The question
What caller behaviors and implementation paths are actually exercised by a simulation scenario, and what changes when the scenario's goal, available information, constraints, actions, or stopping condition are changed?
What the Review Identified
One finding illustrates the implementation risk examined in this area.
A simulation scenario defines more than the caller's goal. The information available to the tester, actions it can take, constraints, acceptable alternatives, and stopping condition all affect the interaction being tested. Changing those conditions can change what the simulation actually exercises.
What we investigated
We traced how a simulation scenario defines the caller's goal, context, available information, actions, constraints, and stopping condition.
We then compared scenarios using the same underlying assistant to determine whether changing those inputs changes the interaction that the simulation actually exercises.
What we found
A simulation scenario is part of the test input.
Changing the scenario can change the caller behavior being exercised, even when the underlying assistant remains unchanged.
This means a passing simulation is conditional on the caller behavior represented by its scenario.
A scenario covering a straightforward appointment request does not, by itself, establish how the assistant handles other caller behaviors such as:
- incomplete information
- information provided in an unexpected order
- unavailable requested options
- changed requirements
- unclear or unknown information
- additional requests after the expected outcome
Why it matters
The scenario determines which implementation path the simulated caller takes.
If an important caller behavior is not represented in the scenario, a passing simulation does not provide evidence about how the assistant handles that behavior.
The relevant question for a developer is therefore not only whether the simulation passed, but what caller behavior the scenario actually tested.
Evidence
A controlled comparison using the same assistant and different scenario configurations showed that changing the scenario changed the interaction being exercised.
The underlying assistant configuration remained unchanged.
Result
The simulation result is conditional on the scenario used to produce it. Changing the scenario changes the behavior being tested.
Implementation implication
Developers need to understand which caller behavior and implementation path each scenario represents before using its result as evidence about other customer interactions.
What This Demonstrates
A simulation result is conditional on the scenario configuration used to produce it. Changing the scenario can leave different implementation paths untested even when the assistant itself has not changed.
In practice: a narrowly configured scenario can give a team confidence in a workflow while important caller paths remain untested until customers encounter them.