Align AGENTS.md with the FT-WP- prefix the hub already registered, and
rewrite INTENT.md and SCOPE.md, which were still the generated stubs and
carried none of the composed-post framing the interface is built around.
Fix two artifact inconsistencies: R-1's retry comment still described
POST /v1/hall-entries idempotent on entry_id, from before the reframe to
composed posts; and the seed pressure record listed only one of the two
hypotheses that cite it. Rename it to match its id.
Replace the manual T01-T03 route with FT-WP-0002. The Bot API cannot
create a bot or a channel, so provisioning is an MTProto client acting as
a designated operator account (Canon INT-03), driven from a declared
presence spec owned by the campaign. One bounded human bootstrap remains
and docs/provisioning.md says why it cannot be removed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0172sgCZEEDJcnQmr4SGDvKa
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 1361245@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: b3b428ef-f3e6-4688-b091-01f71461d66a
The channel publishes a post written from a hall entry -- condensed,
personal, reach-optimized -- not the entry itself. That changes what
this interface is for and where its boundary sits.
Composition is deliberately outside the interface. Composing is a
probabilistic editorial task, and Blueprint 48.1 forbids an LLM in the
mandatory request path, so an interface that composed on demand would be
non-deterministic exactly where determinism is the whole claim. It is
also editorial: a post speaks about a named person's work in
HelixForge's voice, and a review step inside the request path is a
review step nobody performs.
The contract now takes a composed post with a required reviewer, a cited
source entry and a consent basis. A post carrying none of those is
refused. Absence of objection is not consent, and in an audit trail an
unfaithful post looks exactly like a faithful one -- the defence is that
a human read it, the source is named, and both are recorded.
The first experiment is rebuilt accordingly. The old competition asked
how to fit a whole entry into Telegram; that question no longer exists.
The new one asks whether the portrait earns the 3072 characters of
caption limit it costs, which is a delivery question this interface
actually owns. Competition over editorial voice belongs to the campaign
and runs on the per-variant engagement this interface reports.
Adds T05b (composition and review), T05c (consent basis for the 94
existing participants, blocking public publication) and T11 (extracting
the campaign into pr-hall-of-helix).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_014KmVxhJ35tCo7rE7UnLwWu
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 1116572@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 8ba9bb93-a72a-4883-b189-2499cce5c400
Adds the governing intent, the R-1 contract and descriptor, the adapter's
connector contract, the observation and redaction configuration, a
runbook, and the seed evidence for the first experiment: a measured
pressure record and two competing hypotheses about how a long hall entry
should reach a reader.
The interface is declared at FLUID-2 deliberately. It publishes under
HelixForge's name to an audience that did not consent to being
experimented on carelessly, and the cost of a bad post is reputational
rather than recoverable.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_014KmVxhJ35tCo7rE7UnLwWu
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 1116572@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 8ba9bb93-a72a-4883-b189-2499cce5c400
