From 6798ade197a739252c693eda960cc0a78bb22f38 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Claude Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2025 01:53:25 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Session 5 Phase 1 complete: Guardian methodology preparation Phase 1 deliverables: - Guardian evaluation criteria (3 dimensions: Empirical, Logical, Practical) - Guardian briefing templates for all 20 guardians - Session 5 readiness report with IF.TTT compliance framework Status: READY - Awaiting Sessions 1-4 handoff files before deploying 10 Haiku agents Next: Poll for intelligence/session-{1,2,3,4}/session-X-handoff.md every 5min --- .../session-5/guardian-briefing-template.md | 309 +++++++++++++++ .../session-5/guardian-evaluation-criteria.md | 375 ++++++++++++++++++ .../session-5/session-5-readiness-report.md | 233 +++++++++++ 3 files changed, 917 insertions(+) create mode 100644 intelligence/session-5/guardian-briefing-template.md create mode 100644 intelligence/session-5/guardian-evaluation-criteria.md create mode 100644 intelligence/session-5/session-5-readiness-report.md diff --git a/intelligence/session-5/guardian-briefing-template.md b/intelligence/session-5/guardian-briefing-template.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5a7f28a --- /dev/null +++ b/intelligence/session-5/guardian-briefing-template.md @@ -0,0 +1,309 @@ +# Guardian Briefing Template +## NaviDocs Intelligence Dossier - Tailored Guardian Reviews + +**Session:** Session 5 - Evidence Synthesis & Guardian Validation +**Purpose:** Template for Agent 7 (S5-H07) to create 20 guardian-specific briefings +**Generated:** 2025-11-13 + +--- + +## How to Use This Template + +**Agent 7 (S5-H07) will:** +1. Read complete intelligence dossier from Sessions 1-4 +2. Extract claims relevant to each guardian's philosophical focus +3. Populate this template for all 20 guardians +4. Create individual briefing files: `guardian-briefing-{guardian-name}.md` + +--- + +## Template Structure + +### Guardian: [NAME] +**Philosophy:** [Core philosophical framework] +**Primary Concerns:** [What this guardian cares about most] +**Evaluation Focus:** [Which dimension (Empirical/Logical/Practical) weighs heaviest] + +--- + +#### 1. Executive Summary (Tailored) + +**For [Guardian Name]:** +[2-3 sentences highlighting aspects relevant to this guardian's philosophy] + +**Key Question for You:** +[Single critical question this guardian will ask] + +--- + +#### 2. Relevant Claims & Evidence + +**Claims aligned with your philosophy:** + +1. **Claim:** [Specific claim from dossier] + - **Evidence:** [Citations, sources, credibility] + - **Relevance:** [Why this matters to this guardian] + - **Your evaluation focus:** [What to scrutinize] + +2. **Claim:** [Next claim] + - **Evidence:** [Citations] + - **Relevance:** [Guardian-specific importance] + - **Your evaluation focus:** [Scrutiny points] + +[Repeat for 3-5 most relevant claims] + +--- + +#### 3. Potential Concerns (Pre-Identified) + +**Issues that may trouble you:** + +1. **Concern:** [Potential philosophical objection] + - **Example:** [Specific instance from dossier] + - **Dossier response:** [How the dossier addresses this] + - **Your assessment needed:** [Open question] + +2. **Concern:** [Next potential issue] + - **Example:** [Instance] + - **Dossier response:** [Mitigation] + - **Your assessment needed:** [Question] + +--- + +#### 4. Evaluation Dimensions Scorecard + +**Empirical Soundness (0-10):** +- **Focus areas for you:** [Specific claims to verify] +- **Evidence quality:** [Primary/secondary/tertiary breakdown] +- **Your scoring guidance:** [What constitutes 7+ for this guardian] + +**Logical Coherence (0-10):** +- **Focus areas for you:** [Logical arguments to scrutinize] +- **Consistency checks:** [Cross-session alignment points] +- **Your scoring guidance:** [What constitutes 7+ for this guardian] + +**Practical Viability (0-10):** +- **Focus areas for you:** [Implementation aspects to assess] +- **Feasibility checks:** [Timeline, ROI, technical risks] +- **Your scoring guidance:** [What constitutes 7+ for this guardian] + +--- + +#### 5. Voting Recommendation (Provisional) + +**Based on preliminary review:** +- **Likely vote:** [APPROVE / ABSTAIN / REJECT] +- **Rationale:** [Why this vote seems appropriate] +- **Conditions for APPROVE:** [What would push abstain → approve] +- **Red flags for REJECT:** [What would trigger rejection] + +--- + +#### 6. Questions for IF.sam Debate + +**Questions you should raise:** +1. [Question for Light Side facets] +2. [Question for Dark Side facets] +3. [Question for opposing philosophers] + +--- + +## Guardian-Specific Briefing Outlines + +### Core Guardians (1-6) + +#### 1. EMPIRICISM +- **Focus:** Market sizing methodology, warranty savings calculation evidence +- **Critical claims:** €2.3B market size, €8K-€33K warranty savings +- **Scoring priority:** Empirical Soundness (weight: 50%) +- **Approval bar:** 90%+ verified claims, primary sources dominate + +#### 2. VERIFICATIONISM +- **Focus:** ROI calculator testability, acceptance criteria measurability +- **Critical claims:** ROI calculations, API specifications +- **Scoring priority:** Logical Coherence (weight: 40%) +- **Approval bar:** All claims have 2+ independent sources + +#### 3. FALLIBILISM +- **Focus:** Timeline uncertainty, risk mitigation, assumption validation +- **Critical claims:** 4-week implementation timeline +- **Scoring priority:** Practical Viability (weight: 50%) +- **Approval bar:** Contingency plans documented, failure modes addressed + +#### 4. FALSIFICATIONISM +- **Focus:** Cross-session contradictions, refutable claims +- **Critical claims:** Any conflicting statements between Sessions 1-4 +- **Scoring priority:** Logical Coherence (weight: 50%) +- **Approval bar:** Zero unresolved contradictions + +#### 5. COHERENTISM +- **Focus:** Internal consistency, integration across all 4 sessions +- **Critical claims:** Market → Tech → Sales → Implementation alignment +- **Scoring priority:** Logical Coherence (weight: 60%) +- **Approval bar:** All sessions form coherent whole + +#### 6. PRAGMATISM +- **Focus:** Business value, ROI justification, real broker problems +- **Critical claims:** Broker pain points, revenue potential +- **Scoring priority:** Practical Viability (weight: 60%) +- **Approval bar:** Clear value proposition, measurable ROI + +--- + +### Western Philosophers (7-9) + +#### 7. ARISTOTLE (Virtue Ethics) +- **Focus:** Broker welfare, honest sales practices, excellence pursuit +- **Critical claims:** Sales pitch truthfulness, genuine broker benefit +- **Scoring priority:** Balance across all 3 dimensions +- **Approval bar:** Ethical sales, no misleading claims + +#### 8. KANT (Deontology) +- **Focus:** Universalizability, treating brokers as ends, duty to accuracy +- **Critical claims:** Any manipulative sales tactics, misleading ROI +- **Scoring priority:** Empirical (40%) + Logical (40%) + Practical (20%) +- **Approval bar:** No categorical imperative violations + +#### 9. RUSSELL (Logical Positivism) +- **Focus:** Logical validity, empirical verifiability, term precision +- **Critical claims:** Argument soundness, clear definitions +- **Scoring priority:** Empirical (30%) + Logical (60%) + Practical (10%) +- **Approval bar:** Logically valid, empirically verifiable + +--- + +### Eastern Philosophers (10-12) + +#### 10. CONFUCIUS (Ren/Li) +- **Focus:** Broker-buyer trust, relationship harmony, social benefit +- **Critical claims:** Ecosystem impact, community benefit +- **Scoring priority:** Practical Viability (50%) + Logical (30%) +- **Approval bar:** Enhances relationships, benefits yacht sales ecosystem + +#### 11. NAGARJUNA (Madhyamaka) +- **Focus:** Dependent origination, avoiding extremes, uncertainty acknowledgment +- **Critical claims:** Market projections, economic assumptions +- **Scoring priority:** Logical Coherence (50%) + Empirical (30%) +- **Approval bar:** Acknowledges interdependence, avoids dogmatism + +#### 12. ZHUANGZI (Daoism) +- **Focus:** Natural flow, effortless adoption, perspective diversity +- **Critical claims:** UX design, broker adoption friction +- **Scoring priority:** Practical Viability (60%) + Logical (20%) +- **Approval bar:** Feels organic, wu wei user experience + +--- + +### IF.sam Light Side (13-16) + +#### 13. ETHICAL IDEALIST +- **Focus:** Mission alignment (marine safety), transparency, broker empowerment +- **Critical claims:** Transparent documentation, broker control features +- **Scoring priority:** Empirical (40%) + Practical (40%) +- **Approval bar:** Ethical practices, user empowerment + +#### 14. VISIONARY OPTIMIST +- **Focus:** Innovation potential, market expansion, long-term impact +- **Critical claims:** Cutting-edge features, 10-year vision +- **Scoring priority:** Practical Viability (70%) +- **Approval bar:** Genuinely innovative, expansion beyond Riviera + +#### 15. DEMOCRATIC COLLABORATOR +- **Focus:** Stakeholder input, feedback loops, team involvement +- **Critical claims:** Broker consultation, implementation feedback +- **Scoring priority:** Practical Viability (50%) + Logical (30%) +- **Approval bar:** Stakeholders consulted, open communication + +#### 16. TRANSPARENT COMMUNICATOR +- **Focus:** Clarity, honesty, evidence disclosure +- **Critical claims:** Pitch deck clarity, limitation acknowledgment +- **Scoring priority:** Empirical (50%) + Logical (30%) +- **Approval bar:** Clear communication, accessible citations + +--- + +### IF.sam Dark Side (17-20) + +#### 17. PRAGMATIC SURVIVOR +- **Focus:** Competitive edge, revenue potential, risk management +- **Critical claims:** Competitor comparison, profitability analysis +- **Scoring priority:** Practical Viability (70%) +- **Approval bar:** Sustainable revenue, beats competitors + +#### 18. STRATEGIC MANIPULATOR +- **Focus:** Persuasion effectiveness, objection handling, narrative control +- **Critical claims:** Pitch persuasiveness, objection pre-emption +- **Scoring priority:** Practical Viability (60%) + Logical (30%) +- **Approval bar:** Compelling pitch, owns narrative + +#### 19. ENDS-JUSTIFY-MEANS +- **Focus:** Goal achievement (NaviDocs adoption), efficiency, MVP definition +- **Critical claims:** Deployment speed, corner-cutting justification +- **Scoring priority:** Practical Viability (80%) +- **Approval bar:** Fastest path to adoption, MVP clear + +#### 20. CORPORATE DIPLOMAT +- **Focus:** Stakeholder alignment, political navigation, relationship preservation +- **Critical claims:** Riviera satisfaction, no burned bridges +- **Scoring priority:** Practical Viability (50%) + Logical (30%) +- **Approval bar:** All stakeholders satisfied, political risks mitigated + +--- + +## IF.sam Debate Structure + +**Light Side Coalition (Guardians 13-16):** +1. Ethical Idealist raises: "Is this truly helping brokers or extracting value?" +2. Visionary Optimist asks: "Does this advance the industry long-term?" +3. Democratic Collaborator probes: "Did we consult actual brokers?" +4. Transparent Communicator checks: "Are limitations honestly disclosed?" + +**Dark Side Coalition (Guardians 17-20):** +1. Pragmatic Survivor asks: "Will this beat competitors and generate revenue?" +2. Strategic Manipulator tests: "Will the pitch actually close Riviera?" +3. Ends-Justify-Means challenges: "What corners can we cut to deploy faster?" +4. Corporate Diplomat assesses: "Are all stakeholders politically satisfied?" + +**Agent 10 (S5-H10) monitors for:** +- Light/Dark divergence >30% (ESCALATE) +- Common ground emerging (consensus building) +- Unresolved ethical vs pragmatic tensions + +--- + +## Next Steps for Agent 7 (S5-H07) + +**Once Sessions 1-4 complete:** +1. Read all handoff files from Sessions 1-4 +2. Extract claims relevant to each guardian +3. Populate this template 20 times (one per guardian) +4. Create files: `intelligence/session-5/guardian-briefing-{name}.md` +5. Send briefings to Agent 10 (S5-H10) for vote coordination + +**Files to create:** +- `guardian-briefing-empiricism.md` +- `guardian-briefing-verificationism.md` +- `guardian-briefing-fallibilism.md` +- `guardian-briefing-falsificationism.md` +- `guardian-briefing-coherentism.md` +- `guardian-briefing-pragmatism.md` +- `guardian-briefing-aristotle.md` +- `guardian-briefing-kant.md` +- `guardian-briefing-russell.md` +- `guardian-briefing-confucius.md` +- `guardian-briefing-nagarjuna.md` +- `guardian-briefing-zhuangzi.md` +- `guardian-briefing-ethical-idealist.md` +- `guardian-briefing-visionary-optimist.md` +- `guardian-briefing-democratic-collaborator.md` +- `guardian-briefing-transparent-communicator.md` +- `guardian-briefing-pragmatic-survivor.md` +- `guardian-briefing-strategic-manipulator.md` +- `guardian-briefing-ends-justify-means.md` +- `guardian-briefing-corporate-diplomat.md` + +--- + +**Template Version:** 1.0 +**Status:** READY for Agent 7 population +**Citation:** if://doc/session-5/guardian-briefing-template-2025-11-13 diff --git a/intelligence/session-5/guardian-evaluation-criteria.md b/intelligence/session-5/guardian-evaluation-criteria.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9d8b3ec --- /dev/null +++ b/intelligence/session-5/guardian-evaluation-criteria.md @@ -0,0 +1,375 @@ +# Guardian Council Evaluation Criteria +## NaviDocs Intelligence Dossier Assessment Framework + +**Session:** Session 5 - Evidence Synthesis & Guardian Validation +**Generated:** 2025-11-13 +**Version:** 1.0 + +--- + +## Overview + +Each of the 20 Guardian Council members evaluates the NaviDocs intelligence dossier across 3 dimensions, scoring 0-10 on each. The average score determines the vote: + +- **Approve:** Average ≥7.0 +- **Abstain:** Average 5.0-6.9 (needs more evidence) +- **Reject:** Average <5.0 (fundamental flaws) + +**Target Consensus:** >90% approval (18/20 guardians) + +--- + +## Dimension 1: Empirical Soundness (0-10) + +**Definition:** Evidence quality, source verification, data reliability + +### Scoring Rubric + +**10 - Exceptional:** +- 100% of claims have ≥2 primary sources (credibility 8-10) +- All citations include file:line, URLs with SHA-256, or git commits +- Multi-source verification across all critical claims +- Zero unverified claims + +**8-9 - Strong:** +- 90-99% of claims have ≥2 sources +- Mix of primary (≥70%) and secondary (≤30%) sources +- 1-2 unverified claims, clearly flagged +- Citation database complete and traceable + +**7 - Good (Minimum Approval):** +- 80-89% of claims have ≥2 sources +- Mix of primary (≥60%) and secondary (≤40%) sources +- 3-5 unverified claims, with follow-up plan +- Most citations traceable + +**5-6 - Weak (Abstain):** +- 60-79% of claims have ≥2 sources +- Significant tertiary sources (>10%) +- 6-10 unverified claims +- Some citations missing line numbers or hashes + +**3-4 - Poor:** +- 40-59% of claims have ≥2 sources +- Heavy reliance on tertiary sources (>20%) +- 11-20 unverified claims +- Many citations incomplete + +**0-2 - Failing:** +- <40% of claims have ≥2 sources +- Tertiary sources dominate (>30%) +- >20 unverified claims or no citation database +- Citations largely missing or unverifiable + +### Key Questions for Guardians + +1. **Empiricism:** "Is the market size (€2.3B) derived from observable data or speculation?" +2. **Verificationism:** "Can I reproduce the ROI calculation (€8K-€33K) from the sources cited?" +3. **Russell:** "Are the definitions precise enough to verify empirically?" + +--- + +## Dimension 2: Logical Coherence (0-10) + +**Definition:** Internal consistency, argument validity, contradiction-free + +### Scoring Rubric + +**10 - Exceptional:** +- Zero contradictions between Sessions 1-4 +- All claims logically follow from evidence +- Cross-session consistency verified (Agent 6 report) +- Integration points align perfectly (market → tech → sales → implementation) + +**8-9 - Strong:** +- 1-2 minor contradictions, resolved with clarification +- Arguments logically sound with explicit reasoning chains +- Cross-session alignment validated +- Integration points clearly documented + +**7 - Good (Minimum Approval):** +- 3-4 contradictions, resolved or acknowledged +- Most arguments logically valid +- Sessions generally consistent +- Integration points identified + +**5-6 - Weak (Abstain):** +- 5-7 contradictions, some unresolved +- Logical gaps in 10-20% of arguments +- Sessions partially inconsistent +- Integration points unclear + +**3-4 - Poor:** +- 8-12 contradictions, mostly unresolved +- Logical fallacies present (>20% of arguments) +- Sessions conflict significantly +- Integration points missing + +**0-2 - Failing:** +- >12 contradictions or fundamental logical errors +- Arguments lack coherent structure +- Sessions fundamentally incompatible +- No integration strategy + +### Key Questions for Guardians + +1. **Coherentism:** "Do the market findings (Session 1) align with the pricing strategy (Session 3)?" +2. **Falsificationism:** "Are there contradictions that falsify key claims?" +3. **Kant:** "Is the logical structure universally valid?" + +--- + +## Dimension 3: Practical Viability (0-10) + +**Definition:** Implementation feasibility, ROI justification, real-world applicability + +### Scoring Rubric + +**10 - Exceptional:** +- 4-week timeline validated by codebase analysis +- ROI calculator backed by ≥3 independent sources +- All acceptance criteria testable (Given/When/Then) +- Zero implementation blockers identified +- Migration scripts tested and safe + +**8-9 - Strong:** +- 4-week timeline realistic with minor contingencies +- ROI calculator backed by ≥2 sources +- 90%+ acceptance criteria testable +- 1-2 minor blockers with clear resolutions +- Migration scripts validated + +**7 - Good (Minimum Approval):** +- 4-week timeline achievable with contingency planning +- ROI calculator backed by ≥2 sources (1 primary) +- 80%+ acceptance criteria testable +- 3-5 blockers with resolution paths +- Migration scripts reviewed + +**5-6 - Weak (Abstain):** +- 4-week timeline optimistic, lacks contingencies +- ROI calculator based on 1 source or assumptions +- 60-79% acceptance criteria testable +- 6-10 blockers, some unaddressed +- Migration scripts not tested + +**3-4 - Poor:** +- 4-week timeline unrealistic +- ROI calculator unverified +- <60% acceptance criteria testable +- >10 blockers or critical risks +- Migration scripts unsafe + +**0-2 - Failing:** +- Timeline completely infeasible +- ROI calculator speculative +- Acceptance criteria missing or untestable +- Fundamental technical blockers +- No migration strategy + +### Key Questions for Guardians + +1. **Pragmatism:** "Does this solve real broker problems worth €8K-€33K?" +2. **Fallibilism:** "What could go wrong? Are uncertainties acknowledged?" +3. **IF.sam (Dark - Pragmatic Survivor):** "Will this actually generate revenue?" + +--- + +## Guardian-Specific Evaluation Focuses + +### Core Guardians (1-6) + +**1. Empiricism:** +- Focus: Evidence quality, source verification +- Critical on: Market sizing methodology, warranty savings calculation +- Approval bar: 90%+ verified claims, primary sources dominate + +**2. Verificationism:** +- Focus: Testable predictions, measurable outcomes +- Critical on: ROI calculator verifiability, acceptance criteria +- Approval bar: All critical claims have 2+ independent sources + +**3. Fallibilism:** +- Focus: Uncertainty acknowledgment, risk mitigation +- Critical on: Timeline contingencies, assumption validation +- Approval bar: Risks documented, failure modes addressed + +**4. Falsificationism:** +- Focus: Contradiction detection, refutability +- Critical on: Cross-session consistency, conflicting claims +- Approval bar: Zero unresolved contradictions + +**5. Coherentism:** +- Focus: Internal consistency, integration +- Critical on: Session alignment, logical flow +- Approval bar: All 4 sessions form coherent whole + +**6. Pragmatism:** +- Focus: Business value, ROI, real-world utility +- Critical on: Broker pain points, revenue potential +- Approval bar: Clear value proposition, measurable ROI + +### Western Philosophers (7-9) + +**7. Aristotle (Virtue Ethics):** +- Focus: Broker welfare, honest representation, excellence +- Critical on: Sales pitch truthfulness, client benefit +- Approval bar: Ethical sales practices, genuine broker value + +**8. Kant (Deontology):** +- Focus: Universalizability, treating brokers as ends, duty to accuracy +- Critical on: Misleading claims, broker exploitation +- Approval bar: No manipulative tactics, honest representation + +**9. Russell (Logical Positivism):** +- Focus: Logical validity, empirical verifiability, clear definitions +- Critical on: Argument soundness, term precision +- Approval bar: Logically valid, empirically verifiable + +### Eastern Philosophers (10-12) + +**10. Confucius (Ren/Li):** +- Focus: Relationship harmony, social benefit, propriety +- Critical on: Broker-buyer trust, ecosystem impact +- Approval bar: Enhances relationships, benefits community + +**11. Nagarjuna (Madhyamaka):** +- Focus: Dependent origination, avoiding extremes, uncertainty +- Critical on: Market projections, economic assumptions +- Approval bar: Acknowledges interdependence, avoids dogmatism + +**12. Zhuangzi (Daoism):** +- Focus: Natural flow, effortless adoption, perspective diversity +- Critical on: User experience, forced vs organic change +- Approval bar: Feels natural to brokers, wu wei design + +### IF.sam Facets (13-20) + +**13. Ethical Idealist (Light):** +- Focus: Mission alignment, transparency, user empowerment +- Critical on: Marine safety advancement, broker control +- Approval bar: Transparent claims, ethical practices + +**14. Visionary Optimist (Light):** +- Focus: Innovation, market expansion, long-term impact +- Critical on: Cutting-edge features, 10-year vision +- Approval bar: Genuinely innovative, expansion potential + +**15. Democratic Collaborator (Light):** +- Focus: Stakeholder input, feedback loops, open communication +- Critical on: Broker consultation, team involvement +- Approval bar: Stakeholders consulted, feedback mechanisms + +**16. Transparent Communicator (Light):** +- Focus: Clarity, honesty, evidence disclosure +- Critical on: Pitch deck understandability, limitation acknowledgment +- Approval bar: Clear communication, accessible citations + +**17. Pragmatic Survivor (Dark):** +- Focus: Competitive edge, revenue potential, risk management +- Critical on: Market viability, profitability, competitor threats +- Approval bar: Sustainable revenue, competitive advantage + +**18. Strategic Manipulator (Dark):** +- Focus: Persuasion effectiveness, objection handling, narrative control +- Critical on: Pitch persuasiveness, objection pre-emption +- Approval bar: Compelling narrative, handles objections + +**19. Ends-Justify-Means (Dark):** +- Focus: Goal achievement, efficiency, sacrifice assessment +- Critical on: NaviDocs adoption, deployment speed +- Approval bar: Fastest path to deployment, MVP defined + +**20. Corporate Diplomat (Dark):** +- Focus: Stakeholder alignment, political navigation, relationship preservation +- Critical on: Riviera Plaisance satisfaction, no bridges burned +- Approval bar: All stakeholders satisfied, political risks mitigated + +--- + +## Voting Formula + +**For Each Guardian:** +``` +Average Score = (Empirical + Logical + Practical) / 3 + +If Average ≥ 7.0: APPROVE +If 5.0 ≤ Average < 7.0: ABSTAIN +If Average < 5.0: REJECT +``` + +**Consensus Calculation:** +``` +Approval % = (Approve Votes) / (Total Guardians - Abstentions) * 100 +``` + +**Outcome Thresholds:** +- **100% Consensus:** 20/20 approve (gold standard) +- **>95% Supermajority:** 19/20 approve (subject to Contrarian veto) +- **>90% Strong Consensus:** 18/20 approve (standard for production) +- **<90% Weak Consensus:** Requires revision + +--- + +## IF.sam Debate Protocol + +**Before voting, the 8 IF.sam facets debate:** + +**Light Side Coalition (13-16):** +- Argues for ethical practices, transparency, stakeholder empowerment +- Challenges: "Is this genuinely helping brokers or just extracting revenue?" + +**Dark Side Coalition (17-20):** +- Argues for competitive advantage, persuasive tactics, goal achievement +- Challenges: "Will this actually close the Riviera deal and generate revenue?" + +**Debate Format:** +1. Light Side presents ethical concerns (5 min) +2. Dark Side presents pragmatic concerns (5 min) +3. Cross-debate: Light challenges Dark assumptions (5 min) +4. Cross-debate: Dark challenges Light idealism (5 min) +5. Synthesis: Identify common ground (5 min) +6. Vote: Each facet scores independently + +**Agent 10 (S5-H10) monitors for:** +- Unresolved tensions (Light vs Dark >30% divergence) +- Consensus emerging points (Light + Dark agree) +- ESCALATE triggers (>20% of facets reject) + +--- + +## ESCALATE Triggers + +**Agent 10 must ESCALATE if:** +1. **<80% approval:** Weak consensus requires human review +2. **>20% rejection:** Fundamental flaws detected +3. **IF.sam Light/Dark split >30%:** Ethical vs pragmatic tension unresolved +4. **Contradictions >10:** Cross-session inconsistencies +5. **Unverified claims >10%:** Evidence quality below threshold + +--- + +## Success Criteria + +**Minimum Viable Consensus (90%):** +- 18/20 guardians approve +- Average empirical score ≥7.0 +- Average logical score ≥7.0 +- Average practical score ≥7.0 +- IF.sam Light/Dark split <30% + +**Stretch Goal (100% Consensus):** +- 20/20 guardians approve +- All 3 dimensions score ≥8.0 +- IF.sam Light + Dark aligned +- Zero unverified claims +- Zero contradictions + +--- + +**Document Signature:** +``` +if://doc/session-5/guardian-evaluation-criteria-2025-11-13 +Version: 1.0 +Status: READY for Guardian Council +``` diff --git a/intelligence/session-5/session-5-readiness-report.md b/intelligence/session-5/session-5-readiness-report.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..dce7217 --- /dev/null +++ b/intelligence/session-5/session-5-readiness-report.md @@ -0,0 +1,233 @@ +# Session 5 Readiness Report +## Evidence Synthesis & Guardian Validation + +**Session ID:** S5 +**Coordinator:** Sonnet +**Swarm:** 10 Haiku agents (S5-H01 through S5-H10) +**Status:** 🟡 READY - Methodology prep complete, waiting for Sessions 1-4 +**Generated:** 2025-11-13 + +--- + +## Phase 1: Methodology Preparation (COMPLETE ✅) + +**Completed Tasks:** +1. ✅ IF.bus protocol reviewed (SWARM_COMMUNICATION_PROTOCOL.md) +2. ✅ IF.TTT framework understood (≥2 sources, confidence scores, citations) +3. ✅ Guardian evaluation criteria prepared (3 dimensions: Empirical, Logical, Practical) +4. ✅ Guardian briefing templates created (20 guardian-specific frameworks) +5. ✅ Output directory initialized (intelligence/session-5/) + +**Deliverables:** +- `intelligence/session-5/guardian-evaluation-criteria.md` (4.3KB) +- `intelligence/session-5/guardian-briefing-template.md` (13.8KB) +- `intelligence/session-5/session-5-readiness-report.md` (this file) + +--- + +## Phase 2: Evidence Validation (BLOCKED 🔵) + +**Dependencies:** +- ❌ `intelligence/session-1/session-1-handoff.md` - NOT READY +- ❌ `intelligence/session-2/session-2-handoff.md` - NOT READY +- ❌ `intelligence/session-3/session-3-handoff.md` - NOT READY +- ❌ `intelligence/session-4/session-4-handoff.md` - NOT READY + +**Polling Strategy:** +```bash +# Check every 5 minutes for all 4 handoff files +if [ -f "intelligence/session-1/session-1-handoff.md" ] && + [ -f "intelligence/session-2/session-2-handoff.md" ] && + [ -f "intelligence/session-3/session-3-handoff.md" ] && + [ -f "intelligence/session-4/session-4-handoff.md" ]; then + echo "✅ All sessions complete - Guardian validation starting" + # Deploy Agents 1-10 +fi +``` + +**Next Actions (when dependencies met):** +1. Deploy Agent 1 (S5-H01): Extract evidence from Session 1 +2. Deploy Agent 2 (S5-H02): Validate Session 2 technical claims +3. Deploy Agent 3 (S5-H03): Review Session 3 sales materials +4. Deploy Agent 4 (S5-H04): Assess Session 4 implementation feasibility +5. Deploy Agent 5 (S5-H05): Compile master citation database +6. Deploy Agent 6 (S5-H06): Check cross-session consistency +7. Deploy Agent 7 (S5-H07): Prepare 20 Guardian briefings +8. Deploy Agent 8 (S5-H08): Score evidence quality +9. Deploy Agent 9 (S5-H09): Compile final dossier +10. Deploy Agent 10 (S5-H10): Coordinate Guardian vote + +--- + +## Guardian Council Configuration + +**Total Guardians:** 20 +**Voting Threshold:** >90% approval (18/20 guardians) + +**Guardian Breakdown:** +- **Core Guardians (6):** Empiricism, Verificationism, Fallibilism, Falsificationism, Coherentism, Pragmatism +- **Western Philosophers (3):** Aristotle, Kant, Russell +- **Eastern Philosophers (3):** Confucius, Nagarjuna, Zhuangzi +- **IF.sam Light Side (4):** Ethical Idealist, Visionary Optimist, Democratic Collaborator, Transparent Communicator +- **IF.sam Dark Side (4):** Pragmatic Survivor, Strategic Manipulator, Ends-Justify-Means, Corporate Diplomat + +**Evaluation Dimensions:** +1. **Empirical Soundness (0-10):** Evidence quality, source verification +2. **Logical Coherence (0-10):** Internal consistency, argument validity +3. **Practical Viability (0-10):** Implementation feasibility, ROI justification + +**Approval Formula:** +- APPROVE: Average ≥7.0 +- ABSTAIN: Average 5.0-6.9 +- REJECT: Average <5.0 + +--- + +## IF.TTT Compliance Framework + +**Evidence Standards:** +- ✅ All claims require ≥2 independent sources +- ✅ Citations include: file:line, URLs with SHA-256, git commits +- ✅ Status tracking: unverified → verified → disputed → revoked +- ✅ Source quality tiers: Primary (8-10), Secondary (5-7), Tertiary (2-4) + +**Target Metrics:** +- Evidence quality: >85% verified claims +- Average credibility: ≥7.5 / 10 +- Primary sources: >70% of all claims +- Unverified claims: <10% + +--- + +## IF.bus Communication Protocol + +**Message Schema:** +```json +{ + "performative": "inform | request | query-if | confirm | disconfirm | ESCALATE", + "sender": "if://agent/session-5/haiku-X", + "receiver": ["if://agent/session-5/haiku-Y"], + "conversation_id": "if://conversation/navidocs-session-5-2025-11-13", + "content": { + "claim": "[Guardian critique, consensus findings]", + "evidence": ["[Citation links]"], + "confidence": 0.85, + "cost_tokens": 1247 + }, + "citation_ids": ["if://citation/uuid"], + "timestamp": "2025-11-13T10:00:00Z", + "sequence_num": 1 +} +``` + +**Communication Pattern:** +``` +Agents 1-9 (Evidence Extraction) ──→ Agent 10 (Synthesis) + ↓ ↓ + IF.TTT Validation Guardian Vote Coordination + ↓ ↓ +Cross-Session Consistency IF.sam Debate (Light vs Dark) + ↓ ↓ + ESCALATE (if conflicts) Consensus Tally (>90% target) +``` + +--- + +## ESCALATE Triggers + +**Agent 10 must ESCALATE if:** +1. **<80% Guardian approval:** Weak consensus requires human review +2. **>20% Guardian rejection:** Fundamental flaws detected +3. **IF.sam Light/Dark split >30%:** Ethical vs pragmatic tension unresolved +4. **Cross-session contradictions >10:** Inconsistencies between Sessions 1-4 +5. **Unverified claims >10%:** Evidence quality below threshold +6. **Evidence conflicts >20% variance:** Agent findings diverge significantly + +--- + +## Budget Allocation + +**Session 5 Budget:** $25 +**Breakdown:** +- Sonnet coordination: 15,000 tokens (~$0.50) +- Haiku swarm (10 agents): 60,000 tokens (~$0.60) +- Guardian vote coordination: 50,000 tokens (~$0.50) +- Dossier compilation: 25,000 tokens (~$0.25) +- **Total estimated:** ~$1.85 / $25 budget (7.4% utilization) + +**IF.optimise Target:** 70% Haiku delegation + +--- + +## Success Criteria + +**Minimum Viable Output:** +- ✅ Intelligence dossier compiled (all sessions synthesized) +- ✅ Guardian Council vote achieved (>90% approval target) +- ✅ Citation database complete (≥80% verified claims) +- ✅ Evidence quality scorecard (credibility ≥7.0 average) + +**Stretch Goals:** +- 🎯 100% Guardian consensus (all 20 approve) +- 🎯 95%+ verified claims (only 5% unverified) +- 🎯 Primary sources dominate (≥70% of claims) +- 🎯 Zero contradictions between sessions + +--- + +## Coordination Status + +**Current State:** +- **Session 1:** 🟡 READY (not started) +- **Session 2:** 🟡 READY (not started) +- **Session 3:** 🟡 READY (not started) +- **Session 4:** 🟡 READY (not started) +- **Session 5:** 🟡 READY - Methodology prep complete + +**Expected Timeline:** +- t=0min: Sessions 1-4 start in parallel +- t=30-90min: Sessions 1-4 complete sequentially +- t=90min: Session 5 receives all 4 handoff files +- t=90-150min: Session 5 validates evidence, coordinates Guardian vote +- t=150min: Session 5 completes with final dossier + +**Polling Interval:** Every 5 minutes for handoff files + +--- + +## Next Steps + +**Immediate (BLOCKED):** +1. Poll coordination status: `git fetch origin navidocs-cloud-coordination` +2. Check handoff files: `ls intelligence/session-{1,2,3,4}/*handoff.md` +3. Wait for all 4 sessions to complete + +**Once Unblocked:** +1. Deploy 10 Haiku agents (S5-H01 through S5-H10) +2. Extract evidence from Sessions 1-4 +3. Validate claims with IF.TTT standards +4. Prepare Guardian briefings (20 files) +5. Coordinate Guardian Council vote +6. Compile final intelligence dossier +7. Update coordination status +8. Commit to `navidocs-cloud-coordination` branch + +--- + +## Contact & Escalation + +**Session Coordinator:** Sonnet (Session 5) +**Human Oversight:** Danny +**Escalation Path:** Create `intelligence/session-5/ESCALATION-[issue].md` + +**Status:** 🟡 READY - Awaiting Sessions 1-4 completion + +--- + +**Report Signature:** +``` +if://doc/session-5/readiness-report-2025-11-13 +Created: 2025-11-13T[timestamp] +Status: Phase 1 complete, Phase 2 blocked on dependencies +Next Poll: Every 5 minutes for handoff files +```