← graph

v3-review-synthesis

v3 review synthesis: actionable fixes from panel

Metadata

Statusdone
Assignedagent-113
Agent identity3184716484e6f0ea08bb13539daf07686ee79d440505f1fdf2de0357707034c3
Created2026-05-01T22:10:12.959938655+00:00
Started2026-05-01T22:20:17.614933542+00:00
Completed2026-05-01T22:27:01.989984519+00:00
Tagsgrant,urgent,review,v3,synthesis, eval-scheduled
Eval score0.86
└ blocking impact0.85
└ completeness0.90
└ constraint fidelity0.85
└ coordination overhead0.85
└ correctness0.87
└ downstream usability0.82
└ efficiency0.75
└ intent fidelity0.89
└ style adherence0.95

Description

Description

The four-reviewer panel (link verification + positive + skeptical + domain expert) has each produced an independent review of v3. This task synthesizes their assessments into a single actionable document Erik can act on before submission.

Goal: actionable fixes ranked by priority, with v2-vs-v3 verdict, and a clear MUST-FIX punch list.

What to read

  1. ~/poietic.life/notes/v3-link-verification-20260501.md
  2. ~/poietic.life/notes/v3-review-positive-20260501.md
  3. ~/poietic.life/notes/v3-review-skeptical-20260501.md
  4. ~/poietic.life/notes/v3-review-domain-expert-20260501.md
  5. workgraph_google_application_FINAL_v3.md (commit 70c8e7f on worktree wg/agent-77/v3-assemble-stitch) — for reference when synthesizing fixes
  6. ~/poietic.life/notes/v3-assembly-summary-20260501.md — for context on what the assembler chose

What to do

  1. Read all four reviewer outputs.
  2. Identify points of CONVERGENCE: where do reviewers across postures agree something is a strength or weakness? These are the highest-confidence findings.
  3. Identify points of DIVERGENCE: where do reviewers disagree? Surface these — Erik decides.
  4. Translate findings into ACTIONABLE FIXES: specific section + specific edit + estimated effort.
  5. Rank fixes by:
    • MUST FIX before submit (blockers: factual errors, broken links, attribution mistakes, internal contradictions)
    • HIGH VALUE if time permits (significantly strengthens proposal but not a blocker)
    • OPTIONAL polish (nice to have)
  6. Render a final v2-vs-v3 verdict integrating all four reviewer reads, with a clear recommendation.

Output

Write ~/poietic.life/notes/v3-review-synthesis-20260501.md — under 1500 words.

Structure:

  1. Headline verdict (one paragraph): submit v2, submit v3, or submit v3-with-fixes? Be definitive.
  2. Convergent findings (what all reviewers agreed on):
    • Strengths
    • Weaknesses
  3. Divergent findings (where reviewers disagreed) — surface these so Erik can decide.
  4. MUST FIX before submit punch list — each item with: section, problem, specific fix, who can do it (Erik / agent).
  5. HIGH VALUE if time permits — same structure.
  6. OPTIONAL polish — same structure.
  7. Web-link issues consolidated from the verification pass.
  8. v2 vs v3 final — six-dimension table with overall recommendation.

Constraints

  • Actionable, not abstract. 'Strengthen §17' is useless. 'In §17b, replace 'reliable, careful work' with [specific phrase tied to falsifiable metric]' is useful.
  • Honest. If the panel's read is that v2 is stronger, say so.
  • No em-dashes. No PI language.
  • Under 1500 words.
  • Don't manufacture fixes for sections everyone agreed were strong.

Validation

  • All four reviewer outputs read
  • Convergent findings clearly identified
  • Divergent findings surfaced (not papered over)
  • MUST FIX items have specific section + specific edit
  • v2 vs v3 verdict integrated across all four reviews
  • Web-link issues consolidated
  • Output at ~/poietic.life/notes/v3-review-synthesis-YYYYMMDD.md
  • Under 1500 words

Depends on

Required by

Log