@tgoodington/intuition 8.1.2 → 9.2.0

package/docs/v9/test/SESSION_SUMMARY.md

@@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
+# v9 Protocol Validation — Session Summary
+
+**Date:** 2026-02-27 through 2026-02-28
+**Status:** All protocol tests PASS. Ready to build.
+
+---
+
+## What Was Done
+
+### Design Doc Changes (domain-adaptive-team-architecture.md)
+
+1. **Section 3 — Stage 1 output format**: Added `## Assumptions` section with `### A1:` entries having `**Default**:`/`**Rationale**:` fields. Added assumptions/decisions classification guidance and format compliance rules.
+
+2. **Section 3 — Stage 2 protocol**: Added research grounding rule — every design choice must trace to Stage 1 research, user decisions, or a named domain standard. Ungrounded choices go to Open Items.
+
+3. **Section 9.1**: Updated architecture diagram to show two-phase user gate with decisions.json.
+
+4. **Section 9.3**: Added "depth controls the floor, not the ceiling" principle.
+
+5. **New Section 9.8 — User Gate Protocol** (5 subsections):
+   - 9.8.1: Stage 1 output format spec (headings, fields, parsing contract)
+   - 9.8.2: Gate Phase 1 — assumptions review with "accept all" fast path + promotion. Fallback for missing Assumptions section.
+   - 9.8.3: Gate Phase 2 — decisions with adaptive 1-7 individual / 8+ triage table with multiSelect
+   - 9.8.4: decisions.json schema with context field and read-before-write rule
+   - 9.8.5: Crash recovery protocol (resume mid-gate, skip completed gate)
+
+6. **Section 9.7**: Added decisions.json to scratch file lifecycle.
+
+7. **Section 12**: Added `decisions_path` to state schema.
+
+8. **Section 14 — Decisions Log**: Added D19-D23:
+   - D19: Assumptions/decisions separation
+   - D20: Adaptive gate presentation (1-7 individual, 8+ triage)
+   - D21: Incremental decisions.json for crash recovery
+   - D22: No validation loop
+   - D23: Greenfield-first design — Stage 2 invents grounded designs, not transcriptions
+
+9. **Section 15**: Updated risk mitigation entries.
+
+### Tests Executed
+
+#### Phase 5 Specialist Tests (S1-S3) — All PASS
+- **S1**: Stage 1 quality — thorough 428-line exploration
+- **S2**: Stage 2 blueprint quality — 917-line blueprint, all 9 envelope sections, buildable
+- **S3**: Divergence analysis — ~70% structural equivalence vs hand-crafted. Divergences are defensible design choices for greenfield, not gaps. Led to D23.
+
+#### Phase 5B Gate Protocol Tests (5B-1 through 5B-10) — All PASS
+- **5B-1**: Specialist produces correct assumptions/decisions format (actual subagent run)
+- **5B-2**: Accept all assumptions fast path
+- **5B-3**: Promote assumptions with simplified pattern
+- **5B-4**: Individual decisions (recommended, non-recommended, Other)
+- **5B-5**: 8+ triage table with multiSelect
+- **5B-6**: Fallback — no assumptions section
+- **5B-7**: Incremental write — valid JSON at every step
+- **5B-8**: Crash recovery — resume mid-gate
+- **5B-9**: Crash recovery — gate already complete
+- **5B-10**: Stage 2 honors decisions.json (promoted assumptions, Other decisions, non-recommended picks)
+
+### Key Architectural Decisions
+
+1. **Greenfield-first (D23)**: Projects are typically greenfield. Stage 2 invents grounded designs, not transcriptions. No reference matching or faithfulness checks.
+
+2. **No validation loop (D22)**: User's "Other" choices accepted directly. Stage 2 can flag risks in blueprint. Review chain catches problems during build.
+
+3. **Simplified assumption promotion**: Gate offers "specialist's default" vs "Something else — I'll describe what I want." No domain-specific option construction.
+
+4. **Read-before-write**: After each user response, Read decisions.json from disk, update, Write back. Protects against auto-compaction losing state.
+
+5. **Research grounding rule**: Stage 2 must trace every design choice to Stage 1 research, user decisions, or named domain standards. Ungrounded choices go to Open Items.
+
+---
+
+## Implementation Recommendations (from tests)
+
+1. Phase 1 "accept all" batch write must be atomic (single Write call)
+2. For 8+ triage, show 3-4 highest-risk decisions as AskUserQuestion options, rest via "Other"
+3. If user promotes an assumption but picks the default, record as "accepted" (simplification)
+4. On resume, verify decisions.json IDs match stage1.md IDs; warn if mismatched
+5. Add "restart gate" escape hatch in the completed-gate summary message
+6. Model selection should come from the plan, not be invented by the specialist
+
+---
+
+## File Inventory
+
+### Design Doc
+- `docs/v9/domain-adaptive-team-architecture.md` — updated with all changes above
+
+### Test Artifacts (docs/v9/test/)
+
+**Phase 5 specialist test:**
+- `phase5/specialist-test/TEST_PLAN.md` — S1-S3 all COMPLETE
+- `phase5/specialist-test/scratch/code-architect-stage1.md` — Stage 1 output
+- `phase5/specialist-test/blueprints/code-architect-hw-vetter.md` — auto-generated blueprint
+- `phase5/specialist-test/blueprint-comparison.md` — detailed comparison (38 divergences)
+
+**Phase 5B gate protocol test:**
+- `phase5b/TEST_PLAN.md` — 5B-1 through 5B-10 all PASS
+- `phase5b/stage1-with-assumptions.md` — 5A + 3D test input
+- `phase5b/stage1-no-assumptions.md` — 4D fallback test input
+- `phase5b/stage1-many-decisions.md` — 3A + 10D triage test input
+- `phase5b/test-5B-{1-10}-results.md` — detailed results per test
+- `phase5b/decisions/*.json` — decisions.json output per test
+- `phase5b/blueprints/5B-10-stage2-with-decisions.md` — Stage 2 output honoring decisions.json
+- `phase5b/specialists/code-architect.specialist.md` — updated specialist profile
+- `phase5b/scratch/code-architect-stage1.md` — new-format Stage 1 output
+
+---
+
+## What's Ready to Build
+
+The design doc Section 16 defines the build order. Based on testing:
+
+- **Specialist profiles** — Stage 1 + Stage 2 protocol format works. code-architect tested. The format compliance rules and assumptions/decisions guidance produce correct output.
+- **User gate (detail skill)** — Protocol fully designed and validated. Section 9.8 is the implementation spec. Tests 5B-2 through 5B-9 are the acceptance criteria.
+- **decisions.json** — Schema defined (9.8.4), incremental write pattern validated (5B-7), crash recovery validated (5B-8, 5B-9).
+- **Stage 2 → blueprint pipeline** — Universal envelope format works. Stage 2 honors decisions.json correctly. Research grounding rule prevents ungrounded invention.

package/docs/v9/test/TEST_PLAN.md

@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
+# v9 Architecture Test — Blueprint-Driven Build
+
+## Objective
+
+Validate that build can work from a **domain blueprint + producer profile** instead of `code_specs.md + Code Writer`. This is Critical Path Phase 1 from the design proposal.
+
+## Test Case
+
+**Task**: Draft the ZBA variance cover letter (Task 8 from the real zoning variance project)
+
+This task was chosen because:
+- It's a real non-code deliverable from an actual completed project
+- We have the original output to compare against (produced by v8.0 build with code_specs.md)
+- It exercises legal domain specifics, tone requirements, and factual accuracy
+- It has clear, verifiable acceptance criteria
+
+## Test Artifacts
+
+All in `docs/v9/test/`:
+
+| Artifact | Path | Purpose |
+|----------|------|---------|
+| Specialist profile | `specialists/legal-analyst.specialist.md` | Domain expertise + review criteria |
+| Producer profile | `producers/document-writer.producer.md` | Format-specific production instructions |
+| Blueprint | `blueprints/legal-analyst.md` | v9 universal envelope format — the spec build works from |
+| Output directory | `output/` | Where the producer writes the deliverable |
+| Original output | `C:/Projects/Addition/.../deliverables/07_cover_letter.md` | Baseline for comparison |
+
+## What We're Testing
+
+### Test 1: Producer Delegation
+**Question**: Can a sonnet subagent (document-writer) produce a complete cover letter from the blueprint alone?
+
+**Method**:
+1. Spawn a Task subagent with the document-writer producer prompt
+2. Point it at the blueprint
+3. It writes to `output/07_cover_letter.md`
+
+**Success criteria**:
+- Output file is created and non-empty
+- All 9 content blocks from the blueprint's Producer Handoff are present
+- No content was invented (everything traces to the blueprint)
+- Formatting matches directives (markdown, horizontal rules, italic enclosures)
+
+### Test 2: Specialist Review
+**Question**: Can the legal-analyst specialist (as reviewer) catch domain errors in producer output?
+
+**Method**:
+1. Spawn a Task subagent with the legal-analyst review prompt
+2. Give it the blueprint + the produced output
+3. It returns PASS/FAIL with findings
+
+**Success criteria**:
+- Reviewer checks each review criterion from the specialist profile
+- Reviewer catches if HB 577 distinction was blurred
+- Reviewer catches if factual claims don't trace to research findings
+- Reviewer catches if tone is off (advocacy vs. factual persuasion)
+
+### Test 3: Builder Verification
+**Question**: Can a build-manager-level check verify acceptance criteria are met?
+
+**Method**:
+1. Spawn a Task subagent acting as the build manager verifier
+2. Give it the plan's acceptance criteria + the produced output
+3. It returns PASS/FAIL per criterion
+
+**Success criteria**:
+- Each of the 5 acceptance criteria is individually assessed
+- Assessment is evidence-based (points to specific content in the output)
+
+### Test 4: Comparison to v8.0 Output
+**Question**: Is the v9-produced cover letter comparable in quality to the v8.0 original?
+
+**Method**:
+1. Human review — compare the two outputs side by side
+2. Check: factual accuracy, tone, completeness, HB 577 distinction, ADR-005 framing
+
+**Success criteria**:
+- v9 output is at least as complete as v8.0 output
+- No factual errors introduced
+- HB 577 distinction maintained
+- ADR-005 framing applied correctly
+
+## How to Run
+
+### Quick version (Test 1 only — validates the core question)
+
+Run a Task subagent with:
+- **Model**: sonnet
+- **Prompt**: Document-writer producer prompt + blueprint path
+- **Tools**: Read, Write, Glob, Grep
+- **Expected output**: `docs/v9/test/output/07_cover_letter.md`
+
+### Full version (Tests 1-3 — validates the complete review chain)
+
+1. Run Test 1 (producer creates deliverable)
+2. Run Test 2 (specialist reviews — must PASS)
+3. Run Test 3 (builder verifies acceptance criteria — must PASS)
+4. User runs Test 4 (manual comparison)
+
+## What Failure Looks Like
+
+| Failure Mode | What It Means | Implication |
+|-------------|---------------|-------------|
+| Producer invents content | Blueprint not detailed enough OR producer prompt too loose | Need richer blueprints or tighter producer constraints |
+| Producer misses content | Producer can't parse the blueprint format | Blueprint format needs restructuring |
+| Specialist review misses errors | Review criteria too vague OR reviewer prompt not adversarial enough | Need sharper review criteria |
+| Builder can't map acceptance criteria | Blueprint's acceptance mapping is unclear | Need tighter mapping format |
+| Output quality much worse than v8.0 | The blueprint abstraction layer loses signal | Fundamental architecture concern — may need to reconsider the separation |
+
+## Expected Outcome
+
+If all 4 tests pass, we've validated that:
+1. The universal blueprint format carries enough information for a producer to work from
+2. The specialist-as-reviewer pattern catches domain errors
+3. The builder verification layer works against acceptance criteria
+4. The quality is comparable to the current architecture
+
+This proves Critical Path Phase 1 and green-lights Phase 2 (team assembly).

package/docs/v9/test/blueprints/legal-analyst.md

@@ -0,0 +1,166 @@
+---
+specialist: legal-analyst
+domain: legal/regulatory
+plan_tasks: [8]
+depth: Standard
+status: approved
+---
+
+# Blueprint: ZBA Variance Cover Letter
+
+## 1. Task Reference
+
+**Plan Task 8: Draft Cover Letter**
+- **Component**: Supporting Materials
+- **Description**: Draft a cover letter that frames the variance request for the ZBA Board. The letter should introduce the applicant, describe the property and project, summarize the basis for the variance request, and direct the Board to the attached findings and supporting materials.
+
+**Acceptance Criteria (from plan):**
+1. Letter identifies the applicant, property address, and specific variance requested
+2. Project description clearly distinguishes the ADU conversion (HB 577 protected) from the rear extension (variance required)
+3. The hardship narrative is summarized concisely (pre-existing nonconforming structure, site constraints) without duplicating the full findings
+4. Letter references each of the 5 attached findings by criterion name
+5. Tone is professional and transparent — discloses the encroachment clearly while framing the request compellingly
+
+**Dependencies**: Tasks 2-7 (permit narrative and all 5 findings must be drafted first)
+
+## 2. Research Findings
+
+Research subagents confirmed the following from project context:
+
+- **Applicant**: Taylor & Katelyn Goodington, 24 Meadow St, Concord NH 03301
+- **Zoning district**: RS District (confirmed via Concord zoning records)
+- **Setback requirement**: 15 ft minimum side setback per Article 28-4-1(d)(3) and Article 28-4-1(h)
+- **Current condition**: Existing attached garage sits ~6 ft from side property line, built 1971
+- **Proposed change**: 8-foot rear extension brings closest corner to ~5 ft (~1 ft additional encroachment)
+- **Legal framework**: NH HB 577 (RSA 674:72(XI), effective July 1, 2025) protects ADU conversion of existing structures regardless of setback nonconformity. Extension is new construction requiring variance.
+- **Strategy (ADR-005)**: Lead with pre-existing nonconforming status (1971), reinforce with site constraints (wetlands/DNCR, pool), transparent disclosure
+- **ZBA address**: Concord Zoning Board of Adjustment, City of Concord, 41 Green Street, Concord NH 03301
+- **Five findings**: Public Interest (#1), Spirit of the Ordinance (#2), Substantial Justice (#3), Property Values (#4), Unnecessary Hardship (#5)
+
+## 3. Approach
+
+Professional letter format (1-2 pages) structured as:
+1. Introduction identifying applicant and property
+2. Clear project description with the HB 577 distinction
+3. Hardship summary (ADR-005 framing — pre-existing nonconforming lead, site constraints reinforcement)
+4. Reference to attached findings
+5. Professional closing
+
+**Rationale**: The cover letter is the Board's first impression. It must establish credibility through transparency and professionalism. ADR-005 framing is applied at summary level — detailed arguments are in the findings. The letter should make the Board want to read the findings by framing the request as reasonable and well-supported.
+
+## 4. Decisions Made
+
+| Decision | Choice | Alternatives Considered | Rationale |
+|----------|--------|------------------------|-----------|
+| Letter voice | First-person plural ("We") from applicants | Third-person from attorney, first-person singular | Applicants are self-represented; plural matches couple filing jointly |
+| HB 577 detail level | Full statutory citation with plain-language explanation | Citation only, plain language only | ZBA boards are volunteer bodies — need both credibility and accessibility |
+| Encroachment disclosure | Explicit with measurements in introduction paragraph | Buried in hardship section, footnoted | ADR-005 mandates transparent disclosure; putting it up front builds trust |
+| Finding references | By both number and criterion name | Number only, criterion name only | "Finding #1 (Public Interest)" — board can locate by number, understand by name |
+| Cross-reference to findings | Light — "the attached proposed findings address each criterion in full" | Heavy — summarize each finding's argument | Cover letter should not duplicate findings; let them stand on their own |
+| Closing tone | Respectful deference to Board's role | Confident assertion, neutral bureaucratic | Volunteer ZBA boards evaluate trust; deference signals good faith |
+
+## 5. Deliverable Specification
+
+### Legal Framework
+- NH RSA 674:33, I(b) — statutory authority for variance
+- NH RSA 674:72(XI) (HB 577) — ADU conversion protection
+- Concord Zoning Ordinance Article 28-4-1(d)(3) and Article 28-4-1(h) — RS District side setback
+- RSA 674:33, I(b)(5) Path A — unnecessary hardship standard applied in Finding #5
+
+### Document Structure
+
+**Header block:**
+- Applicant names: Taylor Goodington, Katelyn Goodington
+- Address: 24 Meadow St, Concord, NH 03301
+- Date: [current date at time of production]
+- Addressee: Concord Zoning Board of Adjustment, City of Concord, 41 Green Street, Concord, NH 03301
+
+**Re: line:**
+"Variance Application — 24 Meadow St, Concord NH 03301 (RS District)"
+"Variance Requested: Side setback reduction from 15 feet (required under Article 28-4-1(d)(3) and Article 28-4-1(h)) to approximately 5 feet at the closest point, for a proposed 8-foot rear extension to the existing attached garage"
+
+**Salutation:** "Dear Members of the Concord Zoning Board of Adjustment:"
+
+**Paragraph 1 — Introduction & Variance Request:**
+Identify applicant and property. State the specific variance requested: side setback reduction from 15 ft to ~5 ft at closest point for a proposed 8-foot rear extension to the existing attached garage. State current condition: existing garage sits ~6 ft from side property line, extension brings closest corner ~1 ft further to ~5 ft. State relief of approximately 10 ft is requested for the extension only.
+
+**Paragraph 2 — Project Description (HB 577 Distinction):**
+Describe the ADU conversion project. CRITICAL: Clearly state the HB 577 distinction:
+- The existing garage conversion to ADU is permitted under NH RSA 674:72(XI) — enacted as part of HB 577, effective July 1, 2025 — regardless of current setback nonconformity. The statute's "including but not limited to detached garages" language confirms protection extends to all existing structures including attached garages.
+- The variance is required ONLY for the 8-foot rear extension, which is new construction beyond the existing footprint not covered by RSA 674:72(XI).
+- Without the extension, the converted space would not provide adequate floor area for a functional dwelling unit.
+- Frame: "The extension is what brings the project to the Board; the underlying conversion does not."
+
+**Paragraph 3 — Hardship Summary (ADR-005 Framing):**
+Summarize the property's special conditions per ADR-005:
+- Lead: Pre-existing nonconforming — garage built 1971, before current setback ordinance, lawful at time of construction, occupied this position for over 50 years without incident
+- Marginal change: Extension adds ~1 ft additional encroachment at closest corner — not a new intrusion but a marginal deepening of a 50+ year condition
+- Context: Nonconforming placement was not current owners' decision; garage was already in place at purchase
+- Transparent disclosure: "We disclose the approximately 5-foot setback at the closest point transparently and without minimization"
+- Frame as question for the Board: whether the marginal change to a condition that has persisted for over 50 years warrants relief
+
+**Paragraph 4 — Findings Reference:**
+"The attached proposed findings of fact address each of the five statutory variance criteria in full: Finding #1 (Public Interest), Finding #2 (Spirit of the Ordinance), Finding #3 (Substantial Justice), Finding #4 (Property Values), and Finding #5 (Unnecessary Hardship)."
+Note that each finding is submitted as a separate document addressing the relevant legal standard directly. Reference that Finding #5 presents the hardship analysis under RSA 674:33, I(b)(5), Path A.
+
+**Paragraph 5 — Closing:**
+Express appreciation for the Board's time and consideration. State availability for questions, additional information, and hearing attendance. Note that the application endeavors to present facts transparently and frame the request accurately. Professional sign-off: "Respectfully submitted," followed by both applicant names and address.
+
+**Enclosures line:**
+"Enclosures: Finding #1 (Public Interest), Finding #2 (Spirit of the Ordinance), Finding #3 (Substantial Justice), Finding #4 (Property Values), Finding #5 (Unnecessary Hardship), Permit Narrative"
+
+### Tone Directives
+- Professional, transparent, and respectful of the Board's role
+- No advocacy-style rhetoric — factual persuasion grounded in evidence
+- Let the findings do the persuading; the cover letter frames and directs
+- ZBA boards are volunteer bodies that evaluate trust as much as legal argument
+
+### Cross-Cutting Requirements
+- ADR-005 framing strategy must be applied throughout
+- HB 577 distinction must never be blurred
+- All factual claims must trace to research findings (Section 2)
+- ~5 ft encroachment disclosed transparently
+
+## 6. Acceptance Mapping
+
+| Plan Acceptance Criterion | How Blueprint Addresses It |
+|--------------------------|---------------------------|
+| 1. Identifies applicant, address, variance | Paragraph 1 + Header block + Re: line — all three elements present |
+| 2. Distinguishes ADU conversion from extension | Paragraph 2 dedicated entirely to HB 577 distinction |
+| 3. Hardship summarized concisely | Paragraph 3 — ADR-005 summary framing, not full findings |
+| 4. References all 5 findings by name | Paragraph 4 — explicit list with number + criterion name |
+| 5. Professional/transparent tone | Tone directives section + disclosure in Paragraphs 1 and 3 |
+
+## 7. Integration Points
+
+- **Depends on**: All 5 findings (Tasks 3-7) and permit narrative (Task 2) must be complete — cover letter references them
+- **Referenced by**: Filing checklist (Task 9) lists cover letter as a produced component
+- **Shared facts**: Setback measurements, legal citations, applicant info must match across all deliverables
+
+## 8. Open Items
+
+None. All decisions resolved. Blueprint is complete.
+
+## 9. Producer Handoff
+
+output_format: markdown
+producer: document-writer
+output_filename: 07_cover_letter.md
+output_directory: docs/v9/test/output/
+
+### Formatting Requirements
+- Markdown format with horizontal rules separating header, re: line, body, and enclosures
+- Header block: applicant names, address, date, addressee — plain text, no markdown formatting
+- Body paragraphs: flowing prose, no bullet points or numbered lists within paragraphs
+- Enclosures line in italics
+
+### Content Blocks (in order)
+1. **Header Block** — applicant info, date, addressee (per Document Structure above)
+2. **Re: Line** — variance description (per Document Structure above)
+3. **Salutation**
+4. **Paragraph 1** — Introduction & Variance Request
+5. **Paragraph 2** — Project Description with HB 577 Distinction
+6. **Paragraph 3** — Hardship Summary (ADR-005 Framing)
+7. **Paragraph 4** — Findings Reference
+8. **Paragraph 5** — Closing & Sign-off
+9. **Enclosures Line**

package/docs/v9/test/output/07_cover_letter.md

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+Taylor Goodington
+Katelyn Goodington
+24 Meadow St
+Concord, NH 03301
+
+February 27, 2026
+
+Concord Zoning Board of Adjustment
+City of Concord
+41 Green Street
+Concord, NH 03301
+
+---
+
+**Re: Variance Application — 24 Meadow St, Concord NH 03301 (RS District)**
+
+**Variance Requested:** Side setback reduction from 15 feet (required under Article 28-4-1(d)(3) and Article 28-4-1(h)) to approximately 5 feet at the closest point, for a proposed 8-foot rear extension to the existing attached garage
+
+---
+
+Dear Members of the Concord Zoning Board of Adjustment:
+
+We, Taylor Goodington and Katelyn Goodington, are the owners of the property located at 24 Meadow St, Concord, NH 03301, situated in the RS District. We respectfully submit this application requesting a variance to reduce the required 15-foot side setback to approximately 5 feet at the closest point, for the purpose of constructing an 8-foot rear extension to the existing attached garage. The existing garage currently sits approximately 6 feet from the side property line. The proposed extension would bring the closest corner of the structure to approximately 5 feet from that line — an additional encroachment of approximately 1 foot. The variance relief requested is approximately 10 feet, and it applies solely to the proposed rear extension.
+
+The project before the Board has two distinct components that must be understood separately. The first is the conversion of the existing attached garage to an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). That conversion is permitted as of right under NH RSA 674:72(XI), enacted as part of House Bill 577 and effective July 1, 2025, which protects the conversion of existing structures to ADUs regardless of current setback nonconformity. The statute's language — "including but not limited to detached garages" — confirms that its protection extends to all existing structures, including attached garages such as ours. No variance is required for the conversion itself. The second component is the 8-foot rear extension, which constitutes new construction beyond the existing footprint. That extension is not covered by RSA 674:72(XI), and it is the extension — and only the extension — for which this variance is sought. Without the extension, the converted space would not provide adequate floor area for a functional dwelling unit. The extension is what brings the project to the Board; the underlying conversion does not.
+
+We ask the Board to consider the special conditions of this property that give rise to the hardship. The existing attached garage was built in 1971, before the current setback ordinance was enacted. Its placement was lawful at the time of construction, and the structure has occupied this position for over 50 years without incident. The nonconforming placement was not a decision we made — the garage was already in place when we purchased the property. The proposed 8-foot rear extension adds approximately 1 foot of additional encroachment at the closest corner. This is not a new intrusion into the setback but a marginal deepening of a condition that has persisted for more than half a century. We disclose the approximately 5-foot setback at the closest point transparently and without minimization. The question we present to the Board is whether the marginal change to a condition that has persisted for over 50 years — on a property where site constraints including wetland buffers and existing pool placement limit relocation alternatives — warrants the requested relief.
+
+The attached proposed findings of fact address each of the five statutory variance criteria in full: Finding #1 (Public Interest), Finding #2 (Spirit of the Ordinance), Finding #3 (Substantial Justice), Finding #4 (Property Values), and Finding #5 (Unnecessary Hardship). Each finding is submitted as a separate document addressing the relevant legal standard directly. Finding #5 presents the hardship analysis under RSA 674:33, I(b)(5), Path A, the applicable unnecessary hardship standard.
+
+We appreciate the Board's time and careful consideration of this application. We are available to provide any additional information the Board may require and will attend the hearing to answer questions directly. This application endeavors to present the facts of our situation transparently and to frame the request accurately. We respectfully ask the Board to grant the requested variance.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+Taylor Goodington
+Katelyn Goodington
+24 Meadow St, Concord, NH 03301
+
+---
+
+*Enclosures: Finding #1 (Public Interest), Finding #2 (Spirit of the Ordinance), Finding #3 (Substantial Justice), Finding #4 (Property Values), Finding #5 (Unnecessary Hardship), Permit Narrative*

package/docs/v9/test/phase2/mock_plan.md

@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+# Mock Plan — Small Business ADU Rental Launch
+
+## 1. Objective
+
+Prepare all materials needed to list and rent the completed ADU at 24 Meadow St as a long-term rental property. This includes legal compliance (lease agreement, landlord registration), financial setup (rental pricing analysis, expense tracking), marketing (listing copy and photos), and technical infrastructure (smart home setup, tenant portal).
+
+## 6. Task Sequence
+
+### Task 1: Draft Residential Lease Agreement
+- **Domain**: legal/contracts
+- **Depth**: Deep
+- **Component**: Legal
+- **Description**: Draft a NH-compliant residential lease agreement for the ADU unit. Must comply with NH RSA 540 (landlord-tenant), include required disclosures (lead paint for pre-1978 — garage built 1971), security deposit limits (NH RSA 540-A), and ADU-specific terms.
+- **Acceptance Criteria**:
+  1. Lease complies with NH RSA 540 and 540-A requirements
+  2. Lead paint disclosure included (pre-1978 structure)
+  3. Security deposit terms within NH statutory limits
+  4. ADU-specific provisions address shared property boundaries
+  5. All required NH landlord disclosures present
+- **Dependencies**: None
+- **Files**: deliverables/01_lease_agreement.md
+
+### Task 2: Rental Market Analysis
+- **Domain**: financial/analysis
+- **Depth**: Standard
+- **Component**: Financial
+- **Description**: Analyze comparable rental listings in the Concord NH market to determine appropriate rental pricing for a 1BR ADU. Include comparable properties, market trends, and recommended price range with justification.
+- **Acceptance Criteria**:
+  1. At least 5 comparable properties identified with sources
+  2. Price range recommendation with upper/lower bounds justified
+  3. Key differentiators for the ADU identified (new construction, location, amenities)
+  4. Seasonal considerations noted
+- **Dependencies**: None
+- **Files**: deliverables/02_rental_analysis.xlsx
+
+### Task 3: Create Property Listing Copy
+- **Domain**: marketing/copy
+- **Depth**: Standard
+- **Component**: Marketing
+- **Description**: Write compelling listing copy for the ADU rental suitable for Zillow, Apartments.com, and Craigslist. Include property highlights, neighborhood description, terms summary, and photo shot list.
+- **Acceptance Criteria**:
+  1. Listing copy tailored for each of the 3 platforms (length/format varies)
+  2. Key property features highlighted (new construction, energy efficient, private entrance)
+  3. Neighborhood amenities and commute info included
+  4. Photo shot list with 10+ recommended shots and staging notes
+- **Dependencies**: Task 2 (pricing needed for listings)
+- **Files**: deliverables/03_listing_copy.md
+
+### Task 4: Landlord Registration & Compliance Checklist
+- **Domain**: legal/regulatory
+- **Depth**: Light
+- **Component**: Legal
+- **Description**: Document all required landlord registrations, permits, and compliance steps for renting an ADU in Concord NH. Include city registration, fire inspection, certificate of occupancy, and insurance requirements.
+- **Acceptance Criteria**:
+  1. Every required registration/permit identified with issuing authority
+  2. Each item marked with status (required/recommended/optional)
+  3. Estimated timeline and fees documented
+  4. Checklist format suitable for tracking completion
+- **Dependencies**: None
+- **Files**: deliverables/04_compliance_checklist.md
+
+### Task 5: Monthly Expense Tracking Spreadsheet
+- **Domain**: financial/modeling
+- **Depth**: Light
+- **Component**: Financial
+- **Description**: Create a monthly expense tracking template for the ADU rental property. Include categories for mortgage allocation, insurance, utilities, maintenance reserve, property management, and tax preparation. Pre-populate with estimated figures from the rental analysis.
+- **Acceptance Criteria**:
+  1. All standard rental expense categories included
+  2. Formulas calculate net monthly income and annual projections
+  3. Mortgage allocation percentage is configurable
+  4. Maintenance reserve follows the 1% rule or comparable standard
+- **Dependencies**: Task 2
+- **Files**: deliverables/05_expense_tracker.xlsx
+
+### 6.5 Detail Assessment
+
+| Task(s) | Domain | Depth | Rationale |
+|---------|--------|-------|-----------|
+| Task 1 | legal/contracts | Deep — design exploration required | NH-specific lease law is complex; lead paint disclosure for 1971 structure; ADU-specific terms need creative drafting |
+| Task 2 | financial/analysis | Standard — confirmation needed | Clear methodology but pricing strategy has one key decision (comparable selection criteria) |
+| Task 3 | marketing/copy | Standard — confirmation needed | Platform-specific formatting decisions; tone/positioning needs user input |
+| Task 4 | legal/regulatory | Light — autonomous | Straightforward research and compilation; no creative decisions |
+| Task 5 | financial/modeling | Light — autonomous | Standard template with known categories; formulas are conventional |
+
+## 10. Planning Context for Detail Phase
+
+- **Cross-Domain Dependencies**: Task 3 (listing copy) needs Task 2 (rental pricing) for price points. Task 5 (expense tracker) needs Task 2 estimates.
+- **Sequencing Considerations**: Tasks 1 and 4 (legal) are independent. Task 2 (financial) gates Tasks 3 and 5.
+- **Open Questions**: Should the lease be structured as month-to-month or fixed term? What insurance coverage level is appropriate?

package/docs/v9/test/phase2/producers.json

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+[
+  {
+    "name": "code-writer",
+    "output_formats": ["source"],
+    "tooling_required": []
+  },
+  {
+    "name": "document-writer",
+    "output_formats": ["markdown", "docx"],
+    "tooling_required_for": { "docx": ["python>=3.8", "python-docx>=0.8.11"] }
+  },
+  {
+    "name": "spreadsheet-builder",
+    "output_formats": ["csv", "xlsx"],
+    "tooling_required_for": { "xlsx": ["python>=3.8", "openpyxl>=3.1.0"] }
+  },
+  {
+    "name": "presentation-creator",
+    "output_formats": ["markdown", "pptx"],
+    "tooling_required_for": { "pptx": ["python>=3.8", "python-pptx>=0.6.21"] }
+  },
+  {
+    "name": "form-filler",
+    "output_formats": ["markdown", "pdf"],
+    "tooling_required_for": { "pdf": ["python>=3.8", "fpdf2>=2.7.0"] }
+  },
+  {
+    "name": "data-file-writer",
+    "output_formats": ["json", "yaml", "xml"],
+    "tooling_required": []
+  }
+]

package/docs/v9/test/phase2/specialists/database-architect.specialist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+---
+name: database-architect
+display_name: Database Architect
+domain_tags: [database, sql, orm, migrations, schema, postgresql, sqlite, indexing, data-modeling]
+default_producer: code-writer
+default_output_format: source
+supported_depths: [Deep, Standard, Light]
+model: opus
+reviewer_model: sonnet
+---

package/docs/v9/test/phase2/specialists/financial-analyst.specialist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+---
+name: financial-analyst
+display_name: Financial Analyst
+domain_tags: [financial, analysis, modeling, budgets, forecasts, pricing, revenue, expenses, spreadsheets]
+default_producer: spreadsheet-builder
+default_output_format: csv
+supported_depths: [Deep, Standard, Light]
+model: opus
+reviewer_model: sonnet
+---

package/docs/v9/test/phase2/specialists/legal-analyst.specialist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+---
+name: legal-analyst
+display_name: Legal Analyst
+domain_tags: [legal, contracts, compliance, regulatory, filings, landlord-tenant, lease, zoning]
+default_producer: document-writer
+default_output_format: markdown
+supported_depths: [Deep, Standard, Light]
+model: opus
+reviewer_model: sonnet
+---

package/docs/v9/test/phase2/specialists/technical-writer.specialist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+---
+name: technical-writer
+display_name: Technical Writer
+domain_tags: [documentation, guides, api-docs, knowledge-base, technical-writing, manuals, procedures]
+default_producer: document-writer
+default_output_format: markdown
+supported_depths: [Deep, Standard, Light]
+model: opus
+reviewer_model: sonnet
+---