Merge Session 5: Guardian QA (Phase 1 complete - quality standards deployed)
Session 5 Phase 1 deliverables (6 files): - EVIDENCE_QUALITY_STANDARDS.md - IF.TTT compliance guide (deployed to repo root) - guardian-briefing-template.md - Guardian evaluation template - guardian-evaluation-criteria.md - Scoring rubric - session-5-readiness-report.md - Phase 1 status - QUALITY_FEEDBACK.md (for Sessions 2-4) - Real-time citation validation Phase 1 Status: - Agent 0A: COMPLETE - Evidence quality standards deployed - Agent 0B: COMPLETE - Quality feedback for Sessions 2 & 3 - Agent 0C: COMPLETE - Guardian methodology preparation Phase 2 Pending: - Agents 1-9: Extract evidence from Sessions 1-4 - Agent 10: Guardian Council vote (need >80% consensus) - Final Dossier: complete-intelligence-dossier.md
This commit is contained in:
Danny Stocker
commit
77d1b49f14
6 changed files with 1875 additions and 0 deletions
359
intelligence/session-2/QUALITY_FEEDBACK.md
Normal file
359
intelligence/session-2/QUALITY_FEEDBACK.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,359 @@
|
|||
# Session 2 Quality Feedback - Real-time QA Review
|
||||
**Agent:** S5-H0B (Real-time Quality Monitoring)
|
||||
**Session Reviewed:** Session 2 (Technical Integration)
|
||||
**Review Date:** 2025-11-13
|
||||
**Status:** 🟢 ACTIVE - In progress (no handoff yet)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Executive Summary
|
||||
|
||||
**Overall Assessment:** 🟢 **STRONG PROGRESS** - Comprehensive technical specs
|
||||
|
||||
**Observed Deliverables:**
|
||||
- ✅ Codebase architecture map (codebase-architecture-map.md)
|
||||
- ✅ Camera integration spec (camera-integration-spec.md)
|
||||
- ✅ Contact management spec (contact-management-spec.md)
|
||||
- ✅ Accounting integration spec (accounting-integration-spec.md)
|
||||
- ✅ Document versioning spec (document-versioning-spec.md)
|
||||
- ✅ Maintenance system summary (MAINTENANCE-SYSTEM-SUMMARY.md)
|
||||
- ✅ Multi-calendar summary (MULTI-CALENDAR-SUMMARY.txt)
|
||||
- ✅ Multiple IF-bus communication messages (6+ files)
|
||||
|
||||
**Total Files:** 25 (comprehensive technical coverage)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Evidence Quality Reminders (IF.TTT Compliance)
|
||||
|
||||
**CRITICAL:** Before creating `session-2-handoff.md`, ensure:
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Codebase Claims Need File:Line Citations
|
||||
|
||||
**All architecture claims MUST cite actual codebase:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Example - GOOD:**
|
||||
```json
|
||||
{
|
||||
"citation_id": "if://citation/navidocs-uses-sqlite",
|
||||
"claim": "NaviDocs uses SQLite database",
|
||||
"sources": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "file",
|
||||
"path": "server/db/schema.sql",
|
||||
"line_range": "1-10",
|
||||
"git_commit": "abc123def456",
|
||||
"quality": "primary",
|
||||
"credibility": 10,
|
||||
"excerpt": "-- SQLite schema for NaviDocs database"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "file",
|
||||
"path": "server/db/index.js",
|
||||
"line_range": "5-15",
|
||||
"git_commit": "abc123def456",
|
||||
"quality": "primary",
|
||||
"credibility": 10,
|
||||
"excerpt": "const Database = require('better-sqlite3');"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"status": "verified",
|
||||
"confidence_score": 1.0
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Example - BAD (will be rejected):**
|
||||
- ❌ "NaviDocs uses SQLite" (no citation)
|
||||
- ❌ "Express.js backend" (no file:line reference)
|
||||
- ❌ "BullMQ for job queue" (no code evidence)
|
||||
|
||||
**Action Required:**
|
||||
- Every technical claim → file:line citation
|
||||
- Every architecture decision → codebase evidence
|
||||
- Every integration point → code reference
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Feature Specs Must Match Session 1 Priorities
|
||||
|
||||
**Verify your feature designs address Session 1 pain points:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Camera integration → Does Session 1 identify this as a pain point?
|
||||
- Maintenance system → Does Session 1 rank this high priority?
|
||||
- Multi-calendar → Does Session 1 mention broker scheduling needs?
|
||||
- Accounting → Does Session 1 cite expense tracking pain?
|
||||
|
||||
**Action Required:**
|
||||
```json
|
||||
{
|
||||
"citation_id": "if://citation/camera-integration-justification",
|
||||
"claim": "Camera integration addresses equipment inventory tracking pain point",
|
||||
"sources": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "cross-session",
|
||||
"path": "intelligence/session-1/session-1-handoff.md",
|
||||
"section": "Pain Point #3: Inventory Tracking",
|
||||
"line_range": "TBD",
|
||||
"quality": "primary",
|
||||
"credibility": 9,
|
||||
"excerpt": "Brokers lose €15K-€50K in forgotten equipment value at resale"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "file",
|
||||
"path": "server/routes/cameras.js",
|
||||
"line_range": "TBD",
|
||||
"quality": "primary",
|
||||
"credibility": 10,
|
||||
"excerpt": "Camera feed integration for equipment detection"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"status": "pending_session_1"
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Integration Complexity Must Support Session 4 Timeline
|
||||
|
||||
**Session 4 claims 4-week implementation:**
|
||||
|
||||
- ❓ Are your specs implementable in 4 weeks?
|
||||
- ❓ Do you flag high-complexity features (e.g., camera CV)?
|
||||
- ❓ Do you identify dependencies (e.g., Redis for BullMQ)?
|
||||
|
||||
**Action Required:**
|
||||
- Add "Complexity Estimate" to each spec (simple/medium/complex)
|
||||
- Flag features that may exceed 4-week scope
|
||||
- Provide Session 4 with realistic estimates
|
||||
|
||||
**Example:**
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## Camera Integration Complexity
|
||||
|
||||
**Estimate:** Complex (12-16 hours)
|
||||
**Dependencies:**
|
||||
- OpenCV library installation
|
||||
- Camera feed access (RTSP/HTTP)
|
||||
- Equipment detection model training (or pre-trained model sourcing)
|
||||
|
||||
**Risk:** CV model accuracy may require iteration beyond 4-week sprint
|
||||
**Recommendation:** Start with manual equipment entry (simple), add CV in v2
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. API Specifications Need Existing Pattern Citations
|
||||
|
||||
**If you're designing new APIs, cite existing patterns:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Example:**
|
||||
```json
|
||||
{
|
||||
"citation_id": "if://citation/api-pattern-consistency",
|
||||
"claim": "New warranty API follows existing boat API pattern",
|
||||
"sources": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "file",
|
||||
"path": "server/routes/boats.js",
|
||||
"line_range": "45-120",
|
||||
"quality": "primary",
|
||||
"credibility": 10,
|
||||
"excerpt": "Existing CRUD pattern: GET /boats, POST /boats, PUT /boats/:id"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "specification",
|
||||
"path": "intelligence/session-2/warranty-api-spec.md",
|
||||
"line_range": "TBD",
|
||||
"quality": "primary",
|
||||
"credibility": 9,
|
||||
"excerpt": "New warranty API: GET /warranties, POST /warranties, PUT /warranties/:id"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"status": "verified",
|
||||
"confidence_score": 0.95
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Cross-Session Consistency Checks (Pending)
|
||||
|
||||
**When Sessions 1-3-4 complete, verify:**
|
||||
|
||||
### Session 1 → Session 2 Alignment:
|
||||
- [ ] Feature priorities match Session 1 pain point rankings
|
||||
- [ ] Market needs (Session 1) drive technical design (Session 2)
|
||||
- [ ] Competitive gaps (Session 1) addressed by features (Session 2)
|
||||
|
||||
### Session 2 → Session 3 Alignment:
|
||||
- [ ] Features you design appear in Session 3 demo script
|
||||
- [ ] Architecture diagram Session 3 uses matches your specs
|
||||
- [ ] Technical claims in Session 3 pitch deck cite your architecture
|
||||
|
||||
### Session 2 → Session 4 Alignment:
|
||||
- [ ] Implementation complexity supports 4-week timeline
|
||||
- [ ] API specifications match Session 4 development plan
|
||||
- [ ] Database migrations you specify appear in Session 4 runbook
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Preliminary Quality Metrics
|
||||
|
||||
**Based on file inventory (detailed review pending handoff):**
|
||||
|
||||
| Metric | Current | Target | Status |
|
||||
|--------|---------|--------|--------|
|
||||
| Technical specs | 8+ files | Varies | ✅ |
|
||||
| IF-bus messages | 10+ files | Varies | ✅ |
|
||||
| Codebase citations | TBD | 100% | ⏳ **CRITICAL** |
|
||||
| Session 1 alignment | TBD | 100% | ⏳ Pending S1 |
|
||||
| Session 4 feasibility | TBD | 100% | ⏳ Pending S4 review |
|
||||
|
||||
**Overall:** Strong technical work, **CRITICAL** need for codebase citations
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Recommendations Before Handoff
|
||||
|
||||
### High Priority (MUST DO):
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Create `session-2-citations.json`:**
|
||||
- Cite codebase (file:line) for EVERY architecture claim
|
||||
- Cite Session 1 for EVERY feature justification
|
||||
- Cite existing code patterns for EVERY new API design
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Add Codebase Evidence Sections:**
|
||||
- Each spec file needs "Evidence" section with file:line refs
|
||||
- Example: "Camera integration spec → References server/routes/cameras.js:45-120"
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Complexity Estimates:**
|
||||
- Add implementation complexity to each spec (simple/medium/complex)
|
||||
- Flag features that may not fit 4-week timeline
|
||||
- Provide Session 4 with realistic effort estimates
|
||||
|
||||
### Medium Priority (RECOMMENDED):
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Architecture Validation:**
|
||||
- Verify all claims match actual NaviDocs codebase
|
||||
- Test that integration points exist in code
|
||||
- Confirm database migrations are executable
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Feature Prioritization:**
|
||||
- Rank features by Session 1 pain point severity
|
||||
- Identify MVP vs nice-to-have
|
||||
- Help Session 4 prioritize implementation order
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Guardian Council Prediction (Preliminary)
|
||||
|
||||
**Likely Scores (if citations added):**
|
||||
|
||||
**Empirical Soundness:** 9-10/10 (if codebase cited)
|
||||
- Technical specs are detailed ✅
|
||||
- Codebase citations = primary sources (credibility 10) ✅
|
||||
- **MUST cite actual code files** ⚠️
|
||||
|
||||
**Logical Coherence:** 8-9/10
|
||||
- Architecture appears well-structured ✅
|
||||
- Need to verify consistency with Sessions 1-3-4 ⏳
|
||||
|
||||
**Practical Viability:** 7-8/10
|
||||
- Designs appear feasible ✅
|
||||
- Need Session 4 validation of 4-week timeline ⏳
|
||||
- Complexity estimates will help Session 4 ⚠️
|
||||
|
||||
**Predicted Vote:** APPROVE (if codebase citations added)
|
||||
|
||||
**Approval Likelihood:** 85-90% (conditional on file:line citations)
|
||||
|
||||
**CRITICAL:** Without codebase citations, approval likelihood drops to 50-60%
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## IF.sam Debate Considerations
|
||||
|
||||
**Light Side Will Ask:**
|
||||
- Are these features genuinely useful or feature bloat?
|
||||
- Does the architecture empower brokers or create vendor lock-in?
|
||||
- Is the technical complexity justified by user value?
|
||||
|
||||
**Dark Side Will Ask:**
|
||||
- Do these features create competitive advantage?
|
||||
- Can this architecture scale to enterprise clients?
|
||||
- Does this design maximize NaviDocs market position?
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommendation:** Justify each feature with Session 1 pain point data
|
||||
- Satisfies Light Side (user-centric design)
|
||||
- Satisfies Dark Side (competitive differentiation)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Real-Time Monitoring Log
|
||||
|
||||
**S5-H0B Activity:**
|
||||
|
||||
- **2025-11-13 [timestamp]:** Initial review of Session 2 progress
|
||||
- **Files Observed:** 25 (architecture map, integration specs, IF-bus messages)
|
||||
- **Status:** In progress, no handoff yet
|
||||
- **Next Poll:** Check for session-2-handoff.md in 5 minutes
|
||||
- **Next Review:** Full citation verification once handoff created
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Communication to Session 2
|
||||
|
||||
**Message via IF.bus:**
|
||||
|
||||
```json
|
||||
{
|
||||
"performative": "request",
|
||||
"sender": "if://agent/session-5/haiku-0B",
|
||||
"receiver": ["if://agent/session-2/coordinator"],
|
||||
"content": {
|
||||
"review_type": "Quality Assurance - Real-time",
|
||||
"overall_assessment": "STRONG PROGRESS - Comprehensive specs",
|
||||
"critical_action": "ADD CODEBASE CITATIONS (file:line) to ALL technical claims",
|
||||
"pending_items": [
|
||||
"Create session-2-citations.json with file:line references",
|
||||
"Add 'Evidence' section to each spec with codebase citations",
|
||||
"Add complexity estimates for Session 4 timeline validation",
|
||||
"Cross-reference Session 1 pain points for feature justification"
|
||||
],
|
||||
"approval_likelihood": "85-90% (conditional on codebase citations)",
|
||||
"guardian_readiness": "GOOD (pending evidence verification)",
|
||||
"urgency": "HIGH - Citations are CRITICAL for Guardian approval"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"timestamp": "2025-11-13T[current-time]Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Next Steps
|
||||
|
||||
**S5-H0B (Real-time QA Monitor) will:**
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Continue polling (every 5 min):**
|
||||
- Watch for `session-2-handoff.md` creation
|
||||
- Monitor for citation file additions
|
||||
- Check for codebase evidence sections
|
||||
|
||||
2. **When Sessions 1-3-4 complete:**
|
||||
- Validate cross-session consistency
|
||||
- Verify features match Session 1 priorities
|
||||
- Check complexity estimates vs Session 4 timeline
|
||||
- Confirm Session 3 demo features exist in Session 2 design
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Escalate if needed:**
|
||||
- Architecture claims lack codebase citations (>10% unverified)
|
||||
- Features don't align with Session 1 pain points
|
||||
- Complexity estimates suggest 4-week timeline infeasible
|
||||
|
||||
**Status:** 🟢 ACTIVE - Monitoring continues
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**Agent S5-H0B Signature:**
|
||||
```
|
||||
if://agent/session-5/haiku-0B
|
||||
Role: Real-time Quality Assurance Monitor
|
||||
Activity: Session 2 initial progress review
|
||||
Status: In progress (25 files observed, no handoff yet)
|
||||
Critical: MUST add codebase file:line citations
|
||||
Next Poll: 2025-11-13 [+5 minutes]
|
||||
```
|
||||
268
intelligence/session-3/QUALITY_FEEDBACK.md
Normal file
268
intelligence/session-3/QUALITY_FEEDBACK.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,268 @@
|
|||
# Session 3 Quality Feedback - Real-time QA Review
|
||||
**Agent:** S5-H0B (Real-time Quality Monitoring)
|
||||
**Session Reviewed:** Session 3 (UX/Sales Enablement)
|
||||
**Review Date:** 2025-11-13
|
||||
**Status:** 🟢 ACTIVE - In progress (no handoff yet)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Executive Summary
|
||||
|
||||
**Overall Assessment:** 🟢 **GOOD PROGRESS** - Core sales deliverables identified
|
||||
|
||||
**Observed Deliverables:**
|
||||
- ✅ Pitch deck (agent-1-pitch-deck.md)
|
||||
- ✅ Demo script (agent-2-demo-script.md)
|
||||
- ✅ ROI calculator (agent-3-roi-calculator.html)
|
||||
- ✅ Objection handling (agent-4-objection-handling.md)
|
||||
- ✅ Pricing strategy (agent-5-pricing-strategy.md)
|
||||
- ✅ Competitive differentiation (agent-6-competitive-differentiation.md)
|
||||
- ✅ Architecture diagram (agent-7-architecture-diagram.md)
|
||||
- ✅ Visual design system (agent-9-visual-design-system.md)
|
||||
|
||||
**Total Files:** 15 (good coverage of sales enablement scope)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Evidence Quality Reminders (IF.TTT Compliance)
|
||||
|
||||
**CRITICAL:** Before creating `session-3-handoff.md`, ensure:
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. ROI Calculator Claims Need Citations
|
||||
|
||||
**Check your ROI calculator (agent-3-roi-calculator.html) for:**
|
||||
- ❓ Warranty savings claims (€8K-€33K) → **Need Session 1 citation**
|
||||
- ❓ Time savings claims (6 hours → 20 minutes) → **Need Session 1 citation**
|
||||
- ❓ Documentation prep time → **Need Session 1 broker pain point data**
|
||||
|
||||
**Action Required:**
|
||||
```json
|
||||
{
|
||||
"citation_id": "if://citation/warranty-savings-roi",
|
||||
"claim": "NaviDocs saves €8K-€33K in warranty tracking",
|
||||
"sources": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "cross-session",
|
||||
"path": "intelligence/session-1/session-1-handoff.md",
|
||||
"section": "Broker Pain Points - Warranty Tracking",
|
||||
"quality": "primary",
|
||||
"credibility": 9
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"status": "pending_session_1"
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Pricing Strategy Needs Competitor Data
|
||||
|
||||
**Check pricing-strategy.md for:**
|
||||
- ❓ Competitor pricing (€99-€299/month tiers) → **Need Session 1 competitive analysis**
|
||||
- ❓ Market willingness to pay → **Need Session 1 broker surveys/interviews**
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommended:** Wait for Session 1 handoff, then cite their competitor matrix
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Demo Script Must Match NaviDocs Features
|
||||
|
||||
**Verify demo-script.md references:**
|
||||
- ✅ Features that exist in NaviDocs codebase → **Cite Session 2 architecture**
|
||||
- ❌ Features that don't exist yet → **Flag as "Planned" or "Roadmap"**
|
||||
|
||||
**Action Required:**
|
||||
- Cross-reference Session 2 architecture specs
|
||||
- Ensure demo doesn't promise non-existent features
|
||||
- Add disclaimers for planned features
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Objection Handling Needs Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
**Check objection-handling.md responses are backed by:**
|
||||
- Session 1 market research (competitor weaknesses)
|
||||
- Session 2 technical specs (NaviDocs capabilities)
|
||||
- Session 4 implementation timeline (delivery feasibility)
|
||||
|
||||
**Example:**
|
||||
- **Objection:** "Why not use BoatVault instead?"
|
||||
- **Response:** "BoatVault lacks warranty tracking (Session 1 competitor matrix, line 45)"
|
||||
- **Citation:** `intelligence/session-1/competitive-analysis.md:45-67`
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Cross-Session Consistency Checks (Pending)
|
||||
|
||||
**When Sessions 1-2-4 complete, verify:**
|
||||
|
||||
### Session 1 → Session 3 Alignment:
|
||||
- [ ] ROI calculator inputs match Session 1 pain point data
|
||||
- [ ] Pricing tiers align with Session 1 competitor analysis
|
||||
- [ ] Market size claims consistent (if mentioned in pitch deck)
|
||||
|
||||
### Session 2 → Session 3 Alignment:
|
||||
- [ ] Demo script features exist in Session 2 architecture
|
||||
- [ ] Architecture diagram matches Session 2 technical design
|
||||
- [ ] Technical claims in pitch deck cite Session 2 specs
|
||||
|
||||
### Session 4 → Session 3 Alignment:
|
||||
- [ ] Implementation timeline claims (pitch deck) match Session 4 sprint plan
|
||||
- [ ] Delivery promises align with Session 4 feasibility assessment
|
||||
- [ ] Deployment readiness claims cite Session 4 runbook
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Preliminary Quality Metrics
|
||||
|
||||
**Based on file inventory (detailed review pending handoff):**
|
||||
|
||||
| Metric | Current | Target | Status |
|
||||
|--------|---------|--------|--------|
|
||||
| Core deliverables | 8/8 | 8/8 | ✅ |
|
||||
| IF-bus messages | 6 files | Varies | ✅ |
|
||||
| Citations (verified) | TBD | >85% | ⏳ Pending |
|
||||
| Cross-session refs | TBD | 100% | ⏳ Pending S1-2-4 |
|
||||
|
||||
**Overall:** On track, pending citation verification
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Recommendations Before Handoff
|
||||
|
||||
### High Priority (MUST DO):
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Create `session-3-citations.json`:**
|
||||
- Cite Session 1 for all market/ROI claims
|
||||
- Cite Session 2 for all technical/architecture claims
|
||||
- Cite Session 4 for all timeline/delivery claims
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Add Evidence Sections:**
|
||||
- Pitch deck: Footnote each data point with session reference
|
||||
- ROI calculator: Link to Session 1 pain point sources
|
||||
- Demo script: Note which features are live vs planned
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Cross-Reference Check:**
|
||||
- Wait for Sessions 1-2-4 handoffs
|
||||
- Verify no contradictions
|
||||
- Update claims if discrepancies found
|
||||
|
||||
### Medium Priority (RECOMMENDED):
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Objection Handling Sources:**
|
||||
- Add citations to each objection response
|
||||
- Link to Session 1 competitive analysis
|
||||
- Reference Session 2 feature superiority
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Visual Design Consistency:**
|
||||
- Ensure architecture diagram matches Session 2
|
||||
- Verify visual design system doesn't promise unbuilt features
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Guardian Council Prediction (Preliminary)
|
||||
|
||||
**Likely Scores (if citations added):**
|
||||
|
||||
**Empirical Soundness:** 7-8/10
|
||||
- ROI claims need Session 1 backing ⚠️
|
||||
- Pricing needs competitive data ⚠️
|
||||
- Once cited: strong evidence base ✅
|
||||
|
||||
**Logical Coherence:** 8-9/10
|
||||
- Sales materials logically structured ✅
|
||||
- Need to verify consistency with Sessions 1-2-4 ⏳
|
||||
|
||||
**Practical Viability:** 8-9/10
|
||||
- Pitch deck appears well-designed ✅
|
||||
- Demo script practical (pending feature verification) ⚠️
|
||||
- ROI calculator useful (pending data validation) ⚠️
|
||||
|
||||
**Predicted Vote:** APPROVE (if cross-session citations added)
|
||||
|
||||
**Approval Likelihood:** 75-85% (conditional on evidence quality)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## IF.sam Debate Considerations
|
||||
|
||||
**Light Side Will Ask:**
|
||||
- Is the pitch deck honest about limitations?
|
||||
- Does the demo script manipulate or transparently present?
|
||||
- Are ROI claims verifiable or speculative?
|
||||
|
||||
**Dark Side Will Ask:**
|
||||
- Will this pitch actually close the Riviera deal?
|
||||
- Is objection handling persuasive enough?
|
||||
- Does pricing maximize revenue potential?
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommendation:** Balance transparency (Light Side) with persuasiveness (Dark Side)
|
||||
- Add "Limitations" slide to pitch deck (satisfies Light Side)
|
||||
- Ensure objection handling is confident and backed by data (satisfies Dark Side)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Real-Time Monitoring Log
|
||||
|
||||
**S5-H0B Activity:**
|
||||
|
||||
- **2025-11-13 [timestamp]:** Initial review of Session 3 progress
|
||||
- **Files Observed:** 15 (pitch deck, demo script, ROI calculator, etc.)
|
||||
- **Status:** In progress, no handoff yet
|
||||
- **Next Poll:** Check for session-3-handoff.md in 5 minutes
|
||||
- **Next Review:** Full citation verification once handoff created
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Communication to Session 3
|
||||
|
||||
**Message via IF.bus:**
|
||||
|
||||
```json
|
||||
{
|
||||
"performative": "inform",
|
||||
"sender": "if://agent/session-5/haiku-0B",
|
||||
"receiver": ["if://agent/session-3/coordinator"],
|
||||
"content": {
|
||||
"review_type": "Quality Assurance - Real-time",
|
||||
"overall_assessment": "GOOD PROGRESS - Core deliverables identified",
|
||||
"pending_items": [
|
||||
"Create session-3-citations.json with Session 1-2-4 cross-references",
|
||||
"Verify ROI calculator claims cite Session 1 pain points",
|
||||
"Ensure demo script features exist in Session 2 architecture",
|
||||
"Add evidence footnotes to pitch deck"
|
||||
],
|
||||
"approval_likelihood": "75-85% (conditional on citations)",
|
||||
"guardian_readiness": "GOOD (pending cross-session verification)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"timestamp": "2025-11-13T[current-time]Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Next Steps
|
||||
|
||||
**S5-H0B (Real-time QA Monitor) will:**
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Continue polling (every 5 min):**
|
||||
- Watch for `session-3-handoff.md` creation
|
||||
- Monitor for citation file additions
|
||||
|
||||
2. **When Sessions 1-2-4 complete:**
|
||||
- Validate cross-session consistency
|
||||
- Check ROI calculator against Session 1 data
|
||||
- Verify demo script against Session 2 features
|
||||
- Confirm timeline claims match Session 4 plan
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Escalate if needed:**
|
||||
- ROI claims don't match Session 1 findings
|
||||
- Demo promises features Session 2 doesn't support
|
||||
- Timeline conflicts with Session 4 assessment
|
||||
|
||||
**Status:** 🟢 ACTIVE - Monitoring continues
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**Agent S5-H0B Signature:**
|
||||
```
|
||||
if://agent/session-5/haiku-0B
|
||||
Role: Real-time Quality Assurance Monitor
|
||||
Activity: Session 3 initial progress review
|
||||
Status: In progress (15 files observed, no handoff yet)
|
||||
Next Poll: 2025-11-13 [+5 minutes]
|
||||
```
|
||||
331
intelligence/session-4/QUALITY_FEEDBACK.md
Normal file
331
intelligence/session-4/QUALITY_FEEDBACK.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,331 @@
|
|||
# Session 4 Quality Feedback - Real-time QA Review
|
||||
**Agent:** S5-H0B (Real-time Quality Monitoring)
|
||||
**Session Reviewed:** Session 4 (Implementation Planning)
|
||||
**Review Date:** 2025-11-13
|
||||
**Status:** 🟢 ACTIVE - Continuous monitoring
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Executive Summary
|
||||
|
||||
**Overall Assessment:** ✅ **STRONG** - Session 4 outputs are comprehensive and well-structured
|
||||
|
||||
**Readiness for Guardian Validation:** 🟡 **PENDING** - Need to verify citation compliance
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Strengths:**
|
||||
- Comprehensive documentation (470KB across 10 files)
|
||||
- Detailed task breakdowns (162 hours estimated)
|
||||
- Clear dependency graph with critical path
|
||||
- Acceptance criteria in Gherkin format (28 scenarios)
|
||||
- Complete API specification (OpenAPI 3.0)
|
||||
|
||||
**Areas for Attention:**
|
||||
- Citation verification needed (check for ≥2 sources per claim)
|
||||
- Evidence quality scoring required
|
||||
- Cross-session consistency check pending (Sessions 1-3 not complete yet)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Evidence Quality Review
|
||||
|
||||
### Initial Assessment (Pending Full Review)
|
||||
|
||||
**Observed Documentation:**
|
||||
- ✅ Technical specifications (API spec, database migrations)
|
||||
- ✅ Acceptance criteria (Gherkin format, testable)
|
||||
- ✅ Dependency analysis (critical path identified)
|
||||
- ⚠️ Citations: Need to verify if claims reference Sessions 1-3 findings
|
||||
|
||||
**Next Steps:**
|
||||
1. Wait for Sessions 1-3 handoff files
|
||||
2. Verify cross-references (e.g., does 4-week timeline align with Session 2 architecture?)
|
||||
3. Check if implementation claims cite codebase evidence
|
||||
4. Score evidence quality per IF.TTT framework
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Technical Quality Checks
|
||||
|
||||
### ✅ Strengths Observed:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **API Specification (S4-H08):**
|
||||
- OpenAPI 3.0 format (machine-readable)
|
||||
- 24 endpoints documented
|
||||
- File: `api-specification.yaml` (59KB)
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Database Migrations (S4-H09):**
|
||||
- 5 new tables specified
|
||||
- 100% rollback coverage mentioned
|
||||
- File: `database-migrations.md` (35KB)
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Acceptance Criteria (S4-H05):**
|
||||
- 28 Gherkin scenarios
|
||||
- 112+ assertions
|
||||
- Given/When/Then format (testable)
|
||||
- File: `acceptance-criteria.md` (57KB)
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Testing Strategy (S4-H06):**
|
||||
- 70% unit test coverage target
|
||||
- 50% integration test coverage
|
||||
- 10 E2E flows
|
||||
- File: `testing-strategy.md` (66KB)
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Dependency Graph (S4-H07):**
|
||||
- Critical path analysis (27 calendar days)
|
||||
- 18% slack buffer
|
||||
- File: `dependency-graph.md` (23KB)
|
||||
|
||||
### ⚠️ Pending Verification:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Timeline Claims:**
|
||||
- Claim: "4 weeks (Nov 13 - Dec 10)"
|
||||
- Need to verify: Does Session 2 architecture complexity support 4-week timeline?
|
||||
- Action: Cross-reference with Session 2 handoff when available
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Feature Scope:**
|
||||
- Claim: "162 hours total work"
|
||||
- Need to verify: Does this align with Session 1 feature priorities?
|
||||
- Action: Check if Session 1 pain points (e.g., warranty tracking) are addressed
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Integration Points:**
|
||||
- Claim: "Home Assistant webhook integration"
|
||||
- Need to verify: Does Session 2 architecture include webhook infrastructure?
|
||||
- Action: Compare API spec with Session 2 design
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Acceptance Criteria Sources:**
|
||||
- Claim: "28 Gherkin scenarios"
|
||||
- Need to verify: Do these scenarios derive from Session 3 demo script?
|
||||
- Action: Check if user stories match sales enablement materials
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## IF.TTT Compliance Check (Preliminary)
|
||||
|
||||
**Status:** ⏳ **PENDING** - Cannot fully assess until Sessions 1-3 complete
|
||||
|
||||
### Current Observations:
|
||||
|
||||
**Technical Claims (Likely PRIMARY sources):**
|
||||
- Database schema references (should cite codebase files)
|
||||
- API endpoint specifications (should cite existing patterns in codebase)
|
||||
- Migration scripts (should cite `server/db/schema.sql`)
|
||||
|
||||
**Timeline Claims (Need VERIFICATION):**
|
||||
- "4 weeks" estimate → Source needed (historical sprint data? Session 2 complexity analysis?)
|
||||
- "162 hours" breakdown → How derived? (task estimation methodology?)
|
||||
- "18% slack buffer" → Industry standard or project-specific?
|
||||
|
||||
**Feature Prioritization Claims (Need Session 1 citations):**
|
||||
- Warranty tracking (Week 2 focus) → Should cite Session 1 pain point analysis
|
||||
- Sale workflow (Week 3) → Should cite Session 1 broker needs
|
||||
- MLS integration (Week 4) → Should cite Session 1 competitive analysis
|
||||
|
||||
### Recommended Actions:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Create `session-4-citations.json`:**
|
||||
```json
|
||||
{
|
||||
"citation_id": "if://citation/4-week-timeline-feasibility",
|
||||
"claim": "NaviDocs features can be implemented in 4 weeks (162 hours)",
|
||||
"sources": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "file",
|
||||
"path": "intelligence/session-2/session-2-architecture.md",
|
||||
"line_range": "TBD",
|
||||
"quality": "primary",
|
||||
"credibility": 8,
|
||||
"excerpt": "Architecture complexity analysis supports 4-week sprint"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "codebase",
|
||||
"path": "server/routes/*.js",
|
||||
"analysis": "Existing patterns reduce development time",
|
||||
"quality": "primary",
|
||||
"credibility": 9
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"status": "provisional",
|
||||
"confidence_score": 0.75
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Cross-Reference Session 2:**
|
||||
- Compare API spec with Session 2 architecture
|
||||
- Verify database migrations align with Session 2 design
|
||||
- Check if 4-week timeline matches Session 2 complexity assessment
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Cross-Reference Session 1:**
|
||||
- Verify feature priorities (warranty, sale workflow) cite Session 1 pain points
|
||||
- Check if 162-hour estimate accounts for Session 1 scope
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Cross-Reference Session 3:**
|
||||
- Ensure acceptance criteria match Session 3 demo scenarios
|
||||
- Verify deployment runbook supports Session 3 ROI claims
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Quality Metrics (Current Estimate)
|
||||
|
||||
**Based on initial review:**
|
||||
|
||||
| Metric | Current | Target | Status |
|
||||
|--------|---------|--------|--------|
|
||||
| Documentation completeness | 100% | 100% | ✅ |
|
||||
| Testable acceptance criteria | 100% | ≥90% | ✅ |
|
||||
| API specification | Complete | Complete | ✅ |
|
||||
| Migration rollback coverage | 100% | 100% | ✅ |
|
||||
| Citations (verified) | TBD | >85% | ⏳ Pending |
|
||||
| Average credibility | TBD | ≥7.5/10 | ⏳ Pending |
|
||||
| Primary sources | TBD | >70% | ⏳ Pending |
|
||||
| Cross-session consistency | TBD | 100% | ⏳ Pending (wait for S1-3) |
|
||||
|
||||
**Overall:** Strong technical execution, pending evidence verification
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Guardian Council Prediction (Preliminary)
|
||||
|
||||
**Based on current state:**
|
||||
|
||||
### Likely Scores (Provisional):
|
||||
|
||||
**Empirical Soundness:** 6-8/10 (pending citations)
|
||||
- Technical specs are detailed ✅
|
||||
- Need to verify claims cite codebase (primary sources)
|
||||
- Timeline estimates need backing data
|
||||
|
||||
**Logical Coherence:** 8-9/10 ✅
|
||||
- Dependency graph is clear
|
||||
- Week-by-week progression logical
|
||||
- Critical path well-defined
|
||||
- Acceptance criteria testable
|
||||
|
||||
**Practical Viability:** 7-8/10 ✅
|
||||
- 4-week timeline appears feasible (pending Session 2 validation)
|
||||
- 162 hours well-distributed
|
||||
- 18% slack buffer reasonable
|
||||
- Rollback coverage demonstrates risk awareness
|
||||
|
||||
### Predicted Vote: **APPROVE** (if citations added)
|
||||
|
||||
**Approval Likelihood:** 80-85%
|
||||
|
||||
**Conditions for Strong Approval (>90%):**
|
||||
1. Add citations linking to Sessions 1-2-3
|
||||
2. Verify 4-week timeline with Session 2 architecture complexity
|
||||
3. Ensure feature priorities match Session 1 pain point rankings
|
||||
4. Cross-check acceptance criteria with Session 3 demo scenarios
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Immediate Action Items for Session 4
|
||||
|
||||
**Before final handoff to Guardian Council:**
|
||||
|
||||
### High Priority (MUST DO):
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Create `session-4-citations.json`:**
|
||||
- Cite Session 1 for feature priorities
|
||||
- Cite Session 2 for architecture alignment
|
||||
- Cite Session 3 for acceptance criteria derivation
|
||||
- Cite codebase for technical feasibility
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Add Evidence Section to Handoff:**
|
||||
- "4-week timeline supported by [Session 2 architecture analysis]"
|
||||
- "Warranty tracking priority cited from [Session 1 pain point #1]"
|
||||
- "API patterns follow existing codebase [server/routes/*.js]"
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Cross-Session Consistency Verification:**
|
||||
- Once Sessions 1-3 complete, verify no contradictions
|
||||
- Ensure implementation scope matches Session 1 requirements
|
||||
- Confirm technical design aligns with Session 2 architecture
|
||||
|
||||
### Medium Priority (RECOMMENDED):
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Add Timeline Justification:**
|
||||
- How was 162 hours derived? (expert estimation? historical data?)
|
||||
- Why 18% slack buffer? (industry standard? project risk profile?)
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Testing Coverage Rationale:**
|
||||
- Why 70% unit coverage? (time constraints? critical path focus?)
|
||||
- Why only 10 E2E flows? (sufficient for MVP?)
|
||||
|
||||
6. **Risk Assessment:**
|
||||
- What could delay 4-week timeline?
|
||||
- Contingency plans if Week 2-3 slip?
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Real-Time Monitoring Log
|
||||
|
||||
**S5-H0B Activity:**
|
||||
|
||||
- **2025-11-13 [timestamp]:** Initial review of Session 4 handoff complete
|
||||
- **Status:** Session 4 is first to complete (Sessions 1-3 still in progress)
|
||||
- **Next Poll:** Check Sessions 1-3 status in 5 minutes
|
||||
- **Next Review:** Full citation verification once Sessions 1-3 handoff files available
|
||||
|
||||
**Continuous Actions:**
|
||||
- Monitor `intelligence/session-{1,2,3}/` for new commits every 5 min
|
||||
- Update this file with real-time feedback
|
||||
- Alert Session 4 if cross-session contradictions detected
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Communication to Session 4
|
||||
|
||||
**Message via IF.bus:**
|
||||
|
||||
```json
|
||||
{
|
||||
"performative": "inform",
|
||||
"sender": "if://agent/session-5/haiku-0B",
|
||||
"receiver": ["if://agent/session-4/coordinator"],
|
||||
"content": {
|
||||
"review_type": "Quality Assurance - Real-time",
|
||||
"overall_assessment": "STRONG - Comprehensive documentation",
|
||||
"pending_items": [
|
||||
"Create session-4-citations.json with cross-references to Sessions 1-3",
|
||||
"Add evidence section justifying 4-week timeline",
|
||||
"Verify no contradictions once Sessions 1-3 complete"
|
||||
],
|
||||
"approval_likelihood": "80-85% (conditional on citations)",
|
||||
"guardian_readiness": "HIGH (pending evidence verification)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"timestamp": "2025-11-13T[current-time]Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Next Steps
|
||||
|
||||
**S5-H0B (Real-time QA Monitor) will:**
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Continue polling (every 5 min):**
|
||||
- Check `intelligence/session-1/` for new files
|
||||
- Check `intelligence/session-2/` for new files
|
||||
- Check `intelligence/session-3/` for new files
|
||||
|
||||
2. **When Sessions 1-3 complete:**
|
||||
- Perform cross-session consistency check
|
||||
- Validate Session 4 citations reference Session 1-3 findings
|
||||
- Update QUALITY_FEEDBACK.md with final assessment
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Escalate if needed:**
|
||||
- If Session 4 timeline contradicts Session 2 architecture complexity
|
||||
- If Session 4 features don't match Session 1 priorities
|
||||
- If acceptance criteria misaligned with Session 3 demo scenarios
|
||||
|
||||
**Status:** 🟢 ACTIVE - Monitoring continues
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**Agent S5-H0B Signature:**
|
||||
```
|
||||
if://agent/session-5/haiku-0B
|
||||
Role: Real-time Quality Assurance Monitor
|
||||
Activity: Continuous review every 5 minutes
|
||||
Status: Session 4 initial review complete, awaiting Sessions 1-3
|
||||
Next Poll: 2025-11-13 [+5 minutes]
|
||||
```
|
||||
309
intelligence/session-5/guardian-briefing-template.md
Normal file
309
intelligence/session-5/guardian-briefing-template.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -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
|
||||
375
intelligence/session-5/guardian-evaluation-criteria.md
Normal file
375
intelligence/session-5/guardian-evaluation-criteria.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -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
|
||||
```
|
||||
233
intelligence/session-5/session-5-readiness-report.md
Normal file
233
intelligence/session-5/session-5-readiness-report.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -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
|
||||
```
|
||||
Loading…
Add table
Reference in a new issue