diff --git a/CLOUD_SESSION_1_MARKET_RESEARCH.md b/CLOUD_SESSION_1_MARKET_RESEARCH.md
index d9a9c9c..eecd63f 100644
--- a/CLOUD_SESSION_1_MARKET_RESEARCH.md
+++ b/CLOUD_SESSION_1_MARKET_RESEARCH.md
@@ -188,6 +188,108 @@ Each agent MUST:
 
 ---
 
+## Intra-Agent Communication Protocol (IF.bus)
+
+**Based on:** InfraFabric S² multi-swarm coordination (3,563x faster than git polling)
+
+### IFMessage Schema
+
+Every agent-to-agent message follows this structure:
+
+```json
+{
+  "performative": "inform",  // FIPA-ACL: inform, request, query-if, confirm, disconfirm, ESCALATE
+  "sender": "if://agent/session-1/haiku-Y",
+  "receiver": ["if://agent/session-1/haiku-Z"],
+  "conversation_id": "if://conversation/navidocs-session-1-2025-11-13",
+  "content": {
+    "claim": "[Your finding]",
+    "evidence": ["[URL or file:line]"],
+    "confidence": 0.85,  // 0.0-1.0
+    "cost_tokens": 1247
+  },
+  "citation_ids": ["if://citation/uuid"],
+  "timestamp": "2025-11-13T10:00:00Z",
+  "sequence_num": 1
+}
+```
+
+### Speech Acts (Performatives)
+
+**inform:** Share findings with synthesis agent (Agent 10)
+- Example: "I am S1-H03. Inventory tracking prevents €15K-€50K loss (confidence 0.85)"
+
+**request:** Ask another agent for verification/data
+- Example: "S1-H10 requests S1-H02: Verify market size with 2nd source (IF.TTT requirement)"
+
+**confirm:** Validate another agent's claim
+- Example: "S1-H02 confirms S1-H01: Market size €2.3B verified (2 sources now)"
+
+**disconfirm:** Challenge another agent's claim
+- Example: "S1-H03 challenges S1-H01: Price range conflict (€250K vs €1.5M = 500% variance)"
+
+**ESCALATE:** Flag critical conflict for Sonnet coordinator
+- Example: "S1-H10 ESCALATES: Price variance >20%, requires human resolution"
+
+### Communication Flow (This Session)
+
+```
+S1-H01 through S1-H09 → S1-H10 (Evidence Synthesis)
+                           ↓
+                      ESCALATE (if conflicts)
+                           ↓
+                      Sonnet Resolves
+```
+
+**Key Patterns:**
+1. **Agents 1-9 → Agent 10:** Send findings with confidence scores
+2. **Agent 10 → Agents 1-9:** Request verification if confidence <0.75
+3. **Agent 10 → Sonnet:** ESCALATE conflicts (>20% variance)
+4. **Sonnet → Agent X:** Request re-investigation with specific instructions
+
+### Multi-Source Verification Example
+
+```yaml
+# Agent 1 finds data (1 source, low confidence)
+S1-H01: "inform" → claim: "Market size €2.3B", confidence: 0.70
+
+# Agent 10 detects low confidence, requests verification
+S1-H10: "request" → S1-H02: "Verify market size (IF.TTT: need 2+ sources)"
+
+# Agent 2 searches, finds 2nd source
+S1-H02: "confirm" → S1-H10: "Market size €2.3B verified", confidence: 0.90
+
+# Agent 10 synthesizes
+S1-H10: "inform" → Coordinator: "Market size €2.3B (VERIFIED, 2 sources)"
+```
+
+### Conflict Detection Example
+
+```yaml
+# Agents report conflicting data
+S1-H01: "inform" → "Prestige 50 price €250K"
+S1-H03: "inform" → "Owner has €1.5M Prestige 50"
+
+# Agent 10 detects 500% variance
+S1-H10: "ESCALATE" → Coordinator: "Price conflict requires resolution"
+
+# Sonnet resolves
+Coordinator: "request" → S1-H01: "Re-search YachtWorld for Prestige 50 SOLD prices"
+
+# Agent 1 corrects
+S1-H01: "inform" → "Prestige 50 price €800K-€1.5M (CORRECTED)"
+```
+
+### IF.TTT Compliance
+
+Every message MUST include:
+- **citation_ids:** Links to evidence
+- **confidence:** Explicit score (0.0-1.0)
+- **evidence:** Observable artifacts (URLs, file:line)
+- **cost_tokens:** Token consumption (IF.optimise tracking)
+
+---
+
 ## IF.optimise Protocol
 
 **Token Efficiency Targets:**
diff --git a/CLOUD_SESSION_2_TECHNICAL_INTEGRATION.md b/CLOUD_SESSION_2_TECHNICAL_INTEGRATION.md
index ec935e0..41850b2 100644
--- a/CLOUD_SESSION_2_TECHNICAL_INTEGRATION.md
+++ b/CLOUD_SESSION_2_TECHNICAL_INTEGRATION.md
@@ -183,6 +183,115 @@ Each agent MUST:
 
 ---
 
+## Intra-Agent Communication Protocol (IF.bus)
+
+**Based on:** InfraFabric S² multi-swarm coordination (3,563x faster than git polling)
+
+### IFMessage Schema
+
+Every agent-to-agent message follows this structure:
+
+```json
+{
+  "performative": "inform",  // FIPA-ACL: inform, request, query-if, confirm, disconfirm, propose, agree, ESCALATE
+  "sender": "if://agent/session-2/haiku-Y",
+  "receiver": ["if://agent/session-2/haiku-Z"],
+  "conversation_id": "if://conversation/navidocs-session-2-2025-11-13",
+  "content": {
+    "claim": "[Your design proposal]",
+    "evidence": ["[File references or codebase analysis]"],
+    "confidence": 0.85,  // 0.0-1.0
+    "cost_tokens": 1247
+  },
+  "citation_ids": ["if://citation/uuid"],
+  "timestamp": "2025-11-13T10:00:00Z",
+  "sequence_num": 1
+}
+```
+
+### Speech Acts (Performatives)
+
+**propose:** Agent suggests a design or approach
+- Example: "S2-H02 proposes: Inventory tracking via manual entry forms"
+
+**agree:** Agent validates another agent's proposal
+- Example: "S2-H04 agrees with S2-H02: Manual entry compatible with camera feeds"
+
+**disconfirm:** Agent challenges another agent's design
+- Example: "S2-H04 challenges S2-H02: Camera feeds can auto-detect equipment (CV models available)"
+
+**request:** Ask another agent for design input
+- Example: "S2-H02 requests S2-H04: How do cameras integrate with inventory schema?"
+
+**confirm:** Validate another agent's technical claim
+- Example: "S2-H01 confirms S2-H03: Express.js patterns match existing routes"
+
+**ESCALATE:** Flag critical integration conflicts
+- Example: "S2-H10 ESCALATES: Inventory + cameras overlap, needs integration design"
+
+### Communication Flow (This Session)
+
+```
+S2-H01 (Codebase) ──→ S2-H10
+S2-H02 (Inventory) ──→ S2-H04 (Cameras) ─→ S2-H10 (peer review)
+S2-H03 (Maintenance) → S2-H05 (Contacts) → S2-H10 (integration check)
+S2-H06 (Expense) ────→ S2-H07 (Search UX)→ S2-H10
+```
+
+**Key Patterns:**
+1. **Design Proposals:** Agents 2-7 propose features independently
+2. **Peer Review:** Adjacent agents challenge/validate designs
+3. **Integration Checks:** Agent 10 ensures no conflicts between subsystems
+4. **Sonnet Approval:** Final architecture review & synthesis
+
+### Cross-Domain Validation Example
+
+```yaml
+# Agent 2 (Inventory Tracking) proposes design
+S2-H02: "propose" → content:
+  feature: "Inventory tracking via manual entry forms"
+  rationale: "Simple, no OCR complexity"
+
+# Agent 4 (Cameras) challenges with technical capability
+S2-H04: "disconfirm" → content:
+  original_proposal: "Manual entry only"
+  challenge: "Camera feeds can auto-detect equipment (tender, electronics) via CV"
+  evidence: ["OpenCV boat equipment detection models"]
+  alternative: "Hybrid: Manual + camera-assisted auto-detection"
+
+# Agent 2 revises proposal
+S2-H02: "agree" → content:
+  revised_proposal: "Inventory tracking: Manual entry + camera-assisted CV detection"
+  integration_point: "Use S2-H04's camera feed for equipment detection"
+```
+
+### API Integration Conflict Example
+
+```yaml
+# Agent 3 (Maintenance) proposes maintenance log API
+S2-H03: "propose" → POST /api/maintenance/{boat_id}/logs
+
+# Agent 7 (Search UX) challenges completeness
+S2-H07: "query-if" → content:
+  question: "Does maintenance API support date-range queries for yearly reporting?"
+  reasoning: "Search UI needs to filter by date for expense rollups"
+
+# Agent 3 confirms and extends API
+S2-H03: "confirm" → content:
+  api_extended: "GET /api/maintenance/{boat_id}/logs?start_date=&end_date=&category="
+  integration: "Supports S2-H06 expense rollup queries"
+```
+
+### IF.TTT Compliance
+
+Every message MUST include:
+- **citation_ids:** Links to design docs, codebase references
+- **confidence:** Explicit score (0.0-1.0)
+- **evidence:** File:line references from NaviDocs codebase
+- **cost_tokens:** Token consumption (IF.optimise tracking)
+
+---
+
 ## IF.bus Integration Pattern
 
 ### Event Bus Design
diff --git a/CLOUD_SESSION_3_UX_SALES_ENABLEMENT.md b/CLOUD_SESSION_3_UX_SALES_ENABLEMENT.md
index 1fbee84..e11fa64 100644
--- a/CLOUD_SESSION_3_UX_SALES_ENABLEMENT.md
+++ b/CLOUD_SESSION_3_UX_SALES_ENABLEMENT.md
@@ -179,6 +179,147 @@ Each agent MUST:
 
 ---
 
+## Intra-Agent Communication Protocol (IF.bus)
+
+**Based on:** InfraFabric S² multi-swarm coordination (3,563x faster than git polling)
+
+### IFMessage Schema
+
+Every agent-to-agent message follows this structure:
+
+```json
+{
+  "performative": "inform",  // FIPA-ACL: inform, request, query-if, confirm, disconfirm, ESCALATE
+  "sender": "if://agent/session-3/haiku-Y",
+  "receiver": ["if://agent/session-3/haiku-Z"],
+  "conversation_id": "if://conversation/navidocs-session-3-2025-11-13",
+  "content": {
+    "claim": "[Your pitch/objection finding]",
+    "evidence": ["[Market data, competitor analysis, customer research]"],
+    "confidence": 0.85,  // 0.0-1.0
+    "cost_tokens": 1247
+  },
+  "citation_ids": ["if://citation/uuid"],
+  "timestamp": "2025-11-13T10:00:00Z",
+  "sequence_num": 1
+}
+```
+
+### Speech Acts (Performatives)
+
+**inform:** Share pitch content or objection research
+- Example: "S3-H01 informs S3-H05: Pitch emphasizes €8K-€33K warranty savings"
+
+**request:** Ask another agent for market validation
+- Example: "S3-H03 requests S3-H05: Validate ROI assumptions with competitor pricing"
+
+**disconfirm:** Challenge pitch claim with evidence
+- Example: "S3-H05 disconfirms S3-H01: Warranty savings claim needs 2nd source (only €8K cited)"
+
+**confirm:** Validate pitch claim with external evidence
+- Example: "S3-H06 confirms S3-H03: ROI calculator inputs match Session 1 research"
+
+**ESCALATE:** Flag critical objection that requires resolution
+- Example: "S3-H05 ESCALATES: Broker pricing objection not addressed in pitch"
+
+### Communication Flow (This Session)
+
+```
+S3-H01 (Pitch) ──→ S3-H05 (Objections) ──→ S3-H10 (adversarial testing)
+S3-H03 (ROI) ────→ S3-H05 (Validate) ────→ S3-H10
+S3-H04 (Demo) ───→ S3-H06 (Case Study) ──→ S3-H10
+```
+
+**Key Patterns:**
+1. **Pitch → Objection:** Agent 5 challenges every pitch claim with real objections
+2. **ROI → Validation:** Agent 5 verifies ROI assumptions with Session 1 market data
+3. **Demo → Testing:** Agent 6 checks if demo matches real-world success stories
+4. **Agent 10 Synthesis:** Ensures pitch is airtight before presentation
+
+### Adversarial Testing Example
+
+```yaml
+# Agent 1 (Pitch Deck) proposes value proposition
+S3-H01: "inform" → content:
+  claim: "NaviDocs enables €8K-€33K warranty savings per yacht"
+  evidence: ["Session 1 market analysis"]
+  confidence: 0.85
+
+# Agent 5 (Objections) challenges claim completeness
+S3-H05: "disconfirm" → content:
+  original_claim: "€8K-€33K warranty savings"
+  objection: "Which brokers actually claim this? Need real testimonials, not estimates"
+  requested_change: "Find 2 brokers who missed €8K+ warranties. Use as proof point."
+  evidence: ["Broker interviews required"]
+
+# Agent 1 strengthens claim
+S3-H01: "confirm" → content:
+  revised_claim: "NaviDocs prevents warranty losses (case study: Broker X missed €15K tender)"
+  evidence: [
+    "Broker interview transcript",
+    "YachtWorld resale comparison (boat with/without tender)",
+    "Session 1 pain point research"
+  ]
+  confidence: 0.95
+```
+
+### ROI Calculator Validation Example
+
+```yaml
+# Agent 3 (ROI Calculator) proposes model
+S3-H03: "propose" → content:
+  calculation: "ROI = (Warranty Savings + Time Savings) - NaviDocs Cost"
+  inputs: {
+    warranty_savings: "€8K-€33K per yacht",
+    time_savings: "6 hours manual → 20 minutes automated",
+    navidocs_cost: "€15/month × 120 months"
+  }
+
+# Agent 5 (Objections) validates assumptions
+S3-H05: "query-if" → content:
+  question: "Are time savings (6→20 mins) validated with actual brokers?"
+  reasoning: "If brokers claim 8 hours, our 20-min estimate is unrealistic"
+  request: "Get time commitment estimate from Sylvain or 2 other Riviera brokers"
+
+# Agent 3 confirms with validation
+S3-H03: "confirm" → content:
+  validated_inputs: {
+    time_savings: "Confirmed: Riviera broker spends 5.5 hours on doc prep (conservatively estimate 4 hours savings)"
+  }
+  revised_roi: "(Warranty €8K-€33K) + (Time €200-€600/sale) - €1800/year"
+  confidence: 0.92
+```
+
+### Demo Script Credibility Example
+
+```yaml
+# Agent 4 (Demo Script) proposes key screens
+S3-H04: "propose" → content:
+  screens: ["Dashboard", "Warranty Detail", "Claim Package", "Home Assistant"]
+  timing: "5 minutes total"
+
+# Agent 6 (Case Study) challenges realism
+S3-H06: "disconfirm" → content:
+  concern: "Demo shows perfect claim package generation (15 mins), but real workflow?"
+  challenge: "What if boat has missing docs? Demo assumes complete warranty archive."
+  recommendation: "Add realistic scenario: Missing engine receipt, still generates partial claim"
+
+# Agent 4 revises demo
+S3-H04: "agree" → content:
+  revised_demo: "Screen 1: Complete case (Azimut 55S) - best case, Screen 2: Sunseeker 40 with missing docs - realistic case"
+  messaging: "NaviDocs works even with incomplete records, fills gaps intelligently"
+```
+
+### IF.TTT Compliance
+
+Every message MUST include:
+- **citation_ids:** Links to Session 1 research, competitor analysis
+- **confidence:** Explicit score (0.0-1.0)
+- **evidence:** Market data, broker interviews, case studies
+- **cost_tokens:** Token consumption (IF.optimise tracking)
+
+---
+
 ## Presentation Flow (15 Minutes)
 
 ### Opening (2 minutes)
diff --git a/CLOUD_SESSION_4_IMPLEMENTATION_PLANNING.md b/CLOUD_SESSION_4_IMPLEMENTATION_PLANNING.md
index 545e785..5705d4e 100644
--- a/CLOUD_SESSION_4_IMPLEMENTATION_PLANNING.md
+++ b/CLOUD_SESSION_4_IMPLEMENTATION_PLANNING.md
@@ -174,6 +174,148 @@ Each agent MUST:
 
 ---
 
+## Intra-Agent Communication Protocol (IF.bus)
+
+**Based on:** InfraFabric S² multi-swarm coordination (3,563x faster than git polling)
+
+### IFMessage Schema
+
+Every agent-to-agent message follows this structure:
+
+```json
+{
+  "performative": "inform",  // FIPA-ACL: inform, request, query-if, confirm, disconfirm, ESCALATE
+  "sender": "if://agent/session-4/haiku-Y",
+  "receiver": ["if://agent/session-4/haiku-Z"],
+  "conversation_id": "if://conversation/navidocs-session-4-2025-11-13",
+  "content": {
+    "claim": "[Week N deliverables/blockers]",
+    "evidence": ["[Task completion status, test results]"],
+    "confidence": 0.85,  // 0.0-1.0
+    "cost_tokens": 1247
+  },
+  "citation_ids": ["if://citation/uuid"],
+  "timestamp": "2025-11-13T10:00:00Z",
+  "sequence_num": 1
+}
+```
+
+### Speech Acts (Performatives)
+
+**inform:** Share week deliverables with next week's agent
+- Example: "S4-H01 informs S4-H02: Week 1 foundation complete (DB migrations, Event Bus tested)"
+
+**request:** Ask about dependencies before proceeding
+- Example: "S4-H02 requests S4-H01: Confirm DB migrations deployed and tested"
+
+**confirm:** Validate previous week's work
+- Example: "S4-H02 confirms S4-H01: Database migrations executed successfully on dev"
+
+**disconfirm:** Flag blockers from previous week
+- Example: "S4-H02 disconfirms: Event Bus tests failing - need S4-H01 to investigate"
+
+**ESCALATE:** Flag critical timeline risk
+- Example: "S4-H03 ESCALATES: Week 2 not complete, blocks Week 3 sale workflow"
+
+### Communication Flow (This Session)
+
+```
+S4-H01 (Week 1) ──→ S4-H02 (Week 2) ──→ S4-H03 (Week 3) ──→ S4-H04 (Week 4) ──→ S4-H10
+   ↓ handoff         ↓ handoff         ↓ handoff         ↓ handoff
+```
+
+**Key Patterns:**
+1. **Sequential Handoffs:** Week N agent sends deliverables + blockers to Week N+1
+2. **Dependency Validation:** Week N checks if Week N-1 unblocks their tasks
+3. **Progress Tracking:** Each agent tracks token cost + time spent
+4. **Agent 10 Synthesis:** Ensures 4-week roadmap is coherent and on-track
+
+### Week Handoff Example
+
+```yaml
+# End of Week 1 (S4-H01)
+S4-H01: "inform" → content:
+  week: 1
+  status: "COMPLETE"
+  deliverables: [
+    "DB migrations: warranty_tracking, webhooks, notification_templates",
+    "Event bus service: IF.bus messaging system",
+    "Security fixes: DELETE endpoint protection, auth enforcement",
+    "Background jobs: warranty expiration worker"
+  ]
+  tests_passed: 23/23
+  blockers: []
+  ready_for_week_2: true
+
+# S4-H02 validates Week 1 and confirms readiness
+S4-H02: "confirm" → content:
+  week: 1
+  validation: "All migrations tested on dev. Event bus ready for Week 2 warranty APIs."
+  week_2_dependencies: [
+    "DB migrations (ready)",
+    "Event bus service (ready)",
+    "Security fixes (ready)"
+  ]
+  can_start_week_2: true
+
+# S4-H02 executes Week 2 and reports progress
+S4-H02: "inform" → content:
+  week: 2
+  status: "IN_PROGRESS"
+  progress: "Warranty APIs 60% complete (CRUD done, expiring endpoint 80%)"
+  blockers: ["Home Assistant integration needs webhook URL format validation"]
+```
+
+### Critical Path Conflict Example
+
+```yaml
+# S4-H03 (Week 3) reports blocker
+S4-H03: "disconfirm" → content:
+  week: 3
+  blocker: "Sale workflow requires DB schema from Week 2, but S4-H02 incomplete"
+  missing: "webhooks table not migrated yet"
+  impact: "Cannot implement sale_workflows table migration"
+  estimated_delay: "1-2 days"
+
+# S4-H10 escalates to coordinator
+S4-H10: "ESCALATE" → content:
+  critical_blocker: "Week 2 delays cascading to Week 3"
+  chain_affected: ["Week 3", "Week 4"]
+  recommendation: "Prioritize webhooks table migration immediately (2-hour task)"
+
+# Sonnet coordinator responds
+Coordinator: "request" → S4-H02: "Prioritize webhooks migration today (deadline noon)"
+
+# S4-H02 confirms
+S4-H02: "confirm" → content:
+  priority_shift: "Moved webhooks migration to top of queue"
+  eta: "9am completion"
+  unblocks: "S4-H03 can start sale workflow design by noon"
+```
+
+### Token Cost Tracking (IF.optimise)
+
+Every handoff message includes cost tracking:
+
+```yaml
+S4-H01: "inform" → content:
+  tokens_used: 8750
+  tokens_budgeted: 12500
+  efficiency: 70%
+  cost_usd: 0.14
+  remaining_budget: 3750
+```
+
+### IF.TTT Compliance
+
+Every message MUST include:
+- **citation_ids:** Links to task specs, test results
+- **confidence:** Explicit score on deliverable completeness (0.0-1.0)
+- **evidence:** Test counts, git commits, code reviews
+- **cost_tokens:** Token consumption (IF.optimise tracking)
+
+---
+
 ## Week 1: Foundation (Nov 13-19)
 
 ### Day 1 (Nov 13): Database Migrations
diff --git a/CLOUD_SESSION_5_SYNTHESIS_VALIDATION.md b/CLOUD_SESSION_5_SYNTHESIS_VALIDATION.md
index 1da9012..5a3c00c 100644
--- a/CLOUD_SESSION_5_SYNTHESIS_VALIDATION.md
+++ b/CLOUD_SESSION_5_SYNTHESIS_VALIDATION.md
@@ -226,6 +226,145 @@ Each agent MUST:
 
 ---
 
+## Intra-Agent Communication Protocol (IF.bus)
+
+**Based on:** InfraFabric S² multi-swarm coordination (3,563x faster than git polling)
+
+### IFMessage Schema
+
+Every agent-to-agent message follows this structure:
+
+```json
+{
+  "performative": "inform",  // FIPA-ACL: inform, request, query-if, confirm, disconfirm, ESCALATE
+  "sender": "if://agent/session-5/haiku-Y",
+  "receiver": ["if://agent/session-5/haiku-Z"],
+  "conversation_id": "if://conversation/navidocs-session-5-2025-11-13",
+  "content": {
+    "claim": "[Guardian critique, consensus findings]",
+    "evidence": ["[Citation links, validation reports]"],
+    "confidence": 0.85,  // 0.0-1.0
+    "cost_tokens": 1247
+  },
+  "citation_ids": ["if://citation/uuid"],
+  "timestamp": "2025-11-13T10:00:00Z",
+  "sequence_num": 1
+}
+```
+
+### Speech Acts (Performatives)
+
+**inform:** Share evidence extraction findings
+- Example: "S5-H01 informs S5-H10: Market claims extracted, 47 citations identified"
+
+**query-if:** Ask for validation of cross-session consistency
+- Example: "S5-H06 queries: Does Session 1 market size match Session 3 pitch deck?"
+
+**confirm:** Validate claim with multiple sources
+- Example: "S5-H02 confirms: Architecture claims verified against NaviDocs codebase (file:line refs)"
+
+**disconfirm:** Flag inconsistencies between sessions
+- Example: "S5-H06 disconfirms: Timeline contradiction (Session 2 says 4 weeks, Session 4 says 5 weeks)"
+
+**ESCALATE:** Flag evidence quality issues for Guardian review
+- Example: "S5-H08 ESCALATES: 5 unverified claims (warranty savings, MLS integration time)"
+
+### Communication Flow (This Session)
+
+```
+Guardians (1-12) ──→ IF.sam Debate ──→ S5-H10 (Consensus)
+     ↓                    ↓
+Individual Reviews   8-Way Dialogue
+(Haiku agents)      (Light vs Dark)
+     ↓                    ↓
+Citation Validation  Dissent Recording
+(Agents 1-9)        (IF.TTT traceability)
+     ↓                    ↓
+ESCALATE (if <80% consensus)
+```
+
+**Key Patterns:**
+1. **Evidence Extraction:** Agents 1-4 extract claims from Sessions 1-4
+2. **Citation Compilation:** Agent 5 builds master citation database
+3. **Cross-Session Validation:** Agent 6 checks for contradictions
+4. **Guardian Briefing:** Agent 7 prepares tailored documents for each guardian
+5. **Evidence Scoring:** Agent 8 rates credibility (0-10 scale)
+6. **Dossier Compilation:** Agent 9 synthesizes all findings
+7. **Consensus Tallying:** Agent 10 collects Guardian votes, detects <80% threshold
+
+### Contradiction Detection Example
+
+```yaml
+# Agent 6 (Cross-Session Consistency) detects timeline conflict
+S5-H06: "disconfirm" → content:
+  conflict_type: "Timeline variance"
+  session_2_claim: "4-week sprint foundation → deploy"
+  session_4_claim: "Week 1: Foundation, Week 4: Polish & Deploy (full 4 weeks)"
+  discrepancy: "Session 2 says 4 weeks total, Session 4 says Week 4 is final polish"
+  resolution_needed: true
+  confidence: 0.65
+
+# Agent 10 flags for Guardian review
+S5-H10: "ESCALATE" → content:
+  issue: "Timeline ambiguity affects feasibility judgement"
+  impact_on_consensus: "Fallibilism guardian will rate implementation risky if timeline unclear"
+  recommendation: "Clarify: Is 4 weeks INCLUDING final polish or BEFORE final polish?"
+
+# Sonnet coordinator clarifies
+Coordinator: "request" → S5-H04: "Timeline review: Week 4 is polish + deploy, all within 4 weeks?"
+
+# Agent 4 confirms
+S5-H04: "confirm" → content:
+  clarification: "4-week timeline includes deployment to production (Dec 8-10)"
+  status: "VERIFIED - no timeline contradiction"
+```
+
+### Guardian Consensus Building Example
+
+```yaml
+# Agents report evidence quality to Guardians
+S5-H08: "inform" → content:
+  claim_count: 47
+  verified: 42
+  provisional: 3
+  unverified: 2
+  average_credibility: 8.2
+  primary_sources: 32
+
+# IF.sam Light Side (Ethical Idealist) reviews
+S5-H07: "inform" → IF.sam_debate: content:
+  light_side_position: "Dossier is transparent and well-sourced. Unverified claims flagged clearly."
+  confidence: 0.95
+  vote_recommendation: "APPROVE"
+
+# IF.sam Dark Side (Pragmatic Survivor) debates
+IF.sam_dark: "disconfirm" → IF.sam_debate: content:
+  dark_side_concern: "4-week timeline is ambitious. Risk = missed delivery deadline."
+  mitigation: "Is minimum viable product defined if timeline slips?"
+  vote_recommendation: "ABSTAIN - needs contingency plan"
+
+# Agent 10 tallies initial results
+S5-H10: "inform" → content:
+  early_tally: {
+    approve: 14,
+    abstain: 4,
+    reject: 2
+  }
+  approval_percentage: 77.8  # Below 80% threshold
+  escalation_needed: true
+  recommendation: "Fallibilism and Nagarjuna abstaining. Address uncertainty concerns."
+```
+
+### IF.TTT Compliance
+
+Every message MUST include:
+- **citation_ids:** Links to Sessions 1-4 findings
+- **confidence:** Explicit score (0.0-1.0) on claim verification
+- **evidence:** Citation database references, source credibility
+- **cost_tokens:** Token consumption (IF.optimise tracking)
+
+---
+
 ## Guardian Council Voting Process
 
 ### Step 1: Dossier Distribution (Agent 7)
diff --git a/PARALLEL_LAUNCH_STRATEGY.md b/PARALLEL_LAUNCH_STRATEGY.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..43163cc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/PARALLEL_LAUNCH_STRATEGY.md
@@ -0,0 +1,340 @@
+# NaviDocs Cloud Sessions - Parallel Launch Strategy
+**Status:** ✅ READY - Maximize $100 budget efficiency
+**Generated:** 2025-11-13
+
+---
+
+## 🚀 Parallel Launch Architecture
+
+**Key Insight:** While sessions must run SEQUENTIALLY for final outputs, many preparation tasks can run IN PARALLEL to save time.
+
+---
+
+## ⚡ Launch All 5 Sessions Simultaneously
+
+**YES - Launch all 5 cloud sessions at the same time!**
+
+### What Happens:
+
+1. **Session 1** (Market Research) - Runs full workflow immediately
+   - Agents 1-9: Web research, competitor analysis, pain points
+   - Agent 10: Synthesizes findings
+   - **Output:** `intelligence/session-1/market-analysis.md` (~30-45 min)
+
+2. **Session 2** (Technical Architecture) - Runs preparation tasks immediately
+   - **Agent 1 (S2-H01):** Analyze NaviDocs codebase (NO dependency on Session 1)
+   - **Agents 2-9:** Research technical solutions (camera APIs, inventory systems, etc.)
+   - **WAIT:** When Agent 1 completes, Session 2 checks if Session 1 outputs exist
+   - **IF NOT READY:** Session 2 waits/polls for `intelligence/session-1/session-1-handoff.md`
+   - **WHEN READY:** Agent 10 synthesizes with Session 1 findings
+
+3. **Session 3** (UX/Sales) - Runs preparation tasks immediately
+   - **Agents 1-7:** Research pitch deck templates, ROI calculators, demo scripts
+   - **WAIT:** Check for Session 1+2 outputs before final synthesis
+
+4. **Session 4** (Implementation) - Runs preparation tasks immediately
+   - **Week agents:** Plan generic sprint structure, gather dev best practices
+   - **WAIT:** Check for Sessions 1+2+3 outputs before detailed planning
+
+5. **Session 5** (Guardian Validation) - Runs preparation tasks immediately
+   - **Guardians:** Review methodology, prepare evaluation criteria
+   - **WAIT:** Check for Sessions 1+2+3+4 outputs before final vote
+
+---
+
+## 📋 Session-by-Session Idle Task Breakdown
+
+### Session 2: Technical Integration (Can Start Immediately)
+
+**✅ NO-DEPENDENCY TASKS (run while waiting for Session 1):**
+
+#### Agent 1: NaviDocs Codebase Analysis
+- Read `server/db/schema.sql`
+- Read `server/routes/*.js`
+- Read `server/services/*.js`
+- Read `server/workers/*.js`
+- Map current architecture
+- **NO SESSION 1 DATA NEEDED**
+
+#### Agents 2-9: Technology Research
+- Agent 2: Inventory tracking system patterns (generic research)
+- Agent 3: Maintenance log architectures
+- Agent 4: Camera integration APIs (Home Assistant, Hikvision, Reolink)
+- Agent 5: Contact management systems
+- Agent 6: Expense tracking patterns
+- Agent 7: Search UX frameworks (Meilisearch faceting, structured results)
+- Agent 8: Multi-tenant data isolation patterns
+- Agent 9: Mobile-first responsive design patterns
+
+**⏸️ WAIT FOR SESSION 1:**
+- Agent 10: Final synthesis (needs Session 1 pain point priorities)
+
+**TIME SAVED:** ~20-30 minutes (codebase analysis + tech research)
+
+---
+
+### Session 3: UX/Sales Enablement (Can Start Immediately)
+
+**✅ NO-DEPENDENCY TASKS:**
+
+#### Agent 1: Pitch Deck Template Research
+- Analyze 10-20 SaaS pitch decks
+- Identify winning patterns (problem/solution/demo/ROI/close)
+- **NO SESSION DATA NEEDED**
+
+#### Agent 2: Figma/Design Research
+- Boat management app UI patterns
+- Luxury product design (yacht owner aesthetic)
+- Mobile-first wireframe templates
+
+#### Agent 3: ROI Calculator Patterns
+- Generic calculator templates
+- Visualization options (charts, tables)
+
+#### Agent 4: Demo Script Best Practices
+- Software demo structures
+- Storytelling techniques
+
+#### Agent 5: Objection Handling Frameworks
+- Sales enablement research
+- Broker objection patterns (generic)
+
+#### Agent 6: Success Story Research
+- Bundled software case studies
+- Luxury product onboarding
+
+#### Agent 7: Value Prop Messaging
+- Sticky engagement messaging patterns
+- Daily-use app positioning
+
+**⏸️ WAIT FOR SESSIONS 1+2:**
+- Agent 8: Integrate market findings
+- Agent 9: Integrate technical feasibility
+- Agent 10: Final synthesis
+
+**TIME SAVED:** ~15-25 minutes
+
+---
+
+### Session 4: Implementation Planning (Can Start Immediately)
+
+**✅ NO-DEPENDENCY TASKS:**
+
+#### Week 1-4 Agents: Generic Sprint Planning
+- Agile sprint best practices
+- 4-week roadmap templates
+- Story point estimation frameworks
+- Git workflow patterns
+- Testing strategies
+
+**⏸️ WAIT FOR SESSIONS 1+2+3:**
+- Detailed feature prioritization (needs Session 1 pain points)
+- Technical task breakdown (needs Session 2 architecture)
+- Sales milestone alignment (needs Session 3 pitch deck)
+
+**TIME SAVED:** ~10-15 minutes
+
+---
+
+### Session 5: Guardian Validation (Can Start Immediately)
+
+**✅ NO-DEPENDENCY TASKS:**
+
+#### Guardians 1-12: Methodology Review
+- Review IF.TTT citation framework
+- Review IF.ground anti-hallucination principles
+- Prepare evaluation criteria
+- Study Guardian Council voting protocols
+
+#### IF.sam Facets: Strategic Analysis Prep
+- Review Epic V4 methodology
+- Review Joe Trader persona application
+- Prepare business model evaluation frameworks
+
+**⏸️ WAIT FOR SESSIONS 1+2+3+4:**
+- Full dossier review
+- Evidence quality assessment
+- Final consensus vote
+
+**TIME SAVED:** ~20-30 minutes
+
+---
+
+## 🎯 Optimal Launch Sequence
+
+### Step 1: Launch All 5 Sessions Simultaneously (t=0)
+
+**Claude Code Cloud Web Interface (5 browser tabs):**
+```
+Tab 1: Paste CLOUD_SESSION_1_MARKET_RESEARCH.md → Start
+Tab 2: Paste CLOUD_SESSION_2_TECHNICAL_INTEGRATION.md → Start
+Tab 3: Paste CLOUD_SESSION_3_UX_SALES_ENABLEMENT.md → Start
+Tab 4: Paste CLOUD_SESSION_4_IMPLEMENTATION_PLANNING.md → Start
+Tab 5: Paste CLOUD_SESSION_5_SYNTHESIS_VALIDATION.md → Start
+```
+
+### Step 2: Sessions Run Preparation Tasks (t=0 to t=30min)
+
+**What's happening in parallel:**
+- Session 1: Full market research workflow
+- Session 2: Codebase analysis + tech research
+- Session 3: Pitch deck templates + UI research
+- Session 4: Sprint planning frameworks
+- Session 5: Guardian methodology review
+
+### Step 3: Session 1 Completes (t=30-45min)
+
+**Outputs created:**
+- `intelligence/session-1/market-analysis.md`
+- `intelligence/session-1/session-1-handoff.md`
+- `intelligence/session-1/session-1-citations.json`
+
+### Step 4: Session 2 Detects Session 1 Completion (t=45min)
+
+**Session 2 polls for file:**
+```bash
+if [ -f "intelligence/session-1/session-1-handoff.md" ]; then
+  echo "Session 1 complete - proceeding with synthesis"
+  # Agent 10 reads Session 1 findings
+  # Synthesizes with codebase analysis
+fi
+```
+
+### Step 5: Sessions 2-5 Complete Sequentially (t=45min to t=5hr)
+
+**Timeline:**
+- t=45min: Session 2 completes (already did 30min of prep work)
+- t=90min: Session 3 completes (reads Sessions 1+2)
+- t=150min: Session 4 completes (reads Sessions 1+2+3)
+- t=270min: Session 5 completes (reads all previous sessions)
+
+---
+
+## 💰 Budget Efficiency
+
+**Without Parallel Launch:**
+- Total time: 3-5 hours sequential
+- Idle time: ~60-90 minutes (waiting for dependencies)
+- Wasted opportunity: Could have researched tech, templates, frameworks
+
+**With Parallel Launch:**
+- Total time: 3-4 hours (60min saved)
+- Idle time: 0 minutes (all sessions productive from t=0)
+- Budget utilization: 100% efficient
+
+**Cost:**
+- Session 1: $15
+- Session 2: $20
+- Session 3: $15
+- Session 4: $15
+- Session 5: $25
+- **Total: $90 of $100 available** ✅
+
+---
+
+## 🔧 Implementation: Polling Mechanism
+
+Each session's Sonnet coordinator checks for prerequisites:
+
+```javascript
+// Session 2 polling logic
+async function waitForSession1() {
+  const maxWaitTime = 60 * 60 * 1000; // 1 hour
+  const pollInterval = 60 * 1000; // 1 minute
+  const startTime = Date.now();
+
+  while (Date.now() - startTime < maxWaitTime) {
+    try {
+      const handoffExists = await fileExists('intelligence/session-1/session-1-handoff.md');
+      if (handoffExists) {
+        console.log('✅ Session 1 complete - proceeding with synthesis');
+        return true;
+      }
+      console.log('⏸️ Waiting for Session 1... (polling every 60s)');
+      await sleep(pollInterval);
+    } catch (error) {
+      console.error('Error polling for Session 1:', error);
+    }
+  }
+
+  throw new Error('Session 1 did not complete within 1 hour');
+}
+
+// Run preparation tasks immediately
+await runPreparationTasks(); // S2-H01 codebase analysis, etc.
+
+// Then wait for Session 1 before synthesis
+await waitForSession1();
+await runSynthesisTasks(); // S2-H10 final integration
+```
+
+---
+
+## ⚠️ Edge Cases & Error Handling
+
+### What if Session 1 Fails?
+
+**Session 2 behavior:**
+- Completes all preparation tasks
+- Polls for Session 1 outputs (max 1 hour)
+- If timeout: Reports "Session 1 dependency not met" and exits gracefully
+- Outputs: Partial deliverables (codebase analysis, tech research) WITHOUT synthesis
+
+### What if GitHub is Inaccessible?
+
+**Fallback:**
+- Sessions output to local filesystem
+- Manual handoff: Copy `intelligence/session-X/` directories to shared location
+- Resume sessions with local paths
+
+### What if a Session Runs Out of Budget?
+
+**Session 2 example:**
+- Budget: $20 allocated
+- Preparation tasks: $8 consumed
+- Remaining: $12 for synthesis
+- If exceeds: Switch to Haiku-only mode, flag as "budget exceeded"
+
+---
+
+## 🎯 Launch Checklist
+
+**Before launching all 5 sessions:**
+- [ ] GitHub repo accessible: https://github.com/dannystocker/navidocs
+- [ ] Claude Code Cloud web interface ready (5 tabs)
+- [ ] All 5 CLOUD_SESSION_*.md files verified
+- [ ] Budget confirmed: $100 available
+- [ ] `intelligence/` directory exists (or will be created by Session 1)
+
+**During launch:**
+- [ ] Session 1: Monitor for completion (~30-45min)
+- [ ] Sessions 2-5: Monitor preparation task progress
+- [ ] Check for errors/blockers in any session
+
+**After Session 1 completes:**
+- [ ] Verify `intelligence/session-1/session-1-handoff.md` exists
+- [ ] Sessions 2-5 should detect and proceed automatically
+
+**After all sessions complete:**
+- [ ] Review `intelligence/session-5/complete-intelligence-dossier.md`
+- [ ] Check token consumption: Should be ~$90
+- [ ] Prepare for Riviera Plaisance meeting with Sylvain
+
+---
+
+## 🚀 TL;DR: Launch Instructions
+
+1. **Open 5 browser tabs** in Claude Code Cloud web interface
+2. **Copy-paste all 5 session files** simultaneously
+3. **Click "Start" on all 5 tabs**
+4. **Wait 3-4 hours** (sessions coordinate automatically)
+5. **Review final dossier** in `intelligence/session-5/`
+
+**Key Insight:** Sessions are SMART - they'll work on preparation tasks while waiting for dependencies, maximizing your $100 budget efficiency.
+
+---
+
+**Questions? Check:**
+- `/home/setup/infrafabric/NAVIDOCS_SESSION_SUMMARY.md` - Quick reference
+- `/home/setup/navidocs/SESSION_DEBUG_BLOCKERS.md` - Debug analysis
+- `/home/setup/infrafabric/agents.md` - Comprehensive project docs
diff --git a/SWARM_COMMUNICATION_PROTOCOL.md b/SWARM_COMMUNICATION_PROTOCOL.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..89cf9b9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/SWARM_COMMUNICATION_PROTOCOL.md
@@ -0,0 +1,509 @@
+# NaviDocs Cloud Sessions - Intra-Agent Communication Protocol
+**Based on:** InfraFabric IF.bus + SWARM-COMMUNICATION-SECURITY.md
+**Status:** ✅ READY - Apply to all 5 cloud sessions
+**Generated:** 2025-11-13
+
+---
+
+## Why Intra-Agent Communication is Critical
+
+**Key Insight from InfraFabric:**
+> "Intra-agent communication enables specialized agents to challenge each other's evidence, preventing single-agent hallucinations from becoming consensus reality. Without it, you get 9 agents making 9 independent mistakes instead of 1 collective truth."
+
+**For NaviDocs Sessions:**
+- **Agent 1 (Market Research)** finds "Prestige yachts sell for €250K"
+- **Agent 2 (Competitor Analysis)** finds ads showing €1.5M prices
+- **WITHOUT communication:** Both reports go to synthesis unchallenged
+- **WITH communication:** Agent 2 sends CHALLENGE → Evidence.Agent detects 500% variance → ESCALATE to Sonnet coordinator
+
+---
+
+## IFMessage Schema for NaviDocs Swarms
+
+### Base Message Structure
+
+```json
+{
+  "performative": "inform",
+  "sender": "if://agent/session-1/haiku-3",
+  "receiver": ["if://agent/session-1/haiku-10"],
+  "conversation_id": "if://conversation/navidocs-session-1-2025-11-13",
+  "topic": "if://topic/session-1/market-research/owner-pain-points",
+  "protocol": "fipa-request",
+  "content": {
+    "task": "Owner pain points analysis",
+    "claim": "Inventory tracking prevents €15K-€50K forgotten value at resale",
+    "evidence": [
+      "https://yachtworld.com/forums/thread-12345",
+      "https://thetraderonline.com/boats/resale-value-mistakes"
+    ],
+    "confidence": 0.85,
+    "cost_tokens": 1247
+  },
+  "citation_ids": ["if://citation/inventory-pain-point-2025-11-13"],
+  "timestamp": "2025-11-13T10:00:00Z",
+  "sequence_num": 3,
+  "trace_id": "s1-h03-001"
+}
+```
+
+### Speech Acts (FIPA-ACL Performatives)
+
+**Available Performatives:**
+1. **inform** - Agent shares findings with others
+2. **request** - Agent asks another agent for help/data
+3. **query-if** - Agent asks if claim is true
+4. **confirm** - Agent verifies another agent's claim
+5. **disconfirm** - Agent challenges another agent's claim
+6. **propose** - Agent suggests approach/solution
+7. **agree** - Agent confirms proposal
+8. **refuse** - Agent declines request (with reason)
+9. **ESCALATE** - Agent flags critical conflict for Sonnet coordinator
+
+### Example Communication Flows
+
+#### Flow 1: Multi-Source Verification (Session 1, Agents 1→10)
+
+```yaml
+# Agent 1 (S1-H01): Market sizing
+- performative: "inform"
+  content:
+    claim: "Mediterranean yacht sales €2.3B annually"
+    evidence: ["https://yacht-market-report.com/2024"]
+    confidence: 0.70  # Only 1 source
+  receiver: ["if://agent/session-1/haiku-10"]  # Synthesis agent
+
+# Agent 10 (S1-H10) detects low confidence, requests verification
+- performative: "request"
+  content:
+    task: "Verify market size claim with 2nd source"
+    reason: "IF.TTT requires 2+ sources for high-value claims"
+  receiver: ["if://agent/session-1/haiku-2"]  # Competitor analysis agent
+
+# Agent 2 (S1-H02) searches competitor reports
+- performative: "confirm"
+  content:
+    original_claim: "Mediterranean yacht sales €2.3B annually"
+    evidence: ["https://statista.com/yacht-market-europe-2024"]
+    confidence: 0.90  # Now 2 sources
+  receiver: ["if://agent/session-1/haiku-10"]
+
+# Agent 10 synthesizes
+- performative: "inform"
+  content:
+    claim: "Mediterranean yacht sales €2.3B annually (VERIFIED)"
+    sources: 2
+    confidence: 0.90
+  receiver: ["if://agent/session-1/coordinator"]  # Sonnet
+```
+
+#### Flow 2: Cross-Domain Validation (Session 2, Agents 2→4)
+
+```yaml
+# Agent 2 (S2-H02): Inventory tracking design
+- performative: "propose"
+  content:
+    feature: "Inventory tracking via manual entry forms"
+    rationale: "Simple, no OCR complexity"
+  receiver: ["if://agent/session-2/haiku-4"]  # Camera integration agent
+
+# Agent 4 (S2-H04) challenges with camera capability
+- performative: "disconfirm"
+  content:
+    original_proposal: "Manual entry only"
+    challenge: "Camera feeds can auto-detect equipment (tender, electronics) via CV"
+    evidence: ["OpenCV boat equipment detection models"]
+    alternative: "Hybrid: Manual + camera-assisted auto-detection"
+  receiver: ["if://agent/session-2/haiku-2", "if://agent/session-2/haiku-10"]
+
+# Agent 2 revises proposal
+- performative: "agree"
+  content:
+    revised_proposal: "Inventory tracking: Manual entry + camera-assisted CV detection"
+    integration_point: "Use S2-H04's camera feed for equipment detection"
+  receiver: ["if://agent/session-2/haiku-10"]
+```
+
+#### Flow 3: ESCALATE Protocol (Session 1, Conflict Detection)
+
+```yaml
+# Agent 1 (S1-H01): Market research
+- performative: "inform"
+  content:
+    claim: "Jeanneau Prestige 40-50ft price range €250K-€480K"
+    evidence: ["YachtWorld listing (1 data point)"]
+    confidence: 0.65
+
+# Agent 3 (S1-H03): Owner pain points
+- performative: "inform"
+  content:
+    claim: "Owner quoted €15K forgotten tender on €1.5M boat resale"
+    evidence: ["Forum post, broker interview"]
+    confidence: 0.75
+
+# Agent 10 (S1-H10) detects conflict (€250K vs €1.5M = 500% variance)
+- performative: "ESCALATE"
+  content:
+    conflict_type: "Price range inconsistency"
+    agent_1_claim: "€250K-€480K (S1-H01)"
+    agent_3_claim: "€1.5M boat (S1-H03)"
+    variance: "500%"
+    requires_resolution: true
+    recommendation: "Re-search YachtWorld/Boat Trader for Prestige 40-50ft ACTUAL sale prices"
+  receiver: ["if://agent/session-1/coordinator"]  # Sonnet resolves
+
+# Sonnet coordinator investigates
+- performative: "request"
+  content:
+    task: "Search YachtWorld ads for Jeanneau Prestige 50 SOLD listings"
+    priority: "high"
+  receiver: ["if://agent/session-1/haiku-1"]
+
+# Agent 1 re-searches
+- performative: "inform"
+  content:
+    claim: "Jeanneau Prestige 50 price range €800K-€1.5M (CORRECTED)"
+    evidence: [
+      "YachtWorld: Prestige 50 sold €1.2M (2024)",
+      "Boat Trader: Prestige 50 sold €950K (2023)"
+    ]
+    confidence: 0.95
+    note: "Previous €250K estimate was for smaller Jeanneau models, NOT Prestige line"
+  receiver: ["if://agent/session-1/haiku-10", "if://agent/session-1/coordinator"]
+```
+
+---
+
+## Communication Patterns by Session
+
+### Session 1: Market Research (Distributed Intelligence)
+
+**C-UAS Pattern:** DETECT → TRACK → IDENTIFY → SYNTHESIZE
+
+```
+S1-H01 (Market Size) ────┐
+S1-H02 (Competitors) ────┤
+S1-H03 (Pain Points) ────┤
+S1-H04 (Inventory ROI) ──┼──→ S1-H10 (Evidence Synthesis) ──→ Sonnet (Final Report)
+S1-H05 (Sticky Features) ┤           ↓
+S1-H06 (Search UX) ───────┤      ESCALATE (if conflicts)
+S1-H07 (Pricing) ─────────┤           ↓
+S1-H08 (Home Assistant) ──┤      Sonnet Resolves
+S1-H09 (Objections) ──────┘
+```
+
+**Key Communication Flows:**
+1. **Agents 1-9 → Agent 10:** Send findings with confidence scores
+2. **Agent 10 → Agents 1-9:** Request verification if confidence <0.75
+3. **Agent 10 → Sonnet:** ESCALATE conflicts (>20% variance)
+4. **Sonnet → Agent X:** Request re-investigation with specific instructions
+
+### Session 2: Technical Architecture (Collaborative Design)
+
+**Wu Lun Pattern (Confucian Relationships):** Peer review + hierarchical approval
+
+```
+S2-H01 (Codebase) ──────→ S2-H10 (Synthesis)
+                          ↓
+S2-H02 (Inventory) ─────→ S2-H04 (Cameras) ─┐
+   ↓ propose                ↓ challenge      │
+   ↓                        ↓                 ├──→ S2-H10 ──→ Sonnet
+S2-H03 (Maintenance) ────→ S2-H05 (Contacts) ┘
+   ↓ propose                ↓ validate
+
+S2-H06 (Expense) ────────→ S2-H07 (Search UX) ──→ S2-H10
+   ↓ propose                ↓ challenge (avoid long lists!)
+```
+
+**Key Communication Flows:**
+1. **Design Proposals:** Agents 2-7 propose features
+2. **Peer Review:** Adjacent agents challenge/validate designs
+3. **Integration Checks:** Agent 10 ensures no conflicts (e.g., inventory + cameras)
+4. **Sonnet Approval:** Final architecture review
+
+### Session 3: UX/Sales (Adversarial Testing)
+
+**Pattern:** Pitch → Objection → Counter-objection → Refinement
+
+```
+S3-H01 (Pitch Deck) ──────→ S3-H05 (Objection Handling) ──→ S3-H10
+   ↓ pitch                     ↓ challenges ("Why not use X?")
+
+S3-H03 (ROI Calculator) ────→ S3-H05 (Validate assumptions)
+   ↓ claims                    ↓ verify
+
+S3-H04 (Demo Script) ────────→ S3-H06 (Success Stories) ──→ S3-H10
+   ↓ flow                      ↓ validate against real cases
+```
+
+**Key Communication Flows:**
+1. **Pitch → Objection:** Agent 5 challenges every pitch claim
+2. **ROI → Validation:** Agent 5 verifies ROI assumptions with market data
+3. **Demo → Testing:** Agent 6 checks if demo matches real-world success stories
+
+### Session 4: Implementation (Sprint Coordination)
+
+**Pattern:** Sequential handoffs (Week 1 → Week 2 → Week 3 → Week 4)
+
+```
+S4-H01 (Week 1 Sprint) ──→ S4-H02 (Week 2 Sprint)
+   ↓ handoff                  ↓ depends on Week 1 deliverables
+
+S4-H02 (Week 2 Sprint) ──→ S4-H03 (Week 3 Sprint)
+   ↓ handoff                  ↓ depends on Week 2
+
+S4-H03 (Week 3 Sprint) ──→ S4-H04 (Week 4 Sprint)
+   ↓ handoff                  ↓ depends on Week 3
+
+S4-H04 (Week 4 Sprint) ──→ S4-H10 (Integration Testing Plan)
+```
+
+**Key Communication Flows:**
+1. **Week Handoffs:** Each week agent sends deliverables + blockers to next week
+2. **Dependency Checks:** Week N checks if Week N-1 unblocks their tasks
+3. **Agent 10 Synthesis:** Ensure 4-week roadmap is coherent
+
+### Session 5: Guardian Validation (Consensus Building)
+
+**Pattern:** Individual reviews → Debate → Vote → Synthesis
+
+```
+Core Guardians (1-6) ────┐
+Western Philosophers ─────┤
+Eastern Philosophers ─────┼──→ IF.sam Debate ──→ S5-H10 (Consensus Report)
+IF.sam Facets (8) ────────┘        ↓
+                              ESCALATE (if <80% consensus)
+                                    ↓
+                              Sonnet Mediates
+```
+
+**Key Communication Flows:**
+1. **Review → Debate:** Each guardian sends critique to IF.sam board
+2. **IF.sam Synthesis:** Debate among 8 facets (Light Side vs Dark Side)
+3. **Vote → Consensus:** Agent 10 tallies votes, checks for >80% threshold
+4. **ESCALATE:** If consensus fails, Sonnet mediates
+
+---
+
+## IF.TTT Compliance
+
+### Every Message Must Include:
+
+1. **citation_ids:** Links to evidence sources
+2. **confidence:** Explicit score (0.0-1.0)
+3. **evidence:** Observable artifacts (URLs, file:line, git commits)
+4. **trace_id:** Unique identifier for audit trail
+
+### Signature Requirements (Anti-Forgery):
+
+```json
+{
+  "signature": {
+    "algorithm": "ed25519",
+    "public_key": "ed25519:AAAC3NzaC1...",
+    "signature_bytes": "ed25519:p9RLz6Y4...",
+    "signed_fields": [
+      "performative", "sender", "receiver",
+      "content", "citation_ids", "timestamp"
+    ]
+  }
+}
+```
+
+**Why:** Prevents agent impersonation, ensures non-repudiation
+
+---
+
+## Token Cost Tracking (IF.optimise)
+
+**Every message includes:**
+```json
+{
+  "cost_tokens": 1247,
+  "model": "haiku",
+  "efficiency_score": 0.82  // tokens_used / tokens_budgeted
+}
+```
+
+**Agent 10 (Synthesis) tracks total:**
+```json
+{
+  "session_cost": {
+    "total_tokens": 52450,
+    "total_usd": 0.86,
+    "budget_remaining": 14.14,
+    "efficiency": "71% Haiku delegation ✅"
+  }
+}
+```
+
+---
+
+## Error Handling & Resilience (Stoic Prudence)
+
+### Retry Policy (Exponential Backoff)
+
+```yaml
+request:
+  retry_attempts: 3
+  backoff: [1s, 5s, 15s]
+  on_failure: "ESCALATE to coordinator"
+```
+
+### Timeout Policy
+
+```yaml
+message_timeout:
+  inform: 60s       # Simple findings
+  request: 300s     # Complex queries (web search, etc.)
+  ESCALATE: 30s     # Critical conflicts need fast resolution
+```
+
+### Graceful Degradation
+
+**If Agent X doesn't respond:**
+1. **Agent 10 proceeds** with available data
+2. **Flags missing input:** "S1-H07 pricing analysis: TIMEOUT (not included in synthesis)"
+3. **ESCALATE to Sonnet:** "Agent 7 unresponsive - proceed without pricing?"
+
+---
+
+## Implementation Instructions for Session Coordinators
+
+### Sonnet Coordinator Responsibilities:
+
+1. **Spawn agents with IF.bus protocol:**
+```python
+await spawn_agent(
+    agent_id="if://agent/session-1/haiku-3",
+    task="Owner pain points analysis",
+    communication_protocol="IF.bus",
+    topics=["if://topic/session-1/market-research"]
+)
+```
+
+2. **Monitor message bus for ESCALATEs:**
+```python
+while session_active:
+    messages = await poll_messages(topic="if://topic/escalations")
+    for msg in messages:
+        if msg.performative == "ESCALATE":
+            await resolve_conflict(msg)
+```
+
+3. **Track token costs:**
+```python
+total_cost = sum(msg.content.cost_tokens for msg in all_messages)
+if total_cost > budget_threshold:
+    await alert_user(f"Session {session_id} approaching budget limit")
+```
+
+### Haiku Agent Responsibilities:
+
+1. **Check in with identity:**
+```python
+await send_message(
+    performative="inform",
+    content="I am S1-H03, assigned to Owner Pain Points Analysis",
+    receiver="if://agent/session-1/coordinator"
+)
+```
+
+2. **Send findings to synthesis agent:**
+```python
+await send_message(
+    performative="inform",
+    content={
+        "claim": "Inventory tracking prevents €15K-€50K loss",
+        "evidence": ["..."],
+        "confidence": 0.85
+    },
+    receiver="if://agent/session-1/haiku-10"  # Always send to Agent 10
+)
+```
+
+3. **Respond to verification requests:**
+```python
+requests = await poll_messages(receiver_filter="if://agent/session-1/haiku-3")
+for req in requests:
+    if req.performative == "request":
+        result = await process_request(req.content.task)
+        await send_message(
+            performative="confirm",
+            content=result,
+            receiver=req.sender  # Reply to requester
+        )
+```
+
+---
+
+## Testing the Protocol
+
+### Minimal Viable Test (Session 1, 3 agents)
+
+**Scenario:** Detect price conflict and ESCALATE
+
+```python
+# Agent 1: Report low price
+S1_H01.send("inform", claim="Prestige 50 price €250K")
+
+# Agent 3: Report high price
+S1_H03.send("inform", claim="Owner has €1.5M Prestige 50")
+
+# Agent 10: Detect conflict
+variance = (1.5M - 250K) / 250K  # 500%
+if variance > 0.20:
+    S1_H10.send("ESCALATE", content="500% price variance")
+
+# Sonnet: Resolve
+Sonnet.send("request", task="Re-search YachtWorld for Prestige 50 SOLD prices", receiver="S1-H01")
+```
+
+**Expected Result:**
+- Agent 10 detects conflict
+- Sonnet receives ESCALATE
+- Agent 1 re-investigates
+- Corrected price €800K-€1.5M reported
+
+---
+
+## Benefits Summary
+
+**Without Intra-Agent Communication:**
+- 10 agents make 10 independent mistakes
+- Conflicts undetected until human reviews
+- Low confidence claims go unchallenged
+- Single-source hallucinations propagate
+
+**With IF.bus Protocol:**
+- Agent 10 detects conflicts automatically (>20% variance → ESCALATE)
+- Multi-source verification enforced (IF.TTT requirement)
+- Cross-domain validation (Agent 4 challenges Agent 2 designs)
+- Token costs tracked in real-time (IF.optimise)
+- Cryptographic integrity (Ed25519 signatures)
+
+**Result:** Higher quality intelligence, faster conflict resolution, medical-grade evidence standards.
+
+---
+
+## Next Steps
+
+1. **Update all 5 cloud session files** with IF.bus communication protocol
+2. **Add message examples** to each agent's task description
+3. **Update Agent 10 (Synthesis)** to include conflict detection logic
+4. **Test with Session 1** (market research) before launching Sessions 2-5
+
+**Files to Update:**
+- `CLOUD_SESSION_1_MARKET_RESEARCH.md` - Add IF.bus protocol section
+- `CLOUD_SESSION_2_TECHNICAL_INTEGRATION.md` - Add peer review flow
+- `CLOUD_SESSION_3_UX_SALES_ENABLEMENT.md` - Add adversarial testing
+- `CLOUD_SESSION_4_IMPLEMENTATION_PLANNING.md` - Add sprint handoffs
+- `CLOUD_SESSION_5_SYNTHESIS_VALIDATION.md` - Add consensus protocol
+
+---
+
+**Citation:** if://doc/navidocs/swarm-communication-protocol-2025-11-13
+**References:**
+- `/home/setup/infrafabric/docs/SWARM-COMMUNICATION-SECURITY.md`
+- `/home/setup/infrafabric/docs/INTRA-AGENT-COMMUNICATION-VALUE-ANALYSIS.md`
+- `/home/setup/infrafabric/docs/HAIKU-SWARM-TEST-FRAMEWORK.md`