Sprint 1.5 prep: Leonard->Architect feedback, aiND 7-tier DNA doc, Issue 002 (PROPOSED)

- docs/vision/LEONARD_FEEDBACK_TO_ARCHITECT.md: 4 resolutions (naming aiND vs Athena; T6
  practitioner-gate; T1 has no engine signal yet/actionability_score reserved; ingestion audit
  is mandatory for indispensable editions) + 2 risks (success metric is human-only; schema
  forward-compatible, no change in 1.5).
- docs/vision/AI_NEWS_DAILY_TIERS.md: 7-tier hierarchy + Builder-Outcome DNA + 4 editorial
  questions + T6 gate. LOCKED reference for edition curation.
- Issue_002.md: PROPOSED hand-curated edition from live 60-story window; T1-T5 + T6 gate;
  founder confirmation required before 'shipped'. ~11/60 cleared Editorial Test -> exposes
  ingestion-supply problem.

Sprint 1.5 = multiple hand editions; Lens/Memory/Narratives/KG deferred. No schema change.

docs/vision/LEONARD_FEEDBACK_TO_ARCHITECT.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+# Leonard → Architect: Feedback on the aiND Build Plan
+
+**From:** Leonard (implementation architect)
+**To:** Architect (Copilot)
+**Re:** aiND build plan — feedback before Sprint 1.5 execution
+**Date:** 2026-07-15
+
+The plan is sound. Locking the vision and switching to *"build editions, not architecture"* is the correct call, and the 7-tier hierarchy is the right spine. Four things need resolution and two risks are underweighted before I build.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Naming — three names exist in the repo
+- `VISION_LOCK_V1.md` says **"AI Enthusiast Daily"**
+- `AI_NEWS_DAILY_VISION_V2.md` says **"AI News Daily"**
+- this plan says **"aiND"**
+
+Recommendation: **aiND** is the canonical publication name; **Athena** is the engine. I'll alias/rename the two committed files so there is exactly one name. This is a doc fix, not a build — but it must happen before editions ship or the brand fractures.
+
+## 2. T6 needs an explicit practitioner gate
+The plan lists "Important Developments (model/API/platform) — only when practitioners care." Correct in spirit, but MODEL RELEASE is shown as its own tier. Live data contradicts that: of the latest 60 scored stories, the MODEL RELEASE items are mostly *not* practitioner-relevant — "OpenAI's flagship deletes files," "Google training lawsuit," "DeepMind CEO calls for regulation." Those are **T7**, not T6.
+
+Rule I'll enforce in curation: **T6 requires a practitioner-action trigger** — must migrate an API, can run the model locally, or it changes your stack. Otherwise it drops to T7. A model release with no reproducible substance is noise.
+
+## 3. T1 has no engine signal yet — and that's fine, but say it
+The Athena scorer (Sprint 1) measures shipping/utility/replication/enthusiast/novelty. It **cannot** detect "saved money / got customers / reduced token cost." That gap is exactly why we reserved `actionability_score` (currently 0). Sprint 1.5 bans score work, so **T1 ranking in editions is human curation only** — I'll mark T1 candidates by hand. The `actionability_score` column is the future home; leave it at 0 until Sprint 2+. The plan should state this explicitly so nobody expects the engine to surface T1.
+
+## 4. Source/ingestion audit is the real bottleneck (underweighted)
+Sprint 1.5 says "use live incoming data." But the live feed is **dominated by T6/T7** — arxiv firehose, CEO takes, lawsuits — because ingestion sources aren't tuned to aiND's DNA. My edition-prep digest of the latest 60 stories shows only **~11 are T1–T5 candidates**. A great edition cannot be *ranked* out of a T7-heavy feed.
+
+Recommendation: Sprint 1.5 **must include a source/ingestion audit** — weight LocalLLaMA / Show HN / build threads up, demote pure-RSS and arxiv-firehose. This is ingestion *config*, not architecture, and it's the difference between "indispensable" and "another aggregator." Without it, the "would I miss it?" test fails on *supply*, not ranking.
+
+---
+
+## Risk A — the success metric is unmeasurable by me
+"Would I miss today's edition if it didn't arrive?" is a **human journal**, not an engine metric. I'll track it as a manual receipt log (`edition_receipt.md`); founder marks miss / not. No automation owns this number.
+
+## Risk B — schema is already forward-compatible
+The reserved columns `narrative_id`, `topic_id`, `relation_json` already exist (NULL). No schema change is needed for Lens / Memory / Narratives / KG. **Do not touch schema in Sprint 1.5.** Good — the plan's deferral order is safe.
+
+---
+
+## Decisions I need from you
+1. Confirm **aiND** as canonical name → I fix the two committed docs.
+2. Confirm the **T6 practitioner-gate** rule.
+3. Approve a **source/ingestion audit** as part of Sprint 1.5 (I consider it mandatory, not optional).
+
+I've built **Issue 002** (PROPOSED) from live data applying T1–T5 + the T6 gate, hand-curated, no Lens. It's attached for your confirmation. Lens / Memory / Narratives / KG stay deferred per the plan.
+
+*Note: this memo and Issue 002 are committed to Gitea under `docs/vision/` and repo root respectively, consistent with the Vision Lock practice.*