What is your goal?
I’m looking for 1 real Make scenario where at least one of these is already explicit:
an expected label
a routing policy contract
a business rule that clearly defines when the workflow should continue vs stop
I’ve already tested 3 materially different workflow lines locally in a narrow Phase 1 setup, but the current evidence is still mostly boundary-oriented.
The next step I want is not just “another workflow.”
I want one case that lets me test something closer to semantic correctness or stronger policy correctness, not only malformed-output stopping behavior.
A good fit would be something like:
classification where the expected class is known upfront
routing / triage with a defined business policy
compliance / policy checks
document-to-system handoff with a strict downstream rule
What would help most:
rough payload shape
target schema
expected label or explicit policy rule
short note on downstream risk
polling or webhook preference
A short outline is enough first. I do not need a full production payload immediately.
What is the problem & what have you tried?
So far I’ve tested workflow lines like:
voucher validation
invoice extraction / strict schema validation
support email classification / routing
That helped confirm things like:
malformed output stops safely
enum violations stop safely
a provisional threshold policy can hold low-confidence output for review
But that still does not prove semantic correctness.
The next useful case would be one where the correct label or routing rule is already explicit, so I can separate:
boundary safety
semantic correctness
downstream business risk
What I can return:
whether the run ended in succeeded or failed_safe
a short reason if relevant
a receipt reference
This is still narrow Phase 1 work, not broad onboarding.
Public kit:
Error messages or input/output bundles
No specific Make error yet.
This is not a troubleshooting post for one broken scenario.
I’m looking for one real scenario where the correct label or routing rule is already explicit, so I can test semantic correctness separately from boundary safety.
Example of the kind of structure that would help:
{
“payload_shape”: {
“field_a”: “…”,
“field_b”: “…”,
“field_c”: “…”
},
“target_schema”: {
“label”: “ClassA | ClassB | ClassC”
},
“expected_label”: “ClassB”,
“business_rule”: “If label is not confidently correct, stop or send to review instead of continuing downstream”
}
Create public scenario page
Not applicable yet. This is a request for a real scenario outline / contract shape, not a shared working public scenario page at this stage.