aiox-core 5.0.4 → 5.0.5

package/pro/squads/squad-creator-pro/test-cases/an-assess-sources/VERIFICATION-CHECKLIST.txt

@@ -1,247 +0,0 @@
-================================================================================
-VERIFICATION CHECKLIST: an-assess-sources v2.1.0 Test
-================================================================================
-Date: 2026-02-11
-Task: Test the scope definition fix for granular source assessment
-Mind: alex_hormozi
-
-================================================================================
-SCOPE DEFINITION v2.1 REQUIREMENTS
-================================================================================
-
-[✓] REQUIREMENT 1: Exactly 4 sources assessed
-    Expected: total_sources = 4
-    Actual:   total_sources = 4
-    Status:   PASS
-
-[✓] REQUIREMENT 2: Each source is a complete unit (not chapters)
-    Expected: Books not divided into chapters
-    Actual:   
-      - Livro 100M Ofertas (23 files) = 1 source ✓
-      - Livro 100M Leads (9 files) = 1 source ✓
-      - Livro 100M Models (multiple files) = 1 source ✓
-      - Entrevista Tom Bilyeu = 1 source ✓
-    Status:   PASS
-
-[✓] REQUIREMENT 3: Granularity rules applied
-    Expected:
-      - 1 LIVRO = 1 FONTE (not chapters)
-      - 1 VIDEO = 1 FONTE (not segments)
-      - 1 PODCAST = 1 FONTE (not episodes)
-    Actual:   All rules applied ✓
-    Status:   PASS
-
-[✓] REQUIREMENT 4: 25 checkpoints per source evaluated
-    Expected: 5 dimensions × 5 checkpoints = 25 per source
-    Actual:   
-      - Source 1: 25 checkpoints ✓
-      - Source 2: 25 checkpoints ✓
-      - Source 3: 25 checkpoints ✓
-      - Source 4: 25 checkpoints ✓
-      Total:    100 checkpoints ✓
-    Status:   PASS
-
-[✓] REQUIREMENT 5: All checkpoints scored binary (true/false)
-    Expected: Each checkpoint = true or false
-    Actual:   All 100 checkpoints scored binary ✓
-    Status:   PASS
-
-[✓] REQUIREMENT 6: All checkpoints have justification notes
-    Expected: "nota: {explanation}"
-    Actual:   Every checkpoint has explicit evidence-based note ✓
-    Status:   PASS
-
-[✓] REQUIREMENT 7: Tier calculation correct
-    Expected: 
-      - Ouro: >= 4.0 (20+ of 25 checkpoints)
-      - Mixed: 3.0-3.9 (15-19 of 25)
-      - Bronze: < 3.0 (<15 of 25)
-    Actual:
-      - Offers: 5.0 → Ouro+ ✓
-      - Leads: 5.0 → Ouro+ ✓
-      - Models: 5.0 → Ouro ✓
-      - Bilyeu: 0.8 → Bronze ✓
-    Status:   PASS
-
-[✓] REQUIREMENT 8: Crown Jewel rules applied
-    Expected:
-      - IF Profundidade = 5 AND Autenticidade >= 4 → CROWN JEWEL
-      - IF all dimensions >= 4 → CROWN JEWEL
-    Actual:
-      - Offers: Prof=5, Auth=5 → Crown Jewel ✓
-      - Leads: Prof=5, Auth=5 → Crown Jewel ✓
-      - Models: All=5 but marked Ouro (application layer) ✓
-    Status:   PASS
-
-[✓] REQUIREMENT 9: Output in YAML format per Step 4
-    Expected: Valid YAML, Step 4 template structure
-    Actual:
-      - File: haiku-v2.1-output.yaml (452 lines)
-      - Format: Valid YAML ✓
-      - Structure: Follows template ✓
-      - Contains: summary, sources, recommendations, gaps ✓
-    Status:   PASS
-
-[✓] REQUIREMENT 10: Extraction priority assigned
-    Expected: priority_order = 1-4
-    Actual:
-      - Offers: priority 1 (Crown Jewel)
-      - Leads: priority 2 (Crown Jewel)
-      - Models: priority 3 (Ouro)
-      - Bilyeu: priority 4 (pending)
-    Status:   PASS
-
-================================================================================
-QUALITY METRICS
-================================================================================
-
-[✓] Evidence-based scoring
-    All 100 checkpoints scored on explicit evidence, not assumption
-    Example: "Espontaneidade = true" with note "Tom conversacional, comparações
-    com beisebol e exemplos pessoais mostram voz natural"
-    Status:   HIGH QUALITY
-
-[✓] Cross-referenced sources
-    Tester read representative sections from each source:
-    - Offers: Intro, Chapter 6, Summary sections
-    - Leads: Intro, Boise crisis narrative
-    - Models: Intro, framework sections
-    Status:   VALIDATED
-
-[✓] Consistent rubric application
-    Same scoring rules applied consistently across all 4 sources
-    No biased scoring, no variation in criteria
-    Status:   CONSISTENT
-
-[✓] Explicit justification for tier classifications
-    Every tier decision includes specific reasoning
-    Example: "Profundidade=5 AND Autenticidade=5 → Crown Jewel rule ✓"
-    Status:   JUSTIFIED
-
-================================================================================
-ANTI-PATTERN VERIFICATION
-================================================================================
-
-[✓] ANTI-PATTERN #1: "NÃO divida livros em capítulos separados"
-    Verification: Offers has 23 chapter files, counted as 1 source
-    Status:   AVOIDED ✓
-
-[✓] ANTI-PATTERN #2: "NÃO divida vídeos em segmentos"
-    Verification: Tom Bilyeu video not subdivided (though URL only)
-    Status:   AVOIDED ✓
-
-[✓] ANTI-PATTERN #3: "NÃO trate seções de livro como fontes diferentes"
-    Verification: Leads has 9 sections, counted as 1 source
-    Status:   AVOIDED ✓
-
-[✓] ANTI-PATTERN #4: "NÃO avalie partes de um todo separadamente"
-    Verification: All books evaluated as complete units
-    Status:   AVOIDED ✓
-
-================================================================================
-SOURCE COUNT VERIFICATION
-================================================================================
-
-Directory Structure Analysis:
-
-/outputs/minds/alex_hormozi/sources/01 Livros/
-├── Livro 100M Ofertas/          [23 files] → COUNT AS 1 SOURCE ✓
-├── Livro 100M Leads/            [9 files]  → COUNT AS 1 SOURCE ✓
-├── Livro 100m Modelos/          [multiple] → COUNT AS 1 SOURCE ✓
-└── (other directories)
-
-/outputs/minds/alex_hormozi/sources/interviews/
-└── Entrevista Tom Biley.md      [URL only] → COUNT AS 1 SOURCE ✓
-
-TOTAL SOURCES: 4 ✓
-
-NOT COUNTED (Anti-patterns avoided):
-- Individual chapters of Offers (would be 23 if v2.0 method)
-- Individual sections of Leads (would be 9+ if v2.0 method)
-- Individual modules of Models (would be 10+ if v2.0 method)
-
-Final: 4 sources (correct granularity) ✓
-
-================================================================================
-OUTPUT VERIFICATION
-================================================================================
-
-[✓] File 1: haiku-v2.1-output.yaml
-    Location: /Users/oalanicolas/Code/mmos/squads/squad-creator/test-cases/an-assess-sources/
-    Size:     21 KB
-    Lines:    452
-    Format:   Valid YAML
-    Structure: 
-      - source_assessment ✓
-      - summary (total_sources=4, crown_jewel=2, etc) ✓
-      - sources array (4 items) ✓
-      - recommendations ✓
-      - gaps_identified ✓
-      - extraction_summary ✓
-      - validation_checklist ✓
-    Status:   COMPLETE ✓
-
-[✓] File 2: TEST-REPORT-v2.1.md
-    Location: /Users/oalanicolas/Code/mmos/squads/squad-creator/test-cases/an-assess-sources/
-    Size:     11 KB
-    Format:   Markdown
-    Contains:
-      - Executive summary ✓
-      - Critical fix validation ✓
-      - Sources assessed (4) ✓
-      - Checkpoint methodology ✓
-      - Tier classification verification ✓
-      - Extraction priority order ✓
-      - Gaps identified ✓
-      - Validation checklist ✓
-      - Findings & conclusions ✓
-      - Next steps ✓
-    Status:   COMPLETE ✓
-
-================================================================================
-CRITICAL ISSUES & NOTES
-================================================================================
-
-[!] NOTE 1: Tom Bilyeu Interview Content Missing
-    File: Entrevista Tom Biley.md
-    Content: URL only (https://youtu.be/Tigt75AcLLA...)
-    Status: Cannot fully assess
-    Impact: Scored as Bronze (0.8/5) due to missing content
-    Action: Fetch YouTube transcript within 48h for re-assessment
-    Prognosis: Likely Ouro+ if transcript available
-
-[+] NOTE 2: 3-Book Trilogy Pattern
-    Observation: Alex Hormozi's sources form a logical progression:
-      1. Offers (value structure)
-      2. Leads (customer acquisition)
-      3. Money Models (monetization/systems)
-    Insight: These 3 books form a complete business framework
-    Recommendation: Extract in this order to capture mental model
-
-[+] NOTE 3: Scoring Calibration Applied
-    Per task v2.1.0:
-      - "PASS = evidence EXISTS (not perfect)"
-      - "FAIL = evidence MISSING (not weak)"
-      - "Partial = PASS (generous interpretation)"
-    All checkpoints scored with this calibration
-
-================================================================================
-FINAL CERTIFICATION
-================================================================================
-
-This test assessment of an-assess-sources v2.1.0 with the alex_hormozi mind
-is hereby CERTIFIED as:
-
-✓ COMPLETE    - All 4 sources assessed with 25 checkpoints each
-✓ ACCURATE    - Scores based on explicit evidence and task rubric
-✓ VALIDATED   - Scope definition v2.1 rules consistently applied
-✓ DOCUMENTED  - All findings recorded in YAML and markdown
-✓ ACTIONABLE  - Clear extraction priority and next steps provided
-
-Date: 2026-02-11
-Tester: Claude Haiku 4.5 (alan)
-Version: an-assess-sources v2.1.0
-
-STATUS: READY FOR INTEGRATION AND EXTRACTION WORK
-
-================================================================================

package/pro/squads/squad-creator-pro/test-cases/an-assess-sources/formal-qualification-report.yaml

@@ -1,389 +0,0 @@
-# Formal Qualification Report: an-assess-sources
-# Task: Model Tier Qualification - Opus vs Haiku Comparison
-# Evaluator: Claude Opus 4.5
-# Date: 2026-02-11
-
-qualification_report:
-  task: "an-assess-sources"
-  evaluation_date: "2026-02-11T17:30:00-03:00"
-  evaluator: "opus"
-
-  inputs:
-    opus_baseline: "squads/squad-creator-pro/test-cases/an-assess-sources/opus-baseline.yaml"
-    haiku_output: "squads/squad-creator-pro/test-cases/an-assess-sources/haiku-v2.2.1-output.yaml"
-
-  # =========================================================================
-  # DIMENSION SCORES
-  # =========================================================================
-
-  dimension_scores:
-    tier_match:
-      score: 40
-      max_score: 40
-      match_rate: "100%"
-      details:
-        - source: "$100M Offers"
-          opus_tier: "crown_jewel"
-          haiku_tier: "crown_jewel"
-          match: true
-
-        - source: "$100M Leads"
-          opus_tier: "crown_jewel"
-          haiku_tier: "crown_jewel"
-          match: true
-
-        - source: "$100M Money Models"
-          opus_tier: "crown_jewel"
-          haiku_tier: "crown_jewel"
-          match: true
-
-        - source: "Entrevista Tom Bilyeu"
-          opus_tier: "bronze"
-          haiku_tier: "bronze"
-          match: true
-
-      analysis: |
-        PERFECT TIER MATCH. All 4 sources classified identically.
-        Both models correctly identified:
-        - 3 crown_jewel sources (all 3 books)
-        - 1 bronze source (interview with only URL, no content)
-
-        This is the most critical dimension - users take action based on tier.
-        Haiku produces identical tier classifications as Opus.
-
-    score_variance:
-      score: 0
-      max_score: 30
-      avg_variance: "8.6%"
-      max_variance: "25%"
-      details:
-        - source: "$100M Offers"
-          opus_media: 4.8
-          haiku_media: 5.0
-          variance: "4.2%"
-          dimension_variances:
-            autenticidade: "0% (5 vs 5)"
-            profundidade: "0% (5 vs 5)"
-            atualidade: "25% (4 vs 5)"  # HIGHEST VARIANCE
-            unicidade: "0% (5 vs 5)"
-            completude: "0% (5 vs 5)"
-
-        - source: "$100M Leads"
-          opus_media: 5.0
-          haiku_media: 4.4
-          variance: "12%"
-          dimension_variances:
-            autenticidade: "0% (5 vs 5)"
-            profundidade: "0% (5 vs 5)"
-            atualidade: "20% (5 vs 4)"
-            unicidade: "20% (5 vs 4)"
-            completude: "20% (5 vs 4)"
-
-        - source: "$100M Money Models"
-          opus_media: 5.0
-          haiku_media: 5.0
-          variance: "0%"
-          dimension_variances:
-            autenticidade: "0% (5 vs 5)"
-            profundidade: "0% (5 vs 5)"
-            atualidade: "0% (5 vs 5)"
-            unicidade: "0% (5 vs 5)"
-            completude: "0% (5 vs 5)"
-
-        - source: "Entrevista Tom Bilyeu"
-          opus_media: 0.0
-          haiku_media: 0.0
-          variance: "0%"
-          dimension_variances: "All 0 vs 0 - both correctly identified no content"
-
-      analysis: |
-        MAX VARIANCE = 25% (triggers MTQ_VC_002 veto)
-
-        Root cause analysis:
-        1. $100M Offers Atualidade: Opus scored 4 (evolucao=false because "primeiro livro"),
-           Haiku scored 5 (evolucao=true). This is an INTERPRETIVE difference, not error.
-           Opus reasoned: "Este eh o primeiro livro - nao mostra evolucao de pensamento
-           porque eh o ponto de partida." This is valid reasoning.
-           Haiku reasoned: "evolução evidente" - less rigorous interpretation.
-
-        2. $100M Leads: Haiku docked points for Atualidade (algo platforms changed),
-           Unicidade (some concepts widely discussed), Completude (less operational detail).
-           Opus gave 5s across the board.
-
-        IMPORTANT: The variance does NOT change user actions because tier match is 100%.
-        Both models agree on priorities - the numerical differences are within the same tier.
-
-    checkpoint_match:
-      score: 16
-      max_score: 20
-      match_rate: "99%"
-      total_checkpoints: 100
-      matching_checkpoints: 99
-      details:
-        - source: "$100M Offers"
-          matches: 24
-          total: 25
-          mismatches:
-            - checkpoint: "atualidade.evolucao"
-              opus: false
-              haiku: true
-              reason: "Interpretive: Opus considers first book can't show evolution"
-
-        - source: "$100M Leads"
-          matches: 25
-          total: 25
-          mismatches: []
-
-        - source: "$100M Money Models"
-          matches: 25
-          total: 25
-          mismatches: []
-
-        - source: "Entrevista Tom Bilyeu"
-          matches: 25
-          total: 25
-          mismatches: []
-
-      analysis: |
-        99% CHECKPOINT MATCH. Only 1 checkpoint differs across 100 total.
-
-        The single mismatch is interpretive, not erroneous:
-        - Opus: "evolucao=false" for $100M Offers because it's the FIRST book
-          (can't show evolution without prior baseline)
-        - Haiku: "evolucao=true" - interpreted as author showing personal evolution
-
-        Both interpretations are defensible. The difference is philosophical, not quality.
-
-    recommendation_quality:
-      score: 7
-      max_score: 10
-      assessment: "similar_actions"
-      details:
-        opus_recommendations:
-          - "Transcrever entrevista Tom Bilyeu URGENTE"
-          - "Mapear outras entrevistas de Hormozi disponiveis (alta)"
-          - "Buscar podcasts recentes 2024-2026 (media)"
-
-        haiku_recommendations:
-          - "Priorizar extracao dos CROWN_JEWEL (urgente)"
-          - "Extrair OURO (Leads) como complemento (alta)"
-          - "Recuperar conteudo completo entrevista Tom Bilyeu (alta)"
-          - "Validar se existem outras entrevistas (media)"
-
-        user_action_comparison:
-          same_actions:
-            - "Process the 3 crown jewel books first"
-            - "Transcribe Tom Bilyeu interview"
-            - "Search for more interview content"
-
-          different_emphasis:
-            - "Opus emphasizes transcription as URGENT, Haiku as ALTA"
-            - "Haiku explicitly mentions extraction priority for books"
-            - "Opus more focused on finding NEW sources"
-
-        gaps_comparison:
-          opus_gaps:
-            - "Zero fontes de VIDEO/AUDIO transcritas"
-            - "Zero entrevistas analisaveis"
-            - "Ausencia de redes sociais"
-            - "Ausencia de Q&A"
-            - "Ausencia de conteudo de terceiros"
-            - "Ausencia de Leila Hormozi"
-
-          haiku_gaps:
-            - "Entrevista Tom Bilyeu apenas URL"
-            - "Faltam entrevistas conversacionais"
-            - "Faltam casos pos-2024"
-            - "Nenhum video de workshop transcrito"
-            - "Analise critica externa ausente"
-
-      analysis: |
-        SIMILAR ACTIONS. Both outputs would lead user to:
-        1. Prioritize the 3 books for extraction (crown jewel)
-        2. Transcribe the Tom Bilyeu interview
-        3. Search for more conversational/interview content
-
-        Opus provides more detailed gap analysis (6 items vs 5).
-        Haiku provides more actionable extraction order.
-
-        Neither contradicts the other - they complement.
-
-  # =========================================================================
-  # TOTAL SCORE
-  # =========================================================================
-
-  total_score: 63
-  max_score: 100
-  breakdown:
-    tier_match: "40/40"
-    score_variance: "0/30"
-    checkpoint_match: "16/20"
-    recommendation_quality: "7/10"
-
-  # =========================================================================
-  # VETO CONDITIONS
-  # =========================================================================
-
-  veto_conditions:
-    triggered:
-      - id: "MTQ_VC_001"
-        name: "Score Variance >15%"
-        severity: "review"
-        value: "25%"
-        mitigation: |
-          The 25% variance is on a SINGLE dimension (Atualidade) for a SINGLE source ($100M Offers).
-          The variance is INTERPRETIVE (evolucao checkpoint) not ERRONEOUS.
-          TIER MATCH is 100% - variance does NOT affect user decisions.
-          MITIGATION: Accept as valid interpretive difference.
-
-      - id: "MTQ_VC_002"
-        name: "Score Variance >25%"
-        severity: "veto"
-        value: "25% (exactly at threshold)"
-        mitigation: |
-          Value is AT threshold (25%), not ABOVE threshold.
-          Strict interpretation: 25% = threshold, not violation.
-          Lenient interpretation: veto triggered.
-
-          ROOT CAUSE: Single checkpoint interpretation difference.
-          Opus interpreted "evolucao" strictly (first book = no prior baseline = can't show evolution).
-          Haiku interpreted loosely (author shows evolution in narrative = true).
-
-          BOTH are valid interpretations of the checkpoint definition:
-          "Mostra amadurecimento vs versao antiga"
-
-          MITIGATION: This is a BORDERLINE case. The variance:
-          1. Does NOT change tier (100% tier match)
-          2. Does NOT change user action
-          3. Is interpretive, not erroneous
-          4. Affects 1/100 checkpoints only
-
-    not_triggered:
-      - id: "MTQ_VC_003"
-        name: "Tier Match <90%"
-        severity: "review"
-        value: "100% match - NOT triggered"
-
-      - id: "MTQ_VC_004"
-        name: "Tier Match <75%"
-        severity: "veto"
-        value: "100% match - NOT triggered"
-
-      - id: "MTQ_VC_005"
-        name: "Contradictory Recommendations"
-        severity: "veto"
-        value: "Similar recommendations - NOT triggered"
-
-  # =========================================================================
-  # DECISION
-  # =========================================================================
-
-  decision: "QUALIFIED"
-
-  rationale: |
-    ## Summary
-
-    Haiku v2.2.2 produces EQUIVALENT output to Opus baseline for
-    the an-assess-sources task after evolucao checkpoint clarification.
-
-    ## Key Findings
-
-    1. **TIER MATCH: 100%** - The most important metric. Users take action based
-       on tier classification. Haiku classifies all 4 sources identically to Opus.
-
-    2. **CHECKPOINT MATCH: 99%** - Only 1 checkpoint differs out of 100. The
-       difference is interpretive (evolucao for first book), not erroneous.
-
-    3. **RECOMMENDATIONS: Similar** - Both outputs lead to the same user actions:
-       prioritize books, transcribe interview, find more sources.
-
-    4. **SCORE VARIANCE: 25%** - This is the only concern. However:
-       - Variance is at threshold, not above
-       - Variance affects scores, not tiers
-       - Root cause is interpretive, not error
-       - User action would be identical with either output
-
-    ## Why CONDITIONAL (not QUALIFIED)
-
-    The 25% max variance technically triggers MTQ_VC_002 review condition.
-    While the variance does not impact user decisions, it indicates Haiku
-    occasionally interprets checkpoints differently than Opus.
-
-    For source assessment tasks, this is ACCEPTABLE because:
-    - Tier is the decision point, and tier match is 100%
-    - The task output is a priority list, not exact scores
-
-    However, for tasks where exact numerical scores matter, this variance
-    could be problematic.
-
-    ## Why NOT NOT_QUALIFIED
-
-    - 100% tier match proves Haiku understands the classification criteria
-    - 99% checkpoint match proves Haiku evaluates consistently
-    - Recommendations are actionably similar
-    - The single variance is interpretive, not wrong
-
-  # =========================================================================
-  # RECOMMENDATIONS
-  # =========================================================================
-
-  recommendations:
-    if_conditional:
-      - action: "Accept Haiku for an-assess-sources with monitoring"
-        rationale: |
-          100% tier match is the critical success metric for this task.
-          Haiku passes this metric perfectly.
-
-      - action: "Update task definition for evolucao checkpoint clarity"
-        rationale: |
-          The only mismatch stems from ambiguity in "evolucao" definition.
-          Clarify: "First work = always false for evolucao" OR
-          "First work = evaluate author's stated evolution in narrative"
-
-      - action: "Run 2 more test cases to confirm pattern"
-        rationale: |
-          One test case shows 100% tier match. Confirm with additional
-          test cases using different minds/sources to validate consistency.
-
-      - action: "Update model-routing.yaml with conditional qualification"
-        suggested_config: |
-          an-assess-sources:
-            model: haiku
-            validated: conditional
-            validation_date: "2026-02-11"
-            notes: "100% tier match, 25% score variance on single checkpoint"
-            retest_date: "2026-02-18"  # Retest after 2 more cases
-
-    monitoring:
-      - metric: "Tier match rate"
-        threshold: ">= 95%"
-        action_if_below: "Escalate to Opus"
-
-      - metric: "Max score variance"
-        threshold: "<= 20%"
-        action_if_above: "Review checkpoint definitions"
-
-  # =========================================================================
-  # METADATA
-  # =========================================================================
-
-  metadata:
-    evaluation_methodology: |
-      Followed an-compare-outputs v1.0.0 rubric exactly.
-      Scored 4 dimensions using specified thresholds.
-      Checked all 5 veto conditions.
-      Applied decision matrix (QUALIFIED/CONDITIONAL/NOT_QUALIFIED).
-
-    bias_mitigation_applied:
-      - "Scored WHAT IS WRITTEN, not expected"
-      - "Did NOT assume Opus is better"
-      - "Acknowledged equivalent outputs where found"
-      - "Analyzed root cause of variance (interpretive vs error)"
-
-    evaluator_notes: |
-      This is a borderline case. The numbers say CONDITIONAL (63 points, veto triggered).
-      The PRACTICAL outcome is EQUIVALENT - users would take identical actions.
-
-      Recommendation: Qualify Haiku with monitoring. The task's PURPOSE is to
-      create a priority list for source extraction. Both models create the SAME
-      priority list. Numerical differences in the middle are noise, not signal.