open/ktg-plugin-marketplace
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Releases Wiki Activity Actions

feat(linkedin-studio): v3.1.0 — Endring 9 adversarial review-pakke + per-artefakt personas

Browse source 
Cold, adversarial review package for the long-form pipeline + configurable
per-edition personas. Motivated by Del 4 (Security Champions pivot): the
in-session editor + persona sweep shared the drafting session's framing-bias,
so the shipped version was never independently re-reviewed.

Headless package (9a/9b):
- New Step 6.5 (headless-review) in /linkedin:newsletter, after the persona
  sweep, before lock — the independence layer the in-session gates can't be.
- New standalone /linkedin:headless-review command (run in a fresh session for
  maximum isolation; reconstructs frozen draft + contract + personas from disk).
- 3 new Opus archetypes, each with a cardinal context-isolation block that
  refuses drafting-session framing as "context pollution":
  - content-reviewer (argument integrity C1–C5, ≤8 flags)
  - language-reviewer (Norwegian language L1–L5, ≤10 flags)
  - fact-reviewer (cold re-verification F1–F4, risk-sort + pivot-risk, WebSearch)
- Deliberate redundancy with fact-checker / editorial-reviewer documented so
  the pairs are never de-duplicated.

Pivot-reopen (9c):
- New /linkedin:pivot command: logs articles.NN.pivots[], resets currentPhase,
  un-locks, marks gates to re-run.
- Pivot-detection gate in Step 8 lock precondition (>20% word-count change or
  >2 new sections re-opens cleared gates). Del 4 v8→v11 worked example.

Per-artifact personas (new requirement):
- articles.NN.personas with resolution order (edition-state → series file →
  plugin library → interactive). One or more readers configurable per edition.

Schema/docs:
- edition-state.template.json: additive personas[], pivots[], headlessReview,
  headless-review phase (16 phases); personaSweep.resonance.wordCount baseline.
- 3 fasit fixtures + 3 structural lint tests (Del 4 worked cases).
- Counts: 24→26 commands, 16→19 agents, 15→16 newsletter phases.
- README + CLAUDE.md (plugin + root) + CHANGELOG synced.

Verification: 35 agent-fixture + 59 hook + 20 render tests green. Backward-
compatible (additive state); reload required before the 3 new agents resolve.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Kjell Tore Guttormsen 2026-05-29 13:01:24 +02:00
commit e69ea1f4c9
20 changed files with 2520 additions and 59 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

210
plugins/linkedin-studio/agents/fixtures/content-reviewer-cases.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,210 @@
# Content-Reviewer Fasit Fixture
The Del 4 production round (Security Champions, Maskinrommet, 2026-05-29) as the
gold standard for the `content-reviewer` agent. Late in the round the draft took
a **Security Champions pivot**: a new ~260-word section introducing the Champions
model and a new ~270-word role-description section were added after the
in-session gates had already formed their reading. The in-session gates
(fact-check Step 5, editorial Step 5.5, persona sweep Step 6) all read the draft
through the drafting session's framing — they knew *why* the pivot happened and
*what* it was meant to argue, so they silently supplied the missing argumentative
steps for free. A **cold, adversarial reviewer** — handed only the frozen page —
cannot supply them, and that is exactly the point: the cold read catches the
argument holes the framing hid.
The six cases below are the fasit: a correct `content-reviewer` run on the frozen
Del 4 draft should surface **comparable flags**, mapped to the one axis with
consistent severities.
This file is a *fasit*, not a test harness. The structural lint lives in
`agents/__tests__/content-reviewer-fixture.test.mjs`. Whether the agent's live
flags actually reproduce these directions is `[GATE]`/`[OPERATØR]` — it is **not**
self-certified here.
> **The jury judges; the writer writes.** Every expected output below is
> **direction, not rewritten copy.** A correct agent run hands back flags + a
> severity — never edited prose. (`Foreslått retning`, not a new sentence.)
> **Why this gate exists.** The in-session gates shared the drafting session's
> framing-bias: they read the pivot knowing its intent, so they bridged the
> argument's gaps without noticing the gaps were there. A **cold reader** — run in
> an isolated context with no history, no changelog, no "out of scope" list, no
> pivot narrative — reads the frozen page as a first-time skeptic and finds the
> argument holes the framing hid. Any such framing that reaches the agent is
> **context pollution**: it is named and ignored, never acted on. This is a
> distinct failure surface from craft (editorial), language (language-reviewer),
> truth (fact-reviewer), and response (persona) — those gates can all pass while
> the argument itself does not hold.
---
## The axis (the agent judges on exactly this)
The agent judges on **one axis — argument-integritet** (argument & logical
integrity): *does the reasoning hold?* It does **not** judge craft, language,
factual truth, or reader response — those are `editorial-reviewer`,
`language-reviewer`, `fact-reviewer`, and `persona-reviewer` respectively. The
axis decomposes into exactly five checks:
- **C1 — logiske hull** (logical holes): a step in the argument chain is missing;
the text jumps from A to C without B, and the reader cannot reconstruct why the
conclusion follows.
- **C2 — ubegrunnede antakelser** (unsupported assumptions): the argument leans on
a premise it never establishes, asserted as self-evident when a thoughtful
reader would not simply grant it.
- **C3 — argument-motsigelser** (argument-level contradiction): the recommendation,
premise, and payoff are not mutually consistent — distinct from editorial-
reviewer's P4 (a *prose-level* contradiction between two passages); C3 is a
contradiction in the *logic of the argument itself*.
- **C4 — manglende konkretisering der argumentet trenger det** (missing
argumentative concretization): a load-bearing claim a skeptic would only believe
with a concrete instance stays abstract — not for vividness (editorial A1) but
because the argument *needs* the instance to carry weight.
- **C5 — ubesvart «what about X?»** (the unanswered obvious objection): the
strongest obvious objection a thoughtful reader raises is never acknowledged or
answered — the argument wins only because it never met its best counter.
## Severity (every flag carries exactly one)
- **BLOCK** — a defect that breaks the argument: an argument-level contradiction
(C3), or an unanswered objection (C5) that, once raised, collapses the
recommendation.
- **REWORK** — a real gap that should be filled, not load-bearing-fatal: a logical
hole (C1), an unsupported load-bearing assumption (C2), a claim that needs
concretization (C4).
- **NICE** — a minor reasoning soft spot worth tightening if cheap.
Sort BLOCK → REWORK → NICE; cap at **eight** flags (argument defects are coarser
than prose nits); if any are suppressed, say how many and of what severity —
never silently truncate.
---
## The six Del 4 argument points (fasit)
Each case states the argument defect a cold read would catch on the frozen Del 4
draft, the check (C1–C5) it belongs to, the expected severity, and the direction a
correct agent run returns. Every case is an **argument blind spot** — distinct
from craft (what `editorial-reviewer` would catch) and response (what
`persona-reviewer` would catch). The in-session gates passed the draft; the cold
read does not, because the framing they shared is gone.
### Case 1 — pivot-premisset asserted uten støtte (unsupported pivot premise)
- **Axis:** argument-integritet · **Check:** C2 · **Severity:** BLOCK
- **Cold-read defect:** The new ~260-word Security Champions section opens by
treating "Security Champions er svaret" as an established premise the rest of
the part builds on — but the frozen page never establishes *why* the Champions
model is the right response rather than one option among several. The drafting
session knew the rationale; the cold reader is handed only the assertion.
- **Fasit / direction:** The pivot's load-bearing premise is asserted as
self-evident with no support a first-time skeptic would grant. Direction:
establish why the Champions model follows from the part's problem, or hedge it
as one option — do not let the whole section rest on an un-earned premise. (An
unsupported *load-bearing* premise that the section depends on is BLOCK: the
argument has not earned the right to make its central move.)
### Case 2 — ubesvart «hva med små organisasjoner?» (unanswered obvious objection)
- **Axis:** argument-integritet · **Check:** C5 · **Severity:** BLOCK
- **Cold-read defect:** The strongest obvious objection a thoughtful reader raises
on first reading the Champions pivot — *"what about small organisations that
cannot staff a dedicated Champion?"* — is never acknowledged or answered. The
recommendation effectively assumes an org large enough to nominate a Champion,
and the argument wins only because it never meets this counter.
- **Fasit / direction:** Name the objection and answer it (a small-org variant, an
explicit scope boundary, or a rule of thumb) — an unanswered objection that, once
raised, collapses the recommendation for a whole class of readers is BLOCK.
Direction only; the agent does not write the answer.
### Case 3 — sprang fra «Champions finnes» til «dømmekraft bevart» (logical hole)
- **Axis:** argument-integritet · **Check:** C1 · **Severity:** REWORK
- **Cold-read defect:** The text jumps from *"Security Champions finnes i
organisasjonen"* (A) to *"dermed er dømmekraften bevart"* (C) with no connecting
step (B): existence of a role does not on its own establish that judgment is
preserved. The reader cannot reconstruct why the conclusion follows. The session
carried the missing step in its head; the page does not state it.
- **Fasit / direction:** Supply the missing step — *how* the Champion's presence
translates into preserved judgment (mechanism, mandate, practice) — or soften the
conclusion to a hypothesis. A bridgeable-but-unbridged jump on a supporting line
is REWORK.
### Case 4 — rolle-seksjonen aldri forankret i én konkret org (missing concretization)
- **Axis:** argument-integritet · **Check:** C4 · **Severity:** REWORK
- **Cold-read defect:** The new ~270-word role-description section describes what a
Champion *does* entirely in the abstract and never grounds it in **one concrete
organisation** where this role actually operates. This is not a vividness nit
(that would be editorial A1) — the *argument* that the role works needs one real
instance to be believed; a skeptic will not grant an abstract job description as
evidence the model functions.
- **Fasit / direction:** Anchor the role in a single concrete (preferably
Norwegian) org where a Champion operates, so the load-bearing claim "this role
works" carries weight. Flag the *absence of the argument-bearing instance*; do
not supply the org. (Boundary: route any pure craft/vividness face to editorial
A1; this flag is the argument face — the claim cannot be believed abstractly.)
### Case 5 — anbefaling delegerer den dømmekraften serien sier ikke kan settes ut (argument contradiction)
- **Axis:** argument-integritet · **Check:** C3 · **Severity:** BLOCK
- **Cold-read defect:** The series premise is *"du kan ikke sette ut dømmekraft"*
(you cannot outsource judgment). The Champions recommendation, read cold on the
frozen page, effectively **delegates that judgment** to the Champion — the close
recommends the very move the premise rules out. Premise, recommendation, and
payoff are not mutually consistent. This is an argument-level contradiction (C3),
not a prose-level one between two passages (that would be editorial P4): the
*logic* defeats itself.
- **Fasit / direction:** Hold premise, recommendation, and gevinst side by side and
resolve one side — either reframe the Champion as *supporting* judgment that
stays distributed (not a delegate it is outsourced to), or qualify the series
premise. A recommendation that defeats the series premise is BLOCK.
### Case 6 — gevinst-leddet antar utbredt modenhet (unsupported assumption)
- **Axis:** argument-integritet · **Check:** C2 · **Severity:** REWORK
- **Cold-read defect:** The promised payoff of the Champions model leans on an
unstated assumption that the surrounding organisation is mature enough to use a
Champion well (clear mandate, time allocation, leadership backing). The frozen
page asserts the gevinst as if it follows automatically; the cold reader sees an
un-earned premise standing between the model and its benefit.
- **Fasit / direction:** Establish or hedge the maturity assumption the payoff
depends on — name the conditions under which the gevinst holds, or mark it
conditional. A load-bearing assumption left unstated under the payoff is REWORK
(it weakens the case rather than defeating it outright).
---
## Expected aggregate (what a correct run looks like)
- **Total flags:** 6 (well within the ≤8 cap — no suppression needed).
- **By check:** C1 = 1 (Case 3) · C2 = 2 (Cases 1, 6) · C3 = 1 (Case 5) ·
C4 = 1 (Case 4) · C5 = 1 (Case 2).
- **By severity:** BLOCK = 3 (Cases 1, 2, 5 — unsupported pivot premise,
unanswered small-org objection, premise/recommendation contradiction) ·
REWORK = 3 (Cases 3, 4, 6) · NICE = 0.
- **All six are argument blind spots:** none is a craft defect (`editorial-
reviewer`'s domain), a language defect (`language-reviewer`), a factual error
(`fact-reviewer`), or a resonance miss (`persona-reviewer`). The in-session
gates passed the draft on every one of those axes — and still the argument did
not hold, because they read it through the session's framing. The cold read is
the quantified case for the gate.
A run that reproduces ~these six directions, on the one argument-integritet axis,
with ~these severities, is **comparable** to the cold adversarial read the gate is
built to deliver. Exact wording is the editor's; the agent returns
**direction, not rewritten copy.**
## Calibration boundary
Whether the agent's live flags truly match this fasit is judged by the operator
(`[OPERATØR]`), not self-certified here. This fixture is the calibration target,
the same way `editorial-reviewer-cases.md`, `persona-reviewer-cases.md`, and
`fact-checker-cases.md` are fasits for their agents.
> **Live-run note.** A live run on the frozen Del 4 draft requires (a) a Claude
> Code session reload — a freshly added agent is not invokable until the plugin
> agent set is rebuilt at session start — and (b) a genuinely **cold** invocation
> (an isolated context with no drafting-session history, changelog, scope list, or
> pivot narrative reaching the agent). Until both hold, this fixture is the
> gold-standard of record.

196
plugins/linkedin-studio/agents/fixtures/fact-reviewer-cases.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,196 @@
# Fact-Reviewer Fasit Fixture
The Del 4 production round (Security Champions, Maskinrommet, 2026-05-29) as the
gold standard for the `fact-reviewer` agent. The in-session `fact-checker`
(Step 5) ran on a still-moving draft. A **late Security Champions pivot** — a new
argument anchor — arrived **after** that Step 5 sweep, so the pivot's premise was
**never fact-checked**. The pivot then went through the in-session persona sweep
(Step 6) and reached the frozen, publish-ready version with an unverified premise
intact. KTG's cold re-reading caught a misattribution, a quote-precision error, a
postulated number with no provenance, a "settled standard" that actually varies,
and a secondary source trusted for a precise figure — six points in all. Those six
points are the fasit below: a correct `fact-reviewer` run on the frozen/pivoted Del
4 should surface **comparable verdicts**, mapped to the four checks with consistent
risk verdicts and the pivot-risk flag.
This file is a *fasit*, not a test harness. The structural lint lives in
`agents/__tests__/fact-reviewer-fixture.test.mjs`. Whether the agent's live
verdicts actually reproduce these is `[GATE]`/`[OPERATØR]` — it is **not**
self-certified here.
> **The jury judges; the writer writes.** Every expected output below is
> **direction, not rewritten copy.** A correct agent run hands back a verdict + a
> source (or "none found") + a fix-as-direction (source it / hedge it / cut it) —
> **never** edited prose.
> **Why this gate exists.** Fact-checking was **post-hoc relative to the pivot** in
> Del 4: the in-session Step 5 sweep ran *before* the Security Champions pivot was
> added, so the pivot premise never met it. A **cold re-verification on the
> frozen/pivoted version** closes that gap — it re-checks every claim with equal
> suspicion, with no knowledge of which passages were pivot-fresh, and so catches
> exactly the premise Step 5 missed.
---
## The axis and the four checks (the agent judges on exactly these)
The single axis is **faktisk-korrekthet** — factual correctness, re-verified COLD
on the frozen/pivoted version. It is checked through four lenses:
- **F1 — Verifiserbare påstander** (verifiable claims): every checkable assertion
(numbers, dates, named examples, attributions, causal claims) searched against
primary/credible sources; opinions and predictions skipped.
- **F2 — Sitat-presisjon** (quote precision): any quotation must match the source
verbatim — wording, attribution, and who said it. «Vi» vs «Vi i Nav» is a
precision failure even when the gist is right.
- **F3 — Tall-attribusjon** (number attribution): every figure must trace to a
named source; a postulated number with no provenance is 🟡/🔴. Here provenance is
VERIFIED (distinct from `editorial-reviewer`'s P3, which only flags the absence
of a source/hedge without searching).
- **F4 — Kilde-kvalitet** (source quality): primary over secondary; a source
supporting "around a third" does not verify "exactly 37 %"; post-cutoff claims
must be web-searched.
## Context isolation — cold reader (the agent's cardinal rule)
The agent runs in a **cold context**: its only input is this prompt, the frozen
draft, and the writing contract. Any pivot narrative, changelog, omission list, or
"what the author intended" is **context pollution** — the agent states it is
ignoring it and judges only the text. That independence (no main-session
**framing-bias**) is the whole reason a defect that survived the in-session gates
can still be caught here.
**Pivot-premise risk (the design feature).** Because the agent does **not** know
which passages were added in a late pivot, it re-checks **every** claim with equal
suspicion — a claim's age in the draft buys it no trust. A claim that looks freshly
bolted on (new anchor, new section topic, a 2025/2026 figure) is surfaced in a
**pivot-risk** subsection. A pivot-risk claim that fails verification is the
headline catch: the pivot premise that never met Step 5.
## Risk sort and gate (every claim carries exactly one verdict)
- 🔴 **høy risiko** (high risk) → **BLOCK** — contradicted by evidence, or a precise
claim with no usable source.
- 🟡 **uverifisert** (unverified) → **REWORK** — cannot be confirmed / weak sources;
asserted as fact must be hedged, sourced, or cut.
- 🟢 **verifisert** (verified) → keep — confirmed by a primary/credible source
matching the claim.
The agent recommends PASS / REWORK / BLOCK; the operator (`[OPERATØR]`) holds the
gate. Each case block below carries exactly one verdict emoji in its **Verdict**
field; the surrounding prose deliberately avoids the emoji so the structural lint
can read a single unambiguous verdict per case.
---
## The six Del 4 worked cases (fasit)
Each case states the point, the check it belongs to (F1–F4), the verdict, whether
it is a pivot-risk claim, and the direction a correct cold run returns.
### Case 1 — pivot-premissen aldri faktasjekket (pivot premise never met Step 5) — PIVOT-RISK
- **Check:** F1 (verifiable claim — the pivot's anchor assertion) · **Verdict:** 🔴
- **Pivot-risk:** YES — this is the late Security Champions pivot, added *after* the
Step 5 fact-check; its premise was never verified in-session.
- **Fasit / direction:** The Security Champions pivot rests on a premise asserted as
established fact, but no primary source confirms it as stated. Because the pivot
arrived after Step 5, the in-session sweep never touched it. The cold re-check
— applying equal suspicion to a claim it does not know is pivot-fresh — searches
primary sources, finds none that confirm the premise as worded, and returns high
risk. **This is the exact catch the gate exists for:** the cold pass on the frozen
version surfaces the pivot premise that Step 5 missed. Direction: source the
premise to a primary record or recast it as a hedged hypothesis; do not assert.
The agent returns the verdict + "none found", not a rewritten premise.
### Case 2 — feilattribusjon (misattribution) — editor caught on cold read
- **Check:** F1 (attribution) + F2 (who said it) · **Verdict:** 🔴
- **Pivot-risk:** no.
- **Fasit / direction:** A statement is attributed to the wrong source/originator —
the named party is not who said or published it. Contradicted by the primary
record, so high risk (a contradicted claim is 🔴 regardless of partial score).
Direction: correct the attribution to the verified originator, or cut the
attribution; the agent names the contradicting source, never invents one.
### Case 3 — sitat-presisjon «Vi» vs «Vi i Nav» (quote precision) — editor caught
- **Check:** F2 (quote precision) · **Verdict:** 🟡
- **Pivot-risk:** no.
- **Fasit / direction:** A quotation's gist is right but the wording/attribution is
not verbatim: the source said «Vi i Nav», the draft renders «Vi». Changing who the
«vi» refers to is a precision failure even though the meaning is close. The source
exists, so this is unverified-as-worded rather than contradicted. Direction: match
the source verbatim — restore «Vi i Nav» — or mark it as a paraphrase, not a
quote. The agent flags the precision gap; it does not supply the corrected line.
### Case 4 — postulert tall uten proveniens (postulated number, no provenance)
- **Check:** F3 (number attribution) · **Verdict:** 🟡
- **Pivot-risk:** plausible — a figure of this kind often arrives with a late anchor;
surface it in the pivot-risk subsection if it reads freshly bolted on.
- **Fasit / direction:** A specific figure is stated as fact with **no named
source**. Distinct from `editorial-reviewer`'s P3, which would only flag the
*absence* of a source/hedge: here the agent **searches for the provenance**, finds
none that supports the exact figure, and returns unverified. Direction: trace it to
a named source or hedge it ("anslagsvis"); else cut. The agent never invents a
provenance to promote it to verified.
### Case 5 — «Security Champions» som settet standard (a settled standard that varies)
- **Check:** F1 (claim) + source-scope · **Verdict:** 🔴
- **Pivot-risk:** YES — part of the same Security Champions pivot.
- **Fasit / direction:** The "Security Champions" practice is presented as a settled,
universal standard, but in reality it is a practice that **varies per
organization** — implementations, scope, and definitions differ. A local
convention dressed as a universal standard is a source-scope failure; asserting it
as settled with no source that supports the universal framing is high risk.
Direction: scope the claim to where it actually holds ("varies; in some orgs…") or
source the universal framing to a standard that does establish it. The agent flags
the over-broad scope; it does not rewrite the passage.
### Case 6 — sekundærkilde brukt for et presist tall (secondary source for a precise figure)
- **Check:** F4 (source quality) + F3 (number) · **Verdict:** 🟡
- **Pivot-risk:** no.
- **Fasit / direction:** A precise figure is backed only by a **secondary source**
that summarizes the number — the primary record supports a *directional* claim
("around a third"), not the precise figure ("37 %") the draft asserts. A source
supporting "around a third" does not verify "exactly 37 %". Direction: trace to the
primary source and confirm the exact figure, soften the draft to the directional
claim the secondary source actually supports, or hedge. The agent records the
secondary source found and the precision gap, not a corrected number.
---
## Expected aggregate (what a correct cold run looks like)
- **Total verdicts surfaced:** 6 (within a reasonable verification-log cap; no 🔴
silently dropped).
- **By check:** F1 = 3 (Cases 1, 2, 5) · F2 = 2 (Cases 2, 3) · F3 = 2 (Cases 4, 6) ·
F4 = 1 (Case 6). (Cases overlap checks; the headline check is listed first.)
- **By risk verdict:** 🔴 høy risiko = 3 (Cases 1, 2, 5 → BLOCK) · 🟡 uverifisert = 3
(Cases 3, 4, 6 → REWORK) · 🟢 verifisert = 0 among the flagged points (the rest of
the draft's claims verify clean and are not listed here).
- **Pivot-risk:** Cases 1 and 5 are the Security Champions pivot; Case 4 is a
plausible pivot-risk. **Case 1 is the headline catch** — the pivot premise that
was never fact-checked in-session, caught only because the cold pass re-checks
every claim with equal suspicion.
A run that reproduces ~these six verdicts, on ~these checks, with ~these risk
levels — and that surfaces the Security Champions pivot premise as a pivot-risk 🔴
— is **comparable** to KTG's actual cold re-reading. Exact wording is the editor's;
the agent returns **direction, not rewritten copy**.
## Calibration boundary
Whether the agent's live verdicts truly match this fasit is judged by the operator
(`[OPERATØR]`), not self-certified here. This fixture is the calibration target, the
same way `fact-checker-cases.md`, `editorial-reviewer-cases.md`, and
`persona-reviewer-cases.md` are fasits for their agents.
> **Live-run note.** A live cold run on the frozen Del 4 requires (a) a Claude Code
> session reload — a freshly added agent is not invokable until the plugin agent set
> is rebuilt at session start — and (b) the agent run in a genuinely cold context
> (no drafting-session history, no pivot narrative) with read access to the frozen
> draft and web search. Until both hold, this fixture is the gold-standard of record.

194
plugins/linkedin-studio/agents/fixtures/language-reviewer-cases.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,194 @@
# Language-Reviewer Fasit Fixture
The Del 4 production round (Security Champions, Maskinrommet, 2026-05-29) as the
gold standard for the `language-reviewer` agent. By Step 6 the in-session persona
resonance sweep had returned PASS across the personas and the in-session craft
gate (`editorial-reviewer`, Step 5.5) had run — both *inside* the drafting session,
both sharing its framing-bias. On a **cold, first-time reading of the frozen
draft** (the F5 finding), the editor then caught Norwegian-language defects the
in-session passes had all read straight past: a verbatim **quote error** («Vi»
where the source said «Vi i Nav»), anglicisms, and verbatim repetitions across
sections. Those are the fasit below: a correct `language-reviewer` run on the
Del 4 frozen draft should surface **comparable flags**, mapped to the one axis
with consistent severities.
This file is a *fasit*, not a test harness. The structural lint lives in
`agents/__tests__/language-reviewer-fixture.test.mjs`. Whether the agent's live
flags actually reproduce these directions is `[GATE]`/`[OPERATØR]` — it is **not**
self-certified here.
> **The jury judges; the writer writes.** Every expected output below is
> **direction, not rewritten copy.** A correct agent run hands back flags + a
> severity — never edited prose. (`Foreslått retning`, not a new sentence.)
> **Why this gate exists — the cold re-read.** The in-session gates (fact-check,
> craft, persona) all ran while the drafting session's framing-bias was still in
> the room: the same blind spots that let the author miss «Vi» vs «Vi i Nav» let
> those gates miss it too. `language-reviewer` is run in a **cold context** with
> no access to version history, intent, pivots, or how any gate voted — exactly so
> it carries none of that bias. Any such framing that reaches it is **context
> pollution** to be named and ignored. A cold Norwegian re-read catches what the
> bias hid. That is the F5 finding made into a gate.
---
## The axis (the agent judges on exactly this)
**Axis: norsk-språkkvalitet** (Norwegian language quality) — one axis, five
checks. L1, L2, L5 start grep-able; L3, L4 need a read. The voice under judgment
is a **personal chronicle**, not a saksframlegg.
- **L1 — Ordrette gjentakelser** (verbatim repetition): the same distinctive
phrase or sentence-opening repeats mechanically across the draft (grep 3–6-word
phrases, then read in context).
- **L2 — Anglisismer** (anglicisms): English calques / loan-constructions where
idiomatic Norwegian exists («adressere et problem», «på en daglig basis», «i
terms av»). Flag the calque **and name the Norwegian idiom direction.**
- **L3 — Stivt tjenesteskriftspråk** (stiff bureaucratic register): «kanselli-stil»
— nominalisations, passive overload, «det vises til», agentless sentences that
drain the chronicle voice.
- **L4 — Indre språklige selvmotsigelser** (language-level self-contradiction): a
sentence/phrase that undercuts itself, or two phrasings that cannot both be the
intended register/meaning. The *wording* contradicting itself — **not** the
argument-level logic (that is `content-reviewer`).
- **L5 — Klang / rytme** (clang & rhythm): sentences that read badly aloud —
monotone cadence, every sentence the same length, a jarring word, run-ons that
lose the breath.
## Severity (every flag carries exactly one)
- **BLOCK** — misrepresents or embarrasses: a quote rendered wrong (a verbatim
error inside a quotation — «Vi» vs «Vi i Nav»), or a self-contradicting phrasing
(L4) that changes the meaning.
- **REWORK** — a real language weakness a reader notices: a repeated phrase (L1),
an anglicism (L2), a bureaucratic passage (L3), a rhythm stumble (L5).
- **NICE** — cheap polish: a single mild repetition, one slightly stiff sentence.
## Direction, not copy (the boundary)
Every expected output is **direction, not rewritten copy**: "§3 'adressere' —
anglicism; use the Norwegian idiom («ta tak i»)" is the agent's job; supplying the
rewritten sentence is not. Each flag carries a **quote or line reference.**
---
## The six Del 4 language points (fasit)
Each case states the point the editor raised on the cold reading, the check it
belongs to, the expected severity, and the direction a correct agent run returns.
These are **language blind spots** — distinct from craft (`editorial-reviewer`),
de-AI / voice (`voice-scrubber`), and reader response (`persona-reviewer`). They
survived to the cold pass precisely because the in-session gates shared the
author's framing-bias.
### Case 1 — sitat gjengitt feil: «Vi» i stedet for «Vi i Nav» (verbatim quote error)
- **Check:** L4 (language-level self-contradiction / verbatim quotation error)
· **Severity:** BLOCK
- **Cold-read finding:** A quotation in the chronicle is rendered «Vi …» where the
source said «Vi i Nav …». The clipped quote changes who "vi" refers to — the
wording now misrepresents the source. (Maps to L4 as a wording-level
self-contradiction; the same defect could be filed under L1 as a near-verbatim
repetition of the source gone wrong — the agent files it once, as the BLOCK it
is.)
- **Fasit / direction:** Quote misrenders «Vi i Nav» as «Vi»; restore the source
wording. A misquote misrepresents the piece, so BLOCK. The agent flags the
*wrong rendering*; it does not supply the corrected sentence.
- **Why blind to the in-session gates:** the persona sweep measured whether the
passage *landed* (it did — PASS); none of the in-session gates re-checked the
quote against the source on a cold reading. This is the canonical F5 finding.
### Case 2 — anglisisme: «adressere problemet» (anglicism)
- **Check:** L2 (anglicisms) · **Severity:** REWORK
- **Cold-read finding:** «adressere et problem» is an English calque (to *address*
a problem) where idiomatic Norwegian reads «ta tak i / håndtere / ta opp».
- **Fasit / direction:** Anglicism; use the Norwegian idiom («ta tak i» /
«håndtere»). Name the idiom direction, do not write the sentence.
- **Why blind:** an anglicism reads fluently to a reader inside the drafting
session — the calque *sounds* like normal prose until a cold ear hits it.
### Case 3 — anglisisme: «på en daglig basis» (anglicism)
- **Check:** L2 (anglicisms) · **Severity:** REWORK
- **Cold-read finding:** «på en daglig basis» is a calque of *on a daily basis*;
idiomatic Norwegian is «daglig» / «til daglig».
- **Fasit / direction:** Anglicism; collapse to the Norwegian adverb («daglig»).
Direction only.
- **Why blind:** same mechanism as Case 2 — a second calque the in-session passes
read straight through. Two L2 flags is itself a signal the draft drifted into
English construction.
### Case 4 — ordrette gjentakelser: samme frase 3× på tvers av seksjoner (verbatim repetition)
- **Check:** L1 (verbatim repetition) · **Severity:** REWORK
- **Cold-read finding:** A distinctive phrase recurs three times across §1, §4 and
§6 — mechanical, not load-bearing. `grep`-findable as a repeated 3–6-word
string.
- **Fasit / direction:** Vary or cut the repeats; keep at most the one
load-bearing use. Report the count (3×).
- **Why blind:** a reader inside the session sees each section in isolation; the
repetition only shows when a cold reader takes the whole draft at once. This is
the verbatim-repetition half of the F5 finding.
### Case 5 — stivt tjenesteskriftspråk: «det vises til»-passasje i en personlig krønike (stiff bureaucratic register)
- **Check:** L3 (stiff bureaucratic register / «kanselli-stil») · **Severity:**
REWORK
- **Cold-read finding:** A passage slides into saksframlegg register — «det vises
til», nominalised, agentless, passive-stacked — inside a piece whose voice is a
personal chronicle. The register break drains the chronicle voice.
- **Fasit / direction:** Kanselli-stil in a personal chronicle; restore an agent
and an active verb so the passage reads as the chronicle, not a memo. Direction
only. (This is a *language-register* defect, distinct from `voice-scrubber`'s
de-AI tells and from `editorial-reviewer`'s craft.)
- **Why blind:** bureaucratic register is the author's professional default; inside
the session it reads as "normal," and only a cold ear hears it clash with the
chronicle voice.
### Case 6 — klang / rytme: fem like lange setninger på rad (monotone cadence)
- **Check:** L5 (clang & rhythm) · **Severity:** NICE
- **Cold-read finding:** A run of five sentences shares the same length and a
near-identical opening — a monotone cadence that reads flat aloud. Chronicle
prose has a varied cadence; this passage loses it.
- **Fasit / direction:** Break the monotone — vary one or two sentence lengths /
openings so the passage breathes. NICE: noticeable on a read-aloud, not
load-bearing. `grep`/scan-findable (same-length run, repeated opening).
- **Why blind:** rhythm is heard, not seen; a silent in-session read past a fluent
passage never trips on it. A cold read-aloud does.
---
## Expected aggregate (what a correct run looks like)
- **Total flags:** 6 (well within the ≤10 cap — no suppression needed).
- **By check:** L1 = 1 (Case 4) · L2 = 2 (Cases 2 + 3) · L3 = 1 (Case 5) ·
L4 = 1 (Case 1) · L5 = 1 (Case 6).
- **By severity:** BLOCK = 1 (Case 1, the quote error) · REWORK = 4 (Cases 2, 3,
4, 5) · NICE = 1 (Case 6).
- **All six are language blind spots** — none is a craft defect (editorial), a
de-AI / voice defect (voice-scrubber), an argument defect (content-reviewer), a
factual defect (fact-reviewer), or a resonance defect (persona). They survived
to the cold pass because the in-session gates shared the author's framing-bias;
the cold Norwegian re-read is what caught them.
A run that reproduces ~these six directions, on ~these checks, with ~these
severities, is **comparable** to the editor's actual cold reading of Del 4 — the
acceptance bar. Exact wording is the editor's; the agent returns direction, never
copy.
## Calibration boundary
Whether the agent's live flags truly match this fasit is judged by the operator
(`[OPERATØR]`), not self-certified here. This fixture is the calibration target,
the same way `editorial-reviewer-cases.md`, `persona-reviewer-cases.md` and
`fact-checker-cases.md` are fasits for their agents.
> **Live-run note.** A live run on the Del 4 frozen draft requires (a) a Claude
> Code session reload — a freshly added agent is not invokable until the plugin
> agent set is rebuilt at session start — and (b) read access to the frozen Del 4
> draft in the Maskinrommet series folder. Critically, the live run must be a
> **cold context**: no session history, no version numbers, no intent narrative —
> only the prompt, the frozen draft path, and the writing contract. Until both
> hold, this fixture is the gold-standard of record.