fullstackgtm 0.30.0 → 0.32.0

package/dist/callTypes.js

@@ -0,0 +1,690 @@
+export const CALL_TYPE_IDS = [
+    "prospecting",
+    "discovery",
+    "demo",
+    "technical_validation",
+    "negotiation",
+    "closing",
+    "onboarding",
+    "check_in",
+    "renewal_expansion",
+    "qbr",
+    "internal",
+    "other",
+];
+/**
+ * Our own taxonomy. Signals are authored phrases, not lifted from any third
+ * party; they are intentionally conservative (high-precision verbs and nouns
+ * that rarely appear off-topic) so the deterministic pass is trustworthy and
+ * the ambiguous remainder is handed to the LLM tiebreak rather than guessed.
+ */
+export const CALL_TYPES = [
+    {
+        id: "prospecting",
+        name: "Prospecting / Cold Call",
+        phase: "pre_sale",
+        definition: "First-touch outbound; the goal is to earn a next meeting, not to sell.",
+        signals: [
+            "cold call",
+            "reaching out",
+            "caught you at a bad time",
+            "do you have a minute",
+            "reason for my call",
+            "book some time",
+            "grab 15 minutes",
+            "worth a conversation",
+        ],
+        confusedWith: ["discovery"],
+    },
+    {
+        id: "discovery",
+        name: "Discovery",
+        phase: "pre_sale",
+        definition: "Scheduled conversation to uncover pain, current process, decision criteria, and the buying group.",
+        signals: [
+            "walk me through",
+            "current process",
+            "how are you handling",
+            "what's the impact",
+            "cost of doing nothing",
+            "who else is involved",
+            "decision process",
+            "pain point",
+            "what does success look like",
+            "tell me more about",
+        ],
+        negativeSignals: ["share my screen", "let me show you", "pull up the demo"],
+        confusedWith: ["prospecting", "demo"],
+    },
+    {
+        id: "demo",
+        name: "Demo / Solution Walkthrough",
+        phase: "pre_sale",
+        definition: "Product walkthrough mapped to the buyer's stated priorities.",
+        signals: [
+            "share my screen",
+            "let me show you",
+            "pull up the demo",
+            "as you can see here",
+            "this is where you would",
+            "let me walk you through the product",
+            "click into",
+            "this dashboard",
+        ],
+        confusedWith: ["discovery", "technical_validation"],
+    },
+    {
+        id: "technical_validation",
+        name: "Technical Validation / POC",
+        phase: "pre_sale",
+        definition: "Buyer tests the solution against technical success criteria; security, integration, scale.",
+        signals: [
+            "proof of concept",
+            "poc",
+            "success criteria",
+            "security review",
+            "sso",
+            "api",
+            "integration",
+            "data residency",
+            "sandbox",
+            "pilot",
+            "test environment",
+        ],
+        confusedWith: ["demo"],
+    },
+    {
+        id: "negotiation",
+        name: "Negotiation / Pricing",
+        phase: "pre_sale",
+        definition: "Commercial terms, pricing, and concessions.",
+        signals: [
+            "discount",
+            "pricing",
+            "budget",
+            "per seat",
+            "annual contract",
+            "procurement",
+            "redlines",
+            "payment terms",
+            "come down on",
+            "what can you do on price",
+            "msa",
+        ],
+        confusedWith: ["closing"],
+    },
+    {
+        id: "closing",
+        name: "Closing / Commit",
+        phase: "pre_sale",
+        definition: "Final steps to signature; mutual action plan toward a close date.",
+        signals: [
+            "send the contract",
+            "docusign",
+            "signature",
+            "sign by",
+            "get this over the line",
+            "close date",
+            "ready to move forward",
+            "final steps",
+            "countersign",
+        ],
+        confusedWith: ["negotiation"],
+    },
+    {
+        id: "onboarding",
+        name: "Onboarding / Kickoff",
+        phase: "post_sale",
+        definition: "First post-sale working session; align on goals, owners, and timeline.",
+        signals: [
+            "kickoff",
+            "onboarding",
+            "welcome aboard",
+            "implementation plan",
+            "go live",
+            "get you set up",
+            "first 30 days",
+            "rollout plan",
+        ],
+        confusedWith: ["check_in"],
+    },
+    {
+        id: "check_in",
+        name: "Customer Check-in / Success",
+        phase: "post_sale",
+        definition: "Ongoing adoption and risk review with an existing customer.",
+        signals: [
+            "how's it going",
+            "adoption",
+            "since we last spoke",
+            "any blockers",
+            "how are the team finding",
+            "usage",
+            "rolled out to",
+            "health check",
+        ],
+        confusedWith: ["qbr", "renewal_expansion"],
+    },
+    {
+        id: "renewal_expansion",
+        name: "Renewal / Expansion",
+        phase: "post_sale",
+        definition: "Contract renewal and growth conversation.",
+        signals: [
+            "renewal",
+            "renew",
+            "up for renewal",
+            "expansion",
+            "add seats",
+            "upsell",
+            "additional licenses",
+            "contract is ending",
+            "grow the account",
+        ],
+        confusedWith: ["check_in", "negotiation"],
+    },
+    {
+        id: "qbr",
+        name: "Quarterly Business Review",
+        phase: "post_sale",
+        definition: "Strategic results review and joint planning with a customer.",
+        signals: [
+            "quarterly business review",
+            "qbr",
+            "results this quarter",
+            "roi",
+            "value realized",
+            "executive sponsor",
+            "next quarter we",
+            "business review",
+        ],
+        confusedWith: ["check_in"],
+    },
+    {
+        id: "internal",
+        name: "Internal",
+        phase: "neither",
+        definition: "Same-organization teammates; not a customer conversation.",
+        signals: [
+            "deal review",
+            "forecast call",
+            "our pipeline",
+            "internal sync",
+            "standup",
+            "let's align internally",
+            "loop in our",
+        ],
+    },
+    {
+        id: "other",
+        name: "Other / Unclassified",
+        phase: "neither",
+        definition: "No call type carried enough signal to classify confidently.",
+        signals: [],
+    },
+];
+/**
+ * Classify a call from its transcript using authored phrase signals. Pure,
+ * deterministic, key-free. Score = distinct positive signals matched minus
+ * distinct negative signals; the strongest type wins. Confidence is `high`
+ * only when one type clearly leads (>=2 signals and a >=2 margin over the
+ * runner-up); a single weak signal yields `low`; no signal yields `other`/none.
+ */
+export function classifyCall(transcript) {
+    const haystack = transcript.toLowerCase();
+    const scored = [];
+    for (const def of CALL_TYPES) {
+        if (def.signals.length === 0)
+            continue;
+        const matched = def.signals.filter((signal) => haystack.includes(signal));
+        if (matched.length === 0)
+            continue;
+        const penalties = (def.negativeSignals ?? []).filter((signal) => haystack.includes(signal)).length;
+        const score = matched.length - penalties;
+        if (score <= 0)
+            continue;
+        scored.push({ type: def.id, score, matched });
+    }
+    scored.sort((a, b) => b.score - a.score || CALL_TYPE_IDS.indexOf(a.type) - CALL_TYPE_IDS.indexOf(b.type));
+    if (scored.length === 0) {
+        return {
+            type: "other",
+            confidence: "none",
+            reason: "No call-type signals matched the transcript. Classify by hand with --call-type, or run --llm for a model tiebreak.",
+            candidates: [],
+            method: "deterministic",
+        };
+    }
+    const top = scored[0];
+    const runnerUp = scored[1];
+    const margin = top.score - (runnerUp?.score ?? 0);
+    const def = CALL_TYPES.find((d) => d.id === top.type);
+    const matchedList = top.matched.slice(0, 4).map((m) => `"${m}"`).join(", ");
+    if (top.score >= 2 && margin >= 2) {
+        return {
+            type: top.type,
+            confidence: "high",
+            reason: `${def.name}: matched ${top.score} signals (${matchedList})${runnerUp ? `; clear of ${runnerUp.type} by ${margin}` : ""}.`,
+            candidates: scored,
+            method: "deterministic",
+        };
+    }
+    const confused = def.confusedWith?.length ? ` Easily confused with ${def.confusedWith.join("/")}.` : "";
+    return {
+        type: top.type,
+        confidence: "low",
+        reason: `${def.name} is the leading guess (signals: ${matchedList})${runnerUp ? `, but ${runnerUp.type} also matched (${runnerUp.score})` : ""}.${confused} Confirm with --call-type or --llm.`,
+        candidates: scored,
+        method: "deterministic",
+    };
+}
+// ── Type-specific rubric presets ───────────────────────────────────────────
+/** Shared qualitative bands over a 1-5 weighted overall. */
+export const BANDS_5 = [
+    { label: "strong", min: 4, meaning: "Coach-the-team example; replicate what worked." },
+    { label: "solid", min: 3, meaning: "Competent call with one or two clear gaps to close." },
+    { label: "developing", min: 2, meaning: "Real gaps in the moments that move the deal." },
+    { label: "weak", min: 0, meaning: "Missed the core job of this call type — prioritize coaching here." },
+];
+/**
+ * Pick the qualitative band for a weighted overall: the highest band whose
+ * `min` the score reaches. Deterministic, client-side — same input, same band.
+ */
+export function bandForScore(score, bands) {
+    return [...bands].sort((a, b) => b.min - a.min).find((band) => score >= band.min);
+}
+const RUBRICS = {
+    prospecting: {
+        scale: 5,
+        name: "Prospecting / Cold Call",
+        callType: "prospecting",
+        bands: BANDS_5,
+        dimensions: [
+            {
+                name: "Opener & Permission",
+                weight: 1.2,
+                rubric: "Did the rep earn attention with a relevant reason for the call and a permission-based opener?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["States a specific, researched reason tied to the prospect's role/company", "Asks for and gets permission to continue"],
+                anchorsLow: ["Generic pitch with no relevance", "Plows ahead without acknowledging the interruption"],
+                evidenceCues: ["reason for my call", "do you have a minute", "noticed that you"],
+            },
+            {
+                name: "Relevance & Hook",
+                weight: 1.1,
+                rubric: "Was the value framed around a problem the prospect plausibly has, not a feature list?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Names a concrete pain common to the prospect's segment"],
+                anchorsLow: ["Leads with product features and company history"],
+            },
+            {
+                name: "Objection Handling",
+                weight: 1,
+                rubric: "Were brush-offs ('not interested', 'send an email') acknowledged and turned into a micro-conversation?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Acknowledges the objection, asks one sharp question, keeps it human"],
+                anchorsLow: ["Argues, ignores, or immediately gives up"],
+                evidenceCues: ["not interested", "send me an email", "we already use"],
+            },
+            {
+                name: "Meeting Ask",
+                weight: 1.2,
+                rubric: "Did the rep ask for a specific, low-friction next meeting with a concrete time?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Proposes two concrete times for a short next call"],
+                anchorsLow: ["Vague 'I'll follow up' with no commitment"],
+                evidenceCues: ["grab 15 minutes", "does Tuesday", "book some time"],
+            },
+        ],
+    },
+    discovery: {
+        scale: 5,
+        name: "Discovery",
+        callType: "discovery",
+        bands: BANDS_5,
+        dimensions: [
+            {
+                name: "Depth of Pain",
+                weight: 1.3,
+                rubric: "Did the rep uncover concrete pain, the current process, and the cost of inaction with specifics?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Quantified pain (time/money/risk)", "Mapped the current workflow end to end"],
+                anchorsLow: ["Surface-level 'it's a bit manual' with no numbers or process detail"],
+                evidenceCues: ["how are you handling", "what's the impact", "cost of doing nothing", "walk me through"],
+            },
+            {
+                name: "Decision Process & Criteria",
+                weight: 1.2,
+                rubric: "Were the decision criteria, timeline, and approval path surfaced?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Knows the criteria, the steps, and who signs"],
+                anchorsLow: ["No idea how or when a decision gets made"],
+                evidenceCues: ["decision process", "what does success look like", "by when"],
+            },
+            {
+                name: "Buying Group",
+                weight: 1.1,
+                rubric: "Were the other stakeholders and the economic buyer identified — is the rep multi-threaded?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Names the buying group and plans to reach the economic buyer"],
+                anchorsLow: ["Single-threaded with one champion, buyer unknown"],
+                evidenceCues: ["who else is involved", "report to", "loop in"],
+            },
+            {
+                name: "Listening Ratio",
+                weight: 1,
+                rubric: "Did the prospect do most of the talking, with the rep asking open questions and following threads?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Rep asks open questions and digs into answers"],
+                anchorsLow: ["Rep monologues; questions are closed or leading"],
+            },
+            {
+                name: "Next Steps & Commitment",
+                weight: 1.1,
+                rubric: "Did the call end with a specific, time-bound, mutually agreed next step?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Concrete next meeting booked with a purpose"],
+                anchorsLow: ["'I'll send some info' with no date"],
+            },
+        ],
+    },
+    demo: {
+        scale: 5,
+        name: "Demo / Solution Walkthrough",
+        callType: "demo",
+        bands: BANDS_5,
+        dimensions: [
+            {
+                name: "Tailoring to Stated Needs",
+                weight: 1.3,
+                rubric: "Was the demo mapped to the prospect's own priorities, or a generic feature tour?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Each section ties back to a pain the buyer named"],
+                anchorsLow: ["Linear feature dump unrelated to their goals"],
+                evidenceCues: ["you mentioned", "back to your point about", "this solves the"],
+            },
+            {
+                name: "Engagement & Interaction",
+                weight: 1.1,
+                rubric: "Did the rep check for reactions and let the buyer drive, vs. talk over a one-way screen-share?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Pauses for reactions, asks what resonates, hands over control"],
+                anchorsLow: ["Uninterrupted monologue, no temperature checks"],
+            },
+            {
+                name: "Value & Outcome Framing",
+                weight: 1.2,
+                rubric: "Was each capability framed as a business outcome with the buyer's numbers, not a feature?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["'This saves your team X hours' tied to their stated volume"],
+                anchorsLow: ["'And here we have…' feature narration"],
+            },
+            {
+                name: "Advancing the Deal",
+                weight: 1.1,
+                rubric: "Did the demo end with a clear, agreed next step toward a decision?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Concrete next step (POC, stakeholder demo, proposal) booked"],
+                anchorsLow: ["'Let me know what you think'"],
+            },
+        ],
+    },
+    technical_validation: {
+        scale: 5,
+        name: "Technical Validation / POC",
+        callType: "technical_validation",
+        bands: BANDS_5,
+        dimensions: [
+            {
+                name: "Success Criteria Defined",
+                weight: 1.3,
+                rubric: "Were explicit, measurable success criteria agreed before the evaluation?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Written criteria with thresholds and an owner"],
+                anchorsLow: ["Open-ended 'let's try it out'"],
+                evidenceCues: ["success criteria", "what would prove", "pass if"],
+            },
+            {
+                name: "Technical Fit & Objections",
+                weight: 1.2,
+                rubric: "Were integration, security, and scale questions surfaced and addressed with specifics?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Concrete answers on SSO/API/data handling, risks named"],
+                anchorsLow: ["Hand-waves technical concerns"],
+                evidenceCues: ["sso", "api", "security review", "data residency"],
+            },
+            {
+                name: "Scope & Timeline",
+                weight: 1.1,
+                rubric: "Was the POC scoped to a bounded timeline with clear exit conditions?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Fixed window, defined scope, go/no-go date"],
+                anchorsLow: ["Unbounded pilot with no end"],
+            },
+            {
+                name: "Stakeholder & Sign-off Path",
+                weight: 1,
+                rubric: "Is it clear who validates the result and what a pass unlocks commercially?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Names the technical approver and the next commercial step"],
+                anchorsLow: ["Unknown who decides or what happens after"],
+            },
+        ],
+    },
+    negotiation: {
+        scale: 5,
+        name: "Negotiation / Pricing",
+        callType: "negotiation",
+        bands: BANDS_5,
+        dimensions: [
+            {
+                name: "Value Reanchoring",
+                weight: 1.3,
+                rubric: "When price came up, did the rep re-anchor on quantified value before discussing concessions?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Reframes cost against the ROI the buyer already agreed to"],
+                anchorsLow: ["Jumps straight to discounting"],
+                evidenceCues: ["come down on", "what can you do on price", "budget"],
+            },
+            {
+                name: "Concession Discipline",
+                weight: 1.2,
+                rubric: "Were concessions traded for something (term, volume, timing), never given for free?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Every give has a get: 'if X then Y'"],
+                anchorsLow: ["Unilateral discounts to keep the peace"],
+            },
+            {
+                name: "Terms & Procurement Clarity",
+                weight: 1.1,
+                rubric: "Were the real commercial blockers (terms, procurement, legal) surfaced and sequenced?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Knows the procurement steps and owns the redline path"],
+                anchorsLow: ["Surprised by process late in the deal"],
+                evidenceCues: ["procurement", "redlines", "payment terms", "msa"],
+            },
+            {
+                name: "Close Path",
+                weight: 1.1,
+                rubric: "Did the call end with a concrete path and date to signature?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Mutual action plan to a close date"],
+                anchorsLow: ["Open-ended 'let me check internally'"],
+            },
+        ],
+    },
+    closing: {
+        scale: 5,
+        name: "Closing / Commit",
+        callType: "closing",
+        bands: BANDS_5,
+        dimensions: [
+            {
+                name: "Mutual Action Plan",
+                weight: 1.3,
+                rubric: "Is there a step-by-step plan to signature with owners and dates on both sides?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Each step has an owner and a date, buyer agreed"],
+                anchorsLow: ["No plan; relies on hope"],
+                evidenceCues: ["final steps", "sign by", "close date"],
+            },
+            {
+                name: "Blocker Surfacing",
+                weight: 1.2,
+                rubric: "Were remaining risks (legal, security, budget approval) named and owned?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Open risks explicit with mitigation owners"],
+                anchorsLow: ["Assumes it's done; risks unspoken"],
+            },
+            {
+                name: "Commitment Test",
+                weight: 1.2,
+                rubric: "Did the rep test genuine commitment vs. accept a soft 'looks good'?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Confirms signature authority and timing directly"],
+                anchorsLow: ["Takes enthusiasm as commitment"],
+                evidenceCues: ["ready to move forward", "get this over the line"],
+            },
+        ],
+    },
+    onboarding: {
+        scale: 5,
+        name: "Onboarding / Kickoff",
+        callType: "onboarding",
+        bands: BANDS_5,
+        dimensions: [
+            {
+                name: "Goals & Success Definition",
+                weight: 1.3,
+                rubric: "Were the customer's desired outcomes and a definition of success captured?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Outcomes documented with a measurable success metric"],
+                anchorsLow: ["Jumps to setup with no goal alignment"],
+                evidenceCues: ["what does success look like", "first 30 days", "go live"],
+            },
+            {
+                name: "Plan, Owners & Timeline",
+                weight: 1.2,
+                rubric: "Is there an implementation plan with owners and dates on both sides?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Clear milestones, named owners, go-live date"],
+                anchorsLow: ["Vague 'we'll get started'"],
+            },
+            {
+                name: "Stakeholder Alignment",
+                weight: 1,
+                rubric: "Are the right people engaged and roles clear (admin, end users, exec sponsor)?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Roles assigned, sponsor engaged"],
+                anchorsLow: ["Single contact, unclear who does what"],
+            },
+            {
+                name: "Risk & Adoption Setup",
+                weight: 1,
+                rubric: "Were early adoption risks and the path to first value identified?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Names the fastest path to first value and likely blockers"],
+                anchorsLow: ["No view on adoption risk"],
+            },
+        ],
+    },
+    check_in: {
+        scale: 5,
+        name: "Customer Check-in / Success",
+        callType: "check_in",
+        bands: BANDS_5,
+        dimensions: [
+            {
+                name: "Adoption & Usage Read",
+                weight: 1.2,
+                rubric: "Did the rep get a concrete read on usage and adoption vs. a polite 'all good'?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Specifics on who uses what and how often"],
+                anchorsLow: ["Accepts 'fine' with no detail"],
+                evidenceCues: ["adoption", "usage", "rolled out to", "any blockers"],
+            },
+            {
+                name: "Risk & Sentiment",
+                weight: 1.3,
+                rubric: "Were risks, blockers, and sentiment surfaced honestly?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Names friction and unhappy stakeholders openly"],
+                anchorsLow: ["Misses or glosses over warning signs"],
+            },
+            {
+                name: "Value Reinforcement",
+                weight: 1,
+                rubric: "Did the rep connect usage back to the customer's goals and realized value?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Ties activity to outcomes the customer cares about"],
+                anchorsLow: ["No link to value"],
+            },
+            {
+                name: "Next Steps & Expansion Signal",
+                weight: 1,
+                rubric: "Were follow-ups agreed and any expansion or renewal signal noted?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Clear next step; flags growth/renewal signals"],
+                anchorsLow: ["Ends with no plan"],
+            },
+        ],
+    },
+    renewal_expansion: {
+        scale: 5,
+        name: "Renewal / Expansion",
+        callType: "renewal_expansion",
+        bands: BANDS_5,
+        dimensions: [
+            {
+                name: "Value Realized Case",
+                weight: 1.3,
+                rubric: "Did the rep make the case for value delivered before discussing renewal terms?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Concrete outcomes and ROI tied to the customer's goals"],
+                anchorsLow: ["Asks to renew with no value recap"],
+                evidenceCues: ["value realized", "roi", "since last year"],
+            },
+            {
+                name: "Renewal Risk & Timing",
+                weight: 1.2,
+                rubric: "Were renewal risks (budget, sponsor change, competitor) and timing surfaced early?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Knows renewal date, risks, and the approval path"],
+                anchorsLow: ["Renewal raised late with unknown risk"],
+                evidenceCues: ["up for renewal", "contract is ending", "budget"],
+            },
+            {
+                name: "Expansion Path",
+                weight: 1.1,
+                rubric: "Was a credible expansion opportunity explored and tied to need?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Expansion grounded in a real unmet need"],
+                anchorsLow: ["No growth conversation, or a pushy untethered upsell"],
+                evidenceCues: ["add seats", "expansion", "additional licenses"],
+            },
+            {
+                name: "Commitment & Next Steps",
+                weight: 1,
+                rubric: "Did the call end with a concrete path to a signed renewal?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Agreed steps and date to renewal signature"],
+                anchorsLow: ["Open-ended"],
+            },
+        ],
+    },
+    qbr: {
+        scale: 5,
+        name: "Quarterly Business Review",
+        callType: "qbr",
+        bands: BANDS_5,
+        dimensions: [
+            {
+                name: "Results & Value Narrative",
+                weight: 1.3,
+                rubric: "Did the rep present quantified results against the goals set, not just activity?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Outcomes vs. targets with numbers the sponsor cares about"],
+                anchorsLow: ["Activity recap with no outcome framing"],
+                evidenceCues: ["results this quarter", "roi", "value realized"],
+            },
+            {
+                name: "Executive Engagement",
+                weight: 1.2,
+                rubric: "Was the economic buyer / sponsor engaged in a strategic, not tactical, conversation?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Sponsor present and engaged on strategy"],
+                anchorsLow: ["Only day-to-day users; no exec"],
+                evidenceCues: ["executive sponsor", "business review"],
+            },
+            {
+                name: "Forward Plan",
+                weight: 1.2,
+                rubric: "Was there a joint plan for next quarter tied to the customer's objectives?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Mutual goals and initiatives for next quarter agreed"],
+                anchorsLow: ["No forward plan"],
+                evidenceCues: ["next quarter we", "goals for"],
+            },
+            {
+                name: "Growth & Renewal Setup",
+                weight: 1,
+                rubric: "Did the QBR set up renewal/expansion by reinforcing value and surfacing needs?",
+                anchorsHigh: ["Naturally teed up renewal/growth from demonstrated value"],
+                anchorsLow: ["Missed the opening entirely"],
+            },
+        ],
+    },
+};
+/**
+ * The type-specific rubric for a call type, or the generic fallback. The
+ * generic rubric is intentionally discovery-leaning (the most common scored
+ * call) and is what `other`/`internal`/unknown resolve to.
+ */
+export function rubricForCallType(type, fallback) {
+    return RUBRICS[type] ?? fallback;
+}
+/** All authored presets, for `--list` and docs. */
+export function rubricPresets() {
+    return CALL_TYPE_IDS.map((id) => RUBRICS[id]).filter((r) => Boolean(r));
+}