Make each claim traceable
Give the model the actual source records and ask it to identify the evidence for each observation. Keep the retrieval time and source timestamp with the result. An input being recent does not make it relevant; verify that the symbol, event, unit, and time horizon match the task.
When a required source is missing, the workflow should record that state and take an explicit fallback branch. It should not ask the model to invent a substitute account balance, market identifier, or price.
Validate structure and meaning separately
Schema-constrained output helps enforce a response format. It does not check whether an explanation is true or whether a number matches the input. Follow the format check with deterministic validation of permitted symbols, numeric ranges, source identifiers, and required timestamps.
In NickAI, the LLM node produces the model response; use a Function node and an explicit condition to inspect the values before an action.
Use a second model as a review experiment
A second response may surface disagreement. It can also repeat the first model's mistake. Compare the review configuration with a baseline on the same examples and track the errors it actually catches. The consensus guide explains why provider diversity alone does not prove independent errors.
Separate actions from explanations
Account mode, permitted assets, order constraints, and activation state should be checked outside the model's prose. An instruction in a prompt is not an enforcement mechanism. These controls constrain what a workflow may attempt; they do not make market exposure or execution risk disappear.
A small failure-case review
- Run a recorded input with a missing price and confirm that the output identifies the missing field.
- Supply a stale timestamp and confirm the configured freshness condition rejects it.
- Inspect an invalid response and confirm the next node takes the fallback branch.
- Compare model disagreement with the recorded source instead of treating a vote as truth.
- Inspect a rejected paper order and confirm the run does not report it as filled.
Use controlled test inputs in an inactive or paper-only workflow and keep the results. The paper review process covers run records and branch coverage.
Correction to earlier numerical claims
Earlier versions claimed quantified hallucination and loss reductions without a linked reproducible study. Those claims have been removed. The controls here are design recommendations to test, not a promise of a particular error reduction or financial outcome.