@lemoncat7/dsh-partner 2.4.2 → 2.7.0

package/resources/skills/drama-production/upstream/skills/short-drama-review/references/rubric-source-analysis.md

@@ -0,0 +1,108 @@
+# 原著分析审查表
+
+## 目录
+
+- [审查对象](#审查对象)
+- [先跑结构校验](#先跑结构校验)
+- [抽样声明](#抽样声明)
+- [事实可溯源](#事实可溯源)
+- [功能提取质量](#功能提取质量)
+- [归并质量](#归并质量)
+- [改编判定与候选集](#改编判定与候选集)
+- [不属于本表](#不属于本表)
+
+## 审查对象
+
+`项目开发/source-analysis/` 下由 `$short-drama-novel-analyze` 发布的分析层：
+`_index.json`、`triage.md`、`chapters/*.md`、`story-units.md`、`rhythm-and-emotion.md`、
+`characters.md`、`world.md`、`adaptation-value.md`、`episode-candidates.jsonl`。
+
+规则编号引用该技能的 `NVA` 表。审查结论按 `NVA-xx` 定位，不自造编号。
+
+## 先跑结构校验
+
+在读内容之前跑可证明的检查，命中即为 `structural_invariant` 缺陷：
+
+```bash
+python3 {novel-analyze 技能目录}/scripts/novel_index.py verify \
+  项目开发/source-analysis/_index.json 输入/{原文文件}
+python3 {novel-analyze 技能目录}/scripts/novel_index.py coverage \
+  项目开发/source-analysis/_index.json 项目开发/source-analysis/chapters
+```
+
+- `verify` 不通过（`NVA-01`）：索引与原文已经对不上，其后每一条引用都指向错误位置。
+  这一条独立阻断，不必继续读内容。
+- `coverage` 的 `missing` 非空而聚合产物已存在（`NVA-03`）：聚合建立在缺章之上。
+- `unmatched_files` 非空：有文件名写歪，既不算覆盖也不算缺章，指出具体文件名。
+- `_index.json` 的 `problems` 非空却仍进入了后续阶段：分析建立在一份自己报错的索引上。
+- `ignored_heading_units` 与 `chapter_unit` 不合理（例如一本 `第N章` 分章的书选中了 `节`）：
+  切片单位判错，章表整体不可信。
+
+## 抽样声明
+
+`triage.md` 属于抽样产物（`NVA-05`）。逐条核对：
+
+- 第一行是否写出覆盖率与样本章号；
+- 三类判定比例的分母是否写明是抽样章数，而不是全书章数；
+- 是否出现了抽样之外章节的事实断言；
+- 是否越权产出了 `episode-candidates.jsonl` 的条目。
+
+抽样结论本身对不对**不是本表的判断对象**——它是假设。要判断的是它有没有把自己写成结论。
+
+## 事实可溯源
+
+`NVA-02`、`NVA-07`。聚合产物离原文两跳，这里是分析层最容易出错的地方：模型会用
+世界知识和「合理性」把原文没给的字段补成一个看起来坐实的事实。
+
+抽查 `characters.md`、`world.md`、`adaptation-value.md` 里的硬事实——等级、数值、
+距离、势力数量、谁对谁说了什么、某人出现在哪几章——逐条回查它引用的白描或原文：
+
+- 回查命中：通过；
+- 回查不到，且写成了确定事实：`reviewed_invariant` 缺陷，要求改写为「原文未明确」或删除；
+- 回查不到，但已写「原文未明确」：通过。
+
+同时检查跨指代串用：坐骑的等级被安到骑手头上、A 的台词记成 B 的、相邻章的统计数字互换。
+
+## 功能提取质量
+
+`NVA-06`。抽查若干章 `chapters/ch-<N>-extract.md`：
+
+- 概要是否回答了「谁的处境、认知或筹码变了」，而不是缩写剧情；
+- 情节点的白描是否是可观察事实——出现「通过对话得知」「展现了实力」「感到愤怒」
+  这类叙事框架词或心理断言的，是把结论写在了证据位上；
+- 每条情节点是否回答了改变了什么（权力/信息/关系/暴露/资源/时间/代价至少一项）；
+- 载体记录是否存在且填了通道栏——缺了它，`needs_carrier` 判定就没有原始依据。
+
+## 归并质量
+
+`NVA-08`。检查 `characters.md`：
+
+- 是否有描述性称谓（「红衣女子」）或头衔（「护卫队长」）触发了合并——这两类永不合并；
+- 绰号合并是否给出了可指出的同指证据，而不是「读起来像同一个人」；
+- 合并后是否保住了戏剧作用、知识范围、关系位置与因果桥梁；名字变少不是合并质量的证据；
+- 每条是否带 `unresolved` 与来源引用。
+
+`story-units.md` 的阈值自检（归属置信、覆盖率、重叠率）是否跑过、结果是否写出。
+重叠率超线而没有复核说明的，指出具体是哪两个单元。
+
+## 改编判定与候选集
+
+`NVA-09`、`NVA-10`。
+
+- 三类判定是否逐单元落定，`needs_carrier` 是否逐个写了原载体、新载体、保住了什么、
+  改变或失去了什么——「改变或失去」写「无」的，是没写完；
+- 是否有 `prose_only` 被改写成 `needs_carrier` 而新载体需要旁白才成立；
+- 候选集是否按局部戏剧结果与精确交接切，而不是按章号或字数平均切；
+- 每条候选是否能回答四问（进入认知、兑现了哪部分承诺、出去压力、下一集继承什么）；
+  一条承诺都不兑现的候选集要指出来；
+- 相邻候选的出去状态与进入认知是否对得上；
+- `prose_only`、被跳过的章、散落清单是否出现在交接摘要里；
+- `adaptation-value.md` 开头是否有快评回填对照。
+
+## 不属于本表
+
+- **改编方案本身**：从哪里开篇、保留哪条线、合并哪些人物是创作者与
+  `$short-drama-develop` 的决定（`NVA-12`），审查可以提出风险，不得据此阻断交付。
+- **原著写得好不好**：本表不评价原作质量。
+- **剧本、资产、提示词、分镜**：走各自的审查表。
+- **集数对不对**：分析层只给量级，集数不在这里判。

package/resources/skills/drama-production/upstream/skills/short-drama-review/references/rubric-story-script.md

@@ -0,0 +1,264 @@
+# Story And Script Rubric
+
+## 目录
+
+- [Promise](#story-promise-and-engine)
+- [Episode](#episode-shape)
+- [Entry and serial memory](#entry-character-and-serial-memory)
+- [Scene](#scene-test)
+- [Action](#action-and-production-meaning)
+- [Dialogue](#dialogue)
+- [Findings](#common-findings)
+
+## Story promise and engine
+
+- Can the creator state protagonist, pursuit, costly opposition, and recurring
+  audience payoff without relying on a genre label?
+- Can the conflict produce varied pressure, or does every episode repeat the same
+  misunderstanding, humiliation, rescue, or reveal?
+- Does escalation change power, knowledge, relationship, exposure, cost, or time?
+- Do setups/payoffs and episode handoffs resolve to explicit records?
+
+## Episode shape
+
+- What pressure is active at the opening?
+- What does the protagonist want now, and what resists it?
+- Which choice/action causes the directional turn?
+- If the episode frames that turn as a consequential choice, what live value does each
+  executable direction protect, and what cost is newly caused by the action (`SCR-13`)?
+  If it is an ordinary decision or single-path pursuit, leave this test inactive rather
+  than manufacturing a dilemma.
+- Conditional does not mean cursory: when the episode itself foregrounds a choice,
+  evidence carrier, deadline, or rule, does resistance, action, and consequence dramatize
+  it, rather than merely naming it in dialogue?
+- Could a viewer identify those stakes from the screenplay alone, without access to
+  the upstream brief or episode card?
+- Do explicit brief facts, must/forbid constraints, genre contract, and required exit state
+  outrank craft defaults, or did the screenplay invent precision, records, resources,
+  procedures, relationships, or mechanisms merely to display a rule?
+- When a choice cost or deadline is essential, was it perceptible before the decision,
+  or invented at decision time by a convenient new condition?
+- What part of the promised experience is delivered before the outgoing hook?
+- What exact state enters the next episode?
+- Before the outgoing hook, what local dramatic result has already landed?
+- Which behavior, relationship history, line, silence, spatial choice, or object makes the
+  protagonist's private reason legible? Do not require a recurring object when another
+  carrier already does the work.
+- Does the ending fulfill the episode's viewing contract through consequence, relationship,
+  irony, afterimage, atmosphere, or intentional openness? A new external event is optional.
+- If the ending declares a path closed or a consequence irreversible, do later beats
+  accidentally contradict that claim without presenting an intentional new change?
+- Whose choice caused that result (`STY-13`)? If it arrived by outside force, cite the
+  protagonist's earlier action that made it arrive now, and what they did with it.
+  A protagonist who only endures until rescue is this episode's audience, not its lead.
+
+A capacity estimate (`STY-16`) is informational, never a blocking finding. If a
+planned episode's shot/duration magnitude is far from the project's own accepted
+ratios, note it as an advisory observation with the sampled basis, and leave the
+resolution to the creator. Never derive a word, line, or shot quota from it, and
+never compare against another project's numbers.
+
+When the premise grants foreknowledge or externally authorized ability (`STY-17`), keep
+two layers apart and cite each from its own place:
+
+- **Contract layer** (creator-accepted, in the story engine): is the device contract
+  accepted before the device first takes effect, recording scope, failure conditions,
+  cost, and whether the device's own declarations are reliable?
+- **Disclosure layer** (per episode, in the information-permission field): what do the
+  characters and the audience know right now?
+
+Never report partial disclosure as a defect. An audience that does not yet know every
+boundary is the normal case, and late-discovered limits are often the intended suspense.
+What is reportable:
+
+- A later device ability or exemption that traces to no contract clause—cite the episode
+  and the missing clause. This is retroactive widening whether or not it was announced
+  in-fiction.
+- A disclosed rule violated later, unless the contract marks the device as unreliable
+  and the setup is traceable.
+- Strip the device out—does the episode still contain a choice? If not, cite what
+  resistance was removed and never replaced.
+- What did the opposition learn once the device was in play?
+- For foreknowledge: does the information degrade as the timeline diverges, or does the
+  author keep inventing reasons to weaken the protagonist? Is the audience's permission
+  level held constant across episodes?
+- For authorized ability: is the cost visible and landed on something the protagonist
+  cares about? Does the device offer options, or decide for them?
+- If the device uses an on-screen readable carrier, is the `exact-readable` obligation
+  stated instead of coexisting with a global no-text policy?
+
+## Entry, character, and serial memory
+
+- What prior-world fact does the writer need in order to predict present choices?
+  Which visible evidence does the audience need now, and which backstory is
+  correctly withheld?
+- Why is this the useful entry window? Would an earlier start become setup work,
+  or a later start remove a consequential choice?
+- For each claimed character change, where are the pressure test, choice or
+  retreat, local result, cost, and changed visible strategy (`STY-12`)?
+- Do world truth, character beliefs, and audience knowledge remain separate?
+- For each evidence carrier, what claim does it directly support, and which identity,
+  cause, motive, or mechanism remains an unresolved inference (`STY-15`)?
+- When a major belief change hinges on contested evidence, is the response limited to
+  what was proved, or does the story intentionally preserve/delay uncertainty (`SCR-14`)?
+  Leave this test inactive for uncontested facts, comic misunderstanding, subjective
+  narration, or clues whose ambiguity is the intended effect.
+- When contested evidence is a primary episode engine, does at least one visible state
+  change alter which explanations remain live or alter the next action, rather than
+  leaving every increment to verbal report? Photographing, bagging, numbering, or logging
+  is not a dramatic turn by itself. Once the required inference changes, does testing stop
+  unless another live counter-explanation would genuinely change the next action?
+- If a proof claim depends on continuity such as connection, sealing, position, time, or
+  lack of contact, did preceding action preserve that exact property? A continuity label
+  may carry forward a shown state; it cannot prove that an unseen event or contact never occurred.
+- Does active serial memory preserve character/relationship state, information
+  permissions, setup debt, rhythm direction, and the exact physical handoff?
+- Do external pressure and emotional load rise, fall, or diverge for a reason?
+  A breathing scene should process a consequence rather than suspend the story.
+
+Do not require a fixed hook type, beat count, reversal, climax timestamp, or
+dialogue quota.
+
+## Scene test
+
+For a scene organized around active pursuit or conflict, ask:
+
+1. Why must it exist?
+2. Whose agenda organizes it?
+3. What force opposes that agenda?
+4. What traceable fact, leverage change, cost, authority, or choice makes the prior
+   strategy fail? An opponent merely becoming silent or leaving is not enough.
+5. What exit state pressures the next scene?
+
+A quiet scene can pass when pressure and change are legible. Atmospheric, ritual,
+montage, transition, and consequence-processing scenes may instead justify their
+function through a necessary change in knowledge, relationship, pressure, rhythm,
+or production state; do not invent an opponent or strategy failure merely to make
+them fit this checklist. A loud scene can fail when nothing changes.
+
+## Action and production meaning
+
+- Are internal states expressed through playable behavior, evidence, or deliberate
+  VO/OS?
+- Are actions spatially coherent and consequential?
+- Are exact on-screen text, prop text, SFX, VO/OS, and transitions tagged?
+- Does prose avoid camera/prompt boilerplate while retaining production-critical
+  facts?
+- Do supporting characters who receive substantial dramatic emphasis have a goal, judgment,
+  or strategy of their own? Incidental, transactional, choral, and environmental roles need
+  not all alter the main plot.
+- Does a central participant who supplies the main leverage, opposition, or cost remain
+  strategically present through the turn and response, rather than becoming a passive prop
+  once the protagonist acts?
+- If that participant's leverage disappears, what already-established action, spatial fact,
+  authority, relationship, or choice made it disappear? Do not infer neutralization merely
+  from the protagonist completing one step.
+- When a literal precise deadline is foregrounded and audience-auditable, does its action
+  chain fit, or does the screenplay make compression, changed method, changed objective,
+  or failure legible (`SCR-16`)? Qualitative urgency must not be upgraded into invented
+  minutes, timestamps, notifications, or records. Do not apply a real-time test to montage,
+  ellipsis, subjective time, or declared stylization.
+- When the brief defines a limited number of attempts, turns, breaths, beats, or other units,
+  does each unit end with its required visible state (`SCR-17`)? Labels, counts, requests,
+  authorization, preparation, and cleanup after the boundary do not substitute for completion;
+  an intentional failure or partial result may count when it is legible at that boundary.
+- When exact timestamps share one literal continuity, are they mutually consistent?
+- When the current date is necessary to a conclusion, is it supported by a current source?
+- Does a compressed process retain only the steps that change strategy, relationship,
+  risk, or result, instead of listing interchangeable operations?
+- When multiple carriers repeat one pressure or fact, does each add rhythm, viewpoint,
+  irony, misdirection, or consequence? If not, which one is redundant?
+- Does a solution use established resources and still confront the core obstacle, rather
+  than erase it with a newly invented convenience?
+- Even when a resource is established, does it change the problem without conveniently
+  performing the character's hardest dramatic work for them?
+- Does an outside response increase or transform pressure in a way grounded in the work's
+  established world, rather than suddenly forgiving, rewarding, or rescuing the character
+  to make the ending easy?
+- After a mechanism becomes visually clear, does dialogue change the relationship or
+  narrow the claim instead of explaining the same mechanism again?
+- When the brief gives a target duration but the project has no pacing rates, has the
+  writer still performed a real-time read/action pass and removed obviously excessive
+  repeated verification, date exposition, or equivalent closing beats?
+
+## Dialogue
+
+- What does each speaker want from the other now?
+- What is withheld, reframed, threatened, bargained, accused, or proven?
+- Does the line respond to the prior move and alter the next?
+- Are voices distinct by worldview, status, relationship, vocabulary, and rhythm?
+- Does exposition enter through conflict/evidence/consequence rather than a
+  neutral information dump?
+- When a long speech is split, does the inserted action change the speaker's tactic
+  and give downstream a sourced cut point, rather than pad with a glance or a pause
+  (`SCR-09`)? When a long speech carries no internal turn, was it shortened instead
+  of split?
+
+Silence, interruption, slang, narration, and sentence length are creator options,
+not universal scoring ratios.
+
+## Replaceable realization (`SCR-10`)
+
+Only for beats the creator marked. **An unmarked beat leaves this section
+inactive**: do not raise a finding for the absence of a mark, do not guess which
+beats need one, and never rate a depiction against a standard this suite does not
+carry — it carries none, and predicts no outcome.
+
+On a marked beat:
+
+- Is the dramatic function written as *who is proven or changed*, rather than an
+  emotion word? A function stated as "高潮" cannot be used to judge equivalence.
+- Does the fallback deliver that same function — same person affected, cost still
+  paid, `payoff_refs` and the next episode's entry state still satisfied?
+- Does the fallback need a setup the script has not established? Then it is a
+  rewrite, not a fallback.
+- Is "delete the scene" being offered as the fallback? Deletion removes the
+  function itself; the only acceptable variant is an explicit handover naming
+  which existing beat now carries it and what that beat must absorb.
+- Is the fallback concrete enough to become scene action, or is it "酌情处理"?
+
+Report pre-emptive sanding as a finding in its own right when the current
+depiction was already weakened to avoid a risk nobody stated: the loss is certain,
+the benefit is not, and the mark exists precisely so the strong version can stay.
+
+## Common findings
+
+- genre label substituted for a dramatic promise;
+- alternatives differ only in wording;
+- coincidence carries a major turn with no prepared cause;
+- scene repeats known information and leaves state unchanged;
+- cliffhanger withholds all payoff;
+- episode pauses an unfinished action without producing a local result (`STY-13`);
+- first episode dumps the backstory reservoir instead of selecting an active entry;
+- a declared character arc has no pressure test, choice, cost, or changed strategy;
+- serial summary omits an information permission or unpaid setup obligation;
+- generic emotion adjectives replace visible performance;
+- every character explains the plot in the same voice;
+- downstream production requirement was never marked in screenplay truth.
+- a redundant `[连续性]` tag repeats an exit state already explicit in the final action;
+- a story-critical ending state appears without a prior transition;
+- the script uses atmosphere, silence, or a black frame to avoid landing a result the episode
+  promised, rather than as an intentional ending form;
+- a beat is sold as a consequential choice after one direction has already become valueless
+  or impossible (`SCR-13`);
+- contested evidence produces a broader conclusion than the evidence or intentionally
+  incomplete verification supports (`SCR-14`);
+- a claimed proof relies on a continuity property the preceding action already destroyed,
+  or on a continuity label asserting an unseen negative event;
+- a local payoff erases its established residue or replaces meaning with a slogan (`SCR-15`);
+- a cost framed as central pressure automatically resets at success, leaving no material
+  effect on ability, body, resource, relationship, or next action;
+- a central participant supplies the opening leverage or cost but becomes a passive prop
+  through the decisive action;
+- the core opposing force disappears only because its holder becomes silent, stops acting,
+  or leaves, without a traceable loss of leverage, accepted cost, or changed strategy;
+- a literal, audience-auditable deadline succeeds only through unexplained speed, or
+  qualitative urgency is upgraded into invented precise timing (`SCR-16`);
+- a limited unit is counted before its required state completes, with the completion moved
+  outside the boundary (`SCR-17`);
+- a newly invented resource, permission, or ability removes the central obstacle;
+- a limited result is renamed as a broader success or truth than the scene demonstrated;
+- repeated carriers restate one pressure without adding viewpoint, rhythm, irony, or consequence;
+- a second same-direction decision, closing line, or maxim merely translates a change,
+  punchline, or metaphor that the preceding action already completed;
+- post-result action unintentionally contradicts a consequence the screenplay called irreversible.

package/resources/skills/drama-production/upstream/skills/short-drama-review/references/rubric-visual-motion.md

@@ -0,0 +1,184 @@
+# Storyboard, Keyframe, And Motion Rubric
+
+## 目录
+
+- [Coverage](#coverage-and-meaning)
+- [Shot](#shot-purpose-and-geography)
+- [Keyframe](#frozen-keyframe)
+- [Motion](#motion)
+- [Continuity](#cross-shot-continuity)
+- [Findings](#common-findings)
+- [Production risks and authorized observations](#production-risk-and-authorized-observation-checklist-rev-08)
+
+## Coverage and meaning
+
+- Does every production-relevant block have a disposition?
+- Are omissions/repeats explained?
+- Does each shot preserve the source action, dialogue, information, and reaction?
+- Has downstream work invented or deleted a story fact?
+
+## Shot purpose and geography
+
+- For a high-value scene with an accepted coverage audition: did the approaches
+  genuinely differ — in knowledge timing, audience alignment, performance space,
+  strongest image, landing, losses, or production fit?
+- Does the formal plan bind the approach the creator selected, rather than the first draft?
+- When a scene visual plan was used: do its start/end audience positions, spatial
+  pressure, camera rhythm, reaction landing, and sound movement carry **one** dramatic turn?
+- Does that plan stay clear of owning shot boundaries? (Ordinary scenes need no plan
+  merely to satisfy a form.)
+- What changes for audience or character by the shot end?
+- Why is this a new shot?
+- Do framing and camera behavior serve attention, alignment, pressure, reveal, or
+  rhythm rather than decorate the prose?
+- Are Location/View, axis, screen direction, eyelines, entrances, positions,
+  hands, and props coherent?
+- Are exact asset variants bound?
+- Does the shot expose every fact it must carry while protecting
+  facts the source withholds until a later action or cut?
+- Do crop, occlusion, focus, back view, and offscreen space serve that information
+  permission rather than accidentally reveal or conceal it?
+
+## Frozen keyframe
+
+- Can all described facts exist in one still instant?
+- Does it project the start state written for this shot?
+- Are focal hierarchy, composition, camera/lens, geography, pose/gaze/hands/prop,
+  expression, and light legible?
+- Does it avoid ordered actions, performance arcs, camera moves, or transforming
+  environments?
+- Read the finished keyframe text, not the shot's intent: is every visible character,
+  place, and prop whose identity, Look, or geography must stay recognizable listed in
+  this shot's `视觉依据` (`SHT-22`)? A second body that entered the composition while the
+  frame was being written is the usual miss.
+- Does each declared 控制 scope stay inside what this frame can carry, and is nothing
+  bound merely because it was bound in the previous shot (`SHT-24`)?
+- When real reference images are bound, does every `REF-...` slot declare a 用途, so the
+  shot says which start frame and which identity/geography/prop pictures it sends
+  (`SHT-25`, `VID-24`)?
+- Is anything the frames need kept consistent across shots — a carried prop, a garment —
+  absent from `视觉设定.md` entirely, so it can appear in no shot's basis at all? The
+  mechanical check cannot see this: an entry that does not exist cannot be reported missing.
+
+## Motion
+
+- Does it start from the accepted frame/boundary?
+- Are subject actions ordered and small enough to preserve intended performance?
+- Does performance change express the story move rather than stack synonyms?
+- In multi-character motion: do the actors who actually change have distinct,
+  readable triggers, choices, leaks, or landings — as this shot needs, not one
+  identical arc per actor?
+- Is attention handed off only where it truly transfers, rather than for
+  synchronized reaction?
+- Does any text-readiness claim cite the current creator-visible inputs and a real blocking gap?
+- Does it avoid any claim about generated media quality or create a second readiness truth?
+- Is camera behavior coherent and motivated?
+- Are environment motion, dialogue, SFX, and audio included only when relevant?
+- Does the described end match the storyboard's written end state without rewriting the next shot?
+- When a reference frame carries appearance/composition, does motion prose avoid
+  dumping the full visual 设定集?
+- Does every claim about text-bearing reference pixels cite a creator/reference-owner
+  description or an authorized input-reference observation? Without that evidence,
+  is admission still `unverified` instead of pretending a negative prompt solved it?
+- For any selective transform, are the accepted trigger, exact target scope,
+  end geometry/state, and preserve set explicit? Do non-target people, props,
+  text surfaces, and spatial anchors keep their required position, count, and state?
+- Does each media reference state its exact purpose, what may be copied, and what
+  must not be copied, rather than treating all visible pixels as authority?
+
+For a copyable body (`VID-22`, `VID-23`), check that actions and sound match the
+source and that the timeline accounts for the intended ambience or silence.
+A summary must not introduce a layer absent from the shot. H3's
+`non_diegetic_music: N/A` is a valid empty music layer.
+
+Report a concrete contradiction, omission or ambiguity. A negative clause is
+not a defect by itself; do not impose a clause count or assume that negation
+causes the model to generate the excluded content. Keep model-specific
+observations scoped to their tested model and execution path.
+
+For a pickup or alternate, ask these separately:
+
+- Does the pickup/alternate name its master by visible `MOTION-...` heading?
+- Is every source obligation assigned to the master, this version, another named version or a requested storyboard revision?
+- Are the changed items and the items that must remain unchanged explicit?
+- Is replacement only requested here? The review Markdown decides whether the master remains primary or the alternate replaces it.
+
+For music, ask these separately (`VID-14`):
+
+- Is intent written as a relative entry/exit/duck against neighbouring shots,
+  rather than an independent cue per shot?
+- Do adjacent annotations actually join?
+- Does the text ask for a per-shot music bed against an accepted timeline-layer plan?
+- Whether a rendered clip carries a baked-in track is **not decidable here**. Cite it
+  only from an authorized text observation record; otherwise keep it `unverified`
+  and never infer a mix result from prose.
+
+Explicit timing that does not sum exactly to its shot's accepted duration—over or
+under—is a structural error. Untimed overload is a
+reviewed feasibility question: cite which action/performance/story beat would be
+lost, not a universal verbs-per-second formula.
+
+Container arithmetic is a separate structural check (`VID-13`). Count the accepted
+shots a delivery container carries, then confirm its duration equals the sum of
+their accepted durations. For a multi-shot container, confirm the members are
+contiguous in source order, share one geography/asset binding chain, do not cross a
+scene boundary, and each remains independently reviewable. A space or subject jump
+belongs on a member boundary; the same jump inside a member's timed segment is a
+hidden cut. Report an arithmetic mismatch and a hidden cut as two findings, not one.
+
+- Is the axis recorded as two named anchors, a stated working side, and a per-character
+  screen position — rather than a placeholder?
+- In a shot-reverse-shot pair, are the two screen directions complementary?
+- Bare left/right always means **screen** left/right. Where a subject's own side is
+  meant, does the text name the subject?
+
+## Cross-shot continuity
+
+Trace Look, injury, dirt/wetness, emotion/knowledge, position/facing/gaze, hands,
+held prop, prop owner/state, location/time/weather/light, axis, and screen
+direction. Distinguish unexplained contradiction from declared montage,
+ellipsis, dream, or deliberate disorientation.
+
+## Common findings
+
+- beautiful shot with no dramatic purpose;
+- dialogue covered but consequential reaction absent;
+- anonymous asset or wrong variant;
+- cross-location/time action hidden in one ordinary shot;
+- keyframe contains “first/then/finally”;
+- locked camera also pans or pushes in the same interval;
+- motion invents a grab, injury, transfer, relationship change, or line;
+- a selective transform removes, copies, or reshapes a non-target person, prop,
+  text surface, or spatial anchor because its preserve set was unspecified;
+- end pose/prop state disagrees with next start;
+- every emotional beat uses the same close-up/push template;
+- provider batching is mistaken for editorial shot structure.
+- a narrowed pickup silently replaces the master and drops dialogue, reaction,
+  reveal, end-state, or creator-directive obligations.
+
+## Production-risk and authorized-observation checklist (REV-08)
+
+本套件不查看媒体。先把下列项目当作文字风险，引用准确的 prompt/spec 说明为什么会造成
+执行歧义或违背已接受约束；只有创作者提供了授权的文字观察记录时，才能称为已观察缺陷，
+并把该记录作为外部证据引用。没有观察记录时保持结果未知，不从任务成功、结果地址或提示词
+存在推断成片质量。
+
+需要项目校准时，先区分输入参考与生成结果。后一种观察只有在绑定准确的提示词/镜头标题、参考顺序、
+制作形态/配置、观察方法和限制时才可引用；finding 同时给出最小修改项与保持项，并保持结论只在该项目
+和版本条件下有效。
+
+短剧生产中需要防范的文字风险或获授权观察包括：
+
+- on-screen text or subtitle residue despite a declared no-text constraint;
+- a text-bearing reference admitted under no-text or exact-readable policy
+  without an allowed surface or a crop, clean, mask, or replace decision;
+- background music implied where the audio boundary allows sound effects only;
+- wardrobe or look drift against the bound reference (re-describing clothes the
+  reference already fixes invites drift — flag redundant appearance prose);
+- 180° axis violation or eyeline mismatch across consecutive shots without a
+  declared transition;
+- lip-sync mismatch: dialogue bound to the wrong character, inner monologue
+  written as mouthed speech, or extra lines the source dialogue never contained;
+- explicit segment timings that do not sum exactly to the shot duration, in either direction;
+- emotion-intensity mismatch between stated level and described performance
+  (a declared 9/10 rage performed as mild irritation, or the reverse).

package/resources/skills/drama-production/upstream/skills/short-drama-review/references/stage-contract.md

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+# 审查阶段契约
+
+本阶段只拥有审查结论与修订要求，不改写 owner 来源。需要落盘时使用创作者可读 Markdown，引用当前
+文件名、标题 ID、行号或短引文；不建立 JSON/JSONL、来源快照、哈希或接受状态。
+
+审查可以由独立 reviewer 或明确标注的自检完成。媒体不可见时保持未知；外部生产仍需要自己的显式确认。
+
+## 本阶段规则
+
+### `REV`
+
+| ID | Class | Knowledge |
+|---|---|---|
+| REV-01 | structural_invariant | Run mechanical checks before spending creative review attention. |
+| REV-02 | structural_invariant | A finding names a visible file and heading/shot/prompt ID, and includes evidence, impact, required fix, owner, severity and status. |
+| REV-03 | reviewed_invariant | Semantic invention cites the source fact and conflicting downstream fact. |
+| REV-04 | craft_default | Prefer a reviewer who did not author the current targets; disclose self-review, and keep reviewer findings separate from owner edits. |
+| REV-05 | craft_default | Diagnose repeated structure or generic language with location and impact; do not label output merely "AI-ish". |
+| REV-06 | taste_option | Alternatives remain notes unless they violate an accepted creator constraint. |
+| REV-07 | structural_invariant | An end-to-end drafting request cannot impersonate creator acceptance; preview chains remain provisional and undeliverable. |
+| REV-08 | craft_default | When authorized text notes report production defects, trace text/subtitle residue, music-boundary violations, wardrobe drift, axis breaks, or lip-sync mismatch to the exact prompt/spec text and keep unobserved outcomes unknown. |
+| REV-09 | reviewed_invariant | After prompt revision or repackaging, recheck source coverage and every applicable accepted directive; correct asset bindings alone do not prove compliance. |
+| REV-10 | reviewed_invariant | A project-calibration finding distinguishes input-reference from generated-result observation, binds the exact project, the prompt/spec records it observed, stable reference slots, production configuration, method and limits, and—when its disposition calls for a change (see REV-11)—proposes the smallest owner-routed one with a preserve set; it does not generalize across projects or infer quality from task state. |
+| REV-11 | reviewed_invariant | A calibration finding carries `disposition` (keep, post_production, targeted_edit, resubmit, rewrite) and `disposition_rationale` before any revision text, justified by whether the defect is text-controllable and whether it has already recurred. Dispositions that call for no change leave `required_change` empty rather than inventing one. Resubmitting identical text and appending quality adjectives are not repairs; a recurring defect routes to a structural change instead. Findings outside project calibration use `not_applicable`. |
+
+规则分级由高到低：`structural_invariant`（结构缺陷，阻断）、
+`reviewed_invariant`（需证据判断）、`craft_default`（常用做法，可覆盖）、
+`taste_option`（创作者选择，不作缺陷）。创作者已接受的事实优先于本表。