§G

Broaden GEWU ingestion so every project considers technical, conceptual, cultural/historical, and financial/market material. Persist plausible but uncertain relevance as a review flag alongside normal ingestion, optionally assess relevance and lens with JEV, and let explicit project-scoped user feedback guide later ingestion without weakening evidence validation or silently changing project policy.

§C

The four research lenses are defaults to consider, not quotas; a source need not contain material for every lens.
A plausible connection with uncertain relevance follows the normal proposal flow and also receives a durable user-review flag; the flag neither blocks nor auto-publishes the proposal.
Exclude only clearly out-of-scope material, unsupported/unavailable source content, or work deferred for an explicit budget; retain section-level coverage and reasons.
Evidence validity, source attribution, scope authorization, and proposal acceptance rules do not change.
User-review flags are stored separately from proposal validation's existing needs-review status and protected owner decisions. They notify/filter for human feedback and do not control proposal acceptance.
Feedback is scoped to one project. It may inform later triage only when the user explicitly chooses to save it as project guidance; it does not train the model or alter acceptance policy.
Existing projects receive the four default lenses when read, while retaining their current questions and project-specific context.
Optional Jev relevance/lens scoring is advisory; missing configuration or provider failure never blocks the normal ingest/proposal path.

§I

Project context exposes default lenses: technical, conceptual, cultural-historical, financial-market, plus optional project-specific lenses.
Agent-to-service interface: create a bounded review flag containing project/run/source revision, extraction and exact section locator, bounded evidence excerpt, lens, concise candidate summary and relevance rationale. The agent still follows normal proposal evaluation/submission. Optionally attach backend JEV relevance/lens probabilities; its failure does not block ingestion. It must not accept arbitrary local paths or credentials.
Human review interface: an authenticated GEWU web view lists items within authorized project scope; a human decides include, exclude, or defer; optionally saves a concise reusable guidance rule for that project. Decisions record reviewer, time, rationale, and item identity.
Agent project context returns only approved project guidance derived from human review. Review-item content and guidance remain distinct from canonical knowledge proposals.
Candidate names are provisional: MCP ingest_review_create; authenticated review read/decision routes; get_project_context returns research_lenses and approved ingest_guidance.

§V

V1: Every ingest run considers all four default lenses unless the human project context explicitly narrows scope. V2: Plausible but low-confidence relevance follows normal ingestion and creates a review flag with source-bound section locator and rationale; it is not silently dropped or held from proposal submission. V3: A review item cannot become accepted knowledge without a separately validated proposal and the existing acceptance policy. V4: User review decisions are attributable, idempotent, project-authorized, and immutable; corrections append a new decision. V5: Only an explicit human choice promotes a review decision into reusable project guidance; guidance never overrides evidence, authorization, or acceptance checks. V6: Every run reports selected, included, review-queued, excluded, and budget-deferred coverage with reasons. V7: Review items and feedback from one project are never returned in another project's context without explicit authorized sharing. V8: An optional Jev provider never becomes a source of evidence, an acceptance gate, or a requirement for storing review flags.

§T

4.9 KiB Raw Blame History

§G

§C

§I

§V

§T

4.9 KiB

Raw Blame History