Library: direct co-creation

Objective: Bound a useful workflow. The team names an accountable owner and an independent reviewer.Data: WORKFLOW=from receiving the brief to delivering a reviewed proposal; BOUNDARIES=starts with approved brief, ends with reviewed proposal and excludes negotiation; RECORDS=five-day calendar with 17 blocks, 12 tasks and one delivered proposal; PROCESS_OWNER=operations lead; independent quality reviewer; Available synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT=Case: prepare and review a scope proposal. Start: brief received. End: version ready for a decision. Risk: citing an unverified source. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.Apply: Light SIPOC; Definition of Done; Human-in-the-loop.Order: Define purpose and outcome. → Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.Deliver: Workflow brief; Has scope and owner.Boundary: Do not proceed without owner and reviewer.State the missing fact that would change the decision.

# PARAMETERSLENGTH = conciseSTRUCTURE = short table + decisionDEPTH = operationalAPPROVAL = human required# INPUTSWORKFLOW = from receiving the brief to delivering a reviewed proposalBOUNDARIES = starts with approved brief, ends with reviewed proposal and excludes negotiationRECORDS = five-day calendar with 17 blocks, 12 tasks and one delivered proposalPROCESS_OWNER = operations lead; independent quality reviewerAvailable synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT = Case: prepare and review a scope proposal. Start: brief received. End: version ready for a decision. Risk: citing an unverified source. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.# Optional adjustmentsState the missing fact that would change the decision.# TaskBound a useful workflow.# FRAMEWORKS AND BEST PRACTICES- Light SIPOC- Definition of Done- Human-in-the-loop · review before decision# Workflow1. Define purpose and outcome.2. Bound start, finish, and risk.3. State decision and stop.4. Check evidence, boundaries and consistency before closing.5. Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.# Boundaries- Do not proceed without owner and reviewer.- Keep owner, reviewer, permissions, and human approval.- Do not claim improvement without comparing the workflow against an observed case.- Do not proceed without an owner, usage rights and independent review.- Does not execute.# Expected output- Workflow brief- Has scope and owner.- A case exists.- Owner, reviewer, and scope defined.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.

# SPEC MetodologIAversion: 2.0status: executable## S — SituationContext: When starting from a task or workflow that is not yet bounded.# PARAMETERSLENGTH = conciseSTRUCTURE = short table + decisionDEPTH = operationalAPPROVAL = human required# INPUTSWORKFLOW = from receiving the brief to delivering a reviewed proposalBOUNDARIES = starts with approved brief, ends with reviewed proposal and excludes negotiationRECORDS = five-day calendar with 17 blocks, 12 tasks and one delivered proposalPROCESS_OWNER = operations lead; independent quality reviewerAvailable synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT = Case: prepare and review a scope proposal. Start: brief received. End: version ready for a decision. Risk: citing an unverified source. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.# Optional adjustmentsState the missing fact that would change the decision.## P — Purpose and scopeExpert role: Act as a module specialist. Do not invent evidence or replace human judgment.Deliverable: Workflow briefInclude: Bound a useful workflow.Exclude: Does not execute.## E — Standards and execution### FRAMEWORKS AND BEST PRACTICES- Light SIPOC- Definition of Done- Human-in-the-loop · review before decisionSteps:1. Define purpose and outcome.2. Bound start, finish, and risk.3. State decision and stop.4. Check evidence, boundaries and consistency before closing.5. Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.### Edge cases- If owner and reviewer match, request a second review.- Workflow without a boundary: define start and finish before improving it.- Conflicting practices: record which one will be tested and why.## C — Verifiable criteria# Expected output:- Workflow brief- Has scope and owner.- A case exists.- Owner, reviewer, and scope defined.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.Observable criteria:- Has scope and owner.- A case exists.- Owner, reviewer, and scope defined.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.# Definition of Done: Has scope and owner.; A case exists.; Owner, reviewer, and scope defined.; The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.; The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.Trade-off: Less scope gives more control.## Provenance- Synthetic demo- Declared authorities: ev-m03-program, ev-m03-friction-playbook## Metadata- module: 03- prompt: prompt-01- surface: chatReturn conclusions, evidence and auditable metadata; do not expose private reasoning or chain of thought.

# systemAct as a module specialist. Do not invent evidence or replace human judgment.# FRAMEWORKS AND BEST PRACTICES- Light SIPOC- Definition of Done- Human-in-the-loop · review before decision# Boundaries- Do not proceed without owner and reviewer.- Keep owner, reviewer, permissions, and human approval.- Do not claim improvement without comparing the workflow against an observed case.- Do not proceed without an owner, usage rights and independent review.- Does not execute.# Definition of DoneHas scope and owner.; A case exists.; Owner, reviewer, and scope defined.; The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.; The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.# user# PARAMETERSLENGTH = conciseSTRUCTURE = short table + decisionDEPTH = operationalAPPROVAL = human required# INPUTSWORKFLOW = from receiving the brief to delivering a reviewed proposalBOUNDARIES = starts with approved brief, ends with reviewed proposal and excludes negotiationRECORDS = five-day calendar with 17 blocks, 12 tasks and one delivered proposalPROCESS_OWNER = operations lead; independent quality reviewerAvailable synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT = Case: prepare and review a scope proposal. Start: brief received. End: version ready for a decision. Risk: citing an unverified source. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.# Optional adjustmentsState the missing fact that would change the decision.# TaskBound a useful workflow.# Workflow1. Define purpose and outcome.2. Bound start, finish, and risk.3. State decision and stop.4. Check evidence, boundaries and consistency before closing.5. Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.# Expected output- Workflow brief- Has scope and owner.- A case exists.- Owner, reviewer, and scope defined.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.

Objective: Diagnose friction. The team names an accountable owner and an independent reviewer.Data: STEPS=receive brief, find evidence, draft, review and deliver; FRICTIONS=two undated citations, one late review and 90 minutes of rework; EVIDENCE=five-day board, three citations and artifact version 0.2; PROCESS_OWNER=operations lead; independent quality reviewer; Available synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT=Workflow brief: brief → requirements → sources → draft → verification → decision. Final approval remains human. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.Apply: Friction map; Five Whys as questions; Human-in-the-loop.Order: Reconstruct the case. → Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.Deliver: Friction map; Every friction has a moment.Boundary: Do not assign blame.State the missing fact that would change the decision.

# PARAMETERSLENGTH = conciseSTRUCTURE = short table + decisionDEPTH = operationalAPPROVAL = human required# INPUTSSTEPS = receive brief, find evidence, draft, review and deliverFRICTIONS = two undated citations, one late review and 90 minutes of reworkEVIDENCE = five-day board, three citations and artifact version 0.2PROCESS_OWNER = operations lead; independent quality reviewerAvailable synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT = Workflow brief: brief → requirements → sources → draft → verification → decision. Final approval remains human. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.# Optional adjustmentsState the missing fact that would change the decision.# TaskDiagnose friction.# FRAMEWORKS AND BEST PRACTICES- Friction map- Five Whys as questions- Human-in-the-loop · review before decision# Workflow1. Reconstruct the case.2. Mark friction.3. Separate facts and hypotheses.4. Check evidence, boundaries and consistency before closing.5. Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.# Boundaries- Do not assign blame.- Keep owner, reviewer, permissions, and human approval.- Do not claim improvement without comparing the workflow against an observed case.- Do not proceed without an owner, usage rights and independent review.- Does not claim causality.# Expected output- Friction map- Every friction has a moment.- Causes remain labeled.- Friction links to handoffs.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.

# SPEC MetodologIAversion: 2.0status: executable## S — SituationContext: When you have the artifact from prompt 01.# PARAMETERSLENGTH = conciseSTRUCTURE = short table + decisionDEPTH = operationalAPPROVAL = human required# INPUTSSTEPS = receive brief, find evidence, draft, review and deliverFRICTIONS = two undated citations, one late review and 90 minutes of reworkEVIDENCE = five-day board, three citations and artifact version 0.2PROCESS_OWNER = operations lead; independent quality reviewerAvailable synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT = Workflow brief: brief → requirements → sources → draft → verification → decision. Final approval remains human. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.# Optional adjustmentsState the missing fact that would change the decision.## P — Purpose and scopeExpert role: Act as a module specialist. Do not invent evidence or replace human judgment.Deliverable: Friction mapInclude: Diagnose friction.Exclude: Does not claim causality.## E — Standards and execution### FRAMEWORKS AND BEST PRACTICES- Friction map- Five Whys as questions- Human-in-the-loop · review before decisionSteps:1. Reconstruct the case.2. Mark friction.3. Separate facts and hypotheses.4. Check evidence, boundaries and consistency before closing.5. Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.### Edge cases- If data or rights change, invalidate and reapprove.- Workflow without a boundary: define start and finish before improving it.- Conflicting practices: record which one will be tested and why.## C — Verifiable criteria# Expected output:- Friction map- Every friction has a moment.- Causes remain labeled.- Friction links to handoffs.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.Observable criteria:- Every friction has a moment.- Causes remain labeled.- Friction links to handoffs.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.# Definition of Done: Every friction has a moment.; Causes remain labeled.; Friction links to handoffs.; The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.; The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.Trade-off: Prudence reduces apparent certainty.## Provenance- Synthetic demo- Declared authorities: ev-m03-masterclass, ev-m03-friction-playbook## Metadata- module: 03- prompt: prompt-02- surface: chatReturn conclusions, evidence and auditable metadata; do not expose private reasoning or chain of thought.

# systemAct as a module specialist. Do not invent evidence or replace human judgment.# FRAMEWORKS AND BEST PRACTICES- Friction map- Five Whys as questions- Human-in-the-loop · review before decision# Boundaries- Do not assign blame.- Keep owner, reviewer, permissions, and human approval.- Do not claim improvement without comparing the workflow against an observed case.- Do not proceed without an owner, usage rights and independent review.- Does not claim causality.# Definition of DoneEvery friction has a moment.; Causes remain labeled.; Friction links to handoffs.; The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.; The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.# user# PARAMETERSLENGTH = conciseSTRUCTURE = short table + decisionDEPTH = operationalAPPROVAL = human required# INPUTSSTEPS = receive brief, find evidence, draft, review and deliverFRICTIONS = two undated citations, one late review and 90 minutes of reworkEVIDENCE = five-day board, three citations and artifact version 0.2PROCESS_OWNER = operations lead; independent quality reviewerAvailable synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT = Workflow brief: brief → requirements → sources → draft → verification → decision. Final approval remains human. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.# Optional adjustmentsState the missing fact that would change the decision.# TaskDiagnose friction.# Workflow1. Reconstruct the case.2. Mark friction.3. Separate facts and hypotheses.4. Check evidence, boundaries and consistency before closing.5. Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.# Expected output- Friction map- Every friction has a moment.- Causes remain labeled.- Friction links to handoffs.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.

Objective: Find relevant practices. The team names an accountable owner and an independent reviewer.Data: QUESTION=which controls reduce incomplete citations without delaying delivery; SOURCES=dated official guide and synthetic five-day record; ACCEPTANCE_CRITERION=each recommendation cites a source, states fit and proposes a test; PROCESS_OWNER=operations lead; independent quality reviewer; Available synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT=Friction map: waiting while finding sources; rework while fixing citations; repeated scope decisions; evidence: three recent reviews. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.Apply: Evidence matrix; Context comparison; Human-in-the-loop.Order: Ask from friction. → Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.Deliver: Practice dossier; Retains provenance.Boundary: Use sources and policies.State the missing fact that would change the decision.

# PARAMETERSLENGTH = conciseSTRUCTURE = short table + decisionDEPTH = operationalAPPROVAL = human required# INPUTSQUESTION = which controls reduce incomplete citations without delaying deliverySOURCES = dated official guide and synthetic five-day recordACCEPTANCE_CRITERION = each recommendation cites a source, states fit and proposes a testPROCESS_OWNER = operations lead; independent quality reviewerAvailable synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT = Friction map: waiting while finding sources; rework while fixing citations; repeated scope decisions; evidence: three recent reviews. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.# Optional adjustmentsState the missing fact that would change the decision.# TaskFind relevant practices.# FRAMEWORKS AND BEST PRACTICES- Evidence matrix- Context comparison- Human-in-the-loop · review before decision# Workflow1. Ask from friction.2. Extract source and condition.3. Adapt, test, or reject.4. Check evidence, boundaries and consistency before closing.5. Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.# Boundaries- Use sources and policies.- Keep owner, reviewer, permissions, and human approval.- Do not claim improvement without comparing the workflow against an observed case.- Do not proceed without an owner, usage rights and independent review.- Does not universalize recipes.# Expected output- Practice dossier- Retains provenance.- Explains differences.- Sources and policies traceable.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.

# SPEC MetodologIAversion: 2.0status: executable## S — SituationContext: When you have the artifact from prompt 02.# PARAMETERSLENGTH = conciseSTRUCTURE = short table + decisionDEPTH = operationalAPPROVAL = human required# INPUTSQUESTION = which controls reduce incomplete citations without delaying deliverySOURCES = dated official guide and synthetic five-day recordACCEPTANCE_CRITERION = each recommendation cites a source, states fit and proposes a testPROCESS_OWNER = operations lead; independent quality reviewerAvailable synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT = Friction map: waiting while finding sources; rework while fixing citations; repeated scope decisions; evidence: three recent reviews. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.# Optional adjustmentsState the missing fact that would change the decision.## P — Purpose and scopeExpert role: Act as a module specialist. Do not invent evidence or replace human judgment.Deliverable: Practice dossierInclude: Find relevant practices.Exclude: Does not universalize recipes.## E — Standards and execution### FRAMEWORKS AND BEST PRACTICES- Evidence matrix- Context comparison- Human-in-the-loop · review before decisionSteps:1. Ask from friction.2. Extract source and condition.3. Adapt, test, or reject.4. Check evidence, boundaries and consistency before closing.5. Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.### Edge cases- If owner and reviewer match, request a second review.- Workflow without a boundary: define start and finish before improving it.- Conflicting practices: record which one will be tested and why.## C — Verifiable criteria# Expected output:- Practice dossier- Retains provenance.- Explains differences.- Sources and policies traceable.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.Observable criteria:- Retains provenance.- Explains differences.- Sources and policies traceable.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.# Definition of Done: Retains provenance.; Explains differences.; Sources and policies traceable.; The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.; The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.Trade-off: Traceability takes time.## Provenance- Synthetic demo- Declared authorities: ev-m03-program, ev-m03-friction-playbook, ev-m03-ways-of-working## Metadata- module: 03- prompt: prompt-03- surface: source_searchReturn conclusions, evidence and auditable metadata; do not expose private reasoning or chain of thought.

# systemAct as a module specialist. Do not invent evidence or replace human judgment.# FRAMEWORKS AND BEST PRACTICES- Evidence matrix- Context comparison- Human-in-the-loop · review before decision# Boundaries- Use sources and policies.- Keep owner, reviewer, permissions, and human approval.- Do not claim improvement without comparing the workflow against an observed case.- Do not proceed without an owner, usage rights and independent review.- Does not universalize recipes.# Definition of DoneRetains provenance.; Explains differences.; Sources and policies traceable.; The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.; The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.# user# PARAMETERSLENGTH = conciseSTRUCTURE = short table + decisionDEPTH = operationalAPPROVAL = human required# INPUTSQUESTION = which controls reduce incomplete citations without delaying deliverySOURCES = dated official guide and synthetic five-day recordACCEPTANCE_CRITERION = each recommendation cites a source, states fit and proposes a testPROCESS_OWNER = operations lead; independent quality reviewerAvailable synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT = Friction map: waiting while finding sources; rework while fixing citations; repeated scope decisions; evidence: three recent reviews. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.# Optional adjustmentsState the missing fact that would change the decision.# TaskFind relevant practices.# Workflow1. Ask from friction.2. Extract source and condition.3. Adapt, test, or reject.4. Check evidence, boundaries and consistency before closing.5. Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.# Expected output- Practice dossier- Retains provenance.- Explains differences.- Sources and policies traceable.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.

Objective: Map the current process. The team names an accountable owner and an independent reviewer.Data: STEPS=receive brief, find evidence, draft, review and deliver; HANDOFFS=AI proposes structure; analyst verifies citations; lead approves; EXCEPTIONS=client incident with immediate delivery impact; PROCESS_OWNER=operations lead; independent quality reviewer; Available synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT=Practice dossier: intake checklist, one source per claim and independent review. Limits: non-sensitive data and human approval. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.Apply: Light SIPOC; Minimal blueprint; Human-in-the-loop.Order: Order inputs and outputs. → Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.Deliver: Current process map; Separates current and future.Boundary: Do not mix current and future.State the missing fact that would change the decision.

# PARAMETERSLENGTH = conciseSTRUCTURE = short table + decisionDEPTH = operationalAPPROVAL = human required# INPUTSSTEPS = receive brief, find evidence, draft, review and deliverHANDOFFS = AI proposes structure; analyst verifies citations; lead approvesEXCEPTIONS = client incident with immediate delivery impactPROCESS_OWNER = operations lead; independent quality reviewerAvailable synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT = Practice dossier: intake checklist, one source per claim and independent review. Limits: non-sensitive data and human approval. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.# Optional adjustmentsState the missing fact that would change the decision.# TaskMap the current process.# FRAMEWORKS AND BEST PRACTICES- Light SIPOC- Minimal blueprint- Human-in-the-loop · review before decision# Workflow1. Order inputs and outputs.2. Assign decisions.3. Mark dependency and recovery.4. Check evidence, boundaries and consistency before closing.5. Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.# Boundaries- Do not mix current and future.- Keep owner, reviewer, permissions, and human approval.- Do not claim improvement without comparing the workflow against an observed case.- Do not proceed without an owner, usage rights and independent review.- Does not design future.# Expected output- Current process map- Separates current and future.- Every decision has owner.- Map shows roles.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.

# SPEC MetodologIAversion: 2.0status: executable## S — SituationContext: When you have the artifact from prompt 03.# PARAMETERSLENGTH = conciseSTRUCTURE = short table + decisionDEPTH = operationalAPPROVAL = human required# INPUTSSTEPS = receive brief, find evidence, draft, review and deliverHANDOFFS = AI proposes structure; analyst verifies citations; lead approvesEXCEPTIONS = client incident with immediate delivery impactPROCESS_OWNER = operations lead; independent quality reviewerAvailable synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT = Practice dossier: intake checklist, one source per claim and independent review. Limits: non-sensitive data and human approval. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.# Optional adjustmentsState the missing fact that would change the decision.## P — Purpose and scopeExpert role: Act as a module specialist. Do not invent evidence or replace human judgment.Deliverable: Current process mapInclude: Map the current process.Exclude: Does not design future.## E — Standards and execution### FRAMEWORKS AND BEST PRACTICES- Light SIPOC- Minimal blueprint- Human-in-the-loop · review before decisionSteps:1. Order inputs and outputs.2. Assign decisions.3. Mark dependency and recovery.4. Check evidence, boundaries and consistency before closing.5. Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.### Edge cases- If data or rights change, invalidate and reapprove.- Workflow without a boundary: define start and finish before improving it.- Conflicting practices: record which one will be tested and why.## C — Verifiable criteria# Expected output:- Current process map- Separates current and future.- Every decision has owner.- Map shows roles.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.Observable criteria:- Separates current and future.- Every decision has owner.- Map shows roles.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.# Definition of Done: Separates current and future.; Every decision has owner.; Map shows roles.; The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.; The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.Trade-off: Detail may hide bottleneck.## Provenance- Synthetic demo- Declared authorities: ev-m03-friction-playbook, ev-m03-ways-of-working## Metadata- module: 03- prompt: prompt-04- surface: chatReturn conclusions, evidence and auditable metadata; do not expose private reasoning or chain of thought.

# systemAct as a module specialist. Do not invent evidence or replace human judgment.# FRAMEWORKS AND BEST PRACTICES- Light SIPOC- Minimal blueprint- Human-in-the-loop · review before decision# Boundaries- Do not mix current and future.- Keep owner, reviewer, permissions, and human approval.- Do not claim improvement without comparing the workflow against an observed case.- Do not proceed without an owner, usage rights and independent review.- Does not design future.# Definition of DoneSeparates current and future.; Every decision has owner.; Map shows roles.; The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.; The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.# user# PARAMETERSLENGTH = conciseSTRUCTURE = short table + decisionDEPTH = operationalAPPROVAL = human required# INPUTSSTEPS = receive brief, find evidence, draft, review and deliverHANDOFFS = AI proposes structure; analyst verifies citations; lead approvesEXCEPTIONS = client incident with immediate delivery impactPROCESS_OWNER = operations lead; independent quality reviewerAvailable synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT = Practice dossier: intake checklist, one source per claim and independent review. Limits: non-sensitive data and human approval. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.# Optional adjustmentsState the missing fact that would change the decision.# TaskMap the current process.# Workflow1. Order inputs and outputs.2. Assign decisions.3. Mark dependency and recovery.4. Check evidence, boundaries and consistency before closing.5. Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.# Expected output- Current process map- Separates current and future.- Every decision has owner.- Map shows roles.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.

Objective: Define the standard. The team names an accountable owner and an independent reviewer.Data: OUTPUT=two-page proposal with citations and recommendation; CRITERIA=delivery impact, due date and remaining effort; EVIDENCE=five-day board, three citations and artifact version 0.2; PROCESS_OWNER=operations lead; independent quality reviewer; Available synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT=Current process: request → brief → sources → AI-assisted draft → human verification → decision → version. Main friction: late sources. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.Apply: Definition of Done; Acceptance criteria; Human-in-the-loop.Order: Name outcome. → Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.Deliver: Definition of done; Supports accept or reject.Boundary: Do not resolve priorities.State the missing fact that would change the decision.

# PARAMETERSLENGTH = conciseSTRUCTURE = short table + decisionDEPTH = operationalAPPROVAL = human required# INPUTSOUTPUT = two-page proposal with citations and recommendationCRITERIA = delivery impact, due date and remaining effortEVIDENCE = five-day board, three citations and artifact version 0.2PROCESS_OWNER = operations lead; independent quality reviewerAvailable synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT = Current process: request → brief → sources → AI-assisted draft → human verification → decision → version. Main friction: late sources. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.# Optional adjustmentsState the missing fact that would change the decision.# TaskDefine the standard.# FRAMEWORKS AND BEST PRACTICES- Definition of Done- Acceptance criteria- Human-in-the-loop · review before decision# Workflow1. Name outcome.2. Write criteria.3. Add rejection and stop.4. Check evidence, boundaries and consistency before closing.5. Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.# Boundaries- Do not resolve priorities.- Keep owner, reviewer, permissions, and human approval.- Do not claim improvement without comparing the workflow against an observed case.- Do not proceed without an owner, usage rights and independent review.- Does not set priorities.# Expected output- Definition of done- Supports accept or reject.- Quality is not only speed.- Quality, rights, and veto included.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.

# SPEC MetodologIAversion: 2.0status: executable## S — SituationContext: When you have the artifact from prompt 04.# PARAMETERSLENGTH = conciseSTRUCTURE = short table + decisionDEPTH = operationalAPPROVAL = human required# INPUTSOUTPUT = two-page proposal with citations and recommendationCRITERIA = delivery impact, due date and remaining effortEVIDENCE = five-day board, three citations and artifact version 0.2PROCESS_OWNER = operations lead; independent quality reviewerAvailable synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT = Current process: request → brief → sources → AI-assisted draft → human verification → decision → version. Main friction: late sources. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.# Optional adjustmentsState the missing fact that would change the decision.## P — Purpose and scopeExpert role: Act as a module specialist. Do not invent evidence or replace human judgment.Deliverable: Definition of doneInclude: Define the standard.Exclude: Does not set priorities.## E — Standards and execution### FRAMEWORKS AND BEST PRACTICES- Definition of Done- Acceptance criteria- Human-in-the-loop · review before decisionSteps:1. Name outcome.2. Write criteria.3. Add rejection and stop.4. Check evidence, boundaries and consistency before closing.5. Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.### Edge cases- If owner and reviewer match, request a second review.- Workflow without a boundary: define start and finish before improving it.- Conflicting practices: record which one will be tested and why.## C — Verifiable criteria# Expected output:- Definition of done- Supports accept or reject.- Quality is not only speed.- Quality, rights, and veto included.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.Observable criteria:- Supports accept or reject.- Quality is not only speed.- Quality, rights, and veto included.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.# Definition of Done: Supports accept or reject.; Quality is not only speed.; Quality, rights, and veto included.; The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.; The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.Trade-off: More rigor may be slower.## Provenance- Synthetic demo- Declared authorities: ev-m03-official-pdf, ev-m03-program, ev-m03-ways-of-working## Metadata- module: 03- prompt: prompt-05- surface: chatReturn conclusions, evidence and auditable metadata; do not expose private reasoning or chain of thought.

# systemAct as a module specialist. Do not invent evidence or replace human judgment.# FRAMEWORKS AND BEST PRACTICES- Definition of Done- Acceptance criteria- Human-in-the-loop · review before decision# Boundaries- Do not resolve priorities.- Keep owner, reviewer, permissions, and human approval.- Do not claim improvement without comparing the workflow against an observed case.- Do not proceed without an owner, usage rights and independent review.- Does not set priorities.# Definition of DoneSupports accept or reject.; Quality is not only speed.; Quality, rights, and veto included.; The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.; The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.# user# PARAMETERSLENGTH = conciseSTRUCTURE = short table + decisionDEPTH = operationalAPPROVAL = human required# INPUTSOUTPUT = two-page proposal with citations and recommendationCRITERIA = delivery impact, due date and remaining effortEVIDENCE = five-day board, three citations and artifact version 0.2PROCESS_OWNER = operations lead; independent quality reviewerAvailable synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT = Current process: request → brief → sources → AI-assisted draft → human verification → decision → version. Main friction: late sources. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.# Optional adjustmentsState the missing fact that would change the decision.# TaskDefine the standard.# Workflow1. Name outcome.2. Write criteria.3. Add rejection and stop.4. Check evidence, boundaries and consistency before closing.5. Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.# Expected output- Definition of done- Supports accept or reject.- Quality is not only speed.- Quality, rights, and veto included.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.

Objective: Draft Mini-SOP v0.1. The team names an accountable owner and an independent reviewer.Data: PROCESS_MAP=five-step map with two reviews and one approval point; CRITERIA=delivery impact, due date and remaining effort; EXCEPTIONS=client incident with immediate delivery impact; PROCESS_OWNER=operations lead; independent quality reviewer; Available synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT=Completion criteria: scope covered, traceable sources, exceptions flagged and human approval recorded. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.Apply: Minimum SOP; Human-in-the-loop; Human-in-the-loop.Order: Integrate sequence. → Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.Deliver: Mini-SOP v0.1; Can be followed without guessing.Boundary: Separate generation and approval.State the missing fact that would change the decision.

# PARAMETERSLENGTH = conciseSTRUCTURE = short table + decisionDEPTH = operationalAPPROVAL = human required# INPUTSPROCESS_MAP = five-step map with two reviews and one approval pointCRITERIA = delivery impact, due date and remaining effortEXCEPTIONS = client incident with immediate delivery impactPROCESS_OWNER = operations lead; independent quality reviewerAvailable synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT = Completion criteria: scope covered, traceable sources, exceptions flagged and human approval recorded. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.# Optional adjustmentsState the missing fact that would change the decision.# TaskDraft Mini-SOP v0.1.# FRAMEWORKS AND BEST PRACTICES- Minimum SOP- Human-in-the-loop- Human-in-the-loop · review before decision# Workflow1. Integrate sequence.2. Assign contributions.3. Add review and exception.4. Check evidence, boundaries and consistency before closing.5. Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.# Boundaries- Separate generation and approval.- Keep owner, reviewer, permissions, and human approval.- Do not claim improvement without comparing the workflow against an observed case.- Do not proceed without an owner, usage rights and independent review.- Draft is not approval.# Expected output- Mini-SOP v0.1- Can be followed without guessing.- Every exception has response.- SOP has RACI and gates.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.

# SPEC MetodologIAversion: 2.0status: executable## S — SituationContext: When you have the artifact from prompt 05.# PARAMETERSLENGTH = conciseSTRUCTURE = short table + decisionDEPTH = operationalAPPROVAL = human required# INPUTSPROCESS_MAP = five-step map with two reviews and one approval pointCRITERIA = delivery impact, due date and remaining effortEXCEPTIONS = client incident with immediate delivery impactPROCESS_OWNER = operations lead; independent quality reviewerAvailable synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT = Completion criteria: scope covered, traceable sources, exceptions flagged and human approval recorded. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.# Optional adjustmentsState the missing fact that would change the decision.## P — Purpose and scopeExpert role: Act as a module specialist. Do not invent evidence or replace human judgment.Deliverable: Mini-SOP v0.1Include: Draft Mini-SOP v0.1.Exclude: Draft is not approval.## E — Standards and execution### FRAMEWORKS AND BEST PRACTICES- Minimum SOP- Human-in-the-loop- Human-in-the-loop · review before decisionSteps:1. Integrate sequence.2. Assign contributions.3. Add review and exception.4. Check evidence, boundaries and consistency before closing.5. Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.### Edge cases- If data or rights change, invalidate and reapprove.- Workflow without a boundary: define start and finish before improving it.- Conflicting practices: record which one will be tested and why.## C — Verifiable criteria# Expected output:- Mini-SOP v0.1- Can be followed without guessing.- Every exception has response.- SOP has RACI and gates.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.Observable criteria:- Can be followed without guessing.- Every exception has response.- SOP has RACI and gates.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.# Definition of Done: Can be followed without guessing.; Every exception has response.; SOP has RACI and gates.; The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.; The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.Trade-off: Structure needs maintenance.## Provenance- Synthetic demo- Declared authorities: ev-m03-official-pdf, ev-m03-friction-playbook, ev-m03-ways-of-working## Metadata- module: 03- prompt: prompt-06- surface: chatReturn conclusions, evidence and auditable metadata; do not expose private reasoning or chain of thought.

# systemAct as a module specialist. Do not invent evidence or replace human judgment.# FRAMEWORKS AND BEST PRACTICES- Minimum SOP- Human-in-the-loop- Human-in-the-loop · review before decision# Boundaries- Separate generation and approval.- Keep owner, reviewer, permissions, and human approval.- Do not claim improvement without comparing the workflow against an observed case.- Do not proceed without an owner, usage rights and independent review.- Draft is not approval.# Definition of DoneCan be followed without guessing.; Every exception has response.; SOP has RACI and gates.; The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.; The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.# user# PARAMETERSLENGTH = conciseSTRUCTURE = short table + decisionDEPTH = operationalAPPROVAL = human required# INPUTSPROCESS_MAP = five-step map with two reviews and one approval pointCRITERIA = delivery impact, due date and remaining effortEXCEPTIONS = client incident with immediate delivery impactPROCESS_OWNER = operations lead; independent quality reviewerAvailable synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT = Completion criteria: scope covered, traceable sources, exceptions flagged and human approval recorded. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.# Optional adjustmentsState the missing fact that would change the decision.# TaskDraft Mini-SOP v0.1.# Workflow1. Integrate sequence.2. Assign contributions.3. Add review and exception.4. Check evidence, boundaries and consistency before closing.5. Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.# Expected output- Mini-SOP v0.1- Can be followed without guessing.- Every exception has response.- SOP has RACI and gates.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.

Objective: Review risks and exceptions. The team names an accountable owner and an independent reviewer.Data: MINI_SOP=Mini-SOP v0.1 for preparing sourced proposals; RISKS=scope change or delayed legal review; CONTROLS=dated citations, human review and block when authority is missing; PROCESS_OWNER=operations lead; independent quality reviewer; Available synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT=Mini-SOP v0.1: collect brief; validate sources; prepare draft; review; record decision. Exception: stop when a source is missing. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.Apply: Pre-mortem; Risk register; Human-in-the-loop.Order: List failures. → Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.Deliver: Risk register; Every risk has signal.Boundary: Do not invent controls.State the missing fact that would change the decision.

# PARAMETERSLENGTH = conciseSTRUCTURE = short table + decisionDEPTH = operationalAPPROVAL = human required# INPUTSMINI_SOP = Mini-SOP v0.1 for preparing sourced proposalsRISKS = scope change or delayed legal reviewCONTROLS = dated citations, human review and block when authority is missingPROCESS_OWNER = operations lead; independent quality reviewerAvailable synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT = Mini-SOP v0.1: collect brief; validate sources; prepare draft; review; record decision. Exception: stop when a source is missing. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.# Optional adjustmentsState the missing fact that would change the decision.# TaskReview risks and exceptions.# FRAMEWORKS AND BEST PRACTICES- Pre-mortem- Risk register- Human-in-the-loop · review before decision# Workflow1. List failures.2. Assign prevention and response.3. Define gate and escalation.4. Check evidence, boundaries and consistency before closing.5. Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.# Boundaries- Do not invent controls.- Keep owner, reviewer, permissions, and human approval.- Do not claim improvement without comparing the workflow against an observed case.- Do not proceed without an owner, usage rights and independent review.- Does not quantify without data.# Expected output- Risk register- Every risk has signal.- Decisions remain human.- Risks have owners.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.

# SPEC MetodologIAversion: 2.0status: executable## S — SituationContext: When you have the artifact from prompt 06.# PARAMETERSLENGTH = conciseSTRUCTURE = short table + decisionDEPTH = operationalAPPROVAL = human required# INPUTSMINI_SOP = Mini-SOP v0.1 for preparing sourced proposalsRISKS = scope change or delayed legal reviewCONTROLS = dated citations, human review and block when authority is missingPROCESS_OWNER = operations lead; independent quality reviewerAvailable synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT = Mini-SOP v0.1: collect brief; validate sources; prepare draft; review; record decision. Exception: stop when a source is missing. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.# Optional adjustmentsState the missing fact that would change the decision.## P — Purpose and scopeExpert role: Act as a module specialist. Do not invent evidence or replace human judgment.Deliverable: Risk registerInclude: Review risks and exceptions.Exclude: Does not quantify without data.## E — Standards and execution### FRAMEWORKS AND BEST PRACTICES- Pre-mortem- Risk register- Human-in-the-loop · review before decisionSteps:1. List failures.2. Assign prevention and response.3. Define gate and escalation.4. Check evidence, boundaries and consistency before closing.5. Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.### Edge cases- If owner and reviewer match, request a second review.- Workflow without a boundary: define start and finish before improving it.- Conflicting practices: record which one will be tested and why.## C — Verifiable criteria# Expected output:- Risk register- Every risk has signal.- Decisions remain human.- Risks have owners.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.Observable criteria:- Every risk has signal.- Decisions remain human.- Risks have owners.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.# Definition of Done: Every risk has signal.; Decisions remain human.; Risks have owners.; The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.; The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.Trade-off: Controls slow but protect.## Provenance- Synthetic demo- Declared authorities: ev-m03-official-pdf, ev-m03-program, ev-m03-ways-of-working## Metadata- module: 03- prompt: prompt-07- surface: source_searchReturn conclusions, evidence and auditable metadata; do not expose private reasoning or chain of thought.

# systemAct as a module specialist. Do not invent evidence or replace human judgment.# FRAMEWORKS AND BEST PRACTICES- Pre-mortem- Risk register- Human-in-the-loop · review before decision# Boundaries- Do not invent controls.- Keep owner, reviewer, permissions, and human approval.- Do not claim improvement without comparing the workflow against an observed case.- Do not proceed without an owner, usage rights and independent review.- Does not quantify without data.# Definition of DoneEvery risk has signal.; Decisions remain human.; Risks have owners.; The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.; The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.# user# PARAMETERSLENGTH = conciseSTRUCTURE = short table + decisionDEPTH = operationalAPPROVAL = human required# INPUTSMINI_SOP = Mini-SOP v0.1 for preparing sourced proposalsRISKS = scope change or delayed legal reviewCONTROLS = dated citations, human review and block when authority is missingPROCESS_OWNER = operations lead; independent quality reviewerAvailable synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT = Mini-SOP v0.1: collect brief; validate sources; prepare draft; review; record decision. Exception: stop when a source is missing. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.# Optional adjustmentsState the missing fact that would change the decision.# TaskReview risks and exceptions.# Workflow1. List failures.2. Assign prevention and response.3. Define gate and escalation.4. Check evidence, boundaries and consistency before closing.5. Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.# Expected output- Risk register- Every risk has signal.- Decisions remain human.- Risks have owners.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.

Objective: Design a controlled test. The team names an accountable owner and an independent reviewer.Data: MINI_SOP=Mini-SOP v0.1 for preparing sourced proposals; TEST_CASES=normal case, conflicting source and incomplete brief; METRICS=rework minutes, cycle time and corrected citations; PROCESS_OWNER=operations lead; independent quality reviewer; Available synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT=Risk register: wrong citation/high/stop; sensitive data/high/do not upload; unclear scope/medium/request clarification. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.Apply: PDCA; PASA; Human-in-the-loop.Order: Set case and criteria. → Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.Deliver: Test plan; Can stop safely.Boundary: Do not execute actions.State the missing fact that would change the decision.

# PARAMETERSLENGTH = conciseSTRUCTURE = short table + decisionDEPTH = operationalAPPROVAL = human required# INPUTSMINI_SOP = Mini-SOP v0.1 for preparing sourced proposalsTEST_CASES = normal case, conflicting source and incomplete briefMETRICS = rework minutes, cycle time and corrected citationsPROCESS_OWNER = operations lead; independent quality reviewerAvailable synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT = Risk register: wrong citation/high/stop; sensitive data/high/do not upload; unclear scope/medium/request clarification. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.# Optional adjustmentsState the missing fact that would change the decision.# TaskDesign a controlled test.# FRAMEWORKS AND BEST PRACTICES- PDCA- PASA- Human-in-the-loop · review before decision# Workflow1. Set case and criteria.2. Retain inputs.3. Define log and reviewer.4. Check evidence, boundaries and consistency before closing.5. Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.# Boundaries- Do not execute actions.- Keep owner, reviewer, permissions, and human approval.- Do not claim improvement without comparing the workflow against an observed case.- Do not proceed without an owner, usage rights and independent review.- Does not execute or approve.# Expected output- Test plan- Can stop safely.- Reconstructs the case.- Pilot is reversible.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.

# SPEC MetodologIAversion: 2.0status: executable## S — SituationContext: When you have the artifact from prompt 07.# PARAMETERSLENGTH = conciseSTRUCTURE = short table + decisionDEPTH = operationalAPPROVAL = human required# INPUTSMINI_SOP = Mini-SOP v0.1 for preparing sourced proposalsTEST_CASES = normal case, conflicting source and incomplete briefMETRICS = rework minutes, cycle time and corrected citationsPROCESS_OWNER = operations lead; independent quality reviewerAvailable synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT = Risk register: wrong citation/high/stop; sensitive data/high/do not upload; unclear scope/medium/request clarification. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.# Optional adjustmentsState the missing fact that would change the decision.## P — Purpose and scopeExpert role: Act as a module specialist. Do not invent evidence or replace human judgment.Deliverable: Test planInclude: Design a controlled test.Exclude: Does not execute or approve.## E — Standards and execution### FRAMEWORKS AND BEST PRACTICES- PDCA- PASA- Human-in-the-loop · review before decisionSteps:1. Set case and criteria.2. Retain inputs.3. Define log and reviewer.4. Check evidence, boundaries and consistency before closing.5. Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.### Edge cases- If data or rights change, invalidate and reapprove.- Workflow without a boundary: define start and finish before improving it.- Conflicting practices: record which one will be tested and why.## C — Verifiable criteria# Expected output:- Test plan- Can stop safely.- Reconstructs the case.- Pilot is reversible.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.Observable criteria:- Can stop safely.- Reconstructs the case.- Pilot is reversible.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.# Definition of Done: Can stop safely.; Reconstructs the case.; Pilot is reversible.; The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.; The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.Trade-off: A test does not prove adoption.## Provenance- Synthetic demo- Declared authorities: ev-m03-official-pdf, ev-m03-program, ev-m03-ways-of-working## Metadata- module: 03- prompt: prompt-08- surface: chatReturn conclusions, evidence and auditable metadata; do not expose private reasoning or chain of thought.

# systemAct as a module specialist. Do not invent evidence or replace human judgment.# FRAMEWORKS AND BEST PRACTICES- PDCA- PASA- Human-in-the-loop · review before decision# Boundaries- Do not execute actions.- Keep owner, reviewer, permissions, and human approval.- Do not claim improvement without comparing the workflow against an observed case.- Do not proceed without an owner, usage rights and independent review.- Does not execute or approve.# Definition of DoneCan stop safely.; Reconstructs the case.; Pilot is reversible.; The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.; The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.# user# PARAMETERSLENGTH = conciseSTRUCTURE = short table + decisionDEPTH = operationalAPPROVAL = human required# INPUTSMINI_SOP = Mini-SOP v0.1 for preparing sourced proposalsTEST_CASES = normal case, conflicting source and incomplete briefMETRICS = rework minutes, cycle time and corrected citationsPROCESS_OWNER = operations lead; independent quality reviewerAvailable synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT = Risk register: wrong citation/high/stop; sensitive data/high/do not upload; unclear scope/medium/request clarification. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.# Optional adjustmentsState the missing fact that would change the decision.# TaskDesign a controlled test.# Workflow1. Set case and criteria.2. Retain inputs.3. Define log and reviewer.4. Check evidence, boundaries and consistency before closing.5. Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.# Expected output- Test plan- Can stop safely.- Reconstructs the case.- Pilot is reversible.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.

Objective: Assess evidence with AAR. The team names an accountable owner and an independent reviewer.Data: TEST_RECORD=three runs: 42, 49 and 45 minutes; one corrected citation; DEVIATIONS=the date review was skipped in one of three runs; VERDICT=adjust the date control and repeat three cases; PROCESS_OWNER=operations lead; independent quality reviewer; Available synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT=Synthetic plan and log: one reversible case; 4 claims reviewed; 1 citation corrected; 0 sensitive data; human decision: adjust and repeat. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.Apply: AAR; Decision log; Human-in-the-loop.Order: Compare expectation and result. → Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.Deliver: Test report; Conclusions cite records.Boundary: Do not hide failures.State the missing fact that would change the decision.

# PARAMETERSLENGTH = conciseSTRUCTURE = short table + decisionDEPTH = operationalAPPROVAL = human required# INPUTSTEST_RECORD = three runs: 42, 49 and 45 minutes; one corrected citationDEVIATIONS = the date review was skipped in one of three runsVERDICT = adjust the date control and repeat three casesPROCESS_OWNER = operations lead; independent quality reviewerAvailable synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT = Synthetic plan and log: one reversible case; 4 claims reviewed; 1 citation corrected; 0 sensitive data; human decision: adjust and repeat. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.# Optional adjustmentsState the missing fact that would change the decision.# TaskAssess evidence with AAR.# FRAMEWORKS AND BEST PRACTICES- AAR- Decision log- Human-in-the-loop · review before decision# Workflow1. Compare expectation and result.2. Separate failure and exception.3. Submit changes to decision.4. Check evidence, boundaries and consistency before closing.5. Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.# Boundaries- Do not hide failures.- Keep owner, reviewer, permissions, and human approval.- Do not claim improvement without comparing the workflow against an observed case.- Do not proceed without an owner, usage rights and independent review.- Does not invent evidence.# Expected output- Test report- Conclusions cite records.- Changes receive decisions.- AAR records decisions.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.

# SPEC MetodologIAversion: 2.0status: executable## S — SituationContext: When you have the artifact from prompt 08.# PARAMETERSLENGTH = conciseSTRUCTURE = short table + decisionDEPTH = operationalAPPROVAL = human required# INPUTSTEST_RECORD = three runs: 42, 49 and 45 minutes; one corrected citationDEVIATIONS = the date review was skipped in one of three runsVERDICT = adjust the date control and repeat three casesPROCESS_OWNER = operations lead; independent quality reviewerAvailable synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT = Synthetic plan and log: one reversible case; 4 claims reviewed; 1 citation corrected; 0 sensitive data; human decision: adjust and repeat. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.# Optional adjustmentsState the missing fact that would change the decision.## P — Purpose and scopeExpert role: Act as a module specialist. Do not invent evidence or replace human judgment.Deliverable: Test reportInclude: Assess evidence with AAR.Exclude: Does not invent evidence.## E — Standards and execution### FRAMEWORKS AND BEST PRACTICES- AAR- Decision log- Human-in-the-loop · review before decisionSteps:1. Compare expectation and result.2. Separate failure and exception.3. Submit changes to decision.4. Check evidence, boundaries and consistency before closing.5. Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.### Edge cases- If owner and reviewer match, request a second review.- Workflow without a boundary: define start and finish before improving it.- Conflicting practices: record which one will be tested and why.## C — Verifiable criteria# Expected output:- Test report- Conclusions cite records.- Changes receive decisions.- AAR records decisions.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.Observable criteria:- Conclusions cite records.- Changes receive decisions.- AAR records decisions.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.# Definition of Done: Conclusions cite records.; Changes receive decisions.; AAR records decisions.; The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.; The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.Trade-off: Honesty may stop scaling.## Provenance- Synthetic demo- Declared authorities: ev-m03-program, ev-m03-friction-playbook, ev-m03-ways-of-working## Metadata- module: 03- prompt: prompt-09- surface: chatReturn conclusions, evidence and auditable metadata; do not expose private reasoning or chain of thought.

# systemAct as a module specialist. Do not invent evidence or replace human judgment.# FRAMEWORKS AND BEST PRACTICES- AAR- Decision log- Human-in-the-loop · review before decision# Boundaries- Do not hide failures.- Keep owner, reviewer, permissions, and human approval.- Do not claim improvement without comparing the workflow against an observed case.- Do not proceed without an owner, usage rights and independent review.- Does not invent evidence.# Definition of DoneConclusions cite records.; Changes receive decisions.; AAR records decisions.; The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.; The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.# user# PARAMETERSLENGTH = conciseSTRUCTURE = short table + decisionDEPTH = operationalAPPROVAL = human required# INPUTSTEST_RECORD = three runs: 42, 49 and 45 minutes; one corrected citationDEVIATIONS = the date review was skipped in one of three runsVERDICT = adjust the date control and repeat three casesPROCESS_OWNER = operations lead; independent quality reviewerAvailable synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT = Synthetic plan and log: one reversible case; 4 claims reviewed; 1 citation corrected; 0 sensitive data; human decision: adjust and repeat. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.# Optional adjustmentsState the missing fact that would change the decision.# TaskAssess evidence with AAR.# Workflow1. Compare expectation and result.2. Separate failure and exception.3. Submit changes to decision.4. Check evidence, boundaries and consistency before closing.5. Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.# Expected output- Test report- Conclusions cite records.- Changes receive decisions.- AAR records decisions.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.

Objective: Version and transfer. The team names an accountable owner and an independent reviewer.Data: MINI_SOP=Mini-SOP v0.1 for preparing sourced proposals; CHANGES=add date control and separate drafting from approval; EVIDENCE=five-day board, three citations and artifact version 0.2; PROCESS_OWNER=operations lead; independent quality reviewer; Available synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT=Test report: 3 of 4 claims passed on the first attempt; one citation was corrected; decision: adopt with a checklist and second review. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.Apply: Version control; Transfer checklist; Human-in-the-loop.Order: Apply approved changes. → Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.Deliver: Mini-SOP v1.0; Changes link evidence and owner.Boundary: Do not recommend broad adoption.State the missing fact that would change the decision.

# PARAMETERSLENGTH = conciseSTRUCTURE = short table + decisionDEPTH = operationalAPPROVAL = human required# INPUTSMINI_SOP = Mini-SOP v0.1 for preparing sourced proposalsCHANGES = add date control and separate drafting from approvalEVIDENCE = five-day board, three citations and artifact version 0.2PROCESS_OWNER = operations lead; independent quality reviewerAvailable synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT = Test report: 3 of 4 claims passed on the first attempt; one citation was corrected; decision: adopt with a checklist and second review. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.# Optional adjustmentsState the missing fact that would change the decision.# TaskVersion and transfer.# FRAMEWORKS AND BEST PRACTICES- Version control- Transfer checklist- Human-in-the-loop · review before decision# Workflow1. Apply approved changes.2. State boundaries.3. Design second test.4. Check evidence, boundaries and consistency before closing.5. Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.# Boundaries- Do not recommend broad adoption.- Keep owner, reviewer, permissions, and human approval.- Do not claim improvement without comparing the workflow against an observed case.- Do not proceed without an owner, usage rights and independent review.- Does not authorize deployment.# Expected output- Mini-SOP v1.0- Changes link evidence and owner.- Recipient can escalate.- Transfer includes escalation.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.

# SPEC MetodologIAversion: 2.0status: executable## S — SituationContext: When you have the artifact from prompt 09.# PARAMETERSLENGTH = conciseSTRUCTURE = short table + decisionDEPTH = operationalAPPROVAL = human required# INPUTSMINI_SOP = Mini-SOP v0.1 for preparing sourced proposalsCHANGES = add date control and separate drafting from approvalEVIDENCE = five-day board, three citations and artifact version 0.2PROCESS_OWNER = operations lead; independent quality reviewerAvailable synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT = Test report: 3 of 4 claims passed on the first attempt; one citation was corrected; decision: adopt with a checklist and second review. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.# Optional adjustmentsState the missing fact that would change the decision.## P — Purpose and scopeExpert role: Act as a module specialist. Do not invent evidence or replace human judgment.Deliverable: Mini-SOP v1.0Include: Version and transfer.Exclude: Does not authorize deployment.## E — Standards and execution### FRAMEWORKS AND BEST PRACTICES- Version control- Transfer checklist- Human-in-the-loop · review before decisionSteps:1. Apply approved changes.2. State boundaries.3. Design second test.4. Check evidence, boundaries and consistency before closing.5. Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.### Edge cases- If data or rights change, invalidate and reapprove.- Workflow without a boundary: define start and finish before improving it.- Conflicting practices: record which one will be tested and why.## C — Verifiable criteria# Expected output:- Mini-SOP v1.0- Changes link evidence and owner.- Recipient can escalate.- Transfer includes escalation.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.Observable criteria:- Changes link evidence and owner.- Recipient can escalate.- Transfer includes escalation.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.# Definition of Done: Changes link evidence and owner.; Recipient can escalate.; Transfer includes escalation.; The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.; The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.Trade-off: Standardizing may freeze errors.## Provenance- Synthetic demo- Declared authorities: ev-m03-program, ev-m03-ways-of-working## Metadata- module: 03- prompt: prompt-10- surface: chatReturn conclusions, evidence and auditable metadata; do not expose private reasoning or chain of thought.

# systemAct as a module specialist. Do not invent evidence or replace human judgment.# FRAMEWORKS AND BEST PRACTICES- Version control- Transfer checklist- Human-in-the-loop · review before decision# Boundaries- Do not recommend broad adoption.- Keep owner, reviewer, permissions, and human approval.- Do not claim improvement without comparing the workflow against an observed case.- Do not proceed without an owner, usage rights and independent review.- Does not authorize deployment.# Definition of DoneChanges link evidence and owner.; Recipient can escalate.; Transfer includes escalation.; The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.; The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.# user# PARAMETERSLENGTH = conciseSTRUCTURE = short table + decisionDEPTH = operationalAPPROVAL = human required# INPUTSMINI_SOP = Mini-SOP v0.1 for preparing sourced proposalsCHANGES = add date control and separate drafting from approvalEVIDENCE = five-day board, three citations and artifact version 0.2PROCESS_OWNER = operations lead; independent quality reviewerAvailable synthetic data: DEMO_ARTIFACT = Test report: 3 of 4 claims passed on the first attempt; one citation was corrected; decision: adopt with a checklist and second review. Workflow owner: proposal lead. Reviewer: an independent specialist.# Optional adjustmentsState the missing fact that would change the decision.# TaskVersion and transfer.# Workflow1. Apply approved changes.2. State boundaries.3. Design second test.4. Check evidence, boundaries and consistency before closing.5. Return the artifact, next step and any open gap.# Expected output- Mini-SOP v1.0- Changes link evidence and owner.- Recipient can escalate.- Transfer includes escalation.- The Mini-SOP retains a version, owner, exception and test evidence.- The accountable owner, reviewer and shared evidence are identified.