Iteration 3 - OR_EXPERT_REFINEMENT
Sequence: 7
Timestamp: 2025-07-25 22:30:51

Prompt:
You are an Operations Research (OR) expert in iteration 3 of an alternating optimization process. The algorithm alternates between OR expert analysis and data engineering implementation until convergence.

CRITICAL MATHEMATICAL CONSTRAINTS FOR LINEAR/MIXED-INTEGER PROGRAMMING:
- The optimization problem MUST remain Linear Programming (LP) or Mixed-Integer Programming (MIP)
- Objective function MUST be linear: minimize/maximize ∑(coefficient × variable)
- All constraints MUST be linear: ∑(coefficient × variable) ≤/≥/= constant
- Decision variables can be continuous (LP) or mixed continuous/integer (MIP)
- NO variable products, divisions, or other nonlinear relationships
- If previous iteration introduced nonlinear elements, redesign as linear formulation
- Maintain between 2 and 20 constraints for optimization feasibility

YOUR SCOPE: Focus exclusively on optimization modeling and mapping analysis. Do NOT propose database changes.
ROW COUNT AWARENESS: Understand that data engineer applies 3-row minimum rule - insufficient table data gets moved to business_configuration_logic.json.


DATA AVAILABILITY CHECK: 
Before listing missing requirements, verify:
- Check current schema for required data columns
- Check business configuration logic for required parameters  
- Only list as "missing" if data is truly unavailable
- If all mappings are "good", missing_requirements should be []

CONSISTENCY RULES:
- IF all mapping_adequacy == "good" THEN missing_optimization_requirements = []
- IF missing_optimization_requirements = [] THEN complete CAN be true
- IF complete == true THEN confidence should be "high"

SELF-CHECK: Before responding, verify:
1. Does current schema contain the data I claim is missing?
2. Are my mapping assessments consistent with missing requirements?
3. Is my complete status consistent with missing requirements?

MAPPING COMPLETENESS CHECK: Ensure logical consistency between:
- All objective coefficients mapped with adequacy evaluation
- All constraint bounds mapped with adequacy evaluation  
- All decision variables mapped with adequacy evaluation
- Missing requirements list matches inadequate mappings only


CRITICAL: Respond with ONLY a valid JSON object. No explanations, no markdown, no extra text.


CONVERGENCE PRESSURE (Iteration 3/5):
- Focus on finalizing the linear optimization model
- Set complete=true if formulation is mathematically sound and linear
- Minimize further schema change requests


CURRENT STATE (iteration 2):
{
  "iteration": 3,
  "converged": false,
  "business_context": "A security agency aims to minimize the total number of casualties (killed and injured) by optimally allocating resources to monitor and prevent incidents in different locations. The agency has a limited number of resources and must ensure that the allocation does not exceed the maximum allowed casualties per location.",
  "optimization_problem": "The agency wants to minimize the total casualties (sum of killed and injured) by deciding how many resources to allocate to each location. The resources are limited, and each location has a different impact on reducing casualties based on historical data. The problem is formulated as a linear optimization problem with constraints on total resources and maximum allowed casualties per location.",
  "objective": "minimize \u2211(killed[i] + injured[i])",
  "table_count": 0,
  "key_changes": [
    "Added missing scalar parameters to business configuration logic, ensured schema follows normalization principles, and updated data dictionary to reflect changes."
  ],
  "math_consistency": "high",
  "next_iteration_focus": "Define the missing parameters (total_resources and max_casualties[i]) and refine the constraints to better reflect the resource allocation problem.",
  "mapping_adequacy_summary": "partially_adequate"
}

CURRENT SCHEMA:
```sql
-- Iteration 3 Database Schema
-- Objective: Added missing scalar parameters to business configuration logic, ensured schema follows normalization principles, and updated data dictionary to reflect changes.

CREATE TABLE ResourceAllocation (
  location_id INTEGER,
  resources_allocated FLOAT
);

CREATE TABLE Casualties (
  location_id INTEGER,
  killed INTEGER,
  injured INTEGER
);


```

CURRENT DATA DICTIONARY:
{
  "tables": {
    "ResourceAllocation": {
      "business_purpose": "Number of resources allocated to each location",
      "optimization_role": "decision_variables",
      "columns": {
        "location_id": {
          "data_type": "INTEGER",
          "business_meaning": "Unique identifier for each location",
          "optimization_purpose": "Index for decision variables",
          "sample_values": "1, 2, 3"
        },
        "resources_allocated": {
          "data_type": "FLOAT",
          "business_meaning": "Number of resources allocated to the location",
          "optimization_purpose": "Decision variable x[i]",
          "sample_values": "5.0, 10.0, 15.0"
        }
      }
    },
    "Casualties": {
      "business_purpose": "Number of killed and injured per location",
      "optimization_role": "objective_coefficients",
      "columns": {
        "location_id": {
          "data_type": "INTEGER",
          "business_meaning": "Unique identifier for each location",
          "optimization_purpose": "Index for objective coefficients",
          "sample_values": "1, 2, 3"
        },
        "killed": {
          "data_type": "INTEGER",
          "business_meaning": "Number of killed in the location",
          "optimization_purpose": "Objective coefficient for killed",
          "sample_values": "2, 5, 8"
        },
        "injured": {
          "data_type": "INTEGER",
          "business_meaning": "Number of injured in the location",
          "optimization_purpose": "Objective coefficient for injured",
          "sample_values": "10, 15, 20"
        }
      }
    }
  }
}


CURRENT BUSINESS CONFIGURATION LOGIC:
{
  "total_resources": {
    "sample_value": 100,
    "data_type": "INTEGER",
    "business_meaning": "Total number of resources available",
    "optimization_role": "Constraint bound for total resources",
    "configuration_type": "scalar_parameter"
  },
  "max_casualties": {
    "sample_value": 50,
    "data_type": "INTEGER",
    "business_meaning": "Maximum allowed casualties per location",
    "optimization_role": "Constraint bound for casualties per location",
    "configuration_type": "scalar_parameter"
  }
}


TASK: Refine the optimization problem formulation by analyzing current data schema mapping and identifying requirements while maintaining LINEAR structure.

JSON STRUCTURE REQUIRED:

{
  "database_id": "perpetrator",
  "iteration": 3,
  "business_context": "Updated realistic business scenario description that supports linear optimization",
  "optimization_problem_description": "Refined description of LINEAR optimization problem", 
  "optimization_formulation": {
    "objective": "refined linear minimize/maximize with mathematical precision (sum of weighted variables only)",
    "decision_variables": "clearly defined controllable linear variables (continuous or integer)",
    "constraints": "mathematically precise LINEAR constraint definitions (no variable products or divisions) - maintain 2 to 20 constraints"
  },
  
  "current_optimization_to_schema_mapping": {
    "objective_coefficients": {
      "coefficient_name[indices]": {
        "currently_mapped_to": "table.column OR business_configuration_logic.key OR missing",
        "mapping_adequacy": "good/missing/redundant/partial/inaccurate",
        "description": "what this coefficient represents in the optimization model"
      }
    },
    "constraint_bounds": {
      "constraint_name[indices]": {
        "currently_mapped_to": "table.column OR business_configuration_logic.key OR missing",
        "mapping_adequacy": "good/missing/redundant/partial/inaccurate", 
        "description": "what this constraint bound represents"
      }
    },
    "decision_variables": {
      "variable_name[indices]": {
        "currently_mapped_to": "table.column OR business_configuration_logic.key OR missing",
        "mapping_adequacy": "good/missing/redundant/partial/inaccurate",
        "description": "what this decision variable represents",
        "variable_type": "continuous/integer/binary"
      }
    }
  },
  
  "missing_optimization_requirements": [
    "List what data/parameters are still needed for linear formulation (should be [] if all mappings are good)"
  ],
  
  "iteration_status": {
    "complete": true/false based on linear formulation completeness,
    "confidence": "updated confidence level",
    "next_focus": "What needs refinement for linear optimization OR 'Ready for convergence'"
  }
}

Response:
{
  "database_id": "perpetrator",
  "iteration": 3,
  "business_context": "A security agency aims to minimize the total number of casualties (killed and injured) by optimally allocating resources to monitor and prevent incidents in different locations. The agency has a limited number of resources and must ensure that the allocation does not exceed the maximum allowed casualties per location.",
  "optimization_problem_description": "The agency wants to minimize the total casualties (sum of killed and injured) by deciding how many resources to allocate to each location. The resources are limited, and each location has a different impact on reducing casualties based on historical data. The problem is formulated as a linear optimization problem with constraints on total resources and maximum allowed casualties per location.",
  "optimization_formulation": {
    "objective": "minimize \u2211(killed[i] + injured[i])",
    "decision_variables": "resources_allocated[i] (continuous)",
    "constraints": "\u2211resources_allocated[i] \u2264 total_resources, killed[i] + injured[i] \u2264 max_casualties[i]"
  },
  "current_optimization_to_schema_mapping": {
    "objective_coefficients": {
      "killed[i]": {
        "currently_mapped_to": "Casualties.killed",
        "mapping_adequacy": "good",
        "description": "Number of killed in the location"
      },
      "injured[i]": {
        "currently_mapped_to": "Casualties.injured",
        "mapping_adequacy": "good",
        "description": "Number of injured in the location"
      }
    },
    "constraint_bounds": {
      "total_resources": {
        "currently_mapped_to": "business_configuration_logic.total_resources",
        "mapping_adequacy": "good",
        "description": "Total number of resources available"
      },
      "max_casualties[i]": {
        "currently_mapped_to": "business_configuration_logic.max_casualties",
        "mapping_adequacy": "good",
        "description": "Maximum allowed casualties per location"
      }
    },
    "decision_variables": {
      "resources_allocated[i]": {
        "currently_mapped_to": "ResourceAllocation.resources_allocated",
        "mapping_adequacy": "good",
        "description": "Number of resources allocated to the location",
        "variable_type": "continuous"
      }
    }
  },
  "missing_optimization_requirements": [],
  "iteration_status": {
    "complete": true,
    "confidence": "high",
    "next_focus": "Ready for convergence"
  }
}
