Quality Score

Senior assistance track rule missing: The source document explicitly states 'Applicants over 65 years of age qualify for senior assistance track' — no rule captures this eligibility path.

rule-002 source_filename is 'Housing_Assistance_Program_Policy_Section3.txt' while all other rules use 'Housing Assistance Program Policy', creating inconsistency that may complicate audit tracing.

Add a rule capturing the senior assistance track for applicants over 65 years of age, as explicitly stated in Section 1.1 of the source document.

Restrict source_chunks to only those chunks that actually contain the rule's source text; remove spurious cross-section references (e.g., remove Section 2.1 and Section 3.1 from rule-001's source_chunks).

Standardize source_filename across all rules to use a consistent identifier for the same policy document.

Source document is a summary/overview chunk only; the full policy sections (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2) are referenced but not provided, making it impossible to verify completeness of rules 002–008 against the actual source text.

rule-008 notes reference 'rule-006' as a required sub-rule ('individual rules rule-001, rule-003, rule-006, rule-007 must all be satisfied') but rule-006 is an incomplete-application non-processing rule, not an eligibility sub-rule; the correct dependency should be rule-007 (residency).

Provide access to the full source document sections (not just the overview chunk) to enable thorough completeness and accuracy validation of all 8 extracted rules.

Consider adding a higher-priority 'gate' rule or using json-rules-engine's rule chaining/stop-on-first-failure pattern to structurally enforce that fraudulent document (rule-005) and incomplete application (rule-006) denials prevent the Full Program Eligibility rule (rule-008) from firing.

Source chunk references are inconsistent and potentially inaccurate: rule-001 lists 'Section 2.1' and 'Section 3.1' as source chunks despite being an age eligibility rule from Section 1.1; similarly rule-003 lists 'Section 3.2' which is unlikely to be a source for income eligibility.

Duplicate entries in dependency arrays: rule-008's child_rules lists rule-001, rule-003, rule-007 twice each; rule-001's parent_rules lists rule-008 twice; rule-003's parent_rules lists rule-008 twice — indicating a data quality issue in dependency tracking.

The Full Program Eligibility rule (rule-008) has lower priority (10) than its component sub-rules (priority 20), which is correct for a composite rule, but there is no mechanism in the json-rules-engine output to enforce that rule-005 and rule-006 actually override rule-008 at runtime — the override relationship is documented in params but not enforced structurally.

The income condition in rule-003 and rule-008 is translated to 'incomeAsPercentOfAmi <= 80' in the json-rules-engine output, which is a semantic transformation from the raw condition 'household.income <= area_median_income * 0.80' — this assumes a pre-computed fact exists, which is a valid design choice but undocumented.

Deduplicate dependency arrays programmatically before output to eliminate repeated entries in parent_rules, child_rules, and shares_conditions_with fields.

Document the 'incomeAsPercentOfAmi' fact computation assumption explicitly in the rule metadata or a separate fact definitions section, so implementers know this pre-computation is required.

Correct rule-008's notes to reference rule-007 (not rule-006) as the residency sub-rule dependency, or clarify the intended meaning.