psyclaw 0.27.23 → 0.28.1

package/vendor/ars/deep-research/examples/handoff_to_paper.md

@@ -0,0 +1,318 @@
+# Handoff Example: deep-research → academic-paper
+
+This example demonstrates how deep-research full mode, after completing research, hands off to academic-paper to begin paper writing.
+
+---
+
+## Scenario Setup
+
+The user has completed deep-research full mode on the topic "AI-Assisted Quality Assurance in Higher Education: A Comparative Analysis of Implementation Strategies in East Asian Universities." Below is a summary of the research outputs.
+
+---
+
+## deep-research Output Summary
+
+### 1. Research Question Brief (from research_question_agent)
+
+```markdown
+### Primary Research Question
+How do East Asian universities (Taiwan, Japan, South Korea) differ in their
+implementation strategies for AI-assisted quality assurance, and what factors
+explain the variation in adoption patterns?
+
+### FINER Assessment
+| Criterion   | Score | Justification |
+|-------------|-------|---------------|
+| Feasible    | 4/5   | Public data + policy documents available |
+| Interesting | 5/5   | Timely: AI policy divergence across similar systems |
+| Novel       | 4/5   | Few cross-national comparisons in this space |
+| Ethical     | 5/5   | No human subjects; public policy analysis |
+| Relevant    | 5/5   | Directly informs HEEACT and peer agencies |
+| **Average** | **4.6/5** | |
+
+### Sub-questions
+1. What AI-QA tools and frameworks have been adopted by accreditation agencies
+   in Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea?
+2. What institutional and policy factors facilitate or hinder AI-QA adoption?
+3. To what extent do implementation outcomes align with stated policy objectives?
+```
+
+### 2. Methodology Blueprint (from research_architect_agent)
+
+```markdown
+- Paradigm: Pragmatist (comparative policy analysis)
+- Method: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) + document analysis
+- Data sources:
+  - Policy documents (3 countries' QA frameworks)
+  - Accreditation agency reports (HEEACT, JUAA/NIAD-QE, KCUE)
+  - Published case studies and conference proceedings
+- Analytical framework: Diffusion of Innovation (Rogers) +
+  Institutional Isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell)
+- Validity: Triangulation across document types + member checking
+  with QA practitioners
+```
+
+### 3. Annotated Bibliography (from bibliography_agent)
+
+```markdown
+23 sources identified, 18 retained after quality screening:
+- 6 peer-reviewed articles (Level II-III evidence)
+- 4 accreditation agency reports (Level IV)
+- 3 policy documents (Level IV)
+- 3 conference proceedings (Level V)
+- 2 institutional case studies (Level V)
+
+Key themes identified:
+- AI adoption maturity gap (Taiwan > Korea > Japan in QA applications)
+- Regulatory divergence (Japan's cautious approach vs Korea's top-down push)
+- Data infrastructure as prerequisite (not just technology)
+```
+
+### 4. Synthesis Report (from synthesis_agent)
+
+```markdown
+## Core Findings
+
+1. **Adoption patterns cluster into 3 models**:
+   - Taiwan: bottom-up experimentation (agency-led pilots)
+   - South Korea: top-down mandate (ministry-driven framework)
+   - Japan: cautious incrementalism (voluntary guidelines)
+
+2. **Critical success factors** (converging evidence across all 3 countries):
+   - Data infrastructure maturity
+   - Accreditation agency technical capacity
+   - University willingness to share data
+   - Clear governance framework for AI decisions
+
+3. **Key tension**: efficiency gains vs transparency concerns
+   - All 3 countries report resistance from faculty regarding "black box" decisions
+   - Only Korea has attempted regulatory response (AI Ethics in Education Act 2025)
+
+4. **Evidence gap**:
+   - No rigorous outcome studies yet (all countries < 3 years into implementation)
+   - Student/faculty experience data almost entirely absent
+
+## Contradictions Identified
+- Taiwan HEEACT reports "high adoption" but academic literature suggests
+  most universities are still in pilot phase → definition of "adoption" varies
+
+## Knowledge Gaps
+- Impact on accreditation outcomes (pass/fail rates)
+- Cost-effectiveness analysis
+- Faculty perceptions and behavioral changes
+```
+
+### 5. Preregistration artifact handoff
+
+This qualitative example has no completed preregistration artifact. The
+shell-capable dispatcher still runs the named deterministic builder and carries
+one explicit `preregistration-artifact/1.0` receipt:
+
+```yaml
+schema_version: preregistration-artifact/1.0
+status: not_provided
+artifact_id: preregistration-unavailable
+relative_path: null
+artifact_provenance: not_provided
+source_artifact_sha256: null
+source_artifact_size_bytes: null
+source_content_sha256: null
+source_content_utf8_bytes: null
+declared_at: <explicit caller-held RFC3339 value>
+record_digest: <builder-derived canonical digest>
+```
+
+The shell-capable dispatcher passes the schema-safe artifact ID and the canonical
+builder computes `record_digest`; the non-shell research architect never guesses
+a digest. There is no companion for this receipt.
+Academic-paper and every later pipeline handoff validate and carry the complete
+sidecar bytes unchanged. This explicit unavailable state means the
+manuscript/preregistration pair is not checked; it is not evidence of agreement.
+
+---
+
+## Handoff Instruction
+
+After completing deep-research, the user inputs:
+
+```
+Now help me write a paper based on this research
+```
+
+---
+
+## academic-paper intake_agent Auto-Detection
+
+**intake_agent Detection Process**:
+
+```
+Scanning available materials...
+
+[DETECTED] Research Question Brief
+  - Source: deep-research / research_question_agent
+  - Status: Complete (FINER 4.6/5)
+  - Action: SKIP academic-paper Phase 1 (topic scoping)
+
+[DETECTED] Methodology Blueprint
+  - Source: deep-research / research_architect_agent
+  - Status: Complete (pragmatist QCA + document analysis)
+  - Action: SKIP academic-paper Phase 2 (methodology design)
+  - Note: Will integrate into Method section directly
+
+[DETECTED] Annotated Bibliography (18 sources, APA 7.0)
+  - Source: deep-research / bibliography_agent
+  - Status: Complete, quality-screened
+  - Action: SKIP academic-paper literature search
+  - Note: Will use as foundation for Literature Review section
+
+[DETECTED] Synthesis Report
+  - Source: deep-research / synthesis_agent
+  - Status: Complete (3 core findings + 1 contradiction + 2 gaps)
+  - Action: SKIP academic-paper analysis phase
+  - Note: Will structure Findings and Discussion sections around synthesis
+
+[DETECTED] Preregistration artifact sidecar
+  - Source: deep-research dispatching layer
+  - Status: not_provided (explicit unavailable receipt; no companion)
+  - Action: VALIDATE and CARRY sidecar byte-for-byte
+  - Advisory effect: manuscript/preregistration pair remains NOT CHECKED
+
+Materials Assessment: COMPREHENSIVE
+Recommended academic-paper mode: full (with accelerated pipeline)
+Estimated sections already covered: 60-70%
+Remaining work: Writing, formatting, argumentation, and polish
+```
+
+`COMPREHENSIVE` above describes the four prose research materials only. It does
+not certify preregistration coverage, cross-document agreement, or a clean
+manuscript.
+
+---
+
+## Skipped Steps and Reasons
+
+| academic-paper Step | Normal Workflow | After Handoff | Reason |
+|---------------------|---------|-----------|------|
+| Phase 1: Topic Scoping | intake_agent clarifies from scratch | SKIPPED | RQ Brief is complete |
+| Phase 2: Structure Planning | outline_agent designs structure | PARTIAL | Has Blueprint but needs conversion to paper structure |
+| Phase 3: Literature Search | literature_agent searches | SKIPPED | Bibliography is complete |
+| Phase 4: Literature Review Writing | review_writer_agent writes | ACTIVE | Has Synthesis but needs conversion to paper tone |
+| Phase 5: Methodology Writing | method_writer_agent writes | ACTIVE | Has Blueprint but needs expansion to full paragraphs |
+| Phase 6: Findings Writing | findings_writer_agent writes | ACTIVE | Has Synthesis but needs expanded argumentation |
+| Phase 7: Discussion Writing | discussion_writer_agent writes | ACTIVE | Needs original discourse (not direct copy of Synthesis) |
+| Phase 8: Intro + Conclusion | bookend_agent writes | ACTIVE | Needs to be written based on full text |
+| Phase 9: Abstract + Formatting | format_agent processes | ACTIVE | Needs full text completion first |
+| Phase 10: Self-Review | review_agent reviews | ACTIVE | Must be executed |
+
+---
+
+## Post-Handoff academic-paper Actual Workflow
+
+```
+=== academic-paper: Accelerated Pipeline ===
+
+Step 1: STRUCTURAL MAPPING
+  [outline_agent]
+  - Input: RQ Brief + Methodology Blueprint + Synthesis Report
+  - Output: Complete paper outline, each section tagged with corresponding deep-research materials
+  - Output example:
+
+    I. Introduction
+       - Context: AI in HE QA (from Synthesis background)
+       - Problem: Cross-national variation unexplained
+       - Purpose: Compare 3 East Asian models
+       - RQ: [Directly cite RQ Brief]
+
+    II. Literature Review
+       - 2.1 AI in Quality Assurance (from Bibliography themes)
+       - 2.2 Diffusion of Innovation framework (from Blueprint)
+       - 2.3 Institutional Isomorphism (from Blueprint)
+       - 2.4 East Asian HE systems comparison
+
+    III. Methodology
+       - 3.1 Research design: QCA + document analysis (from Blueprint)
+       - 3.2 Case selection and data sources
+       - 3.3 Analytical framework
+       - 3.4 Validity and limitations
+
+    IV. Findings
+       - 4.1 Three adoption models (from Synthesis Finding 1)
+       - 4.2 Critical success factors (from Synthesis Finding 2)
+       - 4.3 Efficiency vs transparency tension (from Synthesis Finding 3)
+
+    V. Discussion
+       - 5.1 Theoretical implications
+       - 5.2 Policy implications for accreditation agencies
+       - 5.3 Practical recommendations
+       - 5.4 Limitations (from Synthesis gaps + Blueprint validity)
+
+    VI. Conclusion
+       - Summary + Future research directions
+
+Step 2: SECTION WRITING (Parallel)
+  [review_writer_agent] → Literature Review
+    - Based on Annotated Bibliography and Synthesis, transform into a fluent literature review
+    - Not sequential summaries, but thematic integration
+
+  [method_writer_agent] → Methodology
+    - Expand the Blueprint into complete methodology paragraphs
+    - Add technical details and procedural explanation for QCA
+
+  [findings_writer_agent] → Findings
+    - Expand the Synthesis's 3 core findings into evidence-supported arguments
+    - Each finding accompanied by specific cases and data
+    - Address contradictions flagged in the Synthesis
+
+Step 3: DISCUSSION + BOOKENDS
+  [discussion_writer_agent] → Discussion
+    - Original discourse: dialogue between findings and theory
+    - Does not repeat Findings; instead explains "why"
+    - Integrates deep-research Knowledge Gaps as Future Research
+
+  [bookend_agent] → Introduction + Conclusion
+    - Introduction: from macro context to specific RQ
+    - Conclusion: no new information, echoes RQ and looks to the future
+
+Step 4: ABSTRACT + FORMAT
+  [format_agent]
+    - Abstract: 150-250 words, IMRAD structure
+    - APA 7.0 full-text formatting
+    - Reference list cleanup (based on Bibliography + newly added citations)
+
+Step 5: SELF-REVIEW
+  [review_agent]
+    - Internal consistency check (RQ → Method → Findings → Discussion logic chain)
+    - Citation completeness (every claim has a citation)
+    - Format compliance
+    - Verdict: Ready for submission / Needs revision
+```
+
+---
+
+## User-Facing Handoff Experience
+
+**academic-paper's Opening Message**:
+
+> I've read your complete outputs from the deep-research stage, including:
+> - Research Question Brief (FINER 4.6/5)
+> - Methodology Blueprint (QCA + document analysis)
+> - Annotated Bibliography (18 quality-screened sources)
+> - Synthesis Report (3 core findings + 2 knowledge gaps)
+>
+> Based on these materials, I've completed a preliminary plan for the paper outline. Here is the planned paper structure:
+> [Display outline]
+>
+> I have two questions that need your confirmation:
+> 1. What is your target journal? (This affects word limits and formatting requirements)
+> 2. Should the paper language be English or bilingual?
+>
+> Once confirmed, I'll begin writing. Because the research foundation is already comprehensive, I can skip the early exploration stages and proceed directly to paper writing.
+
+---
+
+## Notes
+
+1. **Not copy-paste**: academic-paper does not directly copy deep-research outputs, but transforms them into the tone and format of an academic paper
+2. **May discover new issues**: During the writing process, academic-paper agents may discover points missed by deep-research and will proactively supplement them
+3. **Still requires user confirmation**: Target journal, language preference, specific formatting requirements still require user input
+4. **Review recommendation auto-connects**: After paper completion, the user can continue with `academic-paper-reviewer` for formal review

package/vendor/ars/deep-research/examples/idea_diversity_coverage_gap_advisory.md

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+# Idea Diversity / Coverage Gap Advisory Example
+
+This example shows the two #257 advisory surfaces. Both are warnings for scholar attention, not blockers.
+
+## 1. Socratic wording-pattern advisory
+
+User draft:
+
+> I want to study "exploring the impact of AI feedback on student motivation."
+
+Socratic mentor response excerpt:
+
+```markdown
+[WORDING_PATTERN_ADVISORY]
+Your phrasing "exploring the impact of AI feedback on student motivation" resembles a common AI-typical research-question shell: WP01 impact/effect frame. I am not judging the idea; I am only flagging the wording. What term, mechanism, site, or tension would a specialist in your field use instead?
+
+What is the specific feedback situation you care about: automated scoring, formative comments, timing of feedback, or how students decide whether feedback is worth acting on?
+```
+
+Acceptable user choice:
+
+- Keep the original phrasing because it matches a target journal's framing.
+- Rephrase in domain-native terms, e.g. "How do first-year engineering students decide whether AI-generated formative comments are actionable during lab-report revision?"
+- Ask the mentor to help stress-test scope without rewriting the RQ.
+
+Boundary: the advisory does not say the idea is generic or bad. It flags only the wording shell.
+
+## 2. Lit-review distributional skew advisory
+
+Search context:
+
+- RQ: "How do AI feedback systems shape student revision behavior in higher education?"
+- Final included sources: 25
+- Topic coverage: all major RQ subtopics covered
+- Known venue/method metadata:
+  - 23/25 sources are post-2023 NLP or learning-analytics venues
+  - 21/24 known-method entries are quantitative log-data studies
+  - 18/20 known-geography entries are North America or Western Europe
+
+Search Strategy Report excerpt:
+
+```markdown
+### Coverage Distribution Advisory
+
+DISTRIBUTIONAL_SKEW_ADVISORY:
+- Dimension: time distribution
+- Concentration: 2023-2026 = 23/25 (92%)
+- Advisory: This is a coverage-distribution signal, not a defect. Consider whether the RQ warrants earlier foundational work on feedback uptake, revision behavior, or formative assessment.
+- Search response: add backward citation chaining from foundational feedback-literacy and formative-assessment works.
+
+DISTRIBUTIONAL_SKEW_ADVISORY:
+- Dimension: methodological distribution
+- Concentration: quantitative log-data studies = 21/24 (87.5%)
+- Advisory: This is a coverage-distribution signal, not a defect. Consider whether the question warrants qualitative or mixed-method evidence about how students interpret feedback.
+- Search response: add search string ("AI feedback" OR "automated feedback") AND ("student interpretation" OR "feedback literacy" OR interview OR qualitative).
+
+DISTRIBUTIONAL_SKEW_ADVISORY:
+- Dimension: geographic distribution
+- Concentration: North America / Western Europe = 18/20 (90%)
+- Advisory: This is a coverage-distribution signal, not a defect. Consider whether institutional context changes feedback uptake.
+- Search response: add regional database search for Taiwan, East Asia, and bilingual higher-education studies.
+```
+
+Boundary: the bibliography is still valid. The advisory asks whether the corpus distribution matches the RQ; it does not reject the search or force expansion.

package/vendor/ars/deep-research/examples/policy_analysis.md

@@ -0,0 +1,161 @@
+# Example: Policy Analysis (full mode)
+
+## User Request
+```
+Research comparing outcomes-based funding models in higher education across OECD countries
+```
+
+## Phase 1: SCOPING
+
+### research_question_agent Output
+
+**Primary Research Question**:
+> What are the design features, implementation strategies, and measured outcomes of performance-based funding (PBF) models in OECD higher education systems, and what contextual factors explain variation in effectiveness?
+
+**FINER Assessment**:
+| Criterion | Score | Justification |
+|-----------|-------|---------------|
+| Feasible | 4/5 | Substantial literature + OECD data available |
+| Interesting | 4/5 | Active policy debate across multiple countries |
+| Novel | 3/5 | Several reviews exist but few systematic cross-country comparisons |
+| Ethical | 5/5 | Public policy analysis, no ethical concerns |
+| Relevant | 5/5 | Directly informs national HE funding policy |
+| **Average** | **4.2/5** | |
+
+**Sub-questions**:
+1. What PBF design features (metrics, weights, mechanisms) are used across OECD countries?
+2. What outcomes (intended and unintended) have been documented?
+3. What contextual factors (governance, culture, market structure) mediate PBF effectiveness?
+
+### research_architect_agent Output
+
+**Paradigm**: Pragmatist
+**Method**: Comparative policy analysis with systematic evidence review
+**Framework**: Modified Bardach's Eightfold Path + most-similar-systems design
+**Data**: OECD reports, national policy documents, academic literature
+**Analysis**: Cross-case comparison matrix + thematic synthesis
+
+### devils_advocate_agent — CHECKPOINT 1
+
+**Verdict**: PASS
+- Minor: "Effectiveness" needs operational definition — suggest specifying measurable dimensions
+- Observation: Country selection will significantly affect conclusions — justify selection criteria
+
+## Phase 2: INVESTIGATION
+
+### bibliography_agent Output
+
+22 academic articles + 8 OECD/government reports + 3 think tank publications = 33 sources
+
+Key sources include:
+- OECD (2019). *Benchmarking Higher Education System Performance*
+- Hillman, N. W., Tandberg, D. A., & Fryar, A. H. (2015). Evaluating the impacts of "new" performance funding in higher education. *Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis*, *37*(4).
+- de Boer, H., et al. (2015). *Performance-based funding and performance agreements in fourteen higher education systems*. CHEPS.
+
+### source_verification_agent Output
+
+33 sources assessed: 28 Grade A-B, 4 Grade C, 1 Grade D (included with caveat)
+
+## Phase 3: ANALYSIS
+
+### synthesis_agent Output
+
+**Comparative Matrix** (8 countries x 6 design features x 4 outcome dimensions)
+
+Countries analyzed: US (Tennessee, Ohio), Australia, Denmark, Netherlands, Finland, UK (England), South Korea, Chile
+
+**Key Findings**:
+
+1. **Design convergence**: Most PBF models use graduation rates and retention as primary metrics, but weights and mechanisms vary dramatically. Tennessee allocates 85% of state funding based on outcomes (the highest proportion globally), while most European models tie less than 5% to performance. Despite this range, all models converge on a similar set of 4-6 core metrics: completion, retention, research output, and employment.
+
+2. **Modest positive effects on targeted metrics**: Graduation rates show small positive effects (2-5 percentage points) in most contexts where PBF has been implemented for more than 3 years. Tennessee's model, the most studied, shows a 3.2 percentage point increase in 6-year graduation rates after controlling for student demographics (Hillman et al., 2015). However, several studies note difficulty in attributing causality given concurrent policy changes.
+
+3. **Significant unintended consequences**: Grade inflation, cream-skimming, narrowing of institutional mission documented in multiple countries. In Australia, the demand-driven system (2012-2017) led to rapid enrollment growth but declining completion rates at some institutions. In the US, evidence from Indiana suggests institutions may have shifted enrollment toward better-prepared students rather than improving outcomes for existing students (Umbricht et al., 2017).
+
+4. **Context is king**: Governance structure (centralized vs. decentralized) is the strongest moderator of PBF effectiveness. Centralized systems (Denmark, Finland, Netherlands) show more consistent implementation and fewer gaming behaviors than decentralized systems (US states, Australia). The mechanism appears to be: centralized systems can enforce compliance and adjust metrics more rapidly, while decentralized systems create more opportunities for strategic behavior.
+
+5. **Equity concerns**: Institutions serving disadvantaged students consistently report greater difficulty meeting PBF targets. This is documented across all 8 countries studied, though the magnitude varies. Tennessee partially addresses this through "premium" weights for Pell-eligible students and adult learners, while most European models lack explicit equity adjustments.
+
+**Major Contradiction**: US state-level studies show mixed results (Tennessee positive, Ohio neutral, Indiana negative), while European models show more consistent modest effects — likely explained by funding proportion (US: 5-25% of budget; Europe: often < 5%).
+
+### devils_advocate_agent — CHECKPOINT 2
+
+**Verdict**: PASS
+- Major (downgraded from Critical): Selection of 8 countries needs stronger justification — why not Germany, Japan, Canada?
+- Minor: "Context is king" is an assertion — specify which contextual variables and their mechanisms
+
+## Phase 4: COMPOSITION
+
+### report_compiler_agent Output
+
+**Title**: Performance-Based Funding in OECD Higher Education: A Comparative Analysis of Design, Outcomes, and Contextual Mediators
+
+**Word Count**: 6,800 words
+
+**Structure**:
+1. **Introduction** (600 words): PBF as global policy trend; rationale for comparative analysis
+2. **Literature Review** (1,200 words): Evolution of PBF models from 1970s to present; theoretical foundations (principal-agent theory, new public management, institutional theory)
+3. **Methodology** (800 words): Comparative policy analysis framework; country selection criteria (most-similar-systems with variation on key variables); data sources and analytical approach
+4. **Findings**:
+   - 4.1 Design Feature Comparison (1,200 words): Cross-case matrix of 8 countries across 6 design dimensions (metrics, weights, mechanism type, funding proportion, adjustment frequency, equity provisions)
+   - 4.2 Outcome Evidence (800 words): Intended effects on graduation, retention, research output
+   - 4.3 Unintended Consequences (600 words): Gaming, cream-skimming, mission drift, administrative burden
+   - 4.4 Contextual Mediators (600 words): Governance, market structure, institutional culture, data infrastructure
+5. **Discussion** (600 words): Implications for policy design; transferability considerations
+6. **Recommendations** (400 words): 5 evidence-based design principles
+   - R1: Keep performance-linked proportion below 10% initially
+   - R2: Include explicit equity adjustments from the start
+   - R3: Use improvement metrics alongside absolute metrics
+   - R4: Build in 3-year review cycles with stakeholder input
+   - R5: Invest in institutional data capacity before implementation
+7. **Limitations & Future Research** (300 words)
+8. **References** (33 sources in APA 7.0)
+
+## Phase 5: REVIEW
+
+### editor_in_chief_agent Output
+
+**Verdict**: Accept with Minor Revision (Score: 4.1/5.0)
+- Strength: Well-structured comparative framework; balanced treatment of evidence
+- Minor: Table 2 (design features) needs a notes column to explain country-specific nuances
+- Minor: Recommendation #5 (data capacity) needs supporting evidence — currently assertion-based
+
+### ethics_review_agent Output
+
+**Verdict**: CLEARED
+- AI disclosure: Present and accurate
+- References spot-checked: 7/33 (21%) verified — all confirmed
+- Dual-use risk: Low (public policy analysis)
+- Fair representation: Adequate — noted absence of non-OECD perspectives as limitation
+- Potential bias: Report slightly favors European models over US models; flagged for author awareness
+
+### devils_advocate_agent — CHECKPOINT 3
+
+**Verdict**: PASS
+- Observation: Conclusion recommendation #3 ("use improvement metrics alongside absolute metrics") is the strongest recommendation but has the weakest evidence base — only 2 countries have implemented this
+- "So what?" test: Passed — clear implications for policymakers designing or reforming PBF systems
+- Counterfactual check: What if PBF effects are entirely explained by the Hawthorne effect (attention to metrics, not funding mechanism)? This alternative explanation is not adequately addressed
+
+## Phase 6: REVISION
+
+### report_compiler_agent (Revision 1)
+
+**Changes**:
+1. Table 2 expanded with notes column explaining country-specific nuances (Minor, Editor)
+2. Recommendation #5 supported with evidence from Finnish data infrastructure investment (Minor, Editor)
+3. Discussion section expanded to address Hawthorne effect alternative explanation (Observation, Devil's Advocate)
+4. Country selection justification strengthened in Methodology — added explicit criteria and acknowledged Germany, Japan, Canada as excluded cases with rationale (Major, Devil's Advocate from Checkpoint 2)
+
+**Final Word Count**: 6,800 words
+**Revision Loops Used**: 1 of 2
+
+---
+
+## Final Output Summary
+- Full APA 7.0 report: 6,800 words
+- 33 cited sources (Levels I-VII)
+- 8-country comparative matrix
+- 5 key findings
+- 5 evidence-based policy recommendations
+- Ethics cleared
+- 1 revision loop completed