As a dev, I want a rigorous format for the "Caution" field.

[SamuelPelletierEvraire]

Description

The data sorted into the caution field by GPT are not following the ask we've got from Maxime that is the only warnings should concern the presence of additional metals, boron, copper, iron, manganese, molybdenum, zinc, boron above 0.3%, or allergens, or lawn fertilizers without phosphate (according to Section 3.5 of T-4-130). This modification is gonna decrease by a lot the time it take to confirm the form by inspector.

Bug summary Data put into the caution field by GPT are not following the ask we've got from the designed inspector of the project.

Step to reproduce

1. Login into the app.
2. Analyse picture give in this issue.
3. See the result into the "Caution" field.

Expected behaviour Data put intot the "Caution" field should concern the presence of additional metals, boron, copper, iron, manganese, molybdenum, zinc, boron above 0.3%, or allergens, or lawn fertilizers without phosphate (according to Section 3.5 of T-4-130).

Actual Behaviour Data are not actually modify by the back-end after GPT send them back.

Environment:

Commit Hash:

OS Version: Windows 10

Browser Version: Chrome Version: 129.0.6668.59 (Build officiel) (64 bits)

Logs and Screenshots:
No data for website didn't succeed to recreate the issue Follow this link to access the caution data folder

Browser Console Logs:

Extra Screenshots:

Additional Context:

Suggested Fix

1. The suggested fix is to make a link between the data in the Guaranteed Analysis and the Caution fields. If the guaranteed analysis contain a micro-nutrient search it into the caution sentences then remove all other sentence from the caution list. Do this for each field that are identify in the following picture. The use of GPT optimisation is not needed in this case.

List of micronutrient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_micronutrients

[Francois-Werbrouck]

How are they

not following the [request]

Suggestion:

• Would we like to "flag" the cautions when there is a mention of listed elements so the FE can highlight those cautions? This could be done when saving saving an inspection in the DB. This would allow the user to easily spot which cautions is more relevant during the validation process of the digitalization.
• Do we want to remove/not show any Cautions without the mention of the listed elements? I suggest we do so, but only after validation of the data.
• There is a structure in place in the Database to contain a list of elements. The structure could be used (and reworked a bit)to parse the caution fields we have saved in the inspection records and look for the list of element contained in the db.

Actual Behaviour Data are not actually modify by the back-end after GPT send them back.

Wasn't there an agreement we would not modify the extracted data before the user's validation? I'm under the impression,

Expected behaviour Data put into the "Caution" field should concern the presence of additional metals, boron, copper, iron, manganese, molybdenum, zinc, boron above 0.3%, or allergens, or lawn fertilizers without phosphate (according to Section 3.5 of T-4-130).

means you expect the data to be modified/filtered prior to the user's validation. Please edit the expected behavior to better indicate when in the user experience should the Caution field should (only or not only?) concern the listed elements