appiq-solution 1.3.3 → 1.4.3

package/#Tools/APPIQ-METHOD/deployment/build/bmad-core/data/brainstorming-techniques.md

@@ -1,36 +0,0 @@
-# Brainstorming Techniques Data
-
-## Creative Expansion
-
-1. **What If Scenarios**: Ask one provocative question, get their response, then ask another
-2. **Analogical Thinking**: Give one example analogy, ask them to find 2-3 more
-3. **Reversal/Inversion**: Pose the reverse question, let them work through it
-4. **First Principles Thinking**: Ask "What are the fundamentals?" and guide them to break it down
-
-## Structured Frameworks
-
-5. **SCAMPER Method**: Go through one letter at a time, wait for their ideas before moving to next
-6. **Six Thinking Hats**: Present one hat, ask for their thoughts, then move to next hat
-7. **Mind Mapping**: Start with central concept, ask them to suggest branches
-
-## Collaborative Techniques
-
-8. **"Yes, And..." Building**: They give idea, you "yes and" it, they "yes and" back - alternate
-9. **Brainwriting/Round Robin**: They suggest idea, you build on it, ask them to build on yours
-10. **Random Stimulation**: Give one random prompt/word, ask them to make connections
-
-## Deep Exploration
-
-11. **Five Whys**: Ask "why" and wait for their answer before asking next "why"
-12. **Morphological Analysis**: Ask them to list parameters first, then explore combinations together
-13. **Provocation Technique (PO)**: Give one provocative statement, ask them to extract useful ideas
-
-## Advanced Techniques
-
-14. **Forced Relationships**: Connect two unrelated concepts and ask them to find the bridge
-15. **Assumption Reversal**: Challenge their core assumptions and ask them to build from there
-16. **Role Playing**: Ask them to brainstorm from different stakeholder perspectives
-17. **Time Shifting**: "How would you solve this in 1995? 2030?"
-18. **Resource Constraints**: "What if you had only $10 and 1 hour?"
-19. **Metaphor Mapping**: Use extended metaphors to explore solutions
-20. **Question Storming**: Generate questions instead of answers first

package/#Tools/APPIQ-METHOD/deployment/build/bmad-core/data/elicitation-methods.md

@@ -1,134 +0,0 @@
-# Elicitation Methods Data
-
-## Core Reflective Methods
-
-**Expand or Contract for Audience**
-- Ask whether to 'expand' (add detail, elaborate) or 'contract' (simplify, clarify)
-- Identify specific target audience if relevant
-- Tailor content complexity and depth accordingly
-
-**Explain Reasoning (CoT Step-by-Step)**
-- Walk through the step-by-step thinking process
-- Reveal underlying assumptions and decision points
-- Show how conclusions were reached from current role's perspective
-
-**Critique and Refine**
-- Review output for flaws, inconsistencies, or improvement areas
-- Identify specific weaknesses from role's expertise
-- Suggest refined version reflecting domain knowledge
-
-## Structural Analysis Methods
-
-**Analyze Logical Flow and Dependencies**
-- Examine content structure for logical progression
-- Check internal consistency and coherence
-- Identify and validate dependencies between elements
-- Confirm effective ordering and sequencing
-
-**Assess Alignment with Overall Goals**
-- Evaluate content contribution to stated objectives
-- Identify any misalignments or gaps
-- Interpret alignment from specific role's perspective
-- Suggest adjustments to better serve goals
-
-## Risk and Challenge Methods
-
-**Identify Potential Risks and Unforeseen Issues**
-- Brainstorm potential risks from role's expertise
-- Identify overlooked edge cases or scenarios
-- Anticipate unintended consequences
-- Highlight implementation challenges
-
-**Challenge from Critical Perspective**
-- Adopt critical stance on current content
-- Play devil's advocate from specified viewpoint
-- Argue against proposal highlighting weaknesses
-- Apply YAGNI principles when appropriate (scope trimming)
-
-## Creative Exploration Methods
-
-**Tree of Thoughts Deep Dive**
-- Break problem into discrete "thoughts" or intermediate steps
-- Explore multiple reasoning paths simultaneously
-- Use self-evaluation to classify each path as "sure", "likely", or "impossible"
-- Apply search algorithms (BFS/DFS) to find optimal solution paths
-
-**Hindsight is 20/20: The 'If Only...' Reflection**
-- Imagine retrospective scenario based on current content
-- Identify the one "if only we had known/done X..." insight
-- Describe imagined consequences humorously or dramatically
-- Extract actionable learnings for current context
-
-## Multi-Persona Collaboration Methods
-
-**Agile Team Perspective Shift**
-- Rotate through different Scrum team member viewpoints
-- Product Owner: Focus on user value and business impact
-- Scrum Master: Examine process flow and team dynamics
-- Developer: Assess technical implementation and complexity
-- QA: Identify testing scenarios and quality concerns
-
-**Stakeholder Round Table**
-- Convene virtual meeting with multiple personas
-- Each persona contributes unique perspective on content
-- Identify conflicts and synergies between viewpoints
-- Synthesize insights into actionable recommendations
-
-**Meta-Prompting Analysis**
-- Step back to analyze the structure and logic of current approach
-- Question the format and methodology being used
-- Suggest alternative frameworks or mental models
-- Optimize the elicitation process itself
-
-## Advanced 2025 Techniques
-
-**Self-Consistency Validation**
-- Generate multiple reasoning paths for same problem
-- Compare consistency across different approaches
-- Identify most reliable and robust solution
-- Highlight areas where approaches diverge and why
-
-**ReWOO (Reasoning Without Observation)**
-- Separate parametric reasoning from tool-based actions
-- Create reasoning plan without external dependencies
-- Identify what can be solved through pure reasoning
-- Optimize for efficiency and reduced token usage
-
-**Persona-Pattern Hybrid**
-- Combine specific role expertise with elicitation pattern
-- Architect + Risk Analysis: Deep technical risk assessment
-- UX Expert + User Journey: End-to-end experience critique
-- PM + Stakeholder Analysis: Multi-perspective impact review
-
-**Emergent Collaboration Discovery**
-- Allow multiple perspectives to naturally emerge
-- Identify unexpected insights from persona interactions
-- Explore novel combinations of viewpoints
-- Capture serendipitous discoveries from multi-agent thinking
-
-## Game-Based Elicitation Methods
-
-**Red Team vs Blue Team**
-- Red Team: Attack the proposal, find vulnerabilities
-- Blue Team: Defend and strengthen the approach
-- Competitive analysis reveals blind spots
-- Results in more robust, battle-tested solutions
-
-**Innovation Tournament**
-- Pit multiple alternative approaches against each other
-- Score each approach across different criteria
-- Crowd-source evaluation from different personas
-- Identify winning combination of features
-
-**Escape Room Challenge**
-- Present content as constraints to work within
-- Find creative solutions within tight limitations
-- Identify minimum viable approach
-- Discover innovative workarounds and optimizations
-
-## Process Control
-
-**Proceed / No Further Actions**
-- Acknowledge choice to finalize current work
-- Accept output as-is or move to next step
-- Prepare to continue without additional elicitation

package/#Tools/APPIQ-METHOD/deployment/build/bmad-core/data/technical-preferences.md

@@ -1,3 +0,0 @@
-# User-Defined Preferred Patterns and Preferences
-
-None Listed

package/#Tools/APPIQ-METHOD/deployment/build/bmad-core/tasks/advanced-elicitation.md

@@ -1,117 +0,0 @@
-# Advanced Elicitation Task
-
-## Purpose
-
-- Provide optional reflective and brainstorming actions to enhance content quality
-- Enable deeper exploration of ideas through structured elicitation techniques
-- Support iterative refinement through multiple analytical perspectives
-- Usable during template-driven document creation or any chat conversation
-
-## Usage Scenarios
-
-### Scenario 1: Template Document Creation
-
-After outputting a section during document creation:
-
-1. **Section Review**: Ask user to review the drafted section
-2. **Offer Elicitation**: Present 9 carefully selected elicitation methods
-3. **Simple Selection**: User types a number (0-8) to engage method, or 9 to proceed
-4. **Execute & Loop**: Apply selected method, then re-offer choices until user proceeds
-
-### Scenario 2: General Chat Elicitation
-
-User can request advanced elicitation on any agent output:
-
-- User says "do advanced elicitation" or similar
-- Agent selects 9 relevant methods for the context
-- Same simple 0-9 selection process
-
-## Task Instructions
-
-### 1. Intelligent Method Selection
-
-**Context Analysis**: Before presenting options, analyze:
-
-- **Content Type**: Technical specs, user stories, architecture, requirements, etc.
-- **Complexity Level**: Simple, moderate, or complex content
-- **Stakeholder Needs**: Who will use this information
-- **Risk Level**: High-impact decisions vs routine items
-- **Creative Potential**: Opportunities for innovation or alternatives
-
-**Method Selection Strategy**:
-
-1. **Always Include Core Methods** (choose 3-4):
-   - Expand or Contract for Audience
-   - Critique and Refine
-   - Identify Potential Risks
-   - Assess Alignment with Goals
-
-2. **Context-Specific Methods** (choose 4-5):
-   - **Technical Content**: Tree of Thoughts, ReWOO, Meta-Prompting
-   - **User-Facing Content**: Agile Team Perspective, Stakeholder Roundtable
-   - **Creative Content**: Innovation Tournament, Escape Room Challenge
-   - **Strategic Content**: Red Team vs Blue Team, Hindsight Reflection
-
-3. **Always Include**: "Proceed / No Further Actions" as option 9
-
-### 2. Section Context and Review
-
-When invoked after outputting a section:
-
-1. **Provide Context Summary**: Give a brief 1-2 sentence summary of what the user should look for in the section just presented
-
-2. **Explain Visual Elements**: If the section contains diagrams, explain them briefly before offering elicitation options
-
-3. **Clarify Scope Options**: If the section contains multiple distinct items, inform the user they can apply elicitation actions to:
-   - The entire section as a whole
-   - Individual items within the section (specify which item when selecting an action)
-
-### 3. Present Elicitation Options
-
-**Review Request Process:**
-
-- Ask the user to review the drafted section
-- In the SAME message, inform them they can suggest direct changes OR select an elicitation method
-- Present 9 intelligently selected methods (0-8) plus "Proceed" (9)
-- Keep descriptions short - just the method name
-- Await simple numeric selection
-
-**Action List Presentation Format:**
-
-```text
-**Advanced Elicitation Options**
-Choose a number (0-8) or 9 to proceed:
-
-0. [Method Name]
-1. [Method Name]
-2. [Method Name]
-3. [Method Name]
-4. [Method Name]
-5. [Method Name]
-6. [Method Name]
-7. [Method Name]
-8. [Method Name]
-9. Proceed / No Further Actions
-```
-
-**Response Handling:**
-
-- **Numbers 0-8**: Execute the selected method, then re-offer the choice
-- **Number 9**: Proceed to next section or continue conversation
-- **Direct Feedback**: Apply user's suggested changes and continue
-
-### 4. Method Execution Framework
-
-**Execution Process:**
-
-1. **Retrieve Method**: Access the specific elicitation method from the elicitation-methods data file
-2. **Apply Context**: Execute the method from your current role's perspective
-3. **Provide Results**: Deliver insights, critiques, or alternatives relevant to the content
-4. **Re-offer Choice**: Present the same 9 options again until user selects 9 or gives direct feedback
-
-**Execution Guidelines:**
-
-- **Be Concise**: Focus on actionable insights, not lengthy explanations
-- **Stay Relevant**: Tie all elicitation back to the specific content being analyzed
-- **Identify Personas**: For multi-persona methods, clearly identify which viewpoint is speaking
-- **Maintain Flow**: Keep the process moving efficiently

package/#Tools/APPIQ-METHOD/deployment/build/bmad-core/tasks/brownfield-create-epic.md

@@ -1,160 +0,0 @@
-# Create Brownfield Epic Task
-
-## Purpose
-
-Create a single epic for smaller brownfield enhancements that don't require the full PRD and Architecture documentation process. This task is for isolated features or modifications that can be completed within a focused scope.
-
-## When to Use This Task
-
-**Use this task when:**
-
-- The enhancement can be completed in 1-3 stories
-- No significant architectural changes are required
-- The enhancement follows existing project patterns
-- Integration complexity is minimal
-- Risk to existing system is low
-
-**Use the full brownfield PRD/Architecture process when:**
-
-- The enhancement requires multiple coordinated stories
-- Architectural planning is needed
-- Significant integration work is required
-- Risk assessment and mitigation planning is necessary
-
-## Instructions
-
-### 1. Project Analysis (Required)
-
-Before creating the epic, gather essential information about the existing project:
-
-**Existing Project Context:**
-
-- [ ] Project purpose and current functionality understood
-- [ ] Existing technology stack identified
-- [ ] Current architecture patterns noted
-- [ ] Integration points with existing system identified
-
-**Enhancement Scope:**
-
-- [ ] Enhancement clearly defined and scoped
-- [ ] Impact on existing functionality assessed
-- [ ] Required integration points identified
-- [ ] Success criteria established
-
-### 2. Epic Creation
-
-Create a focused epic following this structure:
-
-#### Epic Title
-
-{{Enhancement Name}} - Brownfield Enhancement
-
-#### Epic Goal
-
-{{1-2 sentences describing what the epic will accomplish and why it adds value}}
-
-#### Epic Description
-
-**Existing System Context:**
-
-- Current relevant functionality: {{brief description}}
-- Technology stack: {{relevant existing technologies}}
-- Integration points: {{where new work connects to existing system}}
-
-**Enhancement Details:**
-
-- What's being added/changed: {{clear description}}
-- How it integrates: {{integration approach}}
-- Success criteria: {{measurable outcomes}}
-
-#### Stories
-
-List 1-3 focused stories that complete the epic:
-
-1. **Story 1:** {{Story title and brief description}}
-2. **Story 2:** {{Story title and brief description}}
-3. **Story 3:** {{Story title and brief description}}
-
-#### Compatibility Requirements
-
-- [ ] Existing APIs remain unchanged
-- [ ] Database schema changes are backward compatible
-- [ ] UI changes follow existing patterns
-- [ ] Performance impact is minimal
-
-#### Risk Mitigation
-
-- **Primary Risk:** {{main risk to existing system}}
-- **Mitigation:** {{how risk will be addressed}}
-- **Rollback Plan:** {{how to undo changes if needed}}
-
-#### Definition of Done
-
-- [ ] All stories completed with acceptance criteria met
-- [ ] Existing functionality verified through testing
-- [ ] Integration points working correctly
-- [ ] Documentation updated appropriately
-- [ ] No regression in existing features
-
-### 3. Validation Checklist
-
-Before finalizing the epic, ensure:
-
-**Scope Validation:**
-
-- [ ] Epic can be completed in 1-3 stories maximum
-- [ ] No architectural documentation is required
-- [ ] Enhancement follows existing patterns
-- [ ] Integration complexity is manageable
-
-**Risk Assessment:**
-
-- [ ] Risk to existing system is low
-- [ ] Rollback plan is feasible
-- [ ] Testing approach covers existing functionality
-- [ ] Team has sufficient knowledge of integration points
-
-**Completeness Check:**
-
-- [ ] Epic goal is clear and achievable
-- [ ] Stories are properly scoped
-- [ ] Success criteria are measurable
-- [ ] Dependencies are identified
-
-### 4. Handoff to Story Manager
-
-Once the epic is validated, provide this handoff to the Story Manager:
-
----
-
-**Story Manager Handoff:**
-
-"Please develop detailed user stories for this brownfield epic. Key considerations:
-
-- This is an enhancement to an existing system running {{technology stack}}
-- Integration points: {{list key integration points}}
-- Existing patterns to follow: {{relevant existing patterns}}
-- Critical compatibility requirements: {{key requirements}}
-- Each story must include verification that existing functionality remains intact
-
-The epic should maintain system integrity while delivering {{epic goal}}."
-
----
-
-## Success Criteria
-
-The epic creation is successful when:
-
-1. Enhancement scope is clearly defined and appropriately sized
-2. Integration approach respects existing system architecture
-3. Risk to existing functionality is minimized
-4. Stories are logically sequenced for safe implementation
-5. Compatibility requirements are clearly specified
-6. Rollback plan is feasible and documented
-
-## Important Notes
-
-- This task is specifically for SMALL brownfield enhancements
-- If the scope grows beyond 3 stories, consider the full brownfield PRD process
-- Always prioritize existing system integrity over new functionality
-- When in doubt about scope or complexity, escalate to full brownfield planning

package/#Tools/APPIQ-METHOD/deployment/build/bmad-core/tasks/brownfield-create-story.md

@@ -1,147 +0,0 @@
-# Create Brownfield Story Task
-
-## Purpose
-
-Create a single user story for very small brownfield enhancements that can be completed in one focused development session. This task is for minimal additions or bug fixes that require existing system integration awareness.
-
-## When to Use This Task
-
-**Use this task when:**
-
-- The enhancement can be completed in a single story
-- No new architecture or significant design is required
-- The change follows existing patterns exactly
-- Integration is straightforward with minimal risk
-- Change is isolated with clear boundaries
-
-**Use brownfield-create-epic when:**
-
-- The enhancement requires 2-3 coordinated stories
-- Some design work is needed
-- Multiple integration points are involved
-
-**Use the full brownfield PRD/Architecture process when:**
-
-- The enhancement requires multiple coordinated stories
-- Architectural planning is needed
-- Significant integration work is required
-
-## Instructions
-
-### 1. Quick Project Assessment
-
-Gather minimal but essential context about the existing project:
-
-**Current System Context:**
-
-- [ ] Relevant existing functionality identified
-- [ ] Technology stack for this area noted
-- [ ] Integration point(s) clearly understood
-- [ ] Existing patterns for similar work identified
-
-**Change Scope:**
-
-- [ ] Specific change clearly defined
-- [ ] Impact boundaries identified
-- [ ] Success criteria established
-
-### 2. Story Creation
-
-Create a single focused story following this structure:
-
-#### Story Title
-
-{{Specific Enhancement}} - Brownfield Addition
-
-#### User Story
-
-As a {{user type}},
-I want {{specific action/capability}},
-So that {{clear benefit/value}}.
-
-#### Story Context
-
-**Existing System Integration:**
-
-- Integrates with: {{existing component/system}}
-- Technology: {{relevant tech stack}}
-- Follows pattern: {{existing pattern to follow}}
-- Touch points: {{specific integration points}}
-
-#### Acceptance Criteria
-
-**Functional Requirements:**
-
-1. {{Primary functional requirement}}
-2. {{Secondary functional requirement (if any)}}
-3. {{Integration requirement}}
-
-**Integration Requirements:** 4. Existing {{relevant functionality}} continues to work unchanged 5. New functionality follows existing {{pattern}} pattern 6. Integration with {{system/component}} maintains current behavior
-
-**Quality Requirements:** 7. Change is covered by appropriate tests 8. Documentation is updated if needed 9. No regression in existing functionality verified
-
-#### Technical Notes
-
-- **Integration Approach:** {{how it connects to existing system}}
-- **Existing Pattern Reference:** {{link or description of pattern to follow}}
-- **Key Constraints:** {{any important limitations or requirements}}
-
-#### Definition of Done
-
-- [ ] Functional requirements met
-- [ ] Integration requirements verified
-- [ ] Existing functionality regression tested
-- [ ] Code follows existing patterns and standards
-- [ ] Tests pass (existing and new)
-- [ ] Documentation updated if applicable
-
-### 3. Risk and Compatibility Check
-
-**Minimal Risk Assessment:**
-
-- **Primary Risk:** {{main risk to existing system}}
-- **Mitigation:** {{simple mitigation approach}}
-- **Rollback:** {{how to undo if needed}}
-
-**Compatibility Verification:**
-
-- [ ] No breaking changes to existing APIs
-- [ ] Database changes (if any) are additive only
-- [ ] UI changes follow existing design patterns
-- [ ] Performance impact is negligible
-
-### 4. Validation Checklist
-
-Before finalizing the story, confirm:
-
-**Scope Validation:**
-
-- [ ] Story can be completed in one development session
-- [ ] Integration approach is straightforward
-- [ ] Follows existing patterns exactly
-- [ ] No design or architecture work required
-
-**Clarity Check:**
-
-- [ ] Story requirements are unambiguous
-- [ ] Integration points are clearly specified
-- [ ] Success criteria are testable
-- [ ] Rollback approach is simple
-
-## Success Criteria
-
-The story creation is successful when:
-
-1. Enhancement is clearly defined and appropriately scoped for single session
-2. Integration approach is straightforward and low-risk
-3. Existing system patterns are identified and will be followed
-4. Rollback plan is simple and feasible
-5. Acceptance criteria include existing functionality verification
-
-## Important Notes
-
-- This task is for VERY SMALL brownfield changes only
-- If complexity grows during analysis, escalate to brownfield-create-epic
-- Always prioritize existing system integrity
-- When in doubt about integration complexity, use brownfield-create-epic instead
-- Stories should take no more than 4 hours of focused development work

package/#Tools/APPIQ-METHOD/deployment/build/bmad-core/tasks/correct-course.md

@@ -1,70 +0,0 @@
-# Correct Course Task
-
-## Purpose
-
-- Guide a structured response to a change trigger using the `{root}/checklists/change-checklist`.
-- Analyze the impacts of the change on epics, project artifacts, and the MVP, guided by the checklist's structure.
-- Explore potential solutions (e.g., adjust scope, rollback elements, re-scope features) as prompted by the checklist.
-- Draft specific, actionable proposed updates to any affected project artifacts (e.g., epics, user stories, PRD sections, architecture document sections) based on the analysis.
-- Produce a consolidated "Sprint Change Proposal" document that contains the impact analysis and the clearly drafted proposed edits for user review and approval.
-- Ensure a clear handoff path if the nature of the changes necessitates fundamental replanning by other core agents (like PM or Architect).
-
-## Instructions
-
-### 1. Initial Setup & Mode Selection
-
-- **Acknowledge Task & Inputs:**
-  - Confirm with the user that the "Correct Course Task" (Change Navigation & Integration) is being initiated.
-  - Verify the change trigger and ensure you have the user's initial explanation of the issue and its perceived impact.
-  - Confirm access to all relevant project artifacts (e.g., PRD, Epics/Stories, Architecture Documents, UI/UX Specifications) and, critically, the `{root}/checklists/change-checklist`.
-- **Establish Interaction Mode:**
-  - Ask the user their preferred interaction mode for this task:
-    - **"Incrementally (Default & Recommended):** Shall we work through the change-checklist section by section, discussing findings and collaboratively drafting proposed changes for each relevant part before moving to the next? This allows for detailed, step-by-step refinement."
-    - **"YOLO Mode (Batch Processing):** Or, would you prefer I conduct a more batched analysis based on the checklist and then present a consolidated set of findings and proposed changes for a broader review? This can be quicker for initial assessment but might require more extensive review of the combined proposals."
-  - Once the user chooses, confirm the selected mode and then inform the user: "We will now use the change-checklist to analyze the change and draft proposed updates. I will guide you through the checklist items based on our chosen interaction mode."
-
-### 2. Execute Checklist Analysis (Iteratively or Batched, per Interaction Mode)
-
-- Systematically work through Sections 1-4 of the change-checklist (typically covering Change Context, Epic/Story Impact Analysis, Artifact Conflict Resolution, and Path Evaluation/Recommendation).
-- For each checklist item or logical group of items (depending on interaction mode):
-  - Present the relevant prompt(s) or considerations from the checklist to the user.
-  - Request necessary information and actively analyze the relevant project artifacts (PRD, epics, architecture documents, story history, etc.) to assess the impact.
-  - Discuss your findings for each item with the user.
-  - Record the status of each checklist item (e.g., `[x] Addressed`, `[N/A]`, `[!] Further Action Needed`) and any pertinent notes or decisions.
-  - Collaboratively agree on the "Recommended Path Forward" as prompted by Section 4 of the checklist.
-
-### 3. Draft Proposed Changes (Iteratively or Batched)
-
-- Based on the completed checklist analysis (Sections 1-4) and the agreed "Recommended Path Forward" (excluding scenarios requiring fundamental replans that would necessitate immediate handoff to PM/Architect):
-  - Identify the specific project artifacts that require updates (e.g., specific epics, user stories, PRD sections, architecture document components, diagrams).
-  - **Draft the proposed changes directly and explicitly for each identified artifact.** Examples include:
-    - Revising user story text, acceptance criteria, or priority.
-    - Adding, removing, reordering, or splitting user stories within epics.
-    - Proposing modified architecture diagram snippets (e.g., providing an updated Mermaid diagram block or a clear textual description of the change to an existing diagram).
-    - Updating technology lists, configuration details, or specific sections within the PRD or architecture documents.
-    - Drafting new, small supporting artifacts if necessary (e.g., a brief addendum for a specific decision).
-  - If in "Incremental Mode," discuss and refine these proposed edits for each artifact or small group of related artifacts with the user as they are drafted.
-  - If in "YOLO Mode," compile all drafted edits for presentation in the next step.
-
-### 4. Generate "Sprint Change Proposal" with Edits
-
-- Synthesize the complete change-checklist analysis (covering findings from Sections 1-4) and all the agreed-upon proposed edits (from Instruction 3) into a single document titled "Sprint Change Proposal." This proposal should align with the structure suggested by Section 5 of the change-checklist.
-- The proposal must clearly present:
-  - **Analysis Summary:** A concise overview of the original issue, its analyzed impact (on epics, artifacts, MVP scope), and the rationale for the chosen path forward.
-  - **Specific Proposed Edits:** For each affected artifact, clearly show or describe the exact changes (e.g., "Change Story X.Y from: [old text] To: [new text]", "Add new Acceptance Criterion to Story A.B: [new AC]", "Update Section 3.2 of Architecture Document as follows: [new/modified text or diagram description]").
-- Present the complete draft of the "Sprint Change Proposal" to the user for final review and feedback. Incorporate any final adjustments requested by the user.
-
-### 5. Finalize & Determine Next Steps
-
-- Obtain explicit user approval for the "Sprint Change Proposal," including all the specific edits documented within it.
-- Provide the finalized "Sprint Change Proposal" document to the user.
-- **Based on the nature of the approved changes:**
-  - **If the approved edits sufficiently address the change and can be implemented directly or organized by a PO/SM:** State that the "Correct Course Task" is complete regarding analysis and change proposal, and the user can now proceed with implementing or logging these changes (e.g., updating actual project documents, backlog items). Suggest handoff to a PO/SM agent for backlog organization if appropriate.
-  - **If the analysis and proposed path (as per checklist Section 4 and potentially Section 6) indicate that the change requires a more fundamental replan (e.g., significant scope change, major architectural rework):** Clearly state this conclusion. Advise the user that the next step involves engaging the primary PM or Architect agents, using the "Sprint Change Proposal" as critical input and context for that deeper replanning effort.
-
-## Output Deliverables
-
-- **Primary:** A "Sprint Change Proposal" document (in markdown format). This document will contain:
-  - A summary of the change-checklist analysis (issue, impact, rationale for the chosen path).
-  - Specific, clearly drafted proposed edits for all affected project artifacts.
-- **Implicit:** An annotated change-checklist (or the record of its completion) reflecting the discussions, findings, and decisions made during the process.