{
  "status": "Illustrative acceptance plan, not an executable test suite or observed production result",
  "topic": "LLM structured output validation",
  "date": "2026-11-04",
  "sourceArticle": "https://aptixlabs.com/insights/llm-structured-output-validation",
  "setup": [
    "Use synthetic accounts and records",
    "Record the environment and implementation version",
    "Agree the expected product contract before testing"
  ],
  "reviewSequence": [
    "Define shape and domain checks separately",
    "Resolve identifiers before committing state",
    "Limit repairs and retain useful validation diagnostics"
  ],
  "cases": [
    {
      "id": "1",
      "condition": "Output is malformed",
      "expectedBehavior": "Reject before domain processing",
      "observedBehavior": null,
      "status": "not_run"
    },
    {
      "id": "2",
      "condition": "JSON is valid but an ID is unknown",
      "expectedBehavior": "Fail the domain check",
      "observedBehavior": null,
      "status": "not_run"
    },
    {
      "id": "3",
      "condition": "A repair repeatedly changes the requested plan",
      "expectedBehavior": "Stop and ask for a recoverable next step",
      "observedBehavior": null,
      "status": "not_run"
    }
  ],
  "tradeoff": "Very rigid schemas can make exploratory tasks awkward. Use stricter contracts for persisted actions and allow clearly separated free-form explanation where the product needs flexibility."
}