Audit root cause traceback evidence integrity

Audit whether an anomaly traceback is complete, point-in-time, multiplicity-controlled and honestly labeled as temporal or causal, including every upstream candidate, path lag, edge identification basis and later root-recovery validation.

What it's for

Makes the site's anomaly-to-root-cause traceback claim precise: Gitrevio can distinguish a temporal precursor from a causally identified path and abstain when the evidence does not support the stronger wording.

What you give it

Every tool is a pure function: it computes from what you pass it and reads nothing on its own. Inputs split into evidence you supply from your connected systems, calibration your team owns, and numerical controls that affect precision but never the result's meaning.

Field Type Role Required
as_of_ms number ≥ 0 Your calibration Yes
candidate_screenings array of objects (11 fields) ≥ 0 items Evidence Yes
dependency_edges array of objects (14 fields) ≥ 0 items Evidence Yes
evidence_artifacts array of objects (4 fields) Evidence Yes
graph_versions array of objects (9 fields) Evidence Yes
max_detail_rows integer ≥ 1, ≤ 500 Numerical control Optional
maximum_false_attribution_rate number ≥ 0, ≤ 1 Your calibration Optional
metric_nodes array of objects (8 fields) Evidence Yes
minimum_edge_support integer ≥ 1 Your calibration Optional
minimum_top_k_recall number ≥ 0, ≤ 1 Your calibration Optional
minimum_validation_cases integer ≥ 1 Your calibration Optional
require_causal_edges_for_causal_claim boolean Your calibration Optional
significance_level number > 0, < 1 Your calibration Optional
traceback_cases array of objects (12 fields) Evidence Yes
validation_slices array of objects (10 fields) ≥ 0 items Evidence Yes

Each dependency_edges record

Field Type Required
edge_basis_id one of "randomized", "quasi_experimental", "mechanistic", "temporal_predictive", "correlation" Yes
effect_estimate number Yes
effect_interval_lower number Yes
effect_interval_upper number Yes
evidence_verified boolean Yes
graph_version_id string (non-empty) Yes
id string (non-empty) Yes
maximum_lag_ms number (≥ 0) Yes
minimum_lag_ms number (≥ 0) Yes
observed_through_ms number (≥ 0) Yes
source_artifact_id string (non-empty) Yes
source_metric_id string (non-empty) Yes
support_count integer (≥ 0) Yes
target_metric_id string (non-empty) Yes
Example input
{
  "as_of_ms": 150,
  "candidate_screenings": [
    {
      "adjusted_p_value": 0.02,
      "candidate_metric_id": "review-delay",
      "changepoint_at_ms": 50,
      "eligible": true,
      "evidence_verified": true,
      "id": "screen",
      "observed_through_ms": 100,
      "raw_p_value": 0.01,
      "screened": true,
      "source_artifact_id": "artifact",
      "traceback_case_id": "case"
    }
  ],
  "dependency_edges": [
    {
      "edge_basis_id": "quasi_experimental",
      "effect_estimate": 0.3,
      "effect_interval_lower": 0.1,
      "effect_interval_upper": 0.5,
      "evidence_verified": true,
      "graph_version_id": "graph-v1",
      "id": "edge",
      "maximum_lag_ms": 100,
      "minimum_lag_ms": 10,
      "observed_through_ms": 20,
      "source_artifact_id": "artifact",
      "source_metric_id": "review-delay",
      "support_count": 100,
      "target_metric_id": "delivery-delay"
    }
  ],
  "evidence_artifacts": [
    {
      "id": "artifact",
      "immutable_hash": "abc",
      "independently_verified": true,
      "observed_at_ms": 20
    }
  ],
  "graph_versions": [

Truncated for display — the full payload is 111 lines.

What you get back

This is the actual output of running the example above — computed by the same function the platform calls, not an illustration.

Example output
{
  "case_diagnostics": [
    {
      "claim_type_id": "causal_root",
      "decision": "traceback_supported",
      "eligible_ancestor_count": 1,
      "failed_gates": [],
      "passing_validation_slice_count": 1,
      "screened_ancestor_count": 1,
      "selected_root_diagnostics": [
        {
          "failed_gates": [],
          "metric_id": "review-delay",
          "path_edge_basis_ids": [
            "quasi_experimental"
          ],
          "path_edge_count": 1
        }
      ],
      "selected_root_metric_ids": [
        "review-delay"
      ],
      "target_metric_id": "delivery-delay",
      "traceback_case_id": "case"
    }
  ],
  "configuration": {
    "as_of_ms": 150,
    "maximum_false_attribution_rate": 0.2,
    "minimum_edge_support": 30,
    "minimum_top_k_recall": 0.7,
    "minimum_validation_cases": 30,
    "require_causal_edges_for_causal_claim": true,
    "significance_level": 0.05
  },
  "decision": "use_tracebacks",
  "failed_gates": [],
  "guardrails": [
    "Temporal precedence and graph depth do not establish causation. A causal-root label requires every selected path edge to have randomized, quasi-experimental or independently justified mechanistic identification.",
    "Every upstream candidate must be represented on a zero-inclusive screening lattice and multiplicity-adjusted; reporting only the winning path creates selection bias.",
    "Results are aggregate diagnostic evidence, not authority to blame, discipline or make employment decisions about a person. Human review and a correction route remain mandatory."
  ],
  "method": "point_in_time_root_cause_traceback_evidence_audit_v1",
  "summary": {

Truncated for display — the full payload is 53 lines.

How it works

Causal inference & experiment design — Separate what a change caused from what merely moved alongside it.

  1. 1 Freeze the graph version effective at each incident and reconstruct its acyclic metric graph from immutable evidence available at the case cutoff.
  2. 2 Require a zero-inclusive screen of every upstream candidate, adjusted significance, an in-window earlier changepoint and supported non-null edges on every selected path.
  3. 3 Permit causal-root language only when every path edge is randomized, quasi-experimental or independently mechanistic, and require strictly later validation of root recall and false attribution.

Before you trust it

Every tool in the catalog ships with the conditions under which its answer is meaningful — and the conditions under which it should abstain instead of guessing.

Assumptions & guardrails

  • Assignment or adoption timing, interference policy, overlap, attrition, and outcome availability match the estimand encoded by the method.
  • The candidate lattice is complete, metric definitions and lags were frozen before inspection, artifacts are immutable, and validation includes misses rather than only confirmed incidents.
  • A causal label is warranted only when design and diagnostic requirements pass; otherwise treat the result as descriptive or abstain.
  • Temporal precedence is not causation, aggregate mechanisms are not individual blame, and a passing audit does not authorize an operational or employment action.

Minimum evidence

  • graph_versions: required and organization-defined
  • metric_nodes: required and organization-defined
  • dependency_edges: at least 0 rows/items
  • traceback_cases: required and organization-defined
  • candidate_screenings: at least 0 rows/items
  • validation_slices: at least 0 rows/items
  • evidence_artifacts: required and organization-defined
  • as_of_ms: required and organization-defined

How to validate it

Preserve the assignment/adoption design and validate overlap, pre-period or placebo diagnostics, attrition, interference policy, and cluster-level uncertainty; never tune on the estimated effect.

Calibrating it to your org

Same for everyone

The mathematical kernel, validation rules, method version, and JSON output semantics are organization-independent; no tenant-trained coefficients or company benchmark is embedded in the function.

Specific to you

  • one point-in-time case bundle joining the graph effective at incident time to every graph ancestor, multiplicity-adjusted candidate result, selected root-to-target path, independent artifact and strictly later root-recovery validation slice
  • metric/candidate perimeter, edge direction and causal-identification taxonomy, lag windows, significance family, minimum edge support, root-recovery recall, false-attribution appetite, prohibited attributes, permitted claim type, human review and correction route

Calibration workflow

  1. 1 Define the management decision, target outcome, aggregate unit, privacy boundary, cadence, and prediction/intervention horizon for this organization.
  2. 2 Build a tenant-scoped historical cohort using only information available before each prediction or decision; preserve zero periods, censoring, assignment probabilities, and unresolved outcomes when the method requires them.
  3. 3 Estimate statistical parameters on training history, but obtain costs, utilities, risk tolerance, practical-effect thresholds, capacity, and policy constraints from accountable decision owners.
  4. 4 Validate on later time windows or held-out aggregate units at the deployment grain, against a simple baseline and the function-specific validation strategy.
  5. 5 Deploy only if the returned decision clears evidence, overlap, calibration, robustness, and guardrail checks; warning, unsupported, schema-gap, and fallback decisions are abstentions.
  6. 6 Monitor realized outcomes, data drift, coverage, and decision regret; recalibrate at a governed cadence or after a detected regime/definition change, never merely because a stakeholder dislikes the result.

Call it from your AI

You don't wire up 388 tools in your MCP client. The GitRevio MCP server exposes 20 tools, three of which let an agent search the catalog, read a tool's schema, and run it — so the assistant finds this one on its own.

gitrevio_capabilities_search
  { "q": "audit whether an anomaly traceback is" }
  → finds "audit_root_cause_traceback_evidence_integrity"

gitrevio_capability_describe
  { "capability_id": "audit_root_cause_traceback_evidence_integrity" }
  → returns the input schema and agent guidance shown on this page

gitrevio_capability_run
  { "capability_id": "audit_root_cause_traceback_evidence_integrity", "arguments": { ... } }
  → returns the result shown above

Works in Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor, Cline, Continue.dev, Goose and Aider. See the MCP server.

Related tools

See every tool in Quality, incidents & reliability →

Ready to See Your Engineering work clearly?