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:**
```json
{
  "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:**

```json
{
  "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]
```