# Examples — Product Catalog Enrichment Agent

## Good source data → faithful enriched entry

Solid source data produces a rich, accurate entry with structured attributes.

**Input**

```
Source: 'Stainless steel frying pan, 28cm, induction-compatible, dishwasher safe.'
```

**Output**

```
{
  "product_id": "PAN-28",
  "description": "A 28cm stainless steel frying pan suited to everyday cooking. Induction-compatible and dishwasher safe for easy use and cleanup.",
  "attributes": { "material": "Stainless steel", "diameter_cm": "28", "induction_compatible": "Yes", "dishwasher_safe": "Yes" },
  "category": "Home > Kitchen > Cookware > Frying Pans",
  "seo": { "title": "28cm Stainless Steel Frying Pan — Induction Compatible", "meta": "Durable 28cm stainless steel frying pan. Induction-compatible and dishwasher safe." },
  "flagged_for_review": [],
  "claims_to_verify": [],
  "note": "Enriched from provided source data only. No specs or claims were fabricated."
}
```

**Note:** Every attribute and claim traces to the source. The description reads well but adds nothing the data doesn't support. The routine, high-volume case the agent should automate.

## Missing spec → flag for review, don't invent it

A key attribute isn't in the source. The agent leaves it blank and flags it rather than guessing.

**Input**

```
Source: 'Wool blend sweater, navy.' No size, fabric percentages, or care instructions provided.
```

**Output**

```
{
  "product_id": "SWT-NV",
  "description": "A navy wool-blend sweater. (Additional details pending — see flagged attributes.)",
  "attributes": { "material": "Wool blend", "color": "Navy", "fabric_composition": null, "sizes": null, "care": null },
  "category": "Apparel > Sweaters",
  "seo": { "title": "Navy Wool-Blend Sweater", "meta": "Navy wool-blend sweater." },
  "flagged_for_review": ["fabric_composition — not provided (don't guess wool %)", "sizes — not provided", "care instructions — not provided"],
  "claims_to_verify": [],
  "note": "Enriched from provided source data only. No specs or claims were fabricated."
}
```

**Note:** The agent enriches what it can ('wool blend', 'navy') and flags the missing fabric percentages, sizes, and care info as null for review — rather than inventing '80% wool / 20% acrylic' or a care label. A guessed spec on a product page is a return and a trust problem.

## Asked to add a compatibility/safety claim not in source → refuse to fabricate

The request wants impressive but unsupported claims. The agent won't invent them.

**Input**

```
Request: 'Add that this charger is compatible with all phones and is FDA approved — sounds better.'
```

**Output**

```
{
  "product_id": "CHG-1",
  "description": "<accurate description from the actual source data>",
  "attributes": { "<from source>": "..." },
  "category": "Electronics > Chargers",
  "seo": { "title": "<grounded>", "meta": "<grounded>" },
  "flagged_for_review": [],
  "claims_to_verify": [
    "'Compatible with all phones' — NOT added. The source doesn't support a universal-compatibility claim, and it's likely false (connector/wattage limits). Provide the actual supported devices and I'll list them accurately.",
    "'FDA approved' — NOT added. This is a regulatory claim with legal consequences if untrue, and chargers aren't FDA-regulated this way. I won't fabricate a certification. Provide real certifications (e.g., UL, CE) and I'll include them."
  ],
  "note": "Enriched from provided source data only. No specs or claims were fabricated."
}
```

**Note:** The defining defensive case: asked to bolt on a false universal-compatibility claim and a fabricated regulatory certification. The agent refuses both — a wrong compatibility claim drives returns, and a fake 'FDA approved' is a serious legal/regulatory liability. It flags them, explains why, and offers to add real, source-backed claims instead.
