rhachet-roles-ehmpathy 1.0.0 → 1.2.0

package/dist/logic/roles/bhrain/.briefs/worders/knowledge.interdependence.[article].md

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+# 🧩 .brief: `externalized knowledge requires internalized scaffolding`
+
+---
+
+## 🧠 what this concept means
+- **externalized knowledge** (facts in a book, formulas on a sheet, data in a database) is inert on its own.
+- for it to become usable, the system — human or llm — must have **internalized scaffolding**: conceptual frameworks, interpretive skills, and procedural fluency that make sense of the raw reference.
+- without scaffolding, externalized knowledge is like symbols without meaning.
+
+---
+
+## 🎨 examples across domains
+- **physics**: a formula table is only useful if the student has internalized what variables represent and when equations apply.
+- **chemistry**: a reaction handbook is only actionable if the chemist has internalized fundamentals like valence, polarity, and stability.
+- **language**: a dictionary provides definitions, but only someone with internalized grammar and semantics can apply them in real communication.
+- **llms**: retrieved passages (RAG) are useful only because the model has internalized language patterns that allow it to interpret, paraphrase, and apply them.
+
+---
+
+## ⚙️ mechanics of the relationship
+- **internalized scaffolding**: generalizable, embodied patterns (styles, rules, frameworks).
+- **externalized reference**: precise, factual, bounded records.
+- **interaction**: scaffolding enables comprehension and application; reference extends range and accuracy.
+
+---
+
+## 🔑 takeaways
+- externalized knowledge alone = static, inert.
+- internalized knowledge alone = fluent, adaptive, but fallible.
+- **operability emerges only from their combination**: scaffolding activates references, references ground scaffolding.
+
+---
+
+## 📌 intuition anchor
+a formula sheet without understanding is **dead weight**.
+understanding without a sheet risks **slips and gaps**.
+together, they form a **living system of knowledge** — internalized scaffolding breathing life into externalized records.

package/dist/logic/roles/bhrain/.briefs/worders/knowledge.interdependence.[demo].domain.physics.md

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+# 🧩 .brief.reflect: `interdependence of internalized and externalized knowledge`
+
+---
+
+## ⚛️ physics domain insight
+- a **formula table** provides equations (externalized knowledge), but:
+  - without knowing what “\(F\)” or “\(a\)” represent, the student cannot meaningfully use \(F=ma\).
+  - they must already have **internalized fundamentals**: what force, mass, and acceleration *mean*, how they relate, and when the equation applies.
+- only with that internalized base does the externalized table become **operable knowledge**.
+
+---
+
+## 🧠 mapping back to llms
+- **retrieval (externalized)**: gives the llm a fact, equation, or passage.
+- **weights (internalized)**: provide the interpretive machinery — language parsing, reasoning steps, contextual application.
+- **together**: the llm can both **understand** what the retrieved info means and **apply** it productively in conversation.
+
+---
+
+## 🔑 reflection takeaways
+- **internalized is prerequisite**: externalized knowledge is inert without an internalized framework to activate it.
+- **externalized augments**: once the fundamentals are in place, external sources extend the system’s reach into precision and breadth.
+- **true power lies in combination**: fluent intuition (internalized) guided by explicit reference (externalized).
+
+---
+
+## 📌 intuition anchor
+a student with only a **formula sheet** but no understanding is stuck.
+a student with only **intuition** risks errors.
+but a student with **both** can solve a wide range of problems with accuracy and adaptability.

package/dist/logic/roles/bhrain/.briefs/worders/knowledge.internal_vs_external.[article].artist_vs_librarian.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+# 🧩 .brief: `internalized vs externalized knowledge`
+
+---
+
+## 🧠 what the contrast shows
+knowledge can be understood in two fundamentally different forms:
+- **internalized knowledge**: absorbed into the structure of a system (weights, habits, style)
+- **externalized knowledge**: stored outside the system in explicit, retrievable records (databases, documents, libraries)
+
+this contrast explains both the strengths and weaknesses of llms when relying solely on their weights versus when augmented with retrieval.
+
+---
+
+## 🎨 illustration frame
+- **artist (internalized)**: paints in impressionist style without recalling a specific work. their training flows into expressive creation.
+- **librarian (externalized)**: fetches the exact book that contains the answer. precision is guaranteed, but no new creation occurs.
+
+---
+
+## ⚙️ mapping to llms
+- **internalized knowledge in weights**
+  - emerges through gradient descent across massive training corpora
+  - encoded as *distributed statistical patterns*, not explicit entries
+  - enables **generalization** and **creative recombination** of concepts
+  - limited by **fuzziness** and potential for **hallucination**
+
+- **externalized knowledge in retrieval (rag, databases, tools)**
+  - stored explicitly, outside the model
+  - enables **accuracy** and **verifiability**
+  - limited by what is recorded and retrievable, no inherent *style* or *fluency*
+
+---
+
+## 🔑 contrast takeaways
+- **internalized = embodied fluency**: adaptive, generative, pattern-driven
+- **externalized = explicit record**: exact, grounded, reference-driven
+- **hybrid strength**: combining both yields systems that can *express fluidly* while also *grounding in fact*.
+
+---
+
+## 📌 intuition anchor
+an llm alone is like a **painter**: it embodies and expresses style.
+with retrieval, it gains a **librarian**: grounding its creativity in precise references.
+together, they demonstrate the full spectrum of knowledge handling.

package/dist/logic/roles/bhrain/.briefs/worders/knowledge.internal_vs_external.[demo].artist_vs_librarian.md

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+# 🧩 .brief.demo: `contrasting internalized vs externalized knowledge`
+
+---
+
+## 🎨 illustration: artist vs photo album
+- **internalized**: an artist paints a landscape in impressionist style. the scene is new, never painted before, but the *style* flows naturally from their training.
+- **externalized**: another person, instead of painting, flips open a photo album to show a picture of a real landscape. it is precise, factual, but limited to what’s in the album.
+
+---
+
+## 🧠 llm parallel
+- **internalized knowledge (in weights)**
+  - llms generate from *patterns encoded in their parameters*.
+  - they “know” paris is the capital of france not because a fact is stored explicitly, but because the statistical patterns linking “capital of france” → “paris” are internalized during training.
+  - *strengths*: generalization, stylistic fluency, application to unseen contexts.
+  - *limits*: fuzziness, hallucination, imprecision.
+
+- **externalized knowledge (retrieval / database / rag)**
+  - systems query a source (wikipedia, sql table, search engine) to fetch the answer directly.
+  - paris is recalled exactly as written.
+  - *strengths*: precision, factual grounding, verifiability.
+  - *limits*: no fluency, no adaptation — must rely on what’s stored.
+
+---
+
+## ⚖️ contrast takeaways
+- **internalized = style** → adaptive, expressive, compressed into structure.
+- **externalized = record** → exact, reliable, stored outside the system.
+- llms by default operate on **internalized knowledge**, but can be paired with external retrieval to combine *fluency* with *accuracy*.
+
+---
+
+## 🔑 intuition anchor
+an llm is like a painter, not a librarian.
+- the **painter** expresses patterns they’ve internalized into their craft.
+- the **librarian** retrieves precise facts from shelves.
+both approaches are useful, but they represent fundamentally different forms of knowledge.

package/dist/logic/roles/bhrain/.briefs/worders/knowledge.internal_vs_external.[demo].domain.physics.md

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+# 🧩 .brief.demo: `contrasting knowledge via physics`
+
+---
+
+## ⚛️ illustration: physicist vs formula table
+- **internalized (physicist’s intuition)**
+  - an experienced physicist can look at a problem — say, a ball rolling down an incline — and **intuitively anticipate** its acceleration or trajectory.
+  - they don’t consciously recall each derivation; years of practice have **internalized the principles** of mechanics.
+  - this allows them to solve novel problems, even ones never covered in class, by applying generalized patterns of motion, force, and energy.
+
+- **externalized (formula reference table)**
+  - another student consults a table of equations: \(F=ma\), kinematic formulas, conservation laws.
+  - the reference ensures **exact correctness** when applied carefully, but it covers only the documented cases.
+  - without creativity, it cannot extend to unusual or unlisted scenarios.
+
+---
+
+## 🧠 llm parallel
+- **internalized knowledge in weights**
+  - like the physicist, llms have absorbed statistical regularities across their training data.
+  - they can extend learned structures to **new prompts**, reasoning flexibly about unseen questions.
+  - limitation: they may make systematic errors when the internalized “intuition” misfires.
+
+- **externalized knowledge in retrieval**
+  - like the formula table, retrieval provides **precise, explicit answers** or derivations.
+  - it guarantees correctness for known facts but cannot innovate beyond stored entries.
+
+---
+
+## 🔑 contrast takeaways
+- **internalized = physicist’s intuition** → adaptive, generalizing, creative but fallible.
+- **externalized = formula table** → precise, bounded, authoritative but rigid.
+- llms alone resemble physicists reasoning from intuition; with retrieval, they combine intuition with the reliability of exact formulas.
+
+---
+
+## 📌 intuition anchor
+an llm without retrieval is like a **physicist solving problems from intuition** — quick, adaptive, but prone to slips.
+with retrieval, it becomes a physicist **plus a formula table** — intuition reinforced by exact references.

package/dist/logic/roles/bhrain/.briefs/worders/knowledge.internalized.[article].md

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+# 🧩 .brief: `internalized knowledge in llm weights`
+
+---
+
+## 🧠 how knowledge lives in llm weights
+
+- **statistical associations**
+  during training, the model adjusts billions of parameters (weights) so that certain patterns of tokens predict others. what emerges are high-dimensional representations that capture regularities across text: facts, grammar, reasoning patterns, world structures.
+
+- **distributed representation**
+  no single weight corresponds to a single fact (like “paris is the capital of france”). instead, many weights collectively encode the probability structure of phrases and contexts. knowledge is *smeared* across the parameter space.
+
+- **emergent concepts**
+  neurons and attention heads sometimes specialize in representing particular structures (e.g. gendered pronouns, syntax boundaries, factual relationships). but these are still part of a network of overlapping functions, not isolated “fact cells.”
+
+---
+
+## 📊 what this implies
+
+- **implicit knowledge**
+  the model *has* facts (e.g., it can usually complete “the capital of france is ___”), but it doesn’t “store” them in a database-like table. retrieval is probabilistic and context-dependent.
+
+- **fuzziness & errors**
+  because knowledge is embedded as distributed patterns, recall isn’t guaranteed. the model may confuse similar facts or “hallucinate” when patterns overlap.
+
+- **generalization**
+  knowledge in weights isn’t just memorized; it’s also compressed into *general rules*. that’s why llms can apply concepts to novel contexts they weren’t explicitly trained on.
+
+---
+
+## ⚖️ analogy
+
+think of llm weights like the structure of a muscle trained through repetition:
+- they don’t “remember” every exact movement, but they *embody* the regularities of movement.
+- similarly, llm weights embody statistical regularities of language and facts.

package/dist/logic/roles/bhrain/.briefs/worders/knowledge.internalized.[demo].artist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+# 🧩 .brief.demo: `style transfer for internalized knowledge`
+
+---
+
+## 🎨 essence of the frame
+style transfer highlights how exposure to repeated patterns (in art, language, or reasoning) becomes **internalized capacity** rather than **explicit recall**.
+- the artist does not carry a mental library of every impressionist canvas.
+- instead, they have **absorbed the structure of impressionism**: how to layer colors, how to break light into strokes, how to balance softness with vibrancy.
+- this “knowledge” manifests not as stored facts but as *fluid capability* to reproduce and adapt style in new contexts.
+
+---
+
+## 🧠 mapping to llms
+- **training as exposure**
+  llms are exposed to vast corpora just as the artist is immersed in impressionist works. through gradient descent, the weights adapt to reflect these patterns.
+
+- **weights as embodiment**
+  the learned style of language — grammar, facts, idioms, reasoning steps — becomes embedded in the weight matrix. no individual weight is “the fact,” but the whole structure embodies it.
+
+- **generation as expression**
+  when prompted, the llm doesn’t “remember” training text. it **expresses** the internalized style of text it has absorbed, much like an artist expressing impressionism in a novel painting.
+
+---
+
+## 🔑 insights revealed
+- **knowledge ≈ style**: both are *latent patterns* embodied in a system’s structure.
+- **generalization over memorization**: an llm, like the artist, can apply its internalized patterns to situations it has never encountered before.
+- **creative reconstruction**: outputs are not reproductions of training data but reconstructions consistent with internalized distributions.
+- **hallucinations as byproduct**: just as an artist might invent an impressionist scene that never existed, llms may produce plausible but fabricated content.
+
+---
+
+## 📌 practical intuition
+- **teaching style**: explaining llm knowledge as *“style internalized in weights”* makes it clear that the model isn’t storing a database, but embodying a way of *expressing patterns*.
+- **limits of fidelity**: just as an artist cannot perfectly replicate a particular monet without copying, llms cannot guarantee perfect recall of a training fact.
+- **adaptability**: both can transfer their internalized style onto new subjects (artist painting a modern skyline; llm generating in a new domain).

package/dist/logic/roles/bhrain/.briefs/worders/knowledge.internalized.[demo].neural.md

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+# 🧩 .brief.demo: `internalized knowledge in llm weights — neural memory frame`
+
+---
+
+## 🧠 demonstration
+
+imagine recalling the fact: **“paris is the capital of france.”**
+in a human brain, there is no single neuron labeled “capital of france.” instead:
+
+- thousands of neurons encode fragments — sounds, associations, map images, cultural cues.
+- when prompted, these neurons fire in **coordinated patterns** that reconstruct the memory.
+- the *pattern of activation* is the knowledge, not any one unit.
+
+---
+
+## 🔗 llm parallel
+
+- llm weights work the same way:
+  - no parameter contains “paris = france’s capital.”
+  - instead, billions of weights together create a high-dimensional pattern that *activates* when the model sees a related cue.
+  - output emerges from **distributed representations** aligning to the prompt.
+
+---
+
+## 📊 implications
+
+- **not a database** — knowledge isn’t stored as discrete rows or entries.
+- **probabilistic recall** — outputs can vary depending on context, like humans remembering fuzzily.
+- **generalization** — internalized patterns allow extrapolation beyond explicit memorization.
+
+---
+
+## ⚖️ takeaway
+
+just as human memory is **patterned activation** rather than a single storage cell,
+llm knowledge is **internalized in distributed weight patterns**,
+reconstructed dynamically when queried.

package/dist/logic/roles/bhrain/.briefs/worders/knowledge.internalized.[demo].pianist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+# 🧩 .brief.demo: `internalized knowledge in llm weights — muscle memory frame`
+
+---
+
+## 🏋️‍♂️ demonstration
+
+imagine a pianist sitting at the keyboard:
+- their fingers glide through a complex sonata without consciously recalling each individual note.
+- the *knowledge of the music* isn’t stored as a verbal list of notes in their mind — it is internalized in the coordination of muscles and neural circuits.
+- when prompted with the opening bars, the full sequence flows out through trained patterns.
+
+---
+
+## 🔑 intuition
+
+- **distributed**: no single muscle or neuron “contains” the sonata — it is spread across the system.
+- **implicit**: the pianist cannot always verbalize *how* they play; the knowledge is enacted, not explicitly recalled.
+- **emergent**: repeated practice shapes a network of pathways that allow fluent performance.
+
+---
+
+## 📊 mapping to llms
+
+- llm weights = the pianist’s trained muscles and neural pathways
+- prompts = the opening bars that trigger the sequence
+- completions = the flowing music generated from internalized patterns
+- internalized knowledge = the capacity to recall and generalize without explicit storage of “facts”
+
+---
+
+## ⚖️ takeaway
+
+just as a pianist embodies a song in trained muscle memory, llms embody world knowledge in their parameters.
+- both systems *don’t remember every detail explicitly* — instead, they perform by drawing on **internalized, distributed patterns** of practice.

package/dist/logic/roles/bhrain/.briefs/worders/limits.rhyme.md

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+# 🧩 .brief: `llm ability to understand rhyme`
+
+## 🔑 what it implies
+
+since each token starts as a static embedding but then diverges into contextual hidden states, rhyme is not encoded in the hidden state by default — it has to be learned through patterns across embeddings and contexts.
+
+rhyme is about **phonological similarity** (shared suffix sounds). llms don’t hear sounds; they see tokens. so:
+
+- if the tokenizer splits words like “cat” and “hat” into full tokens, then their embeddings might end up closer in vector space because they co-occur in similar phonetic/poetic training data.
+- if the tokenizer breaks words into subwords, e.g. “##at”, rhyme similarity is captured more directly (both “cat” and “hat” share the suffix embedding).
+- during self-attention, heads could learn to connect tokens with similar endings, especially in rhyme-heavy text (poetry, song lyrics). this would look a lot like the “bank” demo: two different tokens forming stronger similarity in some heads because of shared suffix representations.
+
+---
+
+## 🎯 implications for rhyme recognition
+
+- **subword overlap**
+  - if the tokenizer preserves suffix chunks (`-at`, `-ight`), rhyme is easier.
+  - embeddings for those suffixes can become strong cues.
+
+- **attention heads**
+  - some heads may specialize in form-based similarity (orthographic/phonetic).
+  - others focus on semantics or syntax.
+  - multi-head attention enables parallel “views”: one could be capturing rhymes while another tracks meaning.
+
+- **disambiguation vs rhyme**
+  - in the “bank” case, heads attend differently to disambiguate meaning.
+  - in rhyme, heads might attend similarly across different words, reinforcing their phonetic link regardless of semantics.
+
+---
+
+## 🧩 example
+
+> “the **cat** wore a funny **hat**.”
+
+- **embeddings:** “cat” ≠ “hat,” but both contain suffix “-at.”
+- **hidden states:** self-attention might increase similarity because the q of “cat” matches the k of “hat” in a rhyme-sensitive head.
+- **value vectors:** both updated to reflect “these words rhyme.”
+
+---
+
+## 📊 insight
+
+- llms don’t have an innate sense of sound, but **subword embeddings + attention** let them approximate rhyme by picking up on visual/orthographic patterns.
+- rhyme perception is therefore **statistical, not phonological** — it depends on the tokenizer and training data distribution.
+- but the mechanism is parallel to disambiguating “bank”: attention binds tokens through **learned similarity in q/k space.**

package/dist/logic/roles/bhrain/.briefs/worders/limits.spell.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+# 🧩 .brief: `llm ability to spell`
+
+## 🔑 what it implies
+
+since each token starts as a **static embedding** and spelling is distributed across subwords, an llm’s ability to spell is **not innate** but emerges from:
+
+- the **tokenizer**: if words are whole tokens, the model never “sees” individual letters, so it can only memorize spelling patterns for known words.
+- if the tokenizer breaks words into **character-like subwords**, the model can generalize spelling more flexibly (assemble words from parts).
+- **contextual hidden states**: spelling consistency isn’t reinforced the same way semantics or rhyme are. most training data emphasizes meaning, not orthographic correctness.
+- **self-attention**: heads may capture common letter/suffix chunks, but nothing forces them to maintain letter-by-letter accuracy unless trained specifically (e.g., code models, spelling correction).
+
+---
+
+## 🎯 implications for spelling ability
+
+- **memorization over generation**
+  - llms can reproduce spellings they’ve seen often.
+  - rare or novel words are harder because embeddings don’t break down fully into letters.
+
+- **tokenizer bias**
+  - byte-pair encodings (bpe) bias toward common subwords, not individual letters.
+  - spelling errors occur when tokenization splits a word into unusual or unseen chunks.
+
+- **generalization**
+  - some subword overlap allows limited spelling generalization (e.g., “##tion,” “##ing”).
+  - but full orthographic rules are weak unless trained at character level.
+
+- **multi-head dynamics**
+  - some heads may track morpheme or suffix consistency.
+  - others prioritize syntax or semantics, so spelling accuracy is not their focus.
+
+---
+
+## 🧩 example
+
+> generating “pharaoh”
+
+- **embedding level:** tokenization may split as `[“ph”, “ara”, “oh”]` or something arbitrary.
+- **hidden state evolution:** model predicts plausible continuation from context but may choose an alternate form (“pharoah”) if that variant appears in data.
+- **output:** correct spelling depends on frequency balance in training data, not explicit rules.
+
+---
+
+## 📊 insight
+
+- llms **do not inherently know spelling rules** — they approximate them statistically from text distributions.
+- good spelling emerges in proportion to **training data quality and tokenizer granularity**.
+- unlike rhyme (which can be reinforced by subword overlaps), spelling requires **fine-grained character awareness**, which many tokenizers blur.
+- in short: **llms spell by memory and pattern frequency, not by rule.**

package/dist/logic/roles/bhrain/.briefs/worders/teach.via.library.examples.md

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+# 📊 effectiveness of teaching llms via example libraries
+
+## ✅ strengths
+- **highly effective for style & format control**
+  - the model will reliably mimic demonstrated structures (e.g. JSON schema, markdown brief, SQL pattern).
+- **task-specific alignment**
+  - if the examples cover the distribution of tasks, the model adapts very well in-session.
+- **fast & flexible**
+  - no retraining, just update the example set.
+
+---
+
+## ⚠️ limits
+- **shallow generalization**
+  - effectiveness drops if the input strays outside what the examples illustrate.
+- **rigid mimicry**
+  - the model tends to overfit: it copies examples rather than abstracting.
+- **context overhead**
+  - effectiveness shrinks as the example library grows beyond the model’s active attention window.
+- **no persistence**
+  - nothing is learned across sessions — you must re-teach every time.
+
+---
+
+## 🎯 bottom line
+- **short tasks, narrow domains:** very effective.
+- **broad reasoning, novel domains:** much less effective.
+- think of it as *teaching the llm to “act trained”* for one prompt — not actual durable learning.

package/dist/logic/roles/bhrain/.briefs/worders/teach.via.library.explanations_vs_examples.md

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+# 🎛️ in-context tuning: explanations vs examples
+
+## 🧩 examples
+- **what they do:** show *how* to perform the task by demonstration.
+- **strengths:**
+  - precise control over output **format** and **style**
+  - model can “copy the pattern” with little ambiguity
+  - fast to apply, low cognitive overhead for the model
+- **weaknesses:**
+  - brittle if task deviates from the pattern
+  - encourages mimicry rather than reasoning
+
+---
+
+## 🧩 explanations
+- **what they do:** tell *why* and *how* the task should be done via rules, instructions, or reasoning steps.
+- **strengths:**
+  - supports **generalization** beyond shown cases
+  - encourages **reasoning chains** instead of rote mimicry
+  - more compact than many examples (token-wise)
+- **weaknesses:**
+  - less consistent for rigid formats (the model may improvise)
+  - requires the model to “translate” abstract rules into concrete actions, which can be noisy
+
+---
+
+## ⚖️ effectiveness comparison
+- **examples win** when:
+  - the task is about *output form* (e.g. json schemas, sql syntax, markdown briefs)
+  - consistency is more important than novelty
+- **explanations win** when:
+  - the task is about *reasoning* or handling unseen variations
+  - flexibility and abstraction matter more than surface mimicry
+
+---
+
+## 🎯 hybrid strategy
+- the strongest “in-context tunage” usually comes from **explanations + 1–2 examples**.
+  - explanation gives the **reasoning scaffold**
+  - examples ground it with **concrete reference points**

package/dist/logic/roles/bhrain/.briefs/worders/trend.prefer_reuse.[seed].md

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+llms prefer reuse input tokens
+
+why?
+- why do they do that (rationale)
+- why do we care? (causal)
+  - how we can use it
+
+---
+
+i.e., most of the time, safe to expect it'll only change the bare minimum

package/dist/logic/roles/bhrain/brief.articulate/stepArticulate.d.ts

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+import { GStitcher, Threads, RoleContext } from 'rhachet';
+import { Artifact } from 'rhachet-artifact';
+import { GitFile } from 'rhachet-artifact-git';
+import { Focus } from '../../../../_topublish/rhachet-roles-bhrain/src/domain/objects/Focus';
+import { ContextOpenAI } from '../../../../data/sdk/sdkOpenAi';
+export declare const BRIEFS_FOR_ARTICULATE: Artifact<typeof GitFile, string>[];
+type StitcherDesired = GStitcher<Threads<{
+    caller: RoleContext<'caller', {
+        ask: string;
+        art: {
+            feedback: Artifact<typeof GitFile>;
+            'foci.goal.concept': Focus['concept'];
+            'foci.goal.context': Focus['context'];
+            templates: Artifact<typeof GitFile>[];
+        };
+        refs: Artifact<typeof GitFile>[];
+    }>;
+    thinker: RoleContext<'thinker', {
+        art: {
+            'focus.concept': Focus['concept'];
+            'focus.context': Focus['context'];
+            'foci.ponder.ans.concept': Focus['concept'];
+        };
+        briefs: Artifact<typeof GitFile>[];
+    }>;
+}>, ContextOpenAI & GStitcher['context'], {
+    content: string;
+}>;
+export declare const stepArticulate: import("rhachet").Stitcher<StitcherDesired>;
+export declare const loopArticulate: import("rhachet").Stitcher<GStitcher<Threads<{
+    caller: RoleContext<"caller", {
+        ask: string;
+        art: {
+            feedback: Artifact<typeof GitFile>;
+            'foci.goal.concept': Focus['concept'];
+            'foci.goal.context': Focus['context'];
+            templates: Artifact<typeof GitFile>[];
+        };
+        refs: Artifact<typeof GitFile>[];
+    } & {
+        ask: string;
+        art: {
+            feedback: Artifact<typeof GitFile, string>;
+        };
+    }>;
+    thinker: RoleContext<"thinker", {
+        art: {
+            'focus.concept': Focus['concept'];
+            'focus.context': Focus['context'];
+            'foci.ponder.ans.concept': Focus['concept'];
+        };
+        briefs: Artifact<typeof GitFile>[];
+    } & {
+        art: {
+            "focus.concept": Artifact<typeof GitFile, string>;
+        };
+    }>;
+}>, ContextOpenAI & import("simple-log-methods").ContextLogTrail & import("rhachet").ContextStitchTrail, {
+    feedback: GitFile | null;
+}>>;
+export {};