Entity Collection Screen Appears Depending on Order of Parent Instance

Question

Hello,
I'm looking for help with a strange screen behaviour, the cause of which has proved elusive.
<h4>Problem in Brief:</h4>
An entity collection screen is appearing in Web Determinations depending on the order in which instances of an entity were entered on a previous entity collection screen.
- Entity 1: Members of the Family (the person). The instances of Entity 1 are grouped into two categories using inferred relationships: the parents, and the children.
---> Entity 2: Reason for Care (the reason for care). This entity is contained in Entity 1 and has a key attribute, the end date.
<h4>Details:</h4>
I think I've narrowed the cause to a rule that calculates the earliest end date among the reasons for care. The rule is specific to the reasons for care of the parents only. There are no rules that sum across, minimize across, maximize across, etc., all members of the family. A colleague and I have carefully audited the rules and I can almost guarantee that every rule has been written to "check" only the parents.
The reason I'm calling this a "strange" behaviour is that it depends on the order in which the Members of the Family instances are entered on the entity collection screen. If the child is entered first, the screen will appear asking for the child's reason for care (this should not happen because a child's reason for care should not impact the rules). If the parent is entered first, the reasons-for-care screen will appear for the parent (as it should) and then not appear for the child (which is correct). So the behaviour is only incorrect when the child is entered first.
<h4>Anthropomorphic Interpretation:</h4>
It's almost as if the rule engine ignores, or somehow doesn't realize, the fact that it does not require any reason(s) for care for the child - at least until it has at least one instance in the Reason for Care entity.
<h4>Example:</h4>
Assume a 2-person family: Mary (the parent), and Billy (the child). I've taken screenshots to illustrate how the rulebase reasons for the earliest end date.
Before entering any Reasons for Care (appears the same no matter which family-member instance was entered first): http://imgur.com/a/xk0Rt#uqGLx
- The conclusion at the top is specific to Mary, but towards the bottom, we see that it seems to be checking for reasons for care for both family members (indicated by arrow).
When the child instance is entered first, and a reason for care is entered for the child (Employability Program), the earliest end date is still unknown: http://imgur.com/a/xk0Rt#1nvKT
When the parent instance is entered first, and a reason for care is entered for the parent, the earliest end date is known: http://imgur.com/a/xk0Rt#P0WZw
Rule in question: http://i.imgur.com/2wQkU.png
I realize this is a tough one and I've tried to provide enough information without going overboard. Any help will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
- Patrick

Answer 1

Hello again,
I believe the following behaviour is related to the screen issue I've described above.
When working with decision reports I've been able to demonstrate that the conclusion of an inferred relationship is not enough to preclude OPA from "looking at" the instances that are not members of that relationship, and I think this is what is driving the unwanted screen.
Demonstration
Again, working with the child / parent model, I've set up a demo family with Mother, Father, and Child (please ignore unrealistic DOBs):
http://imgur.com/a/SvqAV#3
The inferred relationship seems to be working correctly:
http://imgur.com/a/SvqAV#4
Now let's take a top level goal that should look at only the children in the family (please ignore improper attribute naming of "Name"):
http://imgur.com/a/SvqAV#5
But the resulting decision report displays the 'Name' attribute for parents too (in this case, it's the parents who should not be appearing - the reverse of the above issue):
http://imgur.com/a/SvqAV#1
However, if we add an additional condition - the same condition that is used to prove the inferred relationship - the decision report no longer shows the 'Name' attribute for the parents:
http://imgur.com/a/SvqAV#6
http://imgur.com/a/SvqAV#2
I'm attempting to apply this principle (using the condition of the inferred relationship, rather than the conclusion) to the unwanted screen issue, with mixed success. I'm hoping that someone can look at this and either (a) correct my misunderstanding, or (b) validate that there seems to be an issue.
Thanks!
- Patrick