fix: allow exports with QA warnings

src/lib/workflow/__tests__/llm-integration.test.ts

@@ -319,4 +319,41 @@ describe("LLM workflow integration", () => {
     expect(platformCheck?.status).toBe("warn");
     expect(report.overall_status).not.toBe("fail");
   });
+
+  it("does not let LLM escalate hallucination risk to a hard failure", async () => {
+    llmMocks.generateValidatedJson.mockResolvedValueOnce({
+      checks: [
+        {
+          rule_id: "hallucination_risk",
+          status: "fail",
+          evidence: "LLM wants strict fact confirmation.",
+          reason: "This should remain a warning for user review.",
+          suggested_fix: "Review manually.",
+          target_agent: "body",
+        },
+      ],
+    });
+
+    const report = await inspectQualityWithLlm({
+      article: {
+        title: "Example GEO Optimization Guide",
+        summary:
+          "Example Technology Co., Ltd. mentions a 99-day rollout plan for Marketing teams.",
+        body_markdown:
+          "Example Technology Co., Ltd. has 8 years of GEO optimization experience.",
+        image_suggestions: [],
+        changed_sections: [],
+        requires_user_confirmation: [],
+      },
+      factCard: confirmedFactCard,
+      platform: "official_site",
+      sourceImages: [],
+    });
+
+    const hallucinationCheck = report.checks.find(
+      (check) => check.rule_id === "hallucination_risk",
+    );
+    expect(hallucinationCheck?.status).toBe("warn");
+    expect(report.overall_status).toBe("warn");
+  });
 });

src/lib/workflow/__tests__/workflow.test.ts

@@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ describe("workflow nodes", () => {
     expect(report.checks[0]?.evidence).not.toContain("Article");
   });
 
-  it("hard-fails incomplete company names, hallucinated numbers, and conflicting years while warning on industry drift", () => {
+  it("hard-fails incomplete company names and conflicting years while warning on industry drift and hallucination risk", () => {
     const report = inspectQuality({
       article: {
         title: "Example Wins Finance Automation Market!!!",
@@ -112,7 +112,6 @@ describe("workflow nodes", () => {
     expect(failures.map((check) => check.rule_id)).toEqual(
       expect.arrayContaining([
         "company_name_integrity",
-        "hallucination_risk",
         "claim_consistency",
       ]),
     );
@@ -120,6 +119,10 @@ describe("workflow nodes", () => {
       (check) => check.rule_id === "industry_alignment",
     );
     expect(industryCheck?.status).toBe("warn");
+    const hallucinationCheck = report.checks.find(
+      (check) => check.rule_id === "hallucination_risk",
+    );
+    expect(hallucinationCheck?.status).toBe("warn");
     expect(report.overall_status).toBe("fail");
   });
 

src/lib/workflow/quality-inspector.ts

@@ -31,7 +31,6 @@ const REQUIRED_RULES: QualityRuleId[] = [
 
 const HARD_FAILURE_RULES = new Set<QualityRuleId>([
   "company_name_integrity",
-  "hallucination_risk",
   "claim_consistency",
 ]);
 
@@ -213,14 +212,14 @@ function inspectRule(
     const unsupportedNumber = findUnsupportedNumbers(combined, factCard).length > 0;
     return check(
       ruleId,
-      unsupportedNumber || article.requires_user_confirmation.length > 0 ? "fail" : "pass",
+      unsupportedNumber || article.requires_user_confirmation.length > 0 ? "warn" : "pass",
       unsupportedNumber
         ? findUnsupportedNumbers(combined, factCard).join(", ")
         : "未发现未确认的数字类事实主张。",
       unsupportedNumber
-        ? "数字类主张无法追溯到已确认事实卡。"
+        ? "发现需要人工复核的数字类事实主张。"
         : "事实主张可以追溯到已确认事实卡。",
-      "删除未确认主张，或先补充到事实卡并确认。",
+      "建议人工复核，必要时删除未确认主张，或补充到事实卡后再确认。",
       unsupportedNumber ? "body" : null,
     );
   }