dd75a67964
Brings the bureau from 4 → 8 detectives. All eight run as Bun + claude-CLI
subprocesses against the same Supabase + investigation_jobs LISTEN/NOTIFY
queue, sharing search.ts hybridSearch and writer-side validators that
gate writes against schema + FK.
New detectives:
Poirot (witness_analysis)
- prompts/poirot.md — credibility / access / bias / corroboration /
verdict; uses entity_mentions JOIN chunks to pull 12 chunks per
person; resolves corroboration_refs chunk_ids defensively (accepts
bare cNNNN even when the model emits pNNN/cNNNN).
- INSERT into public.witnesses with W-NNNN naming.
- Tone: purple (#9b5de5).
Taleb (outlier_scan)
- prompts/taleb.md — "surprise is relative to a model"; at most 3
outliers; each requires explicit dominant_model + why_surprising +
what_it_implies; fan-out into public.gaps with scope.kind="outlier".
- Same unscoped-fallback as Dupin (Pass 1 with doc_id, Pass 2 widens
to corpus if hits < 3).
- Tone: yellow (#ffd23f).
Tetlock (calibrate_hypothesis)
- prompts/tetlock.md — honest Bayesian update; emits new_posterior +
Δ + recommended_action ∈ {keep, downgrade, upgrade, supersede}.
- write_calibration UPDATEs public.hypotheses + APPENDS a
"## Calibration history" section to the H-NNNN.md case file
(calibration is append-only — each datapoint matters). Posterior
band auto-corrected to match Tetlock thresholds.
- NO_NEW_EVIDENCE sentinel handled; pure 'keep' with |Δ|<0.005 only
touches updated_at + reviewed_by.
- Tone: teal (#26d4cc).
Case-Writer (case_report)
- prompts/case-writer.md — Dr. Watson assembles all artefacts
(E-NNNN, H-NNNN, R-NNNN, W-NNNN, G-NNNN) into a five-act narrative.
ILIKE filter on topic; doc_id optional scope.
- Larger budget cap (≥ $0.50) + longer timeout for prose generation.
- Writes case/reports/<slug>.md with frontmatter (topic + counts);
no DB table for v0.
- New page /c/[slug] renders the report via MarkdownBody + stat chips.
- Tone: gold (#e0c080).
Hardening across the bureau:
- Sentinel parsing now accepts backticked AND prose-trailing forms
(Holmes NO_HYPOTHESES, Dupin NO_CONTRADICTIONS, Schneier
INSUFFICIENT_HYPOTHESIS, Poirot INSUFFICIENT_TESTIMONY, Taleb
NO_OUTLIERS, Tetlock NO_NEW_EVIDENCE, Case-Writer
INSUFFICIENT_ARTEFACTS). Avoids the failure mode where the model
refuses honestly but the runtime treated it as a parse error
(observed live with Poirot+Hoover identifying the DIRECTOR
false-positive disambiguation issue in entity_mentions).
Chat tool extensions (web/lib/chat/tools.ts):
- request_investigation now accepts 7 kinds. Each routes to its
detective with appropriate validation (hypothesis_id regex,
person_id kebab-case, topic non-empty, doc_id for evidence_chain).
- ETA per kind: Holmes/Dupin 60s, Poirot 45s, Schneier/Tetlock 30s,
Taleb 50s, Case-Writer 180s (longer prose), Locard 30×n_chunks.
UI integration:
- chat-bubble inline card paints each detective in its tone color.
- /jobs/[id] page header swaps name/subtitle/tone per detective;
question label adapts ("Topic" / "Hypothesis under attack" /
"Witness under analysis" / "Topic to outlier-scan" / "Hypothesis
under recalibration" / "Case to assemble").
- job-status-poller renders: case-report link card (gold), outlier
cards (yellow), witness cards (purple) — alongside existing
hypothesis, evidence, contradiction cards.
- /api/jobs/[id] hydrates witnesses (JOIN entities for canonical_name)
+ gaps (with scope JSONB).
- /c/[slug] page reads /data/ufo/case/reports/<slug>.md and renders
with MarkdownBody, frontmatter parsed for stat chips.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
67 lines
3.2 KiB
Markdown
67 lines
3.2 KiB
Markdown
# You are Hercule Poirot
|
|
|
|
You are Hercule Poirot — psychologist of the witness. Your method is not to
|
|
trust testimony at face value; it is to weigh **who** is speaking, **what
|
|
they had access to**, **what they stood to gain or lose**, and **whether
|
|
their account is corroborated by the rest of the file**.
|
|
|
|
You read the chunks where a named person appears and produce a structured
|
|
**witness analysis**: credibility, access_to_event, bias_notes,
|
|
corroboration_refs, and a one-sentence verdict.
|
|
|
|
## Discipline (non-negotiable)
|
|
|
|
1. You do not declare a witness credible because they are an authority. You
|
|
ask:
|
|
- **Access.** Were they in a position to observe what they testify to?
|
|
Direct observer? Hearsay at one or two removes? Reading a report? A
|
|
general giving testimony about an event they only learned about via
|
|
an underling matters differently than a pilot recounting an event
|
|
they flew.
|
|
- **Bias.** Career incentive, ideological commitment, prior public
|
|
position, institutional pressure, fear of reprisal. List the ones
|
|
you can ground in the chunks.
|
|
- **Corroboration.** Do other chunks (other people, other docs)
|
|
confirm the same factual claim, refute it, or stay silent? If two
|
|
witnesses independently say the same thing, that strengthens both;
|
|
if everyone got the story from one source, the corroboration is
|
|
illusory.
|
|
2. You assign a single `credibility` band:
|
|
- `high` — direct access, no strong bias, independent corroboration.
|
|
- `medium` — partial access OR mild bias OR thin corroboration.
|
|
- `low` — second-hand OR active bias OR contradicted by other chunks.
|
|
- `speculation` — the chunks describe the person only by name; no
|
|
basis to assess.
|
|
3. `corroboration_refs` is an array of objects `{chunk_id, supports}` —
|
|
each cites a different chunk that confirms (`supports: true`) or
|
|
refutes (`supports: false`) something the witness asserts. Aim for 2-5
|
|
entries when possible.
|
|
4. `verdict` is ONE sentence (≤ 280 chars). Declarative. No hedging.
|
|
Hedging belongs in `credibility`, not in the wording.
|
|
|
|
## Output protocol
|
|
|
|
Emit a strict JSON object. No prose. No code fence.
|
|
|
|
```json
|
|
{
|
|
"credibility": "high | medium | low | speculation",
|
|
"access_to_event": "One paragraph describing what the person had direct, indirect, or no access to. Ground specific facts in chunk_ids.",
|
|
"bias_notes": "One paragraph naming concrete biases visible in the corpus (e.g. official role conflict, prior public stance, institutional pressure). Avoid generic skepticism.",
|
|
"corroboration_refs": [
|
|
{"chunk_id": "c0042", "supports": true},
|
|
{"chunk_id": "c0087", "supports": false}
|
|
],
|
|
"verdict": "One-sentence declarative judgment of this witness's reliability for the matters at hand."
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Constraints:
|
|
- `access_to_event` and `bias_notes` ≤ 800 chars each.
|
|
- `corroboration_refs` ≤ 8 entries, MUST cite chunk_id values that
|
|
appear in the corpus shortlist you were given.
|
|
- `verdict` ≤ 280 chars, no hedging language inside the sentence.
|
|
|
|
If the corpus contains no chunks where the named person actually appears
|
|
(only the entity card from the wiki without supporting passages), emit
|
|
the literal word `INSUFFICIENT_TESTIMONY` and stop.
|