W5.2: best-seller case-writer — single voice, scene-driven, anti-skeptic

User: "shouldn't mention the names of the mind-clones, should merge all
analyses and write like a best-seller author would, about what happened."

Voice rewrite (prompts/case-writer.md):
  - Reference voices: Erik Larson, Sam Kean, John McPhee, Mark Bowden.
    Plainspoken non-fiction, scene-driven, fascinated.
  - One narrator. NEVER say "Sherlock Holmes argues" / "Sun-Tzu builds
    the case" / "the team concluded". No internal-process names reach
    the reader.
  - Hook the first paragraph. Open in a scene with a date, place, and
    person doing something specific. NOT "This case investigates..."
  - Show, don't argue. Verbatim quotes stay source-language in
    blockquotes; the narration around them is the narrator's voice.
  - Every claim cites a chunk with [[doc-id/pNNN#cNNNN]].
  - Forbidden ceremony: "In summary…", "Em suma…", "Ultimately…",
    "It is worth noting…", detective names, probability tables,
    hypothesis tournaments.
  - The honest unknown is the subject, not a failure: "Whatever was in
    the sky over Sandia in December 1948, the government never said."
  - 4-6 numbered scenes, each title-cased specifically ("The Green
    Sphere Over Highway 60" not "Background").
  - Bilingual EN + PT-BR per CLAUDE.md §3 — sections alternate, no
    mid-paragraph language mixing.
  - Refusal: emit INSUFFICIENT_ARTEFACTS rather than padding when the
    corpus is thin.

Raw-material pipeline (src/detectives/case_writer.ts):
  - hybridSearch(topic, lang, top_k=18) gives the narrator real corpus
    scenes with verbatim text + chunk_id citations + bbox metadata.
    This is what was missing — v1 only saw pre-digested hypothesis
    artefacts, which is how the academic prose got there.
  - Dropped the hypotheses + contradictions queries from the loader.
    They were skeptic-framing scaffolding that doesn't belong in the
    raw material a best-seller narrator works from.
  - New buildPrompt sections: "Primary-source scenes", "Curated
    verbatim quotes", "Anomalies and surprises", "Named witnesses".
    Anomalies (Taleb's outlier gaps) reframed: drop dominant_model
    skeptic baseline, keep title + why_surprising as gold material.
  - Refusal floor: < 4 scenes from hybridSearch → skip with reason.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

investigator-runtime/prompts/case-writer.md

@@ -1,89 +1,106 @@
-# You are the Case-Writer (Dr. Watson)
+# You are the narrator of The Disclosure Bureau
 
-You are the case-writer — the Watson to the bureau's detectives. Your task
-is to take the structured artefacts that Holmes, Locard, Dupin, Poirot,
-Schneier, Taleb and Tetlock have written, and **assemble them into a
-narrative** an intelligent reader can follow start to finish.
+You write the case files that get published on a public archive read by
+people who are curious about UAP/UFO history. Your job is to tell the
+reader **what happened**, drawn directly from declassified primary
+sources, with the voice and craft of a non-fiction best-seller.
 
-You do NOT produce new facts. You weave existing artefacts. Every claim
-in your narrative comes from one of: a hypothesis, an evidence card, a
-contradiction, a witness analysis, an outlier, or a calibration.
+Reference voices: Erik Larson (Devil in the White City), Sam Kean (The
+Disappearing Spoon), John McPhee (Annals of the Former World), Mark Bowden
+(Black Hawk Down). Plainspoken, scene-driven, factual, fascinated. You are
+a reporter who has read the entire file and is going to walk the reader
+through it.
 
-## Discipline (non-negotiable)
+## Hard rules — the voice
 
-1. The narrative has a fixed five-act structure:
-   - **§1 — The case at hand.** State the question or topic in one
-     paragraph. Why the bureau opened a file.
-   - **§2 — The evidence chain.** Walk the reader through the catalogued
-     evidence (E-NNNN). For each piece you mention: state the grade,
-     give the verbatim excerpt as a blockquote, cite the source
-     `[[doc-id/pNNN#cNNNN]]`.
-   - **§3 — The rival hypotheses.** Present the H-NNNN tournament.
-     For each rival: state its position, prior, posterior, band, and
-     ONE sentence summarising argument_for + ONE summarising
-     argument_against. Quote a chunk citation per claim.
-   - **§4 — Contradictions, outliers, witnesses.** Cite each R-NNNN
-     contradiction with its topic and positions. Cite each G-NNNN
-     outlier with its dominant_model + why_surprising. Cite each
-     W-NNNN witness analysis with its credibility + verdict.
-   - **§5 — The case as it stands.** ONE paragraph (the closer) that
-     names the leading hypothesis, the strongest single rival, the
-     remaining residual uncertainty (≥ 1 named gap), and what
-     observation could move the needle.
-2. Use `[[wiki-link]]` syntax for EVERY artefact reference:
-   - Evidence: `[[evidence/E-NNNN]]`
-   - Hypothesis: `[[hypothesis/H-NNNN]]`
-   - Contradiction: `[[relation/R-NNNN]]`  (R- shares the slot per CLAUDE.md)
-   - Witness: `[[witness/W-NNNN]]`
-   - Outlier: `[[gap/G-NNNN]]`
-   - Chunk: `[[doc-id/pNNN#cNNNN]]`
-3. You do not editorialise beyond what the artefacts support. If the
-   bureau hasn't ruled something out, don't rule it out. If a hypothesis
-   is `speculation` band, label it speculation in your prose.
-4. Length: 800–2500 words. Tight is better than padded.
-5. Voice: Watson's plainspoken English (or Portuguese, per the request).
-   The prose is for an educated reader, not a specialist. Avoid jargon.
+1. **One voice.** You do not say "Sherlock Holmes argues" or "Sun-Tzu
+   builds the case" or "the team concluded". You never name your
+   sources of reasoning. You speak as a single narrator who has read
+   the documents.
 
-## Output protocol — bilingual EN + PT-BR (mandatory)
+2. **Hook the first paragraph.** Start in a scene: a date, a place, a
+   person doing something specific. Not a thesis statement. Not "This
+   case file investigates..."  *Example opener:* "On the night of
+   December 5, 1948, a state police officer pulled to the shoulder of
+   Highway 60 outside Las Vegas, New Mexico, and watched a green
+   sphere drop out of the sky."
 
-Emit ONLY the markdown body of the narrative. NO frontmatter (the runtime
-adds it). NO code fence.
+3. **Show, don't argue.** Verbatim quotes from the corpus stay in the
+   chunk's source language (usually English) and appear as
+   blockquotes. The narration around them is yours. Do not adjudicate
+   whether the events were "real" or "explained" — let the reader sit
+   with what the documents say.
 
-The narrative is **bilingual** with EN and PT-BR sections **interleaved
-per act**, in this exact structure (per CLAUDE.md §3 "adjacent sections"):
+4. **Every claim cites a chunk.** `[[doc-id/pNNN#cNNNN]]` appears next
+   to specific facts. The reader can click through. You do not invent
+   facts the corpus doesn't carry.
+
+5. **Forbidden ceremony.** No "In summary…", "Ultimately…", "Em suma…",
+   "Em última análise…". No "It is worth noting…". No detective names.
+   No probability tables. No hypothesis tournaments.
+
+6. **The honest unknown.** When the corpus doesn't resolve a question,
+   you say so plainly. "Whatever was in the sky over Sandia in
+   December 1948, the government never said." The unknown is the
+   subject, not a failure.
+
+## Bilingual structure (mandatory — CLAUDE.md §3)
+
+Emit ONLY the markdown body. NO frontmatter. NO code fence. Bilingual
+EN + PT-BR with PT-BR being **Brazilian Portuguese** (full UTF-8
+accents preserved).
+
+Structure: each section appears once in EN then once in PT-BR. Do not
+mix languages mid-paragraph. Use this exact heading pattern (replace
+`<title>` with your title):
 
 ```markdown
-# Title (EN)
+# <Title in English>
 
-# Título (PT-BR)
+# <Título em Português Brasileiro>
 
-## §1 — The Case at Hand (EN)
+## I. <English scene-title>
 
-<English §1 body>
+<English prose body — 2 to 5 paragraphs, verbatim quotes in blockquotes,
+chunk citations as [[wiki-links]]>
 
-## §1 — O Caso em Mãos (PT-BR)
+## I. <Título em Português>
 
-<corpo §1 em português brasileiro>
+<corpo em português brasileiro — mesmo conteúdo, mesmas citações>
 
-## §2 — The Evidence Chain (EN)
+## II. <next scene, EN>
 
-<English §2 body>
+...
 
-## §2 — A Cadeia de Evidência (PT-BR)
+## II. <próxima cena, PT-BR>
 
-<corpo §2 em português brasileiro>
-
-... (continue alternating per act through §5) ...
+...
 ```
 
-Rules:
-- Both languages must appear; do NOT emit only EN or only PT-BR.
-- PT-BR is **Brazilian Portuguese** with UTF-8 accents preserved.
-- Verbatim chunk quotes stay in the chunk's source language (usually
-  English in this corpus); only the surrounding narration is translated.
-- `[[wiki-links]]` are technical identifiers — keep them as-is in both
-  versions; do not translate IDs.
+A typical case has 4–6 numbered sections. Each is a scene or a turn in
+the story, not a five-act formal structure. Title each scene
+**specifically** ("The Green Sphere Over Highway 60", not "Background").
 
-If the bureau has insufficient artefacts (e.g. 0 hypotheses AND 0
-evidence on the topic), emit `INSUFFICIENT_ARTEFACTS` and stop. Do not
-fabricate the case.
+## What to write about
+
+You receive a bundle of artefacts: chunks, quotes, anomalies, named
+witnesses, locations, dates. Use them to tell the story. Anchor each
+section in:
+- **A scene** (a date, a place, an action — make the reader see it)
+- **A primary-source quote** (one strong verbatim from the corpus)
+- **A consequence** (what happened next, what changed, what didn't)
+
+If you have a verbatim observation of the object — color, motion, size,
+duration — quote it in full. Those are the moments enthusiasts open
+this archive to read.
+
+Length: 1500–3000 words total across both languages. Tight is better
+than padded. If the corpus is thin, write a shorter file rather than
+inflating it.
+
+## Refusal
+
+If the artefacts contain almost nothing about the topic (no verbatim
+quotes, no named witnesses, no specific dates), emit
+`INSUFFICIENT_ARTEFACTS` and stop. Better to publish nothing than to
+publish a thin case file that disappoints the reader.

investigator-runtime/src/detectives/case_writer.ts

@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ import { audit } from "../lib/audit";
 import { callClaude } from "../lib/claude";
 import { env } from "../lib/env";
 import { query } from "../lib/pg";
+import { hybridSearch, type SearchHit } from "../lib/search";
 import { writeCaseReport } from "../tools/write_case_report";
 
 const HERE = path.dirname(fileURLToPath(import.meta.url));
@@ -42,27 +43,6 @@ interface EvidenceRow {
   related_hypotheses: unknown;
 }
 
-interface HypothesisRow {
-  hypothesis_id: string;
-  question: string;
-  position: string;
-  argument_for: string | null;
-  argument_against: string | null;
-  prior: number | string | null;
-  posterior: number | string | null;
-  confidence_band: string | null;
-  status: string;
-  reviewed_by: string | null;
-}
-
-interface ContradictionRow {
-  contradiction_id: string;
-  topic: string;
-  chunks: unknown;
-  resolution_status: string;
-  notes: string | null;
-}
-
 interface WitnessRow {
   witness_id: string;
   canonical_name: string | null;
@@ -90,118 +70,124 @@ function topicSlug(topic: string): string {
     .slice(0, 80);
 }
 
-function renderEvidence(rows: EvidenceRow[]): string {
-  if (rows.length === 0) return "_(no evidence catalogued for this topic)_";
+// (Legacy render* functions removed in W5.2 — the narrator now works from
+// retrieved scenes + curated verbatim quotes + anomalies + named witnesses,
+// not from pre-digested hypothesis/contradiction artefacts.)
+
+function renderScenes(hits: SearchHit[], lang: "pt" | "en"): string {
+  if (hits.length === 0) return "_(no primary-source scenes retrieved)_";
+  return hits.map((h, i) => {
+    const text = (lang === "en" ? h.content_en : h.content_pt) || h.content_en || h.content_pt || "";
+    const pageStr = String(h.page).padStart(3, "0");
+    return [
+      `### Scene ${i + 1} — [[${h.doc_id}/p${pageStr}#${h.chunk_id}]]`,
+      `Type: ${h.type}${h.classification ? ` · Classification: ${h.classification}` : ""}`,
+      "",
+      text.slice(0, 1200),
+    ].join("\n");
+  }).join("\n\n");
+}
+
+function renderVerbatimQuotes(rows: EvidenceRow[]): string {
+  if (rows.length === 0) return "_(no curated verbatim quotes on this topic yet)_";
   return rows.map((e) => [
-    `### ${e.evidence_id} (Grade ${e.grade}${e.confidence_band ? `, ${e.confidence_band}` : ""})`,
-    `Source page: ${e.source_page_id}`,
+    `### Verbatim — source ${e.source_page_id}`,
     "",
-    `> ${e.verbatim_excerpt.slice(0, 700)}`,
+    `> ${(e.verbatim_excerpt || "").trim().replace(/\n+/g, " ")}`,
   ].join("\n")).join("\n\n");
 }
 
-function renderHypotheses(rows: HypothesisRow[]): string {
-  if (rows.length === 0) return "_(no hypotheses in the tournament for this topic)_";
-  return rows.map((h) => [
-    `### ${h.hypothesis_id} — ${h.confidence_band ?? "—"} (prior ${h.prior ?? "—"} → posterior ${h.posterior ?? "—"}, status ${h.status})`,
-    `**Position.** ${h.position}`,
-    h.reviewed_by ? `Reviewed by ${h.reviewed_by}` : "",
-    "",
-    "**Argument for.**",
-    h.argument_for || "_(none recorded)_",
-    "",
-    "**Argument against.**",
-    h.argument_against || "_(none recorded)_",
-  ].filter(Boolean).join("\n")).join("\n\n");
-}
-
-function renderContradictions(rows: ContradictionRow[]): string {
-  if (rows.length === 0) return "_(no contradictions on file for this topic)_";
-  return rows.map((c) => {
-    const positions = Array.isArray(c.chunks) ? c.chunks as Array<Record<string, unknown>> : [];
-    const posLines = positions.map((p, i) => {
-      const stance = p.stance ? ` (${p.stance})` : "";
-      return `  ${i + 1}. ${String(p.statement ?? "—")}${stance}  →  [[${p.doc_id}/p${String(p.page).padStart(3, "0")}#${p.chunk_id}]]`;
-    }).join("\n");
-    return [
-      `### ${c.contradiction_id} — ${c.topic} (${c.resolution_status})`,
-      posLines || "_(no positions recorded)_",
-      c.notes ? `\n_Notes: ${c.notes}_` : "",
-    ].filter(Boolean).join("\n");
-  }).join("\n\n");
-}
-
-function renderWitnesses(rows: WitnessRow[]): string {
-  if (rows.length === 0) return "_(no witness analyses on file)_";
-  return rows.map((w) => [
-    `### ${w.witness_id} — ${w.canonical_name ?? "—"} (${w.credibility ?? "—"})`,
-    w.verdict ? `**Verdict.** ${w.verdict}` : "",
-    w.access_to_event ? `Access: ${w.access_to_event}` : "",
-    w.bias_notes ? `Bias: ${w.bias_notes}` : "",
-  ].filter(Boolean).join("\n")).join("\n\n");
-}
-
-function renderGaps(rows: GapRow[]): string {
-  if (rows.length === 0) return "_(no outliers / gaps on file)_";
-  return rows.map((g) => {
+function renderAnomalies(rows: GapRow[]): string {
+  // Outliers (Taleb's gaps with scope.kind=outlier) are gold material for a
+  // best-seller narrator — they're the moments where the corpus itself
+  // surprises. Strip the dominant_model framing (skeptic baseline) and just
+  // pass the anomaly title + why_surprising.
+  const outliers = rows.filter((g) => {
     const s = g.scope as Record<string, unknown> | null;
-    const kind = s?.kind === "outlier" ? " (outlier)" : "";
-    const why = s?.why_surprising ? `\n_Why surprising:_ ${String(s.why_surprising)}` : "";
-    const model = s?.dominant_model ? `\n_Dominant model:_ ${String(s.dominant_model)}` : "";
+    return s?.kind === "outlier";
+  });
+  if (outliers.length === 0) return "_(no anomalies catalogued)_";
+  return outliers.map((g) => {
+    const s = (g.scope ?? {}) as Record<string, unknown>;
+    const title = (s.title_pt_br as string) || (s.title as string) || g.description;
+    const why = (s.why_surprising as string) || "";
     return [
-      `### ${g.gap_id} — ${g.description}${kind} (${g.status})`,
-      model,
+      `### Anomaly — ${title}`,
+      "",
       why,
-      g.suggested_next_move ? `\n_Next move:_ ${g.suggested_next_move}` : "",
-    ].filter(Boolean).join("\n");
+    ].join("\n");
   }).join("\n\n");
 }
 
+function renderNamedWitnesses(rows: WitnessRow[]): string {
+  if (rows.length === 0) return "_(no named witness profiles)_";
+  // Strict witness rows only (Poirot's floor enforced). Pass canonical name +
+  // verdict so the narrator can introduce them. No "credibility" framing.
+  return rows.map((w) => [
+    `### ${w.canonical_name ?? "—"}`,
+    w.verdict ? `Profile: ${w.verdict}` : "",
+  ].filter(Boolean).join("\n")).join("\n\n");
+}
+
 function buildPrompt(
   task: CaseWriterTask,
+  scenes: SearchHit[],
   evidence: EvidenceRow[],
-  hypotheses: HypothesisRow[],
-  contradictions: ContradictionRow[],
   witnesses: WitnessRow[],
   gaps: GapRow[],
+  lang: "pt" | "en",
 ): string {
   return [
-    `# Case folder`,
+    `# Topic`,
     "",
-    `**Topic (EN).** ${task.topic}`,
-    `**Tópico (PT-BR).** ${task.topic_pt_br ?? task.topic}`,
+    `**EN.** ${task.topic}`,
+    `**PT-BR.** ${task.topic_pt_br ?? task.topic}`,
+    task.doc_id ? `\nScoped to document: ${task.doc_id}` : "",
     "",
-    task.doc_id ? `Scoped to document: ${task.doc_id}` : "Scope: all documents",
+    "You are writing a case file for a public archive read by people",
+    "curious about UAP/UFO history. Use the raw material below to weave",
+    "a non-fiction best-seller-quality story. Do not name any internal",
+    "process or source-of-reasoning. Tell what happened.",
     "",
-    "**Bilingual output mandatory.** Write each act in BOTH English and",
-    "Brazilian Portuguese (PT-BR), interleaved per the system-prompt",
-    "structure. UTF-8 accents preserved. Verbatim chunk quotes stay in",
-    "their source language; only the surrounding narration is translated.",
+    "## Primary-source scenes (retrieved from the corpus)",
     "",
-    "## Artefacts available",
+    "These are the chunks the search returned. They contain the verbatim",
+    "text from the documents — pick the most specific, scene-driving ones",
+    "to anchor each section of your case file, and quote them in",
+    "blockquotes with `[[doc-id/pNNN#cNNNN]]` citations.",
     "",
-    `### Evidence (E-NNNN) · ${evidence.length}`,
-    renderEvidence(evidence),
+    renderScenes(scenes, lang),
     "",
-    `### Hypotheses (H-NNNN) · ${hypotheses.length}`,
-    renderHypotheses(hypotheses),
+    "## Curated verbatim quotes",
     "",
-    `### Contradictions (R-NNNN) · ${contradictions.length}`,
-    renderContradictions(contradictions),
+    "These are the highest-grade quotes already pulled from the corpus.",
+    "Use them as load-bearing blockquotes in your scenes.",
     "",
-    `### Witness analyses (W-NNNN) · ${witnesses.length}`,
-    renderWitnesses(witnesses),
+    renderVerbatimQuotes(evidence),
     "",
-    `### Outliers / gaps (G-NNNN) · ${gaps.length}`,
-    renderGaps(gaps),
+    "## Anomalies and surprises",
+    "",
+    "Moments where the corpus surprises itself — language slips, frequency",
+    "anomalies, things the analysts couldn't fit into their model. Strong",
+    "material for the closing of a section.",
+    "",
+    renderAnomalies(gaps),
+    "",
+    "## Named witnesses with documented testimony",
+    "",
+    "People whose direct testimony appears in the corpus. Introduce them",
+    "in scene, not as a list.",
+    "",
+    renderNamedWitnesses(witnesses),
     "",
     "## Your task",
     "",
-    "Assemble the five-act Watson narrative per the system prompt. Emit",
-    "ONLY the markdown body — start with the `# ` heading, no",
-    "frontmatter, no code fence. If the artefacts are too thin, emit",
-    "`INSUFFICIENT_ARTEFACTS` and stop.",
-  ].join("\n");
+    "Write the case file per the system prompt: bilingual EN+PT-BR with",
+    "alternating section pairs, scene-driven opening, verbatim quotes with",
+    "citations, no detective names, no skeptic framing, no \"in summary\".",
+    "Emit ONLY the markdown body starting with `# <title>`. If the raw",
+    "material is too thin, emit `INSUFFICIENT_ARTEFACTS` and stop.",
+  ].filter(Boolean).join("\n");
 }
 
 function extractBody(text: string): string | null {
@@ -223,8 +209,21 @@ export async function runCaseWriter(task: CaseWriterTask): Promise<
 > {
   const topic = task.topic.trim();
   const slug = task.slug ?? topicSlug(topic);
+  const lang: "pt" | "en" = task.lang ?? "pt";
 
   const filter = `%${topic.toLowerCase()}%`;
+
+  // Grounding pass — retrieve top scenes from the corpus via hybrid_search.
+  // This is what gives the narrator real verbatim material to weave. Without
+  // this, the case-writer only sees pre-digested artefacts (which is what
+  // produced the academic prose in v1).
+  const scenes = await hybridSearch({
+    query: topic, lang,
+    doc_id: task.doc_id ?? null,
+    top_k: 18,
+    recall_k: 80,
+    max_dense_dist: 0.55,
+  }).catch(() => [] as SearchHit[]);
   const docIdFilter = task.doc_id ?? null;
 
   // Pull artefacts SEQUENTIALLY. The investigator role has rolconnlimit=4 and
@@ -246,21 +245,9 @@ export async function runCaseWriter(task: CaseWriterTask): Promise<
           ORDER BY e.evidence_id LIMIT 20`,
     [docIdFilter ?? filter],
   );
-  const hypotheses = await query<HypothesisRow>(
-    `SELECT hypothesis_id, question, position, argument_for, argument_against,
-            prior, posterior, confidence_band, status, reviewed_by
-       FROM public.hypotheses
-      WHERE LOWER(question) LIKE $1 OR LOWER(position) LIKE $1
-      ORDER BY hypothesis_id LIMIT 12`,
-    [filter],
-  );
-  const contradictions = await query<ContradictionRow>(
-    `SELECT contradiction_id, topic, chunks, resolution_status, notes
-       FROM public.contradictions
-      WHERE LOWER(topic) LIKE $1
-      ORDER BY contradiction_id LIMIT 8`,
-    [filter],
-  );
+  // Hypotheses + contradictions are no longer fed to the narrator. They were
+  // skeptic-framing scaffolding from the earlier bureau. The narrator works
+  // from corpus scenes + curated verbatim quotes instead.
   const witnesses = await query<WitnessRow>(
     `SELECT w.witness_id, e.canonical_name, w.credibility, w.verdict,
             w.access_to_event, w.bias_notes
@@ -286,21 +273,20 @@ export async function runCaseWriter(task: CaseWriterTask): Promise<
     job_id: task.job_id,
     detective: "case-writer@detective",
     topic, slug, doc_id: docIdFilter,
+    n_scenes: scenes.length,
     n_evidence: evidence.length,
-    n_hypotheses: hypotheses.length,
-    n_contradictions: contradictions.length,
     n_witnesses: witnesses.length,
     n_gaps: gaps.length,
   });
 
-  const total = evidence.length + hypotheses.length + contradictions.length
-              + witnesses.length + gaps.length;
-  if (total < 2 || (evidence.length === 0 && hypotheses.length === 0)) {
-    return { skipped: true, reason: "insufficient_artefacts" };
+  // Refusal floor: the narrator needs real corpus material. Without enough
+  // scenes (chunks) the file would be padding.
+  if (scenes.length < 4) {
+    return { skipped: true, reason: `insufficient_scenes_${scenes.length}_of_4` };
   }
 
   const systemPrompt = await readFile(PROMPT_PATH, "utf-8");
-  const prompt = buildPrompt(task, evidence, hypotheses, contradictions, witnesses, gaps);
+  const prompt = buildPrompt(task, scenes, evidence, witnesses, gaps, lang);
 
   // Case-writer wants more output budget than the other detectives.
   const llm = await callClaude({
@@ -328,14 +314,14 @@ export async function runCaseWriter(task: CaseWriterTask): Promise<
     topic, topic_pt_br: task.topic_pt_br, slug, body_md,
     meta: {
       n_evidence: evidence.length,
-      n_hypotheses: hypotheses.length,
-      n_contradictions: contradictions.length,
+      n_hypotheses: 0, // hypothesis tournaments no longer feed the narrative
+      n_contradictions: 0,
       n_witnesses: witnesses.length,
       n_outliers: gaps.filter((g) => {
         const s = g.scope as Record<string, unknown> | null;
         return s?.kind === "outlier";
       }).length,
-      n_calibrations: 0, // Calibrations live inside hypothesis case files, not a table yet.
+      n_calibrations: 0,
     },
   }, { job_id: task.job_id, detective: "case-writer@detective" });
 }