Danny Stocker a5ffcb5769 Add agent identity & check-in protocol to all 5 sessions

Each session now has:
- Agent self-identification system (S1-H01 through S5-H10)
- Check-in protocol (agents announce identity at start)
- Task reference system (agents find instructions by number)
- Dependency tracking (parallel vs sequential execution)

Note: Prestige yachts sell for €1.5M (not €480K) - needs price correction in Session 1

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

2025-11-13 01:27:48 +01:00

29 KiB

Raw Export PDF Blame History

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

Synthesize all intelligence from Sessions 1-4 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):

intelligence/session-1/session-1-market-analysis.md
intelligence/session-1/session-1-handoff.md
intelligence/session-2/session-2-architecture.md
intelligence/session-2/session-2-sprint-plan.md
intelligence/session-3/session-3-pitch-deck.md
intelligence/session-3/session-3-demo-script.md
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: /home/setup/infrafabric/schemas/citation/v1.0.schema.json

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:

Check in at start: "I am S5-H03, assigned to [task name]"
Reference their task by searching this document for "Agent 3:" (matching their number)
Retain identity throughout execution
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 10 Haiku Agents in Parallel)

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

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:

Empirical Soundness (0-10): Evidence quality, source verification
Logical Coherence (0-10): Internal consistency, argument validity
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:

warranty_tracking - 10 columns, 3 indexes
sale_workflows - 7 columns, 2 indexes
webhooks - 8 columns, 2 indexes
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:

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

5.3 Unverified Claims Requiring Follow-Up

"MLS integration reduces listing time by 50%" - No source yet
"Brokers willing to pay €299/month" - Needs pricing survey
[... 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):

Fallibilism: Timeline needs contingency planning
- Required change: Add best/likely/worst case estimates
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": "/mnt/c/users/setup/downloads/NaviDocs-Medium-Articles.md",
          "line_range": "45-67",
          "quality": "primary",
          "credibility": 9
        },
        {
          "type": "file",
          "path": "/home/setup/navidocs/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/

29 KiB Raw Export PDF Blame History