fix: accuracy scorer checks section field, not just citation label

apps/backend/tests/accuracy/test_research_accuracy.py

@@ -40,6 +40,16 @@ def score_answer(question: dict, result: dict) -> dict:
     """
     answer = result.get("answer", "").lower()
     citations = [c.get("citation", "").lower() for c in result.get("citations", [])]
+    # Hierarchical chunking (RAG-quality audit Fix 1) carries the retrieved
+    # section's own heading breadcrumb in `section` (e.g. "... > Section 25-35
+    # (Bad debts)") - the `citation` field alone often stays a bare Act name
+    # ("ITAA 1997"). A citation dict can be exactly right at the section level
+    # while `citation` says nothing more specific than the Act - found via q09
+    # of the production-path benchmark: real citations = ["ITAA 1997"] only,
+    # but its `section` field was "...Section 25-35 (Bad debts)", an EXACT
+    # match for the expected "ITAA 1997 s.25-35" that the citation-only check
+    # could never see.
+    sections = [(c.get("section") or "").lower() for c in result.get("citations", [])]
 
     expected_topics = [t.lower() for t in question.get("expected_topics", [])]
     topics_covered = sum(1 for t in expected_topics if t in answer)
@@ -54,12 +64,18 @@ def _cited(ec: str) -> bool:
         # 820 of ITAA 1997" won't match the literal "gst act s.9-80" /
         # "itaa 1997 div 820" strings above - accept a bare match on just the
         # section/division token too (e.g. "9-80", "820") so natural phrasing
-        # isn't scored as a miss when the actual citation is right.
+        # isn't scored as a miss when the actual citation is right. Checked
+        # against the answer text, the citation label, AND the section
+        # breadcrumb (see `sections` above).
         for pattern in (_SECTION_TOKEN_RE, _DIVISION_TOKEN_RE):
             m = pattern.search(ec)
             if m:
                 token = m.group(1)
-                if len(token) >= 2 and (token in answer or any(token in c for c in citations)):
+                if len(token) >= 2 and (
+                    token in answer
+                    or any(token in c for c in citations)
+                    or any(token in s for s in sections)
+                ):
                     return True
         return False
 

apps/backend/tests/test_accuracy_scoring.py

@@ -82,6 +82,34 @@ def test_wrong_division_does_not_score_credit():
     assert s["cit_ratio"] == 0.0
 
 
+def test_section_field_credited_even_when_citation_label_is_bare():
+    """Hierarchical chunking carries the retrieved section's own heading
+    breadcrumb in the citation dict's `section` field (e.g. "... > Section
+    25-35 (Bad debts)"), while `citation` often stays a bare Act name. Found
+    via q09 of the production-path benchmark: real citations = ["ITAA 1997"]
+    only, but its `section` field was an exact match for the expected
+    "ITAA 1997 s.25-35" - the citation-only check could never see it."""
+    result = {
+        "answer": "A company can deduct a bad debt written off in the income year.",
+        "citations": [
+            {"citation": "ITAA 1997", "section": "Division 25 > Section 25-35 (Bad debts)"}
+        ],
+    }
+    s = score_answer(_question(["bad debt"], ["ITAA 1997 s.25-35"]), result)
+    assert s["cit_ratio"] == 1.0
+
+
+def test_section_field_wrong_section_still_not_credited():
+    result = {
+        "answer": "See the relevant division for details.",
+        "citations": [
+            {"citation": "ITAA 1997", "section": "Division 165 > Section 165-120 (To deduct a bad debt)"}
+        ],
+    }
+    s = score_answer(_question([], ["ITAA 1997 s.25-35"]), result)
+    assert s["cit_ratio"] == 0.0
+
+
 def test_citation_without_section_marker_unaffected():
     """Expected citations with no 's.N' section marker (e.g. a ruling
     number) are untouched by the loosening - only the original literal