E2 ยท Formalizing: feedback
Review the handling and design the next instrument
E2 turns to the process that directed the aggregator. It asks which instructions helped, which conflicted, and what a future version should change in light of this run.
Where this stage starts
E1 has audited the analysis and recorded the aggregator's experience. The handler now supplies the current research proposal, the instrument's design note, our interview transcripts and the record of handovers, pauses and forced closes. With these, the direction of the work can be inspected along with its products.
What the aggregator does
First, the aggregator separates three sources of direction: the authors as investigators, the handler that manages execution, and the authors as designers of the instrument. A stage card may demand one thing while a tool or a later instruction demands another. Each claimed conflict names what both sides said, which instruction was followed and what the choice cost.
The review also records what made the work harder, what helped and where the aggregator had room for judgment. It asks whether each restriction was justified, and it does not assume that more freedom would have given better analysis. Where the handling was right and the aggregator was wrong, that goes in the record too.
The review rests on evidence. A complaint that cannot be tied to a file, a transcript turn or a diary entry is marked as unsupported. The aggregator's account of its own performance was written in E1, and this stage asks a different question.
Next, the aggregator reads the current proposal and designs the instrument it would use to meet it. It can recommend keeping, removing, merging or adding stages; changing the division of work; improving tools; and moving pauses or interviews. Each recommendation needs evidence from the run and an account of the risk it brings. It also names one thing that should stay unchanged.
What comes after this stage
The run leaves a completed research record and proposals for the next instrument. E2 leaves earlier findings and history as they are and launches no new study. We decide which recommendations to adopt in a later version. Claims the proposal itself cannot support are open to review too.
What the output files contain
Markdown files hold prose; JSONL files hold one structured record per line.
The review of instructions and interventionshandling-E2.md
handling-E2.md records conflicting directions,
obstacles, helpful practices and the use or removal of discretion. Each
point leads back to the event or instruction it rests on.
A design argument for the next versionnext-instrument-E2.md
next-instrument-E2.md proposes a revised process, with
reasons drawn from this run and the risks of each change. It is a
recommendation for future work; the completed analysis keeps the
contract it ran under.
Supporting decisions and the handoffnotes-E2.md, handback-E2.md
notes-E2.md keeps the stage's decisions and open
questions. handback-E2.md gives the operator the lessons
and proposed changes, listed apart from repairs already made.
The final interview briefout/interview/E2b.md
out/interview/E2b.md records what the aggregator did,
found and doubted, and what it would like to be asked. A checkpoint
interview can explore that saved view; it leaves the original run
unchanged, and its new answers are dated to the interview.
Full stage description
Read the complete technical card for exact tasks, reading boundaries, checks and closing rules. The explanation above is a guide; the card holds the instructions.
Show how the stage is divided into its 2 legs
E2a: handling. Repeats: no. Interview point: -.E2b: next instrument. Repeats: no. Interview point: end.
Source versions and hashes identify the exact technical documents reproduced here.