navidocs/intelligence/session-3/QUALITY_FEEDBACK.md

Session 3 Quality Feedback - Real-time QA Review

Agent: S5-H0B (Real-time Quality Monitoring) Session Reviewed: Session 3 (UX/Sales Enablement) Review Date: 2025-11-13 Status: 🟢 ACTIVE - In progress (no handoff yet)

---

Executive Summary

Overall Assessment: 🟢 GOOD PROGRESS - Core sales deliverables identified

Observed Deliverables:

• ✅ Pitch deck (agent-1-pitch-deck.md)
• ✅ Demo script (agent-2-demo-script.md)
• ✅ ROI calculator (agent-3-roi-calculator.html)
• ✅ Objection handling (agent-4-objection-handling.md)
• ✅ Pricing strategy (agent-5-pricing-strategy.md)
• ✅ Competitive differentiation (agent-6-competitive-differentiation.md)
• ✅ Architecture diagram (agent-7-architecture-diagram.md)
• ✅ Visual design system (agent-9-visual-design-system.md)

Total Files: 15 (good coverage of sales enablement scope)

---

Evidence Quality Reminders (IF.TTT Compliance)

CRITICAL: Before creating session-3-handoff.md, ensure:

1. ROI Calculator Claims Need Citations

Check your ROI calculator (agent-3-roi-calculator.html) for:

• ❓ Warranty savings claims (€8K-€33K) → Need Session 1 citation
• ❓ Time savings claims (6 hours → 20 minutes) → Need Session 1 citation
• ❓ Documentation prep time → Need Session 1 broker pain point data

Action Required:

{
  "citation_id": "if://citation/warranty-savings-roi",
  "claim": "NaviDocs saves €8K-€33K in warranty tracking",
  "sources": [
    {
      "type": "cross-session",
      "path": "intelligence/session-1/session-1-handoff.md",
      "section": "Broker Pain Points - Warranty Tracking",
      "quality": "primary",
      "credibility": 9
    }
  ],
  "status": "pending_session_1"
}

2. Pricing Strategy Needs Competitor Data

Check pricing-strategy.md for:

• ❓ Competitor pricing (€99-€299/month tiers) → Need Session 1 competitive analysis
• ❓ Market willingness to pay → Need Session 1 broker surveys/interviews

Recommended: Wait for Session 1 handoff, then cite their competitor matrix

3. Demo Script Must Match NaviDocs Features

Verify demo-script.md references:

• ✅ Features that exist in NaviDocs codebase → Cite Session 2 architecture
• ❌ Features that don't exist yet → Flag as "Planned" or "Roadmap"

Action Required:

• Cross-reference Session 2 architecture specs
• Ensure demo doesn't promise non-existent features
• Add disclaimers for planned features

4. Objection Handling Needs Evidence

Check objection-handling.md responses are backed by:

• Session 1 market research (competitor weaknesses)
• Session 2 technical specs (NaviDocs capabilities)
• Session 4 implementation timeline (delivery feasibility)

Example:

• Objection: "Why not use BoatVault instead?"
• Response: "BoatVault lacks warranty tracking (Session 1 competitor matrix, line 45)"
• Citation: intelligence/session-1/competitive-analysis.md:45-67

---

Cross-Session Consistency Checks (Pending)

When Sessions 1-2-4 complete, verify:

Session 1 → Session 3 Alignment:

• ROI calculator inputs match Session 1 pain point data
• Pricing tiers align with Session 1 competitor analysis
• Market size claims consistent (if mentioned in pitch deck)

Session 2 → Session 3 Alignment:

• Demo script features exist in Session 2 architecture
• Architecture diagram matches Session 2 technical design
• Technical claims in pitch deck cite Session 2 specs

Session 4 → Session 3 Alignment:

• Implementation timeline claims (pitch deck) match Session 4 sprint plan
• Delivery promises align with Session 4 feasibility assessment
• Deployment readiness claims cite Session 4 runbook

---

Preliminary Quality Metrics

Based on file inventory (detailed review pending handoff):

Metric	Current	Target	Status
Core deliverables	8/8	8/8	✅
IF-bus messages	6 files	Varies	✅
Citations (verified)	TBD	>85%	⏳ Pending
Cross-session refs	TBD	100%	⏳ Pending S1-2-4

Overall: On track, pending citation verification

---

Recommendations Before Handoff

High Priority (MUST DO):

1. Create session-3-citations.json:

   • Cite Session 1 for all market/ROI claims
   • Cite Session 2 for all technical/architecture claims
   • Cite Session 4 for all timeline/delivery claims

2. Add Evidence Sections:

   • Pitch deck: Footnote each data point with session reference
   • ROI calculator: Link to Session 1 pain point sources
   • Demo script: Note which features are live vs planned

3. Cross-Reference Check:

   • Wait for Sessions 1-2-4 handoffs
   • Verify no contradictions
   • Update claims if discrepancies found

Medium Priority (RECOMMENDED):

4. Objection Handling Sources:

   • Add citations to each objection response
   • Link to Session 1 competitive analysis
   • Reference Session 2 feature superiority

5. Visual Design Consistency:

   • Ensure architecture diagram matches Session 2
   • Verify visual design system doesn't promise unbuilt features

---

Guardian Council Prediction (Preliminary)

Likely Scores (if citations added):

Empirical Soundness: 7-8/10

• ROI claims need Session 1 backing ⚠️
• Pricing needs competitive data ⚠️
• Once cited: strong evidence base ✅

Logical Coherence: 8-9/10

• Sales materials logically structured ✅
• Need to verify consistency with Sessions 1-2-4 ⏳

Practical Viability: 8-9/10

• Pitch deck appears well-designed ✅
• Demo script practical (pending feature verification) ⚠️
• ROI calculator useful (pending data validation) ⚠️

Predicted Vote: APPROVE (if cross-session citations added)

Approval Likelihood: 75-85% (conditional on evidence quality)

---

IF.sam Debate Considerations

Light Side Will Ask:

• Is the pitch deck honest about limitations?
• Does the demo script manipulate or transparently present?
• Are ROI claims verifiable or speculative?

Dark Side Will Ask:

• Will this pitch actually close the Riviera deal?
• Is objection handling persuasive enough?
• Does pricing maximize revenue potential?

Recommendation: Balance transparency (Light Side) with persuasiveness (Dark Side)

• Add "Limitations" slide to pitch deck (satisfies Light Side)
• Ensure objection handling is confident and backed by data (satisfies Dark Side)

---

Real-Time Monitoring Log

S5-H0B Activity:

• 2025-11-13 [timestamp]: Initial review of Session 3 progress
• Files Observed: 15 (pitch deck, demo script, ROI calculator, etc.)
• Status: In progress, no handoff yet
• Next Poll: Check for session-3-handoff.md in 5 minutes
• Next Review: Full citation verification once handoff created

---

Communication to Session 3

Message via IF.bus:

{
  "performative": "inform",
  "sender": "if://agent/session-5/haiku-0B",
  "receiver": ["if://agent/session-3/coordinator"],
  "content": {
    "review_type": "Quality Assurance - Real-time",
    "overall_assessment": "GOOD PROGRESS - Core deliverables identified",
    "pending_items": [
      "Create session-3-citations.json with Session 1-2-4 cross-references",
      "Verify ROI calculator claims cite Session 1 pain points",
      "Ensure demo script features exist in Session 2 architecture",
      "Add evidence footnotes to pitch deck"
    ],
    "approval_likelihood": "75-85% (conditional on citations)",
    "guardian_readiness": "GOOD (pending cross-session verification)"
  },
  "timestamp": "2025-11-13T[current-time]Z"
}

---

Next Steps

S5-H0B (Real-time QA Monitor) will:

1. Continue polling (every 5 min):

   • Watch for session-3-handoff.md creation
   • Monitor for citation file additions

2. When Sessions 1-2-4 complete:

   • Validate cross-session consistency
   • Check ROI calculator against Session 1 data
   • Verify demo script against Session 2 features
   • Confirm timeline claims match Session 4 plan

3. Escalate if needed:

   • ROI claims don't match Session 1 findings
   • Demo promises features Session 2 doesn't support
   • Timeline conflicts with Session 4 assessment

Status: 🟢 ACTIVE - Monitoring continues

---

Agent S5-H0B Signature:

if://agent/session-5/haiku-0B
Role: Real-time Quality Assurance Monitor
Activity: Session 3 initial progress review
Status: In progress (15 files observed, no handoff yet)
Next Poll: 2025-11-13 [+5 minutes]