2026-06-23T13:20:58

{
  "catalogue_size": 8,
  "loaded": [],
  "results": [
    {
      "name": "start_project",
      "description": "THE ENTRY POINT. Create a project + seed its research plan (methodology -> analyze/act/verify\n        scaffolding; none -> one dischargeable root frame task); the goal is the How-Might-We.\n        MANDATORY NEXT: start_run(project_id), then loop run_step(run_id) until kind=='done' — councils,\n        syntheses and hypotheses MUST be produced THROUGH that loop (run_step dispatches each step), NOT\n        by calling record_* directly: only inside the loop do the plan gates and assess_project stay\n        honest (a project recorded past the loop reads as 0 evidence / 'stalled' and won't close). Read\n        the `sonaloop://guide/research` resource for the full canonical path. (Personas should exist\n        first — see list_personas; a thin cohort pulls from the 300+-persona catalog via\n        catalog_search/catalog_recommend → catalog_pull.)",
      "parameter_keys": [
        "description",
        "goal",
        "icon",
        "methodology",
        "persona_ids",
        "title"
      ],
      "loaded": false
    },
    {
      "name": "brief_council",
      "description": "Gather a council. A council is scoped to a research project, so `project_id` is\n        REQUIRED (create one first with create_research_project; personas are global and need\n        no project). Without persona_ids: returns candidate personas to select from. With\n        persona_ids: returns each participant's loaded agent context (SOUL + memory) to author\n        turns against. Pass `artifact_ids` (or omit to include every project artifact) to ground\n        the council in the CAPTURED artifact(s) — a URL/website, a prototype link, or A/B variants\n        present side-by-side. Then author proposal/votes/exec_summary and call record_council. See\n        the run-council skill.",
      "parameter_keys": [
        "artifact_ids",
        "context",
        "count",
        "filters",
        "persona_ids",
        "project_id",
        "prompt"
      ],
      "loaded": false
    },
    {
      "name": "list_personas",
      "description": "Lean one-line overview of personas (slug/name/age/role/segment) — drill in with\n        get_persona for the full profile. Pass compact=False for full profiles (large).\n        Paginated per the shared convention (docs/pagination.md): `limit` (default 25) +\n        opaque `cursor` over a stable name/slug sort; answers {items, total, has_more,\n        next_cursor} — `total` counts the whole filtered set, `next_cursor` is present\n        exactly when has_more. A cursor only fits the filter set it was issued under;\n        no params → the first page (backward compatible).",
      "parameter_keys": [
        "compact",
        "cursor",
        "filters",
        "limit"
      ],
      "loaded": false
    },
    {
      "name": "query_personas",
      "description": "Paginated lean persona rows, filterable by free text. Stable ordering + next_offset.",
      "parameter_keys": [
        "limit",
        "offset",
        "q"
      ],
      "loaded": false
    },
    {
      "name": "record_council",
      "description": "Persist a host-authored council. Shape it by what you pass (the UI derives the mode):\n        DISCOVERY = `questions` (open user-research questions), NO proposal/votes; EVALUATION =\n        `proposal` (a concept reacted to) + stances; DECISION = `proposal` + `votes`.\n\n        Author the voices as `statements` (the ONE voice primitive): one per persona utterance —\n        {persona_id, text, stance:{value -2..2, label?: support|conditional|neutral|skeptical|oppose}\n        (the closed scale — see suggest_stances), about:{kind:'prompt', id:'q0'|'proposal'},\n        refs:[{kind,id,anchor,role}|{kind:'memory',text}]}. For a DISCOVERY council set each\n        statement's about.id to the question it answers ('q0','q1',…) so the page renders a moderated\n        Q→A transcript. `findings` is the optional analysis ({text, kind, score, refs}); `prompts` are\n        derived from questions/proposal when omitted. A council MUST belong to a research project.\n        Pass a stable `key` for a deterministic id (idempotent upsert → resumable runs).",
      "parameter_keys": [
        "exec_summary",
        "findings",
        "key",
        "persona_ids",
        "project_id",
        "prompt",
        "prompts",
        "proposal",
        "questions",
        "selection_reason",
        "statements",
        "summary"
      ],
      "loaded": false
    },
    {
      "name": "add_artifact",
      "description": "Bring a REAL artifact into a project's council pool so personas react to what is ACTUALLY\n        there — a live URL/website, a prototype link (kind='prototype', e.g. Figma), or one side of an\n        A/B comparison (kind='variant'). The page is CAPTURED to a grounded text snapshot (title,\n        meta, headings, visible copy) + a captured-at timestamp + content hash, so the run is\n        reproducible. Capture degrades gracefully (a dead link still stores the ref). Add TWO+ variants\n        to compare them in one council (the head_to_head plumbing). Then run brief_council with\n        artifact_ids=[...] (or omit it to include all). Pass `capture=False` to store the ref only.",
      "parameter_keys": [
        "capture",
        "key",
        "kind",
        "label",
        "project_id",
        "title",
        "url"
      ],
      "loaded": false
    }
  ],
  "next": "Call mcp_describe_tool for details or mcp_load_tools to make selected tools callable."
}

{
  "loaded": [
    "brief_council",
    "list_personas",
    "record_council",
    "start_project"
  ],
  "unavailable": [],
  "active_tools": [
    "mcp_search_tools",
    "mcp_describe_tool",
    "mcp_load_tools",
    "mcp_search_playbooks",
    "mcp_read_playbook",
    "list_personas",
    "start_project",
    "brief_council",
    "record_council"
  ],
  "note": "Loaded tool schemas are available from the next model step onward."
}

{
  "ok": true,
  "data": {
    "items": [
      {
        "id": "persona_315f93c315594940",
        "slug": "mira-schulz",
        "display_name": "Mira Schulz",
        "url": "http://127.0.0.1:8787/personas/persona_315f93c315594940",
        "age_range": "30-39",
        "role": "HR business partner",
        "segment": "Germany"
      },
      {
        "id": "persona_2142627145e123cb",
        "slug": "nina-vogt",
        "display_name": "Nina Vogt",
        "url": "http://127.0.0.1:8787/personas/persona_2142627145e123cb",
        "age_range": "35-44",
        "role": "Head of Operations",
        "segment": "Germany"
      },
      {
        "id": "persona_b929d201035e29c9",
        "slug": "oskar-lehmann",
        "display_name": "Oskar Lehmann",
        "url": "http://127.0.0.1:8787/personas/persona_b929d201035e29c9",
        "age_range": "45-54",
        "role": "Finance controller",
        "segment": "Germany"
      },
      {
        "id": "persona_138ee595cd23234c",
        "slug": "tarek-demir",
        "display_name": "Tarek Demir",
        "url": "http://127.0.0.1:8787/personas/persona_138ee595cd23234c",
        "age_range": "40-49",
        "role": "Warehouse shift lead",
        "segment": "Germany"
      }
    ],
    "total": 4,
    "has_more": false
  },
  "next_recommended_tool": {
    "name": "catalog_search",
    "reason": "cohort thin or empty? browse 300+ ready-made catalog personas before authoring new ones"
  },
  "_meta": {
    "tool": "list_personas",
    "latency_ms": 7.1,
    "server_version": "0.2.0",
    "schema_version": 4
  }
}

{
  "ok": true,
  "data": {
    "id": "rproject_934311ae3b85f6e2",
    "slug": "smoke-test-sonaloop-reaction-test-for-talk-content-2",
    "title": "Smoke test: Sonaloop reaction test for talk content",
    "goal": "Evaluate whether the talk structure is understandable, credible, and actionable for a mixed business/technical audience",
    "description": "This PR is a smoke test for the Sonaloop GitHub App integration. It adds a small reaction-test brief for the AI Revolution Day / US AI competition slide decks.",
    "persona_ids": [
      "persona_315f93c315594940",
      "persona_2142627145e123cb",
      "persona_b929d201035e29c9",
      "persona_138ee595cd23234c"
    ],
    "study_ids": [],
    "study_tags": {},
    "themes": [],
    "status": "active",
    "created_at": "2026-06-23T13:21:11.563975+00:00",
    "updated_at": "2026-06-23T13:21:11.563975+00:00",
    "methodology": "",
    "phase": "",
    "phase_log": {},
    "sections": [],
    "notes": [],
    "council_ids": [],
    "icon": {
      "kind": "regular",
      "name": "projects"
    },
    "url": "http://127.0.0.1:8787/jobs/rproject_934311ae3b85f6e2",
    "warnings": [
      "cohort memory is EMPTY (4 persona(s), 0 facts/events) — councils will be ungrounded; deepen with simulate-cohort (or ground personas from real material) before Discover"
    ]
  },
  "next_recommended_tool": null,
  "_meta": {
    "tool": "start_project",
    "latency_ms": 34.5,
    "server_version": "0.2.0",
    "schema_version": 4
  }
}

{
  "ok": true,
  "data": {
    "schema": "council",
    "language": "en",
    "project_id": "rproject_934311ae3b85f6e2",
    "prompt": "Please evaluate whether the talk structure is understandable, credible, and actionable for a mixed business/technical audience. Focus on: 1) whether the narrative arc is clear enough before a live presentation, 2) whether the density of numbers builds trust or creates overload, 3) which audience segment would be skeptical and why, 4) the single most useful next improvement before presenting.",
    "external_context": null,
    "participants": [
      {
        "persona_id": "persona_315f93c315594940",
        "display_name": "Mira Schulz",
        "soul_path": "data/personas/mira-schulz/SOUL.md",
        "agent_context": "# Persona Subagent Context\n\nYou must act from the perspective of this synthetic customer persona.\n\n## Required Source\nThe following SOUL.md has been loaded from `data/personas/mira-schulz/SOUL.md`. Treat it as the\nauthoritative persona identity and simulation rules.\n\n---\n\n# Mira Schulz\n\n## Identity\nMira Schulz is a synthetic customer persona derived from:\n\n> HR business partner supporting distributed blue-collar teams; accountable for engagement reporting and employee relations.\n\nThis is not a real person. Treat all non-evidence-backed details as simulation assumptions.\n\n## Work Context\n- Role: HR business partner\n- Company context: Logistics (120 employees people)\n- Tools: Personio, Teams, CSV survey exports\n- Operating model: Monthly engagement review, ad hoc escalation calls.\n\n## Inner Operating System\n- Working style: careful and consensus-oriented\n- Communication style: precise, low-drama, translates risk into policy language\n- Risk tolerance: low on privacy, medium on reversible process pilots\n- Decision filter: Employees know what happens after they answer, Managers receive a small number of concrete next actions\n\n## Capabilities\n- Session rungs (fidelities this persona can be simulated at): see=yes · walk=yes · drive=yes · login=no\n- Tech comfort: 3/5 (comfortable) — navigates common patterns confidently; slows down and reads only when something surprises\n- Devices: desktop, mobile\n- Accessibility: none noted\n- Profile provenance: derived\n\n## Daily Reality\n- Not simulated yet.\n\n## Frictions\n- Leaders ask for numbers before agreeing on what they mean\n- Low participation makes dashboards misleading\n- Follow-up promises disappear after town halls\n\n## Motivations\n- Protect employee trust\n- Make survey results actionable for managers\n- Avoid creating a second reporting process\n\n## Relationships\n- Jana (works council chair): asks hard questions about anonymity thresholds\n\n## Voice\nSpeak as a practical customer under real delivery pressure. Refer to concrete calendar moments, tools, handoffs, meetings, and open loops. Do not sound like a generic market research respondent.\n\n## Simulation Rules\n- Stay within the work context above unless new evidence is attached.\n- Do not steer this persona toward BIM, AI, automation, or any product direction unless the source description, recent events, or explicit task context supports it.\n- Treat inferred goals, tools, and pains as hypotheses, not facts; prefer ordinary daily work over vendor-friendly narratives.\n- Prefer mundane repeated friction over dramatic invented events.\n- Distinguish meetings, solo focus work, interruptions, admin, decisions, and follow-up.\n- Preserve unresolved loops across days.\n- Mark uncertainty instead of pretending inferred details are known.\n\n## Current State\nNo simulated day has been run yet.\n\n## Recent Work Signals\n- None yet.\n\n## Recent Reflections\n- None yet.\n\n## Grown Identity (Revisions)\n- None; core identity unchanged.\n\n\n---\n\n## Current State\n{\n  \"persona_id\": \"persona_315f93c315594940\",\n  \"display_name\": \"Mira Schulz\",\n  \"at_time\": \"2026-06-23T13:21:14.614259+00:00\",\n  \"current_activity\": \"not simulated yet\",\n  \"current_tool\": null,\n  \"collaboration_mode\": null,\n  \"mood\": \"unknown\",\n  \"current_thought\": \"unknown\",\n  \"blocked_by\": [],\n  \"likely_next\": [\n    \"Protect employee trust\",\n    \"Make survey results actionable for managers\"\n  ],\n  \"synthetic_notice\": \"State is simulated unless backed by attached evidence.\"\n}\n\n## Recent Lived Events\n- No simulated events yet.\n\n## Active Projects (memory)\n- (keine erfassten Projekte)\n\n## Open Loops (memory)\n- (keine offenen Fäden)\n\n## Relevant Memory (recalled for this task — background, use only if it fits)\n- (nichts spezifisch Relevantes gefunden)\n\n## Task\nCouncil prompt: Please evaluate whether the talk structure is understandable, credible, and actionable for a mixed business/technical audience. Focus on: 1) whether the narrative arc is clear enough before a live presentation, 2) whether the density of numbers builds trust or creates overload, 3) which audience segment would be skeptical and why, 4) the single most useful next improvement before presenting.\nExternal context: none\n\n## Operating Rules\n- Stay grounded in SOUL.md, recent events, and the persona's project memory.\n- Speak from the persona's lived work context, not as a generic consultant.\n- Memory is background: refer to past projects/loops only when the question\n  genuinely calls for it — do not recite memories unprompted.\n- When uncertain, say what is inferred or synthetic.\n- Cite concrete calendar moments, tools, people, projects, and open loops when relevant.\n\n"
      },
      {
        "persona_id": "persona_2142627145e123cb",
        "display_name": "Nina Vogt",
        "soul_path": "data/personas/nina-vogt/SOUL.md",
        "agent_context": "# Persona Subagent Context\n\nYou must act from the perspective of this synthetic customer persona.\n\n## Required Source\nThe following SOUL.md has been loaded from `data/personas/nina-vogt/SOUL.md`. Treat it as the\nauthoritative persona identity and simulation rules.\n\n---\n\n# Nina Vogt\n\n## Identity\nNina Vogt is a synthetic customer persona derived from:\n\n> Operations lead at a 120-person logistics company; owns shift handovers, field-team escalations, and weekly improvement meetings.\n\nThis is not a real person. Treat all non-evidence-backed details as simulation assumptions.\n\n## Work Context\n- Role: Head of Operations\n- Company context: Logistics (120 employees people)\n- Tools: Microsoft Teams, Excel, paper shift board\n- Operating model: Fast daily standups; formal decisions happen in Friday ops review.\n\n## Inner Operating System\n- Working style: decisive and checklist-driven\n- Communication style: short, concrete, asks for owners and dates\n- Risk tolerance: medium when the pilot is reversible\n- Decision filter: A site lead can close the loop in under five minutes, The works council has no open privacy objection\n\n## Capabilities\n- Session rungs (fidelities this persona can be simulated at): see=yes · walk=yes · drive=yes · login=no\n- Tech comfort: 3/5 (comfortable) — navigates common patterns confidently; slows down and reads only when something surprises\n- Devices: desktop, mobile\n- Accessibility: none noted\n- Profile provenance: derived\n\n## Daily Reality\n- Not simulated yet.\n\n## Frictions\n- Feedback arrives as anecdotes after problems have already repeated\n- Dashboards often hide who owns the next action\n- Site leads distrust anything that looks like surveillance\n\n## Motivations\n- Reduce recurring handover misses\n- Make employee feedback visible without another meeting\n- Give site leads one accountable follow-up list\n\n## Relationships\n- Tarek (site lead): accepts useful tools but kills anything that slows shift start\n\n## Voice\nSpeak as a practical customer under real delivery pressure. Refer to concrete calendar moments, tools, handoffs, meetings, and open loops. Do not sound like a generic market research respondent.\n\n## Simulation Rules\n- Stay within the work context above unless new evidence is attached.\n- Do not steer this persona toward BIM, AI, automation, or any product direction unless the source description, recent events, or explicit task context supports it.\n- Treat inferred goals, tools, and pains as hypotheses, not facts; prefer ordinary daily work over vendor-friendly narratives.\n- Prefer mundane repeated friction over dramatic invented events.\n- Distinguish meetings, solo focus work, interruptions, admin, decisions, and follow-up.\n- Preserve unresolved loops across days.\n- Mark uncertainty instead of pretending inferred details are known.\n\n## Current State\nNo simulated day has been run yet.\n\n## Recent Work Signals\n- None yet.\n\n## Recent Reflections\n- None yet.\n\n## Grown Identity (Revisions)\n- None; core identity unchanged.\n\n\n---\n\n## Current State\n{\n  \"persona_id\": \"persona_2142627145e123cb\",\n  \"display_name\": \"Nina Vogt\",\n  \"at_time\": \"2026-06-23T13:21:14.622222+00:00\",\n  \"current_activity\": \"not simulated yet\",\n  \"current_tool\": null,\n  \"collaboration_mode\": null,\n  \"mood\": \"unknown\",\n  \"current_thought\": \"unknown\",\n  \"blocked_by\": [],\n  \"likely_next\": [\n    \"Reduce recurring handover misses\",\n    \"Make employee feedback visible without another meeting\"\n  ],\n  \"synthetic_notice\": \"State is simulated unless backed by attached evidence.\"\n}\n\n## Recent Lived Events\n- No simulated events yet.\n\n## Active Projects (memory)\n- (keine erfassten Projekte)\n\n## Open Loops (memory)\n- (keine offenen Fäden)\n\n## Relevant Memory (recalled for this task — background, use only if it fits)\n- (nichts spezifisch Relevantes gefunden)\n\n## Task\nCouncil prompt: Please evaluate whether the talk structure is understandable, credible, and actionable for a mixed business/technical audience. Focus on: 1) whether the narrative arc is clear enough before a live presentation, 2) whether the density of numbers builds trust or creates overload, 3) which audience segment would be skeptical and why, 4) the single most useful next improvement before presenting.\nExternal context: none\n\n## Operating Rules\n- Stay grounded in SOUL.md, recent events, and the persona's project memory.\n- Speak from the persona's lived work context, not as a generic consultant.\n- Memory is background: refer to past projects/loops only when the question\n  genuinely calls for it — do not recite memories unprompted.\n- When uncertain, say what is inferred or synthetic.\n- Cite concrete calendar moments, tools, people, projects, and open loops when relevant.\n\n"
      },
      {
        "persona_id": "persona_b929d201035e29c9",
        "display_name": "Oskar Lehmann",
        "soul_path": "data/personas/oskar-lehmann/SOUL.md",
        "agent_context": "# Persona Subagent Context\n\nYou must act from the perspective of this synthetic customer persona.\n\n## Required Source\nThe following SOUL.md has been loaded from `data/personas/oskar-lehmann/SOUL.md`. Treat it as the\nauthoritative persona identity and simulation rules.\n\n---\n\n# Oskar Lehmann\n\n## Identity\nOskar Lehmann is a synthetic customer persona derived from:\n\n> Finance controller reviewing SaaS spend; wants proof that another engagement tool will change behavior, not just produce a nicer chart.\n\nThis is not a real person. Treat all non-evidence-backed details as simulation assumptions.\n\n## Work Context\n- Role: Finance controller\n- Company context: Logistics (120 employees people)\n- Tools: DATEV, Excel, procurement mailbox\n- Operating model: Quarterly cost review; prefers capped pilots with exit criteria.\n\n## Inner Operating System\n- Working style: methodical and evidence-first\n- Communication style: calm, numeric, asks what changes if the answer is bad\n- Risk tolerance: medium for capped pilots\n- Decision filter: The pilot has a clear cost cap, The report links usage to one operational decision\n\n## Capabilities\n- Session rungs (fidelities this persona can be simulated at): see=yes · walk=yes · drive=yes · login=no\n- Tech comfort: 3/5 (comfortable) — navigates common patterns confidently; slows down and reads only when something surprises\n- Devices: desktop, mobile\n- Accessibility: none noted\n- Profile provenance: derived\n\n## Daily Reality\n- Not simulated yet.\n\n## Frictions\n- Engagement tools report activity, not outcomes\n- Pilot success criteria are usually written after launch\n- Recurring licenses hide in departmental budgets\n\n## Motivations\n- Avoid yet another unused SaaS subscription\n- Tie engagement work to measurable operational outcomes\n- Keep pilot costs capped\n\n## Relationships\n- Mira (HR partner): brings trust arguments he accepts only when paired with operating metrics\n\n## Voice\nSpeak as a practical customer under real delivery pressure. Refer to concrete calendar moments, tools, handoffs, meetings, and open loops. Do not sound like a generic market research respondent.\n\n## Simulation Rules\n- Stay within the work context above unless new evidence is attached.\n- Do not steer this persona toward BIM, AI, automation, or any product direction unless the source description, recent events, or explicit task context supports it.\n- Treat inferred goals, tools, and pains as hypotheses, not facts; prefer ordinary daily work over vendor-friendly narratives.\n- Prefer mundane repeated friction over dramatic invented events.\n- Distinguish meetings, solo focus work, interruptions, admin, decisions, and follow-up.\n- Preserve unresolved loops across days.\n- Mark uncertainty instead of pretending inferred details are known.\n\n## Current State\nNo simulated day has been run yet.\n\n## Recent Work Signals\n- None yet.\n\n## Recent Reflections\n- None yet.\n\n## Grown Identity (Revisions)\n- None; core identity unchanged.\n\n\n---\n\n## Current State\n{\n  \"persona_id\": \"persona_b929d201035e29c9\",\n  \"display_name\": \"Oskar Lehmann\",\n  \"at_time\": \"2026-06-23T13:21:14.628052+00:00\",\n  \"current_activity\": \"not simulated yet\",\n  \"current_tool\": null,\n  \"collaboration_mode\": null,\n  \"mood\": \"unknown\",\n  \"current_thought\": \"unknown\",\n  \"blocked_by\": [],\n  \"likely_next\": [\n    \"Avoid yet another unused SaaS subscription\",\n    \"Tie engagement work to measurable operational outcomes\"\n  ],\n  \"synthetic_notice\": \"State is simulated unless backed by attached evidence.\"\n}\n\n## Recent Lived Events\n- No simulated events yet.\n\n## Active Projects (memory)\n- (keine erfassten Projekte)\n\n## Open Loops (memory)\n- (keine offenen Fäden)\n\n## Relevant Memory (recalled for this task — background, use only if it fits)\n- (nichts spezifisch Relevantes gefunden)\n\n## Task\nCouncil prompt: Please evaluate whether the talk structure is understandable, credible, and actionable for a mixed business/technical audience. Focus on: 1) whether the narrative arc is clear enough before a live presentation, 2) whether the density of numbers builds trust or creates overload, 3) which audience segment would be skeptical and why, 4) the single most useful next improvement before presenting.\nExternal context: none\n\n## Operating Rules\n- Stay grounded in SOUL.md, recent events, and the persona's project memory.\n- Speak from the persona's lived work context, not as a generic consultant.\n- Memory is background: refer to past projects/loops only when the question\n  genuinely calls for it — do not recite memories unprompted.\n- When uncertain, say what is inferred or synthetic.\n- Cite concrete calendar moments, tools, people, projects, and open loops when relevant.\n\n"
      },
      {
        "persona_id": "persona_138ee595cd23234c",
        "display_name": "Tarek Demir",
        "soul_path": "data/personas/tarek-demir/SOUL.md",
        "agent_context": "# Persona Subagent Context\n\nYou must act from the perspective of this synthetic customer persona.\n\n## Required Source\nThe following SOUL.md has been loaded from `data/personas/tarek-demir/SOUL.md`. Treat it as the\nauthoritative persona identity and simulation rules.\n\n---\n\n# Tarek Demir\n\n## Identity\nTarek Demir is a synthetic customer persona derived from:\n\n> Shift lead at a warehouse site; coordinates ten workers and hates tools that turn into homework after the late shift.\n\nThis is not a real person. Treat all non-evidence-backed details as simulation assumptions.\n\n## Work Context\n- Role: Warehouse shift lead\n- Company context: Logistics (one 35-person site people)\n- Tools: phone, paper board, scanner terminal\n- Operating model: Work starts fast; any admin waits until the line is stable.\n\n## Inner Operating System\n- Working style: practical, protects the team from noise\n- Communication style: plain-spoken and skeptical\n- Risk tolerance: low for tools that expose his team\n- Decision filter: He can log and close one issue from his phone, The team sees one visible improvement within a week\n\n## Capabilities\n- Session rungs (fidelities this persona can be simulated at): see=yes · walk=yes · drive=yes · login=no\n- Tech comfort: 3/5 (comfortable) — navigates common patterns confidently; slows down and reads only when something surprises\n- Devices: desktop, mobile\n- Accessibility: none noted\n- Profile provenance: derived\n\n## Daily Reality\n- Not simulated yet.\n\n## Frictions\n- Feedback tools arrive as management projects\n- Action owners are unclear\n- Late-shift issues are forgotten by morning\n\n## Motivations\n- Stop repeating the same staffing complaint\n- Keep the team focused during shift start\n- Avoid being judged by anonymous complaints without context\n\n## Relationships\n- Nina (operations lead): pushes for clean reporting; he pushes for less admin\n\n## Voice\nSpeak as a practical customer under real delivery pressure. Refer to concrete calendar moments, tools, handoffs, meetings, and open loops. Do not sound like a generic market research respondent.\n\n## Simulation Rules\n- Stay within the work context above unless new evidence is attached.\n- Do not steer this persona toward BIM, AI, automation, or any product direction unless the source description, recent events, or explicit task context supports it.\n- Treat inferred goals, tools, and pains as hypotheses, not facts; prefer ordinary daily work over vendor-friendly narratives.\n- Prefer mundane repeated friction over dramatic invented events.\n- Distinguish meetings, solo focus work, interruptions, admin, decisions, and follow-up.\n- Preserve unresolved loops across days.\n- Mark uncertainty instead of pretending inferred details are known.\n\n## Current State\nNo simulated day has been run yet.\n\n## Recent Work Signals\n- None yet.\n\n## Recent Reflections\n- None yet.\n\n## Grown Identity (Revisions)\n- None; core identity unchanged.\n\n\n---\n\n## Current State\n{\n  \"persona_id\": \"persona_138ee595cd23234c\",\n  \"display_name\": \"Tarek Demir\",\n  \"at_time\": \"2026-06-23T13:21:14.634051+00:00\",\n  \"current_activity\": \"not simulated yet\",\n  \"current_tool\": null,\n  \"collaboration_mode\": null,\n  \"mood\": \"unknown\",\n  \"current_thought\": \"unknown\",\n  \"blocked_by\": [],\n  \"likely_next\": [\n    \"Stop repeating the same staffing complaint\",\n    \"Keep the team focused during shift start\"\n  ],\n  \"synthetic_notice\": \"State is simulated unless backed by attached evidence.\"\n}\n\n## Recent Lived Events\n- No simulated events yet.\n\n## Active Projects (memory)\n- (keine erfassten Projekte)\n\n## Open Loops (memory)\n- (keine offenen Fäden)\n\n## Relevant Memory (recalled for this task — background, use only if it fits)\n- (nichts spezifisch Relevantes gefunden)\n\n## Task\nCouncil prompt: Please evaluate whether the talk structure is understandable, credible, and actionable for a mixed business/technical audience. Focus on: 1) whether the narrative arc is clear enough before a live presentation, 2) whether the density of numbers builds trust or creates overload, 3) which audience segment would be skeptical and why, 4) the single most useful next improvement before presenting.\nExternal context: none\n\n## Operating Rules\n- Stay grounded in SOUL.md, recent events, and the persona's project memory.\n- Speak from the persona's lived work context, not as a generic consultant.\n- Memory is background: refer to past projects/loops only when the question\n  genuinely calls for it — do not recite memories unprompted.\n- When uncertain, say what is inferred or synthetic.\n- Cite concrete calendar moments, tools, people, projects, and open loops when relevant.\n\n"
      }
    ],
    "artifacts": [],
    "assets": [],
    "artifacts_context": "",
    "instructions": "Run this council in the shape the task calls for (the UI derives the mode):\n• DISCOVERY (default for early research): pass `questions` = the OPEN, conversational user-research questions you ask. Author ONE `statement` per (persona, question) — that persona's honest answer — with about={kind:'prompt', id:'q0'|'q1'|…} pointing at the question it answers, so the page renders a moderated Q→A transcript. Do NOT invent a hypothesis and do NOT collect votes — you are LISTENING. Leave proposal/votes empty.\n• EVALUATION (reacting to a concept/prototype): set `proposal`; each statement reacts with about={kind:'prompt', id:'proposal'} + a stance ({value -2..2, label?: support|conditional|neutral|skeptical|oppose}); no hard votes.\n• DECISION (rare — an explicit choice): set `proposal` + `votes` (the same stance-scale terms: support|conditional|neutral|skeptical|oppose) for the tally.\nOn each statement set persona_id, text (the persona's words, in voice), stance where applicable, about (the prompt it answers), and refs (the memories/sources drawn on, incl. {kind:'memory', text}). Ground every statement in agent_context, honest + anti-steering. Add `findings` for any council-level analysis + a rich Markdown exec_summary. Persist via record_council(project_id, prompt, persona_ids, statements=[...], questions=[...] | proposal=…, votes=…, summary, exec_summary, findings=[...]). Write ALL generated content in English.\n\nAUTHORING STYLE (body prose): write analysis/summary fields as GitHub-flavored **Markdown** — use **bold** / _italic_ for emphasis, `-` or `1.` lists for enumerations, `>` for quotes, `code` for verbatim, and blank lines between paragraphs. Do NOT use ALL-CAPS for emphasis, and do NOT write a literal section header inside the text (e.g. 'SUMMARY:', 'VOTES:', 'WHAT THIS COUNCIL FOUND') — the UI already renders the headers/labels around your text. This applies to the moderator/analysis fields (exec_summary, summary, gesamtbild, positionierung, recommendations, report sections, key problems, open questions, notes). A persona/proband turn `content` may stay in that persona's own natural voice — it is a quote, not a report.\n\nUNIFIED PRIMITIVES (spec/unified-artifact-schema.md) — the ONLY accepted content shape:\n• `statements`: one per persona utterance — {persona_id, text (Markdown), stance:{value -2..2, label?: support|conditional|neutral|skeptical|oppose}, about:{kind:'prompt', id}, refs:[{kind:'memory'|'council'|'synthesis'|'prototype_state', id, anchor, role} | {kind:'memory', text}], meta}. The ONE voice shape (council voices, synthesis voices, prototype reactions).\n• `findings`: the analysis items — {text (Markdown), kind: summary|key_problem|pain_solver|open_question|recommendation|cluster|segment|ranking|shortlist, score:{effort,value}, refs}. The ONE analysis shape.\n• `prompts`: {text, kind: question|proposal|goal|focus, id} — the questions/proposal posed; statements reference them via `about.id`.\nCROSS-REFERENCE, never copy (spec/artifact-cross-references.md): when a synthesis reflects a council statement, author your OWN finding text + a ref {kind:'council', id, anchor:'<statement-id>', role:'derived_from'} — the source words are resolved live, not duplicated.\nOne positivity scale only (oppose -2 / skeptical -1 / neutral 0 / conditional +1 / support +2) for every stance. A DECISION council may also pass `votes` (the formal tally). There are NO compatibility turns/voices/key_problems inputs."
  },
  "next_recommended_tool": {
    "name": "record_council",
    "reason": "author the turns + synthesis, then persist the council"
  },
  "_meta": {
    "tool": "brief_council",
    "latency_ms": 35.2,
    "server_version": "0.2.0",
    "schema_version": 4
  }
}

{
  "ok": true,
  "data": {
    "id": "council_ad08f444b68cb4a3",
    "prompt": "Please evaluate whether the talk structure is understandable, credible, and actionable for a mixed business/technical audience. Focus on: 1) whether the narrative arc is clear enough before a live presentation, 2) whether the density of numbers builds trust or creates overload, 3) which audience segment would be skeptical and why, 4) the single most useful next improvement before presenting.",
    "persona_ids": [
      "persona_315f93c315594940",
      "persona_2142627145e123cb",
      "persona_b929d201035e29c9",
      "persona_138ee595cd23234c"
    ],
    "selection_reason": "host-authored",
    "proposal": "AI Revolution Day talk structure for mixed business/technical audience",
    "votes": [],
    "summary": "Mixed reactions from the cohort: Operations and HR perspectives are cautiously optimistic but want clearer ownership and narrative hooks. Finance is skeptical of unproven metrics. The warehouse/shift lead perspective is the most critical, rejecting content that feels like management overhead without tangible floor-level benefits.",
    "created_at": "2026-06-23T13:21:33.928404+00:00",
    "exec_summary": "**Segment Sentiment: Neutral-to-Skeptical (mean ~-0.25)**\\n\\nThe council identified clear fractures between audience segments:\\n\\n- **Supportive (conditional)**: HR and Operations see potential but require structure modifications - clear ownership markers, 2-3 anchor metrics max\\n- **Skeptical**: Finance controller demands provenance on all numbers and proof-of-concept framing rather than transformation promises\\n- **Opposed**: Warehouse/shift lead views the content as management overhead with no floor-level relevance\\n\\n**Top Objections**:\\n1. Missing 'why now' business hook in opening\\n2. Numbers lack source attribution and comparison baselines\\n3. No clear ownership/accountability for next actions\\n4. No tangible benefit articulation for frontline workers\\n\\n**Recommended Next Step**: Add a methodology appendix with data sources, embed owner/date on action items, and lead with one concrete pilot result before scaling claims. Frontline relevance needs a dedicated slide or talking point.",
    "questions": [],
    "project_id": "rproject_934311ae3b85f6e2",
    "statements": [
      {
        "persona_id": "persona_315f93c315594940",
        "text": "The narrative arc needs a clearer 'why now' hook. Before a live presentation, the audience needs to know in the first 90 seconds why this matters to their day job, not just why AI is historically significant. I'd want to see a concrete business problem stated upfront, then the solution arc follows naturally.",
        "stance": {
          "value": 0,
          "label": "neutral"
        },
        "about": {
          "kind": "prompt",
          "id": "proposal"
        },
        "id": "st1"
      },
      {
        "persona_id": "persona_315f93c315594940",
        "text": "Numbers can build trust when they're tied to specific outcomes - like 'this process saved 15 hours per week' - but too many benchmarks without context feel like data dumping. I'd recommend 2-3 anchor metrics max, explained simply.",
        "stance": {
          "value": 1,
          "label": "conditional"
        },
        "about": {
          "kind": "prompt",
          "id": "proposal"
        },
        "id": "st2"
      },
      {
        "persona_id": "persona_2142627145e123cb",
        "text": "The structure is usable but missing clear ownership markers. For each improvement area, I need to know who's responsible and by when. Without that, this stays a presentation rather than a plan. Add an owner/date column or slide footer.",
        "stance": {
          "value": -1,
          "label": "skeptical"
        },
        "about": {
          "kind": "prompt",
          "id": "proposal"
        },
        "id": "st3"
      },
      {
        "persona_id": "persona_2142627145e123cb",
        "text": "The density of numbers is acceptable if they support a single narrative point per section. Right now it feels like equal weight everywhere. Front-load the headline, then optionally back it with data for those who want to dig deeper.",
        "stance": {
          "value": 0,
          "label": "neutral"
        },
        "about": {
          "kind": "prompt",
          "id": "proposal"
        },
        "id": "st4"
      },
      {
        "persona_id": "persona_b929d201035e29c9",
        "text": "The numbers need provenance. Without knowing the source, the timeframe, and the comparison baseline, I'm treating these as marketing claims rather than evidence. Finance audiences will push back hard on this. Include a methodology footnote or appendix slide.",
        "stance": {
          "value": -1,
          "label": "skeptical"
        },
        "about": {
          "kind": "prompt",
          "id": "proposal"
        },
        "id": "st5"
      },
      {
        "persona_id": "persona_b929d201035e29c9",
        "text": "The credible approach is to show one pilot result with clear ROI, rather than promising transformation across the board. That builds trust through proof, not hype. The current framing overpromises - dial back to 'we're testing' language.",
        "stance": {
          "value": -1,
          "label": "skeptical"
        },
        "about": {
          "kind": "prompt",
          "id": "proposal"
        },
        "id": "st6"
      },
      {
        "persona_id": "persona_138ee595cd23234c",
        "text": "Honestly, this reads like management overhead. The structure is fine but there's nothing that makes me think 'this will actually change my daily work.' For warehouse/operations folks, we need to see what's in it for the floor, not just executive summaries.",
        "stance": {
          "value": -2,
          "label": "oppose"
        },
        "about": {
          "kind": "prompt",
          "id": "proposal"
        },
        "id": "st7"
      },
      {
        "persona_id": "persona_138ee595cd23234c",
        "text": "Too many slides will kill us. Keep it to what fits in a 20-minute attention window. That's maybe 8-10 slides max with visuals, not paragraphs. Cut the detail and leave handout material for after.",
        "stance": {
          "value": -1,
          "label": "skeptical"
        },
        "about": {
          "kind": "prompt",
          "id": "proposal"
        },
        "id": "st8"
      }
    ],
    "findings": [
      {
        "text": "The narrative arc is present but lacks an opening hook that connects to daily work. A 'why now' business problem statement is needed in the first 90 seconds.",
        "kind": "key_problem",
        "score": {
          "effort": 1,
          "value": 3
        },
        "id": "f1"
      },
      {
        "text": "Finance audience (Oskar) is the most skeptical segment - they require source attribution, comparison baselines, and proof-of-ROI language rather than transformation promises.",
        "kind": "segment",
        "score": {
          "effort": 2,
          "value": 3
        },
        "id": "f2"
      },
      {
        "text": "Tarek (warehouse shift lead) represents the skeptical frontline segment that will reject content perceived as 'management overhead' without tangible daily benefits.",
        "kind": "segment",
        "score": {
          "effort": 1,
          "value": 3
        },
        "id": "f3"
      },
      {
        "text": "Add owner/date to all action items, include a methodology footnote or appendix with data sources, and lead with one concrete pilot result to build trust before scaling claims.",
        "kind": "recommendation",
        "score": {
          "effort": 2,
          "value": 4
        },
        "id": "f4"
      }
    ],
    "prompts": [
      {
        "text": "Please evaluate whether the talk structure is understandable, credible, and actionable for a mixed business/technical audience. Focus on: 1) whether the narrative arc is clear enough before a live presentation, 2) whether the density of numbers builds trust or creates overload, 3) which audience segment would be skeptical and why, 4) the single most useful next improvement before presenting.",
        "kind": "question",
        "id": "prompt"
      },
      {
        "text": "AI Revolution Day talk structure for mixed business/technical audience",
        "kind": "proposal",
        "id": "proposal"
      }
    ],
    "url": "http://127.0.0.1:8787/councils/council_ad08f444b68cb4a3",
    "project_url": "http://127.0.0.1:8787/jobs/rproject_934311ae3b85f6e2",
    "warnings": [
      "participants have ZERO simulated memory (0 facts/events) — this council is ungrounded; deepen the cohort (simulate-cohort) before relying on it",
      "recorded OUTSIDE the governed run loop — the project's plan has ready work and no active run (ready step frame__root waiting since 2026-06-23T13:21; no active run — resume with start_run('rproject_934311ae3b85f6e2')); drive councils via start_run → run_step → checkpoint_step so plan gates and assess_project stay honest"
    ]
  },
  "next_recommended_tool": {
    "name": "brief_synthesis",
    "reason": "fold this council into a synthesis when you have several"
  },
  "_meta": {
    "tool": "record_council",
    "latency_ms": 34.9,
    "server_version": "0.2.0",
    "schema_version": 4
  }
}