Files

T

Epictetus 5224645703 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.

2026-07-15 06:25:41 +00:00

4.0 KiB

Raw Permalink Blame History

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

Confirm aiND as canonical name → I fix the two committed docs.
Confirm the T6 practitioner-gate rule.
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.

4.0 KiB Raw Permalink Blame History Unescape Escape