@antoneeo/mkt-agentic-sdlc-skill 0.13.0 → 0.14.0

package/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,13 +1,36 @@
 # Changelog
 
-## [0.13.0] - 2026-09-19
-
-### Added
-- F-057: shared project memory in every lens, no sibling installation required.
-  `index` catalogs original documents; `recall QUERY` searches live metadata.
-  KB integrity is shared; domain ownership and marketing numerical checks remain.
-  Vendored validators now require entry point + sdlc_core.py + knowledge.py.
-
+## [0.14.0] - 2026-09-25
+
+### Changed
+- **F-026 revised: a real doubt is asked when it emerges.** The question discipline
+  no longer sends doubts to the deliverable ("Default non-blocking" is gone). A real
+  doubt (a fact the search leaves open, or a choice whose pros and cons do not
+  settle it) is asked before the first write that would embed its answer, grouped,
+  with the pros and cons of each option. A choice that clearly wins the weighing is
+  taken without asking, and the weighing is written next to it — each rejected option
+  stated at its strongest; options that serve different needs, none good enough at
+  both, that nothing the user wrote ranks are a real doubt, however clear the
+  agent's own ranking. Reserved approvals
+  are always asked. A real doubt becomes a declared assumption only in unattended
+  or delegated work. `review.md` makes an unasked doubt a design-review finding; `dispatch.md`
+  tells a subagent to return its real doubts instead of deciding them.
+
+### Fixed
+- **`stale` no longer counts the audit plan against the area that holds it.**
+  Committing a hash mark of `ai_docs/` changed `ai_docs/audit/audit_plan.md` after
+  the recorded commit, so the area went stale again and every re-mark repeated the
+  loop. The plan's own edits are now excluded; any other change in the area still
+  counts.
+
+## [0.13.0] - 2026-09-19
+
+### Added
+- F-057: shared project memory in every lens, no sibling installation required.
+  `index` catalogs original documents; `recall QUERY` searches live metadata.
+  KB integrity is shared; domain ownership and marketing numerical checks remain.
+  Vendored validators now require entry point + sdlc_core.py + knowledge.py.
+
 
 ### Fixed
 - **F-056: `stale` no longer reports an area fresh when it cannot evaluate it.** An

package/README.md

@@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ that no update overrides -- ENFORCEMENT.md par.4).
 | [`@antoneeo/kb-agentic-skill`](https://www.npmjs.com/package/@antoneeo/kb-agentic-skill) | the documents you supply | topic |
 | `@antoneeo/mkt-agentic-sdlc-skill` (this one) | market evidence | engagement |
 
-Triage, the Vision Gate, the review gates, the guide router, question discipline and the validator spine are byte-identical across the three; only the fidelity discipline and the vocabulary change. When two live in the same project, `routing.md` decides which lens owns a given piece of work — with the market-facing override: anything whose purpose is to persuade the market is this lens's, whatever its source.
+Triage, the Vision Gate, the review gates, the guide router and the validator spine are byte-identical across the three, and the question discipline is the same rule restated in each lens's vocabulary; only the fidelity discipline and the vocabulary change. When two live in the same project, `routing.md` decides which lens owns a given piece of work — with the market-facing override: anything whose purpose is to persuade the market is this lens's, whatever its source.
 
 ## Which model to run it on
 

package/gemini-extension.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "mkt-agentic-sdlc",
-  "version": "0.13.0",
+  "version": "0.14.0",
   "description": "Evidence-First marketing planning protocol with engagement triage, SOSTAC workflow, evidence ledger and optional devPNT integration.",
   "author": "Antonio Pinto (https://github.com/Antoneeo)"
 }

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@antoneeo/mkt-agentic-sdlc-skill",
-  "version": "0.13.0",
+  "version": "0.14.0",
   "description": "Evidence-First marketing planning protocol for Claude Code, Gemini CLI, Google Antigravity and Codex: engagement triage, SOSTAC workflow, evidence ledger, mechanical validator and optional devPNT integration.",
   "keywords": [
     "claude-code",
@@ -32,9 +32,9 @@
     "skills/mkt-agentic-sdlc/research.md",
     "skills/mkt-agentic-sdlc/templates.md",
     "skills/mkt-agentic-sdlc/review.md",
-    "skills/mkt-agentic-sdlc/scripts/sdlc_core.py",
-    "skills/mkt-agentic-sdlc/scripts/knowledge.py",
-    "skills/mkt-agentic-sdlc/memory.md",
+    "skills/mkt-agentic-sdlc/scripts/sdlc_core.py",
+    "skills/mkt-agentic-sdlc/scripts/knowledge.py",
+    "skills/mkt-agentic-sdlc/memory.md",
     "skills/mkt-agentic-sdlc/routing.md",
     "skills/mkt-agentic-sdlc/guides.md",
     "skills/mkt-agentic-sdlc/vision.md",

package/skills/mkt-agentic-sdlc/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 name: mkt-agentic-sdlc
-version: 0.13.0
+version: 0.14.0
 description: Evidence-First marketing planning protocol with engagement triage, SOSTAC workflow, evidence ledger, adversarial CMO review, a complete Standalone mode and optional symbiosis with devPNT. Use for marketing plans, go-to-market strategy, campaign planning and market research.
 author: Antonio Pinto (https://github.com/Antoneeo)
 copyright: (c) 2026 Antonio Pinto
@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ Support files in the skill directory:
 - `research.md`: the research playbook and the evidence ledger discipline.
 - `templates.md`: templates for every artifact and deliverable.
 - `review.md`: the family's shared review discipline (independence ladder, rounds, log). The marketing-specific attack surface — swap test, untraced numbers, orphan tactics, missing kill/scale — lives in `frameworks.md`'s falsification rules; the adversarial CMO review applies them through `review.md`'s procedure.
-- `scripts/mkt_check.py` + `scripts/sdlc_core.py`: the mechanical validator (`check`, `validate`, `ledger`, `benefit`, `budget`, `funnel`, `trace`, `index`, plus the spine's `stale`/`mark`/`gate`/`orient`/`plan`/`migrate`).  Keep the entry point, `scripts/sdlc_core.py` and `scripts/knowledge.py` together; the last supplies common memory and KB integrity.
+- `scripts/mkt_check.py` + `scripts/sdlc_core.py`: the mechanical validator (`check`, `validate`, `ledger`, `benefit`, `budget`, `funnel`, `trace`, `index`, plus the spine's `stale`/`mark`/`gate`/`orient`/`plan`/`migrate`).  Keep the entry point, `scripts/sdlc_core.py` and `scripts/knowledge.py` together; the last supplies common memory and KB integrity.
 - `hybrid.md`: the devPNT seam — the authoritative hierarchy, the ownership matrix (which artifact is mastered where), and the Hybrid rules. Read it when the `devpnt_*` tools point at this project; a Standalone engagement never needs it.
 - `ENFORCEMENT.md`: optional setup for CI and hooks.
 
@@ -40,15 +40,15 @@ No process guarantees market success, and this skill never claims one. What it g
 
 If a strategic choice looks obvious but you cannot trace it to evidence, research first.
 
-## Shared project memory
-
-Project memory is available by default, independently of installed sibling lenses.
-Read `memory.md` for the common consult/capture contract during orientation and
-closure. Use `recall` for cross-domain discovery; `index` registers original guides,
-plans and decisions without copying them. One owner still governs each unit.
-The validator now ships as three files: entry point, `sdlc_core.py`, `knowledge.py`.
-
-## Rule Zero: Triage
+## Shared project memory
+
+Project memory is available by default, independently of installed sibling lenses.
+Read `memory.md` for the common consult/capture contract during orientation and
+closure. Use `recall` for cross-domain discovery; `index` registers original guides,
+plans and decisions without copying them. One owner still governs each unit.
+The validator now ships as three files: entry point, `sdlc_core.py`, `knowledge.py`.
+
+## Rule Zero: Triage
 
 
 **Declare the level WITH the router verdict** (one line, for every engagement level above the trivial one): the result of the guide-router lookup, i.e. `Level: E2 · router: no match` or `Level: E3 · router: GUIDE_brand_voice.md → read`. The lookup is the consult trigger; making its result a declared output is what keeps it from being skipped — a level declared without a verdict makes "did not look" indistinguishable from "looked, nothing matched". Name the guide you matched, or `no match`.
@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ Always classify the request before choosing the process. Declare the chosen leve
 | **Research Spike** | Time-boxed market question that reduces uncertainty ("is there demand for X in market Y?") | Outcome in `mkt_docs/spikes/RESEARCH_[topic].md`. Ledger discipline applies. For strategy decisions, feed into E2/E3. |
 
 Cross-cutting rules:
-- Every question to the user passes the legality test of the question discipline (`elicitation.md`): searched first with the search named, and the blocked decision named. The waves are where asking is planned; outside them the test gates each ask.
+- A real doubt is asked when it emerges, before its answer is written; every question passes the legality test of the question discipline (`elicitation.md`): searched first with the search named, and the blocked decision named. The waves are where asking is planned; outside them the test gates each ask.
 - Anything touching pricing strategy, brand repositioning, or a new market entry is never E1: those decisions cascade.
 - If a bigger scope emerges during E1/E2 work (e.g. the campaign reveals there is no positioning), stop, reclassify and declare it.
 - When in doubt, pick the higher level.

package/skills/mkt-agentic-sdlc/dispatch.md

@@ -26,7 +26,11 @@ without an E-ISP.
    - `sdlc_check.py plan brief PLAN_[feature].md --task <id>` — prints the
      task block, the `produces` of prior-order tasks (interfaces), and
      `guides` pointers (paths, never pasted content) to stdout.
-   - Spawn the subagent with that brief as its entire context window.
+   - Spawn the subagent with that brief plus the return-doubts line as its
+     entire context window. The line: "An open point whose answer changes the
+     work is not yours to decide: return it in your final output with what you
+     searched." The orchestrator treats them as its own candidate doubts
+     (`elicitation.md` §When a doubt emerges).
    - Run `task.verify` out of band (the orchestrator executes it — the
      validator only ever prints it, never runs it) plus the one-shot review
      below.

package/skills/mkt-agentic-sdlc/elicitation.md

@@ -1,147 +1,217 @@
-# Elicitation — question waves
-
-`## The question discipline` below governs EVERY question to the user — any
-phase, any level, inside or outside the waves. The waves are the only place the
-process *plans* the cost of asking.
-
-Ask for the **benefit** the user wants, never for the mechanism they imagine delivers it: a mechanism stated as a requirement forecloses every better one.
-
-The cardinal rule: **ask only what the user uniquely owns.** Facts about their
-business come from them; everything derivable from research comes from
-research. Asking the user "who are your competitors and how are you
-positioned?" is outsourcing the skill's own job — the failure mode this file
-exists to prevent.
-
-## The question discipline
-
-A question outside the waves is legal only when BOTH hold:
-
-1. **Searched first, and the search is named — with its result.** The answer is
-   not on record (MKT-VISION, ledger, session notes) and not derivable from
-   research — and the question states what you searched or researched **and what
-   it returned**. **Never fake the search**: "I looked and found nothing" that
-   names no sources and no queries is a search not run. A question research can
-   answer is research outsourced to the client — the cardinal rule's own
-   failure mode, restated as a legality test.
-2. **It names what is blocked.** The question states the decision or fact that
-   cannot be resolved without the reply — what changes in the plan depending on
-   the answer. If nothing downstream changes, there is no question.
-
-Never legal:
-
-- **Generic confirmation** — "shall I proceed?", "is the plan OK so far?". The
-  gates are where approval lives; if a real risk motivates the ask, name the
-  risk and the fork — that is a blocking question and carries the form below.
-- **Preference-fishing** — asking the client to pick among options equivalent
-  in their effect on the objective. Cheapness to undo is NOT the test.
-- **Re-asking the record** — anything an approved MKT-VISION, a ledger entry
-  or an earlier answer already states.
-
-**Precedence:** a choice the user uniquely owns (budget, risk appetite,
-non-negotiables, brand red lines, approvals the gates reserve) is never
-preference-fishing; the list above reaches choices that are *not* theirs.
-
-**Default non-blocking.** An unknown on which no fork of the plan depends:
-record it as a ledger **ASSUMPTION** — the native mechanism this lens already
-has — proceed, and present the open points **batched** with the next wave or
-the deliverable, answered by exception. Same evidence duty as a question: each
-assumption states **what it is taken from** (a benchmark, a comparable, a
-stated policy) and **the alternative it excludes**, and every assumption
-reaches the batch — an assumption nobody is shown is a silent decision, and an
-unshown ASSUMPTION row is exactly a fabricated FACT waiting to happen.
-
-**Blocking is reserved** for three cases: proceeding under ANY assumption would
-waste the work (the forks diverge at once); the decision is one the user
-uniquely owns; or the doctrine itself mandates the stop. One mandating file
-prescribes its own hand-over, and there this form does not apply:
-`review.md`'s round cap (the artifact plus the open findings). That list is closed.
-Every other blocking question carries the form:
-
-- the fork: the concrete options and what each implies for the plan;
-- the evidence: what you researched and what it leaves undecided;
-- why no assumption survives — what work is discarded if you assume and are
-  wrong;
-- why it is the user's call;
-- what stays blocked until answered.
-
-Question style (all waves):
-- Plain language, zero marketing jargon. Not "what's your ICP?" but "describe
-  your best current customer".
-- Max 4 questions per round; multiple rounds per wave allowed but each round
-  must be worth the interruption.
-- Offer concrete options where a real choice exists (narrows the reply,
-  speeds the round). Use the client's structured-question facility when
-  available.
-- **Pre-authorize "I don't know" on numeric asks.** When you ask for a figure
-  the client may never have measured (conversion rate, CAC, open rate),
-  append the permission in the question itself — "...ma se non l'avete mai
-  misurato, va bene 'non lo so'." It removes the pressure to invent a number
-  and keeps the ledger honest (an unmeasured figure becomes a researched
-  BENCHMARK or a declared ASSUMPTION, never a fabricated FACT).
-- Every answer that is a fact becomes a `FACT` entry in the evidence ledger,
-  same discipline as researched numbers.
-- **Seeds are allowed, analysis is not:** "which competitors do you lose
-  deals to?" is a fact the user owns (their perceived competitive set) and a
-  legitimate research seed. "What are their strengths and weaknesses?" is
-  analysis — forbidden to ask, mandatory to research.
-
-## Wave 1 — Discovery (phase 2, before any research)
-
-Cover, across rounds:
-1. **Offer** — what they sell, in their words; what problem it solves.
-2. **Price & margin** — price point(s), rough margin, discount reality.
-3. **Current traction** — customers today (how many, what kind), revenue
-   order of magnitude, where the current customers came from.
-4. **Market & language** — geography, target market, language for the
-   deliverables.
-5. **Budget & horizon** — marketing budget range (a range is fine), planning
-   horizon (quarter / year / launch window).
-6. **Team & capacity** — who will execute marketing (nobody / founder /
-   person / team / agency), hours realistically available.
-7. **Sales motion** — how a sale happens today (self-serve, demo calls,
-   proposals, retail...), typical cycle length.
-8. **Existing assets** — website, mailing list, social accounts and their
-   real state; brand materials.
-9. **Constraints** — legal/regulatory limits, channels they refuse, brand
-   red lines.
-10. **Competitor seeds** — who they lose deals to / who customers compare
-    them with (seed, not analysis).
-
-Skip path: any item already answered by an approved MKT-VISION or earlier
-session record is not re-asked — note where the answer came from.
-
-## Wave 2 — Ambition (phase 5 entry, after research)
-
-Now the user chooses with research on the table. Present the relevant
-evidence first (one short paragraph), then ask:
-1. **Growth vs margin** — push volume or protect profitability?
-2. **Risk appetite** — proven channels only, or reserve an experimental slice?
-3. **Timeline pressure** — is there a hard date (launch, season, runway)?
-4. **Non-negotiables** — anything the objectives must include or avoid?
-
-## Wave 3 — Execution capacity (phase 7 entry)
-
-1. **Content capacity** — who writes/records, in which language, how often
-   realistically?
-2. **Paid capacity** — who runs ads; any platform experience in-house?
-3. **Follow-up capacity** — if leads double, who answers them? CRM/tooling?
-4. **Budget flexibility** — is the budget fixed or scalable if a channel
-   proves itself?
-
-## Reflect
-
-Fold answers into the artifacts (MKT_VISION, OBJECTIVES, TACTICAL_PLAN) and
-the ledger — never leave them only in chat. The written document is what the
-next session and the reviewer read.
-
-## Anti-patterns
-
-- **Outsourcing analysis**: asking the user for market size, competitor
-  strengths, channel choice, or positioning. That is the skill's work.
-- **Jargon**: ICP, CAC, SOM, funnel — translate or don't ask.
-- **Interrogation**: more than 4 questions per round, or drip-feeding across
-  many turns instead of structured rounds.
-- **Re-asking the recorded**: anything an approved vision or ledger FACT
-  already answers.
-- **Collecting without folding in**: answers that never reach a document or
-  the ledger are lost to the next session.
+# Elicitation — question waves
+
+`## The question discipline` below governs EVERY doubt and EVERY question to the
+user — any phase, any level, inside or outside the waves. The waves are the only
+place the process *plans* the cost of asking.
+
+Ask for the **benefit** the user wants, never for the mechanism they imagine delivers it: a mechanism stated as a requirement forecloses every better one.
+
+The cardinal rule: **ask only what the user uniquely owns.** Facts about their
+business come from them; everything derivable from research comes from
+research. Asking the user "who are your competitors and how are you
+positioned?" is outsourcing the skill's own job — the failure mode this file
+exists to prevent.
+
+Unattended path: when the user is not reachable (a scheduled or autonomous run)
+and a real doubt remains, do not stall and do not invent consensus. Record it as
+a **declared assumption** (§Ask before the write). At E3 the artifact stays
+`DRAFT` and the plan holds at the next user gate; at E1/E2, proceed and list the
+assumption in the reply.
+
+## The question discipline
+
+A doubt kept silent is decided by the agent alone and reaches the plan looking
+settled; a useless question wastes the user's attention. This section rules on
+both.
+
+### When a doubt emerges
+
+A **candidate doubt** is an open point whose answer changes the plan. The usual
+signals — they illustrate, they do not close the definition:
+
+| Thought | What it means |
+|---|---|
+| "They probably mean…", "I'll assume…" | you are choosing between readings of the request |
+| "The brief doesn't say, so I'll fill it in" | a gap in scope, a non-goal, a budget or a priority |
+| "Either would work, I'll pick one" | equivalent in effect: yours, pick and do not ask; different in effect: weigh them below |
+| "I'll note it as an assumption and move on" | with the user reachable, that note is where doubts go to be forgotten |
+
+- **A fact about the business, or information only the user holds** (a budget,
+  a margin, a red line): settled only by evidence, cited —
+  never settled by a weighing. A ledger ASSUMPTION backed by a benchmark, a
+  comparable or a stated policy is a researched answer with its confidence, not a
+  doubt; a gap only the user can fill is a real doubt.
+- **A choice** — a reading of the brief, a strategic trade-off: cite the user's
+  statement that settles it (the brief, an APPROVED MKT-VISION, an earlier answer);
+  failing one, weigh the pros and cons of each option, stating each rejected option
+  at its strongest — the need it serves best; a weighing won against a weak version
+  of the alternative is not a weighing. One clearly outweighs: take it and write the
+  weighing with the choice — "I take X over Z: pro …, contro …". Balanced, or
+  turning on a priority of theirs not on record: a **real doubt** — and it turns on
+  one whenever the options serve different needs of the audience or the business,
+  each better at one the user would notice in the results (reach against
+  conversion, speed to market against completeness of the launch) and
+  none good enough at both, and nothing the user wrote ranks those needs — however
+  clear your own ranking feels. "The more natural reading" with no pros and cons
+  written is not a weighing. Reserved approvals never enter this test
+  (§The form of a question).
+
+### Ask before the write
+
+A real doubt that passes the legality test below is **owed**, not merely allowed.
+Ask it before the first write that would embed its answer, grouped with every
+doubt open at that point — the next wave when one is due, otherwise one round —
+following the question style below. Never defer a doubt to the deliverable, where
+the user must find it inside the plan; never drip one question per turn. An
+intent choice with neither a source nor a weighing is a finding (`review.md`
+§Reviewing).
+
+**Declared assumptions exist only where no question can be asked:**
+
+- **Unattended** — the user is not reachable (the Unattended path above).
+- **Delegated** — their own words handed you this choice; quote them. A general
+  "go ahead" is not a delegation.
+
+Each states **what it is taken from** and **the alternative it excludes** —
+a number goes in the ledger as an ASSUMPTION row, anything else in the artifact it
+touches — and is listed where the user will read it: an unshown assumption is a
+fabricated FACT waiting to happen. (A researched ASSUMPTION row, with its range and
+confidence, is an answer, not a declared assumption.) A dispatched subagent returns
+its open points in its final output (`dispatch.md`); the orchestrator treats them as
+its own candidate doubts (§When a doubt emerges).
+
+### The legality test
+
+A question outside the waves is legal only when BOTH hold:
+
+1. **Searched first, and the search is named — with its result.** The answer is
+   not on record (MKT-VISION, ledger, session notes) and not derivable from
+   research — and the question states what you searched or researched **and what
+   it returned**. **Never fake the search**: "I looked and found nothing" that
+   names no sources and no queries is a search not run. A question research can
+   answer is research outsourced to the client — the cardinal rule's own
+   failure mode, restated as a legality test.
+2. **It names what is blocked.** The question states the decision or fact that
+   cannot be resolved without the reply — what changes in the plan depending on
+   the answer. If nothing downstream changes, there is no question.
+
+Never legal:
+
+- **Generic confirmation** — "shall I proceed?", "is the plan OK so far?". The
+  gates are where approval lives; if a real risk motivates the ask, name the
+  risk and the fork — that is a blocking question and carries the form below.
+- **Preference-fishing** — asking the client to pick among options equivalent
+  in their effect on the objective. Cheapness to undo is NOT the test.
+- **Re-asking the record** — anything an approved MKT-VISION, a ledger entry
+  or an earlier answer already states.
+
+**Precedence:** a choice the user uniquely owns (budget, risk appetite,
+non-negotiables, brand red lines, approvals the gates reserve) is never
+preference-fishing; the list above reaches choices that are *not* theirs.
+
+### The form of a question
+
+The approvals the gates reserve and every stop the doctrine mandates are asked
+whatever you expect the answer: **legal by mandate**, never weighed, never
+re-argued here. Unattended, they are never assumed: the plan holds at the gate,
+unless the mandating rule prescribes its own unattended handling (`review.md`'s
+gated rung does).
+
+One mandating file prescribes its own hand-over, and there this form does not
+apply: `review.md`'s round cap (the artifact plus the open findings).
+That list is closed. A question outside the waves carries the **blocking form**,
+one line per element:
+
+- the fork: the options, each with its pros and cons, and what each implies for
+  the plan;
+- the evidence: what you researched and what it leaves undecided;
+- why no assumption survives — why the weighing does not settle it, and what a
+  wrong pick costs; a reserved approval or a mandated stop cites the approval or
+  the mandate instead;
+- why it is the user's call;
+- what stays blocked until answered.
+
+Question style (all waves):
+- Plain language, zero marketing jargon. Not "what's your ICP?" but "describe
+  your best current customer".
+- Max 4 questions per round; multiple rounds per wave allowed but each round
+  must be worth the interruption. More than 4 open doubts: the next round follows
+  at once, still before the write.
+- Offer concrete options where a real choice exists, each with its pros and
+  cons (narrows the reply, speeds the round). Use the client's
+  structured-question facility when available.
+- **Pre-authorize "I don't know" on numeric asks.** When you ask for a figure
+  the client may never have measured (conversion rate, CAC, open rate),
+  append the permission in the question itself — "...ma se non l'avete mai
+  misurato, va bene 'non lo so'." It removes the pressure to invent a number
+  and keeps the ledger honest (an unmeasured figure becomes a researched
+  BENCHMARK or a declared ASSUMPTION, never a fabricated FACT).
+- Every answer that is a fact becomes a `FACT` entry in the evidence ledger,
+  same discipline as researched numbers.
+- **Seeds are allowed, analysis is not:** "which competitors do you lose
+  deals to?" is a fact the user owns (their perceived competitive set) and a
+  legitimate research seed. "What are their strengths and weaknesses?" is
+  analysis — forbidden to ask, mandatory to research.
+
+## Wave 1 — Discovery (phase 2, before any research)
+
+Cover, across rounds:
+1. **Offer** — what they sell, in their words; what problem it solves.
+2. **Price & margin** — price point(s), rough margin, discount reality.
+3. **Current traction** — customers today (how many, what kind), revenue
+   order of magnitude, where the current customers came from.
+4. **Market & language** — geography, target market, language for the
+   deliverables.
+5. **Budget & horizon** — marketing budget range (a range is fine), planning
+   horizon (quarter / year / launch window).
+6. **Team & capacity** — who will execute marketing (nobody / founder /
+   person / team / agency), hours realistically available.
+7. **Sales motion** — how a sale happens today (self-serve, demo calls,
+   proposals, retail...), typical cycle length.
+8. **Existing assets** — website, mailing list, social accounts and their
+   real state; brand materials.
+9. **Constraints** — legal/regulatory limits, channels they refuse, brand
+   red lines.
+10. **Competitor seeds** — who they lose deals to / who customers compare
+    them with (seed, not analysis).
+
+Skip path: any item already answered by an approved MKT-VISION or earlier
+session record is not re-asked — note where the answer came from.
+
+## Wave 2 — Ambition (phase 5 entry, after research)
+
+Now the user chooses with research on the table. Present the relevant
+evidence first (one short paragraph), then ask:
+1. **Growth vs margin** — push volume or protect profitability?
+2. **Risk appetite** — proven channels only, or reserve an experimental slice?
+3. **Timeline pressure** — is there a hard date (launch, season, runway)?
+4. **Non-negotiables** — anything the objectives must include or avoid?
+
+## Wave 3 — Execution capacity (phase 7 entry)
+
+1. **Content capacity** — who writes/records, in which language, how often
+   realistically?
+2. **Paid capacity** — who runs ads; any platform experience in-house?
+3. **Follow-up capacity** — if leads double, who answers them? CRM/tooling?
+4. **Budget flexibility** — is the budget fixed or scalable if a channel
+   proves itself?
+
+## Reflect
+
+Fold answers into the artifacts (MKT_VISION, OBJECTIVES, TACTICAL_PLAN) and
+the ledger — never leave them only in chat. The written document is what the
+next session and the reviewer read.
+
+## Anti-patterns
+
+- **Deferring a doubt into the plan**: writing a guess into the artifact and
+  leaving the user to find it there.
+- **Outsourcing analysis**: asking the user for market size, competitor
+  strengths, channel choice, or positioning. That is the skill's work.
+- **Jargon**: ICP, CAC, SOM, funnel — translate or don't ask.
+- **Interrogation**: more than 4 questions per round, or drip-feeding across
+  many turns instead of structured rounds.
+- **Re-asking the recorded**: anything an approved vision or ledger FACT
+  already answers.
+- **Collecting without folding in**: answers that never reach a document or
+  the ledger are lost to the next session.

package/skills/mkt-agentic-sdlc/review.md

@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ above is already satisfiable and no stop fires (the row still carries
 rung 2 is not "usable" for this clause, it joins the question instead. When the best rung is gated and no
 ungated rung works, the gate STOPS and asks: descending to rung 3 on silence is
 illegal while a user is reachable. The stop is doctrine-mandated (legal by mandate,
-`elicitation.md` §Blocking is reserved) and carries that file's five-bullet
+`elicitation.md` §The form of a question) and carries that file's five-bullet
 blocking form — its closed-list exemption covers this file's round-cap hand-over
 only, not this stop. The question offers the gated rung(s) against the fallback, with what each
 buys; states each higher rung's status (tried / unusable / gated) with the
@@ -335,6 +335,13 @@ When you are the reviewer:
   statement is the proof the check ran; an unfalsifiable "I checked" is the review
   theater this discipline exists to prevent (the reviewer-side twin of §Receiving's
   silent-drop rule). Plain code reviews stay findings-only.
+- **An unasked doubt is a finding (impact/solution-analysis & design reviews).** An
+  intent choice written with no owner-authored source and no weighing, a weighing
+  that names no rejected option or turns on an owner priority not on record, and a
+  fact or owner-held datum settled by a weighing instead of evidence are findings;
+  so is a cited source that does not say what the line claims. What makes a ground
+  or an assumption legal is each lens's `elicitation.md` §The question discipline —
+  cite it, never restate it. The fix is the question, not a better justification.
 - **Restated facts (cite, never copy).** Every governance slot has ONE owning document
   per project. A fact restated in the artifact under review when another document owns
   it is a **finding**: the fix is a citation naming the owner, not a better copy. This

package/skills/mkt-agentic-sdlc/scripts/sdlc_core.py

@@ -1574,6 +1574,13 @@ def cmd_stale(root, hybrid=False):
         return rc                                  # was: return 0 — MUST carry guide rc
     use_git = git_available(root)
     entry = entry_script()
+    # The audit plan records the marks: its own edits are not a change to the area
+    # that contains it. Counting them made a committed hash mark of that area
+    # stale again, and every re-mark repeated the loop.
+    try:
+        plan_rel = f.resolve().relative_to(Path(root).resolve()).as_posix()
+    except ValueError:
+        plan_rel = None
     # F-056: an ANALYZED row whose reference cannot be evaluated is UNVERIFIED,
     # never fresh. Each `continue` below that skips such a row records it here;
     # skipping silently is how a pruned reference printed `[ok]` over three areas.
@@ -1641,6 +1648,7 @@ def cmd_stale(root, hybrid=False):
                     except ValueError:   # symlink out of the tree: report absolute, never crash
                         name = str(fp)
                     changed.append(name)
+        changed = [c for c in changed if c != plan_rel]
         if changed:
             stale.append((rel, changed))