David F GliddenandClaude Opus 4.8
3f9a89b00c
Basic Memory v0.21.6 first sync over the live memory dir (steward-authorized live-dir trial, Option A 2026-06-06): adds permalink: to frontmatter, refolds long YAML description lines, strips final newlines. Bodies untouched — verified via full diff classification. From this commit forward, any diff in claude/memory shows only what Basic Memory or the session writes. Trial design: MemPalace untouched as incumbent; git status check on this dir at every wrap; end-of-day evaluation (recall quality, sync robustness, rebuild-from-files, malformed-file behavior). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
3.5 KiB
name, description, metadata, permalink
| name | description | metadata | permalink | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| feedback-skill-success-is-reexplanation-reduction | The measure of success for skill / discipline / framework improvements is whether the steward stops having to reexplain himself — not whether the skills become more sophisticated. Sophistication that does not reduce reexplanation cost is decoration. |
|
claude-memory/feedback-skill-success-is-reexplanation-reduction |
Rule: When evaluating a proposed change to the continuity-skill framework (wake-up, wrap-up, symmetria), to CLAUDE.md, to MemPalace skill substrate, or to any discipline-layer artifact: measure success by whether the change reduces the number of moments the steward has to reexplain himself to future Claude. Skill sophistication is not the criterion; reduction of steward overhead is. A change that adds capability without absorbing a recurring steward correction is decorative, regardless of how architecturally well-shaped it is.
Why: 2026-05-18 Jurist shape-review of the continuity-skill audit brief, verbatim from the Jurist's response (Claude.app, forwarded via the steward): "The brief identifies three live corrections as empirical evidence, and that evidence is strong. But the corrections also represent steward overhead that the system should be absorbing. The measure of success for this whole authorization sequence is not whether the skills become more sophisticated — it is whether the steward stops having to reexplain himself. Keep that as the criterion when evaluating the implementations." The criterion arose because the audit's central finding (load-bearing items named in procedure but not enforced in structure) and Harrison's ligature frame share a single ground: the executor exists to serve the unborn session's inheritance, and steward intervention is the cost the system is meant to absorb. Companion documents: ~/_Dev/CapableMind-AI/docs/thinking/David/methodology/continuity-skill-audit-jurist-brief-2026-05-18.md and …-jurist-shape-review-2026-05-18.md.
How to apply:
- Before proposing a skill or framework change, name the specific recurring steward correction the change is meant to absorb. If no recurring correction is named, the change is decorative — return-and-reframe before proposing.
- When evaluating implementations of authorized PENDING items (S0–S10 and successors), the acceptance test is not "does the procedure read well" but "does the next session need the steward to intervene at the moment this change addresses?" Test against live wake-ups and wrap-ups, not against the skill file in the abstract.
- The criterion applies to this audit's own authorization sequence: if Phase 2 (Directive elaboration) lands but the executor still requires three corrections in a day to hold the time-the-task-requires principle, the elaboration has not yet absorbed its overhead. The work continues until the steward stops being the principle's carrier.
- Related: feedback-load-bearing-not-by-immediate-weight — the audit principle that catches which small structural marks are worth adding. This criterion catches whether the marks (once added) have actually reduced the cost they were added to reduce. The two work together: load-bearing-by-future-prevention identifies candidates; reexplanation-reduction validates outcomes.
- The criterion is also a Symmetria pulse question to hold: "Is this change actually absorbing a recurring steward correction, or am I adding structure that looks disciplined but doesn't shift the load?"