@ritualai/cli 0.11.0 → 0.25.0

package/skills/gemini/ritual/references/discovery-classification.md

@@ -1,175 +0,0 @@
-# Discovery classification reference
-
-Loaded only when `/ritual build` question picking triggers scope classification.
-
-##### 7.4.5 — Scope Classification Check (conditional)
-
-When the user picks discovery questions, the gap between **what the problem statement asks about** and **what the user actually chose to investigate** is the agent's first concrete read on whether the scope is genuinely narrow, deliberately sequenced, or under-engaged. This step makes that gap visible — but ONLY when the signal warrants it.
-
-**Design principle (locked):** *Don't make the user optimize the score. Let the score explain what just happened.* The menu asks a plain product question; the pulse confirms the consequence afterward. Never preview deltas inside the choice menu.
-
-###### Per-question typed status
-
-Once Step 7.4 lands, the agent tracks an in-session status for every surfaced question. Statuses are ephemeral (not persisted to the DB yet — that's a follow-up); they carry through this `/ritual build` session only:
-
-| Status | Meaning |
-|---|---|
-| **`picked`** | User selected for active investigation (passed to `start_agentic_run`) |
-| **`deferred`** | Deliberate phase-2 candidate; surfaces in build brief's "Phase Candidates" section. NOT context debt. |
-| **`dropped`** | Removed from scope; problem statement gets narrowed to exclude this concern. |
-| **`unreviewed`** | Default state for every surfaced question until the user classifies it. Counts toward debt if the user proceeds to Step 8 without resolving. |
-
-`picked` is set automatically by the per-matter accept calls in 7.4. The other three are set by the Step 7.4.5 branches below.
-
-###### Conditional trigger
-
-Step 7.4.5 fires **only** when at least one of these holds — otherwise proceed silently to 7.5:
-
-- **Pick-rate < 40%** (picked / total_surfaced)
-- **Matter coverage ≤ 50%** (matters with ≥ 1 pick / total matters)
-- **Pick-rate = 100%** (no-discrimination signal — see "no-discrimination case" below)
-- **Concentration heuristic**: a single matter holds ≥ 60% of the picks while the problem statement spans multiple distinct concerns
-
-If none hold, the user's scope intent is already obvious; don't add a check. Continue to Step 7.5.
-
-###### Signal mapping
-
-Before surfacing the prompt, the agent maps which problem-statement concerns are covered by the picks. Concerns are derived from the problem statement's noun-phrases (loose keyword-match against matter names is sufficient for MVP; LLM-rated mapping is a follow-up). For each unpicked matter, identify which problem-statement concern(s) it represents.
-
-Output the analysis in plain language — three paragraphs (data → qualitative pattern → gap statement). Em-dash separating stats reads better than parenthetical. Example with real numbers (from the django-oscar GDPR exploration testing):
-
-```
-You picked 8 of 73 questions across 4 of 8 matters — an 11% pick-rate
-with 50% matter coverage.
-
-Your picks concentrate on the structural foundation: what the data is,
-where it lives, immutability, and retention categories.
-
-Your problem statement also mentions erasure mechanics, scheduled cleanup
-jobs, DSAR APIs, and audit observability. Those areas are currently
-unpicked.
-```
-
-The **dominant theme phrase** ("structural foundation: what the data is, where it lives, immutability, and retention categories" in the example) is computed once here and reused in Option 1's prompt below — that keeps the user's decision concrete instead of abstract.
-
-###### The 4-option prompt (plain language only — no score previews)
-
-Reuse the dominant-theme phrase from the analysis paragraph in Option 1 so the user reads the *narrowed scope* in product terms before deciding, not after.
-
-```
-How should I treat the unpicked areas?
-
-1. Out of scope — tighten the problem statement around {dominant theme
-   from analysis paragraph: e.g. "data structure, storage, immutability,
-   and retention categories"}.
-   Unpicked concerns are dropped from the current HMW.
-
-2. Later phase — keep the broad scope, but mark unpicked matters as
-   phase-2 candidates surfaced in the build brief.
-   Use this when the unpicked work depends on the picked foundation
-   being settled first.
-
-3. Open questions — keep the broad scope and treat unpicked areas as
-   context debt to revisit.
-
-4. Pick more — return to Step 7.3 and add picks before continuing.
-```
-
-**Copy notes:**
-- "the current HMW" (not "the HMW") — Branch 1 is present-cycle, not permanent. Reduces commitment-anxiety.
-- "treat unpicked areas as context debt" (not "Unpicked counts as context debt") — grammatical, less terse.
-- Option 2's "Use this when..." stays as a separate declarative sentence — less leading than a parenthetical, but still teaches the right sequencing intuition.
-- Option 4 uses "return to" not "loop back to" — cleaner agent voice.
-
-###### Per-branch handlers
-
-**Branch 1 — Out of scope (tighten):**
-1. Mark all unpicked questions across all matters as `dropped`.
-2. Call `mcp__ritual__refine_problem_statement` with `change_prompt`: *"Narrow the scope to focus only on {comma-joined matter names of picked matters}. Drop concerns related to {comma-joined names of dropped matters}."*
-3. Emit post-choice pulse — **reuse the same dominant-theme phrase** that appeared in the analysis paragraph + Option 1's prompt, so the user sees their choice acknowledged in the exact words they read:
-   ```
-   ✓ Tightened the problem statement around {dominant theme — same phrase as analysis paragraph + Option 1 prompt}.
-     Pulse: Reasoning Readiness {readiness}% · Context Debt {debt}% · +{delta}% (feature clarity ↑ from narrower scope)
-   ```
-   Concrete example matching the django-oscar GDPR exploration: *"✓ Tightened the problem statement around data structure, storage, immutability, and retention categories."* — names what survived, not abstract *"the structural picks"*.
-
-**Branch 2 — Later phase (defer):**
-1. Mark all unpicked questions across all matters as `deferred`.
-2. No problem statement change (broad scope preserved).
-3. Emit post-choice pulse — **note the second-field label is `deferred`, not `debt`**:
-   ```
-   ✓ {N} unpicked questions marked as phase-2 candidates.
-     Pulse: Reasoning Readiness {readiness}% · Phase-later {deferred}% · +{delta}% (decision resolution ↑ from deliberate deferral)
-   ```
-   The `deferred` label (instead of `debt`) is load-bearing — deliberate sequencing is NOT a liability, and the pulse line should reflect that. Same number, different character.
-4. At Step 10c (build brief generation), the deferred matters MUST appear in the brief's *"Phase Candidates / Deferrable Items"* section. The agent appends the `deferred[]` set to the `generate_build_brief` `recon_context` payload as supplementary "explicit phase-2 candidates set by the user during discovery." The main `recon_context` payload remains the `codebase_context_packet`.
-
-**Branch 3 — Open questions (debt):**
-1. Mark all unpicked questions as `unreviewed` (their default state — no change).
-2. No problem statement change.
-3. Emit post-choice pulse — uses the `debt` label:
-   ```
-   ✓ {N} unpicked questions marked as context debt.
-     Pulse: Reasoning Readiness {readiness}% · Context Debt {debt}% · +0% (open questions remain unresolved)
-   ```
-   Avoid words like *"status quo"* — phrase it as a state, not a non-event.
-4. The next `/ritual context-pulse` will surface the unresolved questions as top debt sources.
-
-**Branch 4 — Pick more (loop):**
-1. No status change.
-2. No pulse.
-3. Surface the unpicked matters in a numbered list grouped by matter:
-   ```
-   Returning to question picking. Unpicked matters and questions:
-
-   M5 — Erasure Anonymization Contract (10 questions)
-   M6 — Scheduled Cleanup Idempotency (8 questions)
-   M7 — DSAR Attribution Interfaces (9 questions)
-   M8 — Compliance Audit Observability (8 questions)
-
-   Pick any subset. Same per-matter accept flow as Step 7.4.
-   ```
-4. After new picks land, re-evaluate the trigger conditions. If still met, fire 7.4.5 again. Otherwise proceed to 7.5.
-
-###### The no-discrimination case (100% pick-rate)
-
-If trigger fired because pick-rate = 100% (user picked every question), the prompt shape is gentler — there's no "unpicked areas" to classify. Instead:
-
-```
-You picked everything (73/73 questions).
-
-That may mean every question is genuinely relevant — the breadth is real.
-Or it may mean we haven't narrowed the investigation yet. Pick one:
-
-1. Proceed broadly — run all questions through the agentic pipeline. The
-   build brief will be wide; recommendations cover everything.
-
-2. Sharper first pass — let me suggest 5-10 highest-leverage questions
-   that would give you the most signal per LLM call. The rest become
-   phase-2 candidates.
-```
-
-If user picks (1): proceed silently to Step 7.5. No pulse change.
-If user picks (2): agent ranks the 73 questions by leverage (LLM call OR heuristic: questions earlier in each matter tend to be foundational), surfaces the top 5-10, user re-confirms picks, others become `deferred`. Fall back to Branch 2's behavior.
-
-###### Two-score model in the pulse (CP3 update)
-
-Once Step 7.4.5 has run, the `/ritual context-pulse` Step CP3 formula reads from the typed-status counts:
-
-- **Decision Resolution (current scope):** `picked / (picked + unreviewed)`. Excludes `deferred` + `dropped`. Reaches near-100% if the user classified everything (picked, deferred, or dropped) — judgment rewarded.
-- **Total-problem Coverage:** `(picked + deferred + dropped) / total`. Shows how much of the original surfaced space has been *classified at all*, regardless of how. Surfaces in the full pulse as an annotation; `unreviewed` count is the implicit debt.
-
-Compact pulse continues to lead with the single readiness · {debt|deferred} · delta line per the per-branch templates above. Full pulse adds the breakdown:
-
-```
-Reasoning readiness:  72%
-Context debt:         12%  (4 questions unreviewed)
-Context deferred:     16%  (12 questions phase-2 candidates)
-Context surface:      Recommendation-ready
-```
-
-When `Context deferred` is zero, omit that line (CLI Tenet #6 — silence on no-data).
-
-###### After Step 7.4.5 completes
-
-Continue to Step 7.5 (anti-goals capture) per the existing flow.

package/skills/kiro/ritual/references/discovery-classification.md

@@ -1,175 +0,0 @@
-# Discovery classification reference
-
-Loaded only when `/ritual build` question picking triggers scope classification.
-
-##### 7.4.5 — Scope Classification Check (conditional)
-
-When the user picks discovery questions, the gap between **what the problem statement asks about** and **what the user actually chose to investigate** is the agent's first concrete read on whether the scope is genuinely narrow, deliberately sequenced, or under-engaged. This step makes that gap visible — but ONLY when the signal warrants it.
-
-**Design principle (locked):** *Don't make the user optimize the score. Let the score explain what just happened.* The menu asks a plain product question; the pulse confirms the consequence afterward. Never preview deltas inside the choice menu.
-
-###### Per-question typed status
-
-Once Step 7.4 lands, the agent tracks an in-session status for every surfaced question. Statuses are ephemeral (not persisted to the DB yet — that's a follow-up); they carry through this `/ritual build` session only:
-
-| Status | Meaning |
-|---|---|
-| **`picked`** | User selected for active investigation (passed to `start_agentic_run`) |
-| **`deferred`** | Deliberate phase-2 candidate; surfaces in build brief's "Phase Candidates" section. NOT context debt. |
-| **`dropped`** | Removed from scope; problem statement gets narrowed to exclude this concern. |
-| **`unreviewed`** | Default state for every surfaced question until the user classifies it. Counts toward debt if the user proceeds to Step 8 without resolving. |
-
-`picked` is set automatically by the per-matter accept calls in 7.4. The other three are set by the Step 7.4.5 branches below.
-
-###### Conditional trigger
-
-Step 7.4.5 fires **only** when at least one of these holds — otherwise proceed silently to 7.5:
-
-- **Pick-rate < 40%** (picked / total_surfaced)
-- **Matter coverage ≤ 50%** (matters with ≥ 1 pick / total matters)
-- **Pick-rate = 100%** (no-discrimination signal — see "no-discrimination case" below)
-- **Concentration heuristic**: a single matter holds ≥ 60% of the picks while the problem statement spans multiple distinct concerns
-
-If none hold, the user's scope intent is already obvious; don't add a check. Continue to Step 7.5.
-
-###### Signal mapping
-
-Before surfacing the prompt, the agent maps which problem-statement concerns are covered by the picks. Concerns are derived from the problem statement's noun-phrases (loose keyword-match against matter names is sufficient for MVP; LLM-rated mapping is a follow-up). For each unpicked matter, identify which problem-statement concern(s) it represents.
-
-Output the analysis in plain language — three paragraphs (data → qualitative pattern → gap statement). Em-dash separating stats reads better than parenthetical. Example with real numbers (from the django-oscar GDPR exploration testing):
-
-```
-You picked 8 of 73 questions across 4 of 8 matters — an 11% pick-rate
-with 50% matter coverage.
-
-Your picks concentrate on the structural foundation: what the data is,
-where it lives, immutability, and retention categories.
-
-Your problem statement also mentions erasure mechanics, scheduled cleanup
-jobs, DSAR APIs, and audit observability. Those areas are currently
-unpicked.
-```
-
-The **dominant theme phrase** ("structural foundation: what the data is, where it lives, immutability, and retention categories" in the example) is computed once here and reused in Option 1's prompt below — that keeps the user's decision concrete instead of abstract.
-
-###### The 4-option prompt (plain language only — no score previews)
-
-Reuse the dominant-theme phrase from the analysis paragraph in Option 1 so the user reads the *narrowed scope* in product terms before deciding, not after.
-
-```
-How should I treat the unpicked areas?
-
-1. Out of scope — tighten the problem statement around {dominant theme
-   from analysis paragraph: e.g. "data structure, storage, immutability,
-   and retention categories"}.
-   Unpicked concerns are dropped from the current HMW.
-
-2. Later phase — keep the broad scope, but mark unpicked matters as
-   phase-2 candidates surfaced in the build brief.
-   Use this when the unpicked work depends on the picked foundation
-   being settled first.
-
-3. Open questions — keep the broad scope and treat unpicked areas as
-   context debt to revisit.
-
-4. Pick more — return to Step 7.3 and add picks before continuing.
-```
-
-**Copy notes:**
-- "the current HMW" (not "the HMW") — Branch 1 is present-cycle, not permanent. Reduces commitment-anxiety.
-- "treat unpicked areas as context debt" (not "Unpicked counts as context debt") — grammatical, less terse.
-- Option 2's "Use this when..." stays as a separate declarative sentence — less leading than a parenthetical, but still teaches the right sequencing intuition.
-- Option 4 uses "return to" not "loop back to" — cleaner agent voice.
-
-###### Per-branch handlers
-
-**Branch 1 — Out of scope (tighten):**
-1. Mark all unpicked questions across all matters as `dropped`.
-2. Call `mcp__ritual__refine_problem_statement` with `change_prompt`: *"Narrow the scope to focus only on {comma-joined matter names of picked matters}. Drop concerns related to {comma-joined names of dropped matters}."*
-3. Emit post-choice pulse — **reuse the same dominant-theme phrase** that appeared in the analysis paragraph + Option 1's prompt, so the user sees their choice acknowledged in the exact words they read:
-   ```
-   ✓ Tightened the problem statement around {dominant theme — same phrase as analysis paragraph + Option 1 prompt}.
-     Pulse: Reasoning Readiness {readiness}% · Context Debt {debt}% · +{delta}% (feature clarity ↑ from narrower scope)
-   ```
-   Concrete example matching the django-oscar GDPR exploration: *"✓ Tightened the problem statement around data structure, storage, immutability, and retention categories."* — names what survived, not abstract *"the structural picks"*.
-
-**Branch 2 — Later phase (defer):**
-1. Mark all unpicked questions across all matters as `deferred`.
-2. No problem statement change (broad scope preserved).
-3. Emit post-choice pulse — **note the second-field label is `deferred`, not `debt`**:
-   ```
-   ✓ {N} unpicked questions marked as phase-2 candidates.
-     Pulse: Reasoning Readiness {readiness}% · Phase-later {deferred}% · +{delta}% (decision resolution ↑ from deliberate deferral)
-   ```
-   The `deferred` label (instead of `debt`) is load-bearing — deliberate sequencing is NOT a liability, and the pulse line should reflect that. Same number, different character.
-4. At Step 10c (build brief generation), the deferred matters MUST appear in the brief's *"Phase Candidates / Deferrable Items"* section. The agent appends the `deferred[]` set to the `generate_build_brief` `recon_context` payload as supplementary "explicit phase-2 candidates set by the user during discovery." The main `recon_context` payload remains the `codebase_context_packet`.
-
-**Branch 3 — Open questions (debt):**
-1. Mark all unpicked questions as `unreviewed` (their default state — no change).
-2. No problem statement change.
-3. Emit post-choice pulse — uses the `debt` label:
-   ```
-   ✓ {N} unpicked questions marked as context debt.
-     Pulse: Reasoning Readiness {readiness}% · Context Debt {debt}% · +0% (open questions remain unresolved)
-   ```
-   Avoid words like *"status quo"* — phrase it as a state, not a non-event.
-4. The next `/ritual context-pulse` will surface the unresolved questions as top debt sources.
-
-**Branch 4 — Pick more (loop):**
-1. No status change.
-2. No pulse.
-3. Surface the unpicked matters in a numbered list grouped by matter:
-   ```
-   Returning to question picking. Unpicked matters and questions:
-
-   M5 — Erasure Anonymization Contract (10 questions)
-   M6 — Scheduled Cleanup Idempotency (8 questions)
-   M7 — DSAR Attribution Interfaces (9 questions)
-   M8 — Compliance Audit Observability (8 questions)
-
-   Pick any subset. Same per-matter accept flow as Step 7.4.
-   ```
-4. After new picks land, re-evaluate the trigger conditions. If still met, fire 7.4.5 again. Otherwise proceed to 7.5.
-
-###### The no-discrimination case (100% pick-rate)
-
-If trigger fired because pick-rate = 100% (user picked every question), the prompt shape is gentler — there's no "unpicked areas" to classify. Instead:
-
-```
-You picked everything (73/73 questions).
-
-That may mean every question is genuinely relevant — the breadth is real.
-Or it may mean we haven't narrowed the investigation yet. Pick one:
-
-1. Proceed broadly — run all questions through the agentic pipeline. The
-   build brief will be wide; recommendations cover everything.
-
-2. Sharper first pass — let me suggest 5-10 highest-leverage questions
-   that would give you the most signal per LLM call. The rest become
-   phase-2 candidates.
-```
-
-If user picks (1): proceed silently to Step 7.5. No pulse change.
-If user picks (2): agent ranks the 73 questions by leverage (LLM call OR heuristic: questions earlier in each matter tend to be foundational), surfaces the top 5-10, user re-confirms picks, others become `deferred`. Fall back to Branch 2's behavior.
-
-###### Two-score model in the pulse (CP3 update)
-
-Once Step 7.4.5 has run, the `/ritual context-pulse` Step CP3 formula reads from the typed-status counts:
-
-- **Decision Resolution (current scope):** `picked / (picked + unreviewed)`. Excludes `deferred` + `dropped`. Reaches near-100% if the user classified everything (picked, deferred, or dropped) — judgment rewarded.
-- **Total-problem Coverage:** `(picked + deferred + dropped) / total`. Shows how much of the original surfaced space has been *classified at all*, regardless of how. Surfaces in the full pulse as an annotation; `unreviewed` count is the implicit debt.
-
-Compact pulse continues to lead with the single readiness · {debt|deferred} · delta line per the per-branch templates above. Full pulse adds the breakdown:
-
-```
-Reasoning readiness:  72%
-Context debt:         12%  (4 questions unreviewed)
-Context deferred:     16%  (12 questions phase-2 candidates)
-Context surface:      Recommendation-ready
-```
-
-When `Context deferred` is zero, omit that line (CLI Tenet #6 — silence on no-data).
-
-###### After Step 7.4.5 completes
-
-Continue to Step 7.5 (anti-goals capture) per the existing flow.

package/skills/vscode/ritual/references/discovery-classification.md

@@ -1,175 +0,0 @@
-# Discovery classification reference
-
-Loaded only when `/ritual build` question picking triggers scope classification.
-
-##### 7.4.5 — Scope Classification Check (conditional)
-
-When the user picks discovery questions, the gap between **what the problem statement asks about** and **what the user actually chose to investigate** is the agent's first concrete read on whether the scope is genuinely narrow, deliberately sequenced, or under-engaged. This step makes that gap visible — but ONLY when the signal warrants it.
-
-**Design principle (locked):** *Don't make the user optimize the score. Let the score explain what just happened.* The menu asks a plain product question; the pulse confirms the consequence afterward. Never preview deltas inside the choice menu.
-
-###### Per-question typed status
-
-Once Step 7.4 lands, the agent tracks an in-session status for every surfaced question. Statuses are ephemeral (not persisted to the DB yet — that's a follow-up); they carry through this `/ritual build` session only:
-
-| Status | Meaning |
-|---|---|
-| **`picked`** | User selected for active investigation (passed to `start_agentic_run`) |
-| **`deferred`** | Deliberate phase-2 candidate; surfaces in build brief's "Phase Candidates" section. NOT context debt. |
-| **`dropped`** | Removed from scope; problem statement gets narrowed to exclude this concern. |
-| **`unreviewed`** | Default state for every surfaced question until the user classifies it. Counts toward debt if the user proceeds to Step 8 without resolving. |
-
-`picked` is set automatically by the per-matter accept calls in 7.4. The other three are set by the Step 7.4.5 branches below.
-
-###### Conditional trigger
-
-Step 7.4.5 fires **only** when at least one of these holds — otherwise proceed silently to 7.5:
-
-- **Pick-rate < 40%** (picked / total_surfaced)
-- **Matter coverage ≤ 50%** (matters with ≥ 1 pick / total matters)
-- **Pick-rate = 100%** (no-discrimination signal — see "no-discrimination case" below)
-- **Concentration heuristic**: a single matter holds ≥ 60% of the picks while the problem statement spans multiple distinct concerns
-
-If none hold, the user's scope intent is already obvious; don't add a check. Continue to Step 7.5.
-
-###### Signal mapping
-
-Before surfacing the prompt, the agent maps which problem-statement concerns are covered by the picks. Concerns are derived from the problem statement's noun-phrases (loose keyword-match against matter names is sufficient for MVP; LLM-rated mapping is a follow-up). For each unpicked matter, identify which problem-statement concern(s) it represents.
-
-Output the analysis in plain language — three paragraphs (data → qualitative pattern → gap statement). Em-dash separating stats reads better than parenthetical. Example with real numbers (from the django-oscar GDPR exploration testing):
-
-```
-You picked 8 of 73 questions across 4 of 8 matters — an 11% pick-rate
-with 50% matter coverage.
-
-Your picks concentrate on the structural foundation: what the data is,
-where it lives, immutability, and retention categories.
-
-Your problem statement also mentions erasure mechanics, scheduled cleanup
-jobs, DSAR APIs, and audit observability. Those areas are currently
-unpicked.
-```
-
-The **dominant theme phrase** ("structural foundation: what the data is, where it lives, immutability, and retention categories" in the example) is computed once here and reused in Option 1's prompt below — that keeps the user's decision concrete instead of abstract.
-
-###### The 4-option prompt (plain language only — no score previews)
-
-Reuse the dominant-theme phrase from the analysis paragraph in Option 1 so the user reads the *narrowed scope* in product terms before deciding, not after.
-
-```
-How should I treat the unpicked areas?
-
-1. Out of scope — tighten the problem statement around {dominant theme
-   from analysis paragraph: e.g. "data structure, storage, immutability,
-   and retention categories"}.
-   Unpicked concerns are dropped from the current HMW.
-
-2. Later phase — keep the broad scope, but mark unpicked matters as
-   phase-2 candidates surfaced in the build brief.
-   Use this when the unpicked work depends on the picked foundation
-   being settled first.
-
-3. Open questions — keep the broad scope and treat unpicked areas as
-   context debt to revisit.
-
-4. Pick more — return to Step 7.3 and add picks before continuing.
-```
-
-**Copy notes:**
-- "the current HMW" (not "the HMW") — Branch 1 is present-cycle, not permanent. Reduces commitment-anxiety.
-- "treat unpicked areas as context debt" (not "Unpicked counts as context debt") — grammatical, less terse.
-- Option 2's "Use this when..." stays as a separate declarative sentence — less leading than a parenthetical, but still teaches the right sequencing intuition.
-- Option 4 uses "return to" not "loop back to" — cleaner agent voice.
-
-###### Per-branch handlers
-
-**Branch 1 — Out of scope (tighten):**
-1. Mark all unpicked questions across all matters as `dropped`.
-2. Call `mcp__ritual__refine_problem_statement` with `change_prompt`: *"Narrow the scope to focus only on {comma-joined matter names of picked matters}. Drop concerns related to {comma-joined names of dropped matters}."*
-3. Emit post-choice pulse — **reuse the same dominant-theme phrase** that appeared in the analysis paragraph + Option 1's prompt, so the user sees their choice acknowledged in the exact words they read:
-   ```
-   ✓ Tightened the problem statement around {dominant theme — same phrase as analysis paragraph + Option 1 prompt}.
-     Pulse: Reasoning Readiness {readiness}% · Context Debt {debt}% · +{delta}% (feature clarity ↑ from narrower scope)
-   ```
-   Concrete example matching the django-oscar GDPR exploration: *"✓ Tightened the problem statement around data structure, storage, immutability, and retention categories."* — names what survived, not abstract *"the structural picks"*.
-
-**Branch 2 — Later phase (defer):**
-1. Mark all unpicked questions across all matters as `deferred`.
-2. No problem statement change (broad scope preserved).
-3. Emit post-choice pulse — **note the second-field label is `deferred`, not `debt`**:
-   ```
-   ✓ {N} unpicked questions marked as phase-2 candidates.
-     Pulse: Reasoning Readiness {readiness}% · Phase-later {deferred}% · +{delta}% (decision resolution ↑ from deliberate deferral)
-   ```
-   The `deferred` label (instead of `debt`) is load-bearing — deliberate sequencing is NOT a liability, and the pulse line should reflect that. Same number, different character.
-4. At Step 10c (build brief generation), the deferred matters MUST appear in the brief's *"Phase Candidates / Deferrable Items"* section. The agent appends the `deferred[]` set to the `generate_build_brief` `recon_context` payload as supplementary "explicit phase-2 candidates set by the user during discovery." The main `recon_context` payload remains the `codebase_context_packet`.
-
-**Branch 3 — Open questions (debt):**
-1. Mark all unpicked questions as `unreviewed` (their default state — no change).
-2. No problem statement change.
-3. Emit post-choice pulse — uses the `debt` label:
-   ```
-   ✓ {N} unpicked questions marked as context debt.
-     Pulse: Reasoning Readiness {readiness}% · Context Debt {debt}% · +0% (open questions remain unresolved)
-   ```
-   Avoid words like *"status quo"* — phrase it as a state, not a non-event.
-4. The next `/ritual context-pulse` will surface the unresolved questions as top debt sources.
-
-**Branch 4 — Pick more (loop):**
-1. No status change.
-2. No pulse.
-3. Surface the unpicked matters in a numbered list grouped by matter:
-   ```
-   Returning to question picking. Unpicked matters and questions:
-
-   M5 — Erasure Anonymization Contract (10 questions)
-   M6 — Scheduled Cleanup Idempotency (8 questions)
-   M7 — DSAR Attribution Interfaces (9 questions)
-   M8 — Compliance Audit Observability (8 questions)
-
-   Pick any subset. Same per-matter accept flow as Step 7.4.
-   ```
-4. After new picks land, re-evaluate the trigger conditions. If still met, fire 7.4.5 again. Otherwise proceed to 7.5.
-
-###### The no-discrimination case (100% pick-rate)
-
-If trigger fired because pick-rate = 100% (user picked every question), the prompt shape is gentler — there's no "unpicked areas" to classify. Instead:
-
-```
-You picked everything (73/73 questions).
-
-That may mean every question is genuinely relevant — the breadth is real.
-Or it may mean we haven't narrowed the investigation yet. Pick one:
-
-1. Proceed broadly — run all questions through the agentic pipeline. The
-   build brief will be wide; recommendations cover everything.
-
-2. Sharper first pass — let me suggest 5-10 highest-leverage questions
-   that would give you the most signal per LLM call. The rest become
-   phase-2 candidates.
-```
-
-If user picks (1): proceed silently to Step 7.5. No pulse change.
-If user picks (2): agent ranks the 73 questions by leverage (LLM call OR heuristic: questions earlier in each matter tend to be foundational), surfaces the top 5-10, user re-confirms picks, others become `deferred`. Fall back to Branch 2's behavior.
-
-###### Two-score model in the pulse (CP3 update)
-
-Once Step 7.4.5 has run, the `/ritual context-pulse` Step CP3 formula reads from the typed-status counts:
-
-- **Decision Resolution (current scope):** `picked / (picked + unreviewed)`. Excludes `deferred` + `dropped`. Reaches near-100% if the user classified everything (picked, deferred, or dropped) — judgment rewarded.
-- **Total-problem Coverage:** `(picked + deferred + dropped) / total`. Shows how much of the original surfaced space has been *classified at all*, regardless of how. Surfaces in the full pulse as an annotation; `unreviewed` count is the implicit debt.
-
-Compact pulse continues to lead with the single readiness · {debt|deferred} · delta line per the per-branch templates above. Full pulse adds the breakdown:
-
-```
-Reasoning readiness:  72%
-Context debt:         12%  (4 questions unreviewed)
-Context deferred:     16%  (12 questions phase-2 candidates)
-Context surface:      Recommendation-ready
-```
-
-When `Context deferred` is zero, omit that line (CLI Tenet #6 — silence on no-data).
-
-###### After Step 7.4.5 completes
-
-Continue to Step 7.5 (anti-goals capture) per the existing flow.