Implement BDEF v1.1 grading: scoring core, per-deck pipeline, ledger, dashboard, StartOS layer

- Deterministic scoring.py (quant 60 / qual 40 / flags -15, profitability heaviest)
- Per-company JSON ledger with forecast-target chaining deck N-1 -> N
- Single-shot sandbox agent with guided-JSON fallback ladder (no tool loop)
- Portfolio dashboard with sparklines, KPI hit rates, BDEF category bars
- 48 unit tests green; endpoints smoke-tested; npm check+build green

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

orchestrator/bdef.md

@@ -0,0 +1,103 @@
+# Board Deck Evaluation Framework (BDEF v1.1)
+Inch Wide, Mile Deep — Girdley traits integrated with Munger & Buffett principles.
+
+You are grading a portfolio-company board deck. The deck should let an owner's
+representative answer, with high confidence: Are incentives aligned with long-term
+owners? Has management inverted the problem and built in margin of safety? Are they
+inside (and rationally expanding) their circle of competence? Is capital allocated
+with owner-like patience, or is activity masquerading as progress? Would this
+company survive a Lollapalooza of bad incentives, biases, and external shocks?
+
+Score each category 1–5. A score above or below 3 REQUIRES verbatim evidence
+quotes from the deck. Judge what the deck actually shows — absence of evidence on
+a category is itself information (score 2–3 with the absence noted, not a guess).
+
+## A. Incentive Alignment & Skin in the Game
+Probes: Does compensation/promotion demonstrably reward rational long-term capital
+allocation and owner-like behavior? Visible misalignments (short-term bonus
+weighting, option reloads, metrics that invite channel stuffing or earnings
+management)? Does management have skin in the game that survives a multi-year
+downturn? Munger test: if I changed the incentives, would behavior change predictably?
+- 1: Incentives invisible or visibly perverse. 3: Headcount/engagement shown but no
+  comp structure or ownership data. 5: Comp, promotion criteria, and ownership shown
+  and clearly aligned with long-term owners.
+
+## B. Inversion Discipline & Margin of Safety
+Probes: Are plausible failure modes explicitly modeled for major initiatives and
+forecasts? Visible conservatism in assumptions, capital buffers, competitive-response
+planning? Does the deck show what the company would NOT do even if it looked attractive?
+- 1: Only upside shown; hockey-stick forecasts with no falsifiers. 3: Generic risk
+  slide, no quantified margin of safety. 5: Explicit inversion — what breaks the
+  thesis, how much buffer exists, and pre-committed "we won't do X" boundaries.
+
+## C. Circle of Competence & Rational Learning
+Probes: Does management accurately describe the boundaries of what they know well?
+Disciplined expansion of the circle rather than overreach into new areas? Is learning
+from mistakes visible and systematic?
+- 1: Confident claims in adjacencies with no demonstrated competence. 3: Competent in
+  core but boundaries unstated. 5: Explicit "we know / we don't know", postmortems,
+  and disciplined expansion criteria.
+
+## D. Capital Allocation Quality
+Probes: Is every significant capital decision framed as opportunity cost vs long-term
+owner return (including returning capital)? Patience ("sit on your ass") vs activity
+bias? Are buybacks, dividends, M&A, and reinvestment held to the same owner rigor?
+- 1: Growth for its own sake; projects listed without expected returns. 3: Budgets
+  shown but no alternatives comparison. 5: Every major incremental dollar shown with
+  expected return vs alternatives, including the do-nothing/return-it option.
+
+## E. Moat Durability & Competitive Reality
+Probes: Is the moat described in specific, testable terms (cost, switching costs,
+network effects, brand) rather than generic "great team" language? What is management
+actively doing to widen/defend it, and which threats are acknowledged? Buffett test:
+would an intelligent owner buy this business at a fair price today based on the
+durability shown?
+- 1: "Great team / huge TAM" hand-waving. 3: Moat named but not evidenced or
+  threatened realistically. 5: Specific, testable moat with widening actions and
+  honestly acknowledged threats.
+
+## F. Psychological & Cultural Health
+Probes: Does the deck's framing reward early surfacing of problems, or filter
+information upward? Evidence of Lollapalooza effects (multiple biases/misaligned
+incentives compounding)? Does "no drama" reflect genuine psychological safety or
+suppressed dissent? Do problem employees move on quickly; do values drive hiring/firing?
+- 1: Only good news; problems appear late and pre-spun. 3: Engagement scores without
+  bad-news examples. 5: Bad news travels fast and visibly; the deck itself surfaces
+  problems early with owners' candor.
+
+## G. Simplicity, Clarity & Decision Velocity
+Probes: Does the deck avoid unnecessary complexity ("simple stays simple")? Are
+repeatable processes and decision frameworks visible, or is the company reliant on
+heroic individual effort? Is the board asked to judge the few things that matter
+enormously rather than many that matter little?
+- 1: Impressively complex deck obscuring weak economics. 3: Clear but unfocused.
+  5: A model of clarity an intelligent owner could absorb in one sitting, focused on
+  the 2–3 decisions that matter.
+
+## H. Board Value-Add & Governance Quality
+Probes: Does the deck position the board to pull (high-leverage questions on
+incentives, inversion, capital allocation, moat) rather than rubber-stamp? Evidence
+the board functions as owners' representatives rather than management's advisors?
+Clear asks with recommendations and the inversion of those decisions?
+- 1: No asks, or trivia; board presides rather than governs. 3: Asks listed without
+  recommendation or inversion. 5: The few decisions that matter, each with a clear
+  recommendation and what would make it wrong.
+
+## Red-flag taxonomy
+Use these codes (severity 1–5; suggest severity per guidance):
+- `adjusted_metrics` (2–4): heavy reliance on adjusted/non-GAAP numbers without bridges.
+- `metric_redefinition` (3–5): a KPI's definition changed between periods.
+- `kpi_dropped` (2–3): a previously reported KPI silently disappeared.
+- `hockey_stick_forecast` (2–4): forecast with no inversion or margin of safety.
+- `channel_stuffing_risk` (3–5): incentives/metrics that invite pull-forward behavior.
+- `short_term_comp` (2–4): compensation heavily weighted to short-term outcomes.
+- `related_party` (3–5): related-party transactions or conflicts.
+- `governance_gap` (2–4): big questions (succession, major bets, incentive redesign) get superficial treatment while minutiae fill the deck.
+- `cash_runway_silence` (3–5): cash/runway/burn not clearly disclosed.
+- `no_profitability_visibility` (3): no profit/margin/cash KPI reported at all.
+- `overreach_adjacency` (2–4): confident expansion outside demonstrated competence.
+- `activity_bias` (2–3): busy project lists without linkage to moat or owner returns.
+- `complexity_smokescreen` (2–4): complexity that appears designed to obscure economics.
+- `suppressed_dissent` (3–5): signs bad news is filtered before reaching the board.
+
+Do NOT compute totals or a composite score. Numbers are computed elsewhere.