dannystocker/navidocs
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions
navidocs/intelligence/session-5/guardian-briefing-template.md
Claude 6798ade197
Session 5 Phase 1 complete: Guardian methodology preparation 
Phase 1 deliverables:
- Guardian evaluation criteria (3 dimensions: Empirical, Logical, Practical)
- Guardian briefing templates for all 20 guardians
- Session 5 readiness report with IF.TTT compliance framework

Status: READY - Awaiting Sessions 1-4 handoff files before deploying 10 Haiku agents

Next: Poll for intelligence/session-{1,2,3,4}/session-X-handoff.md every 5min
2025-11-13 01:53:25 +00:00

11 KiB
Raw Export PDF Blame History

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