Epictetus
3a42f53333
- docs/vision/VISION_LOCK_V1.md: permanent editorial mission, audience (builders/tinkerers/
local-AI users/home-lab/agent devs), Editorial Test ('what would an enthusiast DO?'),
architectual constraint (editorial vision is primary system), priority order.
- docs/vision/ADR-0007_EDITORIAL_PIVOT.md: accepted pivot record, before/after table,
Sprint 1 evidence (high-signal = actionable, low-signal = spectator content).
- docs/vision/EDITORIAL_GUIDELINES.md: operating rules; score is draft, taste overrides;
hand-before-machine; memory must store 'what can be done' not 'what happened'.
- docs/vision/SECTION_DEFINITIONS.md: 5 sections (What Shipped / Run It Locally /
Benchmarks & Builds / Problem Solved / Worth Trying Tonight).
- docs/vision/SPRINT_1_FINDINGS.md: reference evidence, 45/200 UNCATEGORIZED taxonomy gap.
- Issue_001.md: handcrafted prototype edition from Sprint 1 stories; benchmark for all future automation.
This is the architectural directive. No scoring/narrative/memory work proceeds except in
service of the Vision Lock. Sprint 2 (Lens) stays blocked pending manual review tallies.
64 lines
1.9 KiB
Markdown
64 lines
1.9 KiB
Markdown
# VISION LOCK V1
|
||
|
||
**Status:** PERMANENT · LOCKED 2026-07-15
|
||
**Authority:** Primary system constraint. No future scoring, narrative, memory, knowledge-graph, or editorial-automation work may contradict this document.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Mission
|
||
|
||
Find the **small number of developments that change what AI enthusiasts can DO today** — not what happened, but what became possible.
|
||
|
||
## Audience
|
||
|
||
NOT:
|
||
- General readers
|
||
- Investors
|
||
- Executives
|
||
- Policymakers
|
||
|
||
IS:
|
||
- **Builders** — people shipping things with AI
|
||
- **Tinkerers** — people modifying, extending, breaking
|
||
- **Local AI users** — people running models on their own hardware
|
||
- **Home-lab operators** — people running inference, agents, pipelines at home
|
||
- **Workflow creators** — people automating with agents
|
||
- **Agent developers** — people building agent systems
|
||
|
||
## Editorial Test
|
||
|
||
For **every** story, ask one question:
|
||
|
||
> **What would an AI enthusiast DO after reading this?**
|
||
|
||
Acceptable answers:
|
||
- `install it`
|
||
- `benchmark it`
|
||
- `run it`
|
||
- `replicate it`
|
||
- `learn from it`
|
||
- `build with it`
|
||
|
||
If the answer is:
|
||
|
||
> **Nothing.**
|
||
|
||
→ **Reject.**
|
||
|
||
## Architectural Constraint
|
||
|
||
The editorial vision is now the **primary system**.
|
||
The architecture serves it. Not the other way around.
|
||
|
||
Any future component — scorer, classifier, narrative engine, memory engine, knowledge graph, rendering layer, editorial automation — must be justified against the Editorial Test above. If a component optimizes for recency, volume, virality, or engagement instead of *actionability*, it contradicts the Lock and must be rejected or re-scoped.
|
||
|
||
## Architectural Priority Order
|
||
|
||
1. **Vision** — the Editorial Test wins all conflicts
|
||
2. **Editorial Quality** — would we proudly publish this?
|
||
3. **Reader Value** — can the reader DO something?
|
||
4. **Automation** — only after 1–3 are proven by hand
|
||
5. **Technical Elegance** — last. Never traded against 1–4.
|
||
|
||
If any two levels conflict, the higher level wins.
|