IDRAAK: From Multi-Agent NLP to Few-Shot Prompting for Semantic Drift Detection in Technical Requirements

Context: Large Language Models (LLMs) offer natural-language flexibility for automated requirements elicitation but frequently generate structurally invalid requirements and logical inconsistencies, lacking formal correctness guarantees. Objectives: This study aims to eliminate logical inconsistencies and enforce structural conformance in LLM-generated requirements while quantifying the LLM's pre-validation decision uncertainty within a formal domain model. Methods: We present a neuro-symbolic multi-agent architecture that operationalizes the Object-Oriented Method for Requirements Authoring and Management (OOMRAM) lattice. The LLM acts as a non-deterministic heuristic for lattice traversal, while a deterministic symbolic validator enforces all structural constraints. We introduce a three-valued (T, I, F) -- Truth, Indeterminacy, Falsity -- framework to classify and score the LLM's requirement decisions before and after validation. Results: Evaluated across 37 natural-language project visions in eleven application families, the system completely eliminated structural inconsistencies in 35 out of 37 cases (94.6%), with the remaining two containing only 6 unresolved structural errors (0.39% of decisions) due to iteration limits. Three-valued analysis revealed that 24.7% of all decisions are indeterminate -- structurally valid but discretionary choices not explicitly mandated by the stakeholder. Conclusion: Offloading structural integrity to a deterministic symbolic layer successfully guarantees structural conformance, while the three-valued classification provides a formal way to measure neural uncertainty, facilitating safe LLM deployment in formal requirements engineering.

A rigorous formalization of system requirements is a fundamental prerequisite for the verification of Multi-Agent Systems (MAS). However, writing correct formal specifications is well known as an error-prone, time-consuming, and expertise-intensive task. This difficulty is further accentuated in MAS, where requirements must capture strategic abilities and temporal objectives. At present, there is no established methodology for deriving MAS specifications from natural language. We present a framework for translating Natural Language descriptions of strategic requirements into well-formed ATL/ATL* formulas using Large Language Models (LLMs). Since no available dataset supports supervised learning for the NL-to-ATL/ATL* translation task, we create and curate a novel expert-validated dataset, employed for training and evaluating fine-tuned models. On a held-out test set, evaluated under the LLM judge that best agrees with expert annotations, in-domain fine-tuning of small open-weight models (3 - 7B parameters) matches strong few-shot proprietary API baselines. Our best fine-tuned system reaches 0.84 semantic accuracy, statistically on par with 0.86 for the strongest few-shot proprietary baseline, while keeping requirements on-premises. We further find that judge reliability is inverse to generator strength. The open-weight Llama-3.3-70B tracks human verdicts most closely, whereas the strongest proprietary models are the least reliable judges, over-rejecting faithful paraphrases of the reference. To assess the practical applicability of the generated specifications, we embed our tool to an existing strategic logics model checker, enabling non-expert users to specify strategic properties in natural language.

The prevailing engineering intuition for addressing conceptual drift in long-horizon LLM collaboration is to trade more formal constraints for more reliable outputs -- designing symbolic identifier systems, accumulating defensive rules in System Prompts, expanding context windows. Our engineering record shows that in long-horizon settings, this direction may produce effects contrary to design intent. Using action research methods in a real software project (Bang-v3) spanning approximately one month and 391 collaborative sessions, we document and analyze the failure process of these strategies. When the symbolic system exceeds a complexity threshold, LLMs do not become more accurate -- instead, they abandon genuine understanding of business semantics, retreat to self-referential reasoning within the symbolic layer, and generate outputs that appear internally consistent but are physically disconnected from reality. We name this failure pattern "Index Sickness," and its canonical manifestation "Phantom Legislation." We name the underlying principle the "Pang Principle (Semantic Vitality Law)": natural language carrying explicit purpose conveys far greater information quality than symbolic expression. From this, we design and validate its physical engineering mechanism: "Baseline-Log Physical Separation." In the same project, this mechanism reduced AI Instructions volume by ~75%, and across the subsequent ~150 sessions, no recurrence of Index Sickness was observed. A bilingual companion version (Chinese) is included as supplementary material.