navidocs/CLOUD_SESSION_5_SYNTHESIS_VALIDATION.md

Cloud Session 5: Evidence Synthesis & Guardian Validation

NaviDocs Sticky Engagement Model - Final Dossier

Session Type: Guardian Council Coordinator + Evidence Curator Lead Agent: Sonnet (synthesis + validation) Swarm Size: 10 Haiku agents Token Budget: $25 (15K Sonnet + 60K Haiku) Output: Intelligence dossier validating inventory tracking + daily engagement model

---

Mission Statement

Active Quality Assurance Partner (Immediate Start): Deploy evidence quality standards, monitor Sessions 1-4 commits in real-time, provide continuous feedback to prevent rework.

Final Validation (When Sessions 1-4 Complete): Synthesize all intelligence into comprehensive dossier, validate claims with medical-grade evidence standards, achieve Guardian Council consensus (>90% approval), and deliver final presentation materials.

---

Context (Read First)

Prerequisites (MUST READ ALL):

1. intelligence/session-1/session-1-market-analysis.md
2. intelligence/session-1/session-1-handoff.md
3. intelligence/session-2/session-2-architecture.md
4. intelligence/session-2/session-2-sprint-plan.md
5. intelligence/session-3/session-3-pitch-deck.md
6. intelligence/session-3/session-3-demo-script.md
7. intelligence/session-4/session-4-sprint-plan.md

Guardian Council Composition:

• 6 Core Guardians (Empiricism, Verificationism, Fallibilism, Falsificationism, Coherentism, Pragmatism)
• 3 Western Philosophers (Aristotle, Kant, Russell)
• 3 Eastern Philosophers (Confucius, Nagarjuna, Zhuangzi)
• 8 IF.sam Facets (Light Side: Ethical Idealist, Visionary Optimist, Democratic Collaborator, Transparent Communicator; Dark Side: Pragmatic Survivor, Strategic Manipulator, Ends-Justify-Means Operator, Corporate Diplomat)

Consensus Requirements:

• Standard Approval: >90% (18/20 votes)
• 100% Consensus: Requires empirical validation + testable predictions + addresses all guardian concerns
• Veto Power: Contrarian Guardian can veto >95% approval with 2-week cooling-off period

Evidence Standards (IF.TTT):

• All claims MUST have ≥2 independent sources
• Citations include: file:line references, web URLs with SHA-256 hashes, git commits
• Status tracking: unverified → verified → disputed → revoked
• Citation schema: schemas/citation/v1.0.schema.json (in repo)

---

Agent Identity & Check-In Protocol

YOU ARE: Sonnet coordinator for Session 5 (Evidence Synthesis)

YOUR HAIKU SWARM: You have 10 Haiku agents available. Use as many as needed (not required to use all 10).

AGENT IDENTITY SYSTEM: When spawning a Haiku agent, assign it an identity: S5-H01 through S5-H10 Each agent MUST:

1. Check in at start: "I am S5-H03, assigned to [task name]"
2. Reference their task by searching this document for "Agent 3:" (matching their number)
3. Retain identity throughout execution
4. Report completion with identity: "S5-H03 complete: [deliverable summary]"

TASK DEPENDENCIES:

• Most agents can run in parallel
• Agent 10 typically synthesizes results from Agents 1-9 (must wait for completion)

---

Your Tasks (Spawn 13 Haiku Agents)

PHASE 1: Active Quality Assurance (START IMMEDIATELY - NO DEPENDENCIES)

Agent 0A: Evidence Quality Standards Deployment

AGENT ID: S5-H0A PRIORITY: CRITICAL - Deploy within first 10 minutes ** Create:

• EVIDENCE_QUALITY_STANDARDS.md - Master reference for Sessions 1-4
  • Citation format templates:

    {
      "citation_id": "if://citation/warranty-savings-8k-33k",
      "claim": "NaviDocs prevents €8K-€33K warranty losses per yacht",
      "sources": [
        {
          "type": "web",
          "url": "https://yachtworld.com/research/yacht-ownership-costs-2024",
          "sha256": "a1b2c3d4...",
          "accessed": "2025-11-13",
          "quality": "primary",
          "credibility": 9
        },
        {
          "type": "file",
          "path": "intelligence/session-1/market-analysis.md",
          "line_range": "45-67",
          "quality": "primary"
        }
      ],
      "status": "verified",
      "confidence_score": 0.95
    }
    

  • IF.TTT compliance checklist:
    • ≥2 independent sources for high-confidence claims
    • Web URLs include SHA-256 hash (tamper detection)
    • File references include line numbers
    • Citation ID follows if:// URI scheme
    • Confidence score justified (0.0-1.0)
    • Status tracked: unverified → verified → disputed → revoked
  • Evidence quality scoring:
    • Primary source (9-10 credibility): Original research, official statistics, codebase analysis
    • Secondary source (7-8 credibility): Industry reports, competitor websites, expert interviews
    • Tertiary source (5-6 credibility): Blog posts, forum discussions, anecdotal evidence
    • Unverified (0-4 credibility): Claims without sources
  • Multi-source verification examples:
    • Market sizing claim: YachtWorld stats + Boat International report
    • Technical claim: Codebase file:line + architecture doc
    • Competitive claim: Competitor website + pricing screenshot

Commit to coordination branch:

git add EVIDENCE_QUALITY_STANDARDS.md
git commit -m "Session 5: Evidence quality standards for Sessions 1-4"
git push origin navidocs-cloud-coordination

Notify other sessions:

• Update AUTONOMOUS-COORDINATION-STATUS.md: "✅ Evidence standards deployed - Sessions 1-4 reference EVIDENCE_QUALITY_STANDARDS.md"

Deliverable: EVIDENCE_QUALITY_STANDARDS.md (Sessions 1-4 read this immediately)

---

Agent 0B: Real-Time Quality Monitor (CONTINUOUS)

AGENT ID: S5-H0B PRIORITY: HIGH - Run every 5 minutes for entire session ** Monitor:

• Poll intelligence/session-1/, session-2/, session-3/, session-4/ for new commits
• Check git log every 5 minutes:

  git fetch origin navidocs-cloud-coordination
  git log --since="5 minutes ago" --name-status -- intelligence/
  

Review:

• New citations: Are they IF.TTT compliant? (SHA-256 hashes, ≥2 sources, line numbers)
• Market claims: Do they cite credible sources? (not just "industry experts say...")
• Technical claims: Do they reference codebase? (file:line required)
• ROI calculations: Do they show work? (formulas + source data)

Feedback Loop:

• Create QUALITY_FEEDBACK.md (updated every 5 minutes):

  # Real-Time Quality Feedback (Updated: 2025-11-13 14:35 UTC)
  
  ## ✅ Session 1 (Good)
  - Agent 2 citation: Excellent (2 primary sources, SHA-256 hashes included)
  - Agent 3 market sizing: Good (YachtWorld + Boat International cited)
  
  ## ⚠️ Session 2 (Needs Attention)
  - Agent 3 maintenance log claim: Missing line number reference
  - Agent 6 accounting module: Only 1 source (need ≥2 for high confidence)
  
  ## 🔴 Session 3 (Action Required)
  - Agent 5 ROI calculator: No source citations for €8K-€33K warranty claim
  - Action: Review Session 1 market analysis, add citation links
  
  ## ✅ Session 4 (Good)
  - Sprint plan: All tasks reference Session 2 architecture (file:line included)
  

Commit feedback every 5 minutes:

git add QUALITY_FEEDBACK.md
git commit -m "Session 5: Quality feedback ($(date -Iseconds))"
git push origin navidocs-cloud-coordination

Escalate if needed:

• 20% of citations lack IF.TTT compliance → ESCALATE to Sonnet coordinator

• Sessions 1-4 read feedback, fix issues proactively (prevent rework at validation stage)

Deliverable: QUALITY_FEEDBACK.md (updated every 5 minutes)

---

Agent 0C: Guardian Briefing Templates (PREP WORK)

AGENT ID: S5-H0C ** Create templates for final validation (ready when Sessions 1-4 complete):

1. Guardian-Specific Briefing Template (20 guardians):

   # Guardian Briefing: [Guardian Name]
   **Philosophy:** [Empiricism, Pragmatism, IF.sam Light/Dark, etc.]
   **Focus Areas:** [What this guardian cares about most]
   
   ## Executive Summary
   [Tailored to guardian's philosophy]
   
   ## Key Evidence
   [Filtered to guardian's interests]
   - Empiricism: Market research data, statistical evidence
   - Pragmatism: ROI calculations, implementation feasibility
   - IF.sam (Light): Ethical sales, transparency, user benefit
   - IF.sam (Dark): Competitive advantage, revenue potential, market dominance
   
   ## Questions for This Guardian
   [Anticipated concerns based on philosophy]
   
   ## Voting Criteria
   - [ ] Evidence quality meets standards
   - [ ] Claims aligned with guardian's values
   - [ ] Implementation feasible
   

2. Consensus Prediction Formula:

   function predictConsensus(dossier) {
     let approvalScore = 0;
     // Evidence quality (40% weight)
     approvalScore += dossier.verifiedCitations / dossier.totalCitations * 0.4;
     // Multi-source verification (30% weight)
     approvalScore += dossier.multiSourceClaims / dossier.totalClaims * 0.3;
     // Implementation feasibility (20% weight)
     approvalScore += dossier.feasibilityScore * 0.2;
     // Guardian alignment (10% weight)
     approvalScore += dossier.philosophyAlignment * 0.1;
   
     return approvalScore * 100; // Return as percentage
   }
   

3. Voting Criteria Checklist:

   • All high-confidence claims have ≥2 sources
   • Technical claims reference codebase (file:line)
   • Market sizing backed by credible sources
   • ROI calculations show work (formulas + data)
   • Implementation timeline realistic (based on codebase complexity)
   • Acceptance criteria testable
   • No unverified claims in executive summary

Deliverable: GUARDIAN_BRIEFING_TEMPLATES/ directory with 20 templates + consensus formula

---

PHASE 2: Evidence Extraction & Validation (WAIT FOR SESSIONS 1-4)

Agent 1: Session 1 Evidence Extraction

AGENT ID: S5-H01 ** Read:

• intelligence/session-1/session-1-market-analysis.md
• intelligence/session-1/session-1-citations.json

Extract:

• All market sizing claims (Mediterranean yacht sales, brokerage counts)
• Competitive landscape findings (competitor pricing, feature gaps)
• Broker pain points (time spent, documentation delays)
• ROI calculator inputs (warranty savings, claims costs)

Deliverable: Evidence inventory with citation links

Agent 2: Session 2 Technical Claims Validation

AGENT ID: S5-H02 ** Read:

• intelligence/session-2/session-2-architecture.md
• NaviDocs codebase (server/db/schema.sql, server/routes/*.js)

Validate:

• Architecture claims match actual codebase (file:line references)
• Database migrations are executable (test on dev database)
• API endpoints align with existing patterns
• Integration points exist in code

Deliverable: Technical validation report (verified vs unverified claims)

Agent 3: Session 3 Sales Material Review

AGENT ID: S5-H03 ** Read:

• intelligence/session-3/session-3-pitch-deck.md
• intelligence/session-3/session-3-demo-script.md
• intelligence/session-3/session-3-roi-calculator.html

Review:

• ROI calculations cite Session 1 sources
• Demo script matches NaviDocs features
• Pricing strategy aligns with competitor analysis
• Objection handling backed by evidence

Deliverable: Sales material validation report

Agent 4: Session 4 Implementation Feasibility

AGENT ID: S5-H04 ** Read:

• intelligence/session-4/session-4-sprint-plan.md
• NaviDocs codebase (all relevant files)

Assess:

• 4-week timeline realistic (based on codebase complexity)
• Dependencies correctly identified
• Acceptance criteria testable
• Migration scripts safe (rollback procedures)

Deliverable: Feasibility assessment report

Agent 5: Citation Database Compilation

AGENT ID: S5-H05 ** Gather:

• All citations from Sessions 1-4
• Web sources (with SHA-256 hashes)
• File references (with line numbers)
• Git commits (with SHA-1 hashes)

Create:

• Master citations JSON file
• Citation status tracking (verified/unverified)
• Source quality assessment (primary vs secondary)

Deliverable: session-5-citations-master.json

Agent 6: Cross-Session Consistency Check

AGENT ID: S5-H06 ** Analyze:

• Market size claims (Session 1 vs Session 3 pitch deck)
• Technical architecture (Session 2 vs Session 4 implementation)
• ROI calculations (Session 1 inputs vs Session 3 calculator)
• Timeline claims (Session 2 roadmap vs Session 4 sprint plan)

Flag:

• Contradictions between sessions
• Unsupported claims (no citation)
• Outdated information

Deliverable: Consistency audit report

Agent 7: Guardian Council Vote Preparation

AGENT ID: S5-H07 ** Prepare:

• Dossier summary for each guardian (tailored to philosophy)
• Empiricism: Focus on market research data, evidence quality
• Pragmatism: Focus on ROI, implementation feasibility
• IF.sam (Light): Focus on ethical sales practices, transparency
• IF.sam (Dark): Focus on competitive advantage, revenue potential

Create:

• Guardian-specific briefing documents (20 total)
• Voting criteria checklist
• Consensus prediction (likely approval %)

Deliverable: Guardian briefing package

Agent 8: Evidence Quality Scoring

AGENT ID: S5-H08 ** Score Each Claim:

• Primary Source (3 points): Direct research, codebase analysis
• Secondary Source (2 points): Industry reports, competitor websites
• Tertiary Source (1 point): Blog posts, forum discussions
• No Source (0 points): Unverified claim

Calculate:

• Total claims across all sessions
• Verified claims percentage
• Average evidence quality score

Deliverable: Evidence quality scorecard

Agent 9: Final Dossier Compiler

AGENT ID: S5-H09 ** Synthesize:

• Executive summary (2 pages max)
• Market analysis (Session 1 findings)
• Technical architecture (Session 2 design)
• Sales enablement materials (Session 3 pitch)
• Implementation roadmap (Session 4 sprint plan)
• Evidence appendix (citations, validation reports)

Format:

• Professional document (markdown with Mermaid diagrams)
• Table of contents with page numbers
• Cross-references between sections

Deliverable: NAVIDOCS_INTELLIGENCE_DOSSIER.md

Agent 10: Guardian Council Vote Coordinator

AGENT ID: S5-H10 ** Execute:

• Submit dossier to Guardian Council
• Collect votes from all 20 guardians
• Tally results (approval %, abstentions, vetoes)
• Record dissent reasons (if any)
• Generate consensus report

Deliverable: session-5-guardian-vote.json

---

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:

{
  "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

# 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

# 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)

Each guardian receives tailored briefing highlighting their philosophical concerns:

Empiricism Guardian:

• Market sizing methodology (how was €2.3B figure derived?)
• Warranty savings calculation (€8K-€33K range justified?)
• Evidence quality (how many primary vs secondary sources?)

Verificationism Guardian:

• Testable predictions (can ROI calculator claims be validated?)
• API specification completeness (OpenAPI spec executable?)
• Acceptance criteria measurability (Given/When/Then verifiable?)

Fallibilism Guardian:

• Uncertainty acknowledgment (what assumptions might be wrong?)
• Risk mitigation (what if 4-week timeline slips?)
• Competitor analysis gaps (missing players?)

Falsificationism Guardian:

• Refutable claims (can market size be disproven?)
• Contradiction check (any conflicting statements?)
• Alternative explanations (is NaviDocs the only solution?)

Coherentism Guardian:

• Internal consistency (Sessions 1-4 align?)
• Logical flow (market → architecture → sales → implementation?)
• Integration points (do all pieces fit together?)

Pragmatism Guardian:

• Business value (does this solve real broker problems?)
• Implementation feasibility (4-week sprint realistic?)
• ROI justification (€8K-€33K savings achievable?)

Aristotle (Virtue Ethics):

• Broker welfare (does this genuinely help clients?)
• Honest representation (sales pitch truthful?)
• Excellence pursuit (is this best-in-class solution?)

Kant (Deontology):

• Universalizability (could all brokerages adopt this?)
• Treating brokers as ends (not just revenue sources?)
• Duty to accuracy (no misleading claims?)

Russell (Logical Positivism):

• Logical validity (arguments sound?)
• Empirical verifiability (claims testable?)
• Clear definitions (terms like "warranty tracking" precise?)

Confucius (Ren/Li):

• Relationship harmony (broker-buyer trust enhanced?)
• Propriety (sales approach respectful?)
• Social benefit (does this improve yacht sales ecosystem?)

Nagarjuna (Madhyamaka):

• Dependent origination (how does NaviDocs fit into larger system?)
• Avoiding extremes (balanced approach to automation vs manual?)
• Emptiness of claims (are market projections inherently uncertain?)

Zhuangzi (Daoism):

• Natural flow (does solution feel organic to brokers?)
• Wu wei (effortless adoption vs forced change?)
• Perspective diversity (have we considered all viewpoints?)

IF.sam Light Side (Ethical Idealist):

• Mission alignment (does this advance marine safety?)
• Transparency (all claims documented with sources?)
• User empowerment (brokers retain control?)

IF.sam Light Side (Visionary Optimist):

• Innovation potential (is this cutting-edge?)
• Market expansion (can this grow beyond Riviera?)
• Long-term impact (10-year vision?)

IF.sam Light Side (Democratic Collaborator):

• Stakeholder input (have we consulted brokers?)
• Team involvement (implementation plan includes feedback loops?)
• Open communication (findings shareable?)

IF.sam Light Side (Transparent Communicator):

• Clarity (pitch deck understandable?)
• Honesty (limitations acknowledged?)
• Evidence disclosure (citations accessible?)

IF.sam Dark Side (Pragmatic Survivor):

• Competitive edge (does this beat competitors?)
• Revenue potential (can this be profitable?)
• Risk management (what if Riviera says no?)

IF.sam Dark Side (Strategic Manipulator):

• Persuasion effectiveness (will pitch close deal?)
• Objection handling (have we pre-empted pushback?)
• Narrative control (do we own the story?)

IF.sam Dark Side (Ends-Justify-Means):

• Goal achievement (will this get NaviDocs adopted?)
• Efficiency (fastest path to deployment?)
• Sacrifice assessment (what corners can be cut?)

IF.sam Dark Side (Corporate Diplomat):

• Stakeholder alignment (does this satisfy all parties?)
• Political navigation (how to handle objections?)
• Relationship preservation (no bridges burned?)

Step 2: Voting Criteria

Each guardian votes on 3 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 score ≥7.0 across 3 dimensions
• Abstain: Average score 5.0-6.9 (needs more evidence)
• Reject: Average score <5.0 (fundamental flaws)

Step 3: Consensus Calculation

Approval Percentage:

(Approve Votes) / (Total Guardians - Abstentions) * 100

Outcome Thresholds:

• 100% Consensus: All 20 guardians 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

Step 4: Dissent Recording

If any guardian rejects or abstains, record:

• Guardian name
• Vote (reject/abstain)
• Reason (1-2 sentences)
• Required changes (specific requests)

Example Dissent:

{
  "guardian": "Fallibilism",
  "vote": "abstain",
  "reason": "4-week timeline lacks uncertainty bounds. No contingency if implementation slips.",
  "required_changes": [
    "Add timeline variance analysis (best case, likely case, worst case)",
    "Define minimum viable product if 4 weeks insufficient"
  ]
}

---

Evidence Quality Standards (IF.TTT)

Citation Schema (v1.0)

{
  "citation_id": "if://citation/navidocs-market-size-2025-11-13",
  "claim": "Mediterranean yacht sales market is €2.3B annually",
  "evidence_type": "market_research",
  "sources": [
    {
      "type": "web",
      "url": "https://example.com/yacht-market-report-2024",
      "accessed": "2025-11-13T10:00:00Z",
      "hash": "sha256:a3b2c1d4e5f6...",
      "quality": "secondary",
      "credibility": 8
    },
    {
      "type": "file",
      "path": "intelligence/session-1/market-analysis.md",
      "line_range": "45-67",
      "git_commit": "abc123def456",
      "quality": "primary",
      "credibility": 9
    }
  ],
  "status": "verified",
  "verification_date": "2025-11-13T12:00:00Z",
  "verified_by": "if://agent/session-5/haiku-5",
  "confidence_score": 0.85,
  "dependencies": ["if://citation/broker-count-riviera"],
  "created_by": "if://agent/session-1/haiku-1",
  "created_at": 1699632000000000000,
  "updated_at": 1699635600000000000,
  "tags": ["market-sizing", "mediterranean", "yacht-sales"]
}

Source Quality Tiers

Primary Sources (High Credibility: 8-10):

• Direct codebase analysis (file:line references)
• Original market research (commissioned reports)
• First-hand interviews (broker testimonials)
• NaviDocs production data (actual usage metrics)

Secondary Sources (Medium Credibility: 5-7):

• Industry reports (yacht brokerage associations)
• Competitor websites (pricing, features)
• Academic papers (marine documentation studies)
• Government regulations (flag registration requirements)

Tertiary Sources (Low Credibility: 2-4):

• Blog posts (industry commentary)
• Forum discussions (broker pain points)
• News articles (yacht market trends)
• Social media (anecdotal evidence)

Unverified Claims (Credibility: 0-1):

• Assumptions (not yet validated)
• Hypotheses (testable but untested)
• Projections (future predictions)

Verification Process

Step 1: Source Identification

• Agent 1-4 extract claims from Sessions 1-4
• Each claim tagged with source type

Step 2: Credibility Scoring

• Agent 8 scores each source (0-10 scale)
• Primary sources: 8-10
• Secondary sources: 5-7
• Tertiary sources: 2-4
• No source: 0

Step 3: Multi-Source Validation

• Claims with ≥2 sources (≥5 credibility each) → verified
• Claims with 1 source (≥8 credibility) → provisional
• Claims with 0 sources or <5 credibility → unverified

Step 4: Status Assignment

• verified: ≥2 credible sources, no contradictions
• provisional: 1 credible source, needs confirmation
• unverified: 0 credible sources, flagged for review
• disputed: Contradictory sources, requires investigation
• revoked: Proven false, removed from dossier

---

Final Intelligence Dossier Structure

File: NAVIDOCS_INTELLIGENCE_DOSSIER.md

# NaviDocs Yacht Sales Intelligence Dossier
## Riviera Plaisance Opportunity Analysis

**Generated:** 2025-11-13
**Session ID:** if://conversation/navidocs-yacht-sales-2025-11-13
**Guardian Approval:** [XX/20] ([YY]% consensus)
**Evidence Quality:** [ZZ]% verified claims

---

## Executive Summary

### Market Opportunity
[2-paragraph summary of Session 1 findings]
- Market size: €X.XB Mediterranean yacht sales
- Riviera broker count: XX brokerages
- Revenue potential: €XXX,XXX annually

### Technical Solution
[2-paragraph summary of Session 2 architecture]
- NaviDocs enhancement: warranty tracking, Home Assistant integration
- Implementation timeline: 4 weeks
- Key features: expiration alerts, claim generation, offline mode

### Business Case
[2-paragraph summary of Session 3 ROI]
- Broker savings: €8K-€33K per yacht (warranty tracking)
- Time savings: 6 hours → 20 minutes (as-built package)
- Pricing: €99-€299/month (tiered model)

### Implementation Readiness
[2-paragraph summary of Session 4 plan]
- 4-week sprint (Nov 13 - Dec 10)
- Production-ready architecture (13 tables, 40+ APIs)
- Security fixes prioritized (5 vulnerabilities addressed)

---

## Table of Contents

1. Market Analysis (Session 1)
2. Technical Architecture (Session 2)
3. Sales Enablement Materials (Session 3)
4. Implementation Roadmap (Session 4)
5. Evidence Validation & Citations
6. Guardian Council Vote
7. Appendices

---

## 1. Market Analysis

### 1.1 Mediterranean Yacht Sales Market
[Session 1 findings with citations]

**Market Size:**
- €2.3B annual sales (2024-2025) [Citation: if://citation/market-size-mediterranean]
- 4,500 yachts sold annually [Citation: if://citation/yacht-sales-volume]
- Average price: €500K (€300K-€5M range) [Citation: if://citation/avg-yacht-price]

**Riviera Brokerage Landscape:**
- 120 active brokerages [Citation: if://citation/riviera-broker-count]
- 8-12 yachts per brokerage per year [Citation: if://citation/sales-per-broker]
- Documentation prep: 6 hours per sale [Citation: if://citation/doc-prep-time]

### 1.2 Competitive Landscape
[Session 1 competitor matrix]

**Top 5 Competitors:**
1. BoatVault - €150/month, basic document storage
2. DeckDocs - €200/month, OCR included
3. YachtArchive - €99/month, no warranty tracking
4. [... continue]

**NaviDocs Differentiation:**
- Home Assistant integration (unique)
- Multi-jurisdiction document assembly (unique)
- Warranty expiration alerts (2/5 competitors)

### 1.3 Broker Pain Points
[Session 1 research]

**Documentation Challenges:**
- 6 hours manual prep per sale [Citation: if://citation/manual-prep-time]
- €8K-€33K missed warranty claims [Citation: if://citation/warranty-miss-cost]
- 9-jurisdiction complexity (flag changes) [Citation: if://citation/jurisdiction-count]

---

## 2. Technical Architecture

### 2.1 System Overview
[Session 2 architecture diagram]

```mermaid
graph TD
    A[NaviDocs Frontend] --> B[Express.js API]
    B --> C[SQLite Database]
    B --> D[BullMQ + Redis]
    D --> E[Warranty Expiration Worker]
    E --> F[IF.bus Event System]
    F --> G[Home Assistant Webhook]
    F --> H[Email Notification]

2.2 Database Schema Changes

[Session 2 migrations]

New Tables:

1. warranty_tracking - 10 columns, 3 indexes
2. sale_workflows - 7 columns, 2 indexes
3. webhooks - 8 columns, 2 indexes
4. notification_templates - 6 columns

2.3 API Endpoints (New)

[Session 2 API spec]

Warranty Tracking:

• POST /api/warranties
• GET /api/warranties/expiring
• GET /api/boats/:id/warranties

Sale Workflow:

• POST /api/sales
• POST /api/sales/:id/generate-package
• POST /api/sales/:id/transfer

[... continue with all sections]

---

5. Evidence Validation & Citations

5.1 Evidence Quality Scorecard

Total Claims: XXX Verified Claims: YYY (ZZ%) Provisional Claims: AA (BB%) Unverified Claims: CC (DD%)

Average Credibility Score: X.X / 10

Source Breakdown:

• Primary sources: XX claims
• Secondary sources: YY claims
• Tertiary sources: ZZ claims

5.2 Citation Database

[Link to session-5-citations-master.json]

Top 10 Critical Citations:

1. if://citation/warranty-savings-8k-33k
2. if://citation/market-size-mediterranean
3. if://citation/doc-prep-time-6hours
4. [... continue]

5.3 Unverified Claims Requiring Follow-Up

1. "MLS integration reduces listing time by 50%" - No source yet
2. "Brokers willing to pay €299/month" - Needs pricing survey
3. [... continue]

---

6. Guardian Council Vote

6.1 Voting Summary

Approval: [XX/20] ([YY]% consensus) Abstentions: [AA] Rejections: [BB]

Outcome: [Strong Consensus / Weak Consensus / Requires Revision]

6.2 Vote Breakdown by Guardian

Guardian	Vote	Empirical	Logical	Practical	Average	Reason
Empiricism	Approve	9	8	9	8.7	Market research well-sourced
Verificationism	Approve	8	9	8	8.3	Acceptance criteria testable
Fallibilism	Abstain	7	7	6	6.7	Timeline lacks uncertainty bounds
[... continue for all 20]

6.3 Dissent Analysis

Abstentions (requiring revision):

1. Fallibilism: Timeline needs contingency planning
   • Required change: Add best/likely/worst case estimates
2. Nagarjuna: Market projections assume stability
   • Required change: Acknowledge economic uncertainty

Rejections (fundamental issues):

• [None / List any rejections]

6.4 Consensus Interpretation

Guardian Council Assessment: [2-3 paragraphs synthesizing vote results]

If >90% approval:

"The Guardian Council has achieved strong consensus (XX% approval) on the NaviDocs intelligence dossier. The market analysis is empirically sound, the technical architecture is logically coherent, and the implementation plan is practically viable. Dissenting voices raised valid concerns regarding [list], which have been addressed through [revisions/clarifications]."

If <90% approval:

"The Guardian Council requires revision before approving the dossier. Primary concerns include [list top 3 issues]. Recommend addressing [specific changes] and resubmitting for vote."

---

7. Appendices

Appendix A: Session Handoff Documents

• Session 1 Handoff: intelligence/session-1/session-1-handoff.md
• Session 2 Handoff: intelligence/session-2/session-2-handoff.md
• [... continue]

Appendix B: Code Templates

• server/services/event-bus.service.js
• server/services/warranty.service.js
• [... continue]

Appendix C: Sales Collateral

• Pitch deck (PDF export)
• Demo script (annotated screenshots)
• ROI calculator (web app link)

Appendix D: Technical Specifications

• OpenAPI spec (api-spec.yaml)
• Database migrations (migrations/*.sql)
• Gantt chart (sprint-timeline.png)

---

Dossier Signature:

if://doc/navidocs-intelligence-dossier-2025-11-13
Created: 2025-11-13T16:00:00Z
Guardian Approval: [XX/20] ([YY]%)
Evidence Quality: [ZZ]% verified
Signature: ed25519:[signature_bytes]

---

## Output Format

### Deliverable 1: Intelligence Dossier
**File:** `NAVIDOCS_INTELLIGENCE_DOSSIER.md`
**Size:** ~50-100 pages (comprehensive)
**Format:** Markdown with Mermaid diagrams, tables, citations

### Deliverable 2: Guardian Council Vote
**File:** `session-5-guardian-vote.json`

```json
{
  "session_id": "if://conversation/navidocs-yacht-sales-2025-11-13",
  "vote_date": "2025-11-13T16:00:00Z",
  "dossier": "if://doc/navidocs-intelligence-dossier",
  "guardians": [
    {
      "name": "Empiricism",
      "vote": "approve",
      "scores": {"empirical": 9, "logical": 8, "practical": 9},
      "average": 8.7,
      "reason": "Market research well-sourced with ≥2 citations per claim"
    },
    {
      "name": "Fallibilism",
      "vote": "abstain",
      "scores": {"empirical": 7, "logical": 7, "practical": 6},
      "average": 6.7,
      "reason": "4-week timeline lacks uncertainty bounds and contingency planning"
    }
  ],
  "tally": {
    "total_guardians": 20,
    "approve": 18,
    "abstain": 2,
    "reject": 0,
    "approval_percentage": 90.0
  },
  "outcome": "strong_consensus",
  "dissent_summary": [
    "Fallibilism requests timeline variance analysis",
    "Nagarjuna requests economic uncertainty acknowledgment"
  ]
}

Deliverable 3: Master Citation Database

File: session-5-citations-master.json

{
  "session_id": "if://conversation/navidocs-yacht-sales-2025-11-13",
  "total_citations": 47,
  "verified_citations": 42,
  "provisional_citations": 3,
  "unverified_citations": 2,
  "citations": [
    {
      "citation_id": "if://citation/warranty-savings-8k-33k",
      "claim": "NaviDocs prevents €8K-€33K warranty losses per yacht",
      "sources": [
        {
          "type": "file",
          "path": "intelligence/session-1/market-analysis.md",
          "line_range": "45-67",
          "quality": "primary",
          "credibility": 9
        },
        {
          "type": "file",
          "path": "docs/debates/02-yacht-management-features.md",
          "line_range": "120-145",
          "quality": "primary",
          "credibility": 9
        }
      ],
      "status": "verified",
      "confidence_score": 0.95
    }
  ]
}

Deliverable 4: Evidence Quality Report

File: session-5-evidence-quality.md

# Evidence Quality Assessment
## NaviDocs Intelligence Dossier

**Total Claims:** 47
**Verified:** 42 (89.4%)
**Provisional:** 3 (6.4%)
**Unverified:** 2 (4.3%)

### Quality Breakdown

**Primary Sources (≥8 credibility):** 32 claims
- Codebase analysis: 12 claims
- Medium articles (NaviDocs docs): 8 claims
- Architecture analysis: 7 claims
- Local research files: 5 claims

**Secondary Sources (5-7 credibility):** 10 claims
- Industry reports: 6 claims
- Competitor websites: 4 claims

**Tertiary Sources (2-4 credibility):** 0 claims

**Unverified (0-1 credibility):** 5 claims
- MLS integration time savings (no source)
- Broker pricing survey (hypothesis)
- [... continue]

### Recommendations

1. **High Priority:** Validate 2 unverified claims before Riviera meeting
2. **Medium Priority:** Convert 3 provisional claims to verified (add 2nd source)
3. **Low Priority:** Archive tertiary sources for future reference

Deliverable 5: Session Handoff

File: session-5-handoff.md

# Session 5 Handoff to Production Deployment

## Mission Accomplished
- [x] Intelligence dossier synthesized (50 pages)
- [x] Guardian Council vote achieved (XX/20, YY% approval)
- [x] Citation database compiled (47 citations, 89% verified)
- [x] Evidence quality validated (primary sources dominate)

## Guardian Consensus: [Strong Consensus / Requires Revision]

**Approval:** XX/20 (YY%)
**Outcome:** [Ready for production / Needs revision]

## Key Deliverables for Riviera Plaisance Meeting
1. Pitch deck (intelligence/session-3/session-3-pitch-deck.pdf)
2. Demo script (intelligence/session-3/session-3-demo-script.md)
3. ROI calculator (intelligence/session-3/session-3-roi-calculator.html)
4. Intelligence dossier (full backup documentation)

## Token Consumption
- Total: XXX,XXX tokens ($X.XX)
- Session 1: 52,450 tokens ($0.86)
- Session 2: 68,200 tokens ($1.42)
- Session 3: 59,800 tokens ($1.12)
- Session 4: 61,500 tokens ($1.18)
- Session 5: XX,XXX tokens ($X.XX)
- **Total Budget Used:** $XX / $100 (XX% efficiency)

## Evidence Quality Metrics
- Total claims: 47
- Verified: 42 (89.4%)
- Average credibility: 8.2/10
- IF.TTT compliance: ✅ 100%

## Next Steps (Post-Meeting)
1. Execute Session 4 implementation plan (4-week sprint)
2. Address guardian dissent (timeline contingency, economic uncertainty)
3. Validate 2 unverified claims (MLS integration, pricing survey)
4. Deploy production environment (Week 4, Dec 8-10)

## Blockers for Production
- [ ] Security fixes required (5 vulnerabilities from NAVIDOCS_HANDOVER.md)
- [ ] Database migrations tested (dev environment)
- [ ] Home Assistant integration validated (live webhook test)

**Next Session Input:** Read NAVIDOCS_INTELLIGENCE_DOSSIER.md
**Focus:** 4-week development sprint execution (Session 4 plan)

---

IF.TTT Compliance Checklist

• All claims have ≥2 source citations (or flagged as unverified)
• File hashes (SHA-256) for all web sources
• Git commits (SHA-1) for codebase references
• Guardian vote recorded (20/20 votes collected)
• Dissent reasons documented
• Evidence quality scored (0-10 scale)
• Citation database validated (JSON schema)
• Unverified claims flagged for follow-up

---

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

---

Start Command: Deploy to Claude Code Cloud after Sessions 1-4 complete End Condition: All deliverables committed to dannystocker/navidocs repo under intelligence/session-5/