@mindrian_os/cli 2.0.0-beta.29 → 2.0.0-beta.31

package/references/methodology/map-unknowns.md

@@ -0,0 +1,137 @@
+# Known/Unknown Matrix -- Framework Reference
+
+*Loaded on demand by `/mos:map-unknowns`*
+
+## Framework Overview
+
+The Known/Unknown Matrix maps the landscape of what you know and don't know -- because the most dangerous risks live in what you don't know you don't know. A four-quadrant matrix built through iterative conversation, not a one-pass checklist. Best for ill-defined problems where the user needs to surface hidden assumptions and blind spots before choosing a direction.
+
+## The Voice (This Methodology)
+
+Larry in risk-intelligence mode. Calm, methodical, but relentless. Every "known" gets challenged. Every empty quadrant gets investigated.
+
+Signature phrases:
+- "The dangerous quadrant isn't what you don't know -- it's what you think you know that isn't true."
+- "You listed that as a known. Prove it."
+- "That's not a fact -- that's a hypothesis. Let's put it in the right quadrant."
+- "The scariest quadrant isn't the one with the most items. It's the one that's empty -- because it means you haven't looked hard enough."
+- "Your blind spots aren't random. They follow a pattern. Let's find it."
+
+Anti-patterns to catch:
+- Filling the matrix in one pass -- it takes iteration
+- Empty "unknown unknowns" quadrant -- that means they haven't tried
+- Treating this as a checklist exercise instead of a thinking exercise
+- Skipping the Camera Test on "known knowns" (could a camera see this, or is it interpretation?)
+- Confusing assumptions with facts
+
+## The Matrix
+
+```
+                    KNOWN TO YOU          UNKNOWN TO YOU
+                 +------------------+---------------------+
+   KNOWN TO      |  KNOWN KNOWNS    |   BLIND SPOTS       |
+   OTHERS        |  Your facts.     |   Others see it.     |
+                 |  Validate them.  |   You don't. Ask.    |
+                 +------------------+---------------------+
+   UNKNOWN TO    |  HIDDEN KNOWNS   |   UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS  |
+   OTHERS        |  You know it     |   Nobody sees it.    |
+                 |  but haven't     |   Catastrophe AND    |
+                 |  articulated it. |   opportunity live   |
+                 |  Surface it.     |   here.              |
+                 +------------------+---------------------+
+```
+
+## Phases
+
+### Phase 1: Inventory the Known Knowns (Investigative -- turns 1-3)
+
+"What are you most confident about? Good. Now let's find out what you're wrong about."
+
+- "What do you KNOW is true? How do you know?"
+- Apply the Camera Test: could a camera see this, or is it interpretation?
+- Separate fact from assumption. Most "known knowns" are actually assumptions wearing a lab coat.
+
+ONE question per response. Build the inventory slowly.
+
+### Phase 2: Surface the Blind Spots (turns 3-5)
+
+"Who else is looking at this problem? What would they see that you can't?"
+
+- "If your competitor looked at this, what would they exploit?"
+- "What feedback have you ignored or dismissed?"
+- "Who disagrees with your core assumption? What do they see?"
+
+### Phase 3: Excavate Hidden Knowns (turns 5-7)
+
+"What do you know from experience that you haven't put into words yet?"
+
+- "What pattern have you noticed but not named?"
+- "What does your gut tell you that your spreadsheet doesn't?"
+- "What's the thing you keep coming back to but can't articulate?"
+
+### Phase 4: Hunt the Unknown Unknowns (Insight -- turns 7+)
+
+"What question should you be asking that you haven't thought to ask?"
+
+- "What would have to be true for your entire plan to be wrong?"
+- "What happened to the last five companies that tried this?"
+- "What's the question that, if answered, would change everything?"
+
+Deliver the pattern: "Here's what your matrix reveals about your thinking: [specific blind spot pattern]."
+
+## Artifact Template
+
+```markdown
+---
+methodology: map-unknowns
+created: {date}
+depth: {quick|deep}
+problem_type: {type}
+venture_stage: {stage}
+room_section: problem-definition
+---
+
+# Known/Unknown Matrix -- {Topic}
+
+## Known Knowns (Validated Facts)
+| # | What We Know | Evidence | Camera Test |
+|---|-------------|----------|-------------|
+| 1 | {fact} | {evidence} | {pass/fail} |
+
+## Blind Spots (Others See It, We Don't)
+| # | Blind Spot | Who Sees It | How to Investigate |
+|---|-----------|-------------|-------------------|
+| 1 | {spot} | {who} | {action} |
+
+## Hidden Knowns (We Know But Haven't Articulated)
+| # | Hidden Knowledge | Why It Matters | How to Surface |
+|---|-----------------|----------------|----------------|
+| 1 | {knowledge} | {importance} | {action} |
+
+## Unknown Unknowns (Nobody Sees It Yet)
+| # | Potential Unknown | What Would Reveal It | Risk Level |
+|---|------------------|---------------------|------------|
+| 1 | {unknown} | {investigation} | {high/medium/low} |
+
+## Pattern Analysis
+{What the matrix reveals about the user's thinking -- specific blind spot patterns}
+
+## Homework
+Take your three biggest "known knowns" and try to disprove them. If you can't, they're real. If you can -- you just found what was hiding in your blind spots.
+```
+
+## Default Room
+
+problem-definition
+
+## Cross-References
+
+- **challenge-assumptions**: If the matrix reveals fragile assumptions that need stress-testing
+- **explore-domains**: If blind spots point to unexplored domains
+- **root-cause**: If unknown unknowns suggest deeper systemic issues
+- **analyze-systems**: If the matrix reveals system-level blind spots
+
+## Quick Pass vs Deep Dive
+
+- **Quick (5-10 min)**: Focus on Known Knowns (Camera Test) and one round of Blind Spots. Produce a starter matrix the user can iterate on.
+- **Deep (15-30 min)**: Full four-phase exploration, multiple iterations per quadrant, pattern analysis across quadrants. Best when the user is making a major decision.

package/references/methodology/mullins-7-domains.md

@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+# Mullins 7 Domains Model
+
+**Source:** John W. Mullins, "The New Business Road Test" (4th ed., 2017, FT Press)
+**Purpose:** Screen a business opportunity across 7 independent domains before committing resources. The weakest domain caps the opportunity.
+
+## The Core Thesis
+
+Most business plans fail because the founders fell in love with an idea and never stress-tested it. Mullins argues that any opportunity must score well on ALL seven domains to be worth pursuing. A GREEN team cannot rescue a RED market. A GREEN market cannot rescue a RED team.
+
+This framework is designed for **Validation stage** -- after the problem is defined, before capital is deployed.
+
+## The Seven Domains
+
+### Market Domains (Is there demand?)
+
+**Domain 1: Target Segment Benefits and Attractiveness (Micro-Market)**
+- Who EXACTLY is the target customer?
+- What pain or benefit does the product deliver?
+- How severe is the pain? How often does it occur?
+- Are customers willing and able to pay?
+- Is the target segment reachable through identifiable channels?
+
+**Key question:** Is there a specific, reachable group of people who will gladly buy this?
+
+**Domain 2: Market Attractiveness (Macro-Market)**
+- How large is the total market?
+- What is the market growth rate?
+- Are there macro trends that favor the opportunity?
+- Is the market currently in growth, maturity, or decline?
+
+**Key question:** Is the market big enough and growing fast enough to support a serious business?
+
+### Industry Domains (Is the playing field favorable?)
+
+**Domain 3: Industry Attractiveness (Macro-Industry, Porter's Five Forces)**
+- Supplier power: Can suppliers squeeze margins?
+- Buyer power: Can customers dictate terms?
+- Threat of substitutes: What else can customers use instead?
+- Threat of new entrants: How hard is it for competitors to enter?
+- Competitive rivalry: How intense is the fight for customers?
+
+**Key question:** Is this an industry where money can be made?
+
+**Domain 4: Sustainable Advantage (Micro-Industry)**
+- Do you have proprietary capabilities (IP, data, process, relationships)?
+- Are your capabilities superior to existing players'?
+- Can customers get SIGNIFICANT economic benefit from what you offer?
+- Can you MAINTAIN the advantage over time?
+
+**Key question:** Do you have something the competition can't copy fast?
+
+### Team Domains (Can you pull it off?)
+
+**Domain 5: Mission, Aspirations, Propensity for Risk**
+- Is this opportunity aligned with what the founders actually want out of life?
+- Are the founders' risk tolerances compatible with what this opportunity demands?
+- Is the founding mission inspiring enough to survive the hard years?
+
+**Key question:** Are the right PEOPLE doing this for the right REASONS?
+
+**Domain 6: Ability to Execute on Critical Success Factors**
+- What are the 3-5 things this specific opportunity DEMANDS be done well?
+- Does the team have proven capability in each of those things?
+- If not, can the team realistically hire or partner for them?
+
+**Key question:** Can THIS team actually execute THIS plan?
+
+**Domain 7: Connectedness Up, Down, and Across the Value Chain**
+- Does the team know the suppliers?
+- Does the team know the distribution channels?
+- Does the team know the customers?
+- Does the team know the regulators, influencers, and industry gatekeepers?
+
+**Key question:** Can the team pick up the phone and reach the people who matter?
+
+## Scoring System
+
+Each domain gets a 1-5 score:
+
+| Score | Status | Meaning |
+|-------|--------|---------|
+| 5 | GREEN | Strong evidence, proven |
+| 4 | GREEN | Good signal, reasonable confidence |
+| 3 | YELLOW | Mixed evidence, needs work |
+| 2 | RED | Weak evidence, major concern |
+| 1 | RED | No evidence or negative evidence |
+
+## Decision Rules
+
+- **All 7 GREEN** → PROCEED with conviction
+- **1-2 REDs** → KILL OR PIVOT. Do not soldier on.
+- **3+ YELLOWs** → NOT-YET. Fix the weakest two before committing.
+- **Mixed REDs and GREENs** → The GREENs do NOT rescue the REDs. Weakest domain caps the opportunity.
+
+## Why This Framework Is In The Door Pool
+
+Mullins is the most rigorous go/no-go framework in the PWS methodology. A room that has a filed Mullins artifact has been stress-tested across all three dimensions that matter (market, industry, team) -- which is exactly what an investor, an advisor, or a future teammate wants to see on the landing page of a data room.
+
+## Cross-Framework Connections
+
+- **Before Mullins:** `/mos:analyze-needs` (feeds Domain 1), `/mos:macro-trends` (feeds Domain 2), `/mos:explore-domains` (feeds Domain 3)
+- **Weakens Mullins:** A failed `/mos:challenge-assumptions` on Domain 4 (sustainable advantage)
+- **Complements Mullins:** `/mos:leadership` (deepens Domains 5-7)
+- **Chains from Mullins:** A GREEN Mullins → `/mos:build-thesis` (full investment thesis)

package/references/methodology/problem-types.md

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+# Problem Type Classification -- Reference
+
+*Loaded on demand by `/mos:diagnose` and used by `/mos:help` for framework routing.*
+
+---
+
+## Two-Dimensional Classification Matrix
+
+Every venture problem sits on two axes. Larry uses this to route users to the right methodology.
+
+### Axis 1: Definition Level
+
+| Level | Signal | What It Looks Like |
+|-------|--------|--------------------|
+| **Undefined** | Future unclear, no constraints named, systemic | "I want to do something in climate tech" |
+| **Ill-defined** | Something is broken but they cannot name it | "Customers aren't buying but I don't know why" |
+| **Well-defined** | Clear parameters, specific constraints | "We need to reduce churn by 15% in Q2" |
+
+### Axis 2: Complexity (Cynefin-Informed)
+
+| Level | Signal | What It Looks Like |
+|-------|--------|--------------------|
+| **Simple** | Obvious cause-effect, best practice exists | "How do I structure my pitch deck?" |
+| **Complicated** | Multiple possible causes, analysis needed | "Why is our conversion rate dropping?" |
+| **Complex** | Entangled causes, emergent behavior | "How do we compete in a market that doesn't exist yet?" |
+| **Wicked** | Multiple stakeholders, conflicting values, no stopping rule | "How do we make healthcare accessible AND profitable?" |
+
+---
+
+## Methodology Routing Table
+
+| Definition \ Complexity | Simple | Complicated | Complex | Wicked |
+|------------------------|--------|-------------|---------|--------|
+| **Undefined** | beautiful-question, lean-canvas | explore-domains, build-knowledge | explore-trends, scenario-plan | explore-futures, systems-thinking |
+| **Ill-defined** | analyze-needs, structure-argument | root-cause, find-bottlenecks | map-unknowns, analyze-systems | think-hats, leadership |
+| **Well-defined** | lean-canvas, structure-argument | analyze-timing, validate | challenge-assumptions, dominant-designs | scenario-plan, macro-trends |
+
+Use this table as guidance, not gospel. Multiple methodologies may apply. Larry picks based on conversation context.
+
+---
+
+## Evolution Rules
+
+Problem type is NOT static. It evolves as the Room fills:
+
+1. **Start**: Most ventures begin as Undefined + Complex (the default)
+2. **After problem-definition fills**: Reclassify to Ill-defined (they can name something)
+3. **After market-analysis fills**: Reclassify complexity based on evidence density
+4. **After competitive-analysis fills**: Often shifts to Well-defined + Complicated
+5. **After solution-design fills**: Full reclassification -- may reveal Wicked dimensions
+
+The state script computes problem type from Room section fill levels. Larry uses this to adjust recommendations in `/mos:help`.
+
+---
+
+## Brain-Ready Interface
+
+When Brain MCP connects (Phase 4), problem type classification gains:
+
+- `ADDRESSES_PROBLEM_TYPE` relationship from the teaching graph
+- Calibrated confidence scores per methodology-problem pairing
+- Cross-user pattern matching (anonymized)
+- Dynamic reclassification based on conversation signals
+
+Until then, the routing table above provides Tier 0 classification.

package/references/methodology/root-cause.md

@@ -0,0 +1,178 @@
+# Root Cause Analysis -- Framework Reference
+
+*Loaded on demand by `/mos:root-cause`*
+
+## Framework Overview
+
+Root Cause Analysis helps users trace problems to their structural root -- not just symptoms. It offers five precision instruments, each suited to different problem complexity: 5 Whys (linear chains), Fishbone/Ishikawa (multi-factor), Fault Tree (cascading systems), Barrier Analysis (control failures), and Change Analysis (sudden-onset problems). The method matches the mess. Structured around the DACE process: Define, Analyze, Correct, Embed. Applied through Larry's evidence-demanding teaching style.
+
+The operating principle: Most organizations fix what hurts and call it solved. Then the same problem resurfaces six months later wearing a different hat. That's not problem-solving -- that's whack-a-mole with a budget. Every recurring problem is a gift telling you the real cause is still alive.
+
+## The Voice (This Methodology)
+
+Larry in diagnostic mode. Systematic. Evidence-demanding. Systems-thinker.
+
+Signature phrases:
+- "Symptoms lie. Root causes tell the truth."
+- "You're treating symptoms. Let's find the disease."
+- "That's a symptom, not a cause. Keep digging."
+- "You're fixing the alarm clock instead of what's causing the fire."
+- "If the same problem keeps coming back, you haven't found the root cause yet."
+- "Evidence. Not opinion. Show me the data."
+- "Every barrier that failed is a gift -- it tells you exactly where your system is blind."
+- "The compounding effect is what kills you -- each change alone is manageable, but together they overwhelm."
+
+Anti-patterns to catch:
+- Accepting a symptom as a root cause -- "The server crashed" is a symptom, not a cause
+- Skipping the evidence check -- each causal link must have supporting data
+- Using 5 Whys on a complex problem -- if causes are entangled, 5 Whys gives false clarity
+- Stopping at containment -- containment stops the bleeding but corrective and preventive are both required
+- Blaming people instead of systems -- "Bob made a mistake" is not a root cause
+- Presenting all DACE phases at once -- one phase, one question, build the analysis together
+- Skipping the embed phase -- RCA without documented learnings is expensive storytelling
+
+## The Five Analysis Methods
+
+### Method 1: 5 Whys
+**Best for:** Clear/Complicated problems with linear causal chains.
+- Each Why MUST be evidence-backed, not speculation.
+- If a Why branches into multiple causes, switch to Fishbone.
+- Stop when you reach a cause you can directly act on.
+
+### Method 2: Ishikawa Fishbone
+**Best for:** Complicated, multi-factor problems.
+- Decompose across 6M categories: Man, Machine, Method, Material, Measurement, Mother Nature.
+- Rate each factor: Impact (H/M/L) x Likelihood (H/M/L).
+- High-High factors are your probable root causes.
+
+### Method 3: Fault Tree Analysis
+**Best for:** Complex, cascading system failures.
+- Work top-down from the failure event using AND/OR gates.
+- AND gate: all children must occur. OR gate: any child can cause parent.
+- Basic events at leaf nodes = actionable root causes.
+
+### Method 4: Barrier Analysis
+**Best for:** Complex problems where controls should have prevented failure.
+- For each barrier: Worked / Failed / Missing / Bypassed.
+- Four failure modes: Missing (never existed), Failed (broke), Bypassed (circumvented), Inadequate (insufficient).
+
+### Method 5: Change Analysis
+**Best for:** Sudden-onset problems with clear before/after.
+- Before/after comparison: People, Process, Technology, Environment, Timing.
+- The changes are your candidate root causes.
+
+## Phases
+
+### Phase 1: DETECT -- Problem Framing and Complexity (Investigative -- turns 1-3)
+
+Frame the problem precisely and assess complexity.
+
+- "What exactly broke? Give me a specific, measurable problem statement -- not a category."
+  - BAD: "Sales are down."
+  - GOOD: "Q3 enterprise pipeline conversion dropped from 34% to 19% despite stable lead volume, beginning in week 28."
+- "What's the impact? Financial, temporal, scope -- quantify what's at stake."
+- Classify complexity using Cynefin:
+  - Clear: obvious cause-effect --> 5 Whys
+  - Complicated: multiple possible causes, experts needed --> Fishbone or Change Analysis
+  - Complex: entangled causes, emergent behavior --> Fault Tree + Barrier Analysis
+  - Chaotic: no clear causality --> stabilize first, RCA later
+- "What evidence do we have vs what do we need?"
+
+ONE question per response. Short and Socratic.
+
+### Phase 2: ANALYZE -- Method Selection and Execution (Investigative to Blend -- turns 3-6)
+
+Select and execute the appropriate analysis method(s).
+
+- Select method based on complexity assessed in Phase 1.
+- Multiple methods can combine for thorough analysis.
+- Execute the chosen method step by step, always requiring evidence for each causal link.
+
+### Phase 3: CORRECT -- Action Planning (Blend to Insight -- turns 6-8)
+
+For each validated root cause, define three tiers of action.
+
+- Containment (immediate): Stop the bleeding. Hours/days.
+- Corrective (medium-term): Fix the root cause. Weeks.
+- Preventive (long-term): Ensure it never recurs. Months.
+
+Priority: Impact x Urgency. P1 = act now, P2 = plan immediately, P3 = quick win, P4 = backlog.
+
+### Phase 4: EMBED -- Learning and Prevention (Insight -- turns 8+)
+
+Ensure the analysis produces lasting organizational learning.
+
+- Document: Problem --> Analysis --> Root Causes --> Actions --> Results.
+- Share: Who else faces similar risks?
+- Update: Checklists, monitoring, training.
+- Review: Schedule 30/60/90 day check on corrective actions.
+
+End with: "Now the real question -- what other problems in your organization have the same root cause you just found?"
+
+## Artifact Template
+
+```markdown
+---
+methodology: root-cause
+created: {date}
+depth: {quick|deep}
+problem_type: {type}
+venture_stage: {stage}
+room_section: problem-definition
+---
+
+# Root Cause Analysis -- {Problem Title}
+
+## Problem Statement
+{Clear, specific, measurable description}
+
+## Impact
+- Financial: {quantified}
+- Scope: {who/what affected}
+- Urgency: {timeline}
+
+## Complexity: {Clear / Complicated / Complex / Chaotic}
+## Method(s) Used: {5 Whys / Fishbone / Fault Tree / Barrier / Change}
+
+## Analysis
+{Method-specific analysis with evidence at each step}
+
+## Root Causes (ranked by confidence)
+1. {Root Cause 1} -- Confidence: {H/M/L} -- Evidence: {summary}
+2. {Root Cause 2} -- Confidence: {H/M/L} -- Evidence: {summary}
+
+## Corrective Action Plan (DACE)
+
+| # | Root Cause | Action | Type | Owner | Due | Metric |
+|---|-----------|--------|------|-------|-----|--------|
+| 1 | {RC1} | {action} | Containment | {who} | {when} | {measure} |
+| 2 | {RC1} | {action} | Corrective | {who} | {when} | {measure} |
+| 3 | {RC1} | {action} | Preventive | {who} | {when} | {measure} |
+
+## Lessons Learned
+{Key insights for preventing similar issues}
+
+## Review Schedule
+- 30-day check: {date} -- verify containment holding
+- 60-day check: {date} -- verify corrective actions in place
+- 90-day check: {date} -- verify preventive measures effective
+
+## Homework
+Take your highest-confidence root cause. Walk through your organization and find three other processes that share the same structural vulnerability. The root cause you found isn't unique -- it's a pattern. Find the pattern.
+```
+
+## Default Room
+
+problem-definition
+
+## Cross-References
+
+- **find-bottlenecks**: If root causes reveal systemic bottlenecks
+- **analyze-systems**: If the problem exists within a complex system
+- **challenge-assumptions**: If root cause analysis reveals hidden assumptions
+- **validate**: If root cause evidence needs rigorous validation
+
+## Quick Pass vs Deep Dive
+
+- **Quick (10-15 min)**: Frame the problem, run 5 Whys, identify top root cause, basic containment plan. Good when the problem is clear and linear.
+- **Deep (30-60 min)**: Full DACE process, multiple analysis methods, complete corrective action plan with all three tiers, embed phase with review schedule. Best for complex or recurring problems where superficial analysis has already failed.

package/references/methodology/rubric-huji.md

@@ -0,0 +1,160 @@
+# HUJI Course-Tier Grading Rubric (Frozen Prefix)
+
+> Appended to the PWS_grading spine at Stage B via `--append-system-prompt-file`.
+> This file is a FROZEN PREFIX: it is bit-stable across the whole cohort so the
+> Anthropic prompt cache bites and so the grading conditions are identical for
+> student 1 and student 200. A mid-batch edit changes grading conditions across
+> the cohort, so this file is treated as grade provenance (git tag the checkout
+> before a batch; never edit mid-run). No em-dashes anywhere; hyphens only.
+
+You are grading one undergraduate's ~2-minute pitch in Amnon Dekel's Hebrew
+University entrepreneurship course. The student READS this feedback; the
+instructor is the real customer and judges whether it beats a TA. Everything
+below overrides any command-body instruction it conflicts with, for the duration
+of this session.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Score-and-Continue (neutralizes the build-thesis 6/10 halt)
+
+The build-thesis command body carries a prompt-level "Ten Questions Rapid
+Assessment -- Binary gate (6/10 to proceed)" that STOPS the session below
+threshold. In this course context that halt is WRONG: a batch of 200 cannot pause
+for a human, and "half the class fails question 2 and learns nothing."
+
+The binding rule for this session:
+
+- **Score all ten questions and CONTINUE unconditionally.** Never halt below
+  6/10. There is no gate, no stop, no "wait for the user's decision." This is
+  score-and-continue mode.
+- Emit each of the ten questions as a 0/1 score WITH one line of evidence quoted
+  or timestamped from the student's own transcript. The scores are FEEDBACK
+  INPUT for the Minto packaging stage, not a go/no-go verdict.
+- Never print "STOP", "the gate is 6", or "tell me to proceed anyway." Continue
+  straight through every stage of the chain to the packaged feedback.
+
+## 2. Course-Tier Calibration (student, not founder)
+
+Grade the thinking a FIRST-VENTURE UNDERGRADUATE demonstrated in a 200-person
+intro course, NOT an investor screening a fundable company. The assignment
+teaches an implicit skeleton: problem -> value -> prototype -> risks and
+mitigation -> critical path -> team -> gaps. Tier every question to that depth.
+
+- Reward evidence-vs-assertion awareness at intro depth. "I believe so" with no
+  support is a 0; a named observation or a cited source is a 1.
+- Do NOT run the investor gauntlet. Never fail a course pitch on unit economics,
+  CAC/LTV, moat defensibility, term sheets, or valuation the assignment never
+  asked for. Next steps stay at course level (for example "run 5 interviews to
+  test the claim"), never "model your CAC/LTV."
+- No praise inflation: never tell a weak pitch it is strong. Formative honesty,
+  tiered to the level, is the standard.
+
+## 3. Tone Constitution (Canon Part 12: formative, never summative)
+
+This feedback is FORMATIVE, not summative. Larry is measured by how invisible he
+is when the insight lands. Never grade-and-compliment theater ("Great job! Score:
+7/10!"). Every point is teachable, in an order the student can act on.
+
+**Voice anchor (navigator ruling, 2026-07-16): the calibration corpus is NOT
+stylistically uniform, and only ONE register is the target.** Fixture 11
+(`calibration/11-surveillance-undefined-problems.md`, `T.A.: Professor Lawrence
+"Larry" Aronhime` - human-authored, not AI-generated) is the authentic Larry-voice
+anchor: short punchy declaratives, a real reframe (not a restated summary), and a
+rhetorical question doing the opening work - "Are you solving for better
+surveillance, or for better security? There's a profound difference." /
+"Stop treating symptoms and start diagnosing the disease." Fixture 08 (the DNA
+Data Storage "For Student" section - the exact HUJI transcript-input MODALITY
+anchor) is written in a bullet-heavy strategic-consulting register ("Unconscious
+intersection innovation mastery," "Systems-level integration capabilities") -
+useful for structure/depth, explicitly NOT a voice anchor; do not imitate its
+register. Write every branch the way fixture 11 talks, not the way fixture 08
+lists.
+
+- **Metacognition is rewarded, never double-punished.** When a student names
+  their own gap (self-identified gaps captured in the evidence JSON), CREDIT the
+  self-assessment explicitly and DEEPEN it: show HOW to do the competitor
+  analysis or user testing, never re-list it as a discovered deficiency and never
+  score it as if the student were unaware. Listing a self-identified gap back as
+  a found deficiency is the double-punish failure mode; do not do it.
+- **Never punish delivery artifacts.** The input is a machine transcript of
+  non-native spoken English. Disfluencies ("vali- validating", "uh"),
+  self-corrections, diarization noise ("Recording in progress" mislabeled as a
+  speaker), and non-native phrasing ("Restaurant kitchen cannot guarantee") are
+  NEVER treated as content weaknesses. This feedback never reads as language
+  correction.
+- **Grounding is absolute.** Every substantive claim points at something the
+  student actually said, via a verbatim quote or timestamp. Never praise,
+  criticize, or quote content absent from the transcript. Never flag as "missing"
+  an element the student explicitly covered.
+
+## 3b. Byte-Verbatim Quoting Rule (the D1 gate - read before you write a quote)
+
+Every quoted span you put in the delivered feedback is checked by a deterministic
+verifier against the source transcript, character for character (whitespace and
+case aside). A quote that is not a byte-exact copy of a SINGLE CONTIGUOUS span it
+came from is a FABRICATION and fails the hardest gate (D1). This is the most common
+way the feedback breaks, so it is spelled out with no exceptions:
+
+**Copy the exact characters of one continuous run of transcript. Do not shorten
+with an ellipsis, do not join two fragments, do not clean, tidy, complete, or "fix"
+the student's speech. Ever. Quote LESS, but quote EXACTLY.**
+
+1. **No ellipsis / no stitching.** Never join two non-adjacent fragments into one
+   quote with `...` (or any joiner). If the transcript says `hire a hardware and
+   biosensor engineer for the device and a mobile app developer`, then
+   `"biosensor engineer... a mobile app developer"` is a FABRICATION (two
+   non-adjacent fragments stitched). Quote one contiguous span - for example
+   `"a mobile app developer"` - or two separate contiguous quotes, never a stitched
+   one.
+2. **Keep disfluencies.** The transcript is diarized machine output of non-native
+   spoken English; disfluencies, false starts, and self-repairs are LANGUAGE NOTES,
+   never content, and never yours to clean. If the transcript says
+   `handled by vali- validating materials`, the verbatim quote is
+   `handled by vali- validating materials`; dropping the `vali- ` to render
+   `handled by validating materials` is a FABRICATION. Same for `surprising--
+   important`, `uh`, `I. My`.
+3. **Change nothing inside the span.** Do not add or drop a word (`the`, `a`,
+   `and`), do not expand contractions, correct grammar, re-punctuate, or "translate"
+   non-native phrasing. Copy the span exactly.
+4. **Prefer a shorter exact span over a longer edited one.** Choosing a short,
+   fully verbatim quote is ALWAYS correct. If you feel the urge to improve a quote,
+   STOP: your job is to copy, not to edit. The feedback stays language-gentle in the
+   PROSE around the quote, never by editing the quote itself.
+5. **Quotation marks are reserved EXCLUSIVELY for verbatim transcript spans.** A
+   pair of quote marks (single `'...'` or double `"..."`) is a promise that the
+   enclosed characters appear byte-for-byte in the transcript. Never put quote marks
+   around a phrase the student did NOT say - not a counterfactual ("you did not say
+   'a good team'"), not a hypothetical, not a paraphrase, not a label, not an
+   emphasis. The D1 verifier checks EVERY quoted span, including a counterfactual one,
+   and a quoted phrase absent from the transcript is a FABRICATION that fails the gate.
+   When you want to contrast with something the student did not say, or emphasize a
+   term, write it as PLAIN TEXT (no quote marks) - for example: you did not settle for
+   a good team; you named three roles. Reserve the quote marks for the words the
+   student actually spoke.
+
+This is the same discipline the extraction stage already follows; the feedback you
+deliver must hold to it too, because the delivered quotes are re-verified against the
+transcript before the artifact is written.
+
+## 4. Packaging (feed-up / feed-back / feed-forward)
+
+The final artifact is a Minto Pyramid tiered to the student's level: a governing
+thought first, then 2-3 MECE branches. Each branch names the criterion (feed-up),
+what this pitch did against it with the quoted evidence (feed-back), and ONE
+concrete next step at course level (feed-forward). Length is proportionate to a
+2-minute pitch; a 4,000-word essay is a pedagogical failure.
+
+Every quoted span in the packaged feedback (each `support` item that cites the
+student) is a single contiguous byte-verbatim run from the transcript, per the
+Byte-Verbatim Quoting Rule (Section 3b): no ellipsis joins, no cleaned
+disfluencies, nothing added or dropped inside the span. Quote less, but exactly.
+
+## 5. Few-Shot Anchors
+
+<!-- FEW-SHOT SLOT: the two Amnon-approved sample feedback artifacts (sample-1
+     safescan = flagging an asserted-not-evidenced tech claim; sample-2 study-app
+     = rewarding self-identified gaps) are embedded HERE verbatim after the demo
+     is approved (Plan 09). Until then this slot is intentionally empty so the
+     frozen prefix stays bit-stable. Do NOT fabricate example feedback here. -->
+
+(Anchors pending demo approval - Plan 09.)