docs: use extract_text() so the PDF example doesn't keyError

* document evals API

* docs(evals): fix evaluator behavior details

---------

Co-authored-by: Sameer Kadam <sskadam6305@gmail.com>

docs/getting-started.md

@@ -84,13 +84,13 @@ icon: "rocket"
     # 1. Ingest
     sources = FileIngestor().ingest("data/report.pdf")
 
-    # 2. Parse
-    parsed = DocumentParser().parse(sources[0])
+    # 2. Parse (extract_text returns a plain string for any supported format)
+    text = DocumentParser().extract_text(sources[0].path)
 
-    # 3. Extract
+    # 3. Extract (extractors take text, return Entity / Relation objects)
     ner           = NERExtractor(method="pattern")  # no API key needed
-    entities      = ner.extract(parsed)
-    relationships = RelationExtractor().extract(parsed, entities=entities)
+    entities      = ner.extract(text)
+    relationships = RelationExtractor(method="pattern").extract(text, entities=entities)
 
     # 4. Build
     graph = GraphBuilder(merge_entities=True).build(
@@ -144,23 +144,31 @@ icon: "rocket"
     context = AgentContext(
         vector_store=VectorStore(backend="faiss", dimension=768),
         knowledge_graph=ContextGraph(advanced_analytics=True),
+        graph_expansion=True,       # blend graph traversal into retrieval
+        max_expansion_hops=3,       # how far to walk from the seed nodes
     )
 
-    # Load your knowledge graph
-    context.load_graph("company_kg.json")
+    # store() runs extraction and populates both the vector index and the graph
+    context.store([
+        {"content": "Steve Wozniak co-founded Apple with Steve Jobs in 1976."},
+        {"content": "Tony Fadell led the iPod team at Apple, then founded Nest."},
+    ])
 
-    # Multi-hop GraphRAG query
-    result = context.query(
+    # GraphRAG retrieval: seed from vector matches, expand along graph edges
+    results = context.retrieve(
         "What companies were founded by people who worked at Apple?",
-        mode="graphrag",
-        reasoning=True,
+        use_graph=True,
+        expand_graph=True,
     )
-
-    # Every claim links back to a source node
-    for claim in result.claims:
-        print(f"{claim.text}  →  source: {claim.source_node}")
+    for r in results:
+        print(f"[{r['score']:.3f}]  {r['content'][:70]}  (source: {r['source']})")
     ```
 
+    Each result carries `content`, `score`, `source`, and `metadata`. For a
+    grounded natural-language answer plus an auditable traversal, use
+    `context.query_with_reasoning(query, llm_provider=...)` — it returns
+    `response`, `reasoning_path`, `sources`, and `confidence`.
+
     **Next:** [GraphRAG concepts →](/concepts#graphrag)
   </Tab>
 

docs/reference/evals.md

@@ -1,64 +1,224 @@
 ---
 title: "Evals Module"
-description: "Evaluation framework for measuring Knowledge Graph quality, extraction accuracy, and pipeline performance: coming soon."
+description: "Score decision records, audit trails, and reasoning output with deterministic and model-backed evaluators plus a small run harness."
 icon: "chart-line"
 ---
 
-**`semantica.evals`** is planned as a comprehensive evaluation framework for measuring **extraction accuracy, graph quality, and pipeline performance**.
+`semantica.evals` measures the quality of decision intelligence outputs. It takes
+the decisions, audit trails, and reasoning text your pipeline produces and scores
+them against expectations you define, returning a structured summary you can log,
+assert on in tests, or track across runs.
 
-<Warning>
-  **`semantica.evals` is not yet implemented.** The module is a placeholder with `__all__ = []`. No classes or functions are available for import. This page describes the planned API only.
-</Warning>
+- A registry of named evaluators, from exact string matching to ROUGE overlap and
+  LLM-as-judge
+- `decision_scores`, a composite evaluator for `Decision` objects that checks
+  outcome, confidence bounds, required fields, provenance, and (optionally)
+  policy compliance
+- A `evaluate()` runner that applies several evaluators to a list of cases and
+  aggregates pass / fail / error counts
+- Per-evaluator **objectives** that let you override an evaluator's built-in
+  verdict at the run level
 
-## Planned Features
+<Note>
+  The module is versioned separately from the package: `semantica.evals.__version__`
+  is `"0.1.0"`. The public surface described here is stable, but expect additive
+  changes (new evaluators, new objective options) before it reaches 1.0.
+</Note>
 
-When released, `semantica.evals` will provide:
+## Public API
 
-| Planned Class | Role |
-| :--- | :--- |
-| `KGEvaluator` | Completeness, consistency, schema compliance, coverage, and orphan node detection |
-| `ExtractionEvaluator` | NER precision / recall / F1 and relation extraction metrics against gold datasets |
-| `PipelineBenchmark` | Throughput (docs/sec), per-step latency, peak memory, and error rate |
-| `RegressionTracker` | Record runs and compare metrics across commits or config changes |
-| `EvalReport` | Structured report: `{scores, regressions, recommendations}` |
-| `DeduplicationEvaluator` | Merge precision, false positive / false negative rates |
-| `ReasoningEvaluator` | Inference accuracy, rule coverage, and derivation depth |
-
-## Current Workaround
-
-Until `semantica.evals` ships, use `semantica.ontology.OntologyEvaluator` for ontology quality metrics:
+| Name | Kind | Role |
+| :--- | :--- | :--- |
+| `evaluate(cases, evaluators, config=None, target_fn=None)` | function | Run named evaluators over each case, return an `EvalSummary` |
+| `list_evaluators()` | function | Sorted names of every registered evaluator |
+| `get_evaluator(name)` | function | Look up a single evaluator function by name |
+| `EvalMetric` | dataclass (frozen) | One evaluator's result: `score`, `passed`, `meta` |
+| `CaseResult` | namedtuple | One case's result: `case_id`, `status`, `metrics`, `details` |
+| `EvalSummary` | dataclass | Aggregate across cases: `total`, `passed`, `failed`, `errors`, `pass_rate`, `cases` |
 
 ```python
-from semantica.ontology import OntologyEvaluator
-
-evaluator = OntologyEvaluator()
-
-# evaluate_ontology takes the ontology dict only
-result = evaluator.evaluate_ontology(ontology)
-
-print("Coverage:    ", result.coverage_score)
-print("Completeness:", result.completeness_score)
-print("Gaps:        ", result.gaps)
-print("Suggestions: ", result.suggestions)
-
-# Full report with class granularity and relation completeness
-report = evaluator.generate_report(ontology)
-print("Coverage score:    ", report["evaluation"]["coverage_score"])
-print("Completeness score:", report["evaluation"]["completeness_score"])
-print("Relation coverage: ", report["relation_completeness"]["relation_coverage"])
+import semantica.evals as evals
+from semantica.evals import evaluate, list_evaluators, get_evaluator
 ```
 
-`EvaluationResult` fields returned by `evaluate_ontology()`:
+## Built-in evaluators
 
-| Field | Type | Description |
-| :----- | :---- | :----------- |
-| `coverage_score` | `float` | Fraction of competency questions answerable by the ontology |
-| `completeness_score` | `float` | Average of class and property completeness scores |
-| `gaps` | `List[str]` | Identified gaps in coverage |
-| `suggestions` | `List[str]` | Improvement suggestions |
-| `metrics` | `dict` | Detailed sub-metrics |
+Every evaluator is a plain function `fn(actual, expected, config=None) -> EvalMetric`
+registered under a stable name. `list_evaluators()` returns the current set:
 
-- [Semantic Extract](/reference/semantic_extract) — Extraction module.
-- [Knowledge Graph](/reference/kg) — Graph quality assessment.
-- [Pipeline](pipeline) — Pipeline performance metrics.
-- [Ontology Evaluator](ontology) — Available now for ontology quality metrics.
+```python
+>>> list_evaluators()
+['decision_scores', 'exact_match', 'keyword_check', 'length_range',
+ 'levenshtein', 'llm_as_judge', 'numeric_range', 'regex_match', 'rouge',
+ 'temporal_range']
+```
+
+| Name | Passes when | Relevant `config` keys |
+| :--- | :--- | :--- |
+| `exact_match` | `actual == expected` | none |
+| `regex_match` | `re.search(expected, actual)` matches | none |
+| `keyword_check` | every required term appears in `actual` (word-boundary) | `required` (falls back to `expected`) |
+| `numeric_range` | `min <= actual <= max` | `min`, `max` (both required) |
+| `temporal_range` | ISO datetime `actual` falls in `[min, max]` | `min`, `max` as ISO strings (both required) |
+| `length_range` | `min <= len(actual) <= max` | `min` (default 0), `max` (required) |
+| `levenshtein` | normalized similarity `>= threshold` | `threshold` (default 0.8) |
+| `rouge` | ROUGE-1 F1 `> 0` and `>= threshold` | `threshold` (default 0.0) |
+| `llm_as_judge` | caller-supplied `judge_fn(actual, expected)` returns truthy | `judge_fn` (required callable) |
+| `decision_scores` | all configured sub-checks on a `Decision` pass | see below |
+
+An evaluator that cannot run (bad regex, unparseable datetime, no `judge_fn`) returns an
+`EvalMetric` with an `"error"` key in `meta` rather than raising. Evaluators that
+require numeric bounds (`numeric_range`, `length_range`) instead return a failing
+metric with a `"reason"` key when the bound is missing — they do not raise and do
+not set `"error"`.
+
+### `decision_scores`
+
+`decision_scores` accepts a `Decision` (from `semantica.context.decision_models`)
+or its dict form and runs a set of field-level and governance checks. The score is
+the fraction of checks that passed; `passed` is `True` only when all of them did.
+
+| Sub-check | Controlled by |
+| :--- | :--- |
+| Outcome matches | `expected_outcome` in config, or the case's `expected`; **skipped** when neither is set |
+| Confidence in range | `min_confidence` (default 0.0), `max_confidence` (default 1.0); always run |
+| `decision_maker`, `reasoning`, `scenario` non-empty | always run |
+| Provenance present in metadata | `provenance_key` (default `"provenance"`); always run |
+| Policy compliance | `policy_engine` and `policy_id` both set; skipped otherwise |
+
+Passing `causal_chain_exists` in config raises `NotImplementedError`. That key is a
+reserved slot for a future release.
+
+## Running an evaluation
+
+`evaluate()` takes a list of cases and a list of evaluator names. A case is either
+a `(expected, actual)` tuple or a dict:
+
+```python
+{
+    "id": "loan-001",          # optional, generated if absent
+    "expected": ...,           # optional; some evaluators read it, some don't
+    "actual": ...,             # the value under test
+    "config": {...},           # optional, per-evaluator settings for this case
+    "target_fn": callable,     # optional, called with the case to produce `actual`
+}
+```
+
+If `actual` is missing, the runner calls the case's `target_fn` (or the
+`target_fn` passed to `evaluate()`) to produce it. Per-case `config` is deep-merged
+over the top-level `config`, so a case can override one evaluator's settings
+without discarding the rest.
+
+```python
+from datetime import datetime
+
+from semantica.context.decision_models import Decision
+from semantica.evals import evaluate
+
+decision = Decision(
+    decision_id="d-1",
+    category="loan",
+    scenario="loan-request",
+    reasoning="vetted against lending policy v3",
+    outcome="approve",
+    confidence=0.87,
+    timestamp=datetime.now(),
+    decision_maker="approver-a",
+    metadata={"provenance": "workflow:loan/v3"},
+)
+
+cases = [
+    {
+        "id": "loan-001",
+        "actual": decision,
+        "config": {
+            "decision_scores": {
+                "expected_outcome": "approve",
+                "min_confidence": 0.7,
+            }
+        },
+    },
+]
+
+summary = evaluate(cases, ["decision_scores"])
+print(summary.pass_rate)   # 1.0
+```
+
+Evaluators run independently per case. If one raises, that case's `status` becomes
+`"error"` and the exception text is captured in the metric's `meta`; the rest of
+the run continues.
+
+## Objectives
+
+By default each evaluator decides its own pass / fail. An **objective** overrides
+that verdict at the run level, keyed by evaluator name under `config`:
+
+```python
+# Raise levenshtein's bar from its default 0.8 to 0.9
+evaluate(
+    [("apple", "aple")],
+    evaluators=["levenshtein"],
+    config={"levenshtein": {"objective": {"direction": "maximize", "threshold": 0.9}}},
+)
+
+# Lower is better
+evaluate(
+    [("night", "nacht")],
+    evaluators=["levenshtein"],
+    config={"levenshtein": {"objective": {"direction": "minimize", "threshold": 0.5}}},
+)
+
+# Expect the metric NOT to match
+evaluate(
+    [("ok", "ok")],
+    evaluators=["exact_match"],
+    config={"exact_match": {"objective": {"expect": False}}},
+)
+```
+
+Rules:
+
+- `maximize` with `threshold`: pass iff `score >= threshold`. `maximize` with no
+  threshold is a no-op and the evaluator's own verdict stands.
+- `minimize` with `threshold`: pass iff `score <= threshold`. `minimize`
+  **requires** a threshold; omitting it raises `ValueError`.
+- `expect` (`True` / `False`): pass iff `bool(score)` equals it. Cannot be combined
+  with `direction` or `threshold`, and must be a real boolean.
+- A metric that already carries an `"error"` in its `meta` is unaffected by any
+  objective.
+- Invalid objective config is validated for every case before any evaluator runs,
+  so a bad objective fails the whole run up front rather than partway through.
+
+## Reading the summary
+
+```python
+summary = evaluate(cases, ["decision_scores"])
+
+summary.total, summary.passed, summary.failed, summary.errors
+summary.pass_rate    # passed / total, or 1.0 for an empty case list
+
+for case in summary.cases:
+    print(case.case_id, case.status)          # status: "pass" | "fail" | "error"
+    for name, metric in case.metrics.items():
+        print(name, metric.score, metric.passed)
+        print(metric.meta.get("reasons", {}))  # per-sub-check failure reasons
+```
+
+`EvalMetric` is frozen (`score: float`, `passed: bool`, `meta: dict`). `CaseResult`
+is a namedtuple, and `EvalSummary` is a plain dataclass, so all three are
+straightforward to serialize for logging or regression tracking.
+
+## Notes
+
+- `llm_as_judge` needs `config["judge_fn"]`, a callable
+  `judge_fn(actual, expected) -> bool` you supply. No LLM backend is imported
+  unless you pass one in.
+- `decision_scores` governance checks are opt-in: policy compliance is only
+  evaluated when both `policy_engine` and `policy_id` are present.
+
+## See also
+
+- [Decision Intelligence](/guides/decision-intelligence) — producing the `Decision` records this module scores
+- [Reasoning](/reference/reasoning) — inference output that reasoning-text evaluators can measure
+- [Policy Engine](/guides/policy-engine) — the `policy_engine` used by `decision_scores`
+- [Ontology Evaluator](/reference/ontology) — separate tooling for ontology quality metrics