# Phase 1 — The Architect: Kickoff Brief

**Goal:** stand up the **Architect** — a collaborative copilot that helps the partners *converge on* and then *continually evolve* a **versioned, evidence-grounded, partner-approved canonical thesis** (the "messaging source of truth"). The Architect drafts and pressure-tests; a partner signs off; the approved thesis becomes the single source every later agent reads. **Internal-only, collaborative, no outbound** (that's Scribe/Closer, later).

See `CLAUDE.md` for settled architecture + guardrails; `docs/Ten31_Agentic_Build_Plan.md` §3–5. This brief assumes Phase 0 is built and deployed (canonical entities, the CRM MCP server with retrieval modes + `interaction_log`, the ingest pipeline).

## Design stance (the load-bearing constraint)

Grant: *"we are gravitating towards what we think the key message is, but we have NOT landed on it, and we may iterate over time."* So the Architect is **not** a one-shot generator of a finished thesis — it is a substrate for **exploration → convergence → continual evolution.** The unit of iteration is a small typed node (one claim, one proof-point, one throughline), not a monolithic doc, so partners can rework one claim without re-litigating the whole narrative, hold competing phrasings side by side, and promote a winner while keeping the rest recoverable.

## What the partners must supply (the content the substrate can't invent)

The Architect *sharpens an existing thesis; it does not author one from nothing.* These are inputs, co-authored in the first Architect sessions:
- [ ] **Thesis seed (v1):** the current-best throughline (scarcity / critical-infrastructure tying bitcoin ↔ AI infrastructure / energy / freedom tech) broken into **3–5 pillars** and a first set of testable **claims**.
- [ ] **LP segments** (build-plan open decision #4): confirm/define the distinct audiences (proposed starter set: family office, institution, bitcoin-native HNWI, energy player) and, per segment, *what they need to hear* and *what to avoid saying*.
- [ ] **Voice:** tone/diction, "this is us / this is not us" before-after examples, sacred phrases, words we never use.
- [ ] **Approval policy:** who may promote a thesis version to canonical (any admin? Grant specifically? dual partner sign-off?).

## Workstream A — Thesis artifact + versioning *(substrate; buildable now, no content needed)*

Additive, reversible migration `0002_phase1_architect.sql` (+ `.down.sql`) via the existing `core_migrations.py` runner, reusing every Phase-0 convention (full-length ids, soft-delete only, `interaction_log` on every write).
- **`thesis_nodes`** — typed node tree (`thesis_root → throughline/section → claim → proof_point → objection/rebuttal → segment_cut`), `ord` as REAL (stable insert-between), `variant_group` for competing A/B phrasings, `status` (draft|candidate|approved|retired).
- **`thesis_node_revisions`** — append-only per-node history (prior content + `change_summary`/`change_reason`/actor/`claude_session_id`): fine-grained undo + provenance.
- **`thesis_versions`** — immutable named snapshots; **a DB-level partial-unique index guarantees at most one `canonical` version per thesis.** Each approved version also freezes a `body_json` (throughline, pillars, claims, proof-points, segment angles, voice, guardrails) — the stable, machine-readable **Architect→Scribe contract**.
- **Publish-on-approval:** approving a version publishes *only its* nodes into the existing Qdrant `crm_chunks` collection under new `thesis_*` `doc_type`s (idempotent), and prunes the prior version's thesis chunks — so a downstream search for "the message" returns the approved version, never a draft.

*(Design decision to confirm: the fine-grained node tree (powerful for iteration) plus a frozen `body_json` snapshot per approved version (simple, stable contract for Scribe) — keep both; the tree is the editing surface, the snapshot is the published artifact.)*

## Workstream B — The collaborative loop (Architect skills)

The copilot session is turn-based propose → react → revise, delivered as Agent SDK **skills** (one per move, independently testable) over a new `backend/mcp/architect_tools.py` surface (drafts only, every move logged; the agent can stage candidates but **cannot cross the canonical gate**):
1. **Vary** — generate ≥3 genuinely distinct framings of a target node, scored (sharpness, differentiation, evidence-backing, segment-portability, credibility).
2. **Revise** — turn a free-text partner critique into a faithful before/after edit (never silently drop a framing the partner liked).
3. **Red-team** — anticipate LP objections per segment, each with our drafted answer + an honest *substantiated / hand-wavy* flag.
4. **Consistency-check** — when a throughline/pillar changes, surface every downstream node that now conflicts + a proposed reconciliation (apply none without partner acceptance).
5. **Substantiate (ground)** — see Workstream D.
Plus a session-orchestration skill that loads state, sequences moves, and resumes across sessions (replays deferred proposals, the open-objection ledger, still-weak claims) — proving iteration spans sessions, not just turns.

## Workstream C — Segments & voice

`segments` table (versioned; one `active` row per `segment_key`); reuse the Phase-0 `canonical_entities.segment` field as the pointer tagging each LP to a segment (closes the loop between *who an LP is* and *what we say to them*). Voice + each segment cut become skills (`ten31-voice`, `ten31-thesis-spine`, `ten31-segment-cut`); a segment cut must trace every claim to a spine pillar (orphans/contradictions surfaced), and a **drift flag** fires when a cut's spine version falls behind the active spine.

## Workstream D — Grounding & defensibility

The corpus is a **defensibility oracle, not a generator.** Each claim is a structured object (`draft|grounded|contested|retired`) that cannot leave `draft` without ≥1 **citation bundle pinned to a stable `source_model:source_id`** *and* a completed **counter-evidence sweep** (the negation framing, not just the claim). An **objection register** per claim is assembled from `get_interaction_history` + `keyword_search` (recurring LP pushback). Stale-evidence (>~12mo via `date_ts`) is flagged for revalidation. Uses the Phase-0 retrieval modes unchanged.
- **Sovereignty:** retrieval + embeddings stay local. The thesis *content* is non-LP-specific messaging substance → generally fine to send to Claude as-is. But the *evidence* (real LP conversations) used to ground it is sensitive → the Claude-facing synthesis step routes through the **redaction/re-hydration boundary** (`docs/redaction-rehydration.md`). **The Architect is the first agent to send retrieved record substance to Claude, so this boundary must be built here** (scrub/rehydrate at Spark Control).

## Workstream E — Approval gate & Scribe contract

Canonicalization is a **logged human action**, enforced by capability not convention:
- The promote-to-canonical edge is a **human-authenticated CRM route** (`POST /api/thesis/{id}/approve`, Bearer + admin) on `server.py` — **not exposed as an agent tool.** It atomically supersedes the prior canonical and writes a `thesis.approved` `interaction_log` row (`actor_type='human'`, real `users.id`).
- A thin **"Thesis review" view** in the existing SPA (`frontend/index.html`): diff candidate vs canonical, Approve / Request-changes.
- `get_canonical_thesis()` returns the one canonical version's `body_json`, **fails closed** if none — so Scribe can never generate against an unapproved thesis.
- **Architect↔Scribe boundary:** Architect owns/articulates and writes only to `thesis_versions` (never outbound); **Scribe is a read-only consumer** of the canonical version, stamps each draft with the source `thesis_version_id`, and routes through its *own* separate review-before-publish gate.

## Acceptance criteria

- [ ] Migration 0002 (additive, reversible) creates the thesis tables with the one-canonical invariant; applies + reverses cleanly via the existing runner.
- [ ] A thesis exists as a typed node tree with a seeded, partner-signed **canonical v1**; renders back to a coherent document; supports competing variants with logged, reversible promotion.
- [ ] A partner can run a full session (load → intent → any of the 5 moves in any order → accept/reject/defer → converge) in one Agent SDK conversation; a later session resumes from prior state.
- [ ] No claim promotes past `draft` without a pinned citation + counter-sweep; every citation is auditable back to its memo/call/email/note.
- [ ] **No version becomes canonical except through the human route; the agent has no self-promotion path** (tested). Every transition is in `interaction_log`.
- [ ] The redaction boundary is built and asserts no Tier-1 content / no real Tier-2 identifier reaches Claude in the grounding step (golden-file test).
- [ ] The Architect→Scribe `body_json` contract is documented; a (future) Scribe draft is traceable to the exact approved `thesis_version_id`.
- [ ] No outbound/publish/contact capability anywhere in the Architect surface (guardrails #4, #6).

## Out of scope for Phase 1 (Architect sub-phase)

- The Scribe *build* (distribution/publishing) — defined here only as the downstream contract; built as the next sub-phase with review-before-publish.
- Any outbound send, public post, or LP contact. Scout/Analyst (Phase 2), Closer/Orchestrator (Phase 3).

## Suggested order

A (substrate) → E (gate + contract) → B (loop skills) → C (segments/voice) → D (grounding + redaction boundary). **A and E are buildable now without the thesis content;** B–D become useful once the partners seed v1. Start the content prep (the four inputs above) in parallel.

## Open decisions for the owner

1. **One thesis line, or several** (one throughline vs. per-vertical theses)?
2. **The four content inputs** above (seed, segments, voice, approval policy) — the critical path.
3. **Approval:** single-partner vs. dual sign-off; a dedicated `thesis_approver` capability vs. reuse `admin`.
4. **Grounding dials** (partner-set, not Claude): rerank-score floor for "real" support; doc_type source-weighting (memo/transcript > one-line note?); counter-evidence threshold to mark a claim `contested`.
5. **Phase-1 evidence scope:** internal corpus only, or admit external sources (web/filings) before Scout/Analyst? And is the Gmail corpus live/backfilled (thin email evidence if not)?
6. **May a claim be promoted while still `contested`/unsubstantiated** (a deliberate bet), or must the gate block on unresolved weaknesses?