Persona-Reviewer Fasit Fixture

One reader persona, one sample draft, the six judging axes, and the two review modes — used to sanity-check the persona-reviewer agent. This is a fasit, not a test harness. The structural lint lives in agents/__tests__/persona-reviewer-fixture.test.mjs. Whether the agent's live flags actually match the directions below is [GATE]/[OPERATØR] — it is not self-certified here.

The jury judges; the editor writes. Every expected output in this fixture is direction, not rewritten copy. A correct agent run hands back flags and a verdict — never edited text.

Persona under review (primær)

Drawn from config/personas.template.md — the primær Linjeleder. Field keys are lowercase to match the library contract.

rolle — Mellomleder med fag- og personalansvar i offentlig virksomhet; skal beslutte om og hvordan AI tas i bruk i egen enhet, uten dyp teknisk bakgrunn.
avkobler — Teknisk dypdykk uten «hva betyr dette for meg og mine»; frykt-retorikk; abstrakt policy; språk som forutsetter at hen kan koden.
overbeviser — Konkrete eksempler fra arbeidshverdagen, et klart ansvars- og dømmekraftsbilde, og en leder-takeaway hen kan handle på allerede i morgen.
ekspertise — Lav-til-middels teknisk; høy på ledelse og forvaltning. Trenger oversettelse, ikke nedlatenhet.
sjargong — Lav toleranse for teknisk sjargong; setter pris på presise, hverdagsnære formuleringer.

Primær trumfer: a primær NO is not accepted — the text is revised until this reader reaches a clean JA. A sekundær NO from a role or expertise ceiling is a SIGNAL the gate works, not a defect.

Sample-tekst

The draft excerpt this persona reads, read-only. Deliberately mixed: a workable human angle ("you don't outsource judgment") buried under one wall of jargon — exactly the case where the jury should flag direction without touching the copy.

Transformatorarkitekturen vår utnytter selvoppmerksomhets-mekanismer over en 175-milliarders parametermodell for å maksimere inferens-gjennomstrømning på tvers av distribuerte GPU-clustere. Men det egentlige poenget er enklere: en språkmodell tar ikke beslutningen for deg. Den foreslår — du svarer for resultatet. Dømmekraften kan ikke settes ut. Spørsmålet er ikke om verktøyet er smart nok, men om du fortsatt eier valget når det teller.

The six axes

The persona-reviewer judges the sample on exactly six axes and returns at most five flags as direction (the sixth that passes cleanest is simply not flagged):

Krok — does the hook hold for THIS reader in the first two lines? Here: IKKE — the opening jargon wall ("transformatorarkitektur… inferens- gjennomstrømning") hits avkobler head-on; the linjeleder stops reading before the real point.
Resonans — does the central point land for this reader? DELVIS — the "judgment can't be outsourced" core is exactly their concern, but it arrives too late to land.
Tone — right for this reader (no condescension, no fear-rhetoric)? LØST — tone is respectful and non-alarmist once past the opening.
Troverdighet — does the reader believe it? DELVIS — the closing claim is credible but abstract; no lived example from a leader's workday to anchor it.
Leder-takeaway — one concrete thing this reader can act on tomorrow? IKKE — there is an insight but no action the linjeleder can take in their own unit.
Lengde/driv — does it keep moving or sag? DELVIS — the front half drags under the jargon; the back half drives well.

Each flag is direction, not a rewrite: "the hook hits avkobler — open on the decision the leader owns" is correct; supplying the new opening line is not.

The two modes

Both modes run the same persona but differ in scope and output.

Resonans-modus (before lock)

Runs at the newsletter pipeline's pre-lock resonance sweep. Judges all six axes and returns ≤5 flags as direction, each tracked LØST / DELVIS / IKKE. The primær must reach a clean JA before the draft is locked. For this sample, the primær verdict is NEI (Krok + Leder-takeaway both IKKE) → REWORK, with the two IKKE flags as the priority directions.

Konverter-modus (after lock)

Runs at the post-lock conversion sweep. Judges the hook only, binary: «would YOU click?» JA / NEI. No axis scoring, no copy — just the click verdict and a single reason. For this sample's current hook the verdict is NEI — "I'd scroll past; the first line is machinery, not me."

Convergence loop

Re-run per persona until the primær returns a clean JA. Each flag is re-judged LØST / DELVIS / IKKE against the editor's revision. The jury never writes the fix — it only re-judges whether the revision now lands.

4.8 KiB Raw Blame History