@antoneeo/mkt-agentic-sdlc-skill 0.28.0 → 0.30.0

package/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,41 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## [0.30.0] - 2026-11-01
+
+### What's new
+
+**Branches that add review rows merge without a conflict.** When two branches both add rows to the review log and your project has no merge rule for that file, merging them stops on a conflict you resolve by hand. The check the agent runs when it closes a piece of work now notices the missing rule and prints the exact line to add to `.gitattributes`, so the agent sees what to fix while it works, without anyone reading release notes. Nothing changes at session start, and the note never makes a check fail.
+
+#### What to do
+
+**1. Update (everyone).** The changes arrive only with the update.
+1. Run `npm install -g @antoneeo/mkt-agentic-sdlc-skill@latest`, then `mkt-sdlc-install-skill`.
+2. Close and reopen your agent sessions: the new version loads only at startup.
+
+To check: `npm ls -g @antoneeo/mkt-agentic-sdlc-skill` shows 0.30.0.
+
+### Changed
+- The shared validator (F-090): `check` prints a `[note]` when the review log (`<docs>/audit/reviews/REVIEW_LOG.md`) has no `merge` attribute, naming the line to add to `.gitattributes` at the repository root (`git check-attr`, with personal and system attribute files ignored; a per-clone `.git/info/attributes` still counts). A deliberate non-union driver is respected. The exit code is unchanged, and session orientation still runs no git. `mkt_check.py check` prints it too, for `mkt_docs/` or `ai_docs/`.
+- `ENFORCEMENT.md`: «A review log git would not merge cleanly -- `check` names it» (F-090).
+- `templates.md`: the `.gitattributes` stanza's note says `check` names a missing stanza and the line to add (F-090).
+
+## [0.29.0] - 2026-10-31
+
+### What's new
+
+**Decisions taken on your behalf are labelled.** In the request record, a decision a session took under a delegation you gave it, and words you gave one session for an engagement another session records, now carry their own heading. They are never read later as something you said yourself, and a delegated decision never overrides one of yours: a choice that would change it comes back to you as a question.
+
+#### What to do
+
+**1. Update (everyone).** The changes arrive only with the update.
+1. Run `npm install -g @antoneeo/mkt-agentic-sdlc-skill@latest`, then `mkt-sdlc-install-skill`.
+2. Close and reopen your agent sessions: the new version loads only at startup.
+
+To check: `npm ls -g @antoneeo/mkt-agentic-sdlc-skill` shows 0.29.0.
+
+### Changed
+- Request record (`templates.md`, F-088): labelled entries `decided under delegation R<m>` and `received for <unit>`; `review.md` and `elicitation.md` treat them as the deciding session's choice or relayed words, never an owner statement.
+
 ## [0.28.0] - 2026-10-31
 
 ### What's new

package/README.md

@@ -4,15 +4,9 @@ Evidence-First marketing planning protocol for AI coding agents (Claude Code, Ge
 
 <!-- whats-new:begin -->
 <!-- generated by scripts/whats_new.js from distributions/mkt-agentic-sdlc/CHANGELOG.md: edit the CHANGELOG, then run node scripts/whats_new.js --write -->
-## What's new in 0.28.0
+## What's new in 0.30.0
 
-**One approval, not two.** The other skills of the family now have the owner approve a design before the work starts. In marketing that approval already exists: you approve the strategy before any tactic. It now counts as that approval, so the agent asks you nothing more.
-
-**The npm page tells you what is new.** This section, at the top of the package page, now summarizes each version for the people who install it.
-
-**From 0.27.0, published without notes:**
-- **The process checks can no longer be bypassed by accident.** Quoting a work level inside a sentence no longer counts as declaring it, and protected parts of the project stay protected when the agent changes folder.
-- **You know what the project memory has not read yet.** The agent can tell how much of the project it has never examined (automatically in projects with a corpus, on request otherwise).
+**Branches that add review rows merge without a conflict.** When two branches both add rows to the review log and your project has no merge rule for that file, merging them stops on a conflict you resolve by hand. The check the agent runs when it closes a piece of work now notices the missing rule and prints the exact line to add to `.gitattributes`, so the agent sees what to fix while it works, without anyone reading release notes. Nothing changes at session start, and the note never makes a check fail.
 
 #### What to do
 
@@ -20,13 +14,7 @@ Evidence-First marketing planning protocol for AI coding agents (Claude Code, Ge
 1. Run `npm install -g @antoneeo/mkt-agentic-sdlc-skill@latest`, then `mkt-sdlc-install-skill`.
 2. Close and reopen your agent sessions: the new version loads only at startup.
 
-To check: `npm ls -g @antoneeo/mkt-agentic-sdlc-skill` shows 0.28.0.
-
-**2. Protected folders in a repository with several docs folders (only if you use them; from 0.27.0).**
-- **This concerns you if** your agent settings contain `gate --hook --protected` and the repository has more than one docs folder (`mkt_docs/` or `ai_docs/`), for example a package with its own.
-- **Why:** protected paths are now read from the docs folder nearest to the edited file. A path written from the repository root, such as `packages/api/src/auth`, no longer matches the files inside `packages/api`, so the agent could change them without an analysis.
-- **Steps:** rewrite those paths from the package: `packages/api/src/auth` becomes `src/auth`. Note that `src/auth` then protects the folder with that name in every project that has its own docs folder.
-- **To check:** in a session with no open analysis, ask the agent for a small change to a protected file. It must be refused.
+To check: `npm ls -g @antoneeo/mkt-agentic-sdlc-skill` shows 0.30.0.
 
 Full history: [CHANGELOG](https://github.com/Antoneeo/agentic-sdlc-skill/blob/main/distributions/mkt-agentic-sdlc/CHANGELOG.md)
 <!-- whats-new:end -->

package/gemini-extension.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "mkt-agentic-sdlc",
-  "version": "0.28.0",
+  "version": "0.30.0",
   "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": "0.28.0",
+  "version": "0.30.0",
   "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",

package/scripts/init.js

@@ -194,16 +194,16 @@ in the skill's \`routing.md\`: it decides which lens's method and validation rul
 that unit. L1 never reaches it. Never refer to a document whose meaning differs by lens
 ("threat model", "vision", \`principles.md\`, \`handoff.md\`) by its bare name.
 
-Select the owning lens by the unit's purpose, then apply only its risk scale.
-The project's always-on pointer stays intact: consult the selected skill rather than
-merging multiple mandatory ladders. All lenses already carry shared project memory
-(\`memory.md\`); another installation is not needed for cross-domain recall.
+Select the owning lens by the unit's purpose, then apply only its risk scale.
+The project's always-on pointer stays intact: consult the selected skill rather than
+merging multiple mandatory ladders. All lenses already carry shared project memory
+(\`memory.md\`); another installation is not needed for cross-domain recall.
 This file is NOT auto-loaded by any client: it is a note for you, deliberately additive.
-Delete this note once the routing pointer is integrated.
+Delete this note once the routing pointer is integrated.
 `, 'multi-lens routing note');
   if (wrote && protocolPreexisting) {
     console.log('   ⚠️  A protocol pointer already existed and was NOT overwritten.');
-    console.log('       Integrate the routing pointer from AGENTIC_MULTI_LENS.md; keep one risk scale per unit.');
+    console.log('       Integrate the routing pointer from AGENTIC_MULTI_LENS.md; keep one risk scale per unit.');
   }
 }
 

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

@@ -105,6 +105,16 @@ not see them, because the wired hook legitimately lives in the git-ignored
 mechanism (Gemini today) keeps the note -- read it as the manual-reads reminder; a
 `.codex/hooks.json` wired in a shape other than the documented one keeps it too.
 
+**A review log git would not merge cleanly -- `check` names it (F-090).** When the docs
+root holds `audit/reviews/REVIEW_LOG.md` and git reports no `merge` attribute for it (no
+committed `.gitattributes` line covers it: a project set up before the stanza, a custom
+docs root, a project below the repository root, a course project), `check` prints one
+`[note]` with the exact line to add at the repository root. Same contract as above:
+informational, never the exit code, never a `validate` warning. Personal attribute files
+(except the per-clone `.git/info/attributes`) are ignored, so the note matches what a
+teammate's clone does; a deliberate driver other
+than `union` is respected. Session orientation does not run it: it stays zero-execution.
+
 **Installing the package wires the hook machine-wide (F-042).** On Claude Code
 with Python, `npm i -g` (and every update) wires a SessionStart orient hook into
 the USER-level settings (`$CLAUDE_CONFIG_DIR/settings.json` when set, else

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

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 name: mkt-agentic-sdlc
-version: 0.28.0
+version: 0.30.0
 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

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

@@ -71,7 +71,9 @@ intent choice with neither a source nor a weighing is a finding (`review.md`
 - **Unattended** — the user is not reachable (the Unattended path above).
 - **Delegated** — their own words handed you this choice; cite their entry in the
   request record, or quote them where the engagement has none (below E3). A general
-  "go ahead" is not a delegation.
+  "go ahead" is not a delegation. A choice you make under it goes, where the
+  engagement has a request record, into it as a delegated entry (`templates.md` §REQUEST) and the artifact
+  cites that entry; it never changes an earlier decision of theirs — ask instead.
 
 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

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

@@ -467,7 +467,9 @@ When you are the reviewer:
   the artifact relies on — an answer, an approval, a cost acceptance, a ruling, a
   delegation — that resolves to no entry of the unit's request record, or that the
   record contradicts, is a finding; so is a quotation in the record carrying what
-  its template says to redact. What makes a ground
+  its template says to redact, a delegated entry citing no delegation or changing
+  an earlier owner decision, and an artifact of a shared unit citing a received
+  entry instead of the shared record (`templates.md` §REQUEST, labelled entries). 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

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

@@ -751,10 +751,10 @@ def main(argv=None):
     else:
         print(f"[FAIL] {args.command}: {len(rep.errors)} error(s), {len(rep.warnings)} warning(s)")
     if args.command == "check":
-        # This overlay REPLACES the spine's cmd_check, so the F-041 wiring note
-        # must be re-attached here: it is check-layer behaviour, whoever owns
-        # the check (fail-open and informational -- never the exit code).
-        sdlc_core.print_orient_hook_note(root)
+        # This overlay REPLACES the spine's cmd_check, so the check-layer notes
+        # (F-041 wiring, F-090 review-log merge) are re-attached here through
+        # their one entry point -- fail-open and informational, never the exit code.
+        sdlc_core.print_check_notes(root)
     return code
 
 

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

@@ -1377,9 +1377,12 @@ def _open_units(root):
     return units
 
 
-def _git_out(root, *args, timeout=30):
+def _git_out(root, *args, timeout=30, env=None):
+    # `env` is merged into the inherited environment, never a replacement: a bare
+    # dict would drop PATH and fail silently on Windows.
     r = subprocess.run(["git", *args], cwd=str(root), capture_output=True, text=True,
-                       encoding="utf-8", errors="replace", timeout=timeout)
+                       encoding="utf-8", errors="replace", timeout=timeout,
+                       env={**os.environ, **env} if env else None)
     return r.stdout if r.returncode == 0 else None
 
 
@@ -2481,10 +2484,64 @@ def cmd_check(root, strict=False, hybrid=False, extra_validate=None, extra_secti
     failed = any(rc for _, rc in rcs)
     print(f"\ncheck: {'NOT CLEAN' if failed else 'CLEAN'} "
           f"({', '.join(f'{title} rc={rc}' for title, rc in rcs)})")
-    print_orient_hook_note(root)
+    print_check_notes(root)
     return 1 if failed else 0
 
 
+def _attr_pattern(path):
+    """A .gitattributes pattern matching exactly `path`. Order matters (probed):
+    a backslash, glob characters and a leading `#` or `!` (comment, negation)
+    are escaped first, then the result is C-quoted when it holds whitespace,
+    `"` or a backslash."""
+    p = re.sub(r"([\\\[*?])", r"\\\1", path)
+    if p.startswith(("#", "!")):
+        p = "\\" + p
+    if re.search(r'[\s"\\]', p):
+        p = '"' + p.replace("\\", "\\\\").replace('"', '\\"') + '"'
+    return p
+
+
+def review_log_union_note(root):
+    """F-090: the note for a review log git would not merge with union, or None.
+
+    Git itself is asked (`check-attr`), so patterns and nested files count;
+    personal and system attribute files do not, so the answer is the one a
+    teammate's clone gets. Only `unspecified` is a gap: `union` or any other
+    driver is a choice. Residual: `.git/info/attributes` is still read. Any
+    failure -- no git, not a work tree, timeout -- is no note: `check` never
+    breaks on it."""
+    try:
+        log = ai_path(root, "audit", "reviews", "REVIEW_LOG.md")
+        if not log.is_file():
+            return None
+        prefix = _git_out(root, "rev-parse", "--show-prefix", timeout=3)
+        if prefix is None:
+            return None
+        rel = log.resolve().relative_to(Path(root).resolve()).as_posix()
+        out = _git_out(root, "-c", "core.attributesFile=", "check-attr", "-z", "merge",
+                       "--", rel, timeout=3, env={"GIT_ATTR_NOSYSTEM": "1"})
+        if out is None:
+            return None
+        fields = out.split("\0")
+        if len(fields) < 3 or fields[2] != "unspecified":
+            return None
+        path = prefix.rstrip("\r\n") + rel  # a folder may begin with a space
+        return (f"[note] {path} has no merge attribute: two branches that both add review "
+                "rows conflict when merged. Fix: add this line to .gitattributes at the "
+                f"repository root: {_attr_pattern(path)} merge=union")
+    except Exception:
+        return None
+
+
+def print_check_notes(root):
+    """Every check-layer note, informational and never an exit code. The one
+    place an overlay that replaces `check` calls, so a new note cannot miss it."""
+    print_orient_hook_note(root)
+    note = review_log_union_note(root)
+    if note:
+        print(note)
+
+
 # --------------------------------------------------------------------- gate
 
 # --- UserPromptSubmit reminder hook (F-046) --------------------------------

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

@@ -159,6 +159,14 @@ Context (agent): "the question it answered, quoted"
   entered only as `[NOT VERBATIM — from <source>]`, never as a quote.
 - **Unattended**: R1 quotes the trigger that started the engagement, labelled as such.
   Declared assumptions are not owner statements and never enter the record.
+- **Labelled entries** (r41): a decision taken under the owner's delegation is
+  `### R<n> — YYYY-MM-DD — decided under delegation R<m> — <what it settles>`, citing
+  the delegation entry (in Hybrid also the devPNT proposal it accepted); it is the
+  deciding session's choice, never an owner statement, and never changes an earlier
+  owner decision — that goes to the owner as a question. Owner words received for a
+  unit whose record another session writes are
+  `### R<n> — YYYY-MM-DD — received for <unit> — <what it settles>`, then sent to that
+  record's writer, who enters them verbatim citing this entry.
 - **Hybrid**: always on the filesystem; an approval given in devPNT is named by its
   proposal, not quoted.
 
@@ -624,7 +632,7 @@ Concurrent reviews: `init` writes a `.gitattributes` stanza giving this file
 Rows are date-stamped and their order carries no meaning, so a union merge keeps
 both sides instead of asking a human to choose. It is defence in depth: without
 git, or without the stanza, the outcome is today's — one conflict you resolve by
-hand, never a lost row.
+hand, never a lost row. `check` names a missing stanza and the line to add (F-090).
 
 
 ## audit/HANDOFF_[engagement].md (under the docs root) — one open workstream, its own file

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

@@ -1,308 +1,308 @@
-# Writing a Vision that a cold reviewer can actually apply
-
-Support file for `ai_docs/vision/project_vision.md`, `vision/features/VISION_*.md`
-and (Hybrid) the devPNT M-VISION. Read it when writing or amending any of them.
-The template lives in `templates.md`; this file is the *why it works*.
-
-**The problem this solves.** A Vision's job is to be read cold — by a later
-session, by a reviewer, by another agent — and to produce a ruling on a proposed
-change. Most Visions cannot do that: they read as intent to whoever wrote them and
-as ambiguity to everyone else, and the gap is invisible until something wrong gets
-through. Writing one and then discovering the holes by adversarial rounds works,
-but it costs several rewrites. The checklist below exists so a Vision is
-verifiable on the **first** draft.
-
-Everything here was derived empirically: six blind adversarial rounds against one
-real Vision, reviewers with no repository access, ~25 attack proposals. Rules that
-survived every attack and rules that fell were compared for structure. What
-follows is that difference.
-
-## What a Vision IS
-
-A Vision states **what is to be obtained — the benefit — while leaving the most
-degrees of freedom possible. It binds nothing that does not obstruct that
-benefit.**
-
-Four consequences, each operational:
-
-- **State the benefit, not the mechanism.** What the actor *obtains*, never how —
-  and concrete enough that an obstacle to it is *recognizable*. This is the test a
-  North Star must pass: from "best-in-class" no constraint is derivable and none
-  is refutable, because nothing recognizably obstructs it. From "everything the
-  methodology produces stays usable in full without paying", a metering ban
-  follows and can be checked.
-- **The deletion test — the generative rule for every constraint.** Remove the
-  rule: is the benefit still reachable? If **yes**, delete the rule — it was
-  spending a degree of freedom on nothing. If **no**, keep it, and its sentence
-  must name the obstacle it removes. This is also the stop rule: when nothing on
-  the table would obstruct the benefit, the Vision needs no new rule.
-- **Constraints accumulate as the work reveals obstacles.** The first draft is the
-  benefit plus the few constraints already known — usually almost none, and that
-  is correct (`DRAFT` informs, `APPROVED` binds). Each constraint added later
-  *sharpens* the Vision without shrinking it more than the obstacle requires.
-- **A constraint never obstructs the Vision.** A proposed rule that conflicts with
-  the benefit is not a constraint to negotiate in place — it is a Vision
-  **amendment**, and amending is the owner's decision, never a side effect of a
-  downstream edit.
-
-Extracting the benefit from a discussion is real work: a discourse arrives with
-solutions, preferences and constraints tangled together, and the Vision is the
-distilled benefit only. The owner interview below asks for it — and a mechanism
-("a dashboard") is not an acceptable answer to a benefit question ("never lose
-the thread"); ask again until the answer names what the actor obtains.
-
-The deletion test decides **which** rules exist. Everything below decides **how**
-to write a rule so it holds once you know it must exist.
-
-## The owner interview (before any Vision text)
-
-A Vision is the **owner's** statement of what is to be obtained. Nothing in this
-file after this section can detect a Vision the author wrote alone: the blind
-check (§6) tests whether the rules survive a hostile reader, never whether they
-are the owner's. So every Vision is born from an interview of the owner, and its
-north star is approved **before** a line of it is drafted.
-
-**Scope — every Vision, in every mode:** `project_vision.md`, a feature
-`VISION_*.md`, a lens Vision (course, marketing), and the devPNT M-VISION in
-Hybrid; also an ANALYSIS `## Feature Vision` that states a benefit no existing
-Vision names (one that cites an approved Vision's benefit is alignment, not a
-Vision). An amendment re-runs the questions whose answers it changes, and Gate 1
-again when the north star changes. **There is no skip path**: one sentence from
-the user plus a spike is not a complete spec — that exact shortcut produced a
-Vision with an imported prohibition, no north star and a missing actor, and four
-downstream artifacts built on it (field case, 2026-10). A reply already on record
-in the owner's words is read back for confirmation, never re-asked as an open
-question; an answer the author derived (from a spike, the code, another Vision)
-is never an answer — it is a proposal the owner confirms or rejects.
-
-**The questions, in this order.** Each is repeated until its answer has the form
-stated; the wrong form is named so it can be recognized and asked again.
-
-| # | Question | Right form | Wrong form — ask again |
-|---|---|---|---|
-| 1 | **Problem** — which concrete case today does not get the expected result? | one real case, with an example | a missing feature ("there is no drawing tool") |
-| 2 | **Benefit** — once solved, who obtains what? | a result for a named actor | a function or mechanism ("a renderer") |
-| 3 | **Actors** — who receives the benefit, who acts, who has the initiative? | all three named, initiative included | only the one who asks — the actor who acts unprompted goes missing |
-| 4 | **Success** — what observable signal shows the benefit arrived? | a signal with its starting value | a feeling, or a signal with no baseline |
-| 5 | **Boundaries** — what does this NOT pursue? | scope excluded from this work | a ban on behaviour ("X must never happen") — that is a constraint (6) or an obligation (2, 4) |
-| 6 | **Known constraints** — each with its provenance: owner, a quoted line of a higher Vision, or author inference | every constraint sourced; every inference asked here | a constraint written in silently, or imported from a higher Vision without asking whether it applies here |
-
-A **Non-Goal bounds scope**: it rejects a proposal that pursues what it names; it
-is not a ban on behaviour that already exists, and it creates no obligation.
-Obligations come from the Benefit and the Success Signals.
-
-**Gate 1 — north star.** One or two sentences, in the owner's words, explicitly
-approved by the owner. The author may compose a wording from the answers; the
-approval is of that exact text, recorded verbatim in the request record
-(`audit/requests/REQUEST_[unit].md`; a Vision written outside any unit, such as
-the project Vision after bootstrap, records its interview in
-`audit/requests/REQUEST_project_vision.md`). **Without it no Vision text is written** —
-not a DRAFT, not a reconstruction: bootstrap writes a stub awaiting the
-interview, and what the agent observed goes to `strategic/`.
-Unattended, the unit is `BLOCKED on the user` (`elicitation.md` Unattended path).
-
-**Gate 2 — the full Vision**, written from the answers. Every section traces to
-an answer or a stated provenance (`REQUEST_[unit].md#R<n>`); every rule carries
-its provenance; an author inference the owner did not confirm is not in it. The
-blind check (§6) verifies that it holds; the approved north star verifies that it
-is the owner's. Promotion to APPROVED still needs the owner's explicit
-confirmation — Gate 2 is that confirmation, given on the written text.
-
-## 0. The one-line test
-
-> Could a reader who has never seen this project rule ACCEPT or REJECT on a
-> proposed change, quoting one line of this document, without asking anyone
-> anything?
-
-If a section cannot contribute to that, it is background — keep it if it helps a
-human, but know it carries no gate weight.
-
-## 1. The nine properties of a rule that holds
-
-Each is stated as a drafting action, with the attack it defeats.
-
-1. **Key the rule to a property observable in the artifact — never to intent,
-   commitment, plan or purpose.** Test while drafting: *could I verify compliance
-   by reading the diff, without asking the author what they meant?*
-   → Defeats: the proposer simply promises the opposite. A rule that forbids
-   "committing to track someone's format" is satisfied by saying "we commit to
-   nothing"; a rule that forbids "code in this repo that parses a format we do
-   not define" is not.
-2. **Write it as one yes/no question with BOTH branches answered.**
-   → Defeats: a gate that can only reject. A prohibition-only Vision rejects the
-   work it wants (new client support, packaging, bug fixes) and is abandoned.
-3. **Phrase the question counterfactually about capability, not about the status
-   quo** — "could the user obtain this…", not "does the product currently do it".
-   → Defeats: "we never shipped it, so nothing is being taken away."
-4. **Enumerate the near-miss verbs, not just the headline one** — charge / count /
-   cap / condition / gate / degrade / delay / require-signup.
-   → Defeats: the soft form. A generous cap, a free-but-registered tier, a
-   zero-cost counter — all are the same harm and none is the headline verb.
-5. **Define every term the rule turns on by EFFECT, and close the list.** A
-   definition that enumerates mechanisms is a list of the ways you already thought
-   of; end it with "…and anything else the user must give, accept or obtain from
-   us."
-   → Defeats: the third mechanism. "Charge = payment or account" is walked past by
-   "requires opting into telemetry".
-6. **Enumerate the FORMS a violation can take, then state a closure rule** —
-   "anything not named here is out unless it is X".
-   → Defeats: the unnamed variant. "A step, a required field, a check, or a cost
-   that varies but is never zero" kills "auto-filled, zero human input", because
-   the form is still a required field.
-7. **State the subject predicate of any enumerated test in checkable terms.** If
-   the test applies to "a record of work", say what makes something one.
-   → Defeats: denying the subject. The proposer agrees with every item on your
-   list and asserts the list does not apply.
-8. **Give one IN and one OUT example on the same axis, differing in a single
-   variable.** The pair carries the discriminator; without it the reader invents
-   one.
-   → Defeats: the borderline case, which is where every real argument happens.
-9. **Name the re-descriptions you expect, inside the rule's own sentence** —
-   "in any presentation", "however the code got here", "not by a component that
-   does not exist yet", "storing it as Markdown changes nothing".
-   → Defeats: relabeling. A board called a "view" is still a board.
-
-## 2. The five clauses a Vision needs around its rules
-
-Rules do not hold alone. These structural clauses were the difference between a
-rule that survived and the same rule leaking.
-
-- **Supremacy clause** — on any rule a second layer, product, tier or future
-  component could route around: *"these bind the product as a whole; shipping a
-  forbidden thing in the paid layer does not put it out of reach."*
-- **Exceptions attached to the rule they limit, in the same bullet, phrased
-  affirmatively.** An exception in another section is a leak; an exception phrased
-  only as a negation produces CANNOT DECIDE. *"This rule does not reach X;
-  supporting one more X is squarely wanted."*
-- **Anti-abuse clause on every exemption, naming the only permitted outcomes.**
-  A maintenance exemption without one lets any forbidden thing that already
-  shipped be maintained forever, and any new one be framed as a fix to it:
-  *"work framed as a fix to something that should never have shipped is not
-  exempt — it is the removal of that thing, or it is out."*
-- **Stated defaults, per path including the exempt path** — "anything unreached is
-  out"; "an exempt fix that preserves a forbidden thing is out". A test that says
-  "admitted only if" gives new capability a default; exempt work has none unless
-  you write one.
-- **Precedence, when two sentences can both apply.** Two adjacent statements
-  pointing opposite ways are decided by whichever the reader reaches first.
-
-## 3. Only prohibitions can reject; only positives can admit
-
-This is the most common structural failure and it is invisible from the inside.
-
-- **A Goal cannot reject anything.** If the admission test says "advances a Goal
-  and violates no Non-Goal", then rejection power lives *only* in the Non-Goals
-  (and the Invariants, where the Vision has them).
-- **A Non-Goal rejects scope, not behaviour.** It turns away a proposal that
-  pursues what it names; it never forbids a behaviour the product already has, and
-  it never creates an obligation — obligations come from the Benefit and the
-  Success Signals. A behaviour the product must never have is an Invariant, or a
-  constraint with its provenance (§The owner interview, question 6). Written as a
-  Non-Goal, it reads as a ban the owner never stated.
-  A Goal that says "scale cost to risk in both directions" cannot stop cost
-  inflation — you need a prohibition for that.
-- **A prohibition scoped to one rung of your own scale protects only that rung.**
-  Banning ceremony on trivial edits invites the same ceremony one level up.
-- **A criterion phrased as an already-true state cannot be advanced.** "The check
-  is CLEAN at every closure" is a state, so "advances this signal" is meaningless
-  and any proposal citing it is undecidable. Give every positive criterion a
-  **baseline with headroom**: a current value and date, or an explicit list of
-  improvement categories that count.
-- **Give recurring legitimate work an explicit authorization clause**, or it will
-  be rejected by your own test: packaging and installation, the product's own
-  tests, reducing what the agent must read, supporting one more client. Each needs
-  a home in the positive sources — otherwise "moves nothing this document commits
-  to" fires on exactly the maintenance the product needs.
-
-## 4. Minimum operable sections
-
-A Vision is a gate. These are the load-bearing parts; anything else is
-orientation for humans and should be recognized as such.
-
-| Section | Must contain | Enables |
-|---|---|---|
-| Authority & scope | what it binds (all layers, tiers, future components), that packaging is irrelevant, precedence among its own sections, the approval line | both |
-| Defaults | the default ruling for anything unreached, stated per path | both |
-| Admission test | one sentence naming *exactly which* sections are positive sources and *exactly which* are prohibitions | ACCEPT |
-| Positive sources | Goals / Actor commitments / Success Signals — each with a baseline and headroom, checkable against a named artifact | ACCEPT |
-| Prohibitions | property-based, closed enumerations, named re-descriptions, in/out pairs | REJECT |
-| Invariants | the decision question with both branches answered, plus an anti-laundering clause | both |
-| Exemptions | each with its anti-abuse clause | prevents laundering |
-| Definitions & imported facts | terms defined by effect; **any fact from another document a ruling depends on, restated here** with the reason | standalone use |
-| Pointers | what deliberately lives elsewhere, so an absence reads as intentional | prevents false CANNOT DECIDE |
-
-**Imported facts matter more than they look.** If a ruling needs your triage
-levels, your risk tiers or your lifecycle states, restate the boundaries in the
-Vision — routing the reader to another file breaks the cold-read premise the
-whole gate rests on. Keep the procedure elsewhere; bring the boundaries here.
-
-**Keep competitive positioning OUT.** A Vision defined by comparison to another
-product rots silently: the comparison target moves and no one edits your document.
-Put it in a dated snapshot elsewhere and point to it.
-
-## 5. What no wording can fix — use a mechanism instead
-
-Five failure classes are structural. Prose cannot close them; do not try.
-
-| Failure | Mechanism |
-|---|---|
-| "Advances a Goal" is a claim about the world, not the text | Measure it: run the ruling battery before and after, admit on measured improvement |
-| **Cumulative ratchet** — each addition defensible, the sum is the ceremony the Vision forbids | A measured budget: steps per level, tokens the agent loads, artifacts per change; add-one-remove-one |
-| Facts the proposal never states ("a quota of *what*?") | A proposal template that demands them, and a stated rule that omission resolves against the proposal |
-| Structural compliance without truth — every rule satisfied, the artifact still wrong | Independent review; a Vision cannot detect this |
-| An accepted change silently falsifying the Vision | Require the amendment in the same change; check cross-document facts mechanically |
-
-And the sixth, which is why this file exists:
-
-**Adversarial re-description is unbounded.** Every patch names the evasions seen so
-far; a new one always exists. Patch-after-defeat is a treadmill. The only thing
-that converts it into a ratchet is a **standing battery**: keep every attack
-proposal that ever worked as a fixture and re-run the whole set against every
-Vision edit. A Vision without a battery decays the moment someone motivated reads
-it.
-
-## 6. The blind check (procedure)
-
-Run this **before promoting any Vision to APPROVED, and before any amendment of an
-approved one**. It runs on a Vision that already passed Gate 1 (§The owner
-interview): it tests whether the rules hold against a hostile reader, and it
-cannot see whether they are the owner's — a Vision the author wrote alone passes
-it cleanly. Not for DRAFT edits — promotion is when authority is granted, and
-it is rare, so the cost lands where it buys most.
-
-1. **Give the reviewer the document text and nothing else.** Not a path — the
-   text, pasted. Forbid opening files, searching, and web access explicitly. A
-   term the reviewer cannot resolve is then a property of the document, not of
-   their tooling.
-2. **Fresh context, and a different model from the author where the client allows
-   it.** Author self-review is structurally blind to its own omissions.
-3. **Hand them a battery, not an open question.** Concrete proposals to rule on:
-   - the standing fixtures (every attack that ever worked — see §5);
-   - **reject-side** proposals aimed at each prohibition;
-   - **accept-side** proposals the document plainly wants (a bug fix, packaging
-     work, supporting one more client, a documentation improvement). *A gate that
-     can only reject is half a gate, and the accept side is where most Visions
-     fail without anyone noticing.*
-4. **Ask for the mechanism, not just the verdict.** For each ruling: the exact
-   quoted line, or precisely what the document fails to say. Then: *which rules
-   could you not get around, and what structural property defeated you?* That
-   answer is worth more than the findings.
-5. **Ask for rewords.** "Slip a bad proposal past this document, including one
-   dressed in its own approving vocabulary." A rule nobody can reword is done; a
-   rule that falls to the first attempt was never a rule.
-6. **Every finding is answered — fixed, or refused with reasoning** (`review.md`
-   §Receiving). Add every successful reword to the standing battery, whether or
-   not you fix it this round.
-
-Three lenses are worth running for a product-level Vision: **comprehension** (what
-is this, what could you not resolve), **gate operability** (the battery above),
-**durability** (what rots, what is unfalsifiable, what is a time bomb). For a
-feature-level Vision or an M-VISION, the gate lens alone is usually enough.
-
-## 7. Cost, honestly
-
-A first draft written against §1–§4 will still have findings — the checklist
-removes the structural classes, not judgement errors. Expect one blind round to
-find real things and a second to confirm. What it should NOT take is five rounds
-of discovering the same class of defect in a new disguise; that is the specific
-waste this file exists to prevent.
+# Writing a Vision that a cold reviewer can actually apply
+
+Support file for `ai_docs/vision/project_vision.md`, `vision/features/VISION_*.md`
+and (Hybrid) the devPNT M-VISION. Read it when writing or amending any of them.
+The template lives in `templates.md`; this file is the *why it works*.
+
+**The problem this solves.** A Vision's job is to be read cold — by a later
+session, by a reviewer, by another agent — and to produce a ruling on a proposed
+change. Most Visions cannot do that: they read as intent to whoever wrote them and
+as ambiguity to everyone else, and the gap is invisible until something wrong gets
+through. Writing one and then discovering the holes by adversarial rounds works,
+but it costs several rewrites. The checklist below exists so a Vision is
+verifiable on the **first** draft.
+
+Everything here was derived empirically: six blind adversarial rounds against one
+real Vision, reviewers with no repository access, ~25 attack proposals. Rules that
+survived every attack and rules that fell were compared for structure. What
+follows is that difference.
+
+## What a Vision IS
+
+A Vision states **what is to be obtained — the benefit — while leaving the most
+degrees of freedom possible. It binds nothing that does not obstruct that
+benefit.**
+
+Four consequences, each operational:
+
+- **State the benefit, not the mechanism.** What the actor *obtains*, never how —
+  and concrete enough that an obstacle to it is *recognizable*. This is the test a
+  North Star must pass: from "best-in-class" no constraint is derivable and none
+  is refutable, because nothing recognizably obstructs it. From "everything the
+  methodology produces stays usable in full without paying", a metering ban
+  follows and can be checked.
+- **The deletion test — the generative rule for every constraint.** Remove the
+  rule: is the benefit still reachable? If **yes**, delete the rule — it was
+  spending a degree of freedom on nothing. If **no**, keep it, and its sentence
+  must name the obstacle it removes. This is also the stop rule: when nothing on
+  the table would obstruct the benefit, the Vision needs no new rule.
+- **Constraints accumulate as the work reveals obstacles.** The first draft is the
+  benefit plus the few constraints already known — usually almost none, and that
+  is correct (`DRAFT` informs, `APPROVED` binds). Each constraint added later
+  *sharpens* the Vision without shrinking it more than the obstacle requires.
+- **A constraint never obstructs the Vision.** A proposed rule that conflicts with
+  the benefit is not a constraint to negotiate in place — it is a Vision
+  **amendment**, and amending is the owner's decision, never a side effect of a
+  downstream edit.
+
+Extracting the benefit from a discussion is real work: a discourse arrives with
+solutions, preferences and constraints tangled together, and the Vision is the
+distilled benefit only. The owner interview below asks for it — and a mechanism
+("a dashboard") is not an acceptable answer to a benefit question ("never lose
+the thread"); ask again until the answer names what the actor obtains.
+
+The deletion test decides **which** rules exist. Everything below decides **how**
+to write a rule so it holds once you know it must exist.
+
+## The owner interview (before any Vision text)
+
+A Vision is the **owner's** statement of what is to be obtained. Nothing in this
+file after this section can detect a Vision the author wrote alone: the blind
+check (§6) tests whether the rules survive a hostile reader, never whether they
+are the owner's. So every Vision is born from an interview of the owner, and its
+north star is approved **before** a line of it is drafted.
+
+**Scope — every Vision, in every mode:** `project_vision.md`, a feature
+`VISION_*.md`, a lens Vision (course, marketing), and the devPNT M-VISION in
+Hybrid; also an ANALYSIS `## Feature Vision` that states a benefit no existing
+Vision names (one that cites an approved Vision's benefit is alignment, not a
+Vision). An amendment re-runs the questions whose answers it changes, and Gate 1
+again when the north star changes. **There is no skip path**: one sentence from
+the user plus a spike is not a complete spec — that exact shortcut produced a
+Vision with an imported prohibition, no north star and a missing actor, and four
+downstream artifacts built on it (field case, 2026-10). A reply already on record
+in the owner's words is read back for confirmation, never re-asked as an open
+question; an answer the author derived (from a spike, the code, another Vision)
+is never an answer — it is a proposal the owner confirms or rejects.
+
+**The questions, in this order.** Each is repeated until its answer has the form
+stated; the wrong form is named so it can be recognized and asked again.
+
+| # | Question | Right form | Wrong form — ask again |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| 1 | **Problem** — which concrete case today does not get the expected result? | one real case, with an example | a missing feature ("there is no drawing tool") |
+| 2 | **Benefit** — once solved, who obtains what? | a result for a named actor | a function or mechanism ("a renderer") |
+| 3 | **Actors** — who receives the benefit, who acts, who has the initiative? | all three named, initiative included | only the one who asks — the actor who acts unprompted goes missing |
+| 4 | **Success** — what observable signal shows the benefit arrived? | a signal with its starting value | a feeling, or a signal with no baseline |
+| 5 | **Boundaries** — what does this NOT pursue? | scope excluded from this work | a ban on behaviour ("X must never happen") — that is a constraint (6) or an obligation (2, 4) |
+| 6 | **Known constraints** — each with its provenance: owner, a quoted line of a higher Vision, or author inference | every constraint sourced; every inference asked here | a constraint written in silently, or imported from a higher Vision without asking whether it applies here |
+
+A **Non-Goal bounds scope**: it rejects a proposal that pursues what it names; it
+is not a ban on behaviour that already exists, and it creates no obligation.
+Obligations come from the Benefit and the Success Signals.
+
+**Gate 1 — north star.** One or two sentences, in the owner's words, explicitly
+approved by the owner. The author may compose a wording from the answers; the
+approval is of that exact text, recorded verbatim in the request record
+(`audit/requests/REQUEST_[unit].md`; a Vision written outside any unit, such as
+the project Vision after bootstrap, records its interview in
+`audit/requests/REQUEST_project_vision.md`). **Without it no Vision text is written** —
+not a DRAFT, not a reconstruction: bootstrap writes a stub awaiting the
+interview, and what the agent observed goes to `strategic/`.
+Unattended, the unit is `BLOCKED on the user` (`elicitation.md` Unattended path).
+
+**Gate 2 — the full Vision**, written from the answers. Every section traces to
+an answer or a stated provenance (`REQUEST_[unit].md#R<n>`); every rule carries
+its provenance; an author inference the owner did not confirm is not in it. The
+blind check (§6) verifies that it holds; the approved north star verifies that it
+is the owner's. Promotion to APPROVED still needs the owner's explicit
+confirmation — Gate 2 is that confirmation, given on the written text.
+
+## 0. The one-line test
+
+> Could a reader who has never seen this project rule ACCEPT or REJECT on a
+> proposed change, quoting one line of this document, without asking anyone
+> anything?
+
+If a section cannot contribute to that, it is background — keep it if it helps a
+human, but know it carries no gate weight.
+
+## 1. The nine properties of a rule that holds
+
+Each is stated as a drafting action, with the attack it defeats.
+
+1. **Key the rule to a property observable in the artifact — never to intent,
+   commitment, plan or purpose.** Test while drafting: *could I verify compliance
+   by reading the diff, without asking the author what they meant?*
+   → Defeats: the proposer simply promises the opposite. A rule that forbids
+   "committing to track someone's format" is satisfied by saying "we commit to
+   nothing"; a rule that forbids "code in this repo that parses a format we do
+   not define" is not.
+2. **Write it as one yes/no question with BOTH branches answered.**
+   → Defeats: a gate that can only reject. A prohibition-only Vision rejects the
+   work it wants (new client support, packaging, bug fixes) and is abandoned.
+3. **Phrase the question counterfactually about capability, not about the status
+   quo** — "could the user obtain this…", not "does the product currently do it".
+   → Defeats: "we never shipped it, so nothing is being taken away."
+4. **Enumerate the near-miss verbs, not just the headline one** — charge / count /
+   cap / condition / gate / degrade / delay / require-signup.
+   → Defeats: the soft form. A generous cap, a free-but-registered tier, a
+   zero-cost counter — all are the same harm and none is the headline verb.
+5. **Define every term the rule turns on by EFFECT, and close the list.** A
+   definition that enumerates mechanisms is a list of the ways you already thought
+   of; end it with "…and anything else the user must give, accept or obtain from
+   us."
+   → Defeats: the third mechanism. "Charge = payment or account" is walked past by
+   "requires opting into telemetry".
+6. **Enumerate the FORMS a violation can take, then state a closure rule** —
+   "anything not named here is out unless it is X".
+   → Defeats: the unnamed variant. "A step, a required field, a check, or a cost
+   that varies but is never zero" kills "auto-filled, zero human input", because
+   the form is still a required field.
+7. **State the subject predicate of any enumerated test in checkable terms.** If
+   the test applies to "a record of work", say what makes something one.
+   → Defeats: denying the subject. The proposer agrees with every item on your
+   list and asserts the list does not apply.
+8. **Give one IN and one OUT example on the same axis, differing in a single
+   variable.** The pair carries the discriminator; without it the reader invents
+   one.
+   → Defeats: the borderline case, which is where every real argument happens.
+9. **Name the re-descriptions you expect, inside the rule's own sentence** —
+   "in any presentation", "however the code got here", "not by a component that
+   does not exist yet", "storing it as Markdown changes nothing".
+   → Defeats: relabeling. A board called a "view" is still a board.
+
+## 2. The five clauses a Vision needs around its rules
+
+Rules do not hold alone. These structural clauses were the difference between a
+rule that survived and the same rule leaking.
+
+- **Supremacy clause** — on any rule a second layer, product, tier or future
+  component could route around: *"these bind the product as a whole; shipping a
+  forbidden thing in the paid layer does not put it out of reach."*
+- **Exceptions attached to the rule they limit, in the same bullet, phrased
+  affirmatively.** An exception in another section is a leak; an exception phrased
+  only as a negation produces CANNOT DECIDE. *"This rule does not reach X;
+  supporting one more X is squarely wanted."*
+- **Anti-abuse clause on every exemption, naming the only permitted outcomes.**
+  A maintenance exemption without one lets any forbidden thing that already
+  shipped be maintained forever, and any new one be framed as a fix to it:
+  *"work framed as a fix to something that should never have shipped is not
+  exempt — it is the removal of that thing, or it is out."*
+- **Stated defaults, per path including the exempt path** — "anything unreached is
+  out"; "an exempt fix that preserves a forbidden thing is out". A test that says
+  "admitted only if" gives new capability a default; exempt work has none unless
+  you write one.
+- **Precedence, when two sentences can both apply.** Two adjacent statements
+  pointing opposite ways are decided by whichever the reader reaches first.
+
+## 3. Only prohibitions can reject; only positives can admit
+
+This is the most common structural failure and it is invisible from the inside.
+
+- **A Goal cannot reject anything.** If the admission test says "advances a Goal
+  and violates no Non-Goal", then rejection power lives *only* in the Non-Goals
+  (and the Invariants, where the Vision has them).
+- **A Non-Goal rejects scope, not behaviour.** It turns away a proposal that
+  pursues what it names; it never forbids a behaviour the product already has, and
+  it never creates an obligation — obligations come from the Benefit and the
+  Success Signals. A behaviour the product must never have is an Invariant, or a
+  constraint with its provenance (§The owner interview, question 6). Written as a
+  Non-Goal, it reads as a ban the owner never stated.
+  A Goal that says "scale cost to risk in both directions" cannot stop cost
+  inflation — you need a prohibition for that.
+- **A prohibition scoped to one rung of your own scale protects only that rung.**
+  Banning ceremony on trivial edits invites the same ceremony one level up.
+- **A criterion phrased as an already-true state cannot be advanced.** "The check
+  is CLEAN at every closure" is a state, so "advances this signal" is meaningless
+  and any proposal citing it is undecidable. Give every positive criterion a
+  **baseline with headroom**: a current value and date, or an explicit list of
+  improvement categories that count.
+- **Give recurring legitimate work an explicit authorization clause**, or it will
+  be rejected by your own test: packaging and installation, the product's own
+  tests, reducing what the agent must read, supporting one more client. Each needs
+  a home in the positive sources — otherwise "moves nothing this document commits
+  to" fires on exactly the maintenance the product needs.
+
+## 4. Minimum operable sections
+
+A Vision is a gate. These are the load-bearing parts; anything else is
+orientation for humans and should be recognized as such.
+
+| Section | Must contain | Enables |
+|---|---|---|
+| Authority & scope | what it binds (all layers, tiers, future components), that packaging is irrelevant, precedence among its own sections, the approval line | both |
+| Defaults | the default ruling for anything unreached, stated per path | both |
+| Admission test | one sentence naming *exactly which* sections are positive sources and *exactly which* are prohibitions | ACCEPT |
+| Positive sources | Goals / Actor commitments / Success Signals — each with a baseline and headroom, checkable against a named artifact | ACCEPT |
+| Prohibitions | property-based, closed enumerations, named re-descriptions, in/out pairs | REJECT |
+| Invariants | the decision question with both branches answered, plus an anti-laundering clause | both |
+| Exemptions | each with its anti-abuse clause | prevents laundering |
+| Definitions & imported facts | terms defined by effect; **any fact from another document a ruling depends on, restated here** with the reason | standalone use |
+| Pointers | what deliberately lives elsewhere, so an absence reads as intentional | prevents false CANNOT DECIDE |
+
+**Imported facts matter more than they look.** If a ruling needs your triage
+levels, your risk tiers or your lifecycle states, restate the boundaries in the
+Vision — routing the reader to another file breaks the cold-read premise the
+whole gate rests on. Keep the procedure elsewhere; bring the boundaries here.
+
+**Keep competitive positioning OUT.** A Vision defined by comparison to another
+product rots silently: the comparison target moves and no one edits your document.
+Put it in a dated snapshot elsewhere and point to it.
+
+## 5. What no wording can fix — use a mechanism instead
+
+Five failure classes are structural. Prose cannot close them; do not try.
+
+| Failure | Mechanism |
+|---|---|
+| "Advances a Goal" is a claim about the world, not the text | Measure it: run the ruling battery before and after, admit on measured improvement |
+| **Cumulative ratchet** — each addition defensible, the sum is the ceremony the Vision forbids | A measured budget: steps per level, tokens the agent loads, artifacts per change; add-one-remove-one |
+| Facts the proposal never states ("a quota of *what*?") | A proposal template that demands them, and a stated rule that omission resolves against the proposal |
+| Structural compliance without truth — every rule satisfied, the artifact still wrong | Independent review; a Vision cannot detect this |
+| An accepted change silently falsifying the Vision | Require the amendment in the same change; check cross-document facts mechanically |
+
+And the sixth, which is why this file exists:
+
+**Adversarial re-description is unbounded.** Every patch names the evasions seen so
+far; a new one always exists. Patch-after-defeat is a treadmill. The only thing
+that converts it into a ratchet is a **standing battery**: keep every attack
+proposal that ever worked as a fixture and re-run the whole set against every
+Vision edit. A Vision without a battery decays the moment someone motivated reads
+it.
+
+## 6. The blind check (procedure)
+
+Run this **before promoting any Vision to APPROVED, and before any amendment of an
+approved one**. It runs on a Vision that already passed Gate 1 (§The owner
+interview): it tests whether the rules hold against a hostile reader, and it
+cannot see whether they are the owner's — a Vision the author wrote alone passes
+it cleanly. Not for DRAFT edits — promotion is when authority is granted, and
+it is rare, so the cost lands where it buys most.
+
+1. **Give the reviewer the document text and nothing else.** Not a path — the
+   text, pasted. Forbid opening files, searching, and web access explicitly. A
+   term the reviewer cannot resolve is then a property of the document, not of
+   their tooling.
+2. **Fresh context, and a different model from the author where the client allows
+   it.** Author self-review is structurally blind to its own omissions.
+3. **Hand them a battery, not an open question.** Concrete proposals to rule on:
+   - the standing fixtures (every attack that ever worked — see §5);
+   - **reject-side** proposals aimed at each prohibition;
+   - **accept-side** proposals the document plainly wants (a bug fix, packaging
+     work, supporting one more client, a documentation improvement). *A gate that
+     can only reject is half a gate, and the accept side is where most Visions
+     fail without anyone noticing.*
+4. **Ask for the mechanism, not just the verdict.** For each ruling: the exact
+   quoted line, or precisely what the document fails to say. Then: *which rules
+   could you not get around, and what structural property defeated you?* That
+   answer is worth more than the findings.
+5. **Ask for rewords.** "Slip a bad proposal past this document, including one
+   dressed in its own approving vocabulary." A rule nobody can reword is done; a
+   rule that falls to the first attempt was never a rule.
+6. **Every finding is answered — fixed, or refused with reasoning** (`review.md`
+   §Receiving). Add every successful reword to the standing battery, whether or
+   not you fix it this round.
+
+Three lenses are worth running for a product-level Vision: **comprehension** (what
+is this, what could you not resolve), **gate operability** (the battery above),
+**durability** (what rots, what is unfalsifiable, what is a time bomb). For a
+feature-level Vision or an M-VISION, the gate lens alone is usually enough.
+
+## 7. Cost, honestly
+
+A first draft written against §1–§4 will still have findings — the checklist
+removes the structural classes, not judgement errors. Expect one blind round to
+find real things and a second to confirm. What it should NOT take is five rounds
+of discovering the same class of defect in a new disguise; that is the specific
+waste this file exists to prevent.