the decision recorded in the dataset says the detection was right, states only the verified part, explicitly excludes the unverified arithmetic, and carries a name and a date. That is the whole product in one incident. Automated detection is good at *finding* disagreement and is not authoritative about *resolving* it. In one run the agent cited **Art. 26(5)** for the deployer's log-retention duty, from the knowledge base. The source says **Art. 26(6)**; 26(5) is the monitoring duty. A one-digit error that reads as correct. Chasing it was the most useful hour of the build. The knowledge-base entry for Article 26 numbers its own sections, and the fifth one is headed `### 5. Log retention`. Section five of an entry about Article 26 — and a model reading it produced "Art. 26(5)". The entry states the rule itself correctly, and **gives no paragraph number at all**: Deployers shall keep automatically generated logs for a period appropriate to the intended purpose, with a minimum of six months, unless applicable Union or national law … provides otherwise. That is the argument for two layers rather than one. Prose is right about the *rule* and silent on the *address*; the dataset carries the address, verified by a human against the source. Art. 26(6) is now a provision with the checked citation, its own claim on the retention requirement, and the role it binds — which is why a deployer profile is shown Art. 26(6) and a provider Art. 19. I also added a Context **Instruction**, which is *honored on every build, over the raw sources*, so a future rebuild cannot reintroduce the wrong number. Being precise about what The layers check each other in both directions. In another run the agent found a duty present in the prose that my dataset had not modelled at all, and said so. Here is the check itself, thirty seconds of it: a script pulls Article 26 from the source and prints its numbered paragraphs. Paragraph 5 is the duty to monitor. Paragraph 6 is the duty to keep the logs. That is the whole difference between citing the right clause and the wrong one, and nothing short of going to the text would have shown it. *Embedded session cards open collapsed — click the ▸ to see the command and everything it printed. Same for the three further down.* `count(*)` said 31, an anonymous one said 0. Sanity treats `_id` as a path and public read covers the root path only. An authenticated count is not evidence that your dataset is public.`/article/*` pulled 200 pages including Polish and French translations of the same articles. For a legal agent a translation is a correctness hazard, not noise — and the sitemap is the tell: if a crawl returns more pages than the sitemap lists, it followed in-page language links.`_source no longer available` — and the entry is still listed in `initial_context` for the agent to read and cite. Dismissing the issue keeps the entry; only a rebuild cleared them.`roles[]->name` comes back as `[{name, _id}]`. It also injects `_type != "sanity.agentContext"` and pins `perspective: published`. Worth knowing when a query behaves differently in Vision. And one that is nobody's fault but mine: `count()` of a missing field is **null, not 0**, so a role filter written as `count(appliesToRoles) == 0` for *binds everyone* silently dropped every GDPR claim. It looked fine in the provider's report and only broke for the deployer. The numbers are the whole story, so here is the terminal output: an import that reports success, a document fetch that comes back `{"documents":[],"omitted":[{"reason":"permission"}]}`, a one-document probe with a plain id that proves the ids are the cause, and a final anonymous `count(*)` of 18 once everything was renamed to hyphens. `4yzoidsq` `production` (public) Public dataset, no token — every conflict, both sides, with its decision: ``` https://4yzoidsq.api.sanity.io/v2026-09-19/data/query/production?query=*[_type=="conflict"]{summary,nature,resolution,decidedBy,"sides":sides[]->{"cite":source->shortName+" "+citation}} ``` The whole build is on record — 485 messages in one Claude Code session. A note before you open it: I work in Russian, so the conversation is in Russian. Everything that matters here is not. The tool calls, the GROQ queries, the MCP traces, the terminal output and the agent's own answers are all English, and that is what each slice below is made of. I have said what to look for in front of each one — and each card opens collapsed, so click the ▸ to see the output rather than just the command line. The question is how long a provider must keep logs for a high-risk biometric system. Watch the trace: `initial_context` on the dataset, then on the knowledge base, then a GROQ query it writes itself, then two knowledge-base entries, then jurisdictions, then profiles. Seven calls across both Context endpoints before it says anything. Then read the answer. It gives a floor with a citation, a ceiling with a citation, states that the conflict between them is unresolved and that nobody is recorded as having decided it, and points out that the obligation does not apply until December 2027. It never produces the single number the question was fishing for. This one starts with a Sanity Context issue: an entry says Annex I lists 21 harmonisation instruments, the source shows 20. You will see me go to the source rather than take it on trust — the `curl` that pulls the annex straight from the source, and the amendment markers in its output: item 1 struck, item 21 added. The end of the slice is the part I would point a judge at. Context also proposed a Section A / Section B split, and I could not verify it, because EUR-Lex blocks automated retrieval. So the decision recorded in the dataset states the verified part and explicitly excludes the rest. Finding disagreement and settling it are different jobs. The knowledge base is built from authoritative reproductions, not the Official Journal — EUR-Lex blocks automated retrieval. Every `source` carries an `officialUrl` and the agent is instructed to give that one for anything the reader will act on. The dataset is small and deliberately so: 2 instruments, 9 provisions, 2 requirements, 3 conflicts, 2 system profiles. A working core that demonstrates the model, not a compliance product. Nothing here is legal advice.