The 20 claims went un-corrected, so they stand as confirmed. What the operator
actually decided were the four choices the QA exposed: hand-built example with
the factory path explicitly deferred, step 5 built and shown live, commons
ordered with a fallback, README after the demo rather than before.
Two measurements are recorded because they bound the order, not because they
are interesting: bundle_context renders every navigated file's full body, and
summary-first reading is not built -- so the full 15-30 measure library would
put 40-90k characters into every hypothesis prompt. The order is size-capped
for that reason and says so.
Also recorded: simulate_learning_loop already takes the bundle directory as a
parameter, so new content plugs into an existing seam. The cost is the scripted
replies, which are written against the LED case.
The demo-week brief was written by a session that read its way to the
intention through documents other sessions had written. Two of its frames
were overturned by the primary sources inside one conversation, so the
operator stopped planning and commissioned this: read the primary sources
directly, state the understanding back as numbered claims, and capture the
corrections where they survive.
Six gaps in the picture the brief rests on, all measured rather than argued:
- The intention has a SECOND axis that STATE's list of five primary sources
never named. review-2026-07 (F1-F14) and sesjonsplan-fase2-6 (S2.0-S5.4,
D-A-D-I, M1-M3) are where most of the repo's 31 modules come from: 20
S-numbers, 18 with hits in src/+tests/. A plan written from the five named
sources alone would describe a repo with eight steps and miss two thirds
of what is there.
- D-H's DECIDED demo path ("clone -> unzip -> factory builds -> loop runs")
is factory-dependent, and the factory (D-G/T0, `okf-toolkit`) does not
exist -- measured, not assumed. The brief's "anyone who downloads the repo
can run exactly the same" IS that path.
- The realistic example's content model is already decided (D-F): knowledge
types with required source citation, strict separation from the verdicts.
The commission to commons must reference it, not invent one.
- The demo is the programme's level-2 publishing proof (D-I), with an
honesty ceiling agreed in advance and a README update as its consequence.
- The shared spec covers the loop + ingest and NONE of the surplus: mandate,
notify, ledger, value report, cost simulation, dimension, portfolio
budget, concurrency, preflight all measure 0 mentions. The comparison is
therefore of the SPEC'd core, not of this repo.
- Step 5 is not a presentation-layer concern: `generate_via_llm` consumes
the intermediate rejection internally, and today's demo validates on the
first attempt, so the refinement never triggers. Steps 2 and 6 ARE
printable from data RunResult already carries.
Two inventory numbers spot-checked independently (759 collected; the offline
simulation re-run, output identical). Nothing here is sourced from STATE.md.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01TvjgY5NBg16D7kgQf14s6B
