@diottodev/runic 1.0.0 → 1.1.0

package/research/dossier/commands/cs-dossier.md

@@ -0,0 +1,141 @@
+---
+name: "cs-dossier"
+description: "/cs:dossier <entity> — Decision-grade entity research with mandatory hypothesis-testing. 6-Q grill-me intake (Q4 hypothesis MANDATORY) → ≥30% disconfirming search budget → 9-section .docx with verdict (SUPPORTED/PARTIALLY/DISPROVEN/INCONCLUSIVE) + 3-5 finding-tied conversation hooks."
+---
+
+# /cs:dossier — Decision-Grade Entity Research
+
+**Command:** `/cs:dossier <entity>`
+
+The `cs-dossier` persona produces a hypothesis-tested research dossier on a specific company, person, nonprofit, or government org — **NOT** a generic profile.
+
+## When to Run
+
+- Sales meeting / partnership pitch (need conversation hooks tied to specifics)
+- Investment / acquisition diligence
+- Journalism / personal vetting (with sensitivity exclusions)
+- Job interview prep
+- Competitive intelligence
+
+## When NOT to Run
+
+- Generic curiosity ("what does this company do?") → search the web yourself
+- Quick lookup → faster to just google
+- No hypothesis to test → the skill refuses, by design
+
+## Non-Generic by Design
+
+The skill refuses to be a Wikipedia summary. Q4 (your hypothesis) is **mandatory** — without it, the dossier confirms what you already think and is worthless for decisions.
+
+## Forcing Intake (6 Questions, One at a Time)
+
+| Q | Asks | Notes |
+|---|---|---|
+| Q1 | Subject identity (name + disambiguating identifier) | refuses ambiguous names |
+| Q2 | Subject type: person / company / nonprofit / gov org / other | forcing choice — drives source matrix |
+| Q3 | Purpose: sales / investment / acquisition / journalism / interview / competitive / vetting / other | forcing choice — drives angle + sensitivity |
+| Q4 | **Hypothesis (MANDATORY)** — what you already believe + want to verify/disprove | non-skippable; pushed back once if refused |
+| Q5 | Depth: 5-min brief or 15-min decision-grade dossier | forcing choice |
+| Q6 | Sensitivities to exclude | conditional — only if Q3 ∈ {journalism, personal vetting} |
+
+Stop condition: after Q6 (or earlier with skips), commit and start Phase 2. Never re-open.
+
+## What You Get
+
+After all phases:
+
+```
+dossier_<entity-slug>_<YYYY-MM-DD>.docx
+
+9 sections:
+1. Executive Summary (verdict: SUPPORTED/PARTIALLY/DISPROVEN/INCONCLUSIVE + 3 must-know)
+2. Identity Facts Table (founded/born, location, size, role, affiliations; sourced + tiered)
+3. Hypothesis Test (verbatim hypothesis + supporting evidence + disconfirming evidence + verdict)
+4. 12-Month Activity Timeline (news, hires, departures, products, controversies)
+5. Network Signals (collaborators / investors / customers / advisors)
+6. Reputation Signals (sentiment, Glassdoor, peer mentions)
+7. Red Flags + Hidden Patterns (litigation, departures, financials, tiered)
+8. Conversation Hooks (3-5 finding-tied hooks with framing)
+9. Source Provenance + Audit Log (per-source tier + search summary + counts)
+```
+
+## Hypothesis-Testing Discipline
+
+**≥30% of search budget allocated to disconfirming queries.** This is the non-negotiable differentiator from a generic profile.
+
+Example for hypothesis "Microsoft is consolidating AI spend on Foundry":
+
+| Query type | Example |
+|---|---|
+| **Supporting** (would confirm) | "Microsoft Foundry adoption 2026" |
+| **Supporting** | "Microsoft AI infrastructure consolidation" |
+| **Disconfirming** (would refute) | "Microsoft OpenAI deal renegotiation" |
+| **Disconfirming** | "Microsoft AI vendor diversification" |
+| **Disconfirming** | "Microsoft third-party model partnerships 2026" |
+
+`scripts/disconfirming_evidence_balance.py` enforces the ratio. Halts at <30% and prompts more disconfirming queries.
+
+## Source Reliability Tiering
+
+Every fact in the DOCX tagged with tier (primary / secondary / tertiary):
+
+| Tier | Examples |
+|---|---|
+| **Primary** | SEC EDGAR filings, court records, official .gov sites, company official website |
+| **Secondary** | Mainstream news (NYT, WSJ, Reuters), trade press (TechCrunch, The Information) |
+| **Tertiary** | Blogs, forums (Reddit, HN), Glassdoor, social media |
+
+`scripts/source_tier_classifier.py` does this from URL.
+
+## Discipline (Research-Pack Convention)
+
+- **One intake Q per turn.** Never bundle.
+- **Q4 mandatory.** Push back once; fall back to "most surprising finding" implicit hypothesis with flag.
+- **≥30% disconfirming.** Enforced by tool.
+- **Sequential search.** WebSearch + WebFetch sequential, 1 q/sec etiquette.
+- **Source discipline.** Cite only session results. Training knowledge labeled `[Background — verify before quoting]`, excluded from counts.
+- **Three-count + tier.** Sent / received / cited + per-tier breakdown.
+- **Subject disambiguation before Phase 3.** Refuse ambiguous names.
+- **Sensitivity exclusions honored.** If Q6 excluded "medical history", don't surface even if found.
+- **Conversation hooks finding-tied.** Generic hooks ("ask about their roadmap") rejected.
+- **BYOK MCP flagged in audit.** Crunchbase / Pitchbook usage surfaced.
+
+## Trigger Phrases
+
+- "research [company]"
+- "dossier on [person/company]"
+- "background check on [entity]"
+- "prep me for a meeting with [person/company]"
+- "due diligence on [company]"
+- "what should I know about [entity]"
+- "research [person] before I [meet/hire/invest]"
+- "competitor research on [company]"
+- "investor diligence [company]"
+- "interview prep for [company]"
+
+## Anti-Patterns Rejected
+
+- Producing a dossier without forcing Q4 hypothesis
+- <30% disconfirming search budget (confirmation bias)
+- Batching intake questions
+- Accepting ambiguous subject names
+- Generic conversation hooks ("ask about their roadmap")
+- Sensationalizing red flags (tier them, don't editorialize)
+- Skipping source-reliability tier on flags
+- Fabricating coverage when LinkedIn blocked
+- Using BYOK MCP without flagging in audit
+- Including sensitive topics user excluded (Q6)
+- Confirmation-biased verdict ("SUPPORTED" without engaging with disconfirming evidence)
+
+## Related
+
+- Agent: [`cs-dossier`](../agents/cs-dossier.md)
+- Skill: [`dossier`](../skills/dossier/SKILL.md)
+- Source spec: [`megaprompts/12-dossier-megaprompt.md`](../../../megaprompts/12-dossier-megaprompt.md)
+- Siblings: `/cs:litreview`, `/cs:grants`, `/cs:pulse`
+- Future: `/cs:patent`, `/cs:syllabus`
+
+---
+
+**Version:** 1.0.0
+**Source:** Path-B direct conversion of `megaprompts/12-dossier-megaprompt.md`

package/research/dossier/skills/dossier/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,318 @@
+---
+name: dossier
+description: "Decision-grade entity research skill — produces a hypothesis-tested dossier on a specific company, person, nonprofit, or government org, not a generic profile. Forcing intake makes the user state their hypothesis upfront (what they already believe and want to verify or disprove) so the dossier tests it rather than confirms it. Output is an editable Word document (.docx) with verdict on the hypothesis, identity facts, 12-month activity timeline, network signals, reputation signals, red flags, 3-5 conversation hooks tied to specific findings, and source-provenance audit log. Uses WebSearch + WebFetch + free APIs (SEC EDGAR, GitHub, ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer) as workhorses; optional BYOK MCPs (LinkedIn, Crunchbase, Apollo, Pitchbook, SimilarWeb) enhance coverage. Triggers: 'research [company]', 'dossier on [person/company]', 'background check on [entity]', 'prep me for a meeting with [person/company]', 'due diligence on [company]', 'what should I know about [entity]', 'research [person] before I [meet/hire/invest]', 'competitor research on [company]', 'investor diligence [company]', 'interview prep for [company]'. Honors sensitivity exclusions for journalism + personal-vetting contexts."
+license: MIT
+metadata:
+  source_spec: "megaprompts/12-dossier-megaprompt.md"
+  build_pattern: "Path B (direct conversion)"
+  research_pack_convention: "Agent Integrity Rules verbatim per PR #657 audit; hypothesis-testing variant"
+  version: 1.0.0
+---
+
+# Dossier — Decision-Grade Entity Research
+
+> **Portability:** Requires `WebSearch` + `WebFetch`, Node.js with `docx` package, and optionally `bash_tool` + `curl` for free APIs (SEC EDGAR, GitHub, ProPublica). BYOK MCPs (LinkedIn, Crunchbase, Apollo, Pitchbook, SimilarWeb) are optional enhancements. Works in Claude Code CLI natively.
+
+## Non-Generic Framing — The Differentiator
+
+This skill is **decision-grade entity research with hypothesis-testing**. It **refuses** to be "tell me about Microsoft". Every invocation forces the user to expose their hypothesis upfront (Q4) so the dossier *tests* it rather than confirms it.
+
+The use case shape:
+
+> "I'm pitching Microsoft Tuesday. My hypothesis is they're consolidating AI spend on their first-party Foundry platform. Validate or disprove, and give me three conversation hooks tied to what you find."
+
+**NOT:**
+
+> "Tell me about Microsoft."
+
+The forcing Q4 — the hypothesis question — is the non-generic anchor. Skip it and the skill produces a Wikipedia summary.
+
+See [`references/hypothesis_testing_discipline.md`](references/hypothesis_testing_discipline.md) for the canon.
+
+## Agent Integrity Rules (Research-Pack Convention)
+
+Locked verbatim per PR #657 audit.
+
+- **Execution discipline.** Sequential search calls. WebSearch + WebFetch have looser rate limits than Consensus but still apply 1 q/sec etiquette. Confirm response received before next call.
+- **Source discipline.** Cite only sources returned by this session's tool calls. Wikipedia / training knowledge labeled `[Background — verify before quoting]` and excluded from primary findings count.
+- **Three-count tracking.** Queries sent / sources received / sources cited. Plus **per-tier breakdown** (primary / secondary / tertiary) unique to dossier. Surfaced in audit log.
+- **Retry policy.** On failure → wait 3s → retry once → log. After 3 consecutive failures: stop, alert user.
+- **Source reliability tier.** Each citation tagged primary (official, SEC, court records) / secondary (mainstream news, trade press) / tertiary (blogs, forums). DOCX surfaces tier on every flag.
+
+## Phase 1: Grill-Me Intake (6 forcing questions, one at a time)
+
+### Q1 (root) — Subject identity
+
+> **Who is the subject? Give me the exact name and, if a company, the website or LinkedIn URL. If a person, their LinkedIn URL or a unique identifier (company affiliation + role).**
+>
+> *Why I'm asking:* Disambiguation. There are 47 John Smiths. There are three companies called "Atlas". I need a specific entity to research.
+
+If user gives only a name, push for a second identifier. **Refuse to proceed on ambiguous names.**
+
+### Q2 (depends on Q1) — Subject type
+
+> **What kind of subject is this? Pick one: person / company / nonprofit / government org / other.**
+>
+> *Why I'm asking:* Different source matrices apply. For people I check LinkedIn, GitHub, Scholar, news; for companies I check SEC EDGAR (if public), Crunchbase, news, GitHub for tech orgs; for nonprofits I check Form 990s on ProPublica.
+
+Forcing choice. "Other" requires a one-line description.
+
+### Q3 (depends on Q2) — Purpose
+
+> **What are you preparing for? Pick one:**
+>
+> 1. Sales meeting / partnership pitch
+> 2. Investment diligence
+> 3. Acquisition diligence
+> 4. Journalism / due diligence
+> 5. Job interview prep
+> 6. Competitive intelligence
+> 7. Personal vetting (date, hire, business partner)
+> 8. Other (specify)
+>
+> *Why I'm asking:* The purpose dictates the angle, the depth, and the red-flag sensitivity. Sales prep needs conversation hooks. Investment diligence needs traction signals. Personal vetting needs careful sensitivity boundaries.
+
+### Q4 (depends on Q3) — **Hypothesis — MANDATORY**
+
+> **What's your hypothesis going in? What do you already believe about this subject, and what do you want to verify or disprove?**
+>
+> *Why I'm asking:* This is the critical question. A dossier that just confirms what you already think is worthless. By stating your hypothesis upfront, I can search for evidence that would *disprove* it as well as evidence that supports it — and give you a verdict you can actually use.
+>
+> Examples:
+> - "I believe Microsoft is consolidating AI spend on first-party Foundry. Verify or disprove."
+> - "I think the CEO is over their head — too much TAM talk, no traction. Test that."
+> - "I believe this nonprofit's overhead ratio is sketchy. Check the 990s."
+> - "I think this person is technical enough to handle a CTO role. Verify."
+
+**MANDATORY.** If user says "I don't have one", push back **once**: "Then guess. Commit to a position you can update later. The dossier needs a hypothesis to test, otherwise it's a generic profile and won't help you make a decision."
+
+If still refused: fall back to implicit hypothesis "what's the most surprising thing I could find?" and **flag the fallback in audit log**.
+
+This question is **the non-generic anchor**. Skip it and the skill becomes a Wikipedia summary.
+
+### Q5 (depends on Q3) — Depth
+
+> **Time horizon: 5-minute brief or 15-minute decision-grade dossier?**
+>
+> *Why I'm asking:* Brief mode caps at ~10 searches and skips the network + reputation passes. Decision-grade goes deeper on every section. Pick based on how much skin you have in this decision.
+
+Forcing choice.
+
+### Q6 (asked only if Q3 ∈ {journalism, personal vetting}) — Sensitivities
+
+> **Anything sensitive to exclude? E.g., personal medical, family details, political history, or specific topics off-limits?**
+>
+> *Why I'm asking:* Some research contexts have ethical constraints. I'd rather know upfront than surface something you'd never share.
+
+Skip for sales/investment/acquisition/competitive intel (low sensitivity); ask for journalism/personal vetting (high sensitivity).
+
+**Stop condition:** After Q6 (or earlier with dependency skips), commit and start Phase 2. Never re-open intake after Phase 2 begins.
+
+## Phase 2: Subject Disambiguation
+
+Before Phase 3, resolve the subject to a specific entity:
+
+- For people: confirm LinkedIn URL OR (employer + role + city)
+- For companies: confirm domain OR (legal name + incorporation jurisdiction)
+- For nonprofits: confirm EIN OR (legal name + state)
+- For government orgs: confirm official .gov URL
+
+If still ambiguous after Q1 push-back: **halt and re-ask Q1** with disambiguating identifiers. Refuse to proceed.
+
+## Phase 3: Source Matrix Selection
+
+Routed by Q2 subject type. See [`references/subject_type_source_matrix.md`](references/subject_type_source_matrix.md) for the full canon.
+
+### Person
+
+- LinkedIn (manual fetch or LinkedIn MCP if BYOK)
+- Personal website
+- Twitter/X (rate-limited; degrade gracefully)
+- GitHub (if technical subject)
+- Google Scholar (if academic)
+- News (WebSearch + WebFetch)
+- Conference talk transcripts, podcasts (WebSearch)
+
+### Company
+
+- Official website (about, leadership, news, careers)
+- SEC EDGAR (free API; 10-Ks, 10-Qs, 8-Ks for public co's)
+- Crunchbase free tier (or Crunchbase MCP if BYOK)
+- News (WebSearch + WebFetch)
+- GitHub (for tech orgs)
+- Glassdoor + Comparably (sentiment; degrade gracefully if scraping blocked)
+- LinkedIn company page
+
+### Nonprofit
+
+- ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer (free; Form 990s)
+- Official website
+- News
+- GuideStar (if accessible)
+
+### Government org
+
+- Official .gov sites
+- News
+- ProPublica (for federal agencies)
+
+If a paid MCP is connected (Apollo, Pitchbook, SimilarWeb), use it but mark findings as **BYOK-sourced** in the audit log.
+
+## Phase 4: Hypothesis-Driven Search
+
+Every Phase 4 search MUST be classified as either:
+
+- **Supporting evidence** (confirms hypothesis), OR
+- **Disconfirming evidence** (would refute hypothesis)
+
+**≥30% of search budget allocated to disconfirming queries.** Enforced via `scripts/disconfirming_evidence_balance.py`.
+
+Example for hypothesis "Microsoft is consolidating AI spend on Foundry":
+
+- **Supporting:** "Microsoft Foundry adoption 2026", "Microsoft AI infrastructure consolidation"
+- **Disconfirming:** "Microsoft OpenAI deal renegotiation", "Microsoft AI vendor diversification", "Microsoft third-party model partnerships 2026"
+
+This is what makes the dossier **decision-grade** rather than confirmation-biased.
+
+For each search:
+- Record via `citation_tracker.py` with classification (supporting / disconfirming)
+- Apply source tier from `source_tier_classifier.py` to each result URL
+
+## Phase 5: 12-Month Activity Timeline
+
+Default 12-month window for activity timeline; deeper for foundational identity.
+
+Categories:
+- News (acquisitions, hires, departures, product launches)
+- Funding rounds / financial events
+- Controversies / legal events
+- Public statements / strategy shifts
+
+Reverse chronological. Each entry hyperlinked + tiered.
+
+## Phase 6: Network + Reputation Signals
+
+### Network
+
+- **Companies:** investors (in/out), customers (named), partners
+- **People:** co-founders, advisors, mentors, employers, board roles
+- **Nonprofits:** funders, board, leadership
+
+5-10 entries, ranked by **relevance to hypothesis**.
+
+### Reputation
+
+- Sentiment from news (recent 12 months)
+- Glassdoor for companies (overall rating + 3 representative reviews)
+- Peer mentions for people
+- Caveat: reputation data is noisy; tier accordingly
+
+## Phase 7: Red-Flag Pass
+
+Surface but don't sensationalize:
+
+- Litigation (court records → primary tier)
+- Regulatory actions (SEC, DOJ, agency actions → primary)
+- Unusual departures (key personnel exits within 90 days)
+- Financial signals (going-concern notes in 10-Ks → primary)
+- Reputation hits (sustained negative coverage → secondary)
+
+**Each flag tiered.** Tier shows up next to every flag in the DOCX.
+
+## Phase 8: Conversation Hook Generation
+
+3-5 specific hooks tied to **actual findings**, not generic talking points.
+
+See [`references/conversation_hook_quality.md`](references/conversation_hook_quality.md) for the canon.
+
+| ❌ Generic | ✅ Finding-tied |
+|---|---|
+| "Ask about their roadmap" | "Mention their recent acquisition of [X] — it signals they're investing in vertical Y. Suggested framing: 'Saw the [X] announcement — how does that change your roadmap on Y?'" |
+| "Ask about hiring" | "Their VP Engineering left 3 weeks ago (LinkedIn). Suggested framing: 'I noticed [name] moved on — what's the eng leadership plan?'" |
+| "Talk about their values" | "They updated their pricing page last week (their official site). Suggested framing: 'Saw the pricing refresh — what drove that?'" |
+
+Each hook:
+- **The hook** (one sentence)
+- **The finding it's tied to** (with hyperlink + tier)
+- **Suggested framing** (verbatim phrasing user can adapt)
+
+## Phase 9: DOCX Generation (9 Sections)
+
+Via Node.js + `docx` library.
+
+1. **Executive Summary** — one paragraph: who they are + why they matter + **verdict on the hypothesis** (SUPPORTED / PARTIALLY SUPPORTED / DISPROVEN / INCONCLUSIVE) + 3 things-you-should-know bullets.
+2. **Identity Facts Table** — founded/born, location, size/stage, current role, key affiliations. All cells sourced; hover-text tier.
+3. **Hypothesis Test** — user's hypothesis stated verbatim. Supporting evidence (3-5 bullets with hyperlinked citations). Disconfirming evidence (3-5 bullets with hyperlinked citations). Verdict paragraph (2-3 sentences explaining the weight).
+4. **12-Month Activity Timeline** — News, funding, hires, departures, product launches, controversies. Reverse chronological. Each entry hyperlinked.
+5. **Network Signals** — Collaborators / investors / associates. 5-10 entries, ranked by relevance to hypothesis.
+6. **Reputation Signals** — Sentiment from news, Glassdoor for companies, peer mentions for people. Caveat: reputation data is noisy.
+7. **Red Flags + Hidden Patterns** — Litigation, regulatory actions, unusual departures, financial signals, reputation hits. Tiered.
+8. **Conversation Hooks** — 3-5 specific hooks tied to findings. Each: hook + finding + suggested framing.
+9. **Source Provenance + Audit Log** — Per-source list with tier. Search summary table (#, query, classification, sources returned, sources cited). Three counts + per-tier counts. Failed searches. BYOK-MCP usage flag.
+
+### Styling
+
+Arial 12pt body, navy headings (#1a3a5c), light blue table headers (#e8f0f8), red red-flag callout, green conversation-hook callout.
+
+### Hyperlink patterns
+
+```js
+new ExternalHyperlink({
+  link: "https://...",
+  children: [new TextRun({ text: title, style: "Hyperlink" })],
+});
+```
+
+## Phase 10: Deliver
+
+- Save: `<output-dir>/dossier_<entity-slug>_<YYYY-MM-DD>.docx`
+- Chat summary: file path + **verdict on hypothesis** + audit counts + tier breakdown + BYOK MCPs used (if any)
+- Validate: `python scripts/office/validate.py <docx>`
+
+## Tooling
+
+| Script | Role |
+|---|---|
+| `scripts/citation_tracker.py` | Three-count audit + supporting/disconfirming classification + source-tier tagging at `~/.dossier_sessions/<session>.json` |
+| `scripts/disconfirming_evidence_balance.py` | Verifies ≥30% of search budget allocated to disconfirming queries; warns if biased |
+| `scripts/source_tier_classifier.py` | URL → primary / secondary / tertiary classification via domain heuristics |
+
+## References
+
+- [`references/hypothesis_testing_discipline.md`](references/hypothesis_testing_discipline.md) — ≥30% rule + decision-grade vs encyclopedic (7+ sources)
+- [`references/subject_type_source_matrix.md`](references/subject_type_source_matrix.md) — person/company/nonprofit/gov source matrices (7+ sources)
+- [`references/conversation_hook_quality.md`](references/conversation_hook_quality.md) — finding-tied hook discipline (7+ sources)
+
+## Error Handling
+
+| Failure | Behavior |
+|---|---|
+| Subject name ambiguous | Refuse to proceed. Re-ask Q1 with disambiguating identifier. |
+| User refuses to state hypothesis | Push back once. If still refused, fall back to "what's the most surprising thing I could find?" implicit hypothesis. Flag in audit. |
+| Subject has zero public footprint | Surface explicitly. Suggest different name or early-stage. Don't fabricate. |
+| LinkedIn scrape blocked | Note in audit; fall back to WebSearch; suggest user verify manually. |
+| SEC EDGAR fails | Retry once. If still failing, note "public filings not retrieved" and continue. |
+| Sentiment data sparse | Mark reputation section as "limited public signal"; don't infer from training. |
+| Sensitive topic surfaces (Q6 exclusion) | Exclude from DOCX. Note in chat (not in DOCX) so user knows the exclusion was honored. |
+| 3 consecutive tool failures | Stop, alert user, share collected so far. |
+| DOCX generation fails | Save raw data as JSON fallback. |
+
+## Anti-Patterns To Reject
+
+- Producing a dossier without forcing Q4 hypothesis
+- Allocating <30% of search budget to disconfirming evidence
+- Batching intake questions
+- Accepting ambiguous subject names
+- Generic conversation hooks ("ask about their roadmap")
+- Sensationalizing red flags (tier them, don't editorialize)
+- Skipping the source-reliability tier on flags
+- Fabricating coverage when LinkedIn or scraping is blocked
+- Using BYOK-MCP data without flagging in audit log
+- Including sensitive topics user excluded in Q6
+- Confirmation-biased verdict ("SUPPORTED" without engaging with disconfirming evidence)
+
+---
+
+**Version:** 1.0.0
+**Source spec:** [`megaprompts/12-dossier-megaprompt.md`](../../../../megaprompts/12-dossier-megaprompt.md)
+**Build pattern:** Path B (direct conversion). Research-pack sibling, hypothesis-testing variant.

package/research/dossier/skills/dossier/references/conversation_hook_quality.md

@@ -0,0 +1,135 @@
+# Conversation Hook Quality — Finding-Tied vs Generic
+
+This reference answers exactly one decision: **what makes a conversation hook (Section 8 of the dossier DOCX) useful enough to justify a meeting prep workflow?**
+
+## The Core Frame
+
+A conversation hook is useful when it:
+
+1. References a **specific recent finding** (timestamped, sourced)
+2. Provides **suggested framing** (verbatim phrasing the user can adapt)
+3. Connects the finding to **the meeting's purpose** (sales pitch / investment / hire)
+
+A generic hook is useful for nothing. "Ask about their roadmap" doesn't help the user — they already knew they could ask about that.
+
+## The Quality Bar
+
+A hook passes if all three are true:
+
+✅ Specific finding from this dossier (with hyperlink)
+✅ Suggested phrasing (1-2 sentences)
+✅ Tied to user's hypothesis or meeting purpose
+
+A hook fails if any of:
+
+❌ Generic ("ask about their priorities")
+❌ Unsourced ("they're probably hiring")
+❌ Untimely (>6 months old finding without explicit recency note)
+❌ Speculative ("they might be considering X")
+❌ Not actionable in the meeting context
+
+## Side-by-Side Examples
+
+### Sales prep for AI infrastructure company
+
+| ❌ Generic | ✅ Finding-tied |
+|---|---|
+| "Ask about their AI strategy." | "Mention their recent acquisition of Hugging Face vendor [X] (announced 2 weeks ago via TechCrunch). Suggested framing: *'Saw the [X] acquisition — how does that change your model deployment story?'*" |
+| "Talk about pricing." | "Their pricing page was updated last Thursday (their official site). The change adds a per-token usage tier. Suggested framing: *'Noticed the new usage tier — was that customer-driven or competitive response?'*" |
+| "Ask about their team." | "Their VP Eng [name] left 3 weeks ago (LinkedIn). Their job board posted a Director of AI Engineering req last Friday. Suggested framing: *'I noticed [name] moved on and you're hiring an AI Eng Director — what's the eng leadership focus shifting toward?'*" |
+
+### Investment diligence on founder
+
+| ❌ Generic | ✅ Finding-tied |
+|---|---|
+| "Test technical depth." | "She published 3 technical blog posts on her personal site this year (links in Section 1) on distributed systems. Suggested probe: *'Your post on consensus protocols was sharp — what's the actual implementation challenge you're hitting on [their startup]?'*" |
+| "Check for red flags." | "Her co-founder left the company 4 months ago — no public statement either side (LinkedIn + her bio update). Suggested probe: *'I noticed [co-founder] is no longer listed — what's the founding-team story now?'*" |
+| "Ask about market." | "They raised $5M seed in Feb 2024, now hiring 3 GTM roles (Crunchbase + LinkedIn). Suggested probe: *'You're staffing GTM heavily for a $5M seed — what's the pipeline that justifies that shape?'*" |
+
+## Hook Construction Pattern
+
+```
+Hook = Finding + Suggested Framing + Tied-To-Purpose
+
+Where:
+  Finding         = specific event, statement, change, or signal (with URL + tier)
+  Suggested       = verbatim 1-2 sentence question or comment user can adapt
+  Tied-To-Purpose = connection to Q3 purpose + Q4 hypothesis
+```
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+### "Ask about their values/culture/roadmap/strategy"
+
+These are generic openers, not conversation hooks. The user already knew they could ask about strategy. The hook should surface **specific evidence the user didn't have before**.
+
+### "I suggest mentioning their recent quarter"
+
+If the dossier doesn't cite a specific quarter result, this is speculation. Hooks must be evidence-anchored.
+
+### "They might appreciate hearing about [generic topic]"
+
+The hook should be about the user finding signal, not about the subject's preferences. Frame as: "Here's what the user just learned and can leverage."
+
+### "Hooks tied to private/sensitive findings"
+
+If Q6 (sensitivities) excluded family / medical / political, the hook also can't lean on those even tangentially. Check exclusions before drafting.
+
+### "5+ hooks padding"
+
+3-5 hooks is the sweet spot. More dilutes signal. If only 3 strong hooks emerge from findings, ship 3 — don't pad to 5 with weak ones.
+
+### "Generic LinkedIn-style hook"
+
+"I saw you went to Stanford — I went to Stanford too" — this is networking small-talk, not a substantive hook. Substantive hooks reveal the user did homework.
+
+## Hook Tier (Implicit)
+
+Hooks inherit the source tier of their underlying finding:
+
+| Tier | Hook reliability |
+|---|---|
+| Primary (SEC, court, official site) | High — user can confidently lead with this |
+| Secondary (mainstream news) | Medium — user can lead but acknowledge source |
+| Tertiary (blog, forum) | Low — user should treat as soft signal, frame cautiously |
+
+The DOCX tier-tag on each hook lets the user calibrate their conversational confidence.
+
+## Hook Discipline by Purpose (Q3)
+
+| Purpose | Hook flavor |
+|---|---|
+| Sales pitch | Lead with their recent moves; show you've done homework on their context |
+| Investment diligence | Probe contradictions; surface red flags as questions, not accusations |
+| Acquisition diligence | Test fit assumptions; ask about org culture + leadership stability |
+| Journalism | Get them on the record about specific findings (named source + ask) |
+| Interview prep | Show domain knowledge tied to their actual work, not generic praise |
+| Competitive intelligence | (not for in-person meeting) — convert hooks to internal team briefing notes |
+| Personal vetting | Generally skip hooks; vetting is a one-way information flow |
+
+## Operational Checklist
+
+- [ ] 3-5 hooks (not more, not fewer if findings support it)
+- [ ] Each hook references a specific finding from this dossier
+- [ ] Each finding has a hyperlink (Phase 4 search result)
+- [ ] Each hook has suggested framing (1-2 sentences, verbatim adaptable)
+- [ ] Each hook tied to Q3 purpose
+- [ ] Each hook tiered (primary / secondary / tertiary based on underlying finding)
+- [ ] No hook leans on Q6 excluded topics
+- [ ] No hook is purely speculative or generic
+
+## Citations (7 sources)
+
+1. **Dale Carnegie, *How to Win Friends and Influence People* (1936).** The original "show genuine interest" framing. Conversation hooks operationalize this — but require specific evidence, not generic friendliness.
+
+2. **Robert Cialdini, *Influence* (1984, multiple eds.).** Source for the "reciprocity" principle that hooks invoke. When the user signals they've done substantive homework, the subject reciprocates with substantive engagement.
+
+3. **Chris Voss, *Never Split the Difference* (2016).** Source for the "calibrated question" pattern. Voss's "how" / "what" questions tied to specifics outperform generic "yes/no" questions. The dossier's suggested-framing examples follow this pattern.
+
+4. **Daniel Goleman, *Working with Emotional Intelligence* (1998).** Source for the "social awareness" pillar of EI. Hooks operationalize this — surfacing recent specific context shows the user is reading the room.
+
+5. **Patrick Lencioni, *The Five Dysfunctions of a Team* (2002).** Indirect source — Lencioni's "vulnerability-based trust" works because specific shared context creates faster intimacy than generic small-talk.
+
+6. **Carmine Gallo, *Talk Like TED* (2014).** Source for the "lead with the surprising data point" rhetorical pattern. The strongest hooks open with a specific finding the subject didn't expect the user to know.
+
+7. **Edgar Schein, *Humble Inquiry* (2013).** Source for the framing-as-question discipline. Hooks framed as questions ("how does that change your roadmap?") outperform hooks framed as observations ("interesting that you...") because questions invite reciprocal disclosure.