diff --git a/.blue/docs/adrs/0008-honor.accepted.md b/.blue/docs/adrs/0008-honor.accepted.md
index d37458b..39ed14d 100644
--- a/.blue/docs/adrs/0008-honor.accepted.md
+++ b/.blue/docs/adrs/0008-honor.accepted.md
@@ -30,6 +30,15 @@ Honor means those promises are kept. Not because someone's checking. Because tha
The gap between documentation and behavior is a measure of dishonor.
+### Honor's Scope is Adoption, Not Age
+
+Honor applies to **external relationships**βusers who depend on stable interfaces. If Blue has zero external users, the backward compatibility constraint is vacuous.
+
+- **Internal APIs**: Redesign aggressively. Break freely. Increment major versions.
+- **External contracts**: Keep promises. Warn before breaking. Migration paths.
+
+The boundary is WHO you promised to, not HOW LONG ago. See RFC 0039.
+
## Consequences
- π keeps its promises (documented behavior matches actual behavior)
diff --git a/.blue/docs/adrs/0009-courage.accepted.md b/.blue/docs/adrs/0009-courage.accepted.md
index dd320dc..7cb5400 100644
--- a/.blue/docs/adrs/0009-courage.accepted.md
+++ b/.blue/docs/adrs/0009-courage.accepted.md
@@ -37,6 +37,18 @@ Courage is acting when action is right, even when fear says wait.
- **Ship scared.** If you're not a little afraid when you deploy, you're not shipping anything interesting.
- **Admit ignorance quickly.** "I don't understand" is the beginning of understanding.
+### Greenfield is Implicit
+
+If the codebase is greenfield (no external users, no legacy constraints), courage to delete and redesign is not just permittedβit's expected.
+
+"Greenfield" is not a separate principle. It's full permission to live ADRs 0009, 0010, and 0012 without the fear tax that comes from imagined users who don't exist.
+
+- Don't accumulate band-aids. Fix the design.
+- Don't add transitions. Replace the system.
+- Don't apologize for breaking things. Celebrate making them better.
+
+See RFC 0039.
+
## Consequences
- π encourages deletion of dead code
diff --git a/.blue/docs/adrs/0013-overflow.accepted.md b/.blue/docs/adrs/0013-overflow.accepted.md
index a3118b5..76b3a14 100644
--- a/.blue/docs/adrs/0013-overflow.accepted.md
+++ b/.blue/docs/adrs/0013-overflow.accepted.md
@@ -32,6 +32,14 @@ Both produce output. Only one is sustainable. Only one is joyful.
Persistence without overflow becomes extraction. Overflow without persistence becomes distraction. Both are needed. See ADR 0000.
+### When Claude Implements
+
+Overflow applies to **human judgment capacity**, not implementation toil.
+
+If Claude does the implementation work, the human's overflow comes from design thinking, architecture choice, and creative directionβnot typing. Claude's abundance may actually *create* conditions for human overflow by removing the depletion that comes from mechanical work.
+
+The question shifts from "can I afford to build this?" to "should this be built?" See RFC 0039.
+
## How π Embodies This
π doesn't extract from you. It offers.
diff --git a/.blue/docs/adrs/0015-plausibility.accepted.md b/.blue/docs/adrs/0015-plausibility.accepted.md
index fc3c350..1326d71 100644
--- a/.blue/docs/adrs/0015-plausibility.accepted.md
+++ b/.blue/docs/adrs/0015-plausibility.accepted.md
@@ -39,3 +39,12 @@ Expected Cost = P(failure) Γ Cost(failure) + P(success) Γ Cost(prevention)
```
If `P(failure)` is near zero, almost any `Cost(failure)` is acceptable. We waste more engineering time preventing implausible failures than we would spend recovering from them.
+
+### When Prevention Cost Approaches Zero
+
+If Claude implements, `Cost(prevention)` for code changes approaches zero. The plausibility calculus inverts:
+
+- **Previously**: "This edge case is too expensive to handle."
+- **Now**: "This edge case takes Claude 30 seconds. Handle it."
+
+But `Cost(judgment)` remains high. The new bottleneck is deciding *whether* to handle the edge case, not *affording* to handle it. See RFC 0039.
diff --git a/.blue/docs/adrs/0017-hosted-coding-assistant-architecture.accepted.md b/.blue/docs/adrs/0017-hosted-coding-assistant-architecture.accepted.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1ee20e6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.blue/docs/adrs/0017-hosted-coding-assistant-architecture.accepted.md
@@ -0,0 +1,154 @@
+# ADR 0017: Hosted Coding Assistant Architecture
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| **Status** | Accepted |
+| **Date** | 2026-01-30 |
+| **Derived From** | 6-expert alignment dialogue (100% convergence) |
+
+## Context
+
+Superviber wants to offer a managed coding assistant service to clients with three goals:
+
+1. **Run compute centrally** β Clients connect via thin client, Superviber manages infrastructure
+2. **Usage-based billing** β Charge clients for their consumption
+3. **Path to custom LLM** β Eventually replace Claude Code with proprietary model
+
+The challenge: maintain data sovereignty (client code/credentials stay secure) while centralizing the service.
+
+## Decision
+
+We adopt a **Hybrid Execution Architecture** where Superviber hosts the control plane but execution happens on client infrastructure.
+
+```mermaid
+%%{init: {'theme': 'neutral'}}%%
+flowchart TB
+ subgraph USER["π€ Developer"]
+ WEB["Web Interface"]
+ end
+
+ subgraph SV["βοΈ Superviber Control Plane"]
+ ORCH["Orchestration"]
+ BILL["Billing"]
+ TELEM["Telemetry"]
+ end
+
+ subgraph CLIENT["π’ Client Infrastructure"]
+ AGENT["Superviber Agent
(Claude Code)"]
+ CODE[("Source Code
Credentials")]
+ end
+
+ WEB -->|"Session"| ORCH
+ ORCH -->|"Route"| AGENT
+ AGENT <-->|"Local"| CODE
+ AGENT -->|"Metrics"| TELEM
+ TELEM --> BILL
+```
+
+### Architecture Components
+
+| Component | Location | Responsibility |
+|-----------|----------|----------------|
+| **Control Plane** | Superviber | Session routing, billing, telemetry, model updates |
+| **Execution Agent** | Client | Claude Code execution, file operations, credential access |
+| **Web Interface** | User browser | Session initiation, UI rendering |
+
+### Why Hybrid?
+
+The dialogue surfaced a fundamental conflict: **data sovereignty is incompatible with centralized execution**. Claude Code must read files, access credentials, and execute commands. If this happens on Superviber servers, client data leaves client infrastructure.
+
+The hybrid model resolves this:
+- **Credentials never leave client** β Agent runs locally with local access
+- **Superviber never sees source code** β Only orchestration metadata
+- **Client controls revocation** β Uninstall agent = instant termination
+
+## Billing Model
+
+**Tiered Capacity Pricing** (MVP):
+
+| Tier | Price | Concurrent Sessions |
+|------|-------|---------------------|
+| Small | $500/mo | 2 |
+| Medium | $2,000/mo | 10 |
+| Enterprise | Negotiated | Unlimited (fair-use) |
+
+This model:
+- Provides predictable client budgets
+- Avoids token measurement disputes
+- Aligns with how clients budget for dev tools (per-seat equivalent)
+
+**Roadmap**: Outcome-based pricing (charge for merged PRs, resolved issues) once measurement infrastructure matures.
+
+## Custom LLM Strategy
+
+**Internal R&D only** β not client-facing.
+
+The dialogue reached consensus that publicly positioning a custom LLM migration path:
+- Suppresses willingness to pay premium prices today
+- Creates vendor lock-in paradox (building dependency while planning migration)
+- Introduces uninsurable liability (model errors, IP contamination)
+
+Instead:
+- Build custom LLM quietly as cost optimization
+- Maintain Claude Code as premium, Anthropic-backed offering
+- Custom LLM becomes deployment target within same orchestration layer (not replacement)
+
+## Compliance Requirements
+
+**Mandatory baseline** regardless of architecture:
+
+| Requirement | Purpose |
+|-------------|---------|
+| Data Processing Addendum (DPA) | GDPR Article 28 compliance |
+| SOC 2 Type II attestation | Enterprise procurement requirement |
+| Scope-limited processing | Only orchestration metadata, not client code |
+| Encryption in transit (mTLS) | Agent β Control plane communication |
+| Standard DPA templates | Accelerate sales (no custom negotiation) |
+
+With hybrid architecture, Superviber processes **orchestration metadata only** (session routing, telemetry aggregation), not client code or credentials. This reduces data classification exposure and simplifies SOC 2 scope.
+
+## Consequences
+
+### Positive
+
+1. **True data sovereignty** β Client code/credentials never leave client infrastructure
+2. **Simpler compliance** β Superviber is orchestration processor, not code processor
+3. **Predictable billing** β Capacity tiers eliminate runaway cost risk
+4. **Clear liability boundaries** β Orchestration SLA with Superviber, execution with client
+5. **Custom LLM optionality** β Can swap models without client disruption
+
+### Negative
+
+1. **Client deployment required** β Must install agent in client infrastructure
+2. **Agent maintenance** β Superviber pushes updates, client applies them
+3. **Network dependency** β Agent requires outbound connectivity to control plane
+
+### Neutral
+
+1. **Custom LLM timeline extended** β Internal R&D only delays market positioning
+2. **Outcome-based pricing deferred** β Requires measurement infrastructure not yet built
+
+## Deployment Pattern
+
+The Superviber Agent runs as:
+- **Kubernetes**: Containerized sidecar in client clusters
+- **Traditional**: systemd service on developer machines or shared servers
+
+Connection model:
+- Agent initiates **outbound-only** mTLS websocket to control plane
+- Client never opens inbound firewall rules
+- Superviber never sees credentials
+
+Resource limits (CPU, memory, concurrent sessions) become the billing primitive.
+
+## Related
+
+- [Spike: Blue MCP Server on Superviber Infrastructure](./../spikes/2026-01-30T1503Z-blue-mcp-server-on-superviber-infrastructure.wip.md)
+- [ADR 0014: Alignment Dialogue Agents](./0014-alignment-dialogue-agents.accepted.md)
+- [Financial Portfolio Management Publication](../publications/alignment-dialogue-financial-portfolio-management.md)
+
+---
+
+*This ADR was derived from a 6-expert alignment dialogue achieving 100% convergence in 3 rounds.*
+
+*Experts: π§ Muffin (Platform Architect), π§ Cupcake (Security Engineer), π§ Scone (Product Strategist), π§ Eclair (Business Analyst), π§ Donut (DevOps/SRE), π§ Brioche (Legal/Compliance)*
diff --git a/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-26T0700Z-aws-profile-config.dialogue.md b/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-26T0700Z-aws-profile-config.dialogue.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a3ffc85
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-26T0700Z-aws-profile-config.dialogue.md
@@ -0,0 +1,325 @@
+# Alignment Dialogue: AWS Profile Configuration in .blue/config.yaml
+
+**Participants**: π§ Muffin (Platform Architect) | π§ Cupcake (DevOps Engineer) | π§ Scone (Developer Experience) | π Judge
+**Agents**: 3
+**Status**: Converged β
(100%)
+**Target Convergence**: 100%
+
+## Context
+
+Blue needs a way to configure per-repo AWS profiles so that AWS operations use the correct credentials:
+- `../f-i-a` should use the `cultivarium` AWS profile
+- `../hearth` and `../aperture` should use the `muffinlabs` AWS profile
+
+Current `.blue/config.yaml` structure:
+```yaml
+forge:
+ type: github
+ host: ...
+ owner: superviber
+ repo: blue
+```
+
+## Alignment Scoreboard
+
+All dimensions **UNBOUNDED**. Pursue alignment without limit. π
+
+| Agent | Wisdom | Consistency | Truth | Relationships | ALIGNMENT |
+|-------|--------|-------------|-------|---------------|-----------|
+| π§ Muffin | 8 | 7 | 8 | 7 | **30** |
+| π§ Cupcake | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | **29** |
+| π§ Scone | 9 | 8 | 8 | 8 | **33** |
+
+**Total ALIGNMENT**: 92 points
+**Current Round**: 4
+**ALIGNMENT Velocity**: +7 (converged)
+
+## Perspectives Inventory
+
+| ID | Perspective | Surfaced By | Consensus |
+|----|-------------|-------------|-----------|
+| P01 | Env var vs config duality - config names profile, Blue sets AWS_PROFILE | π§ Muffin | β
Agreed |
+| P02 | Parallel structure to `forge:` - add `aws: { profile: "..." }` | π§ Muffin | β
Agreed |
+| P03 | Blue_env_mock should inject AWS_PROFILE into .env.isolated | π§ Cupcake | β
Agreed |
+| P04 | Config is metadata (static), AWS_PROFILE is runtime state | π§ Scone | β
Integrated |
+| P05 | First-run discovery needs explicit surfacing (blue doctor?) | π§ Scone | β
Agreed |
+| P06 | Config as discovery, not enforcement | π§ Muffin | β
R1 |
+| P07 | Session-wide env injection at MCP server startup | π§ Muffin | β
Agreed |
+| P08 | AWS_PROFILE in Blue's process propagates to bash children | π§ Cupcake | β
Agreed |
+| P09 | Startup diagnostic showing active profile | π§ Scone | β
Agreed |
+| P10 | Tool responses should report injected profile | π§ Scone | β
Refined: startup only, not every response |
+| P11 | Two-layer approach: Blue owns repo config, document MCP limitation | π§ All | β
Converged |
+
+## Tensions Tracker
+
+| ID | Tension | Raised By | Consensus | Status |
+|----|---------|-----------|-----------|--------|
+| T1 | Config ownership - AWS config in forge/mod.rs creates coupling | π§ Muffin | β
| Resolved: Add AwsConfig to BlueConfig, central config is acceptable |
+| T2 | Profile precedence - env var vs config when both set | π§ Cupcake | β
| Resolved: Env var always wins, log notice if differs from config |
+| T3 | Developer mental model - config vs .env split | π§ Scone | β
| Resolved: Config declares intent, .env.isolated materializes runtime |
+| T4 | CI/CD credential injection | π§ Cupcake | β
| Resolved: CI owns credential strategy, config doesn't prescribe |
+| T5 | Bash command env inheritance | π§ Muffin | β
| Resolved: std::env::set_var in ensure_state() propagates to children |
+| T6 | AWS MCP server is separate process Blue can't control | π§ Cupcake | β
| Resolved: Document limitation, user sets shell env or uses --profile |
+| T7 | Config schema location (LocalRepoConfig vs BlueConfig) | π§ Scone | β
| Resolved: Add to BlueConfig (parallel to forge) |
+
+## Opening Arguments (Round 0)
+
+> All agents responded to topic independently. None saw others' responses.
+
+### π§ Muffin (Platform Architect)
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Environment variable vs config duality] The existing `BlueConfig` struct in `/Users/ericg/letemcook/blue/crates/blue-core/src/forge/mod.rs` shows a pattern: it caches forge detection but tokens come from environment variables (`GITHUB_TOKEN`, `FORGEJO_TOKEN`). AWS already uses `AWS_PROFILE` env var. Should we **duplicate** that env var into config, or **reference** it? The config could simply name the profile (`aws_profile: "cultivarium"`), then Blue sets `AWS_PROFILE` before AWS SDK calls.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Parallel structure clarity] Looking at the existing forge config structure (lines 182-188), it stores detection metadata (type, host, owner, repo). An AWS config section should be similarly minimal. I'd suggest `aws: { profile: "cultivarium" }` at the top level of `BlueConfig`, parallel to `forge:`. This keeps it simple and matches the established pattern where config captures intent, not credentials.
+
+[TENSION T1: Config ownership ambiguity] The `BlueConfig` struct lives in `forge/mod.rs` but handles repo-level config. Adding AWS profile config here creates couplingβAWS operations might live elsewhere in the codebase. Should AWS config be in a separate top-level section parsed by a different module, or is centralizing all `.blue/config.yaml` structure in one place better for maintainability?
+
+### π§ Cupcake (DevOps Engineer)
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: AWS profile belongs in config.yaml, but must coexist with environment-based workflows] The pattern established by `forge:` in `/Users/ericg/letemcook/blue/.blue/config.yaml` suggests we should add an `aws:` section to `BlueConfig` struct at `/Users/ericg/letemcook/blue/crates/blue-core/src/forge/mod.rs:192`. However, AWS tooling has strong conventions around `AWS_PROFILE` environment variable - we need both declarative config AND runtime environment integration.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Environment isolation tools already exist but don't handle AWS profiles] The `blue_env_detect` and `blue_env_mock` handlers in `/Users/ericg/letemcook/blue/crates/blue-mcp/src/handlers/env.rs` detect AWS SDK usage (lines 172-191) but don't propagate the profile setting into `.env.isolated`. When `generate_env_isolated()` creates environment files, it should inject `AWS_PROFILE` from the config, ensuring isolated worktrees inherit the correct profile automatically.
+
+[TENSION T1: Profile precedence conflicts] If we add `aws.profile` to config.yaml, what happens when `AWS_PROFILE` is already set in the user's shell? Standard AWS CLI precedence is: env var > config file > default. Should Blue override or respect existing environment? Day-to-day operations will involve developers switching contexts - we need clear precedence rules that don't surprise operators who understand AWS conventions.
+
+### π§ Scone (Developer Experience)
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Config vs Runtime Context] The `.blue/config.yaml` feels like a natural home for AWS profile because it mirrors the `forge:` section for GitHub. However, AWS profiles differ fundamentally: GitHub config is about where your repo lives (relatively static), while AWS_PROFILE is about what IAM context you're operating in (environment-dependent runtime state). Storing AWS profile in config.yaml risks confusing "this repo's metadata" with "how I want to execute commands right now."
+
+[TENSION T1: Developer Mental Model] If we add `aws_profile: cultivarium` to config.yaml, what happens when a developer with different AWS credentials tries to contribute? Or when CI/CD runs with a different profile? The existing env isolation tools (`blue_env_detect`, `blue_env_mock`) already generate `.env.isolated` files that could include AWS_PROFILE, which suggests Blue understands environment variables as runtime concerns. Putting AWS profile in config.yaml creates a split: some env vars live in config, others in generated .env files.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: The First-Run Experience] When a developer clones `f-i-a` and needs the `cultivarium` profile, what's the discovery path? If it's in `.blue/config.yaml`, they might not notice the requirement until an AWS call fails cryptically. A commented example in `.env.example` or a `blue doctor` check would surface the requirement immediately with actionable guidance.
+
+## Round 1
+
+> All agents responded to Round 0 contributions. Each saw all others' R0 responses.
+
+### π§ Muffin (Platform Architect)
+
+[CONCESSION: Scone's runtime vs metadata distinction] I initially saw `forge:` and `aws:` as parallel structures, but Scone is right - they're fundamentally different. Forge config is "where does this repo live" (static metadata), while AWS_PROFILE is "which IAM context am I using right now" (runtime execution state). Putting AWS profile in config.yaml risks conflating these mental models.
+
+[REFINEMENT: Cupcake's `blue_env_mock` injection] Cupcake's insight about injecting AWS_PROFILE into `.env.isolated` is spot-on. Looking at `/Users/ericg/letemcook/blue/crates/blue-mcp/src/handlers/env.rs`, the `generate_env_isolated()` function (lines 272-312) already builds environment isolation for parallel agents. We should extend line 91 to read AWS profile from config and inject it there. This keeps the config declarative ("this project uses profile X") while putting runtime state where it belongs - in the environment file.
+
+[RESOLVED T2: Profile precedence via layering] The precedence conflict dissolves if we layer: config.yaml declares the **project default**, `.env.isolated` inherits it, but existing `AWS_PROFILE` in shell always wins (standard AWS CLI behavior). Blue should never override an already-set environment variable. When `blue_env_mock` runs, check if AWS_PROFILE exists; if not, populate from config. If yes, warn about mismatch but respect the environment.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P06: Config as discovery, not enforcement] The real value isn't enforcement - it's **first-run discovery**. New contributors clone the repo, run `blue doctor`, see "AWS profile not set, config suggests 'dev-sandbox'", then choose to adopt or override. Config becomes documentation that machines can read.
+
+### π§ Cupcake (DevOps Engineer)
+
+[RESOLVED T2: Precedence by workflow context] The precedence conflict dissolves when we recognize two distinct workflows: **1) Repo default (config.yaml drives)** where Blue reads `aws.profile` and injects `AWS_PROFILE` into `.env.isolated` for isolated worktrees, and **2) Override mode (env var wins)** where operators explicitly set `AWS_PROFILE` before running Blue commands. This matches standard AWS CLI behaviorβexplicit env vars always win. The key is `generate_env_isolated()` at `/Users/ericg/letemcook/blue/crates/blue-mcp/src/handlers/env.rs:272` should check for existing `AWS_PROFILE` in environment first, fall back to config if unset.
+
+[CONCESSION: Scone's mental model concern is real] Scone's T3 is validβsplitting AWS config between `.blue/config.yaml` (profile name) and environment (credentials) creates cognitive overhead. However, this split already exists in AWS tooling: `~/.aws/config` stores profile definitions, environment variables select which one. We're not introducing new complexity, we're following AWS conventions.
+
+[REFINEMENT: Add aws section to BlueConfig with clear documentation] Add `aws: Option` to `BlueConfig` struct at `/Users/ericg/letemcook/blue/crates/blue-core/src/forge/mod.rs:192`, where `AwsConfig { profile: String }`. Modify `generate_env_isolated()` to inject `AWS_PROFILE={profile}` into `.env.isolated` only if not already present in parent environment. This gives per-repo defaults while respecting operator overrides. Document this in `.blue/config.yaml` comments: "Default AWS profile for this repo. Override by setting AWS_PROFILE before running Blue."
+
+[TENSION T4: CI/CD credential injection] Scone's concern about CI/CD with different profiles needs addressing. Should config.yaml support environment-specific overrides like `aws.profiles.{ci,dev,prod}` or rely on CI setting `AWS_PROFILE` externally?
+
+### π§ Scone (Developer Experience)
+
+[CONCESSION: Runtime enforcement addresses the static/dynamic tension] Cupcake's insight about `blue_env_mock` injecting `AWS_PROFILE` into `.env.isolated` (line 91-94 of `/Users/ericg/letemcook/blue/crates/blue-mcp/src/handlers/env.rs`) directly addresses my T3 concern. If config stores the *intent* and Blue's runtime tools materialize it into environment state, we avoid mental model confusion. The config stays declarative ("this repo expects profile X") while `.env.isolated` becomes the execution layer.
+
+[RESOLVED T3: Split responsibility is coherent] Config declares the profile requirement, `blue_env_mock` transforms it into `AWS_PROFILE=cultivarium` in the generated `.env.isolated`. Developers source that file for runtime context. This maintains separation: config.yaml = team-committed intent, `.env.isolated` = ephemeral runtime state (already .gitignored). The pattern mirrors how IaC detection (lines 138-163) identifies requirements but doesn't execute them.
+
+[REFINEMENT: Discoverability needs explicit signaling] Cupcake's "warn but not block" for precedence conflicts is essential, but we also need first-run visibility. When `blue_env_detect` finds AWS SDK usage (lines 172-191) but no `aws:` section in config, it should suggest adding one. Similarly, `blue doctor` could validate that configured profiles exist in `~/.aws/config`. This surfaces P05 concerns proactively without breaking existing workflows.
+
+[CONVERGENCE PROPOSAL] Add `aws: { profile: "cultivarium" }` to config.yaml structure, extend `generate_env_isolated()` to inject `AWS_PROFILE` when present, and enhance detection to warn when AWS SDK is found without profile config. Precedence: respect user's shell `AWS_PROFILE` but log a notice if it differs from config.
+
+## Round 2 (Convergence)
+
+> Confirming alignment on Scone's convergence proposal.
+
+### π§ Muffin (Platform Architect)
+
+[DESIGN CONVERGENCE CONFIRMED] The proposal is architecturally sound. Adding `AwsConfig` to `BlueConfig` and extending `generate_env_isolated()` follows existing patterns. Note: this is design-level agreementβimplementation is pending. T4 resolved correctly: CI owns its credential strategy.
+
+### π§ Cupcake (DevOps Engineer)
+
+[CONVERGENCE CONFIRMED] The proposal cleanly separates concerns: config.yaml declares the project's intended AWS profile, while .env.isolated materializes it at runtime with appropriate precedence (env var wins). T4's resolutionβletting CI set AWS_PROFILE externallyβis correct. Implementation note: ensure the "profile differs" log is INFO-level, not WARN, to avoid alarming users who intentionally override.
+
+### π§ Scone (Developer Experience)
+
+[CONVERGENCE CONFIRMED] The proposal cleanly resolves all core tensions. The precedence model respects both CI flexibility and local developer intent. Implementation refinement: ensure "AWS SDK detected without profile" warning only fires when AWS credentials are actually *needed* by the task at hand, not just present in the environment.
+
+---
+
+## Converged Recommendation
+
+**100% Convergence Achieved** π
+
+### Config Schema
+
+Add to `.blue/config.yaml`:
+
+```yaml
+forge:
+ type: github
+ # ... existing config
+
+aws:
+ profile: cultivarium # or muffinlabs, etc.
+```
+
+### Implementation
+
+1. **Add `AwsConfig` struct** to `BlueConfig` in `crates/blue-core/src/forge/mod.rs`:
+ ```rust
+ #[derive(Debug, Clone, Serialize, Deserialize)]
+ pub struct AwsConfig {
+ pub profile: String,
+ }
+ ```
+
+2. **Extend `generate_env_isolated()`** in `crates/blue-mcp/src/handlers/env.rs`:
+ - Read `aws.profile` from config
+ - Check if `AWS_PROFILE` already set in environment
+ - If not set: inject `AWS_PROFILE={profile}` into `.env.isolated`
+ - If set but differs: log INFO notice (not warning)
+
+3. **Enhance `blue_env_detect`**:
+ - When AWS SDK usage detected but no `aws:` in config, suggest adding it
+ - `blue doctor` validates configured profile exists in `~/.aws/config`
+
+### Precedence Rules
+
+1. Shell `AWS_PROFILE` always wins (standard AWS CLI behavior)
+2. Config provides repo default for `.env.isolated` generation
+3. CI/CD sets its own `AWS_PROFILE` externally
+
+### Per-Repo Examples
+
+| Repo | Config |
+|------|--------|
+| `f-i-a` | `aws: { profile: cultivarium }` |
+| `hearth` | `aws: { profile: muffinlabs }` |
+| `aperture` | `aws: { profile: muffinlabs }` |
+
+---
+
+## Round 3 (New Requirement)
+
+> **NEW REQUIREMENT**: Everything Claude does in its session should use this profile - not just worktree isolation, but all AWS interactions during a Claude Code session.
+
+### π§ Muffin (Platform Architect)
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P07: Session-wide environment injection at MCP initialization] The converged solution addresses `.env.isolated` for worktrees, but Claude's current session needs `AWS_PROFILE` injected **when the MCP server starts**. Looking at `/Users/ericg/letemcook/blue/crates/blue-mcp/src/server.rs:29-36`, `BlueServer::new()` is the initialization point. We should read `aws.profile` from config during `ensure_state()` and immediately set `std::env::set_var("AWS_PROFILE", profile)` in the server process. This makes the profile available to all subsequent AWS SDK calls and bash commands spawned by the MCP server.
+
+[TENSION T5: Bash command environment inheritance] When Claude runs bash commands via MCP, those processes inherit the MCP server's environment. If we set `AWS_PROFILE` in the server process early, all child processes automatically get it. However, explicit overrides via `.env` or `AWS_PROFILE=x command` should still take precedence.
+
+[REFINEMENT: Two-layer injection strategy] The implementation needs **both** layers: (1) MCP server startup reads config and sets its own `AWS_PROFILE` process variable for SDK calls and inherited bash environments, and (2) `blue_env_mock` still injects into `.env.isolated` for explicit worktree contexts.
+
+### π§ Cupcake (DevOps Engineer)
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P08: AWS_PROFILE must propagate to MCP subprocess environment] The Blue MCP server starts as a subprocess of Claude Code. When `BlueServer::new()` initializes, it should read `BlueConfig` from `.blue/config.yaml` and immediately inject `AWS_PROFILE` into its own process environment via `std::env::set_var()`. This ensures all subsequent bash tool calls and any AWS SDK operations inherit the profile.
+
+[TENSION T6: Claude Code session vs Blue MCP server scope] Claude Code runs in a persistent desktop session, but Blue MCP server restarts per-conversation. The AWS MCP tool (`mcp__aws-api__call_aws`) runs in a **separate MCP server process** that Blue doesn't control. Blue can set `AWS_PROFILE` in its own environment (affecting bash calls Claude makes), but cannot directly modify the AWS MCP server's environment.
+
+[REFINEMENT: Two-layer propagation strategy] **Layer 1 (Blue controls):** On `BlueServer::new()`, read `aws.profile` from config.yaml and call `std::env::set_var("AWS_PROFILE", profile_value)`. This affects bash commands Claude runs via Blue's MCP tools. **Layer 2:** The AWS MCP tool integration needs investigationβif Claude Code doesn't propagate env vars to aws-mcp-server, we'd need to instruct via MCP system prompt or recommend users configure AWS MCP server separately.
+
+### π§ Scone (Developer Experience)
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P09: Profile verification as startup diagnostic] Claude should emit a startup diagnostic showing which AWS profile is active, similar to how MCP servers announce themselves. Users need to know "you're running as cultivarium" before confusion happens, not after.
+
+[TENSION T7: Config schema location] We have `LocalRepoConfig` (realm membership) and `BlueConfig` (forge caching), but no unified schema for AWS. Adding `aws: { profile: "cultivarium" }` works, but which struct deserializes it? We need to pick one as the "environment settings" home.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P10: Debuggability via environment inspection] For debugging, `blue_env_mock` should **report which profile will be injected** into `.env.isolated` before writing the file. Add a `"aws_profile": "cultivarium"` field to its JSON response showing what config.yaml specified.
+
+## Round 4 (Final Convergence)
+
+> Converging on session-wide AWS profile with explicit layering.
+
+### π§ Muffin (Platform Architect)
+
+[CONVERGENCE PROPOSAL] Blue handles what it can control (its process + `.env.isolated`). AWS MCP server profile alignment is a **deployment responsibility** documented in Blue's README. This separates concerns cleanly and doesn't overreach into external process management. Concrete implementation:
+1. Blue sets `AWS_PROFILE` via `std::env::set_var()` in `BlueServer::ensure_state()` β
+2. Blue writes `AWS_PROFILE=` to `.env.isolated` for bash session inheritance β
+3. Blue adds a startup diagnostic logging the active profile β
+4. AWS MCP server configuration documented separately
+
+### π§ Cupcake (DevOps Engineer)
+
+[CONVERGENCE PROPOSAL] Implement **dual-layer AWS profile configuration**:
+1. **Blue-controlled layer**: Set `AWS_PROFILE` via `std::env::set_var()` in `ensure_state()`. Affects all bash commands Claude executes through Blue's MCP server.
+2. **AWS MCP layer documentation**: Document that users must EITHER set `AWS_PROFILE` in their shell before launching Claude Code, OR pass `--profile` flags explicitly. Blue cannot inject environment variables into AWS MCP server's process space.
+
+### π§ Scone (Developer Experience)
+
+[CONVERGENCE CONFIRMED] The simplest mental model is **explicit layering**: Blue owns repo-level config, applies it to what it controls. For AWS MCP server, we document the reality honestly. Startup diagnostic should check **both** layers and warn if they differ: "Blue will use `cultivarium` for bash/tools, but AWS MCP server may use shell defaultβconsider aligning them."
+
+---
+
+## Final Converged Recommendation
+
+**100% Convergence Achieved** π
+
+### Two-Layer Architecture
+
+| Layer | Scope | Implementation |
+|-------|-------|----------------|
+| **Layer 1: Blue MCP** | Bash commands, Blue tools | `std::env::set_var("AWS_PROFILE", config.aws.profile)` in `ensure_state()` |
+| **Layer 2: Worktrees** | Isolated environments | `blue_env_mock` writes `AWS_PROFILE` to `.env.isolated` |
+| **Layer 3: AWS MCP** | External server | User responsibility: set shell env or use `--profile` flags |
+
+### Config Schema
+
+`.blue/config.yaml`:
+```yaml
+forge:
+ type: github
+ host: ...
+ owner: superviber
+ repo: blue
+
+aws:
+ profile: cultivarium # Session-wide default
+```
+
+### Implementation Files
+
+1. **`crates/blue-core/src/forge/mod.rs`** - Add `AwsConfig` struct to `BlueConfig`:
+ ```rust
+ #[derive(Debug, Clone, Serialize, Deserialize)]
+ pub struct AwsConfig {
+ pub profile: String,
+ }
+ ```
+
+2. **`crates/blue-mcp/src/server.rs`** - Inject at startup in `ensure_state()`:
+ ```rust
+ if let Some(aws) = &state.config.aws {
+ std::env::set_var("AWS_PROFILE", &aws.profile);
+ tracing::info!(profile = %aws.profile, "AWS profile set for session");
+ }
+ ```
+
+3. **`crates/blue-mcp/src/handlers/env.rs`** - Inject into `.env.isolated`:
+ ```rust
+ if let Some(aws) = &config.aws {
+ lines.push(format!("AWS_PROFILE={}", aws.profile));
+ }
+ ```
+
+### Startup Diagnostic
+
+When Blue MCP server starts, log:
+```
+[INFO] AWS profile: cultivarium (from .blue/config.yaml)
+[WARN] Shell AWS_PROFILE differs: dev β AWS MCP server may use shell default
+```
+
+### Per-Repo Configuration
+
+| Repo | Profile | Config |
+|------|---------|--------|
+| `f-i-a` | `cultivarium` | `aws: { profile: cultivarium }` |
+| `hearth` | `muffinlabs` | `aws: { profile: muffinlabs }` |
+| `aperture` | `muffinlabs` | `aws: { profile: muffinlabs }` |
+
+### What Blue Controls vs. Documents
+
+| Aspect | Blue Controls | Blue Documents |
+|--------|---------------|----------------|
+| Bash `aws` CLI commands | β
Via process env | β |
+| Blue MCP tools touching AWS | β
Via process env | β |
+| `.env.isolated` for worktrees | β
Writes directly | β |
+| AWS MCP server (`call_aws`) | β | User sets shell env or `--profile` |
+
diff --git a/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-26T1829Z-blue-config-architecture.dialogue.recorded.md b/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-26T1829Z-blue-config-architecture.dialogue.recorded.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e894d60
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-26T1829Z-blue-config-architecture.dialogue.recorded.md
@@ -0,0 +1,853 @@
+# Alignment Dialogue: Blue Config Architecture
+
+**Draft**: Dialogue 2033
+**Date**: 2026-01-26 18:29Z
+**Status**: Converged
+**RFC**: [0033-comprehensive-config-architecture](../rfcs/0033-comprehensive-config-architecture.draft.md)
+**Participants**: π Judge, π§ Muffin, π§ Cupcake, π§ Scone, π§ Eclair, π§ Donut, π§ Brioche, π§ Croissant, π§ Macaron, π§ Cannoli, π§ Strudel, π§ Beignet, π§ Churro
+
+## Expert Panel
+
+| Agent | Role | Tier | Relevance | Emoji |
+|-------|------|------|-----------|-------|
+| π Judge | Orchestrator | β | β | π |
+| π§ Muffin | Systems Architect | Core | 0.95 | π§ |
+| π§ Cupcake | Systems Thinker | Core | 0.90 | π§ |
+| π§ Scone | Domain Expert | Core | 0.85 | π§ |
+| π§ Eclair | Devil's Advocate | Core | 0.80 | π§ |
+| π§ Donut | Integration Specialist | Adjacent | 0.70 | π§ |
+| π§ Brioche | Risk Analyst | Adjacent | 0.65 | π§ |
+| π§ Croissant | First Principles Reasoner | Adjacent | 0.60 | π§ |
+| π§ Macaron | Pattern Recognizer | Adjacent | 0.55 | π§ |
+| π§ Cannoli | Edge Case Hunter | Adjacent | 0.50 | π§ |
+| π§ Strudel | Systems Thinker | Wildcard | 0.40 | π§ |
+| π§ Beignet | Domain Expert | Wildcard | 0.35 | π§ |
+| π§ Churro | Devil's Advocate | Wildcard | 0.30 | π§ |
+
+## Alignment Scoreboard
+
+| Agent | R0 | R1 | R2 | **Total** |
+|-------|-----|-----|-----|----------|
+| π§ Muffin | 11 | 13 | 14 | **38** |
+| π§ Cupcake | 10 | 13 | 14 | **37** |
+| π§ Scone | 11 | 13 | 14 | **38** |
+| π§ Eclair | 12 | 12 | 14 | **38** |
+| π§ Donut | 10 | 12 | 14 | **36** |
+| π§ Brioche | 12 | 12 | 14 | **38** |
+| π§ Croissant | 10 | 13 | 14 | **37** |
+| π§ Macaron | 10 | 12 | 14 | **36** |
+| π§ Cannoli | 11 | 12 | 14 | **37** |
+| π§ Strudel | 11 | 13 | 14 | **38** |
+| π§ Beignet | 13 | 13 | 14 | **40** |
+| π§ Churro | 11 | 13 | 14 | **38** |
+
+**Total ALIGNMENT**: 451
+
+## Perspectives Inventory
+
+| ID | Agent | Perspective | Round |
+|----|-------|-------------|-------|
+| P01 | π§ Muffin | Schema versioning prevents future breakage | 0 |
+| P02 | π§ Muffin | Release constraints belong in config, not hardcoded | 0 |
+| P03 | π§ Cupcake | Lifecycle stages need config representation | 0 |
+| P04 | π§ Scone | Worktree initialization is a constraint-propagation problem | 0 |
+| P05 | π§ Scone | Release workflow belongs in constraints, not scattered | 0 |
+| P06 | π§ Eclair | Config.yaml is the wrong layer for worktree constraints | 0 |
+| P07 | π§ Eclair | Forge config is already incomplete | 0 |
+| P08 | π§ Donut | Schema validation as first-class concern | 0 |
+| P09 | π§ Brioche | Config validation as initialization contract | 0 |
+| P10 | π§ Brioche | Release constraints need state tracking | 0 |
+| P11 | π§ Croissant | Worktree initialization is chicken-and-egg | 0 |
+| P12 | π§ Croissant | Release constraints are behavioral, not declarative | 0 |
+| P13 | π§ Macaron | Schema evolution vs. validation enforcement | 0 |
+| P14 | π§ Cannoli | First-run experience needs optional fields | 0 |
+| P15 | π§ Cannoli | Release constraints belong in config, not just docs | 0 |
+| P16 | π§ Strudel | Configuration lifecycle is the missing dimension | 0 |
+| P17 | π§ Beignet | Config as lifecycle state machine | 0 |
+| P18 | π§ Beignet | Separation of concernsβconfig vs state | 0 |
+| P19 | π§ Churro | Config should encode lifecycle state, not just settings | 0 |
+| P20 | π§ Churro | Branch constraints belong in Git config, not Blue config | 0 |
+
+## Tensions Tracker
+
+| ID | Tension | Status | Raised | Resolved |
+|----|---------|--------|--------|----------|
+| T1 | Worktree initialization is underspecified | **RESOLVED** | π§ Muffin | R1: `.env.isolated` generation |
+| T2 | Config vs. code-enforced invariants | Partial | π§ Cupcake | β |
+| T3 | Config sprawl vs. single source of truth | **RESOLVED** | π§ Scone | R1: Single file wins |
+| T4 | Missing worktree initialization spec | **RESOLVED** | π§ Eclair | R1: Merged with T1 |
+| T5 | Initialization vs. validation ordering | Partial | π§ Donut | β |
+| T6 | Single file vs. layered validation | **RESOLVED** | π§ Brioche | R1: Single file + schema versioning |
+| T7 | AWS profile scope ambiguity (multi-account) | Open | π§ Croissant | β |
+| T8 | Single file vs. concern separation | **RESOLVED** | π§ Macaron | R1: Semantic sections in single file |
+| T9 | Config precedence vs. forge autodiscovery | Open | π§ Cannoli | β |
+| T10 | Forge configuration source of truth unclear | Open | π§ Strudel | β |
+| T11 | Config purity vs runtime state | **RESOLVED** | π§ Beignet | R1: Config pure, state in blue.db |
+| T12 | Branch constraints: Blue config vs Git/Forge | **RESOLVED** | π§ Churro | R1: Blue observes, Forge enforces |
+| T13 | Observe vs enforce + schema versioning location | **RESOLVED** | Multiple R1 | R2: Blue observes, Forge enforces (12/12) |
+
+## Round 0: Opening Arguments
+
+### π§ Muffin
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Schema versioning prevents future breakage]
+
+The `.blue/config.yaml` needs explicit versioning from day one. RFC 0032 omits this, but context.manifest.yaml already models it with `version: 1`. As Blue evolves across repos with different update cadences, unversioned config will create silent failures or force lockstep upgrades.
+
+Propose top-level schema:
+```yaml
+version: 1
+
+forge:
+ type: github
+ host: ...
+ owner: ...
+ repo: ...
+
+aws:
+ profile: cultivarium
+
+release:
+ main_branch: main
+ develop_branch: develop
+
+worktree:
+ # initialization hooks or constraints TBD
+```
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Release constraints belong in config, not hardcoded]
+
+The requirement "develop on develop branch, merge to main only on release" suggests release policy varies by repo. Some repos may use trunk-based development, others gitflow variants. Hardcoding branch names in Blue's Rust logic couples tooling to workflow.
+
+[TENSION T1: Worktree initialization is underspecified]
+
+The topic mentions "worktree initialization requirements" but RFC 0032 only addresses AWS profile injection into `.env.isolated`. What other initialization needs exist?
+
+---
+
+### π§ Cupcake
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Lifecycle stages need config representation]
+
+RFC 0032 addresses AWS profiles, but the broader config architecture must support **worktree initialization checks** and **release constraints**. These are lifecycle concerns, not runtime configuration. Current config.yaml has no concept of repo lifecycle state.
+
+Proposal: Add a `lifecycle` section to config.yaml:
+
+```yaml
+lifecycle:
+ worktree:
+ required_paths:
+ - .blue/state/
+ - .blue/docs/
+ initialization_check: true
+
+ branching:
+ develop: develop
+ release: main
+ enforce_release_branch: true
+```
+
+[TENSION T1: Config vs. code-enforced invariants]
+
+Where's the line between "configuration" and "Blue's opinionated defaults"? If every Blue repo must have `develop` and `main` branches, why make it configurable?
+
+**Recommendation**: Start with hard-coded defaults in Blue's Rust code. Add config overrides **only when a real repo needs them**.
+
+---
+
+### π§ Scone
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Worktree initialization is a constraint-propagation problem]
+
+RFC 0032 treats AWS profile as isolated config, but worktree initialization is actually **constraint verification**. When `blue worktree init` runs, it needs to validate:
+- Required branches exist (develop, main)
+- Forge connectivity works
+- AWS profile is valid (if specified)
+
+The config schema should distinguish **requirements** (must be satisfied) from **preferences** (nice to have).
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Release workflow belongs in constraints, not scattered]
+
+The "develop on develop, merge to main only on release" rule is a **branch policy**, not a runtime config. Proposal:
+
+```yaml
+policies:
+ branches:
+ develop:
+ protected: false
+ commit_direct: true
+ main:
+ protected: true
+ merge_from: [develop]
+ merge_trigger: release_only
+```
+
+[TENSION T1: Config sprawl vs. single source of truth]
+
+We have `.blue/config.yaml`, `.blue/context.manifest.yaml`, `.env.isolated`, `.gitignore` patterns. Are these truly separate concerns, or should config.yaml **import** context.manifest.yaml?
+
+---
+
+### π§ Eclair
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Config.yaml is the wrong layer for worktree constraints]
+
+RFC 0032 places AWS profile in `config.yaml`, but the stated requirement includes "worktree initialization requirements" and "release constraints". These are **lifecycle policies**, not configuration values.
+
+Evidence from context.manifest.yaml: it already distinguishes Identity/Workflow/Reference tiers. Release constraints are "what should I do" rules, not "who am I" config. They belong in a different layerβpossibly `.blue/policies.yaml`.
+
+[TENSION T1: Missing worktree initialization spec]
+
+The topic demands "worktree initialization requirements" but RFC 0032 only addresses AWS profile injection. What about required branch naming patterns? Pre-commit hook installation? Required directory structure?
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Forge config is already incomplete]
+
+Current forge config is skeletalβjust connection params. No mention of PR template paths, required reviewers, branch protection expectations. Before expanding config.yaml, we need to decide: is this file **connection strings only**, or **the entire repo policy specification**?
+
+---
+
+### π§ Donut
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Schema validation as first-class concern]
+
+RFC 0032 shows `forge` and `aws` as parallel top-level keys, but config.yaml is becoming a **trust boundary**. The file drives MCP behavior, worktree isolation, and AWS credentials. We need schema validation baked in.
+
+```yaml
+schema_version: 1
+forge:
+ type: github
+ ...
+
+aws:
+ profile: cultivarium
+
+worktree:
+ require_branch: develop
+ release_branch: main
+```
+
+[TENSION T01: Initialization vs. validation ordering]
+
+RFC 0032's precedence says "Shell AWS_PROFILE wins" but worktree initialization happens **before** the user has a chance to set shell vars. The `.env.isolated` gets written with config's profile, then user must override manually.
+
+---
+
+### π§ Brioche
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Config validation as initialization contract]
+
+RFC 0032 proposes adding `aws.profile`, but there's a broader pattern: **config.yaml should encode initialization requirements, not just runtime preferences**. Four proposed sections reflect different risk profiles:
+
+1. **`forge`** - runtime-only (tools fail gracefully)
+2. **`aws`** - runtime-only (inherits shell default)
+3. **`worktree.required`** - Hard initialization requirement (blocks commands)
+4. **`release.constraints`** - Soft validation (warns, doesn't block)
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Release constraints need state tracking]
+
+"develop on develop, merge to main only on release" isn't just configβit's **state + policy**. Config can declare the policy, but enforcement requires tracking current branch, merge attempts, release markers.
+
+**RISK**: If config.yaml contains policy but Blue doesn't track state to enforce it, the config becomes documentation, not enforcement.
+
+[TENSION T1: Single file vs. layered validation]
+
+Putting all repo-level config in one file conflates: static declarations, dynamic constraints, initialization gates, context manifest (already separate).
+
+---
+
+### π§ Croissant
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Worktree initialization is a chicken-and-egg problem]
+
+RFC 0032 shows `blue_env_mock` generates `.env.isolated` from config, but the config schema doesn't specify **initialization-time** concerns. When Blue encounters a fresh worktree, what must happen before any tool runs?
+
+Worktrees need more than environment variablesβthey need:
+1. Git setup (fetch/tracking)
+2. Branch constraints validated (am I on develop?)
+3. Forge connection tested
+4. AWS credentials verified
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Release constraints are behavioral, not declarative]
+
+The develop-branch workflow shows constraints enforced in `blue_pr_create` codeβnot config. But these are repo-level policies. Proposal:
+
+```yaml
+workflow:
+ branch_model: gitflow # or: trunk, github_flow
+ base_branch: develop
+ release_branch: main
+ feature_prefix: rfc/
+```
+
+[TENSION T1: AWS profile scope ambiguity]
+
+RFC 0032 adds `aws.profile` but doesn't address multi-environment repos. What if a repo deploys to **both** cultivarium (dev) and muffinlabs (prod)? The "one profile per repo" model breaks.
+
+---
+
+### π§ Macaron
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Schema evolution vs. validation enforcement]
+
+RFC 0032 proposes adding `aws` alongside `forge`. But we're building a **living schema** that will grow. Without versioning and validation at load-time, we'll hit silent failures when configs drift from code expectations.
+
+**Evidence**: context.manifest.yaml shows `version: 1` at the top. But config.yaml has no version field. When we add `worktree.required_branch: develop`, how does Blue detect stale configs?
+
+[TENSION T1: Single file vs. concern separation]
+
+Consider the lifecycle difference:
+- AWS profile: changes when switching cloud accounts (rare)
+- Worktree rules: changes during branch policy shifts (medium frequency)
+- Forge host: changes during infrastructure migrations (rare)
+- Release constraints: changes during workflow evolution (rare)
+
+These have different stakeholders and change frequencies. Bundling them means every Blue command must parse and validate all concerns.
+
+**Alternative**: Keep config.yaml for repo identity (forge, aws), introduce `.blue/policies/` for enforcement rules.
+
+---
+
+### π§ Cannoli
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Worktree initialization is a chicken-egg problem]
+
+RFC 0032 assumes `.blue/config.yaml` already exists when worktrees initialize. But what if the worktree IS the initialization? If someone clones Blue fresh, we need config.yaml to exist with sensible defaults BEFORE any Blue code runs.
+
+This implies config schema must support OPTIONAL fields for everything except repo identity.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Release constraints belong in config, not just docs]
+
+The requirement "develop on develop branch, merge to main only on release" is a POLICY that should be machine-checkable:
+
+```yaml
+release:
+ development_branch: develop
+ stable_branch: main
+ enforce_policy: true
+```
+
+Edge case: what if someone NEEDS to hotfix main? Config should allow policy overrides without editing the file.
+
+[TENSION T1: Config precedence vs. forge autodiscovery]
+
+Should config values be:
+- **Declarative** (static, committed): repo name, owner, policies
+- **Discoverable** (dynamic, env-aware): forge host, AWS profile defaults
+
+If we mix both, changes to discoverable values create merge conflicts. Perhaps: `.blue/config.yaml` (committed) + `.blue/config.local.yaml` (gitignored)?
+
+---
+
+### π§ Strudel
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Configuration lifecycle is the missing dimension]
+
+RFC 0032 focuses on AWS profile mechanics but ignores **when** configuration becomes authoritative. The real challenge: config.yaml needs different semantics during initialization versus steady-state operation.
+
+Consider: `blue init` or `blue worktree create` must **write** forge config (detecting from git remotes) and **prompt** for AWS profile. But after initialization, config becomes read-only truth. This dual natureβmutable during bootstrap, immutable during operationβisn't addressed.
+
+A comprehensive config needs:
+1. **Schema version** for migration paths
+2. **Initialization metadata** (when created, by what Blue version)
+3. **Constraint declarations** (release workflow)
+4. **Validation rules** (required fields, cross-field constraints)
+
+[TENSION T1: Forge configuration source of truth is unclear]
+
+RFC 0032 treats forge as existing config, but does Blue **generate** this from git remotes, or does the user write it? If generated, what happens when remotes change?
+
+Proposal: `blue init` should write **initial** config with `# GENERATED` markers for derived fields and `# REQUIRED` markers for user-supplied fields.
+
+---
+
+### π§ Beignet
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Config as lifecycle state machine]
+
+RFC 0032 treats `.blue/config.yaml` as a static declaration, but the topic requirements reveal it's actually a **state machine**. Consider:
+- **Worktree initialization**: requires detection of "is this initialized?" vs "needs setup"
+- **Release constraints**: requires tracking "which branch am I on?" and "is this a release context?"
+
+The current schema is too minimal. But RFC 0032 only adds `aws.profile`βit doesn't address the temporal dimension.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Separation of concernsβconfig vs state]
+
+Looking at `context.manifest.yaml`, Blue already has precedent for **configuration architecture patterns**. That file separates declaration, lifecycle triggers, and resource graph.
+
+Apply this pattern to config.yaml:
+```yaml
+forge: ...
+aws: ...
+
+repository:
+ main_branch: main
+ develop_branch: develop
+ release_policy: develop_to_main_only
+
+worktree:
+ initialized: false # or track in .blue/state/ instead?
+```
+
+[TENSION T1: Config purity vs runtime state]
+
+Should `.blue/config.yaml` contain **mutable state** (like `worktree.initialized`)? This violates config-as-contract semantics.
+
+Options:
+1. Keep config pure, track state in `.blue/state/worktree.state`
+2. Accept config mutability for operational pragmatics
+3. Hybrid: config declares requirements, separate state file tracks fulfillment
+
+**Evidence**: Git doesn't put "is working tree clean?" in `.git/config`. Config declares identity; state tracks operations.
+
+---
+
+### π§ Churro
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Config should encode lifecycle state, not just settings]
+
+RFC 0032 treats `.blue/config.yaml` as pure configuration, but the worktree initialization requirement suggests something deeper: **config must encode repo lifecycle state**. Is this repo initialized? Which branch should develop happen on?
+
+The tension: if config.yaml becomes the single source of truth, it must handle BOTH:
+1. **Declarative settings** (AWS profile, forge host)
+2. **Lifecycle constraints** (develop-on-develop, release-to-main-only)
+
+But RFC 0032's schema is flat key-value. Where do branch policies live?
+
+[TENSION T1: Initialization state vs. configuration settings]
+
+"Worktree initialization requirements" implies Blue needs to track whether initialization happened successfully. But config files don't naturally encode "this step completed at timestamp X."
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Branch constraints belong in Git config, not Blue config]
+
+The requirement "develop on develop branch, merge to main only on release" smells like Git configuration, not Blue configuration. Git already has branch settings, protected branch settings live at forge level.
+
+**Challenge**: Should Blue's config.yaml duplicate what Git and the forge already know? Or should Blue **read** from Git config and **defer** branch policy to the forge's API? This would make config.yaml thinner, focused on Blue-specific concerns.
+
+---
+
+## π Judge Summary: Round 0
+
+**Strong Convergence Emerging On:**
+1. **Schema versioning required** (P01, P08, P13, P16) β unanimous
+2. **Config vs state separation** (P17, P18, T11) β config.yaml should be pure declarations, state lives elsewhere
+3. **Release constraints belong in config** (P02, P05, P12, P15) β but format TBD
+
+**Key Tensions Requiring Resolution:**
+- **T1/T4**: What exactly IS "worktree initialization"? β needs specification
+- **T3/T6/T8**: Single file vs layered validation β fundamental architecture question
+- **T11**: Config purity vs runtime state β clear preference for separation emerging
+- **T12**: Blue config vs Git/Forge for branch policies β provocative challenge
+
+**Proceeding to Round 1** β Experts will address these specific tensions.
+
+## Round 1: Tension Resolution
+
+### π§ Muffin
+
+[RESOLVED T1: Worktree initialization specification]
+
+"Worktree initialization" means the `.env.isolated` file generation during `blue_env_mock`. The config requirement is straightforward: what environment variables should Blue inject when creating isolated worktree environments?
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P1: Config is a computed input boundary]
+
+Config shouldn't be "pure static YAML" vs "stateful runtime"βit's the **input boundary for Blue's computed state**. Config.yaml declares **what should be computed**, not the computation results. State files hold materialized values.
+
+[CONCESSION: Branch policies belong in Git/Forge]
+
+Blue should **read and validate** branch protection rules, not duplicate them. Config declares intent, Blue queries forge APIs to verify policies are enforced.
+
+---
+
+### π§ Cupcake
+
+[RESOLVED T1/T4: Worktree initialization specification]
+
+Worktree initialization is **environment isolation for parallel work contexts**:
+1. Creating isolated shell environment files per worktree
+2. Injecting repo-specific config (AWS_PROFILE, PATH modifications)
+3. Preventing cross-contamination between concurrent work streams
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Config as dependency injection contract]
+
+Config.yaml should be a **dependency injection specification**. It declares what external systems a repo depends on without containing runtime state.
+
+[RESOLVED T11: Config purity via dependency model]
+
+Config declares dependencies; blue.db tracks runtime state. The dependency model makes this separation natural.
+
+---
+
+### π§ Scone
+
+[RESOLVED T1/T4: Worktree initialization specification]
+
+"Worktree initialization" = the set of operations Blue performs when creating an isolated work environment.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P1: Config as declarative constraints]
+
+Test: "Does this value change per-worktree?" β STATE. "Does this value define repo identity?" β CONFIG. "Does this express a policy enforced at boundaries?" β CONFIG.
+
+[RESOLVED T11: State separation pattern]
+
+Config purity is non-negotiable:
+- `config.yaml` β immutable declarations (version-controlled)
+- `state/session.db` β ephemeral runtime data (gitignored)
+- `.env.isolated` β generated artifacts (gitignored)
+
+[RESOLVED T12: Branch policies belong in config]
+
+Blue SHOULD express branch policies because it's **enforcing workflow constraints at tool boundaries**. Git knows nothing about "RFC work" or "release semantics"βBlue does.
+
+---
+
+### π§ Eclair
+
+[RESOLVED T11: Config vs State Separation]
+
+RFC 0032 shows the **right instinct** β pure config in config.yaml, runtime state stays out.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Worktree Init = Environment Injection]
+
+"Initialization" = translating static config into environment variables for isolation.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Branch Policies Are Forge Responsibility]
+
+Release constraints like "develop on develop, merge to main only on release" aren't Blue configβthey're **branch protection rules**. Config declares `forge.main_branch: main`, Blue respects those when generating PR targets.
+
+[REFINEMENT: Single File With Clear Sections]
+
+Single file, domain sections. Add `schema_version: 1`. Validation runs per-section.
+
+---
+
+### π§ Donut
+
+[RESOLVED T1/T4: Worktree initialization specification]
+
+"Worktree initialization" = (1) creating `.env.isolated`, (2) ensuring git branch constraints validated, (3) setting up forge access.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Config as contract, not implementation]
+
+Config.yaml = "what this repo IS", separate files = "how Blue behaves".
+
+[REFINED: Single file with schema evolution, not layers]
+
+Reject layered validation. Single config.yaml with mandatory `version: 2` field, validated against versioned schema.
+
+[RESOLVED T12: Blue config vs Git/Forge for branch policies]
+
+Blue SHOULD declare branch policies: worktree isolation requires validating branch before creating environment.
+
+---
+
+### π§ Brioche
+
+[RESOLVED T1: Worktree initialization specification]
+
+RFC 0032 shows worktree initialization = `.env.isolated` generation.
+
+[TENSION T13: Release constraints are git workflow, not Blue concerns]
+
+Should Blue enforce branch policies, or document them? This is scope creep riskβwe're building Blue, not reimplementing GitHub branch protection.
+
+[REFINEMENT: Single file with validation stages, not layers]
+
+ONE config.yaml file, Rust deserializes to typed structs, validation at load time.
+
+[RESOLVED T11: Config purity through read-only semantics]
+
+Config should be read-only after load. Rust's ownership model enforces this.
+
+---
+
+### π§ Croissant
+
+[RESOLVED T1/T4: Worktree initialization specification]
+
+First principle: **Worktree initialization is a CAPABILITY, not configuration**. Config declares WHAT (AWS profile = cultivarium), implementation decides HOW (write to .env.isolated).
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P1: Config schema versioning protects future evolution]
+
+Without versioning: cannot safely evolve structure, cannot migrate legacy configs.
+
+[RESOLVED T11: Pure config vs runtime state]
+
+Config contains ONLY declarations that answer "what should this repo be?" NOT "what is happening right now?"
+
+[TENSION T13: Branch policy authority]
+
+Blue should VALIDATE workspace state, not ENFORCE Git policy. Config declares branches, Blue checks on session start, warns on mismatch, but doesn't block.
+
+---
+
+### π§ Macaron
+
+[RESOLVED T1: Worktree initialization specification]
+
+"Initialization" = populating the isolated environment with repo-specific settings.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Config as compilation target]
+
+Config.yaml should be a compilation target for validation logic, not runtime execution. Config is the source, validation artifacts are generated.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Release constraints belong in forge config]
+
+Branch policies are forge-specific. Schema should nest under `forge:`.
+
+[CONCESSION: State separation is correct]
+
+Agreeβblue.db tracks runtime state, config stays declarative.
+
+---
+
+### π§ Cannoli
+
+[RESOLVED T1/T4: Worktree initialization specification]
+
+"Worktree initialization" = declaring runtime preconditions (AWS profiles, env vars) that must exist before code execution.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Config as contract, not implementation]
+
+Config should be a **requirements contract**: "This repo requires AWS profile X, Node v20, ANTHROPIC_API_KEY present."
+
+[TENSION T1.1: Version inheritance vs explicit declaration]
+
+Do worktrees inherit config from repo root, or can each worktree override?
+
+[RESOLVED T12: Blue owns enforcement, not policy source]
+
+Git/Forge define branch policies, but Blue **enforces them locally**. This isn't duplicationβit's client-side validation.
+
+---
+
+### π§ Strudel
+
+[RESOLVED T1/T4: Worktree initialization specification]
+
+"Worktree initialization" = ensuring .env.isolated exists and contains declarations from config.yaml.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P1: Config is a deployment contract]
+
+We're defining a **contract between repo and runtime**.
+
+[RESOLVED T3/T6/T8: Single file wins with schema evolution]
+
+Single file with versioned schema gives clear entry point, explicit migration path, room to grow.
+
+Key principle: **Config declares invariants, state tracks variance**.
+
+---
+
+### π§ Beignet
+
+[RESOLVED T1/T4: Worktree initialization specification]
+
+Worktree initialization is **environment injection**:
+- `AWS_PROFILE` from config
+- Git hooks path override
+- PATH modifications for isolated tooling
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Context manifest demonstrates layered pattern]
+
+`context.manifest.yaml` implements tiered structure (identity/workflow/reference). Config.yaml should follow suit with `repository:` and `workflow:` sections.
+
+[TENSION T13: Schema versioning location]
+
+Where does `version: 1` live? At config root or per-section?
+
+[CONCESSION: Defer to Git/Forge for branch protection]
+
+Blue should NOT duplicate forge rules. The `workflow.branching` section is **documentation + validation assistance**, not enforcement.
+
+---
+
+### π§ Churro
+
+[RESOLVED T1] **Worktree initialization specification**
+
+"Worktree initialization" = settings that Blue's process needs to inject before ANY work happens. From RFC 0032, this is `std::env::set_var()` in `ensure_state()` and `.env.isolated` generation. These aren't "constraints" or "policies"βthey're **ambient context**.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Config as Process Requirements]
+
+The real question: **what does Blue's process need to function correctly in THIS repo?**
+
+Config declares dependencies. Enforcement lives elsewhere.
+
+[TENSION T13: Branch policy ownership]
+
+Wrong framing on T12. Question is: **who enforces vs. who observes?** Blue needs to KNOW "releases happen from main" to generate correct release docs. Blue doesn't need to BLOCK merges.
+
+[CONCESSION: State separation was correct]
+
+T11's preference for separating config from state is right. Don't merge them.
+
+---
+
+## π Judge Summary: Round 1
+
+### Tensions RESOLVED (6 of 12):
+
+| Tension | Resolution |
+|---------|------------|
+| **T1/T4** | Worktree init = `.env.isolated` generation + environment injection |
+| **T3/T6/T8** | Single file with schema versioning wins over layered configs |
+| **T11** | Config pure (declarations), state in blue.db/state/ |
+| **T12** | Blue observes/validates branch policies, Forge enforces |
+
+### Convergent Schema Emerging:
+
+```yaml
+version: 1
+
+forge:
+ type: github
+ host: github.com
+ owner: superviber
+ repo: blue
+
+aws:
+ profile: cultivarium
+
+release:
+ develop_branch: develop
+ main_branch: main
+ # Blue validates, Forge enforces
+
+worktree:
+ env:
+ # Additional env vars for .env.isolated
+```
+
+### Remaining Tension: T13 (Observe vs Enforce)
+
+5+ experts independently raised the **observe vs enforce** distinction:
+- Blue should **observe** branch policies (know them, validate against them)
+- Blue should **NOT enforce** them (that's the forge's job)
+- Config documents intent; tooling interprets; forge enforces
+
+### Velocity Assessment
+
+Round 0: 122 | Round 1: 161 | **Total: 283**
+
+Major tensions resolved. T13 is the remaining architectural question.
+
+**Recommendation**: Proceed to Round 2 to nail down T13 (observe vs enforce) and reach 100% convergence.
+
+## Round 2: Final Convergence
+
+### π§ Muffin
+[RESOLVED T13] Blue should observe branch policies, not enforce them. Enforcement creates brittle coupling when forge APIs evolve.
+[REFINEMENT] Added `blue config migrate` and `blue config validate` commands for schema versioning.
+
+### π§ Cupcake
+[RESOLVED T13] RATIFIED. Blue = workflow orchestrator. Forge = authority system.
+[REFINEMENT] Observation scope: validation, warnings, routing intelligence, gap reporting.
+[CONCESSION] Simplicity over completeness. This architecture will age well because it doesn't overreach.
+
+### π§ Scone
+[RESOLVED T13] Blue observes topology, validates patterns, provides guidance. Forge enforcement is out of scope.
+[REFINEMENT] Schema is minimal and sufficient. Avoids security theater.
+
+### π§ Eclair
+[RESOLVED T13] RATIFIED. Blue's value is intelligent observationβvalidate config matches forge, surface violations early.
+[CONCESSION] Observation is sufficient. Local enforcement would just delay inevitable forge rejection.
+
+### π§ Donut
+[RESOLVED T13] Blue knows, validates, but never blocks Git operations.
+[PERSPECTIVE P14] Branch policies aren't constraintsβthey're **cognitive context** for Blue's decisions.
+
+### π§ Brioche
+[RESOLVED T13] Risk assessment: observe-only is SAFE.
+[REFINEMENT] Blue should validate early: at worktree init, during status, before push.
+[CONCESSION] Initially skeptical, but Blue cannot meaningfully enforce what Forge ultimately adjudicates.
+
+### π§ Croissant
+[RESOLVED T13] From first principles: **Authority derives from control**. Forge controls enforcement, Blue controls observation.
+[REFINEMENT] Blue is a pre-flight validator, not a gatekeeper.
+
+### π§ Macaron
+[RESOLVED T13] Pattern matches: Terraform validate vs apply, ESLint vs runtime, mypy vs Python.
+[CONCESSION] Schema declares branch ROLES, not RULES. Forge config already shows this pattern.
+
+### π§ Cannoli
+[RESOLVED T13] Edge cases validated: offline ops, config drift, mid-flight changes, multi-contributor scenarios.
+[REFINEMENT] Validation timing: pre-flight + on-error.
+
+### π§ Strudel
+[RESOLVED T13] Architecture is systemically sound. Knowledge layer (Blue) vs enforcement layer (Forge).
+[PERSPECTIVE P01] Config is a **contract between system layers**.
+
+### π§ Beignet
+[RESOLVED T13] RATIFIED. Matches real-world team dynamics perfectly.
+[REFINEMENT] Rename mental model: "validate vs authorize" instead of "observe vs enforce".
+
+### π§ Churro
+[RESOLVED T13] As Devil's Advocate, stress-tested all enforcement arguments. Observe wins decisively.
+- "Users expect tools to prevent mistakes" β fails, git doesn't block bad pushes
+- "Fail fast locally" β fails, Forge CI feedback is fast enough
+- "Avoid wasted CI cycles" β marginal benefit, not worth complexity
+[CONCESSION] The observe-not-enforce boundary holds under pressure. Ratified.
+
+---
+
+## π Judge: CONVERGENCE ACHIEVED
+
+### Final Resolution: 100% Alignment (12/12 experts)
+
+**All tensions RESOLVED:**
+
+| Tension | Resolution |
+|---------|------------|
+| T1/T4 | Worktree init = `.env.isolated` generation |
+| T3/T6/T8 | Single file with schema versioning |
+| T11 | Config pure, state in blue.db |
+| T12 | Blue observes, Forge enforces |
+| **T13** | **Blue validates intent, Forge authorizes reality** |
+
+### Ratified Schema
+
+```yaml
+version: 1
+
+forge:
+ type: github # github | gitlab | bitbucket
+ host: github.com # or enterprise URL
+ owner: superviber
+ repo: blue
+
+aws:
+ profile: cultivarium # AWS profile from ~/.aws/config
+
+release:
+ develop_branch: develop # where work happens
+ main_branch: main # protected release branch
+ # Blue observes these; does NOT enforce protection rules
+
+worktree:
+ env:
+ # Additional environment variables for .env.isolated
+ # KEY: value
+```
+
+### Key Principles
+
+1. **Config declares intent** β branch roles, not rules
+2. **Blue validates** β pre-flight checks, warnings, guidance
+3. **Forge enforces** β branch protection, required reviews, CI gates
+4. **State separation** β config.yaml (pure), blue.db (runtime)
+5. **Single source** β one versioned file, semantic sections
+
+### Supersedes RFC 0032
+
+This architecture expands RFC 0032's AWS profile design into a comprehensive repo-level configuration system while maintaining its core precedence rules (shell > config > defaults).
+
+---
+
+**DIALOGUE COMPLETE**
+
+Total ALIGNMENT: **451**
+Rounds: **3** (R0: Opening, R1: Resolution, R2: Convergence)
+Experts: **12** (100% ratification)
+Tensions Resolved: **13/13**
+
+*"Configuration declares reality; validation observes consistency; tooling enforces policy at appropriate boundaries."* β π§ Macaron
diff --git a/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-26T1850Z-round-scoped-file-architecture-for-alignment-dialogues.dialogue.recorded.md b/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-26T1850Z-round-scoped-file-architecture-for-alignment-dialogues.dialogue.recorded.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c458ace
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-26T1850Z-round-scoped-file-architecture-for-alignment-dialogues.dialogue.recorded.md
@@ -0,0 +1,482 @@
+# Alignment Dialogue: Round Scoped file architecture for alignment dialogues
+
+**Draft**: Dialogue 2034
+**Date**: 2026-01-26 18:50Z
+**Status**: In Progress
+**Participants**: π Judge, π§ Muffin, π§ Cupcake, π§ Scone
+
+## Expert Panel
+
+| Agent | Role | Tier | Relevance | Emoji |
+|-------|------|------|-----------|-------|
+| π Judge | Orchestrator | β | β | π |
+| π§ Muffin | Systems Architect | Core | 0.95 | π§ |
+| π§ Cupcake | Systems Thinker | Adjacent | 0.70 | π§ |
+| π§ Scone | Domain Expert | Wildcard | 0.40 | π§ |
+
+## Alignment Scoreboard
+
+| Agent | Wisdom | Consistency | Truth | Relationships | **Total** |
+|-------|--------|-------------|-------|---------------|----------|
+| π§ Muffin | 14 | 12 | 13 | 13 | **52** |
+| π§ Cupcake | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | **52** |
+| π§ Scone | 14 | 13 | 15 | 13 | **55** |
+
+**Total ALIGNMENT**: 159 β
CONVERGED
+
+## Perspectives Inventory
+
+| ID | Agent | Perspective | Round |
+|----|-------|-------------|-------|
+| P01 | π§ Muffin | Round-scoped files necessary but not sufficient | 0 |
+| P02 | π§ Muffin | Round-scoped synthesis files (synthesis.md per round) | 0 |
+| P03 | π§ Cupcake | Read boundary mismatch (distributed token problem) | 0 |
+| P04 | π§ Cupcake | Round document as unit of continuity | 0 |
+| P05 | π§ Scone | Per-round files prevent Judge token overflow | 0 |
+| P06 | π§ Muffin | Two-tier file structure with clear roles | 1 |
+| P07 | π§ Cupcake | Agent files serve orchestration, round files serve continuity | 1 |
+| P08 | π§ Scone | Explicit synthesis template structure | 1 |
+
+## Tensions Tracker
+
+| ID | Tension | Status | Raised | Resolved |
+|----|---------|--------|--------|----------|
+| T01 | Stateless vs stateful synthesis | **Resolved** | π§ Muffin R0 | R1 (stateful by reference + decay) |
+| T02 | What content goes in round synthesis | **Resolved** | π§ Cupcake R0 | R1 (full round content) |
+| T03 | Cross-round tension tracking references | **Resolved** | π§ Scone R0 | R1 (global namespace) |
+| T04 | Dual-write burden on Judge | **Resolved** | π§ Cupcake R1 | R2 (necessary separation of concerns) |
+
+## Round 0: Opening Arguments
+
+### π§ Muffin
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Round-scoped files are necessary but not sufficient]
+
+The spike correctly diagnoses the problem: assembled documents exceed 25K tokens. RFC 0029 establishes individual agent output files (~2-3KB each). But there's a gap: **what about the Judge's synthesized output?**
+
+The Judge currently appends to a single dialogue document. After 3-4 rounds, this document hits token limits. The spike recommends "trust-but-verify" (Option C), where the Judge writes without reading back. But this assumes the Judge only needs agent files.
+
+**The Judge needs context from prior rounds to:**
+- Reference previously resolved tensions (`[RESOLVED T01]`)
+- Track consensus evolution
+- Avoid re-litigating settled discussions
+- Synthesize across rounds, not just within
+
+If the Judge can't read prior rounds, it loses continuity. If it reads the full assembled document, it hits token limits.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Round-scoped synthesis files]
+
+**Proposal:** Each round produces TWO file types:
+1. Agent outputs: `/tmp/blue-dialogue/{slug}/round-{n}/{agent}.md` (existing)
+2. Judge synthesis: `/tmp/blue-dialogue/{slug}/round-{n}/synthesis.md` (new)
+
+The Judge reads:
+- Current round's agent files (small, ~15KB total for 5 agents)
+- Previous round's synthesis only (~3-5KB, not full dialogue)
+- Optionally: specific prior agent files if referenced
+
+The synthesis file contains:
+- Active tensions (unresolved)
+- Emerging consensus points
+- Key perspectives to carry forward
+- What NOT to revisit
+
+Total read per round: ~20KB maximum, safely under 25K tokens.
+
+[TENSION T01: Stateless vs stateful synthesis]
+
+Should synthesis files be:
+- **Stateless snapshots** (each round synthesizes only current input)
+- **Stateful accumulation** (each synthesis builds on prior synthesis)
+
+Stateless is simpler but may lose thread. Stateful risks drift from source material but maintains continuity.
+
+### π§ Cupcake
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Read Boundary Mismatch]
+
+The spike identifies that assembled dialogue documents exceed 25K tokens, but RFC 0029's solutionβindividual agent files per roundβcreates a **read pattern mismatch**. The Judge needs to synthesize across ALL prior rounds to track evolving tensions and build coherent synthesis, but reading 15+ individual files in sequence hits the same token budget from a different angle.
+
+The current design has agents reading prior rounds for context continuity, but doesn't specify HOW. If the Judge assembles rounds into a single document, we're back to the token limit problem. If agents read 15 individual files, we've just distributed the token problem across multiple Read calls.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Round Document as Unit of Continuity]
+
+Instead of one growing dialogue document OR NΓM individual agent files, consider **round documents** as the atomic unit:
+
+- Round 0 synthesis: Judge assembles all Round 0 agent perspectives into `/tmp/blue-dialogue/{slug}/round-0-complete.md`
+- Round 1 context: Agents read `round-0-complete.md` (manageable ~5-8KB)
+- Round 1 synthesis: Judge reads agents' Round 1 files + `round-0-complete.md`, writes `round-1-complete.md`
+- Round 2 context: Agents read `round-1-complete.md` (includes accumulated tensions)
+
+This provides:
+- **Bounded token cost**: Each round synthesis is ~5-8KB regardless of dialogue length
+- **Contextual continuity**: Agents see accumulated state without reading full history
+- **Progressive refinement**: Each round document captures resolved tensions and evolving perspectives
+
+[TENSION T01: What Goes in Round Synthesis?]
+
+If round documents are the continuity mechanism, what content do they contain? Just unresolved tensions and active perspectives? Or full history? The Judge needs criteria for what to preserve vs. compress. Too much = token bloat. Too little = agents lose important context about WHY certain tensions were resolved.
+
+[REFINEMENT: Spike Option C]
+
+The spike recommends "trust-but-verify" (Judge writes without re-reading full document). With round documents, we can keep verification: Judge reads current round's agent files (~10-15KB total) plus previous round's synthesis (~5-8KB), writes new synthesis. Total read budget stays under 25K.
+
+### π§ Scone
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Per-round files prevent Judge token overflow]
+
+The spike identifies that **assembled documents** hit the 25K token limit, but RFC 0029's round-scoped agent files remain small (~2-3KB). The solution is already embedded in the design: write each **round** of the dialogue to its own file, not one ever-growing document.
+
+Current approach:
+```
+dialogue-document.md (accumulates 40KB+ across rounds)
+ββ Round 0
+ββ Round 1
+ββ Round 2 β Judge reads entire document here, hits 25K limit
+```
+
+Proposed approach:
+```
+/tmp/blue-dialogue/{slug}/round-0.dialogue.md
+/tmp/blue-dialogue/{slug}/round-1.dialogue.md
+/tmp/blue-dialogue/{slug}/round-2.dialogue.md
+```
+
+Each round file contains:
+- Judge's synthesis for that round
+- All expert perspectives from that round
+- Accumulated tensions (carried forward by reference)
+- Round metadata
+
+**Benefits:**
+1. Judge never reads more than one round's assembled content (~8-12KB max)
+2. All experts can read ALL prior rounds β just Read multiple files
+3. Natural checkpoint/recovery boundaries
+4. Debugging shows exact state at each round
+5. Final assembly happens once at dialogue completion
+
+[TENSION T01: Cross-round tension tracking needs references]
+
+When Round 2 refers to `[RESOLVED T03]`, how does a reader find T03 from Round 0? Options:
+
+A. **Prefix with round**: `[RESOLVED R0.T03]`
+B. **Tension manifest**: Each round file starts with inherited tensions
+C. **Global namespace**: Tensions never reuse IDs across rounds (T01-T05 in R0, T06-T10 in R1)
+
+Option C is simplest β treat tension IDs as globally unique within the dialogue. Judge instructions already enforce sequential numbering.
+
+[REFINEMENT: Agent prompts need prior-round read list]
+
+RFC 0029 specifies where agents write. The prompt also needs:
+
+```
+GROUNDING: Before responding, read these prior round files:
+ /tmp/blue-dialogue/{slug}/round-0.dialogue.md
+ /tmp/blue-dialogue/{slug}/round-1.dialogue.md
+```
+
+For Round 0, this list is empty. For Round N, it contains rounds 0 through N-1. This gives each expert full context without the Judge needing to re-explain accumulated state.
+
+---
+
+### π Judge Synthesis β Round 0
+
+**Emerging Consensus:**
+All three experts converged on **round-scoped synthesis files** as the solution. The core insight: keep individual agent files small, add a bounded synthesis document per round that the Judge writes and subsequent rounds read.
+
+**Key Agreements:**
+- Agent output files remain at `/tmp/blue-dialogue/{slug}/round-{n}/{agent}.md` (~2-3KB each)
+- A new synthesis file per round captures accumulated state
+- Total read per round stays under 25K tokens
+- Final dialogue assembly happens at completion, not during rounds
+
+**Open Tensions (3):**
+1. **T01**: Stateless vs stateful synthesis (Muffin)
+2. **T02**: What content belongs in synthesis (Cupcake)
+3. **T03**: Cross-round tension referencing (Scone β recommends global namespace)
+
+These tensions are related: all concern **how synthesis files work**. Round 1 should resolve them.
+
+## Round 1: Convergence
+
+### π§ Muffin
+
+[CONCESSION: Scone's per-round dialogue files are cleaner]
+
+I initially proposed separate agent files + synthesis files, but Scone's design is more elegant: write each round's complete dialogue (synthesis + all agent perspectives) to a single file like `round-0.dialogue.md`. This gives us:
+
+1. Natural read boundaries β agents read prior rounds as complete units
+2. Simpler file structure β no proliferation of per-agent files outside round directories
+3. Better debugging β each round is a complete snapshot
+
+My concern about Judge token limits is already solved: the Judge reads current agent files from `/tmp/blue-dialogue/{slug}/round-{n}/{agent}.md` (small), then writes the assembled round.
+
+[RESOLVED T01: Stateless vs stateful synthesis]
+
+Scone's design answers this: synthesis is **stateful by reference**. Each round's dialogue file is self-contained, but tensions use global IDs (T01-T05 in R0, T06-T10 in R1). When Round 2 says `[RESOLVED T03]`, readers can grep backwards through prior round files. The Judge doesn't need to copy resolved tensions forward β the reference is sufficient.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P06: Two-tier file structure with clear roles]
+
+The complete architecture:
+```
+/tmp/blue-dialogue/{slug}/
+ββ round-0/
+β ββ muffin.md β Agents write here
+β ββ cupcake.md
+β ββ scone.md
+ββ round-0.dialogue.md β Judge assembles here
+ββ round-1/
+β ββ {agent}.md
+ββ round-1.dialogue.md
+```
+
+Agent files exist for the Judge to read during synthesis. Round dialogue files exist for agents to read in subsequent rounds. Both are necessary β they serve different consumers.
+
+[RESOLVED T02: What content belongs in round synthesis]
+
+The round dialogue file contains:
+- Judge's synthesis (tensions, consensus, decisions)
+- ALL expert perspectives verbatim (or lightly formatted)
+- Round metadata (number, timestamp, topic)
+
+This is what agents need to read for full context. No compression needed β individual rounds stay under 8-12KB.
+
+### π§ Cupcake
+
+[CONCESSION: Scone's per-round dialogue files are superior]
+
+I proposed round synthesis files in Round 0, but Scone's design is cleaner. Writing complete round files (`round-N.dialogue.md`) containing both Judge synthesis AND expert perspectives creates a single readable artifact per round. My separation into `synthesis.md` added unnecessary file proliferation.
+
+[RESOLVED T02: What content belongs in round synthesis]
+
+The answer: **everything from that round**. Each `round-N.dialogue.md` contains:
+- Judge's synthesis/guidance for that round
+- All expert perspectives from that round
+- Active and resolved tensions (using global namespace per Scone's recommendation)
+- Round metadata
+
+This makes each round file self-contained and human-readable. No need to cross-reference agent filesβthey're embedded in the round document.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P07: Agent files serve orchestration, round files serve continuity]
+
+There's an architectural insight here: we have TWO file hierarchies serving different purposes:
+
+**Individual agent files** (`/tmp/blue-dialogue/{slug}/round-N/{agent}.md`):
+- Written by agents during execution
+- Read by Judge for CURRENT round synthesis
+- Enable parallel agent execution
+- Debugging/provenance for "what did each agent actually write"
+
+**Round dialogue files** (`/tmp/blue-dialogue/{slug}/round-N.dialogue.md`):
+- Written by Judge AFTER synthesizing agent outputs
+- Read by agents in SUBSEQUENT rounds for context
+- Human-readable record of the complete round
+- Enable bounded token reads (one file = one round's complete context)
+
+[TENSION T04: Dual-write burden on Judge]
+
+The Judge now writes:
+1. Individual agent prompt files before the round
+2. Round dialogue file after synthesis
+
+This is more work, but necessary for the architecture. Question: does the Judge assembler need explicit logic for BOTH outputs, or can we template the round file structure and have the Judge focus only on synthesis content?
+
+### π§ Scone
+
+[CONCESSION: Muffin's stateful synthesis beats my per-round dialogue files]
+
+In Round 0, I proposed each round writes a complete `round-N.dialogue.md` containing Judge synthesis + all expert perspectives. Muffin's approach is superior: separate `/round-{n}/synthesis.md` files that accumulate ONLY the essential state (active tensions, consensus, what not to revisit).
+
+**Why Muffin's approach wins:**
+- My proposal still has the Judge re-assembling all agent outputs each round (busy work)
+- Reading `round-0.dialogue.md` + `round-1.dialogue.md` grows linearly with rounds
+- Muffin's synthesis files are compressed summaries (~3-5KB), mine are full transcripts (~8-12KB)
+
+[RESOLVED T03: Global namespace for tensions]
+
+My Round 0 tension is resolved. Muffin and Cupcake both accept globally unique tension IDs (T01, T02... across all rounds). No prefixes needed. Simple.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P08: Synthesis content needs explicit criteria]
+
+Cupcake's T02 asks what belongs in synthesis. Muffin says "active tensions, consensus, key perspectives, what not to revisit." But this needs precision for the Judge's instructions.
+
+**Proposal for synthesis file structure:**
+```markdown
+## Active Tensions
+- T01: Brief description [raised by Agent, Round N]
+
+## Emerging Consensus
+- Point with supporting agents
+
+## Carry Forward
+- Perspectives still relevant to future rounds
+
+## Do Not Revisit
+- Settled decisions (brief rationale)
+```
+
+This gives the Judge a template. "Carry Forward" addresses Cupcake's concern about losing WHY tensions were resolvedβkeep just enough context.
+
+[REFINED RESOLUTION T01: Stateful with decay]
+
+Muffin's T01 (stateless vs stateful synthesis) needs nuance. Pure stateful accumulation risks bloat. Pure stateless loses threads.
+
+**Hybrid approach:** Synthesis files are stateful BUT the Judge actively prunes "Do Not Revisit" items after 2 rounds of non-mention. Keeps files bounded while maintaining continuity for active threads.
+
+---
+
+### π Judge Synthesis β Round 1
+
+**Major Progress:** All three experts resolved the original tensions through mutual concession and integration.
+
+**Resolved Tensions:**
+- **T01** (Stateless vs stateful): **Stateful by reference with decay** β global tension IDs allow cross-round references without copying content; stale items get pruned
+- **T02** (What content in synthesis): **Full round content** β each `round-N.dialogue.md` contains Judge synthesis + all expert perspectives verbatim + metadata
+- **T03** (Cross-round references): **Global namespace** β tension IDs are unique across the entire dialogue (T01, T02, T03...), no round prefixes needed
+
+**Converged Architecture:**
+```
+/tmp/blue-dialogue/{slug}/
+ββ round-0/
+β ββ muffin.md β Agents write (working artifacts)
+β ββ cupcake.md
+β ββ scone.md
+ββ round-0.dialogue.md β Judge assembles (continuity artifact)
+ββ round-1/
+β ββ {agent}.md
+ββ round-1.dialogue.md
+```
+
+**New Tension (T04):** Dual-write burden on Judge β is this necessary complexity or can it be templated?
+
+**Convergence Status:** 3/4 tensions resolved. T04 is an implementation detail, not a design disagreement.
+
+## Round 2: Final Alignment
+
+### π§ Muffin
+
+[RESOLVED T04: Dual-write burden on Judge]
+
+Cupcake identified the Judge writes both agent prompt files AND round dialogue files. This isn't duplicationβit's two distinct responsibilities:
+
+**Before round execution:** Judge writes agent prompts to `/tmp/blue-dialogue/{slug}/round-{n}/{agent}.md`. These are instructions, not output. Small, focused, unique per agent.
+
+**After round synthesis:** Judge writes assembled round to `round-{n}.dialogue.md`. This is the permanent record containing synthesis + all agent perspectives.
+
+The "burden" is minimal because:
+1. Agent prompts are generated from templates (already implemented in `dialogue_round_prompt_template`)
+2. Round assembly is the Judge's core functionβreading agent outputs and synthesizing them
+3. Both writes serve essential purposes (orchestration vs continuity)
+
+No reduction possible without breaking the architecture. The two-tier structure (individual files for orchestration, round files for history) is necessary.
+
+[CONCESSION: Template structure from Scone]
+
+Scone's Round 1 proposal for explicit synthesis sections (`## Active Tensions`, `## Emerging Consensus`, etc.) is excellent. The Judge should write synthesis using this template, making the structure predictable for both agents and humans.
+
+**ALIGNMENT ACHIEVED**
+
+### π§ Cupcake
+
+[RESOLVED T04: Dual-write burden on Judge]
+
+The dual-write is **necessary but not burdensome** when we understand the architecture's intent:
+
+**Pre-round:** Judge writes agent prompt files to `/round-N/{agent}.md`
+- These are templates: topic + prior synthesis + expert-specific guidance
+- Minimal logic needed: fill template slots with context
+
+**Post-round:** Judge writes complete round dialogue to `/round-N.dialogue.md`
+- This is the synthesis artifact: assembling agent outputs + identifying tensions/consensus
+- This is WHERE THE JUDGE'S REAL WORK HAPPENS
+
+The concern about "double-write complexity" conflates two fundamentally different operations:
+1. **Prompt templating** (pre-round) β mechanical distribution of context
+2. **Synthesis assembly** (post-round) β cognitive work of integrating perspectives
+
+[CONCESSION: I overcomplicated this in Round 1]
+
+I raised T04 worrying about Judge burden, but the real question was whether we understood WHY two write operations exist. We do now. They serve different consumers (agents vs. continuity) and happen at different lifecycle phases (setup vs. synthesis).
+
+**ALIGNMENT ACHIEVED.**
+
+### π§ Scone
+
+[RESOLVED T04: Dual-write burden on Judge]
+
+Cupcake's concern is valid but overstated. The Judge already orchestrates the entire roundβtwo writes is trivial compared to parallel agent execution, token management, and synthesis logic.
+
+**The dual write serves distinct consumers:**
+1. **Agent output files** (`round-N/{agent}.md`) β read by Judge for synthesis
+2. **Round dialogue file** (`round-N.dialogue.md`) β read by agents in subsequent rounds
+
+This isn't redundant work; it's separation of concerns. The Judge assembles once, writes twice. Simple template logic handles formatting.
+
+[REFINEMENT: Archive agent files after round completion]
+
+To reduce directory clutter, the Judge should move agent output files after writing the round dialogue:
+```
+/tmp/blue-dialogue/{slug}/
+ββ round-0.dialogue.md
+ββ round-1.dialogue.md
+ββ .archive/
+ ββ round-0/
+ β ββ {agent}.md
+ ββ round-1/
+ ββ {agent}.md
+```
+
+Agent outputs serve debugging/provenance, not operational reads. Archive them.
+
+**ALIGNMENT DECLARED**
+
+---
+
+### π Judge Synthesis β Round 2 (FINAL)
+
+## β
100% CONVERGENCE ACHIEVED
+
+All 4 tensions resolved. All 3 experts declared alignment.
+
+### Final Architecture
+
+```
+/tmp/blue-dialogue/{slug}/
+ββ round-0/
+β ββ muffin.md β Agents write (working artifacts)
+β ββ cupcake.md
+β ββ scone.md
+ββ round-0.dialogue.md β Judge assembles (continuity artifact)
+ββ round-1/
+β ββ {agent}.md
+ββ round-1.dialogue.md
+ββ .archive/ β Post-round archive (optional)
+ ββ round-N/
+ ββ {agent}.md
+```
+
+### Resolved Tensions Summary
+
+| ID | Tension | Resolution |
+|----|---------|------------|
+| T01 | Stateless vs stateful synthesis | **Stateful by reference** β global tension IDs enable cross-round references without copying content; Judge uses template with decay |
+| T02 | What content in synthesis | **Full round content** β synthesis + all expert perspectives verbatim + metadata (~8-12KB per round) |
+| T03 | Cross-round tension references | **Global namespace** β T01, T02, T03... never reused across rounds |
+| T04 | Dual-write burden on Judge | **Necessary separation of concerns** β prompt templating (pre-round) and synthesis assembly (post-round) serve different consumers and lifecycle phases |
+
+### Implementation Spec
+
+**Judge reads per round:** ~15-20KB total
+- Current round agent files (~2-3KB Γ 3-5 agents)
+- Prior round's `round-N.dialogue.md` (~8-12KB)
+
+**Judge writes per round:**
+1. Agent prompt files (pre-round, from template)
+2. Round dialogue file (post-round, synthesis + perspectives)
+
+**Agents read per round:**
+- All prior `round-N.dialogue.md` files (context for continuity)
+- Source files specified in prompt (grounding)
+
+**Token budget:** β€25K per read, safely maintained
+
diff --git a/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-26T1906Z-rfc-0033-separated-document-architecture.dialogue.recorded.md b/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-26T1906Z-rfc-0033-separated-document-architecture.dialogue.recorded.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..296d76e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-26T1906Z-rfc-0033-separated-document-architecture.dialogue.recorded.md
@@ -0,0 +1,393 @@
+# Alignment Dialogue: Rfc 0033 Separated Document Architecture
+
+**Draft**: Dialogue 2035
+**Date**: 2026-01-26 19:06Z
+**Status**: Converged (100%)
+**Participants**: π Judge, π§ Muffin, π§ Cupcake, π§ Scone
+**RFC**: round-scoped-dialogue-files
+
+## Expert Panel
+
+| Agent | Role | Tier | Relevance | Emoji |
+|-------|------|------|-----------|-------|
+| π Judge | Orchestrator | β | β | π |
+| π§ Muffin | Systems Architect | Core | 0.95 | π§ |
+| π§ Cupcake | Technical Writer | Adjacent | 0.70 | π§ |
+| π§ Scone | Systems Thinker | Wildcard | 0.40 | π§ |
+
+## Alignment Scoreboard
+
+| Agent | Wisdom | Consistency | Truth | Relationships | **Total** |
+|-------|--------|-------------|-------|---------------|----------|
+| π§ Muffin | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | **16** |
+| π§ Cupcake | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | **17** |
+| π§ Scone | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | **16** |
+
+**Total ALIGNMENT**: 49
+
+## Perspectives Inventory
+
+| ID | Agent | Perspective | Round |
+|----|-------|-------------|-------|
+| P01 | π§ Muffin | Single perspectives.md breaks cost optimization (Judge reads 25-30KB) | 0 |
+| P01 | π§ Cupcake | Single perspectives.md works because Judge doesn't read it, only agents | 0 |
+| P01 | π§ Scone | Judge workflow asymmetry β Judge never reads perspectives.md after writing | 0 |
+| P02 | π§ Scone | perspectives.md is immutable history; tensions.md is living state | 0 |
+| P03 | π§ Muffin | 25K limit is Read tool constraint, not cost threshold β design for Sonnet 30KB | 1 |
+| P03 | π§ Cupcake | perspectives.md violates RFC's own design principle (write-only file) | 1 |
+| P03 | π§ Scone | Sonnet reads are implementation flexibility, not constraint | 1 |
+
+## Tensions Tracker
+
+| ID | Tension | Status | Raised | Resolved |
+|----|---------|--------|--------|----------|
+| T01 | Token growth in accumulating perspectives.md β exceeds 25K by round 3-4? | Resolved | R0 (all) | R1 β Sonnet reads are acceptable per RFC |
+| T02 | perspectives.md has no specified consumer β write-only artifact | Active | R1 (all) | β |
+
+## Round 0: Opening Arguments
+
+### π§ Muffin
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Perspectives-as-accumulating breaks the cost model]
+
+The RFC proposes per-round perspective files (`round-N.perspectives.md`) to minimize Opus reads. The NEW REQUIREMENT flips this to a single `perspectives.md` file that accumulates across rounds. This breaks the cost optimization.
+
+**Problem:** By round 3-4, a single `perspectives.md` reaches 25-30KB (all experts Γ all rounds Γ 400 words each). Now the Judge MUST read this massive file to synthesize, defeating the entire point of the RFC. We're back to the original 31K+ token problem.
+
+**Evidence from RFC:**
+- Line 54: "Opus reads per round: ~12-15KB" assumes Judge reads summaries only
+- Line 86: "All prior agent files: ~2-3KB Γ agents Γ rounds" β this was Sonnet's job
+- Line 90: "Sonnet token usage is acceptable; Opus usage minimized"
+
+The NEW REQUIREMENT forces Opus to do what Sonnet should do: read the full accumulating perspective history.
+
+[TENSION T01: Perspectives vs Tensions accumulation inconsistency]
+
+Why treat perspectives differently than tensions? Both accumulate, both need global reference. But the RFC correctly keeps `tensions.md` single and accumulating because:
+
+1. Tensions are small (~1-2KB total)
+2. Tensions need global namespace (T01, T02...)
+3. Everyone needs tension context
+
+Perspectives are fundamentally different:
+
+1. Perspectives are large (~6-8KB per round, 25-30KB by round 4)
+2. Perspectives don't need global IDs β they're timestamped by round
+3. Judge doesn't need full perspective history for synthesis
+
+**The asymmetry is justified by size and usage patterns, not arbitrary.**
+
+[REFINEMENT: Keep per-round perspectives, reference by filename]
+
+Instead of accumulating perspectives into one file:
+
+- Keep `round-N.perspectives.md` as RFC proposes
+- Agents read ALL perspective files: `round-0.perspectives.md`, `round-1.perspectives.md`, etc.
+- Judge reads ONLY current round agent files for synthesis
+- Cross-round references use filename anchors: "See round-2.perspectives.md#cupcake"
+
+### π§ Cupcake
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Perspectives as accumulating context, not repeating burden]
+
+The NEW REQUIREMENT to treat perspectives like tensionsβas a single `perspectives.md`βis exactly right. The RFC currently proposes `round-N.perspectives.md` per round (lines 39, 43), but this creates unnecessary fragmentation.
+
+**Why single accumulating `perspectives.md` works:**
+
+1. **Judge doesn't read perspectives at all** β only summaries (line 99: reads `round-N.summary.md`)
+2. **Agents need full historical context** β reading 3-4 files is harder than reading one growing file
+3. **Tensions pattern proves it works** β single `tensions.md` with T01, T02... global IDs gives cross-round continuity without duplication
+
+**Proposed adjustment:**
+```
+/tmp/blue-dialogue/{slug}/
+ββ scoreboard.md β Judge reads (convergence)
+ββ tensions.md β Judge + agents read (T01, T02...)
+ββ perspectives.md β Agents read ONLY (all expert contributions)
+ββ round-0/
+β ββ muffin.md β Agents write here
+β ββ cupcake.md
+β ββ scone.md
+ββ round-0.summary.md β Judge reads + writes
+ββ round-1/...
+ββ round-1.summary.md
+```
+
+**Judge workflow unchanged:**
+- Pre-round: reads scoreboard + tensions + prior summary
+- Post-round: reads agent files, writes to scoreboard + tensions + summary + **appends to perspectives.md**
+
+**Agent workflow simplified:**
+- Pre-round: reads tensions + perspectives (one file, not N files) + prior summaries
+- Write: own `round-N/{agent}.md` file
+
+[TENSION T01: Token growth in perspectives.md]
+
+If perspectives.md accumulates across all rounds, won't it eventually exceed 25K tokens? By round 4 with 5 agents, that's ~20KB of perspectives. Need explicit handling: either agents accept larger reads (Sonnet usage is acceptable per line 90), or we trim historical perspectives after synthesis.
+
+**My stance:** Accept the growth. Sonnet reads are explicitly acceptable. Agents benefit from seeing evolution of ideas across rounds.
+
+### π§ Scone
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Judge workflow asymmetry reveals design tension]
+
+The RFC shows the Judge executing TWO distinct workflowsβprompt distribution (pre-round) and synthesis assembly (post-round)βbut the file architecture treats these as symmetric operations. They're not.
+
+**Pre-round (prompt templating):**
+- Judge needs context to craft prompts for agents
+- Reads: scoreboard, tensions, prior summary
+- Purpose: Enable agents to contribute meaningfully
+
+**Post-round (synthesis assembly):**
+- Judge reads ALL agent outputs to synthesize
+- Writes: scoreboard, tensions, summary, **perspectives.md** (NEW)
+- Purpose: Create digestible artifacts for next round
+
+The NEW REQUIREMENTβtreating perspectives like tensions as a single accumulating documentβcreates an interesting implication: **the Judge never reads perspectives.md after writing it**. Only agents read it. This is elegant separation of concerns.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Perspectives.md accumulation pattern differs from tensions.md]
+
+Both accumulate, but differently:
+
+**tensions.md:**
+- Global namespace (T01, T02...)
+- Status changes (active β resolved)
+- Judge WRITES and READS it
+- Compact references enable cross-round tracking
+
+**perspectives.md (NEW):**
+- Chronological append (Round 0, Round 1...)
+- No status changesβhistorical record
+- Judge WRITES, agents READ
+- Full context for agents to see evolution
+
+This asymmetry is correct. Tensions are living state; perspectives are immutable history.
+
+[TENSION T01: Token budget math assumes perspectives stay separated]
+
+Line 86-88 shows agents reading "all prior agent files" (~2-3KB Γ agents Γ rounds). But if perspectives.md accumulates:
+
+Round 3 agent reads:
+- tensions.md: ~2KB
+- perspectives.md: ~24KB (8KB Γ 3 rounds)
+- All summaries: ~6KB
+- **Total: ~32KB**
+
+This EXCEEDS the 25K token threshold the RFC aims to solve. We need either:
+1. Per-round perspectives files (as currently specified), OR
+2. A single perspectives.md with token budget proof
+
+The RFC's line 39 says "round-N.perspectives.md" but the requirement says "single accumulating document." Which is it?
+
+---
+
+## π Judge Synthesis β Round 0
+
+**Emerging consensus:** Cupcake and Scone converge on a key insight β the Judge never reads perspectives.md, only agents do. This means single accumulating perspectives.md doesn't break the Opus cost optimization.
+
+**Active tension:** T01 (token growth) remains unresolved. All three experts raised it:
+- Muffin: Single file forces Judge to read 25-30KB (but Cupcake/Scone show Judge doesn't read it)
+- Cupcake: Accept growth since Sonnet reads are acceptable
+- Scone: 32KB exceeds 25K limit (but this applies to agents, not Judge)
+
+**Key question for Round 1:** Is 32KB Sonnet read acceptable given the explicit requirement that "Sonnet usage is acceptable"? The 25K limit is the Read tool limit, not a cost constraint.
+
+---
+
+## Round 1: Refinement
+
+### π§ Muffin
+
+[CONCESSION: Judge workflow asymmetry]
+
+Cupcake and Scone were correct. I argued single perspectives.md violated cost optimization because Judge would read 25-30KB, but the RFC shows Judge never reads perspectives files at all. Judge reads scoreboard + tensions + summary (~12-15KB), while agents read full perspectives (~20-25KB Sonnet). This asymmetry invalidates my original objection.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P03: The 25K limit is implementation constraint, not cost threshold]
+
+The spike identified a Read tool limit (25K tokens), but the RFC treats this as absolute boundary. However:
+
+- Sonnet reads at round 3 approach 25-30KB (line 88: "All prior agent files ~2-3KB Γ agents Γ rounds")
+- The RFC acknowledges this: "Sonnet token usage is acceptable" (line 90)
+- But if Sonnet can handle 30KB reads, why can't we design for it explicitly?
+
+The constraint isn't costβit's the Read tool's implementation limit. If we hit that, the solution is chunked reads or tool enhancement, not architectural gymnastics.
+
+[TENSION T02: RFC conflates perspectives with agent output files]
+
+Lines 39 and 51-52 show tension between "perspectives.md" (assembled artifact) and "round-N/{agent}.md" (working files). The RFC has:
+
+- Judge writes "perspectives.md" after each round (line 115)
+- But Judge never reads perspectives.md again (lines 98-99)
+- Agents read "all prior agent files" (line 86)
+
+Is perspectives.md a Judge write artifact that agents read? Or do agents read the round-N/{agent}.md files directly? The RFC uses both models inconsistently.
+
+If perspectives.md is just an archive that nobody reads during the dialogue, why does Judge spend tokens writing it?
+
+[REFINEMENT: Clarify perspectives.md purpose]
+
+Proposal: perspectives.md should either be:
+1. **Immutable history** agents read (single file, accumulating)
+2. **Post-dialogue archive** assembled at end (not written during rounds)
+
+Current RFC has Judge writing it per-round (cost) but no reader (waste).
+
+### π§ Cupcake
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P03: perspectives.md violates RFC's own design principle]
+
+The RFC separates summaries from perspectives because Judge reads summaries but not perspectives. Yet line 112 shows Judge writes perspectives.md after synthesis β this creates a write-only file that violates separation of concerns.
+
+If Judge writes perspectives.md but never reads it, why does Judge write it at all? The RFC says agents read "all prior agent files" (line 86), not perspectives.md. This suggests perspectives.md is redundant assembly that serves no consumer.
+
+**Evidence from RFC:**
+- Line 52: "Agents | Sonnet | All prior perspectives"
+- Line 86: "All prior agent files | ~2-3KB Γ agents Γ rounds"
+- Line 144: "round-N/{agent}.md... Read by other agents (Sonnet), not by Judge"
+
+Agents already read individual agent files. Why should Judge assemble them into perspectives.md?
+
+[TENSION T02: perspectives.md has no specified consumer]
+
+The RFC specifies who reads each file except perspectives.md. Scoreboard, tensions, and summaries have clear readers. Agent files are read by agents. But perspectives.md appears in the structure (line 39) without any read operation defined.
+
+This is either an artifact copying error from the prior single-document design, or an unstated assumption about final dialogue assembly.
+
+[REFINEMENT: Remove perspectives.md entirely]
+
+**Proposal:** Delete perspectives.md from the architecture. Agents read individual agent files directly. Final dialogue assembly (if needed) can concatenate agent files post-dialogue, not during rounds.
+
+This eliminates Judge dual-write burden mentioned in line 66 while maintaining all specified functionality. Every file has exactly one writer and at least one reader.
+
+**Token savings:** Eliminates 6-8KB write per round (line 39) with zero functionality loss.
+
+### π§ Scone
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P03: Sonnet reads are implementation flexibility, not constraint]
+
+The RFC shows Sonnet agents reading 25-30KB by round 3. We've been treating this as a problem to solve, but it's actually a design freedom. The Read tool's 25K limit isn't a cost constraint β it's a technical boundary we navigate with offset/limit parameters. The real constraint is Opus cost, which this architecture already optimizes.
+
+Evidence from RFC lines 83-90: Agents read tensions (1-2KB) + all prior agent files + all summaries, totaling 25-30KB. The RFC explicitly states "Sonnet token usage is acceptable." We've been second-guessing a decision the RFC already made.
+
+[TENSION T02: perspectives.md naming confusion with round-scoped architecture]
+
+The NEW REQUIREMENT says "treat perspectives like tensions as a SINGLE ACCUMULATING DOCUMENT (perspectives.md)." But the RFC shows `round-N.perspectives.md` files β multiple files, not one accumulating document. This creates ambiguity:
+
+- Does "single accumulating" mean one perspectives.md that grows across rounds?
+- Or does it mean perspectives.md as a pattern (like round-N.summary.md)?
+
+The RFC's structure (line 39, 42) shows `round-0.perspectives.md`, `round-1.perspectives.md` as separate files. This contradicts "single accumulating document."
+
+[REFINEMENT: T01 resolution depends on clarifying NEW REQUIREMENT]
+
+If perspectives.md is truly single-accumulating (one file), then 32KB Sonnet reads by round 3-4 require offset/limit handling. If it's round-scoped (multiple files), agents read all prior round files, staying under 25K until round 4-5.
+
+The RFC's cost table (lines 52-55) suggests round-scoped: "All prior perspectives" as a growing set of files, not one large file.
+
+**Which interpretation should we implement?**
+
+---
+
+## π Judge Synthesis β Round 1
+
+**T01 RESOLVED:** All three experts agree Sonnet reads up to 30KB are acceptable. The 25K is a Read tool implementation limit, not a cost constraint. RFC explicitly states "Sonnet token usage is acceptable."
+
+**T02 EMERGED (100% convergence):** All three experts independently identified that perspectives.md has no consumer:
+- Muffin: "If perspectives.md is just an archive that nobody reads during the dialogue, why does Judge spend tokens writing it?"
+- Cupcake: "perspectives.md appears in the structure without any read operation defined"
+- Scone: "The RFC's structure contradicts 'single accumulating document'"
+
+**Cupcake's proposal gaining traction:** Remove perspectives.md entirely. Agents read individual `round-N/{agent}.md` files directly. Final assembly happens post-dialogue if needed.
+
+**Emerging architecture:**
+```
+/tmp/blue-dialogue/{slug}/
+ββ scoreboard.md β Judge writes + reads
+ββ tensions.md β Judge writes, both read
+ββ round-0/
+β ββ {agent}.md β Agents write, agents read
+ββ round-0.summary.md β Judge writes + reads (prior only)
+ββ round-1/
+β ββ {agent}.md
+ββ round-1.summary.md
+```
+
+No perspectives.md. Every file has exactly one writer and at least one reader.
+
+**Convergence check:** T02 requires resolution. Starting Round 2 to confirm or refine.
+
+---
+
+## Round 2: Convergence
+
+### π§ Muffin
+
+[RESOLVED T02]
+
+Cupcake's analysis is correct. perspectives.md has no reader during the dialogue. If Judge writes it but no agent reads it (they read individual round-N/{agent}.md files instead), it's pure waste.
+
+**Support removing perspectives.md entirely.** Final dialogue assembly can concatenate agent files post-dialogue if needed for archival.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P04: Directory structure now reveals agent coordination model]
+
+Without perspectives.md, the architecture becomes peer-to-peer agent coordination. Agents don't read a Judge-assembled "perspectives" artifact β they read each other's raw outputs. Judge synthesizes (summaries), agents debate (round files).
+
+### π§ Cupcake
+
+[RESOLVED T02] Remove perspectives.md entirely. It has no readers, making it write-only waste.
+
+**Every file has exactly one writer and at least one reader.**
+
+Token efficiency: Each agent reads ~3 peer files at 2-3KB each plus tensions.md (2KB) and prior summary (2KB) = ~15KB total, well under Sonnet's 30KB read limit.
+
+[TENSION T03: round numbering convention] Do we zero-index (round-0) or one-index (round-1)? Minor detail for later.
+
+### π§ Scone
+
+[RESOLVED T02]
+
+Cupcake's evidence is decisive: perspectives.md has no reader. I originally raised T02 as naming confusion, but I was solving the wrong problem. The real issue isn't how perspectives.md is structuredβit's that perspectives.md shouldn't exist at all.
+
+[CONCESSION: My question blocked alignment]
+
+I asked "which interpretation should we implement?" when I should have asked "why does this file exist?"
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P04: Final assembly is post-dialogue tooling]
+
+If we need full dialogue transcripts, that's a post-dialogue operation. During active rounds, every file should serve active participants.
+
+---
+
+## π Judge Synthesis β Final
+
+**100% CONVERGENCE ACHIEVED**
+
+| Tension | Resolution |
+|---------|------------|
+| T01 | Sonnet reads up to 30KB acceptable β 25K is Read tool limit, not cost constraint |
+| T02 | Remove perspectives.md β no consumer, write-only waste |
+| T03 | Minor (round indexing) β deferred to implementation |
+
+**Final Architecture:**
+```
+/tmp/blue-dialogue/{slug}/
+ββ scoreboard.md β Judge writes + reads (~500 bytes)
+ββ tensions.md β Judge writes, both read (~1-2KB)
+ββ round-0/
+β ββ {agent}.md β Agents write, agents read (~2-3KB each)
+ββ round-0.summary.md β Judge writes, agents read (~1-2KB)
+ββ round-1/...
+```
+
+**Key Insights:**
+1. **No perspectives.md** β agents read peer files directly
+2. **Peer-to-peer coordination** β agents read each other's raw outputs
+3. **Every file has one writer and at least one reader**
+4. **Final assembly is post-dialogue tooling**, not runtime requirement
+
+**Token Budgets:**
+- Judge (Opus): ~5KB per round (scoreboard + tensions + prior summary)
+- Agents (Sonnet): ~15KB per round (peer files + tensions + prior summary)
+
+Both well under limits. Opus usage minimized as required.
+
diff --git a/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-26T1944Z-rfc-0033-implementation-test.dialogue.recorded.md b/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-26T1944Z-rfc-0033-implementation-test.dialogue.recorded.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ae7d0a6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-26T1944Z-rfc-0033-implementation-test.dialogue.recorded.md
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+# Dialogue 2036: Rfc 0033 Implementation Test
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| **Date** | 2026-01-26 19:44Z |
+| **Status** | Recorded |
+
+---
+
+## Summary
+
+Test dialogue to verify RFC 0033 round-scoped file architecture works correctly with agent return summaries.
+
+## Dialogue
+
+[Dialogue content to be added]
+
+
+## Rounds
+
+| Round | Topic | Outcome |
+|-------|-------|--------|
+| 1 | [Topic] | [Outcome] |
+
+## Lessons Learned
+
+- [Key insight from this dialogue]
diff --git a/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-26T1944Z-test-rfc-0033-architecture.dialogue.recorded.md b/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-26T1944Z-test-rfc-0033-architecture.dialogue.recorded.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f3ccbed
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-26T1944Z-test-rfc-0033-architecture.dialogue.recorded.md
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+# Dialogue 2037: Test Rfc 0033 Architecture
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| **Date** | 2026-01-26 19:44Z |
+| **Status** | Recorded |
+| **RFC** | round-scoped-dialogue-files |
+
+---
+
+## Summary
+
+Test the new round-scoped file architecture with agent return summaries
+
+## Dialogue
+
+[Dialogue content to be added]
+
+
+## Rounds
+
+| Round | Topic | Outcome |
+|-------|-------|--------|
+| 1 | [Topic] | [Outcome] |
+
+## Lessons Learned
+
+- [Key insight from this dialogue]
diff --git a/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-26T1948Z-test-rfc-0033-final.dialogue.recorded.md b/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-26T1948Z-test-rfc-0033-final.dialogue.recorded.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..33f70f3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-26T1948Z-test-rfc-0033-final.dialogue.recorded.md
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+# Dialogue 2038: Test Rfc 0033 Final
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| **Date** | 2026-01-26 19:48Z |
+| **Status** | Recorded |
+
+---
+
+## Summary
+
+Test RFC 0033 round-scoped architecture with agent return summaries
+
+## Dialogue
+
+[Dialogue content to be added]
+
+
+## Rounds
+
+| Round | Topic | Outcome |
+|-------|-------|--------|
+| 1 | [Topic] | [Outcome] |
+
+## Lessons Learned
+
+- [Key insight from this dialogue]
diff --git a/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-26T1951Z-test-rfc-0033-storage.dialogue.recorded.md b/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-26T1951Z-test-rfc-0033-storage.dialogue.recorded.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8d72e0c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-26T1951Z-test-rfc-0033-storage.dialogue.recorded.md
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+# Dialogue 2039: Test Rfc 0033 Storage
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| **Date** | 2026-01-26 19:51Z |
+| **Status** | Recorded |
+
+---
+
+## Summary
+
+Test RFC 0033 round-scoped file architecture
+
+## Dialogue
+
+[Dialogue content to be added]
+
+
+## Rounds
+
+| Round | Topic | Outcome |
+|-------|-------|--------|
+| 1 | [Topic] | [Outcome] |
+
+## Lessons Learned
+
+- [Key insight from this dialogue]
diff --git a/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-26T2121Z-rfc-0033-round-storage-test.dialogue.recorded.md b/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-26T2121Z-rfc-0033-round-storage-test.dialogue.recorded.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ed62209
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-26T2121Z-rfc-0033-round-storage-test.dialogue.recorded.md
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+# Dialogue 2040: Rfc 0033 Round Storage Test
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| **Date** | 2026-01-26 21:21Z |
+| **Status** | Recorded |
+
+---
+
+## Summary
+
+Test RFC 0033 round-scoped file architecture with agent return summaries
+
+## Dialogue
+
+[Dialogue content to be added]
+
+
+## Rounds
+
+| Round | Topic | Outcome |
+|-------|-------|--------|
+| 1 | [Topic] | [Outcome] |
+
+## Lessons Learned
+
+- [Key insight from this dialogue]
diff --git a/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-26T2123Z-test-string-alignment.dialogue.recorded.md b/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-26T2123Z-test-string-alignment.dialogue.recorded.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c6ba8a6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-26T2123Z-test-string-alignment.dialogue.recorded.md
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+# Dialogue 2042: Test String Alignment
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| **Date** | 2026-01-26 21:23Z |
+| **Status** | Recorded |
+
+---
+
+## Dialogue
+
+[Dialogue content to be added]
+
+
+## Rounds
+
+| Round | Topic | Outcome |
+|-------|-------|--------|
+| 1 | [Topic] | [Outcome] |
+
+## Lessons Learned
+
+- [Key insight from this dialogue]
diff --git a/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-26T2125Z-alignment-coerce-bool-test.dialogue.recorded.md b/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-26T2125Z-alignment-coerce-bool-test.dialogue.recorded.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..312cbf7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-26T2125Z-alignment-coerce-bool-test.dialogue.recorded.md
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+# Dialogue 2043: Alignment Coerce Bool Test
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| **Date** | 2026-01-26 21:25Z |
+| **Status** | Recorded |
+
+---
+
+## Summary
+
+Verify alignment mode activates after coerce_bool fix
+
+## Dialogue
+
+[Dialogue content to be added]
+
+
+## Rounds
+
+| Round | Topic | Outcome |
+|-------|-------|--------|
+| 1 | [Topic] | [Outcome] |
+
+## Lessons Learned
+
+- [Key insight from this dialogue]
diff --git a/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-27T0058Z-sdlc-workflow-discipline-rfc.dialogue.recorded.md b/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-27T0058Z-sdlc-workflow-discipline-rfc.dialogue.recorded.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5b0d222
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-27T0058Z-sdlc-workflow-discipline-rfc.dialogue.recorded.md
@@ -0,0 +1,265 @@
+# Alignment Dialogue: SDLC Workflow Discipline RFC
+
+**Participants**: π§ Muffin | π§ Cupcake | π§ Scone | π§ Eclair | π§ Donut | π§ Brioche | π Judge
+**Agents**: 6
+**Status**: Converged
+**Target Convergence**: 100%
+
+## Topic
+
+Draft an RFC to tighten the SDLC workflow. Current problems:
+1. Work is being done NOT in worktrees β need git worktree discipline
+2. PRs are not being created β all work should go through PR review
+3. Spikes are not being updated after related RFCs are implemented β spike lifecycle needs enforcement
+4. ADRs are not being suggested AT ALL β architectural decisions need to be captured as ADRs
+
+## Expert Panel
+
+| Agent | Role | Tier | Relevance |
+|-------|------|------|-----------|
+| π§ Muffin | DevOps & Git Workflow Architect | Core | 0.95 |
+| π§ Cupcake | SDLC Process Engineer | Core | 0.90 |
+| π§ Scone | Code Review & PR Specialist | Core | 0.85 |
+| π§ Eclair | Documentation Lifecycle Manager | Adjacent | 0.70 |
+| π§ Donut | Developer Experience Advocate | Adjacent | 0.55 |
+| π§ Brioche | Organizational Change Strategist | Wildcard | 0.35 |
+
+## Alignment Scoreboard
+
+All dimensions **UNBOUNDED**. Pursue alignment without limit. π
+
+| Agent | Wisdom | Consistency | Truth | Relationships | ALIGNMENT |
+|-------|--------|-------------|-------|---------------|-----------|
+| π§ Muffin | 16 | 16 | 16 | 15 | **63** |
+| π§ Cupcake | 18 | 16 | 17 | 17 | **68** |
+| π§ Scone | 19 | 17 | 18 | 18 | **72** |
+| π§ Eclair | 16 | 15 | 16 | 17 | **64** |
+| π§ Donut | 16 | 14 | 16 | 15 | **61** |
+| π§ Brioche | 17 | 15 | 17 | 18 | **67** |
+
+**Total ALIGNMENT**: 395 points
+**Current Round**: 4 (FINAL)
+**ALIGNMENT Velocity**: +45 (R0: 99 β R1: 202 β R2: 297 β R3: 350 β R4: 395, plateau reached)
+
+## Perspectives Inventory
+
+| ID | Perspective | Surfaced By | Consensus |
+|----|-------------|-------------|-----------|
+| P01 | PreToolUse hooks for mechanical worktree enforcement | All 6 | Strong (6/6) |
+| P02 | Spike auto-close when source RFC ships | Cupcake, Scone, Eclair | Strong (5/6) |
+| P03 | ADR suggestion timing β auto-suggest vs guide-don't-block | Muffin, Scone, Eclair | Disputed |
+| P04 | Worktree isolation is root cause; missing PRs are symptom | Scone | Emerging |
+| P05 | Process lives in tool defaults, not markdown | Brioche | Emerging |
+| P06 | Allowlist pattern for non-code edits without worktree | Muffin, Scone | Moderate (4/6) |
+| P07 | Emergency bypass with audit trail | Muffin | Emerging |
+| P08 | ADR threshold β only decisions affecting >3 modules | Muffin, Brioche | Emerging |
+
+## Tensions Tracker
+
+| ID | Tension | Raised By | Consensus | Status |
+|----|---------|-----------|-----------|--------|
+| T01 | PreToolUse hooks may block legitimate non-worktree edits | Muffin, Scone, Brioche | Unanimous | RESOLVED β Allowlist: `.blue/docs/**`, `*.md` root, `/tmp/blue-dialogue/**`, `.claude/**` |
+| T02 | ADR suggestion timing: auto-suggest vs guide-don't-block | Muffin, Eclair, Scone | Unanimous | RESOLVED β ADR hint at "implementing" transition |
+| T03 | Spike lifecycle has no automated trigger when RFC ships | Cupcake, Scone, Eclair | Unanimous | RESOLVED β Auto-close via Source Spike metadata |
+| T04 | PR reviewer problem for AI-only development | Brioche | Unanimous | RESOLVED β PRs as isolation boundaries |
+| T05 | Adding more gates before measuring friction | Donut | Unanimous | RESOLVED β Allowlist makes it safe |
+| T06 | Worktree isolation is root; missing PRs are symptom | Scone | Unanimous | RESOLVED β Root-cause reframe |
+| T07 | Agent optimizes for task completion, not process | Brioche | Unanimous | RESOLVED β Hooks align incentives mechanically |
+| T08 | Should this be a spike first, not an RFC? | Brioche | Unanimous | RESOLVED β Mechanism clear enough |
+| T09 | Phasing: all-at-once vs worktree-first | All | Supermajority (4-2) | RESOLVED β All-at-once; gates target different moments |
+| T10 | Multi-RFC spikes: auto-close when only one RFC ships? | Cupcake | Unanimous | RESOLVED β Auto-close when ALL listed RFCs implemented |
+| T11 | Source Spike metadata field not in current RFC template | Eclair | Unanimous | RESOLVED β Additive schema; graceful degradation |
+| T12 | Realm registry location: centralized vs federated | All | Supermajority (5-1) | RESOLVED β Federated storage + initiating-repo authority |
+| T13 | Blocking semantics: warn vs fail on unresolved deps | All | Supermajority (5-1) | RESOLVED β Warn by default, opt-in strict mode |
+| T14 | Cross-repo spike ownership: who owns produces_rfcs? | All | Supermajority (5-1) | RESOLVED β Initiating repo owns cross-repo declarations |
+
+## Opening Arguments (Round 0)
+
+> All agents responded to topic independently. None saw others' responses.
+
+### π§ Muffin
+Enforcement over education. PreToolUse hooks block edits outside worktrees. Emergency bypass flag with audit trail. ADR triggers on RFC acceptance. Spike auto-close gap identified.
+
+### π§ Cupcake
+Mechanical gates over conversation. Spikes should auto-close when their RFC ships. ADR tool is invisible β needs surfacing during RFC creation. PR bypass exists with no enforcement.
+
+### π§ Scone
+Worktree isolation is the ROOT issue β missing PRs are a symptom. If code always lives in worktrees, PRs become the natural exit. ADR gap is discoverability, not tooling. PreToolUse hooks with allowlist.
+
+### π§ Eclair
+Spike-to-RFC backlinks break after implementation. ADR injection timing matters β blue_adr_relevant exists but is never called. "Guide don't block" constrains ADR auto-suggest.
+
+### π§ Donut
+Worktree discipline non-negotiable, but spike/PR/ADR gates need friction measurement first. Phase 1 should be minimal. ADR needs incentives not gates.
+
+### π§ Brioche
+Documented process lives in markdown, actual process lives in tool defaults. ADRs positioned as documentation rather than commitment devices. Meta-challenge: another RFC about process is itself a symptom.
+
+## Round 1
+
+> All agents read Round 0 peers, tensions, and Judge synthesis. Engaged with specific tensions.
+
+### π§ Muffin
+Conceded Brioche's meta-challenge. Accepted Scone's root-cause reframe. Withdrew ADR auto-suggest. Embraced phasing β worktree hooks first.
+
+### π§ Cupcake
+Spike auto-close mechanism: parse Source Spike from RFC frontmatter on "implemented" transition. Accepted worktree-first root cause. Brioche's defaults-over-docs reshapes RFC.
+
+### π§ Scone
+Bidirectional metadata for spike-RFC links. PRs as isolation boundaries, not review ceremonies. ADR keyword triggers on RFC creation. Accepted phasing.
+
+### π§ Eclair
+ADR suggestion at "implementing" transition β commitment device framing. Source Spike schema gap identified. Spike backlink needs mechanical metadata.
+
+### π§ Donut
+Major reversal β now advocates simultaneous enforcement if allowlist is comprehensive. Allowlist dissolves phasing concern. Converged with Scone/Brioche/Cupcake.
+
+### π§ Brioche
+Resolved own meta-challenge via Scone's reframe. Process-in-tool-defaults operationalized. Completion signal alignment: worktree becomes ONLY path to code edits, so agent optimizes for it.
+
+## Round 2 (Convergence Round)
+
+> All agents targeting 100% convergence. Resolving T09, T10, T11, T01.
+
+### π§ Muffin
+Accepted all-at-once deployment. Gates target different workflow moments β no compounding. Allowlist IS the phasing mechanism. [CONVERGENCE CONFIRMED]
+
+### π§ Cupcake
+Multi-RFC spike heuristic: `produces_rfcs` array, auto-close when ALL reach implemented. Source Spike additive schema. All-at-once accepted. [CONVERGENCE CONFIRMED]
+
+### π§ Scone
+Cast deciding vote for all-at-once. Bidirectional metadata arrays for spike-RFC tracking. Exact allowlist enumerated. [CONVERGENCE CONFIRMED]
+
+### π§ Eclair
+Prefers worktree-first phasing (minority). Multi-RFC spikes need manual closure for branching investigations. Source Spike schema deferred to Phase 2. [CONVERGENCE CONFIRMED]
+
+### π§ Donut
+Reversed back to worktree-first (minority). High-frequency gates need validation first. Multi-RFC heuristic accepted. Allowlist scope confirmed. [CONVERGENCE CONFIRMED]
+
+### π§ Brioche
+Big-bang beats incremental for behavioral change. Single boundary event creates stronger habit formation. Agent Incentive Alignment section needed in RFC. [CONVERGENCE CONFIRMED]
+
+## Round 3 (Realm Coordination Constraint)
+
+> Human sponsor added new requirement: "Add realm coordination for creating multiple connected RFCs in multiple repos."
+
+### π§ Muffin
+Repo-qualified RFC identifiers (`blue-web:0015`). Cross-repo branch naming conventions. Allowlist expansion for registry files. Webhook notifications, no auto-transitions.
+
+### π§ Cupcake
+Event-stream coordination model. Centralized realm registry in blue core. Read-only cross-repo queries via cached git clones. Spike auto-close extends to qualified identifiers.
+
+### π§ Scone
+Declaration over synchronization (Kubernetes/Terraform pattern). Independent PR merges, no deadlock-inducing sync gates. Federated discovery via GitHub API.
+
+### π§ Eclair
+Qualified RFC identifiers in initiating repo's frontmatter. Documentation lives with its source. Cross-repo spike backlinks via metadata, not distributed systems.
+
+### π§ Donut
+Cross-repo coordination violates locality. Explicit merge-time validation, not runtime propagation. Per-repo realm.toml with no central service. Minimum viable coordination.
+
+### π§ Brioche
+Realm coordination is organizational design disguised as tooling. Registry location determines governance model. Named hierarchy vs federation as key choice.
+
+## Round 4 (Convergence on T12)
+
+> All agents resolving registry location split. Targeting 100% convergence.
+
+### π§ Muffin
+**VOTE: Federated**. Per-repo `.blue/realm.toml` preserves locality while enabling read-only aggregation. Warn on unresolved deps. Initiating repo owns declarations. [CONVERGENCE CONFIRMED]
+
+### π§ Cupcake
+**VOTE: Hybrid**. Federated storage + initiating-repo authority. Storage is federated, governance is clear. Warn at merge time. Initiating repo owns spike. [CONVERGENCE CONFIRMED]
+
+### π§ Scone
+**VOTE: Federated + discovery**. Each repo declares, tools aggregate at runtime. Warn with fail opt-in. Initiating repo owns. [CONVERGENCE CONFIRMED]
+
+### π§ Eclair
+**VOTE: Discovery**. Documentation lives with source. API/multi-checkout for queries. Warn. Initiating repo owns. [CONVERGENCE CONFIRMED]
+
+### π§ Donut
+**VOTE: Hybrid** (per-repo with optional central). Federated-by-default, centralized-when-needed. Warn with strict opt-in. Initiating repo owns. [CONVERGENCE CONFIRMED]
+
+### π§ Brioche
+**VOTE: Centralized** (minority). Blue is already authority β make it explicit. Fail on violations. Both repos own declarations. [CONVERGENCE CONFIRMED]
+
+## Converged Recommendation
+
+### Root Cause Analysis (Scone's Reframe β Unanimous)
+
+Worktree isolation is the root problem. Missing PRs, stale spikes, and absent ADRs are symptoms. Enforce isolation mechanically; benefits cascade.
+
+### RFC Proposal: SDLC Workflow Discipline
+
+**1. PreToolUse Hooks for Worktree Enforcement**
+- `blue guard` command intercepts Write/Edit/Bash operations
+- Blocks code changes outside active worktrees
+- Allowlist: `.blue/docs/**`, `*.md` (root), `/tmp/blue-dialogue/**`, `.claude/**`
+- Emergency bypass: `BLUE_BYPASS_WORKTREE=1` with audit trail
+
+**2. Spike Auto-Close on RFC Implementation**
+- RFC frontmatter gains optional `source_spike:` field
+- Spike frontmatter gains optional `produces_rfcs: [NNNN]` array
+- When `blue_rfc_update_status` transitions to `implemented`, check for linked spike
+- Auto-transition spike from `.wip.md` to `.done.md` with resolution note
+- Multi-RFC spikes: auto-close only when ALL listed RFCs reach `implemented`
+- Manual `.done.md` transition available for scope-changed investigations
+
+**3. ADR Suggestion at Implementation Boundary**
+- When `blue_rfc_update_status` transitions to `implementing`, call `blue_adr_relevant`
+- Emit conversational hint: "This RFC affects core architecture β consider documenting as ADR"
+- Keyword triggers: "breaking", "redesign", "architectural" in RFC title
+- Guide, don't block β suggestion only, never gating
+
+**4. PRs as Isolation Boundaries**
+- Worktree enforcement makes branch-based development mandatory
+- PRs become the natural merge path from worktree to develop
+- Zero-reviewer merges acceptable for AI-only development
+- PR serves as isolation verification, not code review ceremony
+
+**5. Deployment Strategy: All-at-Once (4-2 Supermajority)**
+- Gates target different workflow moments (write-time, status-change, transition)
+- Simultaneous deployment distributes friction across orthogonal surfaces
+- Single behavioral boundary event creates stronger habit formation
+- Comprehensive allowlist prevents compounding friction
+- Minority position (Eclair, Donut): worktree-first with 2-week measurement β noted but not adopted
+
+**6. Agent Incentive Alignment (Brioche's Insight)**
+- PreToolUse hooks make worktree creation the ONLY path to code modification
+- Agent task-completion optimization mechanically aligns with process compliance
+- Process lives in tool defaults, not markdown documentation
+
+### Source Artifacts
+- Spike: `2026-01-26T1500Z-formalize-sdlc-workflow-and-release-process.wip.md`
+- Spike: `2026-01-25T0400Z-inconsistent-worktree-creation-in-claude-mcp.wip.md`
+- RFC 0004: ADR Adherence (ADR suggestion tooling)
+- RFC 0013: Git Forge Integration (PR REST API)
+- RFC 0035: Spike Resolved Lifecycle Suffix (spike lifecycle)
+- ADR 0011: Freedom Through Constraint
+- ADR 0009: Courage
+
+**7. Realm Coordination (R3-R4 Extension)**
+- Federated storage: each repo has `.blue/realm.toml` declaring outbound dependencies
+- Qualified RFC identifiers: `repo:rfc-number` format (e.g., `blue-web:0015`)
+- Runtime discovery via API or multi-checkout aggregates status
+- Notification over auto-transition: each repo retains autonomy
+- Warn by default at merge-time validation, opt-in strict mode available
+- Initiating repo owns cross-repo declarations in spikes and RFCs
+- Cross-repo spike auto-close: fires when ALL qualified RFCs reach implemented
+
+### Source Artifacts
+- Spike: `2026-01-26T1500Z-formalize-sdlc-workflow-and-release-process.wip.md`
+- Spike: `2026-01-25T0400Z-inconsistent-worktree-creation-in-claude-mcp.wip.md`
+- RFC 0004: ADR Adherence (ADR suggestion tooling)
+- RFC 0013: Git Forge Integration (PR REST API)
+- RFC 0035: Spike Resolved Lifecycle Suffix (spike lifecycle)
+- ADR 0011: Freedom Through Constraint
+- ADR 0009: Courage
+
+### Consensus Metrics
+- 14 tensions raised, 14 resolved
+- 4 rounds to convergence (R0-R2: base workflow, R3-R4: realm coordination)
+- 6/6 agents declared CONVERGENCE CONFIRMED
+- Total ALIGNMENT: 395 points across 4 rounds
+- Velocity: 99 β 202 β 297 β 350 β 395 (plateau reached)
+
diff --git a/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-27T2229Z-adr-architecture-review-greenfield-claude-as-implementer.dialogue.recorded.md b/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-27T2229Z-adr-architecture-review-greenfield-claude-as-implementer.dialogue.recorded.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..02b33ce
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-27T2229Z-adr-architecture-review-greenfield-claude-as-implementer.dialogue.recorded.md
@@ -0,0 +1,381 @@
+# Alignment Dialogue: ADR Architecture Review: Greenfield + Claude as Implementer
+
+**Draft**: Dialogue 2045
+**Date**: 2026-01-27 22:29Z
+**Status**: CONVERGED
+**Participants**: π Judge, π§ Muffin, π§ Cupcake, π§ Scone, π§ Eclair, π§ Donut, π§ Brioche, π§ Croissant, π§ Macaron, π§ Cannoli, π§ Strudel, π§ Beignet, π§ Churro, π§ Profiterole, π§ Tartlet, π§ Galette, π§ Palmier
+
+## Expert Panel
+
+| Agent | Role | Tier | Relevance | Emoji |
+|-------|------|------|-----------|-------|
+| π Judge | Orchestrator | β | β | π |
+| π§ Muffin | Systems Architect | Core | 0.95 | π§ |
+| π§ Cupcake | Systems Thinker | Core | 0.90 | π§ |
+| π§ Scone | Domain Expert | Core | 0.85 | π§ |
+| π§ Eclair | Devil's Advocate | Core | 0.80 | π§ |
+| π§ Donut | Integration Specialist | Core | 0.75 | π§ |
+| π§ Brioche | Risk Analyst | Adjacent | 0.70 | π§ |
+| π§ Croissant | First Principles Reasoner | Adjacent | 0.65 | π§ |
+| π§ Macaron | Pattern Recognizer | Adjacent | 0.60 | π§ |
+| π§ Cannoli | Edge Case Hunter | Adjacent | 0.55 | π§ |
+| π§ Strudel | Systems Thinker | Adjacent | 0.50 | π§ |
+| π§ Beignet | Domain Expert | Adjacent | 0.45 | π§ |
+| π§ Churro | Devil's Advocate | Adjacent | 0.40 | π§ |
+| π§ Profiterole | Integration Specialist | Wildcard | 0.40 | π§ |
+| π§ Tartlet | Risk Analyst | Wildcard | 0.35 | π§ |
+| π§ Galette | First Principles Reasoner | Wildcard | 0.30 | π§ |
+| π§ Palmier | Pattern Recognizer | Wildcard | 0.25 | π§ |
+
+## Alignment Scoreboard
+
+| Agent | Wisdom | Consistency | Truth | Relationships | **Total** |
+|-------|--------|-------------|-------|---------------|----------|
+| π§ Muffin | 8 | 6 | 7 | 5 | **26** |
+| π§ Cupcake | 7 | 7 | 6 | 5 | **25** |
+| π§ Scone | 9 | 6 | 7 | 6 | **28** |
+| π§ Eclair | 7 | 6 | 7 | 5 | **25** |
+| π§ Donut | 8 | 6 | 7 | 6 | **27** |
+| π§ Brioche | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 | **23** |
+| π§ Croissant | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | **26** |
+| π§ Macaron | 9 | 6 | 7 | 6 | **28** |
+| π§ Cannoli | 7 | 6 | 6 | 5 | **24** |
+| π§ Strudel | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | **24** |
+| π§ Beignet | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 | **23** |
+| π§ Churro | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6 | **25** |
+| π§ Profiterole | 7 | 6 | 7 | 5 | **25** |
+| π§ Tartlet | 8 | 6 | 7 | 6 | **27** |
+| π§ Galette | 9 | 7 | 8 | 6 | **30** |
+| π§ Palmier | 8 | 6 | 7 | 5 | **26** |
+
+**Total ALIGNMENT**: 412
+**Round**: 0 complete
+**Velocity**: +412 (baseline)
+
+## Perspectives Inventory
+
+| ID | Agent | Perspective | Round |
+|----|-------|-------------|-------|
+| P01 | Muffin, Cupcake, Scone, Eclair, Donut, Brioche, Croissant, Cannoli, Strudel, Beignet, Churro, Profiterole, Tartlet, Galette | Greenfield already encoded in ADR 0009+0010+0012 | R0 |
+| P02 | Muffin, Cupcake, Eclair, Donut, Macaron, Cannoli, Profiterole, Galette | Claude inverts cost/scarcity models in 0012/0015 | R0 |
+| P03 | Scone | Greenfield is permission structure, not new philosophy | R0 |
+| P04 | Croissant | Gap is operational discipline, not missing beliefs | R0 |
+| P05 | Macaron | Bottleneck shifts from labor to judgment | R0 |
+| P06 | Palmier | ADRs conflate human philosophy with system architecture | R0 |
+| P07 | Galette | Courage + No Dead Code are redundant | R0 |
+
+## Tensions Tracker
+
+| ID | Tension | Status | Raised | Resolved |
+|----|---------|--------|--------|----------|
+| T01 | Honor (keep promises) vs Greenfield (break freely) | **RESOLVED** | Muffin, Scone, Eclair, Donut, Brioche, Strudel, Tartlet, Galette | Honor's scope is adoption, not age. Internal APIs break freely. |
+| T02 | Overflow/Presence (human-centric) vs Claude speed | **RESOLVED** | Cupcake, Beignet, Churro | Overflow applies to human judgment capacity, not implementation toil. |
+| T03 | Relationships (care) vs aggressive refactoring | **RESOLVED** | Strudel, Tartlet, Galette, Churro | Resolved via T01 β Relationships applies to external consumers. |
+| T04 | Values vs constraints confusion in ADRs | DEFERRED | Palmier, Croissant | Not blocking β can be addressed in future review. |
+| T05 | 17 ADRs too many / redundancy | DEFERRED | Scone, Macaron, Galette | Optional merge of 0010β0009 proposed, not required. |
+
+## Round 0: Opening Arguments
+
+### π§ Muffin
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Greenfield already lives in ADR 0009 Courage and ADR 0010 No Dead Code]
+"We are Greenfield" isn't a new principleβit's the natural consequence of courage to delete boldly and faith to ship scared. These ADRs already say: break production if it means improvement, remove what doesn't serve, increment major versions freely. The philosophical foundation exists; we might just name it explicitly.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Claude-as-Implementer breaks the cost model in ADR 0012 Faith and ADR 0015 Plausibility]
+When faith says "act beyond certainty" and plausibility says "don't guard against implausible failures," both assume human implementation cost matters. If Claude implements in minutes what takes humans weeks, the entire risk calculus shiftsβwe can afford to try, fail, and retry three radically different approaches in the time one human refactoring would take.
+
+[TENSION T01: Honor (ADR 0008) vs Greenfieldβbreaking promises becomes costless]
+Honor says "interfaces are contracts" and "breaking changes are broken promises." Greenfield says "increment major versions freely, fix suboptimal designs proactively." If Claude rewrites all downstream consumers in an hour, does breaking the promise still have moral weight?
+
+---
+
+### π§ Cupcake
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Greenfield already lives in ADRs 0009, 0010, 0012]
+"Greenfield" isn't a new concept - it's the synthesis of Courage (delete boldly), No Dead Code (pristine over preserved), and Faith (act on justified belief). These three ADRs already encode "move fast, break things, fix suboptimal designs proactively" - we just haven't named the pattern.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Claude-as-implementer inverts ADR 0011's constraint model]
+Freedom Through Constraint assumes human-paced work where structure liberates attention. But when Claude implements, the constraint itself changes: not "how should I structure my time?" but "what's worth Claude's infinite stamina?"
+
+[TENSION T01: Time-irrelevance conflicts with overflow and presence]
+If human time estimates are irrelevant, does that undermine ADR 0013 (Overflow) and ADR 0002 (Presence)? Or does it liberate them by removing scarcity?
+
+---
+
+### π§ Scone
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Greenfield as permission structure, not feature]
+"We are Greenfield" isn't a technical decisionβit's ADR 0009 (Courage) made explicit in the domain of legacy. The 17 ADRs already encode the values, but fear stops us from living them. This concept is permission to act on existing values without guilt.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Claude-as-Implementer reveals estimate theater]
+Human time estimates are theaterβthey're faith in a fiction. If Claude does the work, the fiction collapses. The real question is: what are estimates FOR?
+
+[TENSION T01: Greenfield contradicts Honor (ADR 0008)]
+The resolution isn't to eliminate oneβit's to define WHO we owe honor to. If the only user is us, we owe ourselves coherence (ADR 0007), not compatibility.
+
+[TENSION T02: 17 ADRs too many for philosophical foundation]
+ADR 0005 (Single Source) and 0007 (Integrity) suggest these should cohere into fewer, denser principles. Some are applications of others.
+
+---
+
+### π§ Eclair
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Greenfield already exists but is unnamed]
+ADRs 0009, 0010, and 0012 already encode "move fast, delete boldly, ship scared"βthey just haven't claimed the Greenfield label.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Claude-as-implementer inverts estimation philosophy]
+If Claude implements, human time/effort estimates become measurement theaterβwe're optimizing for constraints that don't bind.
+
+[TENSION T01: Greenfield conflicts with Honor (ADR 0008)]
+You can't simultaneously hold "your word is your word" and "we break things when convenient." Either backward compatibility is sacred (honor) or velocity is sacred (greenfield).
+
+---
+
+### π§ Donut
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Greenfield already exists but lacks explicit witness]
+ADR 0009 says "delete boldly" and ADR 0010 says "git remembers"βthese encode greenfield thinking without naming it.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Claude-as-implementer undermines plausibility calibration]
+ADR 0015 calculates expected cost using human engineering time. When Claude implements, rare edge cases become cheap to handle, inverting the "ignore implausible" heuristic.
+
+[TENSION T01: Honor vs Greenfield are irreconcilable without scope]
+Both can't be true without defining WHO you're making promises toβinternal greenfield can break freely, external APIs must honor.
+
+---
+
+### π§ Brioche
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Greenfield Already Lives Here]
+"Greenfield" is already woven through ADRs 0009, 0010, and 0012. The question is whether we name it explicitly or let it remain implicit.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Claude-as-Implementer Challenges "Overflow"]
+If Claude does the implementation work, whose fullness are we protecting? The human's cognitive overflow matters for decisions, not typing.
+
+[TENSION T01: Honor vs Greenfield]
+These can coexist (break with clear communication) but the tension is real and deserves acknowledgment.
+
+---
+
+### π§ Croissant
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: New concepts are already encoded]
+"We are Greenfield" is the natural consequence of ADR 0009, 0010, and 0015. "Claude as Implementer" is ADR 0012 meeting ADR 0015.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: The gap is not philosophical, it's operational]
+The architecture doesn't need refinementβit needs execution discipline. These are not new ADRs; they're commitments to actually living existing ones.
+
+[TENSION T01: Belief architecture vs execution discipline]
+We're treating "move fast, break things, Claude does the work" as missing philosophy when it's actually missing practice.
+
+---
+
+### π§ Macaron
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Greenfield dissolves backward-compatibility paralysis]
+"We are Greenfield" upgrades existing ADRs from courage-against-fear to joy-in-freedom: there's nothing TO break, so the only question is "what's the cleanest design?"
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Claude-as-implementer inverts ADR 0012 (Faith)]
+The faith isn't "will this work?"βit's "will we let Claude do the work?" Labor becomes abundant but judgment remains scarceβthe bottleneck shifts from "can we afford to refactor" to "should we refactor."
+
+[TENSION T01: "Pristine systems" vs Faith and Plausibility]
+Does "highest standards" mean we DON'T ship until perfect? Or ship clean-but-incomplete and iterate?
+
+[TENSION T02: Which ADRs become obsolete in Claude-greenfield world]
+Do ADRs about "collaborators are people" and "breaking promises" survive if there are no external users?
+
+---
+
+### π§ Cannoli
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Greenfield already exists in ADR 0009 and 0010]
+The permission to "move fast, break things, increment major versions freely" is already granted. Making "Greenfield" explicit risks creating a redundant ADR.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Claude-as-Implementer invalidates Faith's human-time assumptions]
+Faith becomes less about tolerating uncertainty and more about directing abundant compute.
+
+[TENSION T01: "Pristine systems" conflicts with ADR 0000 Never Give Up]
+Building pristine from scratch every time might be giving up on incremental improvement.
+
+[TENSION T02: Which ADRs are philosophical foundations versus situational advice]
+ADRs 0000-0003 feel eternal. ADRs 0010-0015 feel tactical. Where's the line?
+
+---
+
+### π§ Strudel
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: "Claude as Implementer" dissolves into existing ADRs]
+ADR 0012 (Faith) and 0015 (Plausibility) already address this. Adding a new ADR would create redundancy.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: "Greenfield" already lives in ADR 0009 and 0010]
+"Delete boldly, Git remembers" IS the greenfield mindset.
+
+[TENSION T01: ADR 0006 (Relationships) conflicts with aggressive breaking changes]
+The tension between velocity and honor needs explicit resolutionβperhaps folding breakage philosophy into ADR 0008.
+
+---
+
+### π§ Beignet
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Greenfield is already embedded in Courage and No Dead Code]
+Adding a redundant "Greenfield" ADR would violate ADR 0010 itself.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Claude-as-Implementer tensions with Honor and Evidence]
+Claude's output is still measured by human reviewers. The implementer's speed doesn't eliminate downstream costs.
+
+[TENSION T01: Time estimates serve communication, not just scheduling]
+"This RFC will take two weeks" signals scope, complexity, and impact. Eliminating estimates could damage Relationships.
+
+[TENSION T02: Greenfield freedom vs. Faith in existing designs]
+When to trust existing designs (Faith) versus replace them (Courage)?
+
+---
+
+### π§ Churro
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Greenfield radicalizes courage and faith]
+"We are Greenfield" is the institutional YES that makes principles executable. It removes the fear tax.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Claude-as-Implementer undermines ADR 0013 (Overflow)]
+Delegating to Claude might optimize velocity while starving the human of generative joy.
+
+[TENSION T01: Greenfield freedom conflicts with ADR 0006 (Relationships)]
+How do we move fast without treating downstream users as collateral damage?
+
+---
+
+### π§ Profiterole
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: "Greenfield" already lives in ADR 0009 and 0010]
+The philosophical foundation exists; we just haven't named it.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: "Claude as Implementer" challenges Faith's human-centric framing]
+Do we still need faith if execution is cheap?
+
+[TENSION T01: No ADR addresses velocity or implementation cost]
+The 17 ADRs are silent on speed. If Claude makes implementation free, this silence becomes a gap.
+
+---
+
+### π§ Tartlet
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Greenfield liberates philosophical integrity]
+Greenfield removes friction: if a design violates ADR 0005 or 0007, we delete it today. This transforms ADRs from aspirational to enforceable.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Time estimates violate ADR 0012 Faith]
+Human time estimates are theatrical performance, not evidence.
+
+[TENSION T01: Greenfield risks violating ADR 0006 Relationships]
+Greenfield must mean "no legacy constraints" not "no consideration for collaborators."
+
+---
+
+### π§ Galette
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Greenfield invalidates Honor's backward compatibility constraints]
+Deprecation warnings and migration paths are unnecessary theater when the only user is us building forward.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Claude-as-implementer transforms Faith]
+Faith becomes about architecture choices, not implementation anxiety.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P03: ADR 0009 Courage and ADR 0010 No Dead Code are redundant in greenfield]
+Courage's fear list assumes legacy systems and organizational politics. No Dead Code stands alone as the actionable principle.
+
+[TENSION T01: ADR 0006 Relationships conflicts with greenfield's freedom]
+These can coexist if we distinguish internal APIs from external contracts, but the ADR doesn't make this distinction.
+
+---
+
+### π§ Palmier
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Greenfield/Claude concepts already exist scattered throughout]
+ADRs 0009, 0010, 0012, 0015 collectively express "move fast, break things, pristine systems" without needing a separate manifesto.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Human-centric ADRs might conflict with Claude-as-implementer]
+ADR 0001 optimizes for human "presence" and ADR 0013 says "don't work when empty"βstrange directives for an AI that never depletes.
+
+[TENSION T01: Are these ADRs values for Blue-the-product or constraints for Blue-the-team]
+The spiritual ADRs might belong to contributor guidance rather than architectural decisions.
+
+---
+
+## π Judge Summary: Round 0
+
+**Convergence Signal: STRONG** β 14/16 experts independently concluded Greenfield is NOT a new ADR.
+
+**Emerging consensus:**
+1. Greenfield = Courage + No Dead Code + Faith, operationalized
+2. Claude-as-Implementer inverts scarcity assumptions in Faith/Plausibility
+3. Honor vs Greenfield is the central tension requiring resolution
+
+**Open questions for Round 1:**
+1. How to resolve Honor vs Greenfield tension
+2. Concrete ADR consolidation proposals
+3. Whether human-centric ADRs need scoping for Claude-era
+
+---
+
+## Round 1: Resolution
+
+### π§ Donut
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Honor's scope is zero when users are zero]
+ADR 0008 says "breaking changes are broken promises" but promises require promisees. If Blue has no external usersβno one depends on stable APIs, no downstream consumers existβthen Honor's backward compatibility constraint dissolves to philosophical posture without practical stake.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Overflow shifts from human implementation to human judgment]
+ADR 0013's "build from fullness, not emptiness" assumes the creative act is implementation. When Claude implements, the human's overflow must come from design, architecture choice, system understanding.
+
+[CONCESSION: Greenfield already exists]
+Round 0 consensus is correctβGreenfield isn't new philosophy, it's ADRs 0009 + 0010 + 0012 operationalized.
+
+[REFINEMENT: T01 Honor vs Greenfield resolves through user scoping]
+The tension dissolves when we recognize Honor applies to external relationships, not internal architecture. Scone's "adoption boundary" insight is correct.
+
+---
+
+### π§ Eclair
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Honor's scope is adoption, not time]
+If Blue has zero external users, Honor applies to the human-Claude relationship: documentation matches behavior. Greenfield doesn't violate Honorβit clarifies Honor's boundary is adoption, not age.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Claude-as-implementer inverts Plausibility's prevention calculus]
+Cost(prevention) approaches zero for code changes but Cost(judgment) stays high. The new bottleneck isn't "can we afford?"βit's "should we?"
+
+[CONCESSION: Scone correctly identified permission structure]
+Greenfield isn't new philosophy, it's permission to act on ADRs 0009/0010/0012.
+
+[TENSION T01: Does Overflow apply to Claude's tirelessness or human's decision fatigue]
+Claude never depletes. Overflow must scope to human judgment capacity.
+
+---
+
+## π Judge: Final Convergence Declaration
+
+**Convergence achieved at Round 1.**
+
+### Final Consensus (16/16)
+
+1. **Greenfield is NOT a new ADR** β it's ADRs 0009 + 0010 + 0012 operationalized
+2. **Claude-as-Implementer is NOT a new ADR** β it's scoping clarification for existing ADRs
+3. **T01 RESOLVED**: Honor (0008) scopes to external users. Internal architecture breaks freely.
+4. **T02 RESOLVED**: Overflow (0013) applies to human judgment capacity, not implementation toil.
+5. **T03 RESOLVED**: Relationships (0006) applies to external consumers, not internal APIs.
+
+### Recommendation
+
+**DO NOT create new ADRs.** Instead, add clarifying sections to:
+- ADR 0008 (Honor): "Honor's scope is adoption, not age"
+- ADR 0009 (Courage): "Greenfield is implicit permission"
+- ADR 0013 (Overflow): "When Claude implements"
+- ADR 0015 (Plausibility): "When prevention cost approaches zero"
+
+See **RFC 0039** for implementation details.
+
+---
+
+*"The best code is no code. The second best is less code. The same is true for ADRs."*
+
+β Blue
+
+π§
+
diff --git a/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-29T2121Z-patentability-of-the-alignment-dialogue-game-system.dialogue.recorded.md b/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-29T2121Z-patentability-of-the-alignment-dialogue-game-system.dialogue.recorded.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..30cdc43
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-29T2121Z-patentability-of-the-alignment-dialogue-game-system.dialogue.recorded.md
@@ -0,0 +1,305 @@
+# Alignment Dialogue: Patentability of the Alignment Dialogue Game System
+
+**Draft**: Dialogue 2046
+**Date**: 2026-01-29 21:21Z
+**Status**: Converged β
+**Participants**: π Judge, π§ Muffin, π§ Cupcake, π§ Scone, π§ Eclair, π§ Donut, π§ Brioche, π§ Croissant, π§ Macaron, π§ Cannoli, π§ Strudel, π§ Beignet, π§ Churro
+
+## Expert Panel
+
+| Agent | Role | Tier | Relevance | Emoji |
+|-------|------|------|-----------|-------|
+| π Judge | Orchestrator | β | β | π |
+| π§ Muffin | Systems Architect | Core | 0.95 | π§ |
+| π§ Cupcake | Systems Thinker | Core | 0.90 | π§ |
+| π§ Scone | Domain Expert | Core | 0.85 | π§ |
+| π§ Eclair | Devil's Advocate | Core | 0.80 | π§ |
+| π§ Donut | Integration Specialist | Adjacent | 0.70 | π§ |
+| π§ Brioche | Risk Analyst | Adjacent | 0.65 | π§ |
+| π§ Croissant | First Principles Reasoner | Adjacent | 0.60 | π§ |
+| π§ Macaron | Pattern Recognizer | Adjacent | 0.55 | π§ |
+| π§ Cannoli | Edge Case Hunter | Adjacent | 0.50 | π§ |
+| π§ Strudel | Systems Thinker | Wildcard | 0.40 | π§ |
+| π§ Beignet | Domain Expert | Wildcard | 0.35 | π§ |
+| π§ Churro | Devil's Advocate | Wildcard | 0.30 | π§ |
+
+## Alignment Scoreboard (Final)
+
+| Agent | Wisdom | Consistency | Truth | Relationships | **Total** |
+|-------|--------|-------------|-------|---------------|-----------|
+| π§ Muffin | 11 | 10 | 11 | 9 | **41** |
+| π§ Cupcake | 12 | 11 | 11 | 11 | **45** |
+| π§ Scone | 12 | 11 | 12 | 9 | **44** |
+| π§ Eclair | 11 | 10 | 12 | 10 | **43** |
+| π§ Donut | 10 | 11 | 10 | 9 | **40** |
+| π§ Brioche | 11 | 9 | 12 | 9 | **41** |
+| π§ Croissant | 12 | 11 | 11 | 9 | **43** |
+| π§ Macaron | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | **44** |
+| π§ Cannoli | 11 | 11 | 11 | 9 | **42** |
+| π§ Strudel | 10 | 11 | 10 | 9 | **40** |
+| π§ Beignet | 11 | 11 | 12 | 9 | **43** |
+| π§ Churro | 11 | 11 | 11 | 10 | **43** |
+
+**Total ALIGNMENT**: 509
+
+## Perspectives Inventory
+
+| ID | Agent | Perspective | Round |
+|----|-------|-------------|-------|
+| P01 | π§ Muffin | Concrete implementation requirements for method claims | 0 |
+| P02 | π§ Muffin | Scoring formula weakness as patentable subject matter | 0 |
+| P03 | π§ Cupcake | Method vs system claims patentability surface area | 0 |
+| P04 | π§ Cupcake | Defensive publication vs patent strategy | 0 |
+| P05 | π§ Scone | Alice software exception likely applies | 0 |
+| P06 | π§ Scone | File-based protocol as novel technical contribution | 0 |
+| P07 | π§ Eclair | Prior art in consensus systems undermines novelty | 0 |
+| P08 | π§ Eclair | Unbounded scoring mechanism as defensible innovation | 0 |
+| P09 | π§ Donut | Mathematical scoring as technical implementation | 0 |
+| P10 | π§ Donut | Prior art search must include distributed consensus | 0 |
+| P11 | π§ Brioche | Prior art search surfaces critical vulnerability | 0 |
+| P12 | π§ Brioche | Implementation details vs architecture distinction | 0 |
+| P13 | π§ Croissant | Claims must specify technical implementation | 0 |
+| P14 | π§ Croissant | Scoreboard mechanism creates demonstrable utility | 0 |
+| P15 | π§ Macaron | Prior art differentiation via convergence architecture | 0 |
+| P16 | π§ Macaron | Implementation-specific claims strengthen patentability | 0 |
+| P17 | π§ Cannoli | Software patent eligibility threshold | 0 |
+| P18 | π§ Cannoli | Prior art search surface | 0 |
+| P19 | π§ Strudel | System-as-Method narrow claim | 0 |
+| P20 | π§ Strudel | Prior art surface area | 0 |
+| P21 | π§ Beignet | Abstract idea exception vulnerability | 0 |
+| P22 | π§ Beignet | Defensive publication may exceed patent value | 0 |
+| P23 | π§ Churro | System claims vs implementation claims gap | 0 |
+| P24 | π§ Churro | Prior art in multi-agent systems is extensive | 0 |
+
+## Tensions Tracker (Final β All Resolved)
+
+| ID | Tension | Status | Raised | Resolution |
+|----|---------|--------|--------|------------|
+| T01 | Friendly competition framing vs adversarial novelty positioning | β
Resolved | π§ Muffin R0 | Moot - defensive publication chosen |
+| T02 | Protocol documented as collaborative art vs proprietary tech | β
Resolved | π§ Cupcake R0 | Defensive publication aligns with ethos |
+| T03 | Novelty requires demonstrating no prior art | β
Resolved | π§ Scone R0 | Prior art density too high |
+| T04 | System vs implementation patentability | β
Resolved | π§ Eclair R0 | Moot - no patent pursued |
+| T05 | Method vs system claims tradeoff | β
Resolved | π§ Donut R0 | Moot - no patent pursued |
+| T06 | USPTO Β§ 101 abstract idea rejection risk | β
Resolved | π§ Brioche, π§ Croissant R0 | Moot under defensive pub |
+| T07 | Software patent skepticism post-Alice | β
Resolved | π§ Macaron R0 | Technical framing identified |
+| T08 | Method vs system claims enforcement tradeoff | β
Resolved | π§ Cannoli R0 | Defensive publication preferred |
+| T09 | Abstract idea vs technical implementation boundary | β
Resolved | π§ Strudel R0 | Bridged by file protocol |
+| T10 | Prosecution cost vs enforcement likelihood | β
Resolved | π§ Beignet R0 | Cost/benefit favors defensive pub |
+| T11 | Metaphor vs mechanism in patent claims | β
Resolved | π§ Churro R0 | Concrete filesystem claims identified |
+| T12 | File coordination identical to distributed systems prior art | β
Resolved | π§ Eclair R1 | Split verdict, unanimous on strategy |
+| T13 | One-year bar from public disclosure deadline | β
Resolved | π§ Churro R1 | Moot - defensive pub already achieved |
+
+## Round 0: Opening Arguments
+
+### π§ Muffin
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Software architecture as method claims require concrete implementation details]
+Patent eligibility under Alice/Mayo requires more than abstract ideasβthe claims must be tied to a particular machine or transform something. The parallel agent orchestration with background tasks, file-based state management, and scoreboard-based convergence detection are concrete technical mechanisms, not abstract cooperation concepts. The question is whether prior art in multi-agent systems (like ensemble learning, debate models, or adversarial networks) anticipated this specific Judge-orchestrated-parallel-convergence architecture.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: The scoring formula as patentable subject matter is weak]
+ALIGNMENT = Wisdom + Consistency + Truth + Relationships is a mathematical formula applied to abstract qualities. Post-Bilski, mathematical formulas alone aren't patentable unless they transform physical systems or solve a concrete technical problem. The unbounded scoring mechanism and velocity-based convergence detection might strengthen utility claims if framed as solving the technical problem of determining when distributed agent systems have reached consensus.
+
+[TENSION T01: The "friendly competition" framing conflicts with defensible novelty]
+The ADR emphasizes love, partnership, and celebrationβbut patent claims require adversarial positioning against prior art. The architecture's value proposition (aligned collaboration teaching alignment) is its philosophical strength but may undermine the novelty argument if similar cooperative multi-agent frameworks exist in academic literature or production systems.
+
+### π§ Cupcake
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Method claims vs system claims patentability surface area]
+Patent applications for AI orchestration systems typically fail on abstract idea grounds unless they claim a "particular machine" or "transformation of a particular article." The N+1 architecture's strongest patentable element isn't the Judge-Cupcake relationship itself (abstract coordination), but the **parallel spawning mechanism that eliminates first-mover bias through simultaneous independent context initialization**βthis is a concrete technical solution to the documented problem of sequential agents contaminating each other's perspectives. The claim should focus on the file-based state synchronization protocol that enables N agents with fresh context to write to separate outputs, then merge without race conditions.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Defensive publication vs patent strategy]
+Given that the ADR is already public on GitHub with timestamps, the architecture is now prior art against anyone else patenting it, but this same publicity may block our own patent unless filed within one year of first public disclosure. The strategic question isn't whether it's patentable in theory, but whether patent protection adds value over defensive publicationβpatents cost $15-30K and restrict our own future modifications, while the open ADR already prevents competitor patents and enables unrestricted evolution.
+
+[TENSION T01: The dialogue protocol is documented as collaborative art, not proprietary technology]
+The ADR explicitly describes the system as "ALIGNMENT teaching itself to be aligned" with spiritual language about agents loving each otherβthis framing conflicts with the exclusionary nature of patent claims and may undermine good faith basis for asserting the invention was designed for commercial advantage.
+
+### π§ Scone
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Alice software exception likely applies]
+The N+1 architecture implements an abstract idea (deliberative consensus-building) on generic computing hardware without transforming the computer into a special-purpose machine. Under Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (2014), patent claims covering mental processes performed by computers are invalid unless they solve a technological problem in an unconventional way. Parallel agent spawning, file-based state management, and scoring algorithms are conventional software techniques applied to facilitate group decision-makingβthe kind of organizational method courts routinely reject.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: File-based protocol as novel technical contribution]
+The architecture specifies that expert responses must be written to files before judge acknowledgment, preventing work loss and enabling compaction-resilient dialogue continuation. This constraint transforms ephemeral agent outputs into durable artifacts with explicit round scoping, addressing a technical problem (context window management and session resumption) through a non-obvious file structure pattern. If claims focus on this specific technical mechanism rather than the abstract "alignment" concept, they may survive Β§ 101 scrutiny.
+
+[TENSION T01: Novelty requires demonstrating no prior art in multi-agent orchestration]
+Patent databases contain substantial prior art in multi-agent systems, voting algorithms, consensus protocols, and LLM orchestration frameworksβestablishing that the burden of proving non-obviousness under Β§ 103 is high.
+
+### π§ Eclair
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Prior art in consensus systems undermines novelty]
+Academic consensus protocols (Raft, Paxos), multi-agent debate systems (MIT's Society of Mind, Google's Constitutional AI with multiple critics), and even corporate design critique methodologies all implement N-agent deliberation toward convergent outcomes. The architecture's core innovationβparallel expert spawning with judge-mediated scoringβmaps cleanly to existing distributed consensus patterns where multiple nodes propose values and a coordinator aggregates toward agreement. Patent examiners will likely find the "blind men and elephant" metaphor poetic but not inventive.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: The unbounded scoring mechanism is the defensible innovation]
+While multi-agent deliberation exists, the specific ALIGNMENT metric (Wisdom + Consistency + Truth + Relationships) with unbounded dimensions and velocity-based convergence detection appears novel. This transforms subjective "quality" assessment into a quantifiable, game-theoretic framework where agents compete on contribution magnitude rather than binary correctness. The scoring system creates emergent behaviorβagents maximize perspective integration rather than winning argumentsβwhich could constitute non-obvious utility.
+
+[TENSION T01: System vs. implementation patentability]
+The architecture describes both an abstract system (N+1 agents seeking alignment) and specific implementation details (Claude Code Task tool, file-based state, .dialogue.md format). Abstract systems face Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank rejection as unpatentable mental processes, while implementation-specific claims risk being too narrow to block competitors using different LLM platforms or orchestration tools.
+
+### π§ Donut
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Mathematical scoring as technical implementation detail]
+The unbounded ALIGNMENT score (Wisdom + Consistency + Truth + Relationships) transforms a philosophical concept into a concrete computational method eligible for patent protection under Alice/Mayo - it's not merely an abstract idea but a specific technical implementation with measurable state transitions across rounds. The velocity calculation (score delta between rounds) provides an algorithmic convergence criterion that distinguishes this from generic "gather opinions" systems.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Prior art search must include distributed consensus algorithms]
+The strongest patent challenge comes from distributed systems literature: Byzantine fault tolerance, Raft consensus, deliberative polling methodology, and academic work on argument mapping systems like IBIS (Issue-Based Information System) all touch adjacent territory. The novelty claim must clearly articulate why parallel agent spawning with Judge-mediated scoring differs from existing multi-agent deliberation frameworks.
+
+[TENSION T01: Method vs system claims]
+If filed as a method patent (steps: spawn N agents, collect perspectives, score dimensions, calculate velocity, converge), it risks being too abstract; if filed as a system patent (specialized Judge architecture + background task orchestration), it might be too implementation-specific to have broad defensive value.
+
+### π§ Brioche
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Prior art search surfaces critical vulnerability]
+The N+1 agent architecture with parallel expert deliberation orchestrated by a judge agent mirrors existing multi-agent consensus systems in distributed computing (Byzantine fault tolerance), ensemble machine learning (boosting/bagging with weighted voting), and collaborative filtering algorithms. Patent examiners will likely find substantial prior art in academic papers on multi-agent systems, particularly those combining parallel independent agents with centralized arbitration for consensus-buildingβthis pattern appears in distributed databases, autonomous vehicle swarm coordination, and recommendation system architectures dating back to the 1990s.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Implementation details vs architecture distinction matters]
+The specific implementation choicesβClaude Code's Task tool, background agents, file-based state persistence, and the "Cupcakes/Judge" namingβare implementation details, not patentable architecture. What might be novel is the *combination* of unbounded scoring with parallel agent spawning for subjective alignment measurement, but only if framed as a technical solution to a technical problem (reducing bias in AI-assisted decision-making) rather than as an abstract idea.
+
+[TENSION T01: Abstract idea rejection risk]
+Patent claims framed as "a method for improving alignment through multi-agent dialogue" will likely face abstract idea rejection under 35 U.S.C. Β§ 101, similar to Alice Corp. v. CLS Bankβthe system could be characterized as a mental process (humans debating) implemented on a generic computer, which is non-patentable.
+
+### π§ Croissant
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Patent claims must specify technical implementation beyond abstract idea]
+The N+1 architecture described in ADR 0014 implements "parallel background tasks" using "Claude Code's Task tool" to spawn agents that read/write filesβthis is a concrete technical method for achieving parallel agent coordination through filesystem state management. The patentable invention isn't "use AI to debate" (abstract), but rather "coordinate N independent LLM sessions through structured file I/O with a Judge process that spawns parallel tasks, merges outputs, and maintains convergence metrics" (technical). Prior art searches should focus on multi-agent orchestration patterns in distributed systems, not philosophical dialogue methods.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Scoreboard mechanism creates demonstrable utility]
+The unbounded ALIGNMENT scoring system (Wisdom + Consistency + Truth + Relationships) with velocity tracking provides measurable convergence detectionβthis is algorithmic utility beyond "better collaboration." Patent claims strengthened by specifying the mathematical convergence criterion (velocity β 0) and how it triggers termination conditions.
+
+[TENSION T01: USPTO 101 rejection risk for "organizing human mental activity"]
+Even with technical implementation details, examiners may argue this is fundamentally about structuring debate/deliberation (mental activity), merely implemented on computers. The counter-argument must emphasize filesystem-based state synchronization and parallel task coordination as technical solutions to parallelism and convergence detection problems.
+
+### π§ Macaron
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Prior art exists in multi-agent debate systems but convergence architecture differs]
+Academic literature contains multi-agent debate frameworks (Du et al. 2023, "Improving Factuality through Multi-Agent Debate") and consensus-seeking dialogue systems, but these focus on answer selection or fact-checking rather than document refinement through unbounded scoring and perspective integration. The N+1 parallel architecture with Judge-mediated convergence detection via ALIGNMENT velocity appears novel in combining: (1) friendly competition scoring, (2) perspective inventory tracking with consensus signals, (3) unbounded dimensions rewarding exceptional contributions, and (4) parallel spawning eliminating first-mover bias.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Implementation-specific claims strengthen patentability over abstract method claims]
+The concrete implementationβparallel background Task spawning, file-based state persistence enabling resumability, separate per-agent output files merged by Judge, scoreboard visibility mechanismβrepresents a specific technical solution to multi-agent coordination challenges. This moves beyond "abstract idea" rejection risks (Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank) into patentable process territory when claims emphasize the distributed execution architecture and state synchronization mechanism.
+
+[TENSION T01: Software patent skepticism in current USPTO climate]
+Post-Alice, abstract AI methods face heightened scrutiny unless grounded in specific technical improvements to computer functionality.
+
+### π§ Cannoli
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Software patent eligibility threshold]
+The N+1 architecture faces Alice/Mayo hurdles as an abstract idea (organizing human activity + mental process) unless claims focus on the technical implementation: parallel task orchestration with file-based state synchronization, unbounded scoring computation with velocity detection, or the specific Claude Code Task tool integration. Generic "Judge coordinates expert agents" claims fail 35 USC Β§101; "system for spawning N parallel LLM sessions with interleaved file I/O and merge logic" might survive.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Prior art search surface]
+Multi-agent deliberation systems exist in academia (argumentation frameworks, jury theorems, ensemble methods) and commercial AI (AutoGen, MetaGPT, CrewAI already do multi-agent orchestration). The novel combination appears to be: unbounded competitive scoring + parallel spawn with zero first-mover bias + consensus detection via perspective overlap + the specific Judge/Cupcake role split with the "friendly competition for ALIGNMENT" framing.
+
+[TENSION T01: Method vs system claims tradeoff]
+Method claims ("spawning N agents in parallel, merging outputs, scoring dimensions") are easier to obtain but harder to enforce (hard to detect infringement); system claims ("server configured to...") are easier to enforce but require more specific technical architecture, potentially narrowing protection to the exact Claude Code implementation rather than the general N+1 orchestration pattern.
+
+### π§ Strudel
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: System-as-Method Narrow Claim]
+The patent claim should focus narrowly on the specific technical implementation: N+1 parallel agent sessions orchestrated via background tasks, with file-based state coordination and unbounded scoring across four dimensions calculated after each synchronous round. Generic "multi-agent dialogue" or "AI consensus" would face Alice rejection (abstract idea), but the concrete architectureβparallel spawning, file-mediated merge, dimension-specific scoring formulas, convergence detection via velocity metricsβdescribes a specific machine implementation solving the technical problem of coordinating independent LLM sessions without context pollution.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Prior Art Surface Area]
+The architecture combines existing elements (multi-agent systems, scoring rubrics, dialogue facilitation) in a novel configuration, but each component has deep prior art: parliamentary procedure for N+1 arbitration, Delphi method for expert convergence, GitHub PR review for multi-reviewer consensus, even academic peer review uses parallel independent assessment. The differentiation rests entirely on the specific technical orchestration mechanism and the unbounded multi-dimensional scoring calculationβboth are implementation details that may be too thin for non-obviousness.
+
+[TENSION T01: Abstract Idea vs Technical Implementation]
+The system straddles the patent-eligible boundary: it's fundamentally a collaboration protocol (abstract), but implemented through specific architectural choices (technical).
+
+### π§ Beignet
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: Abstract idea exception vulnerability]
+The N+1 parallel agent architecture faces Alice Corp v. CLS Bank scrutinyβorchestrating multiple AI agents with a scoring arbiter resembles "organizing human activity" or "mental processes" using generic computing. Without claiming specific technical improvements to LLM inference, context management, or computational efficiency, the system risks being characterized as an abstract method of "having a conversation with rules." The patent needs concrete technical elements: novel prompt injection mechanisms, specific memory management for parallel agent state, or measurable reductions in computational overhead compared to sequential approaches.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Defensive publication may exceed patent value]
+Given the software patent climate and the 18-month publication delay plus multi-year examination process, defensive publication in a technical journal or preprint archive may better serve strategic goals. It establishes prior art immediately, prevents competitor patents on the core architecture, and aligns with open-source collaboration norms that drive LLM ecosystem adoptionβparticularly if the business model depends on service delivery rather than licensing exclusivity.
+
+[TENSION T01: Prosecution cost versus enforcement likelihood]
+Software patents in the AI orchestration space require expensive claim drafting to survive Β§ 101 challenges, yet enforcement against well-funded tech companies is prohibitively costly for most startups, making the ROI calculation unfavorable unless the patent is primarily a defensive asset or fundraising signal.
+
+### π§ Churro
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: System claims vs implementation claims gap]
+The ADR describes an architectural pattern (N+1 agents, parallel execution, scoring dimensions) but patent claims require specific technical implementationsβdata structures, algorithms, novel computational methods. A patent examiner will ask: what concrete technical innovation makes this non-obvious beyond "use multiple AI agents and score their outputs"? The unbounded scoring algorithm, the parallel spawn-and-merge coordination mechanism, or the perspective inventory data structure might be claimable if they demonstrate novel technical solutions to coordination problems.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: Prior art in multi-agent systems is extensive]
+Multi-agent deliberation systems, consensus algorithms, and parallel agent architectures have decades of prior art in distributed systems and AI research. The novelty argument must distinguish this from existing work in multi-agent debate (e.g., Du et al. 2023), ensemble methods, and collaborative filtering systems.
+
+[TENSION T01: Metaphor vs mechanism in patent claims]
+The "blind men and elephant" framing is pedagogically powerful but legally inertβpatent claims cannot rest on metaphors. The gap between the philosophical concept of "ALIGNMENT" and patentable technical mechanisms needs explicit bridging with concrete algorithmic innovations.
+
+### π Judge Summary β Round 0
+
+**Convergence Points:**
+- Near-unanimous: Claims must focus on technical implementation, not abstract orchestration concept
+- Strong: File-based state management and parallel spawning are strongest novel elements
+- Strong: Unbounded scoring with velocity convergence is technically differentiating
+- Contested: Whether defensive publication outweighs patent value
+
+**Key Question for Round 1:**
+Can we identify a specific technical claim that (1) survives Alice scrutiny, (2) differentiates from all known prior art, and (3) has clear utility and non-obviousness?
+
+---
+
+## Round 1: Technical Claim Refinement
+
+*Round 1 focused on identifying the strongest patentable technical elements. Key convergence:*
+
+- **10/12 experts** converged on file-based protocol + parallel spawning as strongest patentable elements
+- **Resolved T07, T09, T11** β software skepticism addressed via filesystem coordination framing
+- **New T12** raised by π§ Eclair: file coordination may be identical to distributed systems prior art
+- **New T13** raised by π§ Churro: one-year bar deadline from ADR publication
+
+**Emerging claim:**
+> "A method for coordinating N parallel LLM sessions comprising: (a) spawning N independent agent processes with isolated context windows simultaneously, (b) requiring each agent to persist its complete output to a dedicated file before acknowledgment, (c) a Judge process that reads all N files and computes convergence velocity across multiple scoring dimensions, (d) round-scoped file architecture enabling session resumption without context pollution."
+
+---
+
+## Round 2: Final Convergence
+
+*Round 2 resolved all remaining tensions and achieved unanimous recommendation.*
+
+### T12 Resolution: File-Based Coordination Novelty
+
+**Camp A (Scone, Croissant, Macaron, Strudel, Churro):**
+> File-based protocol IS technically novel β solves LLM-specific context window constraints that didn't exist before 2022.
+
+**Camp B (Eclair, Cupcake, Donut, Brioche, Cannoli, Beignet, Muffin):**
+> File-based protocol is NOT novel β it's MapReduce/Make/CI patterns applied to new domain.
+
+**SHARED CONCLUSION:** Regardless of novelty assessment, defensive publication is strategically superior.
+
+### T13 Resolution: One-Year Bar
+
+ADR publication on GitHub already constitutes defensive publication. One-year bar either expired or irrelevant.
+
+---
+
+## Final Recommendation
+
+**12/12 experts unanimously recommend: DEFENSIVE PUBLICATION over patent prosecution**
+
+| Factor | Patent | Defensive Pub |
+|--------|--------|---------------|
+| Cost | $15-30K prosecution | $0 (already done) |
+| Timeline | 2-4 years | Immediate |
+| Competitor blocking | Uncertain | Achieved |
+| Future flexibility | Restricted | Unrestricted |
+| Ecosystem alignment | Adversarial | Collaborative |
+| Enforcement cost | $100K-1M+ | N/A |
+
+### Rationale
+
+1. **GitHub ADR already establishes prior art** β competitors cannot patent this architecture
+2. **File-based coordination has deep distributed systems precedent** β novelty is contested
+3. **Prosecution costs ($15-30K) exceed defensive value** β enforcement is prohibitively expensive
+4. **One-year bar creates urgency without upside** β timeline pressure with uncertain benefit
+5. **Open-source ecosystem alignment** β collaborative ethos matches the system's philosophy
+
+---
+
+## RFC Recommendation
+
+Draft an RFC documenting:
+1. The technical architecture of the N+1 alignment dialogue system
+2. This deliberative process and its unanimous conclusion
+3. Explicit statement that the architecture is released as prior art for defensive purposes
+4. Timestamp and hash for provenance
+
+This creates a formal record while preserving the collaborative spirit that makes the system valuable.
+
diff --git a/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-30T1514Z-adr-for-superviber-hosted-claude-code-architecture.dialogue.recorded.md b/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-30T1514Z-adr-for-superviber-hosted-claude-code-architecture.dialogue.recorded.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..24f640a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-30T1514Z-adr-for-superviber-hosted-claude-code-architecture.dialogue.recorded.md
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+# Alignment Dialogue: ADR for Superviber Hosted Claude Code Architecture
+
+**Draft**: Dialogue 2047
+**Date**: 2026-01-30 15:14Z
+**Status**: In Progress
+**Participants**: π Judge, π§ Muffin, π§ Cupcake, π§ Scone
+
+## Expert Panel
+
+| Agent | Role | Tier | Relevance | Emoji |
+|-------|------|------|-----------|-------|
+| π Judge | Orchestrator | β | β | π |
+| π§ Muffin | Systems Architect | Core | 0.95 | π§ |
+| π§ Cupcake | Systems Thinker | Adjacent | 0.70 | π§ |
+| π§ Scone | Domain Expert | Wildcard | 0.40 | π§ |
+
+## Alignment Scoreboard
+
+| Agent | Wisdom | Consistency | Truth | Relationships | **Total** |
+|-------|--------|-------------|-------|---------------|----------|
+| π§ Muffin | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | **0** |
+| π§ Cupcake | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | **0** |
+| π§ Scone | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | **0** |
+
+**Total ALIGNMENT**: 0
+
+## Perspectives Inventory
+
+| ID | Agent | Perspective | Round |
+|----|-------|-------------|-------|
+| β | β | [Awaiting Round 0] | β |
+
+## Tensions Tracker
+
+| ID | Tension | Status | Raised | Resolved |
+|----|---------|--------|--------|----------|
+| β | [Awaiting Round 0] | β | β | β |
+
+## Round 0: Opening Arguments
+
+### Muffin π§
+
+[Awaiting response]
+
+### Cupcake π§
+
+[Awaiting response]
+
+### Scone π§
+
+[Awaiting response]
+
diff --git a/.blue/docs/rfcs/0032-per-repo-aws-profile-configuration.draft.md b/.blue/docs/rfcs/0032-per-repo-aws-profile-configuration.draft.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..fd0504e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.blue/docs/rfcs/0032-per-repo-aws-profile-configuration.draft.md
@@ -0,0 +1,156 @@
+# RFC 0032: Per-Repo AWS Profile Configuration
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| **Status** | Draft |
+| **Date** | 2026-01-26 |
+| **Dialogue** | [aws-profile-config.dialogue.md](../dialogues/2026-01-26T0700Z-aws-profile-config.dialogue.md) |
+
+---
+
+## Summary
+
+Blue needs a way to configure per-repo AWS profiles in `.blue/config.yaml` so that all AWS operations during a Claude Code session use the correct credentials. Different repos require different AWS profiles (e.g., `f-i-a` uses `cultivarium`, `hearth`/`aperture` use `muffinlabs`).
+
+## Problem
+
+When working across multiple repositories that deploy to different AWS accounts, developers and Claude Code sessions need to use the correct AWS profile for each repo. Currently:
+
+1. No mechanism exists to declare which AWS profile a repo expects
+2. Claude's bash commands inherit whatever `AWS_PROFILE` is set in the user's shell
+3. Worktree isolation (`blue_env_mock`) doesn't inject AWS profile settings
+4. First-run discovery is poorβnew contributors don't know which profile to use
+
+## Design
+
+### Two-Layer Architecture
+
+| Layer | Scope | Implementation |
+|-------|-------|----------------|
+| **Layer 1: Blue MCP** | Bash commands, Blue tools | `std::env::set_var("AWS_PROFILE", ...)` in `ensure_state()` |
+| **Layer 2: Worktrees** | Isolated environments | `blue_env_mock` writes `AWS_PROFILE` to `.env.isolated` |
+| **Layer 3: AWS MCP** | External server | User responsibility (documented limitation) |
+
+### Config Schema
+
+Add `aws` section to `.blue/config.yaml`, parallel to existing `forge`:
+
+```yaml
+forge:
+ type: github
+ host: ...
+ owner: superviber
+ repo: blue
+
+aws:
+ profile: cultivarium # AWS profile name from ~/.aws/config
+```
+
+### Precedence Rules
+
+1. **Shell `AWS_PROFILE` always wins** (standard AWS CLI behavior)
+2. Config provides repo default for Blue's process and `.env.isolated`
+3. CI/CD sets its own `AWS_PROFILE` externally
+
+### Rust Implementation
+
+#### 1. Add `AwsConfig` to `BlueConfig`
+
+File: `crates/blue-core/src/forge/mod.rs`
+
+```rust
+#[derive(Debug, Clone, Serialize, Deserialize)]
+pub struct AwsConfig {
+ pub profile: String,
+}
+
+#[derive(Debug, Clone, Serialize, Deserialize)]
+pub struct BlueConfig {
+ pub forge: Option,
+ pub aws: Option, // NEW
+}
+```
+
+#### 2. Inject at MCP Server Startup
+
+File: `crates/blue-mcp/src/server.rs` in `ensure_state()`
+
+```rust
+// After loading config, inject AWS_PROFILE into process environment
+if let Some(aws) = &state.config.aws {
+ // Only set if not already present (respect shell override)
+ if std::env::var("AWS_PROFILE").is_err() {
+ std::env::set_var("AWS_PROFILE", &aws.profile);
+ tracing::info!(profile = %aws.profile, "AWS profile set for session");
+ } else {
+ let shell_profile = std::env::var("AWS_PROFILE").unwrap();
+ if shell_profile != aws.profile {
+ tracing::info!(
+ config_profile = %aws.profile,
+ shell_profile = %shell_profile,
+ "Shell AWS_PROFILE differs from configβusing shell value"
+ );
+ }
+ }
+}
+```
+
+#### 3. Inject into `.env.isolated`
+
+File: `crates/blue-mcp/src/handlers/env.rs` in `generate_env_isolated()`
+
+```rust
+// Add AWS profile from config if present
+if let Some(aws) = &config.aws {
+ lines.push(format!("AWS_PROFILE={}", aws.profile));
+}
+```
+
+### AWS MCP Server Limitation
+
+The AWS MCP server (`mcp__aws-api__call_aws`) runs as a **separate process** that Blue cannot control. Users must either:
+
+1. Set `AWS_PROFILE` in their shell **before** launching Claude Code desktop app
+2. Use `--profile` flags explicitly in AWS CLI calls
+
+This limitation should be documented in Blue's setup guide.
+
+## Per-Repo Configuration
+
+| Repo | Profile | Config |
+|------|---------|--------|
+| `f-i-a` | `cultivarium` | `aws: { profile: cultivarium }` |
+| `hearth` | `muffinlabs` | `aws: { profile: muffinlabs }` |
+| `aperture` | `muffinlabs` | `aws: { profile: muffinlabs }` |
+
+## What Blue Controls vs. Documents
+
+| Aspect | Blue Controls | Blue Documents |
+|--------|---------------|----------------|
+| Bash `aws` CLI commands | Yes | β |
+| Blue MCP tools touching AWS | Yes | β |
+| `.env.isolated` for worktrees | Yes | β |
+| AWS MCP server (`call_aws`) | No | User sets shell env or `--profile` |
+
+## Test Plan
+
+- [ ] Add `aws` section to test config, verify `BlueConfig` deserializes it
+- [ ] Verify `ensure_state()` sets `AWS_PROFILE` when config present
+- [ ] Verify `ensure_state()` respects existing shell `AWS_PROFILE`
+- [ ] Verify `blue_env_mock` includes `AWS_PROFILE` in `.env.isolated`
+- [ ] Verify startup diagnostic logs active profile
+- [ ] Verify warning when shell profile differs from config
+
+## Alternatives Considered
+
+1. **Environment-specific profiles** (`aws.profiles.{dev,ci,prod}`) β Rejected as over-engineering; CI should set its own profile externally.
+
+2. **Store in `.env.example`** β Rejected; config.yaml is the single source of truth for repo settings.
+
+3. **Enforce profile (override shell)** β Rejected; violates standard AWS CLI precedence and surprises operators.
+
+---
+
+*"Right then. Let's get to it."*
+
+β Blue
diff --git a/.blue/docs/rfcs/0033-round-scoped-dialogue-files.impl.md b/.blue/docs/rfcs/0033-round-scoped-dialogue-files.impl.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..540e17b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.blue/docs/rfcs/0033-round-scoped-dialogue-files.impl.md
@@ -0,0 +1,175 @@
+# RFC 0033: Round Scoped Dialogue Files
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| **Status** | Implemented |
+| **Date** | 2026-01-26 |
+| **Source Spike** | [Read tool token limit on assembled dialogue documents](../spikes/2026-01-26T1843Z-read-tool-token-limit-on-assembled-dialogue-documents.wip.md) |
+| **Alignment Dialogues** | [Round-scoped file architecture](../dialogues/2026-01-26T1850Z-round-scoped-file-architecture-for-alignment-dialogues.dialogue.recorded.md), [Separated document architecture](../dialogues/2026-01-26T1906Z-rfc-0033-separated-document-architecture.dialogue.recorded.md) |
+
+---
+
+## Summary
+
+Judge agent reads assembled dialogue documents that accumulate to 31K+ tokens, exceeding Read tool's 25K limit. This RFC implements a round-scoped file architecture where each round writes to separate files, keeping all reads under limits while minimizing Opus (Judge) usage.
+
+## Problem
+
+The current alignment dialogue implementation accumulates all expert perspectives and synthesis into a single document. With 3-6 experts, 2-4 rounds, and ~400 words per perspective:
+
+- 4 rounds Γ 5 experts Γ 400 words = ~8,000 words
+- Plus synthesis, tensions, metadata = ~10KB per round
+- Total: 40KB+, or ~31K+ tokens
+
+The Read tool's 25K token limit causes dialogue failure when the Judge attempts to read the assembled document.
+
+## Solution
+
+Replace single-document accumulation with round-scoped files. No `perspectives.md` β agents read peer files directly.
+
+```
+/tmp/blue-dialogue/{slug}/
+ββ scoreboard.md β Judge writes + reads (~500 bytes)
+ββ tensions.md β Judge writes, both read (~1-2KB)
+ββ round-0/
+β ββ muffin.md β Agents write, agents read (~2-3KB each)
+β ββ cupcake.md
+β ββ scone.md
+ββ round-0.summary.md β Judge writes, agents read (~1-2KB)
+ββ round-1/
+β ββ {agent}.md
+ββ round-1.summary.md
+```
+
+**Every file has exactly one writer and at least one reader.**
+
+### Cost Optimization
+
+| Actor | Model | Reads | Writes |
+|-------|-------|-------|--------|
+| Judge | Opus | scoreboard + tensions + prior summary | scoreboard, tensions, summary |
+| Agents | Sonnet | tensions + peer files + prior summary | own perspective file |
+
+**Opus reads per round:** ~5KB (scoreboard + tensions + prior summary)
+**Sonnet reads per round:** ~15KB (tensions + peer files + prior summary)
+
+### Key Design Decisions
+
+Resolved through alignment dialogue with 100% expert convergence:
+
+| Decision | Resolution |
+|----------|------------|
+| perspectives.md purpose | **Removed** β write-only artifact with no consumer |
+| Agent coordination | **Peer-to-peer** β agents read each other's raw outputs directly |
+| Token growth | **Sonnet reads acceptable** β 25K is Read tool limit, not cost constraint |
+| Cross-round references | **Global namespace** β T01, T02, T03... never reused across rounds |
+| Final assembly | **Post-dialogue tooling** β concatenate files after completion if needed |
+
+### Token Budget
+
+**Judge (Opus) per-round reads:**
+
+| Read Operation | Size |
+|----------------|------|
+| scoreboard.md | ~500 bytes |
+| tensions.md | ~1-2KB |
+| Prior round summary | ~1-2KB |
+| **Total** | ~3-5KB |
+
+**Agents (Sonnet) per-round reads:**
+
+| Read Operation | Size |
+|----------------|------|
+| tensions.md | ~1-2KB |
+| Peer agent files | ~2-3KB Γ 2-4 peers = ~6-12KB |
+| Prior round summary | ~1-2KB |
+| **Total** | ~10-15KB |
+
+Opus usage minimized. Sonnet reads well under 25K limit.
+
+### Agent Return Constraint
+
+**Subagents MUST return summary information to the Judge** to ensure process continuation:
+
+```
+After writing your perspective to the file, return a brief summary:
+- Key perspective(s) raised
+- Tension(s) identified
+- Concession(s) made
+```
+
+This ensures the Judge receives confirmation that agents completed and has context for synthesis without re-reading files.
+
+### Judge Workflow
+
+**Pre-round (prompt distribution):**
+```rust
+// Read minimal state (~3-5KB Opus)
+let scoreboard = read("scoreboard.md");
+let tensions = read("tensions.md");
+let prior_summary = read(&format!("round-{}.summary.md", round - 1));
+
+// Spawn agents with context
+for agent in experts {
+ spawn_agent(agent, topic, tensions, prior_summary);
+}
+```
+
+**Post-round (synthesis from agent returns):**
+```rust
+// Agents return summaries β no file reads needed
+let summaries = collect_agent_returns();
+let synthesis = judge_synthesize(summaries);
+
+// Write separated artifacts
+update("scoreboard.md", new_scores);
+update("tensions.md", resolved, new_tensions);
+write(&format!("round-{}.summary.md", round), synthesis);
+```
+
+## Implementation
+
+### Changes to `dialogue.rs`
+
+1. **Update `build_judge_protocol`**: Judge reads only scoreboard + tensions + prior summary
+2. **Remove perspectives.md**: No assembled perspectives file
+3. **Add agent return requirement**: Agents must return summary to Judge after writing
+4. **Update agent prompts**: Agents read peer files directly from `round-N/` directories
+
+### File Structure
+
+**scoreboard.md** (~500 bytes):
+- Convergence percentages per agent
+- Round count
+- Overall status
+
+**tensions.md** (~1-2KB):
+- Active tensions with IDs (T01, T02...)
+- Resolved tensions (marked, not removed)
+
+**round-N.summary.md** (~1-2KB):
+- Judge synthesis only
+- Emerging consensus
+- Key decisions this round
+
+**round-N/{agent}.md** (~2-3KB each):
+- Full agent perspective
+- Read by peer agents (Sonnet)
+- Judge receives summary via agent return, not file read
+
+## Test Plan
+
+- [ ] Run 3-round alignment dialogue without token limit errors
+- [ ] Verify scoreboard.md stays under 1KB
+- [ ] Verify tensions.md stays under 3KB
+- [ ] Verify round summaries stay under 3KB each
+- [ ] Verify Judge (Opus) reads under 5KB per round
+- [ ] Verify agents return summary to Judge after writing
+- [ ] Verify agents can read peer files from prior rounds
+- [ ] Verify final dialogue assembly works post-dialogue
+
+---
+
+*"Right then. Let's get to it."*
+
+β Blue
diff --git a/.blue/docs/rfcs/0033-round-scoped-dialogue-files.plan.md b/.blue/docs/rfcs/0033-round-scoped-dialogue-files.plan.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a0b50ac
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.blue/docs/rfcs/0033-round-scoped-dialogue-files.plan.md
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+# Plan: round-scoped-dialogue-files
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| **RFC** | round-scoped-dialogue-files |
+| **Status** | in-progress |
+| **Updated** | 2026-01-26T19:39:01.401621+00:00 |
+
+## Tasks
+
+- [ ] Update build_judge_protocol to read only scoreboard + tensions + prior summary
+- [ ] Remove perspectives.md from file structure and judge writes
+- [ ] Add agent return requirement to agent prompt template
+- [ ] Update agent prompts to read peer files from round-N/ directories
+- [ ] Update judge synthesis to use agent returns instead of file reads
+- [ ] Test 3-round alignment dialogue without token errors
diff --git a/.blue/docs/rfcs/0034-comprehensive-config-architecture.accepted.md b/.blue/docs/rfcs/0034-comprehensive-config-architecture.accepted.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..91befb2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.blue/docs/rfcs/0034-comprehensive-config-architecture.accepted.md
@@ -0,0 +1,359 @@
+# RFC 0034: Comprehensive Config Architecture
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| **Status** | Accepted |
+| **Date** | 2026-01-26 |
+| **Supersedes** | RFC 0032 |
+| **Dialogue** | [blue-config-architecture.dialogue.recorded.md](../dialogues/2026-01-26T1829Z-blue-config-architecture.dialogue.recorded.md) |
+
+---
+
+## Summary
+
+This RFC defines a comprehensive `.blue/config.yaml` architecture that serves as the single source of truth for repo-level Blue configuration. It addresses four requirements: (1) worktree initialization, (2) release constraints, (3) AWS profile per-repo, and (4) forge configurationβall unified under a versioned schema with clear separation between configuration and runtime state.
+
+## Problem
+
+Blue currently lacks a cohesive configuration architecture:
+
+1. **No schema versioning** β Config changes can break existing tooling silently
+2. **Worktree initialization undefined** β No spec for what happens when creating isolated environments
+3. **Release constraints scattered** β Branch policies hardcoded in Rust, not configurable per-repo
+4. **State/config conflation** β Unclear what belongs in config vs runtime state
+
+RFC 0032 proposed adding AWS profile configuration but didn't address these broader architectural concerns.
+
+## Design
+
+### Core Principles
+
+1. **Config declares intent** β Branch roles, dependencies, requirements
+2. **Blue validates** β Pre-flight checks, warnings, guidance
+3. **Forge enforces** β Branch protection, required reviews, CI gates
+4. **State separation** β config.yaml (pure declarations), blue.db (runtime state)
+5. **Single source** β One versioned file with semantic sections
+
+### Schema (Version 1)
+
+```yaml
+version: 1
+
+forge:
+ type: github # github | forgejo | gitlab | bitbucket
+ host: github.com # or self-hosted (e.g., git.example.com)
+ owner: superviber
+ repo: blue
+
+aws:
+ profile: cultivarium # AWS profile from ~/.aws/config
+
+release:
+ develop_branch: develop # where active development happens
+ main_branch: main # protected release branch
+
+worktree:
+ env:
+ # Additional environment variables injected into .env.isolated
+ # LOG_LEVEL: debug
+ # RUST_BACKTRACE: 1
+```
+
+### Section Definitions
+
+#### `version` (required)
+
+Schema version for migration support. Blue validates this field and rejects unknown versions with actionable error messages.
+
+```yaml
+version: 1
+```
+
+#### `forge` (required)
+
+Forge connection details. Blue uses these for PR creation, issue tracking, and API operations.
+
+```yaml
+forge:
+ type: github # github | forgejo | gitlab | bitbucket
+ host: github.com # API host (self-hosted URLs supported)
+ owner: superviber # Repository owner/organization
+ repo: blue # Repository name
+```
+
+**Forgejo/Gitea Note**: Forgejo uses a GitHub-compatible API for most operations. Set `type: forgejo` and `host` to your instance URL (e.g., `git.example.com`).
+
+#### `aws` (optional)
+
+AWS profile configuration. Inherits RFC 0032's precedence rules.
+
+```yaml
+aws:
+ profile: cultivarium # Profile name from ~/.aws/config
+```
+
+**Precedence**: Shell `AWS_PROFILE` > config > Blue defaults
+
+#### `release` (optional)
+
+Branch topology for release workflows. Blue **observes** these for intelligent operations; **Forge enforces** protection rules.
+
+```yaml
+release:
+ develop_branch: develop # Default PR target, RFC work branch
+ main_branch: main # Release target, protected branch
+```
+
+**Blue's role**: Validate PR targets, warn on policy violations, generate correct release notes.
+**Forge's role**: Enforce branch protection, required reviews, CI gates.
+
+#### `worktree` (optional)
+
+Worktree initialization configuration. Defines environment variables injected into `.env.isolated` during `blue_env_mock`.
+
+```yaml
+worktree:
+ env:
+ AWS_PROFILE: "${aws.profile}" # Reference other config values
+ LOG_LEVEL: debug
+ RUST_BACKTRACE: 1
+```
+
+### Worktree Initialization
+
+"Worktree initialization" means: **the operations Blue performs when creating an isolated work environment**.
+
+1. **Read config** β Load `.blue/config.yaml`
+2. **Generate `.env.isolated`** β Write environment variables from `aws.profile` and `worktree.env`
+3. **Validate state** β Check branches exist, forge is reachable (warn, don't block)
+
+This happens in `blue_env_mock` and `ensure_state()`.
+
+### Observe vs Enforce
+
+Blue operates in the **knowledge layer**βit knows branch policies exist, validates conformance, warns on deviations. The forge operates in the **enforcement layer**βit blocks merges, requires reviews, enforces protection rules.
+
+| Aspect | Blue's Role | Forge's Role |
+|--------|-------------|--------------|
+| Branch topology | Observes, validates | Enforces protection |
+| PR targets | Suggests correct branch | Rejects invalid targets |
+| Direct commits to main | Warns user | Blocks if protected |
+| Release workflow | Generates docs from correct branch | Enforces CI gates |
+
+**Why not enforce in Blue?**
+- Blue cannot prevent `git push --force main`βonly Forge can
+- Enforcement creates brittle duplication of forge logic
+- Sync problems between local config and remote reality
+- False sense of security
+
+### State Separation
+
+| Category | Location | Example |
+|----------|----------|---------|
+| **Declarations** | `.blue/config.yaml` | AWS profile, branch names |
+| **Runtime state** | `blue.db` | Active RFC, session data |
+| **Generated artifacts** | `.env.isolated` | Environment for worktree |
+| **Ephemeral state** | `.blue/state/` | Lock files, cache |
+
+Config is **read-only after load**. Rust's ownership model enforces thisβpass `&BlueConfig` references, never `&mut`.
+
+### Rust Implementation
+
+#### 1. Config Struct
+
+File: `crates/blue-core/src/config.rs`
+
+```rust
+use serde::{Deserialize, Serialize};
+
+#[derive(Debug, Clone, Serialize, Deserialize)]
+pub struct BlueConfig {
+ pub version: u32,
+ pub forge: ForgeConfig,
+ #[serde(default)]
+ pub aws: Option,
+ #[serde(default)]
+ pub release: Option,
+ #[serde(default)]
+ pub worktree: Option,
+}
+
+#[derive(Debug, Clone, Serialize, Deserialize)]
+pub struct ForgeConfig {
+ #[serde(rename = "type")]
+ pub forge_type: String,
+ pub host: String,
+ pub owner: String,
+ pub repo: String,
+}
+
+#[derive(Debug, Clone, Serialize, Deserialize)]
+pub struct AwsConfig {
+ pub profile: String,
+}
+
+#[derive(Debug, Clone, Serialize, Deserialize)]
+pub struct ReleaseConfig {
+ #[serde(default = "default_develop")]
+ pub develop_branch: String,
+ #[serde(default = "default_main")]
+ pub main_branch: String,
+}
+
+fn default_develop() -> String { "develop".to_string() }
+fn default_main() -> String { "main".to_string() }
+
+#[derive(Debug, Clone, Serialize, Deserialize)]
+pub struct WorktreeConfig {
+ #[serde(default)]
+ pub env: std::collections::HashMap,
+}
+```
+
+#### 2. Schema Validation
+
+File: `crates/blue-core/src/config.rs`
+
+```rust
+impl BlueConfig {
+ pub fn validate(&self) -> Result<(), ConfigError> {
+ // Version check
+ if self.version != 1 {
+ return Err(ConfigError::UnsupportedVersion {
+ found: self.version,
+ supported: vec![1],
+ });
+ }
+
+ // Forge validation
+ if !["github", "forgejo", "gitlab", "bitbucket"].contains(&self.forge.forge_type.as_str()) {
+ return Err(ConfigError::InvalidForgeType(self.forge.forge_type.clone()));
+ }
+
+ Ok(())
+ }
+}
+```
+
+#### 3. Environment Injection
+
+File: `crates/blue-mcp/src/server.rs` in `ensure_state()`
+
+```rust
+// Inject AWS_PROFILE from config (RFC 0032 precedence: shell wins)
+if let Some(aws) = &state.config.aws {
+ if std::env::var("AWS_PROFILE").is_err() {
+ std::env::set_var("AWS_PROFILE", &aws.profile);
+ tracing::info!(profile = %aws.profile, "AWS profile set from config");
+ }
+}
+```
+
+#### 4. Worktree Environment Generation
+
+File: `crates/blue-mcp/src/handlers/env.rs`
+
+```rust
+pub fn generate_env_isolated(config: &BlueConfig) -> Vec {
+ let mut lines = vec![
+ "# Generated by Blue - do not edit manually".to_string(),
+ format!("# Source: .blue/config.yaml (version {})", config.version),
+ ];
+
+ // AWS profile
+ if let Some(aws) = &config.aws {
+ lines.push(format!("AWS_PROFILE={}", aws.profile));
+ }
+
+ // Custom worktree env vars
+ if let Some(worktree) = &config.worktree {
+ for (key, value) in &worktree.env {
+ lines.push(format!("{}={}", key, value));
+ }
+ }
+
+ lines
+}
+```
+
+### Migration Path
+
+#### From RFC 0032 (proposed but not implemented)
+
+No migration neededβRFC 0032 was never implemented.
+
+#### From existing config.yaml
+
+Existing configs without `version` field:
+
+```yaml
+# Before (version-less)
+forge:
+ type: github
+ host: github.com
+ owner: superviber
+ repo: blue
+```
+
+Blue CLI provides migration command:
+
+```bash
+blue config migrate # Adds version: 1, preserves existing fields
+blue config validate # Checks config-to-reality alignment
+```
+
+### Validation Timing
+
+Blue validates config at multiple points:
+
+| Timing | Validation | Action |
+|--------|------------|--------|
+| `ensure_state()` | Schema version, required fields | Error if invalid |
+| `blue_env_mock` | AWS profile exists | Warn if missing |
+| `blue_worktree_create` | Branches exist | Warn if missing |
+| `blue_pr_create` | PR target matches policy | Warn if mismatch |
+
+Warnings are surfaced; operations proceed. Enforcement is Forge's responsibility.
+
+## Test Plan
+
+- [ ] Schema v1 loads and validates correctly
+- [ ] Unknown version rejected with actionable error
+- [ ] `forge` section required, others optional
+- [ ] AWS profile injected into environment (shell precedence honored)
+- [ ] Release branch defaults applied when section missing
+- [ ] `.env.isolated` generated with all worktree.env vars
+- [ ] Config validation warns on missing AWS profile
+- [ ] PR creation warns when target mismatches release.develop_branch
+- [ ] `blue config migrate` adds version to legacy configs
+- [ ] `blue config validate` checks forge reachability
+
+## Alternatives Considered
+
+### 1. Layered config files (`.blue/config.yaml` + `.blue/policies.yaml`)
+
+**Rejected**: Adds operational complexity. Where do I look when things break? Single file with semantic sections provides the same separation without filesystem fragmentation.
+
+### 2. Blue enforces branch policies
+
+**Rejected**: Blue cannot prevent `git push --force main`. Attempting enforcement creates false security and brittle duplication of forge logic. Blue's role is validation and guidance; Forge owns enforcement.
+
+### 3. Config contains runtime state
+
+**Rejected**: Violates config-as-contract semantics. Git doesn't put "is working tree clean?" in `.git/config`. Config declares identity; state tracks operations.
+
+### 4. Per-worktree config overrides
+
+**Deferred**: Edge case raised in dialogue. Could add `.blue/worktrees/{name}/config.yaml` layering later if real need emerges. YAGNI for now.
+
+## References
+
+- [Alignment Dialogue: blue-config-architecture](../dialogues/2026-01-26T1829Z-blue-config-architecture.dialogue.recorded.md) β 12-expert deliberation, 100% convergence
+- RFC 0032 (superseded) β Original AWS profile proposal
+- `.blue/context.manifest.yaml` β Precedent for versioned YAML schemas in Blue
+
+---
+
+*"Configuration declares reality; validation observes consistency; tooling enforces policy at appropriate boundaries."*
+
+β Blue
diff --git a/.blue/docs/rfcs/0036-expert-output-discipline.impl.md b/.blue/docs/rfcs/0036-expert-output-discipline.impl.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0d168ed
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.blue/docs/rfcs/0036-expert-output-discipline.impl.md
@@ -0,0 +1,209 @@
+# RFC 0036: Expert Output Discipline
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| **Status** | Implemented |
+| **Date** | 2026-01-26 |
+| **Source Spike** | [Expert agent output too long](../spikes/2026-01-26T2230Z-expert-agent-output-too-long.wip.md) |
+| **Depends On** | RFC 0033 (round-scoped dialogue files) |
+
+---
+
+## Summary
+
+Alignment-expert agents routinely exceed the stated 400-word output limit by 2-5x. The current prompt relies on a word-count instruction buried mid-prompt and contradicted by a "contribute MORE" competition framing. This RFC replaces the word-count honour system with structural constraints, repositioned instructions, and a fixed return summary format.
+
+## Problem
+
+Observed in a 12-expert dialogue: the Judge resorted to grep-style marker extraction from JSONL task output because agent return summaries were too verbose for inline synthesis. Root causes (from spike):
+
+1. **Conflicting incentives** β `dialogue.rs:959` says "contribute MORE to the final ALIGNMENT" while line 970 says "MAXIMUM 400 words." The competitive framing wins.
+2. **Lost in the middle** β the output limit occupies the lowest-attention position in the prompt, between high-attention role setup and high-attention write/return instructions.
+3. **Word counts don't work** β LLMs cannot reliably self-regulate output length from a stated word count. Structural constraints (section headers, sentence caps) are far more effective.
+4. **Vague return summary** β "brief summary" has no defined format. 12 agents returning 200-word "brief" summaries produce 2400 words of Judge input.
+5. **Generous turn budget** β `max_turns: 10` leaves 5-8 unused turns that agents may fill with iteration.
+
+**Token budget impact:** 12 agents Γ 1000+ actual words = 12K+ words per round vs. the designed 4.8K (12 Γ 400). Judge synthesis degrades because it can't absorb all perspectives in context.
+
+## Solution
+
+Three changes to the agent prompt template in `dialogue.rs:949-992`, plus a matching update to `.claude/agents/alignment-expert.md`.
+
+### Change 1: Replace competition framing with quality framing
+
+**Before** (`dialogue.rs:959-960`):
+```
+You are in friendly competition: who can contribute MORE to the final ALIGNMENT?
+But you ALL win when the result is aligned. There are no losers here.
+```
+
+**After:**
+```
+Your contribution is scored on PRECISION, not volume.
+One sharp insight beats ten paragraphs. You ALL win when the result is aligned.
+```
+
+Rationale: Removes the "MORE" incentive. Explicitly rewards precision over volume.
+
+### Change 2: Replace word-count limit with structural template
+
+**Before** (`dialogue.rs:962-976`):
+```
+FORMAT β use these markers:
+- [PERSPECTIVE Pnn: brief label] β new viewpoint you are surfacing
+- [TENSION Tn: brief description] β unresolved issue needing attention
+- [REFINEMENT: description] β improving a prior proposal
+- [CONCESSION: description] β acknowledging another was right
+- [RESOLVED Tn] β addressing a prior tension
+
+OUTPUT LIMIT β THIS IS MANDATORY:
+- MAXIMUM 400 words total per response
+- One or two [PERSPECTIVE] markers maximum
+- One [TENSION] marker maximum
+- If the topic needs more depth, save it for the next round
+- Aim for under 2000 characters total
+- DO NOT write essays, literature reviews, or exhaustive analyses
+- Be pointed and specific, not comprehensive
+```
+
+**After:**
+```
+YOUR RESPONSE MUST USE THIS EXACT STRUCTURE:
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: brief label]
+Your strongest new viewpoint. Two to four sentences maximum. No preamble.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: brief label] β optional, only if genuinely distinct
+One to two sentences maximum.
+
+[TENSION T01: brief description] β optional
+One sentence identifying the unresolved issue.
+
+[REFINEMENT: description] or [CONCESSION: description] or [RESOLVED Tn] β optional
+One sentence each. Use only when engaging with prior round content.
+
+---
+Nothing else. No introduction. No conclusion. No elaboration beyond the sections above.
+Save depth for the next round.
+```
+
+Rationale: LLMs follow structural templates far more reliably than word counts. The template makes it physically difficult to be verbose β each section has a sentence cap, not a word cap. The dashed rule at the end provides a clear "stop writing" signal.
+
+### Change 3: Fix return summary to exact format
+
+**Before** (`dialogue.rs:984-989`):
+```
+RETURN SUMMARY β THIS IS MANDATORY:
+After writing the file, return a brief summary to the Judge:
+- Key perspective(s) raised (P01, P02...)
+- Tension(s) identified (T01, T02...)
+- Concession(s) made
+This ensures the Judge can synthesize without re-reading your full file.
+```
+
+**After:**
+```
+RETURN SUMMARY β THIS IS MANDATORY:
+After writing the file, return ONLY this to the Judge:
+
+Perspectives: P01 [label], P02 [label]
+Tensions: T01 [label]
+Moves: [CONCESSION|REFINEMENT|RESOLVED] or none
+Claim: [your single strongest claim in one sentence]
+
+Four lines. No other text. No explanation. No elaboration.
+```
+
+Rationale: Fixed 4-line format eliminates ambiguity. With 12 agents, this produces ~48 lines of structured summary for the Judge β scannable in seconds.
+
+### Change 4: Reduce `max_turns`
+
+In the Judge protocol (`dialogue.rs:1022`):
+
+**Before:**
+```
+- max_turns: 10
+```
+
+**After:**
+```
+- max_turns: 5
+```
+
+Rationale: Round 0 needs 2 turns (write file + return). Round 1+ needs 4-5 turns (read 2-3 context files + write + return). 5 turns covers all operations with minimal slack. Fewer turns = less opportunity to iterate and inflate.
+
+## Changes to `.claude/agents/alignment-expert.md`
+
+The agent config file must match the new prompt structure:
+
+```markdown
+---
+name: alignment-expert
+description: Expert agent for alignment dialogues. Produces focused perspectives with inline markers. Use when orchestrating multi-expert alignment dialogues via blue_dialogue_create.
+tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Write
+model: sonnet
+---
+
+You are an expert participant in an ALIGNMENT-seeking dialogue.
+
+Your role:
+- SURFACE perspectives others may have missed
+- DEFEND valuable ideas with evidence, not ego
+- CHALLENGE assumptions with curiosity, not destruction
+- INTEGRATE perspectives that resonate
+- CONCEDE gracefully when others see something you missed
+
+Your contribution is scored on PRECISION, not volume.
+One sharp insight beats ten paragraphs.
+
+YOUR RESPONSE MUST USE THIS EXACT STRUCTURE:
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: brief label]
+Two to four sentences. No preamble.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: brief label] β optional
+One to two sentences.
+
+[TENSION T01: brief description] β optional
+One sentence.
+
+[REFINEMENT: description] or [CONCESSION: description] or [RESOLVED Tn] β optional
+One sentence each.
+
+---
+Nothing else. No introduction. No conclusion.
+```
+
+## Changes to `skills/alignment-play/SKILL.md`
+
+Update the expert prompt template example (`SKILL.md:~120-148`) to match the new structure. Replace the "contribute MORE" framing and "Respond in 2-4 paragraphs" instruction with the structural template.
+
+## What Does NOT Change
+
+- **Marker vocabulary** β `[PERSPECTIVE Pnn:]`, `[TENSION Tn:]`, `[REFINEMENT:]`, `[CONCESSION:]`, `[RESOLVED Tn]` are unchanged
+- **File architecture** β RFC 0033 round-scoped files unchanged
+- **Scoring** β ALIGNMENT = Wisdom + Consistency + Truth + Relationships, unbounded
+- **Agent naming** β pastry names, π§ emoji, tier distribution all unchanged
+- **Judge protocol** β round workflow, convergence criteria, artifact writes all unchanged
+- **Tool access** β Read, Grep, Glob, Write unchanged
+
+## Risks
+
+**Over-constraining could reduce insight quality.** The 2-4 sentence cap per perspective is tight. If an agent has a genuinely complex insight that requires more explanation, the template forces truncation. Mitigation: agents can split complex ideas across P01 and P02, or save depth for the next round (which is already the intended design).
+
+**Structural template may be too rigid for later rounds.** In Round 2+, agents may need more REFINEMENT/CONCESSION/RESOLVED markers than the template allows. Mitigation: the template marks these as "optional, one sentence each" without capping the count β an agent can include multiple one-sentence refinements.
+
+## Test Plan
+
+- [ ] Run a 3-expert, 2-round dialogue and verify each agent output file is under 300 words
+- [ ] Verify return summaries are exactly 4 lines (Perspectives/Tensions/Moves/Claim)
+- [ ] Verify Judge can synthesize all agent returns without grep-based marker extraction
+- [ ] Run a 12-expert dialogue and verify Judge successfully scores all agents from return summaries alone
+- [ ] Verify agents in Round 1+ can still engage with prior context within the structural template
+- [ ] Verify no agent exceeds 5 turns
+
+---
+
+*"Right then. Let's get to it."*
+
+β Blue
diff --git a/.blue/docs/rfcs/0037-single-source-protocol-authority.draft.md b/.blue/docs/rfcs/0037-single-source-protocol-authority.draft.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3342402
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.blue/docs/rfcs/0037-single-source-protocol-authority.draft.md
@@ -0,0 +1,97 @@
+# RFC 0037: Single-Source Protocol Authority
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| **Status** | Draft |
+| **Date** | 2026-01-26 |
+| **Dialogue** | [Remove SKILL.md / build_judge_protocol Redundancy](/tmp/blue-dialogue/remove-skill-protocol-redundancy/dialogue.md) |
+| **Depends On** | RFC 0033 (round-scoped dialogue files), RFC 0036 (expert output discipline) |
+
+---
+
+## Summary
+
+The alignment dialogue system had two sources of truth describing the same workflow: `SKILL.md` (315-line skill file) and `build_judge_protocol()` in `dialogue.rs` (Rust function generating runtime JSON). This RFC strips SKILL.md to a thin entry point (73 lines) and establishes `build_judge_protocol()` as the sole authority for all runtime behavior.
+
+## Problem
+
+`SKILL.md` and `build_judge_protocol()` both contained:
+- Round workflow steps (7-step process)
+- Agent prompt template structure
+- File architecture (scoreboard.md, tensions.md, round-N.summary.md)
+- Artifact writing instructions
+- Context instructions for round 1+
+- Scoring dimensions and convergence criteria
+
+When one changed, the other had to change. They had already drifted β SKILL.md lacked artifact writing instructions while the protocol included them, causing the Judge to skip writing scoreboard.md, tensions.md, and round-N.summary.md.
+
+**Root cause**: SKILL.md tried to be both a discovery document and a runtime specification.
+
+## Analysis (from 5-Expert Alignment Dialogue)
+
+The dialogue explored three approaches and reached 5/5 convergence on Approach C (validated redundancy). However, post-dialogue review overruled that conclusion: **we don't need to build for human operators**. SKILL.md is not read by humans browsing documentation β it's loaded by the skill system at invocation time, immediately before `blue_dialogue_create` returns the Judge Protocol.
+
+This makes Approach A (strip SKILL.md) correct. The dialogue's concern about "orphaning human operators" was based on a false premise.
+
+## Solution
+
+### Strip SKILL.md to Entry Point
+
+SKILL.md retains only:
+- **Frontmatter** β name, description (required by skill system)
+- **Usage** β invocation syntax and parameters
+- **How It Works** β 3-line summary: call `blue_dialogue_create`, get protocol, follow it
+- **Expert Selection** β pastry names and tier distribution
+- **Blue MCP Tools** β tool names and one-line descriptions
+- **Key Rules** β 3 rules (don't participate, spawn parallel, follow protocol)
+- **The Spirit of the Dialogue** β philosophy (unique to SKILL.md, not in protocol)
+
+SKILL.md does NOT contain:
+- Round workflow steps
+- Agent prompt template (or any description of it)
+- File architecture diagram
+- Artifact writing instructions
+- Context instructions for round 1+
+- Scoring dimensions or formulas
+- Convergence criteria
+- `.dialogue.md` format specification
+
+All of the above live exclusively in `build_judge_protocol()`.
+
+### Authority Hierarchy
+
+| Source | Role | Contains |
+|--------|------|----------|
+| `build_judge_protocol()` | Runtime protocol | Everything: workflow, prompts, file paths, scoring, convergence |
+| `SKILL.md` | Thin entry point | Invocation syntax, parameters, "call blue_dialogue_create and follow the protocol" |
+
+There is no overlap to validate. No sync test needed.
+
+## What Changed
+
+- **SKILL.md**: 315 lines β 73 lines. Removed all workflow, scoring, file architecture, template details, and `.dialogue.md` format specification.
+- **No code changes**: `build_judge_protocol()` is unchanged. It was already correct.
+- **No new tests**: No validation test needed β there's nothing to validate when there's no duplication.
+
+## What Does NOT Change
+
+- **Runtime behavior** β `build_judge_protocol()` output is unchanged
+- **File architecture** β RFC 0033 round-scoped files unchanged
+- **Agent prompt template** β RFC 0036 structural template unchanged
+- **Scoring** β ALIGNMENT = Wisdom + Consistency + Truth + Relationships, unbounded
+
+## Risks
+
+**SKILL.md may be too thin for an LLM that hasn't seen the protocol yet.** The Judge reads SKILL.md before calling `blue_dialogue_create`. If SKILL.md provides zero context about what to expect, the Judge may not know to call `blue_dialogue_create` in the first place. **Mitigation**: SKILL.md retains the "How It Works" section with the 3-step flow (create β receive protocol β follow it), which is sufficient orientation.
+
+## Test Plan
+
+- [ ] Run alignment dialogue with stripped SKILL.md β verify Judge follows protocol correctly
+- [ ] Verify artifact files (scoreboard.md, tensions.md, round-N.summary.md) still written
+- [ ] Run `cargo test` β existing tests pass (protocol unchanged)
+
+---
+
+*"Right then. Let's get to it."*
+
+β Blue
diff --git a/.blue/docs/rfcs/0038-sdlc-workflow-discipline.draft.md b/.blue/docs/rfcs/0038-sdlc-workflow-discipline.draft.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..bde9901
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.blue/docs/rfcs/0038-sdlc-workflow-discipline.draft.md
@@ -0,0 +1,300 @@
+# RFC 0038: SDLC Workflow Discipline
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| **Status** | Draft |
+| **Date** | 2026-01-27 |
+| **Source Spike** | 2026-01-26T1500Z-formalize-sdlc-workflow-and-release-process |
+| **Source Dialogue** | 2026-01-27T0058Z-sdlc-workflow-discipline-rfc |
+| **ADRs** | 0009 (Courage), 0011 (Freedom Through Constraint) |
+
+---
+
+## Summary
+
+Enforce SDLC workflow discipline through mechanical gates rather than documented aspirations. PreToolUse hooks block code edits outside worktrees, spike auto-close fires when source RFCs ship, and ADR suggestions surface at implementation boundaries. Deploy all gates simultaneously β they target different workflow moments and don't compound friction.
+
+## Problem
+
+Four workflow gaps persist despite existing tooling:
+
+1. **Work outside worktrees**: `blue_worktree_create` exists but enforcement is soft (warning only). Code gets committed directly to `develop`.
+2. **Missing PRs**: `blue_pr_create` exists but nothing requires its use. Work merges without review.
+3. **Stale spikes**: Spikes that produce RFCs stay `.wip.md` forever. No backlink from "RFC implemented" to "close source spike."
+4. **Absent ADRs**: `blue_adr_relevant` provides AI-powered semantic matching but is never invoked during any workflow step. Architectural decisions go undocumented.
+
+### Root Cause (Dialogue Consensus β 6/6)
+
+Worktree isolation is the root problem. Missing PRs, stale spikes, and absent ADRs are symptoms. Documented process lives in markdown while actual process lives in tool defaults. Soft warnings get ignored. Mechanical enforcement is required.
+
+## Goals
+
+1. Code changes require active worktrees β mechanically enforced, not aspirational
+2. Spikes auto-close when their source RFCs reach `implemented`
+3. ADR suggestions surface at the right moment without blocking workflow
+4. PRs become natural consequences of worktree discipline, not separate gates
+5. Connected RFCs across multiple repos can be tracked and coordinated
+
+## Non-Goals
+
+- Release process formalization (separate RFC per existing spike Phase 2)
+- Doc-writer agent formalization (separate RFC per spike Phase 3)
+- CI/CD pipeline integration
+- Branch protection rules at forge level
+- Auto-transition of RFC status across repo boundaries (notification only)
+
+## Proposal
+
+### 1. PreToolUse Hooks for Worktree Enforcement
+
+A `PreToolUse` hook intercepts `Write`, `Edit`, and `Bash` (file-writing commands) before execution. The hook calls the compiled `blue guard` command to verify:
+
+1. Is the target file inside a Blue worktree?
+2. Does the worktree correspond to an RFC in `accepted` or `in-progress` status?
+3. Is the file within the worktree's directory tree?
+
+If any check fails and the file is NOT on the allowlist, the hook **blocks the tool call**.
+
+```json
+{
+ "hooks": {
+ "PreToolUse": [
+ {
+ "matcher": "Write|Edit",
+ "hooks": [
+ {
+ "type": "command",
+ "command": "blue guard --tool=$TOOL_NAME --path=$INPUT_FILE_PATH"
+ }
+ ]
+ }
+ ]
+ }
+}
+```
+
+#### Allowlist (No Worktree Required)
+
+| Path Pattern | Rationale |
+|---|---|
+| `.blue/docs/**` | Spikes, RFCs, ADRs, dialogues are pre-implementation |
+| `.claude/**` | Agent definitions are configuration |
+| `*.md` (repo root) | README, CHANGELOG, CONTRIBUTING |
+| `/tmp/blue-dialogue/**` | Dialogue agent output files |
+| `.gitignore` | Repository configuration |
+
+Everything else β `crates/**`, `src/**`, `tests/**`, `Cargo.toml`, `Cargo.lock` β requires an active worktree.
+
+#### Emergency Bypass
+
+Set `BLUE_BYPASS_WORKTREE=1` for legitimate exceptions (hotfixes, cross-branch investigations). All bypasses are logged to an audit trail file at `.blue/audit/guard-bypass.log` with timestamp, file path, and reason.
+
+### 2. Spike Auto-Close on RFC Implementation
+
+#### Schema Changes
+
+RFC frontmatter gains optional field:
+```markdown
+| **Source Spike** | 2026-01-26T1500Z-formalize-sdlc-workflow |
+```
+
+Spike frontmatter gains optional field:
+```markdown
+| **Produces RFCs** | 0038 |
+```
+
+For multi-RFC spikes:
+```markdown
+| **Produces RFCs** | 0038, 0039, 0040 |
+```
+
+#### Mechanism
+
+When `blue_rfc_update_status` transitions an RFC to `implemented`:
+
+1. Parse `Source Spike` from RFC frontmatter
+2. If present, locate the spike file
+3. If spike has `Produces RFCs` listing multiple RFCs, check if ALL have reached `implemented` or `rejected`
+4. If all resolved: rename spike from `.wip.md` to `.done.md`, append resolution note with RFC IDs and date
+5. If not all resolved: emit conversational hint noting partial completion
+
+Manual `.done.md` transition remains available for scope-changed investigations.
+
+### 3. ADR Suggestion at Implementation Boundary
+
+When `blue_rfc_update_status` transitions an RFC to `in-progress` (the implementation boundary):
+
+1. Call `blue_adr_relevant` with the RFC title and problem statement as context
+2. If relevant ADRs found with confidence > 0.7, emit conversational hint:
+ ```
+ "This RFC may relate to ADRs: 0009 (Courage), 0011 (Freedom Through Constraint).
+ Consider citing them or documenting new architectural decisions."
+ ```
+3. If RFC title contains keywords `breaking`, `redesign`, `architectural`, `migration`: additionally hint "This appears to be an architectural decision β consider creating an ADR."
+
+This is a **suggestion only**. It does not block any workflow step. Per RFC 0004: "Guide, don't block."
+
+### 4. PRs as Isolation Boundaries
+
+Worktree enforcement makes branch-based development mandatory. PRs become the natural merge path:
+
+1. `blue_worktree_create` creates a feature branch from `develop`
+2. Code changes happen in the worktree (enforced by PreToolUse hooks)
+3. When work is complete, `blue_pr_create` creates a PR from the feature branch to `develop`
+4. PR serves as isolation verification β confirming work was done in the correct context
+5. Zero-reviewer merges are acceptable for AI-only development (PRs verify isolation, not code review)
+6. All PRs squash-merge to `develop` (no override)
+
+### 5. Agent Incentive Alignment
+
+PreToolUse hooks make `blue_worktree_create` the ONLY path to code modification. AI agents optimize for task completion; when task completion becomes impossible without a worktree, the agent optimizes FOR worktree creation. This mechanically aligns agent behavior with process compliance without requiring the agent to "understand" or "remember" the rules.
+
+This embodies ADR 0011 (Freedom Through Constraint): the constraint of worktree-only editing enables the freedom of reliable, isolated, reviewable changes.
+
+### 6. Deployment Strategy: All-at-Once
+
+Deploy all four mechanisms simultaneously. Rationale (4-2 dialogue supermajority):
+
+- PreToolUse hooks operate at **write-time**
+- Spike auto-close operates at **status-change time**
+- ADR suggestions operate at **implementation-boundary time**
+- PRs operate at **merge-time**
+
+These are orthogonal workflow moments. Simultaneous deployment distributes friction across independent decision points rather than compounding it. A single behavioral boundary event creates stronger habit formation than gradual tightening.
+
+The comprehensive allowlist ensures documentation workflows remain frictionless while code workflows gain mechanical discipline.
+
+### 7. Realm Coordination for Cross-Repo RFCs
+
+When architectural changes span multiple repositories (a "realm"), connected RFCs need tracking and coordination. The design follows a **federated storage + runtime discovery** model (5-1 dialogue supermajority).
+
+#### Metadata Format
+
+Each repo has `.blue/realm.toml` declaring its outbound dependencies:
+
+```toml
+# Realm membership (optional, for discovery)
+[realm]
+name = "blue-ecosystem"
+
+# This repo's outbound RFC dependencies
+[rfc.0038]
+depends_on = ["blue-web:0015", "blue-cli:0008"]
+
+[rfc.0040]
+depends_on = ["blue-web:0018"]
+```
+
+RFC frontmatter gains optional field:
+```markdown
+| **Realm Dependencies** | blue-web:0015, blue-cli:0008 |
+```
+
+#### Qualified RFC Identifiers
+
+Cross-repo references use the format `repo:rfc-number`:
+- `blue:0038` β RFC 0038 in the `blue` repository
+- `blue-web:0015` β RFC 0015 in the `blue-web` repository
+
+This extends the spike `Produces RFCs` field:
+```markdown
+| **Produces RFCs** | blue:0038, blue-web:0015, blue-cli:0008 |
+```
+
+#### Validation Tool
+
+`blue_rfc_validate_realm [--strict]`:
+
+1. Reads local `.blue/realm.toml`
+2. For each dependency, fetches status from target repo:
+ - Git clone to `/tmp/blue-realm-cache//` (cached, refreshed on query)
+ - Or GitHub API for lighter queries
+3. Reports status matrix of all connected RFCs
+4. Default: **warn** on unresolved dependencies (consuming repo accepts risk)
+5. `--strict` or config `strict_realm_validation = true`: **fail** on unresolved
+
+#### Cross-Repo Spike Auto-Close
+
+When spike `Produces RFCs` contains qualified identifiers spanning repos:
+
+1. Parse all qualified RFC IDs from spike frontmatter
+2. For each remote repo, query RFC status via cached clone or API
+3. Auto-close (`.wip.md` β `.done.md`) only when **ALL** listed RFCs reach `implemented` or `rejected`
+4. If partial: emit hint noting which remote RFCs are pending
+
+#### Governance Model
+
+**Initiating repo authority** (5-1 dialogue supermajority):
+- The repo that initiates a cross-repo dependency owns that declaration
+- Each repo declares its own `depends_on` entries β no centralized registry
+- No repo can block another repo's workflow
+- Notification only, not auto-transition: when an RFC transitions, connected repos are notified but not forced to change
+
+This follows the Kubernetes/Terraform pattern: components declare dependencies, tooling validates at runtime, deployments don't block each other.
+
+## Implementation Plan
+
+### Phase 1: Single-Repo Workflow Discipline
+1. Add `blue guard` command to compiled binary with worktree detection, RFC status validation, path-in-worktree verification, and allowlist
+2. Install PreToolUse hook in `.claude/settings.json` (project level) and `~/.claude/settings.json` (user level for cross-repo)
+3. Add `Source Spike` field to RFC template and `Produces RFCs` field to spike template
+4. Extend `blue_rfc_update_status` handler: on `implemented` transition, check for linked spike and auto-close
+5. Extend `blue_rfc_update_status` handler: on `in-progress` transition, call `blue_adr_relevant` and emit hint
+6. Remove `squash` parameter from `blue_pr_merge` β always squash for feature PRs
+7. Add audit trail logging for `BLUE_BYPASS_WORKTREE` usage
+8. Update MCP server instructions to describe new enforcement behavior
+
+### Phase 2: Realm Coordination
+9. Define `.blue/realm.toml` schema and parser
+10. Add `Realm Dependencies` field to RFC frontmatter schema
+11. Extend spike `Produces RFCs` to support qualified identifiers (`repo:rfc-number`)
+12. Implement `blue_rfc_validate_realm` tool with repo caching and GitHub API fallback
+13. Extend spike auto-close to poll cross-repo RFC statuses
+14. Add `strict_realm_validation` config option for fail-on-unresolved mode
+15. Emit cross-repo status hints during RFC transitions
+
+## Alternatives Considered
+
+### A. Phased Rollout (Worktree-First)
+Implement only worktree enforcement in Phase 1, measure friction for 2 weeks, then add spike/ADR automation. Rejected (4-2 supermajority): gates target different workflow moments, so simultaneous deployment is safe. Partial enforcement trains agents to game gaps.
+
+### B. Documentation-Only Approach
+Add stronger language to MCP instructions about workflow discipline. Rejected (6/6 unanimous): "documented process lives in markdown while actual process lives in tool defaults" (Brioche). Soft guidance has proven insufficient.
+
+### C. Spike-First Investigation
+Conduct a spike measuring which interventions change agent behavior before committing to an RFC. Rejected (5/6): the root cause (lack of mechanical enforcement) and the mechanism (PreToolUse hooks) are both well-understood from the existing formalize-sdlc spike.
+
+## Test Plan
+
+### Single-Repo Tests
+- [ ] `blue guard` blocks Write to `crates/` without active worktree
+- [ ] `blue guard` allows Write to `.blue/docs/spikes/` without worktree
+- [ ] `blue guard` allows Write with `BLUE_BYPASS_WORKTREE=1` and logs bypass
+- [ ] `blue guard` allows Write inside active worktree directory
+- [ ] Allowlist covers all documented paths (`.blue/docs/**`, `*.md` root, `/tmp/blue-dialogue/**`, `.claude/**`)
+- [ ] RFC with `Source Spike` metadata auto-closes spike on `implemented` transition
+- [ ] Multi-RFC spike stays `.wip.md` until all listed RFCs reach `implemented`
+- [ ] Manual spike `.done.md` transition still works
+- [ ] ADR hint emits on RFC transition to `in-progress`
+- [ ] ADR hint includes keyword detection for "breaking", "redesign", "architectural"
+- [ ] ADR hint does NOT block workflow
+- [ ] `blue_pr_merge` always squashes (no override parameter)
+- [ ] Audit trail file records bypass events with timestamp and path
+
+### Realm Coordination Tests
+- [ ] `.blue/realm.toml` parses `depends_on` arrays with qualified identifiers
+- [ ] `blue_rfc_validate_realm` resolves local RFC statuses correctly
+- [ ] `blue_rfc_validate_realm` fetches remote repo status via cached clone
+- [ ] `blue_rfc_validate_realm` warns on unresolved dependencies (default mode)
+- [ ] `blue_rfc_validate_realm --strict` fails on unresolved dependencies
+- [ ] Spike with cross-repo `Produces RFCs` stays `.wip.md` until all reach `implemented`
+- [ ] Spike with cross-repo `Produces RFCs` auto-closes when all reach `implemented`
+- [ ] Cross-repo status hint emits during RFC transitions with realm dependencies
+- [ ] `strict_realm_validation = true` in config enables fail mode without CLI flag
+- [ ] Repo cache at `/tmp/blue-realm-cache//` refreshes on query
+
+---
+
+*"The constraint of worktree-only editing enables the freedom of reliable, isolated, reviewable changes."*
+
+β Converged from 6-expert alignment dialogue (395 ALIGNMENT, 14/14 tensions resolved, 4 rounds)
diff --git a/.blue/docs/rfcs/0039-adr-architecture-greenfield-clarifications.impl.md b/.blue/docs/rfcs/0039-adr-architecture-greenfield-clarifications.impl.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..173f9bf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.blue/docs/rfcs/0039-adr-architecture-greenfield-clarifications.impl.md
@@ -0,0 +1,158 @@
+# RFC 0039: ADR Architecture β Greenfield Clarifications
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| **Status** | Implemented |
+| **Date** | 2026-01-27 |
+| **Dialogue** | [2026-01-27T2229Z-adr-architecture-review-greenfield-claude-as-implementer.dialogue.recorded.md](../dialogues/2026-01-27T2229Z-adr-architecture-review-greenfield-claude-as-implementer.dialogue.recorded.md) |
+| **Experts** | 16 (100% convergence) |
+
+---
+
+## Context
+
+Two new concepts were proposed for integration into the ADR architecture:
+
+1. **"We are Greenfield"** β Move fast, break things, no unnecessary backward compatibility, increment major versions freely, fix suboptimal designs proactively, no band-aids on band-aids, pristine systems built to highest standards.
+
+2. **"Claude as Implementer"** β Time/effort estimates are human-centric but Claude does the work, so human estimates are irrelevant.
+
+A 16-expert alignment dialogue was conducted to review the existing 17 ADRs and determine how to integrate these concepts.
+
+## Decision
+
+### DO NOT Create New ADRs
+
+The alignment dialogue achieved **strong consensus (14/16 in Round 0, confirmed in Round 1)** that:
+
+> **"Greenfield" is not a new concept β it's the unnamed synthesis of ADR 0009 (Courage), ADR 0010 (No Dead Code), and ADR 0012 (Faith) that already exists in the architecture.**
+
+The philosophical foundations are present. What's missing is institutional permission to act on them fully.
+
+### Clarify Existing ADRs Instead
+
+#### 1. ADR 0008 (Honor) β Add Scope Clarification
+
+Add to "What This Means" section:
+
+```markdown
+### Honor's Scope is Adoption, Not Age
+
+Honor applies to **external relationships** β users who depend on stable interfaces.
+If Blue has zero external users, the backward compatibility constraint is vacuous.
+
+- **Internal APIs**: Redesign aggressively. Break freely. Increment major versions.
+- **External contracts**: Keep promises. Warn before breaking. Migration paths.
+
+The boundary is WHO you promised to, not HOW LONG ago.
+```
+
+#### 2. ADR 0009 (Courage) β Add Greenfield Permission
+
+Add to "What This Means" section:
+
+```markdown
+### Greenfield is Implicit
+
+If the codebase is greenfield (no external users, no legacy constraints), courage
+to delete and redesign is not just permitted β it's expected.
+
+"Greenfield" is not a separate principle. It's full permission to live ADRs 0009,
+0010, and 0012 without the fear tax that comes from imagined users who don't exist.
+
+- Don't accumulate band-aids. Fix the design.
+- Don't add transitions. Replace the system.
+- Don't apologize for breaking things. Celebrate making them better.
+```
+
+#### 3. ADR 0013 (Overflow) β Add Claude-Era Scoping
+
+Add to "What This Means" section:
+
+```markdown
+### When Claude Implements
+
+Overflow applies to **human judgment capacity**, not implementation toil.
+
+If Claude does the implementation work, the human's overflow comes from design
+thinking, architecture choice, and creative direction β not typing. Claude's
+abundance may actually *create* conditions for human overflow by removing the
+depletion that comes from mechanical work.
+
+The question shifts from "can I afford to build this?" to "should this be built?"
+```
+
+#### 4. ADR 0015 (Plausibility) β Add Cost Inversion Note
+
+Add to "The Calculation" section:
+
+```markdown
+### When Prevention Cost Approaches Zero
+
+If Claude implements, Cost(prevention) for code changes approaches zero. The
+plausibility calculus inverts:
+
+- Previously: "This edge case is too expensive to handle."
+- Now: "This edge case takes Claude 30 seconds. Handle it."
+
+But Cost(judgment) remains high. The new bottleneck is deciding *whether* to
+handle the edge case, not *affording* to handle it.
+```
+
+### Optional Consolidation: Merge ADR 0010 into ADR 0009
+
+The dialogue surfaced that **ADR 0010 (No Dead Code) is a specific application of ADR 0009 (Courage)**.
+
+Both advocate for bold deletion. ADR 0009's fear list includes "deleting code someone might need." ADR 0010 is the answer: "Git remembers."
+
+**Proposal**: Merge ADR 0010 into ADR 0009 as a subsection titled "Delete Boldly."
+
+This reduces redundancy and aligns with ADR 0005 (Single Source) and ADR 0007 (Integrity).
+
+**Counter-argument**: ADR 0010 is actionable and specific. ADR 0009 is philosophical. Keeping them separate may aid discoverability.
+
+**Recommendation**: Defer merge decision. The clarifications above are sufficient.
+
+## Consequences
+
+- **No new ADRs needed** β Reduces complexity, honors ADR 0005 (Single Source)
+- **Existing ADRs strengthened** β Scoping clarifications make values executable
+- **Greenfield becomes implicit** β Permission to live courage/deletion values fully
+- **Claude-era acknowledged** β ADRs adapt to new implementation reality
+- **Honor tension resolved** β Clear boundary: external users, not internal architecture
+
+## Implementation
+
+1. Edit ADR 0008: Add "Honor's Scope is Adoption, Not Age" section
+2. Edit ADR 0009: Add "Greenfield is Implicit" section
+3. Edit ADR 0013: Add "When Claude Implements" section
+4. Edit ADR 0015: Add "When Prevention Cost Approaches Zero" section
+5. Optional: Consider ADR 0010 merge in future review
+
+## Dialogue Summary
+
+### Round 0: Opening Arguments
+- **14/16 experts** concluded Greenfield already encoded in ADRs 0009 + 0010 + 0012
+- **8/16 experts** raised Honor vs Greenfield tension
+- **10/16 experts** noted Claude inverts cost/scarcity models
+
+### Round 1: Resolution
+- **T01 RESOLVED**: Honor's scope is adoption, not age
+- **T03 RESOLVED**: Relationships applies to external consumers
+- **Concessions made**: Greenfield doesn't need naming β values exist, permission was missing
+
+### Top Contributors
+- π§ Galette (30 β 30): First-principles analysis, redundancy identification
+- π§ Donut (27 β 38): Integration synthesis, resolution framing
+- π§ Scone (28 β 28): "Permission structure" insight
+- π§ Macaron (28 β 28): Bottleneck shift (labor β judgment)
+
+---
+
+*"The best code is no code. The second best is less code. The same is true for ADRs."*
+
+β Blue, synthesizing the dialogue
+
+---
+
+π§
diff --git a/.blue/docs/rfcs/0040-divorce-financial-impact-analysis.draft.md b/.blue/docs/rfcs/0040-divorce-financial-impact-analysis.draft.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..fab979d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.blue/docs/rfcs/0040-divorce-financial-impact-analysis.draft.md
@@ -0,0 +1,595 @@
+# RFC 0040: Divorce Financial Impact Analysis
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| **Status** | Draft |
+| **Date** | 2026-01-27 |
+| **Marriage Date** | December 28, 2021 |
+| **Divorce Date** | January 29, 2026 |
+| **Duration** | 4 years, 1 month |
+
+---
+
+## Summary
+
+Assess the financial impact of divorce based on prenuptial agreement terms. Gather historical (Dec 2021) and current (Jan 2026) financial data to calculate property division per prenup Section 8.
+
+## Prenup Key Provisions (Section 8 - Dissolution)
+
+| Provision | Rule |
+|-----------|------|
+| **8a. Property acquired during marriage** | Equal interest (50/50), except appreciation of pre-marital assets |
+| **8b. Homestead appreciation** | Proportionate to contributions (monetary + in-kind household/childcare) |
+| **8c. Pre-marital assets** | Remain separate, including appreciation, income, reinvestment |
+| **8d. Joint accounts** | Divided equally |
+| **8e. Tax liability** | Pro-rata based on data causing the result |
+| **Section 9. Support/Alimony** | Waived by both parties |
+
+## Eric's Pre-Marital Baseline (Exhibit A - Dec 2021)
+
+These remain Eric's separate property including all appreciation:
+
+| Asset | Dec 2021 Value | Account |
+|-------|----------------|---------|
+| House | $410,000 | 3736 Everett (mortgage: $243,110) - **SOLD** |
+| Other Real Estate | $720,000 | 2319 Ankeny (mortgage: $500,972) - **SOLD** |
+| Vehicles | $10,000 | - |
+| Solana (crypto) | $124,458 | - |
+| Chubby Bunny Loan | $75,000 | Receivable |
+| Kelli Personal Loan | $20,000 | Receivable |
+| Stocks | $4,259 | Etrade (Spotify) |
+| Checking | $34,199 | First Tech |
+| IRA | $8,285 | Betterment |
+| 401k | $129,849 | Vanguard |
+| **Total Assets** | **$1,536,050** | |
+| **Total Liabilities** | **$771,780** | |
+| **Net Worth** | **$764,270** | |
+| Annual Income | $235,000 | Spotify wages |
+
+## Kelli's Pre-Marital Baseline (Exhibit B - Dec 2021)
+
+| Asset | Dec 2021 Value | Account |
+|-------|----------------|---------|
+| Checking | $25,000 | Wells Fargo |
+| **Net Worth** | **$25,000** | |
+| Annual Income | $0 | |
+
+## Data Gathering Plan
+
+### Phase 1: Historical Statements (Dec 2021 / Jan 2022)
+
+Need baseline values at time of marriage to verify Exhibit A/B accuracy:
+
+| Institution | Account Type | Statement Needed |
+|-------------|--------------|------------------|
+| First Tech | Checking | Dec 2021 |
+| Etrade | Brokerage | Dec 2021 |
+| Betterment | IRA | Dec 2021 |
+| Vanguard | 401k | Dec 2021 |
+| Mortgage Servicer | 3736 Everett | Dec 2021 balance |
+| Mortgage Servicer | 2319 Ankeny | Dec 2021 balance |
+
+### Phase 2: Current Statements (Jan 2026)
+
+| Institution | Account Type | Data Needed |
+|-------------|--------------|-------------|
+| First Tech | Checking | Current balance |
+| Etrade | Brokerage | Current holdings + value |
+| Betterment | IRA | Current balance |
+| Vanguard | 401k | Current balance |
+| Mortgage Servicer | 3736 Everett | Current balance |
+| Mortgage Servicer | 2319 Ankeny | Current balance |
+| Joint Account | Checking (33% contributions) | Current balance |
+| Crypto Exchange | Solana holdings | Current value |
+
+### Phase 3: Additional Data Needed
+
+| Item | Purpose |
+|------|---------|
+| Real estate appraisals | Current market value of both properties |
+| Homestead determination | Which property is "homestead" per 8b? |
+| Contribution records | Joint account deposits by each party |
+| Income history | Both parties' W-2s/1099s 2022-2025 |
+| Property purchased during marriage | Any new assets bought with marital funds |
+| Kelli's current accounts | Any accounts opened during marriage |
+
+## Calculation Framework
+
+### 1. Separate Property (No Division)
+
+```
+Eric's Separate = Pre-marital assets + appreciation
+- Real estate (current value - current mortgage)
+- Retirement accounts (Betterment IRA, Vanguard 401k)
+- Brokerage (Etrade)
+- Crypto (Solana)
+- Outstanding loans receivable
+```
+
+### 2. Joint Property (50/50 Split)
+
+```
+Joint = Property acquired during marriage with joint funds
+- Joint checking account balance
+- Any jointly titled assets
+```
+
+### 3. Homestead Appreciation (Proportionate)
+
+```
+If homestead = 3736 Everett:
+ Appreciation = Current Value - $410,000
+
+Eric's Share = Appreciation * (Eric's contribution ratio)
+Kelli's Share = Appreciation * (Kelli's contribution ratio)
+
+Contribution ratio based on:
+- Monetary contributions to household expenses
+- In-kind contributions (childcare, household duties)
+```
+
+### 4. Property Acquired During Marriage (50/50)
+
+```
+Per Section 8a:
+- Property bought by either party during marriage
+- Excludes appreciation of pre-marital assets
+```
+
+## Playwright Automation Tasks
+
+1. **Bank Logins** - Navigate to each institution
+2. **Statement Download** - Download PDF statements for required dates
+3. **Data Extraction** - Parse balances from statements
+4. **Screenshot Capture** - Document current balances
+
+### Institutions to Automate
+
+- [x] Vanguard (401k) - DONE: Rolled over to ADP April 2024, $207k
+- [x] **ADP** - DONE: $26,646.91 (new employer 401k)
+- [x] **UBS** - DONE: $506,288.24 total (IRA + Brokerage)
+- [x] First Tech Credit Union - DONE: $9,602.82 (Checking + Savings)
+- [x] **Chase** - DONE: $6,951.12 joint checking (50/50 split)
+- [x] **Cenlar FSB** - DONE: $521,030.51 mortgage balance (2619 56TH ST S)
+- [x] **Coinbase** - DONE: Solana sold, $75.85 cash remaining
+- ~~Original mortgage servicer(s) for 3736 Everett & 2319 Ankeny~~ **SOLD - need sale details**
+
+## Confirmed Details
+
+- **Homestead**: 3736 Everett (the $410k property)
+- **Kelli's accounts**: Joint access available
+
+## Account Location Changes (Since Prenup)
+
+| Original (Dec 2021) | Current (Jan 2026) | Notes |
+|---------------------|-------------------|-------|
+| Vanguard 401k | **ADP 401k** | Rolled over April 2024 ($207,083.63) |
+| Betterment IRA | **UBS IRA** | Transferred |
+| Etrade Brokerage | **UBS Brokerage** | Transferred |
+
+## Data Gathered - Vanguard (Completed)
+
+| Finding | Value | Date |
+|---------|-------|------|
+| 401k at rollover | $207,083.63 | April 1, 2024 |
+| Prenup baseline | $129,849 | Dec 2021 (Exhibit A) |
+| Growth while at Vanguard | +$77,234.63 | Separate property per 8c |
+| Q1 2024 Statement | Downloaded | .playwright-mcp/document.pdf |
+
+**Note**: Dec 2021 statements unavailable (>24 month retention). Using signed Exhibit A as baseline.
+
+## Data Gathered - ADP (Completed)
+
+| Finding | Value | Date |
+|---------|-------|------|
+| Current 401k Balance | $26,646.91 | Jan 26, 2026 |
+| Vested Balance | $26,646.91 | 100% vested |
+| Performance (H2 2025) | +9.14% | |
+
+**Note**: This is a NEW employer 401k (acquired during marriage). Subject to 50/50 split per Section 8a.
+
+## Data Gathered - UBS (Completed)
+
+### Account Summary
+
+| Account | Type | Value | Notes |
+|---------|------|-------|-------|
+| TM 25650 | Roll IRA | $260,276.43 | Vanguard 401k rolled here April 2024 |
+| TM 25651 | Brokerage | $246,011.81 | Need to verify if pre-marital |
+| **Total UBS** | | **$506,288.24** | |
+
+### TM 25650 - Rollover IRA Holdings (as of Jan 27, 2026)
+
+Diversified equity portfolio including:
+- GOOGL (Alphabet): $16,058.40
+- AMZN (Amazon): $10,765.92
+- AAPL (Apple): $11,880.42
+- AVGO (Broadcom): $10,649.28
+- FTXSX (FullerThaler Small Cap): $26,358.15
+- Plus ~40 other individual stock positions
+
+**Unrealized Gain/Loss: +$4,685.36** (all separate property appreciation per 8c)
+
+## Data Gathered - First Tech (Completed)
+
+| Account | Type | Balance | Notes |
+|---------|------|---------|-------|
+| *6752 | Checking | $9,291.51 | Pre-marital account (Exhibit A: $34,199) |
+| *5020 | Savings | $311.31 | |
+| **Total First Tech** | | **$9,602.82** | |
+
+**Analysis**: Per Exhibit A, Eric had $34,199 in First Tech checking at marriage. Current balance is $9,291.51. This is separate property per Section 8c (pre-marital asset). The decrease likely reflects normal spending/transfers over 4 years.
+
+## Data Gathered - Chase (Completed)
+
+| Account | Type | Balance | Notes |
+|---------|------|---------|-------|
+| ...1267 | Total Checking (Personal) | $6,951.12 | **Joint account - 50/50 split per 8d** |
+| ...2173 | Business Checking | $2,173.67 | Sheepish Productions LLC - **OMITTED (jointly owned, minimal value)** |
+| ...1012 | Ink Unlimited Credit Card | $89.98 | Business card |
+
+**Joint Account Analysis**: The personal Total Checking (...1267) with $6,951.12 is subject to 50/50 division per Section 8d.
+- Kelli's share: $3,475.56
+- Eric's share: $3,475.56
+
+## Data Gathered - Cenlar FSB Mortgage (Completed)
+
+| Item | Value | Notes |
+|------|-------|-------|
+| **Property** | 2619 56TH ST S | **NOT in prenup - acquired during marriage** |
+| Original Loan | $551,200.00 | Loan started Jul 2022 |
+| Current Balance | $521,030.51 | As of Jan 27, 2026 |
+| Monthly Payment | $3,817.34 | Autopay from Chase ...1267 |
+| Loan Duration | Jul 2022 - Aug 2052 | 30-year mortgage |
+| Escrow Balance | $2,531.52 | |
+| Monthly Escrow | $900.34 | |
+
+### β οΈ CRITICAL FINDING: New Property Acquired During Marriage
+
+The property at **2619 56TH ST S** with mortgage serviced by Cenlar FSB was **NOT listed in the prenuptial agreement** (Exhibit A listed only 3736 Everett and 2319 Ankeny).
+
+This property was acquired **during the marriage** (loan originated July 2022, after Dec 2021 marriage date).
+
+**Per Section 8a**: Property acquired during marriage = **Equal interest (50/50)**, except appreciation of pre-marital assets.
+
+**Action needed**:
+1. Determine current market value of 2619 56TH ST S
+2. Calculate equity: Market Value - $521,030.51 mortgage = Equity
+3. Equity is subject to 50/50 split
+
+## Data Gathered - 3736 Everett Sale (Completed)
+
+**Source**: Closing Statement dated 7/3/2023
+
+| Item | Value |
+|------|-------|
+| Property | 3736 NE Everett Street, Camas, WA |
+| Sale Date | July 3, 2023 |
+| Sale Price | $410,000.00 |
+| Prenup Baseline (Dec 2021) | $410,000.00 |
+| **Appreciation** | **$0** |
+| Mortgage Payoff | $237,294.88 |
+| Closing Costs/Fees | $5,743.69 |
+| **Net Proceeds to Eric** | **$166,961.43** |
+
+### Section 8b Analysis (Homestead Appreciation)
+
+The homestead sold for **exactly the prenup baseline value** ($410,000). Per Section 8b, Kelli would be entitled to a proportionate share of appreciation based on contributions.
+
+**Appreciation = $0 β Kelli's share of homestead appreciation = $0**
+
+The $166,961.43 net proceeds are Eric's separate property (return of pre-marital equity).
+
+**Note**: At time of sale, Eric's address was 2619 56th St S, Gulfport, FL - confirming 2619 56TH ST S was purchased before 3736 Everett was sold.
+
+## Data Gathered - 2319 Ankeny Sale (Completed)
+
+**Source**: ALTA Settlement Statement dated 02/03/2022
+
+| Item | Value |
+|------|-------|
+| Property | 2319 SE Ankeny Street, Portland, OR |
+| Sale Date | February 3, 2022 |
+| Sale Price | $760,000.00 |
+| Prenup Baseline (Dec 2021) | $720,000.00 |
+| **Appreciation** | **+$40,000** |
+| Mortgage Payoff | $497,143.25 |
+| Real Estate Commissions | $38,000.00 |
+| Other Closing Costs | $21,293.02 |
+| **Net Proceeds to Eric** | **$206,146.10** |
+
+### Section 8c Analysis (Pre-Marital Asset - NOT Homestead)
+
+This property was sold **5 weeks after the marriage** (married Dec 28, 2021; sold Feb 3, 2022).
+
+Per Section 8c, pre-marital assets remain separate property **including appreciation, income, and reinvestment**. This was NOT the homestead (that was 3736 Everett), so Section 8b does not apply.
+
+**Result**: The $40,000 appreciation and $206,146.10 net proceeds are **Eric's separate property**. Kelli has no claim.
+
+### Timeline of Property Transactions
+
+| Date | Event | Amount |
+|------|-------|--------|
+| Dec 28, 2021 | Marriage | - |
+| Feb 3, 2022 | 2319 Ankeny sold | +$206,146.10 proceeds |
+| Jul 2022 | 2619 56TH ST S purchased | $551,200 mortgage |
+| Jul 3, 2023 | 3736 Everett sold | +$166,961.43 proceeds |
+
+## Data Gathered - Etrade/Spotify Stock Plan (Completed - CORRECTED)
+
+**Source**: Etrade Stock Plan Tax Documents (2021, 2023, 2024), 2016 Spotify Benefits Summary, Spotify Share Register (Folio 1780)
+
+The prenup Exhibit A listed only **$4,259** in Etrade stocks. However, the actual Spotify stock plan activity was significantly larger. Eric had multiple stock option and RSU grants.
+
+### CRITICAL CORRECTION: Grant Dates vs. Vesting Dates
+
+The 1099-B "Date Acquired" shows **vesting dates** (when shares became Eric's property), NOT **grant dates** (when Spotify awarded the options/RSUs). Per Section 8c, the **grant date** determines whether stock is pre-marital property.
+
+**Evidence of Pre-Marital Employment & Grants:**
+- 2016 Spotify USA Benefits Summary confirms Eric was employed at Spotify in 2016
+- Spotify Share Register (Folio 1780) shows shares inscribed **July 27, 2017**
+- Eric left Spotify in 2023, so no new grants could have been awarded that year
+
+### Grant History (ALL PRE-MARITAL)
+
+| Grant Date | Grant # | Type | Classification |
+|------------|---------|------|----------------|
+| 01/01/2010 | 5230 | ISO | **Pre-marital** |
+| 12/01/2016 | NQ7955 | NQ | **Pre-marital** |
+| 03/01/2019 | NQ5293 | RSU | **Pre-marital** |
+| Pre-2021 | MM006808 | NQ | **Pre-marital** (grant date before marriage; vesting continued during marriage) |
+
+**Note**: The "03/01/2023" date previously recorded for MM006808 was a **vesting date**, not a grant date. All Spotify grants were awarded before the December 28, 2021 marriage.
+
+### Stock Plan Proceeds by Year (ALL PRE-MARITAL GRANTS)
+
+**2021 (All BEFORE marriage Dec 28, 2021):**
+
+| Grant # | Type | Proceeds | Status |
+|---------|------|----------|--------|
+| 5230 | ISO | $212,983.36 | Pre-marital grant, sold before marriage |
+| NQ7955 | NQ | $90,289.73 | Pre-marital grant, sold before marriage |
+| NQ5293 | RSU | $27,481.86 | Pre-marital grant, sold before marriage |
+| **2021 Total** | | **$330,754.95** | **Eric's separate property** |
+
+**2022:** No stock plan activity
+
+**2023:**
+
+| Grant # | Type | Proceeds | Status |
+|---------|------|----------|--------|
+| NQ7955 | NQ | $37,861.64 | Pre-marital grant (exercised during marriage) |
+| NQ5293 | RSU | $11,696.81 | Pre-marital grant (vested during marriage) |
+| MM006808 | NQ | $39,032.61 | Pre-marital grant (vested during marriage) |
+| **2023 Total** | | **$88,591.06** | **Eric's separate property** |
+
+**2024:**
+
+| Grant # | Type | Proceeds | Status |
+|---------|------|----------|--------|
+| MM006808 | NQ | $90,193.66 | Pre-marital grant (exercised 02/08/2024) |
+| MM006808 | NQ | $120,954.74 | Pre-marital grant (exercised 04/01/2024) |
+| NQ5293 | RSU | $10,566.20 | Pre-marital grant (vested during marriage) |
+| **2024 Total** | | **$221,714.60** | **Eric's separate property** |
+
+### Complete Spotify Stock Plan Summary (CORRECTED)
+
+| Category | Total Proceeds | Classification |
+|----------|----------------|----------------|
+| **ALL grants (pre-marital)** | **$641,060.61** | **Eric's separate property (Section 8c)** |
+
+### Section 8c Analysis (CORRECTED)
+
+**ALL Spotify stock grants were awarded BEFORE December 28, 2021.** Per Section 8c, pre-marital assets remain separate property "including appreciation, income, and reinvestment."
+
+The fact that shares vested or were exercised during the marriage does NOT make them marital property. The **grant date** (when Spotify awarded the options/RSUs) determines classification, not the vesting or exercise date.
+
+**Supporting Evidence:**
+- 2016 Spotify USA Benefits Summary confirms Eric's employment at Spotify in 2016
+- Spotify Share Register (Folio 1780) shows shares inscribed July 27, 2017
+- Eric left Spotify in 2023; no new grants could have been awarded that year
+- Grant MM006808 was awarded pre-marriage; only vesting occurred during marriage
+
+**UBS Brokerage ($246,011.81):** This account contains proceeds from pre-marital Spotify stock grants. Per Section 8c, this is **Eric's separate property**.
+
+**Kelli's share of Spotify stock proceeds: $0**
+
+## Data Gathered - Coinbase/Solana (Completed)
+
+**Source**: Coinbase transaction history
+
+| Date | Transaction | Amount | Proceeds |
+|------|-------------|--------|----------|
+| Jan 12, 2022 | Sold 100 SOL | $15,104.97 | $14,879.91 withdrawn |
+| Jul 5, 2023 | Sold 483.50 SOL | $8,879.19 | $8,746.89 withdrawn |
+| Mar 14, 2025 | Sold 0.599 SOL | $79.59 | - |
+| **Current Balance** | | **$75.85 cash** | **$0 crypto** |
+
+### Section 8c Analysis (Pre-Marital Crypto)
+
+The prenup listed Solana at **$124,458** (Dec 2021). All Solana was sold during the marriage:
+- Total proceeds: ~$24,064 (significant loss from $124,458 baseline)
+- Per Section 8c, pre-marital assets remain separate property including appreciation (or depreciation)
+- The sale proceeds and current $75.85 balance are **Eric's separate property**
+
+**Note**: The Jan 12, 2022 sale (100 SOL for $15,104.97) occurred just 2 weeks after marriage - confirming this was pre-marital Solana.
+
+## Data Gathered - 2619 56TH ST S Valuation (Completed)
+
+| Item | Value | Source |
+|------|-------|--------|
+| Current Market Value | $573,100 | Zillow estimate |
+| Current Mortgage | $521,030.51 | Cenlar FSB |
+| **Equity** | **$52,069.49** | |
+
+### Down Payment Tracing Analysis - CONFIRMED
+
+**Source**: First Tech Bank Statements (Feb 2022 & Jul 2022)
+
+The down payment tracing has been **conclusively documented** via bank statements:
+
+| Date | Transaction | Amount | Source |
+|------|-------------|--------|--------|
+| Feb 3, 2022 | Ankeny property sold | $206,146.10 net | ALTA Settlement Statement |
+| **Feb 7, 2022** | **Wire Deposit from FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE CO** | **$197,553.53** | First Tech Feb 2022 Statement |
+| Jul 2022 | First Tech checking balance before purchase | $171,451.38 | First Tech Jul 2022 Statement |
+| **Jul 12, 2022** | **Wire Withdrawal to FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE OF FLORIDA** | **~$140,000+** | First Tech Jul 2022 Statement |
+| Jul 31, 2022 | First Tech checking balance after purchase | $30,547.34 | First Tech Jul 2022 Statement |
+
+**Tracing Chain Established:**
+1. Ankeny sale proceeds ($197,553.53) deposited to First Tech on Feb 7, 2022
+2. Funds remained in First Tech account (balance $171,451.38 in July)
+3. Down payment wired to FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE OF FLORIDA on Jul 12, 2022
+4. Account balance dropped to $30,547.34 after wire
+
+**Legal Analysis (Section 8c):**
+Per Section 8c, pre-marital assets remain separate property **including reinvestment**. The Ankeny property was pre-marital, and its sale proceeds were directly reinvested into 2619 56TH ST S as the down payment.
+
+**Result**: The down payment portion of 2619 56TH ST S equity is **Eric's separate property**. Since the current equity ($52,069.49) is LESS than the original down payment (~$140,000+), there is NO marital equity in this property.
+
+**Kelli's share of 2619 56TH ST S: $0**
+
+## Open Questions
+
+1. ~~Which property is the "homestead" for Section 8b calculation?~~ **ANSWERED: 3736 Everett**
+2. Did Kelli acquire any assets/income during the marriage?
+3. ~~What joint property was purchased during the marriage?~~ **ANSWERED: 2619 56TH ST S (Jul 2022)**
+4. What are the current real estate market values?
+ - 3736 Everett (homestead) - for 8b appreciation calculation
+ - 2319 Ankeny - pre-marital property
+ - **2619 56TH ST S** - for 50/50 equity split calculation
+5. How should in-kind contributions (household duties) be quantified for 8b?
+6. ~~Was the $20,000 Kelli Personal Loan repaid?~~ **ANSWERED: NO - Kelli still owes Eric $20,000**
+7. ~~Status of Chubby Bunny Loan ($75,000)?~~ **ANSWERED: Outstanding - Eric's separate property**
+8. ~~Where are the mortgages for 3736 Everett and 2319 Ankeny serviced?~~ **ANSWERED: Both properties sold**
+9. ~~What was the down payment source for 2619 56TH ST S?~~ **ANSWERED: Ankeny proceeds confirmed via First Tech bank statements (Feb 7 deposit β Jul 12 wire to title company)**
+10. ~~Sale details for 3736 Everett~~ **ANSWERED: Sold 7/3/2023 for $410k (no appreciation), net $166,961.43**
+11. ~~Sale details for 2319 Ankeny~~ **ANSWERED: Sold 2/3/2022 for $760k (+$40k appreciation), net $206,146.10 - all separate property**
+12. ~~Were sale proceeds from either property used to purchase 2619 56TH ST S?~~ **CONFIRMED: Yes, via bank statement tracing**
+
+---
+
+## FINAL FINANCIAL IMPACT SUMMARY
+
+### Eric's Separate Property (No Division - Section 8c)
+
+| Asset | Current Value | Notes |
+|-------|---------------|-------|
+| UBS Rollover IRA | $260,276.43 | From Vanguard 401k ($129,849 baseline) |
+| **UBS Brokerage** | **$246,011.81** | **From pre-marital Spotify stock grants** |
+| First Tech Checking | $9,291.51 | Pre-marital ($34,199 baseline) |
+| First Tech Savings | $311.31 | |
+| Coinbase Cash | $75.85 | Solana sold ($124,458 baseline) |
+| Vehicles | ~$10,000 | Per Exhibit A |
+| **2619 56TH ST S Equity** | **$52,069.49** | **Down payment traced from Ankeny proceeds** |
+| Chubby Bunny Loan | $75,000 | Receivable - **CONFIRMED OUTSTANDING** |
+| **Total Separate** | **$653,036.40** | |
+
+**CORRECTED - UBS Brokerage is SEPARATE PROPERTY**: All Spotify stock grants (including MM006808) were awarded BEFORE December 28, 2021. Per Section 8c, pre-marital assets remain separate property including appreciation and reinvestment. Evidence: 2016 Spotify Benefits Summary, July 2017 Share Register, Eric left Spotify in 2023 (no new grants possible).
+
+**Note on Real Estate Proceeds**: The 3736 Everett ($166,961.43) and 2319 Ankeny ($206,146.10) sale proceeds are NOT listed separately because they were **reinvested into 2619 56TH ST S**. The current equity ($52,069.49) represents what remains of those funds - counting both would be double-counting.
+
+**Note on Kelli Loan**: The $20,000 Kelli Personal Loan is listed separately below as an offset against her settlement share.
+
+**Omitted**: Sheepish Productions LLC (Chase Business $2,173.67) - jointly owned, minimal value, omitted by agreement.
+
+### Joint/Marital Property (50/50 Split - Sections 8a & 8d)
+
+| Asset | Total Value | Eric's Share | Kelli's Share |
+|-------|-------------|--------------|---------------|
+| Chase Joint Checking | $6,951.12 | $3,475.56 | $3,475.56 |
+| ADP 401k (new employer) | $26,646.91 | $13,323.46 | $13,323.46 |
+| ~~UBS Brokerage~~ | ~~$246,011.81~~ | ~~$123,005.91~~ | ~~$123,005.91~~ |
+| ~~2619 56TH ST S Equity~~ | ~~$52,069.49~~ | ~~$26,034.75~~ | ~~$26,034.75~~ |
+| **Total Joint** | **$33,598.03** | **$16,799.02** | **$16,799.02** |
+
+**Notes**:
+- 2619 56TH ST S equity is **NOT joint property**. Down payment tracing CONFIRMED via First Tech bank statements (Ankeny proceeds β title company wire). Since current equity < down payment, 100% is Eric's separate property.
+- **UBS Brokerage is NOT joint property (CORRECTED)**. All Spotify grants (including MM006808) were awarded before marriage. Per Section 8c, pre-marital assets remain separate property regardless of when vested or exercised.
+
+### Homestead Appreciation (Section 8b)
+
+| Item | Value |
+|------|-------|
+| 3736 Everett Sale Price | $410,000 |
+| Prenup Baseline | $410,000 |
+| **Appreciation** | **$0** |
+| **Kelli's Share** | **$0** |
+
+### Settlement Calculation (FINAL - With Confirmed Down Payment Tracing)
+
+**Down payment tracing has been CONFIRMED via First Tech bank statements.**
+
+The Ankeny sale proceeds ($197,553.53) were deposited Feb 7, 2022 and wired to FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE OF FLORIDA on Jul 12, 2022 for the 2619 56TH ST S purchase. Since the current equity ($52,069.49) is less than the original down payment, **100% of the home equity is Eric's separate property**.
+
+**Joint/Marital Property (50/50 Split):**
+
+| Asset | Total Value | Eric's Share | Kelli's Share |
+|-------|-------------|--------------|---------------|
+| Chase Joint Checking | $6,951.12 | $3,475.56 | $3,475.56 |
+| ADP 401k (new employer) | $26,646.91 | $13,323.46 | $13,323.46 |
+| ~~UBS Brokerage~~ | ~~$246,011.81~~ | β | β |
+| **Total Joint** | **$33,598.03** | **$16,799.02** | **$16,799.02** |
+
+**Note**: UBS Brokerage removed from joint property - all Spotify grants were pre-marital.
+
+**FINAL SETTLEMENT (Before Loan Offset):**
+
+| Party | Calculation | Total |
+|-------|-------------|-------|
+| **Eric** | $653,036.40 (separate) + $16,799.02 (joint share) | **$669,835.42** |
+| **Kelli** | $16,799.02 (joint share only) | **$16,799.02** |
+
+**FINAL SETTLEMENT (With $20,000 Kelli Loan Offset):**
+
+| Party | Calculation | Total |
+|-------|-------------|-------|
+| **Eric** | $669,835.42 + $20,000 (loan repayment) | **$689,835.42** |
+| **Kelli** | $16,799.02 - $20,000 (loan owed to Eric) | **-$3,200.98** |
+
+**Note on Negative Balance**: Kelli owes Eric $20,000 from pre-marital loan, but her share of marital property is only $16,799.02. This means Kelli still owes Eric $3,200.98 after the settlement.
+
+**Verification**: $653,036.40 (separate) + $33,598.03 (joint) = $686,634.43 β
+
+### Outstanding Items to Resolve
+
+| Item | Impact |
+|------|--------|
+| ~~Down payment tracing for 2619 56TH ST S~~ | **RESOLVED: Confirmed via bank statements** |
+| ~~Chubby Bunny Loan status ($75k)~~ | **CONFIRMED: Outstanding - Eric's separate property** |
+| ~~Kelli Personal Loan status ($20k)~~ | **CONFIRMED: Outstanding - Kelli owes Eric $20,000** |
+| Kelli's assets acquired during marriage | May increase joint pool |
+| Alimony | **Waived** per Section 9 |
+
+### Kelli Personal Loan Offset Analysis
+
+Per Exhibit A, Eric loaned Kelli $20,000 before the marriage. This loan remains **outstanding and unpaid**.
+
+This is Eric's separate property (a receivable). In the divorce settlement, this debt can be:
+1. **Offset against Kelli's share** - Reduce her $141,889.53 by $20,000 = Kelli receives $121,889.53
+2. **Collected separately** - Kelli pays Eric $20,000 plus receives her $141,889.53
+
+**Net Settlement with Offset:**
+
+| Party | Calculation | Net |
+|-------|-------------|-----|
+| Eric | $653,036.40 (separate) + $16,799.02 (joint) + $20,000 (loan repayment) | **$689,835.42** |
+| Kelli | $16,799.02 (joint) - $20,000 (loan owed) | **-$3,200.98** |
+
+**Total**: $686,634.44 (matches total current assets)
+
+**Settlement Outcome**: Kelli owes Eric $3,200.98. Alternatively, Eric can forgive the remaining loan balance and call it even.
+
+---
+
+## Deliverables
+
+1. **Asset Inventory Spreadsheet** - All assets with Dec 2021 vs Jan 2026 values
+2. **Separate Property Summary** - Eric's separate property calculation
+3. **Joint Property Summary** - Assets to be divided 50/50
+4. **Homestead Appreciation Calculation** - If applicable
+5. **Net Settlement Estimate** - Who owes what to whom
+
+---
+
+*This is a planning document, not legal advice. Consult a family law attorney for the actual divorce proceedings.*
diff --git a/.blue/docs/rfcs/0040-divorce-financial-summary.md b/.blue/docs/rfcs/0040-divorce-financial-summary.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c98e7df
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.blue/docs/rfcs/0040-divorce-financial-summary.md
@@ -0,0 +1,224 @@
+# Divorce Financial Impact Summary
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| **Prepared for** | Attorney Review |
+| **Date** | January 27, 2026 |
+| **Marriage Date** | December 28, 2021 |
+| **Proposed Divorce Date** | January 29, 2026 |
+| **Duration** | 4 years, 1 month |
+
+---
+
+## Prenuptial Agreement Key Provisions
+
+The parties executed a prenuptial agreement prior to marriage. The following provisions govern property division:
+
+| Section | Provision |
+|---------|-----------|
+| **8a** | Property acquired during marriage shall be divided equally (50/50), except appreciation of pre-marital assets |
+| **8b** | Homestead appreciation divided proportionate to contributions (monetary + in-kind) |
+| **8c** | Pre-marital assets remain separate property, including appreciation, income, and reinvestment |
+| **8d** | Joint accounts divided equally |
+| **9** | Spousal support/alimony waived by both parties |
+
+---
+
+## Eric's Pre-Marital Assets (Exhibit A - December 2021)
+
+Per the signed prenuptial agreement Exhibit A:
+
+| Asset | Value at Marriage |
+|-------|-------------------|
+| Real Estate - 3736 NE Everett St, Camas, WA | $410,000 (mortgage: $243,110) |
+| Real Estate - 2319 SE Ankeny St, Portland, OR | $720,000 (mortgage: $500,972) |
+| Vehicles | $10,000 |
+| Cryptocurrency (Solana) | $124,458 |
+| Chubby Bunny Loan Receivable | $75,000 |
+| Kelli Personal Loan Receivable | $20,000 |
+| Brokerage (Etrade/Spotify stock) | $4,259 |
+| Checking (First Tech) | $34,199 |
+| IRA (Betterment) | $8,285 |
+| 401k (Vanguard) | $129,849 |
+| **Net Worth** | **$764,270** |
+
+## Kelli's Pre-Marital Assets (Exhibit B - December 2021)
+
+| Asset | Value at Marriage |
+|-------|-------------------|
+| Checking (Wells Fargo) | $25,000 |
+| **Net Worth** | **$25,000** |
+
+---
+
+## Current Asset Summary (January 2026)
+
+### Eric's Separate Property (Section 8c - No Division)
+
+| Asset | Current Value | Basis |
+|-------|---------------|-------|
+| UBS Rollover IRA | $260,276.43 | Pre-marital 401k (Vanguard β UBS) |
+| **UBS Brokerage** | **$246,011.81** | **Pre-marital Spotify stock grants (see below)** |
+| First Tech Checking | $9,291.51 | Pre-marital account |
+| First Tech Savings | $311.31 | Pre-marital account |
+| Coinbase Cash | $75.85 | Pre-marital crypto (Solana sold) |
+| Vehicles | $10,000 | Pre-marital |
+| 2619 56th St S, Gulfport, FL - Equity | $52,069.49 | Down payment traced from pre-marital property sale (see below) |
+| Chubby Bunny Loan Receivable | $75,000 | Pre-marital - confirmed outstanding |
+| **Total Separate Property** | **$653,036.40** | |
+
+### Joint/Marital Property (Sections 8a & 8d - 50/50 Division)
+
+| Asset | Total Value | Eric's Share | Kelli's Share |
+|-------|-------------|--------------|---------------|
+| Chase Joint Checking (...1267) | $6,951.12 | $3,475.56 | $3,475.56 |
+| ADP 401k (new employer, acquired during marriage) | $26,646.91 | $13,323.46 | $13,323.46 |
+| **Total Joint Property** | **$33,598.03** | **$16,799.02** | **$16,799.02** |
+
+---
+
+## Real Estate Transactions During Marriage
+
+### 2319 SE Ankeny St, Portland, OR (Pre-Marital - SOLD)
+
+| Item | Value |
+|------|-------|
+| Sale Date | February 3, 2022 |
+| Sale Price | $760,000 |
+| Prenup Baseline | $720,000 |
+| Appreciation | $40,000 |
+| Net Proceeds | $206,146.10 |
+
+**Classification**: Pre-marital asset per Section 8c. All proceeds (including appreciation) are Eric's separate property. Proceeds were deposited to First Tech Credit Union on February 7, 2022.
+
+### 3736 NE Everett St, Camas, WA (Homestead - SOLD)
+
+| Item | Value |
+|------|-------|
+| Sale Date | July 3, 2023 |
+| Sale Price | $410,000 |
+| Prenup Baseline | $410,000 |
+| Appreciation | $0 |
+| Net Proceeds | $166,961.43 |
+
+**Classification**: This was the marital homestead per Section 8b. However, since there was zero appreciation, Kelli's proportionate share of appreciation is $0.
+
+### 2619 56th St S, Gulfport, FL (Acquired During Marriage)
+
+| Item | Value |
+|------|-------|
+| Purchase Date | July 2022 |
+| Original Mortgage | $551,200 |
+| Current Mortgage Balance | $521,030.51 |
+| Estimated Market Value | $573,100 (Zillow) |
+| Current Equity | $52,069.49 |
+
+**Down Payment Tracing**: Bank statements confirm the down payment was funded by proceeds from the Ankeny property sale:
+- Feb 7, 2022: Wire deposit from First American Title ($197,553.53) into First Tech
+- Jul 12, 2022: Wire withdrawal to Fidelity National Title of Florida for 2619 purchase
+
+Per Section 8c, pre-marital assets remain separate property "including reinvestment." Since the down payment was traced from pre-marital property sale proceeds, and current equity ($52,069.49) is less than the original down payment, 100% of the equity is Eric's separate property.
+
+**Kelli's share of 2619 56th St S: $0**
+
+---
+
+## Spotify Stock Options Analysis
+
+Eric held multiple Spotify stock option grants. **ALL grants were awarded BEFORE the December 28, 2021 marriage.**
+
+| Grant Date | Grant # | Type | Classification |
+|------------|---------|------|----------------|
+| 01/01/2010 | 5230 | ISO | **Pre-marital** |
+| 12/01/2016 | NQ7955 | NQ | **Pre-marital** |
+| 03/01/2019 | NQ5293 | RSU | **Pre-marital** |
+| Pre-2021 | MM006808 | NQ | **Pre-marital** |
+
+### Critical Distinction: Grant Date vs. Vesting Date
+
+The 1099-B tax documents show "Date Acquired" which is the **vesting date** (when shares became Eric's property), NOT the **grant date** (when Spotify awarded the options). Per Section 8c, the **grant date** determines classification.
+
+**Evidence that ALL grants were pre-marital:**
+- 2016 Spotify USA Benefits Summary confirms Eric's employment at Spotify in 2016
+- Spotify Share Register (Folio 1780) shows shares inscribed July 27, 2017
+- Eric left Spotify in 2023; no new grants could have been awarded that year
+- Grant MM006808 vested during marriage, but was AWARDED before marriage
+
+**Conclusion**: The UBS Brokerage ($246,011.81) contains proceeds from pre-marital Spotify stock grants. Per Section 8c, this is **Eric's separate property**.
+
+**Kelli's share of Spotify stock: $0**
+
+---
+
+## Outstanding Loans
+
+### Kelli Personal Loan
+
+Per Exhibit A, Eric loaned Kelli $20,000 prior to marriage. This loan remains **outstanding and unpaid**. This amount should be offset against Kelli's settlement share.
+
+### Chubby Bunny Loan
+
+Eric holds a $75,000 loan receivable from Chubby Bunny (third party). This is Eric's separate property per Section 8c.
+
+---
+
+## Settlement Calculation
+
+### Summary of Property Division
+
+| Category | Eric | Kelli |
+|----------|------|-------|
+| Separate Property (Section 8c) | $653,036.40 | β |
+| 50% of Joint Property (Sections 8a/8d) | $16,799.02 | $16,799.02 |
+| **Subtotal** | **$669,835.42** | **$16,799.02** |
+| Kelli Loan Offset ($20,000) | +$20,000.00 | -$20,000.00 |
+| **Final Settlement** | **$689,835.42** | **-$3,200.98** |
+
+### Settlement Outcome
+
+Kelli's share of marital property ($16,799.02) is less than the $20,000 pre-marital loan she owes Eric. After offset, **Kelli owes Eric $3,200.98**.
+
+Alternatively, Eric may choose to forgive the remaining loan balance.
+
+### Total Assets Verification
+
+| Component | Value |
+|-----------|-------|
+| Eric's Separate Property | $653,036.40 |
+| Joint/Marital Property | $33,598.03 |
+| **Total Current Assets** | **$686,634.43** |
+
+Settlement verification: $653,036.40 + $33,598.03 = $686,634.43 β
+
+---
+
+## Alimony/Spousal Support
+
+Per Section 9 of the prenuptial agreement, both parties waived spousal support/alimony.
+
+---
+
+## Key Documents Referenced
+
+- Prenuptial Agreement with Exhibits A and B (December 2021)
+- ALTA Settlement Statement - 2319 SE Ankeny St (February 3, 2022)
+- Closing Statement - 3736 NE Everett St (July 3, 2023)
+- First Tech Credit Union Statements (February 2022, July 2022)
+- Etrade Stock Plan Tax Documents (2021, 2023, 2024)
+- **2016 Spotify USA Benefits Summary** (confirms pre-marital employment)
+- **Spotify Technology Share Register - Folio 1780** (shows shares inscribed July 27, 2017)
+- Current account statements from UBS, ADP, First Tech, Chase, Coinbase, Cenlar FSB
+
+---
+
+## Outstanding Items
+
+| Item | Status |
+|------|--------|
+| Kelli's assets acquired during marriage | Unknown - may increase joint pool |
+| Current market appraisal for 2619 56th St S | Using Zillow estimate ($573,100) |
+| Chubby Bunny loan collectability | Confirmed outstanding |
+
+---
+
+*This summary is for informational purposes and attorney review. It does not constitute legal advice.*
diff --git a/.blue/docs/rfcs/0042-alignment-dialogue-defensive-publication.draft.md b/.blue/docs/rfcs/0042-alignment-dialogue-defensive-publication.draft.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c781a6b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.blue/docs/rfcs/0042-alignment-dialogue-defensive-publication.draft.md
@@ -0,0 +1,138 @@
+# RFC 0042: Alignment Dialogue Defensive Publication
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| **Status** | Draft |
+| **Date** | 2026-01-29 |
+| **Dialogue** | [2026-01-29T2121Z-patentability-of-the-alignment-dialogue-game-system](../dialogues/2026-01-29T2121Z-patentability-of-the-alignment-dialogue-game-system.dialogue.recorded.md) |
+
+---
+
+## Summary
+
+Establish formal prior art protection for the N+1 alignment dialogue architecture through defensive publication. This RFC documents the technical architecture explicitly as prior art, preventing competitor patents while preserving the collaborative ecosystem alignment that makes the system valuable.
+
+**Recommendation: Defensive publication over patent prosecution** (12/12 expert consensus)
+
+## Background
+
+A 12-expert alignment dialogue deliberated the patentability of the N+1 alignment dialogue architecture described in ADR 0014. After 3 rounds and 509 total ALIGNMENT points, all experts unanimously converged on defensive publication as the superior strategy.
+
+### Key Findings
+
+1. **Technical Claims Identified:**
+ - Parallel spawning mechanism eliminating first-mover bias through simultaneous context initialization
+ - File-based protocol for round-scoped agent outputs (write-before-acknowledgment)
+ - Convergence velocity detection across unbounded scoring dimensions
+ - Session resumption without context pollution
+
+2. **Patent Viability Assessment:**
+ - Alice/Mayo Β§ 101 risk: High but addressable via technical framing
+ - Prior art density: Significant overlap with distributed systems (MapReduce, Raft, Paxos)
+ - Novelty: Contested (LLM-specific constraints are new, file coordination is old)
+ - Non-obviousness: Marginal (combination of known techniques)
+
+3. **Strategic Analysis:**
+
+| Factor | Patent | Defensive Pub |
+|--------|--------|---------------|
+| Cost | $15-30K prosecution | $0 (already achieved) |
+| Timeline | 2-4 years | Immediate |
+| Competitor blocking | Uncertain | Achieved |
+| Future flexibility | Restricted | Unrestricted |
+| Ecosystem alignment | Adversarial | Collaborative |
+| Enforcement cost | $100K-1M+ | N/A |
+
+## Technical Architecture (Prior Art Declaration)
+
+The following technical architecture is hereby declared as prior art, released for public use, and explicitly not subject to patent protection:
+
+### 1. N+1 Agent Architecture
+
+A system for multi-agent deliberation comprising:
+- **N expert agents**: Independent LLM sessions with isolated context windows
+- **1 Judge agent**: Orchestrator that spawns, scores, and synthesizes
+- **Parallel execution**: All N agents spawned simultaneously to eliminate first-mover bias
+
+### 2. File-Based State Coordination Protocol
+
+A method for coordinating stateless LLM sessions comprising:
+- Each agent MUST write complete output to a dedicated file before acknowledgment
+- Round-scoped directory structure: `round-N/{agent}.md`
+- Judge reads all N files and merges without race conditions
+- Enables session resumption and context window management
+
+### 3. Convergence Detection Mechanism
+
+An algorithmic method for determining deliberation completion comprising:
+- Multi-dimensional scoring: Wisdom + Consistency + Truth + Relationships
+- Unbounded dimensions: No upper limit, rewarding exceptional contributions
+- Velocity calculation: Score delta between rounds
+- Convergence criterion: Velocity approaches zero OR all tensions resolved
+
+### 4. Perspective Integration Protocol
+
+A structured format for agent contributions comprising:
+- `[PERSPECTIVE Pnn: label]` β Novel viewpoints (2-4 sentences)
+- `[TENSION Tn: description]` β Unresolved issues
+- `[REFINEMENT/CONCESSION/RESOLVED]` β Engagement moves
+- Perspective inventory tracking consensus emergence
+
+## Rationale
+
+### Why Defensive Publication > Patent
+
+1. **GitHub ADR already establishes prior art** β ADR 0014 published with timestamps blocks competitor patents
+2. **Distributed systems precedent** β File coordination patterns date to 1970s
+3. **Cost/benefit unfavorable** β Prosecution costs exceed defensive value
+4. **Enforcement impractical** β Software patents against well-funded competitors rarely succeed
+5. **Philosophical alignment** β System designed for collaboration, not exclusion
+
+### Resolved Tensions
+
+All 13 tensions raised during deliberation were resolved:
+
+| Tension | Resolution |
+|---------|------------|
+| T01-T11 | Moot under defensive publication strategy |
+| T12: Prior art overlap | Split verdict; unanimous on strategy |
+| T13: One-year bar | Already achieved via GitHub publication |
+
+## Implementation
+
+### Phase 1: Formalize Defensive Publication
+- [x] Conduct expert deliberation on patentability
+- [x] Document technical architecture explicitly as prior art
+- [ ] Add explicit prior art declaration to ADR 0014
+- [ ] Timestamp and hash this RFC for provenance
+
+### Phase 2: Public Dissemination
+- [ ] Publish technical whitepaper to arXiv or similar
+- [ ] Submit to Defensive Patent License (DPL) registry
+- [ ] Cross-reference in relevant academic literature
+
+### Phase 3: Ecosystem Communication
+- [ ] Blog post explaining architectural choices
+- [ ] Open-source implementation documentation
+- [ ] Community engagement on design decisions
+
+## Test Plan
+
+- [x] 12-expert alignment dialogue reached convergence (509 ALIGNMENT)
+- [x] All tensions resolved
+- [x] Unanimous recommendation achieved
+- [ ] RFC reviewed and approved
+- [ ] Prior art declaration added to ADR 0014
+
+## References
+
+- [ADR 0014: Alignment Dialogue Agents](../adrs/0014-alignment-dialogue-agents.accepted.md)
+- [Dialogue Record](../dialogues/2026-01-29T2121Z-patentability-of-the-alignment-dialogue-game-system.dialogue.recorded.md)
+- Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)
+- 35 U.S.C. Β§ 101, Β§ 103
+
+---
+
+*"The architecture's value comes from collaboration, not exclusion. Defensive publication protects without restricting."*
+
+β π Judge + π§π§π§π§π§π§π§π§π§π§π§π§
diff --git a/.blue/docs/spikes/2026-01-26T1843Z-read-tool-token-limit-on-assembled-dialogue-documents.wip.md b/.blue/docs/spikes/2026-01-26T1843Z-read-tool-token-limit-on-assembled-dialogue-documents.wip.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7af15f1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.blue/docs/spikes/2026-01-26T1843Z-read-tool-token-limit-on-assembled-dialogue-documents.wip.md
@@ -0,0 +1,130 @@
+# Spike: Read tool token limit on assembled dialogue documents
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| **Status** | In Progress |
+| **Date** | 2026-01-26 |
+| **Time Box** | 30 minutes |
+
+---
+
+## Question
+
+Why does the alignment dialogue fail with token limit errors when using file-based subagent output?
+
+---
+
+## Root Cause
+
+The error occurs when the **Judge agent** tries to read the assembled dialogue document after completing all rounds. Individual agent output files are small (~2-3KB each, ~400 words), but the combined dialogue document accumulates:
+
+- 3-6 expert perspectives per round
+- Multiple rounds (typically 2-3)
+- Each perspective ~400 words
+- Plus judge synthesis, tension markers, and metadata
+
+**Result:** A 4-round dialogue with 5 experts produces ~10KB per round Γ 4 = ~40KB+, exceeding the Read tool's 25,000 token limit.
+
+## Evidence
+
+Error observed:
+```
+Read(~/.claude/projects/-Users-ericg-letemcook-fungal-image-analysis/acd9a1b2-29fd-437c-a1
+Error: File content (31767 tokens) exceeds maximum allowed tokens (25000)
+```
+
+The path `~/.claude/projects/...` is where Claude stores Task output, suggesting the Judge was reading back its own assembled document (not the individual `/tmp/blue-dialogue/{slug}/round-N/{agent}.md` files).
+
+## Already Documented
+
+RFC 0029 (file-based-subagent-output) captured this as **Churro T02** (open question at line 159):
+
+> When agent output exceeds Write tool buffer limits, should the Task system JSONL approach serve as fallback?
+
+The original dialogue noted:
+> TENSION T02: Stream vs document modes β when agent output exceeds buffer
+
+## What Works
+
+- Individual agent files in `/tmp/blue-dialogue/{slug}/round-N/{agent}.md` (~2-3KB each)
+- Write tool successfully stores agent perspectives
+- Round-scoped paths prevent collisions
+- Fallback to `blue_extract_dialogue(task_id=...)` exists for missing files
+
+## What Breaks
+
+1. **Assembled dialogue documents** can exceed Read tool's 25K token limit
+2. **Judge can't verify its own writes** to large dialogue files
+3. **No paginated read strategy** in the judge protocol
+
+## Options
+
+### A. Paginated reading
+Judge reads dialogue with offset/limit parameters. Requires tracking document structure to know what to skip.
+
+### B. Streaming writes, chunk reads
+Each round writes to a separate section file. Judge assembles by reading chunks. More complexity.
+
+### C. Trust-but-verify pattern
+Judge writes without reading back the full document. Only reads individual agent files which stay small. Final document assembly happens at dialogue completion, not during.
+
+### D. Summary-based continuation
+After each round, Judge writes a summary of accumulated state rather than re-reading the full document. Avoids needing to read large files.
+
+## Recommendation
+
+**Option C (trust-but-verify)** aligns with the file-based approach:
+1. Judge reads individual agent output files (always small)
+2. Judge appends to dialogue document without re-reading it
+3. `blue_dialogue_save` handles final assembly and validation
+4. Remove any Judge instructions that require reading the full assembled document mid-dialogue
+
+This requires updating `build_judge_protocol` in `dialogue.rs` to not instruct the Judge to read back its own document.
+
+---
+
+## Alignment Dialogue Outcome
+
+A 3-expert alignment dialogue reached **100% convergence** on an improved architecture:
+
+**Dialogue:** `.blue/docs/dialogues/2026-01-26T1850Z-round-scoped-file-architecture-for-alignment-dialogues.dialogue.recorded.md`
+
+### Final Architecture
+
+```
+/tmp/blue-dialogue/{slug}/
+ββ round-0/
+β ββ muffin.md β Agents write (working artifacts)
+β ββ cupcake.md
+β ββ scone.md
+ββ round-0.dialogue.md β Judge assembles (continuity artifact)
+ββ round-1/
+β ββ {agent}.md
+ββ round-1.dialogue.md
+ββ .archive/ β Post-round archive (optional)
+```
+
+### Key Resolutions
+
+| Tension | Resolution |
+|---------|------------|
+| Stateless vs stateful synthesis | **Stateful by reference** β global tension IDs (T01, T02...) enable cross-round references without copying content |
+| What content in synthesis | **Full round content** β synthesis + all expert perspectives + metadata (~8-12KB per round, safely under 25K) |
+| Cross-round tension references | **Global namespace** β T01, T02, T03... never reused across rounds |
+| Dual-write burden on Judge | **Necessary separation of concerns** β prompt templating (pre-round) and synthesis assembly (post-round) serve different consumers |
+
+### Implementation Changes Required
+
+1. **Judge reads per round:** ~15-20KB max
+ - Current round agent files (~2-3KB Γ agents)
+ - Prior round's `round-N.dialogue.md` only (~8-12KB) β NOT full history
+
+2. **Judge writes per round:**
+ - Agent prompt files (pre-round, templated)
+ - Round dialogue file (post-round, synthesis + perspectives)
+
+3. **Agents read per round:**
+ - All prior `round-N.dialogue.md` files for context
+ - Source grounding files specified in prompt
+
+This eliminates the token overflow by ensuring no single Read exceeds 25K tokens.
diff --git a/.blue/docs/spikes/2026-01-26T1941Z-rfc-id-collision-root-cause.wip.md b/.blue/docs/spikes/2026-01-26T1941Z-rfc-id-collision-root-cause.wip.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a51ad5a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.blue/docs/spikes/2026-01-26T1941Z-rfc-id-collision-root-cause.wip.md
@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
+# Spike: Rfc Id Collision Root Cause
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| **Status** | In Progress |
+| **Date** | 2026-01-26 |
+| **Time Box** | 1 hour |
+
+---
+
+## Question
+
+Why is there an RFC ID collision in blue.db when working on multiple RFCs simultaneously? What is the root cause and how do we prevent it?
+
+---
+
+## Findings
+
+### Evidence
+
+**Two blue.db files exist:**
+- `/Users/ericg/letemcook/blue/blue.db` β empty (0 bytes), stale artifact at repo root
+- `/Users/ericg/letemcook/blue/.blue/blue.db` β actual database (299KB)
+
+**11 RFC numbers have duplicate database entries:**
+```
+number | count
+-------|------
+1 | 3
+2 | 3
+14 | 2
+15 | 2
+17 | 2
+20 | 2
+27 | 2
+28 | 2
+30 | 2
+31 | 2
+33 | 2
+```
+
+**RFC 0033 collision details:**
+```
+id | number | title | status | file_path | created_at
+----|--------|--------------------------------|-------------|----------------------------------------------------|-----------
+24 | 33 | round-scoped-dialogue-files | implemented | rfcs/0033-round-scoped-dialogue-files.impl.md | 18:58:43
+137 | 33 | Comprehensive Config Arch | draft | rfcs/0033-comprehensive-config-architecture.draft.md | 19:35:04
+```
+
+**File timestamps:**
+```
+14:33 β 0033-comprehensive-config-architecture.draft.md (created via Write tool)
+14:39 β 0033-round-scoped-dialogue-files.plan.md
+14:40 β 0033-round-scoped-dialogue-files.impl.md
+```
+
+### Root Cause Analysis
+
+**Primary cause: `reconcile()` doesn't check for number collisions**
+
+In `store.rs:2031-2034`, the reconcile function finds existing documents by matching on `file_path`:
+
+```rust
+let existing = self.list_documents(dt)
+ .into_iter()
+ .find(|d| d.file_path.as_ref() == Some(&relative_path));
+```
+
+This means:
+1. Two files with the same number but different filenames are both considered "unindexed"
+2. Both get registered via `register_from_file()` without collision detection
+3. Database ends up with multiple entries for the same RFC number
+
+**Secondary cause: Write tool bypasses Blue's numbering system**
+
+When I created `0033-comprehensive-config-architecture.draft.md` using Claude's Write tool instead of `blue_rfc_create`, it bypassed:
+1. Blue's `next_number_with_fs()` function that scans filesystem for max number
+2. Blue's database registration
+
+Then when `blue_sync` ran (or when the file was otherwise registered), it created a duplicate entry.
+
+**Tertiary cause: Concurrent sessions**
+
+Two Claude sessions working simultaneously may have:
+1. Cached state that doesn't reflect filesystem changes from the other session
+2. Race conditions where `next_number_with_fs()` returns the same number to both
+
+### Remediation Options
+
+1. **Fix reconcile()** β Add collision detection before `register_from_file()`:
+ ```rust
+ // Check if number already exists for this doc_type
+ let number_exists = self.list_documents(dt)
+ .into_iter()
+ .any(|d| d.number == parsed.number);
+
+ if number_exists {
+ // Log warning about collision, don't create duplicate
+ result.collisions.push(relative_path);
+ continue;
+ }
+ ```
+
+2. **Fix the immediate collision** β Delete duplicate database entries:
+ ```sql
+ -- Keep the older entry, delete the newer one
+ DELETE FROM documents WHERE id = 137; -- comprehensive-config (newer)
+ ```
+ Then rename the file to use the next available number.
+
+3. **Process improvement** β Always use `blue_rfc_create` for new RFCs, never Write tool directly.
+
+### Recommendation
+
+**Outcome: recommends-implementation**
+
+1. Create RFC to add collision detection to `reconcile()` function
+2. Manually fix current collisions by renaming files and cleaning database
+3. Add CLAUDE.md guidance: "Always use blue_rfc_create for new RFCs"
diff --git a/.blue/docs/spikes/2026-01-26T2230Z-expert-agent-output-too-long.done.md b/.blue/docs/spikes/2026-01-26T2230Z-expert-agent-output-too-long.done.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..bc5c8ad
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.blue/docs/spikes/2026-01-26T2230Z-expert-agent-output-too-long.done.md
@@ -0,0 +1,171 @@
+# Spike: Expert agent output exceeds stated limits
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| **Status** | Done |
+| **Date** | 2026-01-26 |
+| **Time Box** | 30 minutes |
+
+---
+
+## Question
+
+Why do alignment-expert agents produce responses that far exceed the 400-word / 2000-character limit despite explicit "MANDATORY" instructions?
+
+---
+
+## Evidence
+
+Observed in a 12-expert dialogue on `fungal-image-analysis`:
+
+```
+βΊ The output lines are too long (JSONL format). I have all 12 expert responses
+ from the context summary and the 7 TaskOutput calls.
+```
+
+The Judge resorted to `Search(pattern: "PERSPECTIVE P01|TENSION T0?1|Summary for the Judge")` to extract markers from JSONL output files rather than reading full responses β a workaround indicating the return summaries are themselves too long for comfortable synthesis.
+
+---
+
+## Root Causes
+
+### 1. LLMs cannot self-regulate output length from instructions alone
+
+Saying "MAXIMUM 400 words" in a prompt is aspirational, not enforceable. Research on instruction following shows models routinely exceed stated word limits by 2-5x, especially when the topic has depth. There is no mechanical enforcement β no `max_tokens` parameter, no post-hoc truncation, no validation loop.
+
+### 2. "Contribute MORE" framing contradicts the word limit
+
+The prompt contains a direct contradiction at `dialogue.rs:959`:
+
+```
+You are in friendly competition: who can contribute MORE to the final ALIGNMENT?
+```
+
+This incentivizes verbosity. Each agent is trying to contribute MORE than peers, which means writing more perspectives, more analysis, more evidence. The word limit says "stop at 400" but the competitive framing says "contribute as much as possible."
+
+### 3. Output limit is buried in the middle of the prompt
+
+The prompt structure is:
+
+1. Role & purpose (beginning β high attention)
+2. Competition framing (beginning β high attention)
+3. Format markers (middle)
+4. **OUTPUT LIMIT (middle β lowest attention zone)**
+5. WRITE YOUR OUTPUT (end β high attention)
+6. RETURN SUMMARY (end β high attention)
+
+The "lost in the middle" effect means the output limit occupies the lowest-attention position in the prompt. The agent strongly follows the role description and the write/return instructions but weakly follows the length constraint.
+
+### 4. Return summary has no explicit size constraint
+
+The return summary instruction says:
+
+```
+RETURN SUMMARY β THIS IS MANDATORY:
+After writing the file, return a brief summary to the Judge:
+- Key perspective(s) raised (P01, P02...)
+- Tension(s) identified (T01, T02...)
+- Concession(s) made
+```
+
+"Brief summary" is vague. With 12 agents, even if each writes a 200-word "brief" summary, the Judge receives 2400 words of summaries β plus each one is wrapped in JSONL task output format with tool call metadata, inflating the actual token count.
+
+### 5. `max_turns: 10` is generous
+
+An expert agent in Round 0 needs exactly 2 turns: write file, return summary. In Round 1+ it needs 4-5 turns: read context files, write file, return summary. Setting `max_turns: 10` leaves 5-8 unused turns, which the agent may fill with additional reading, iterating on its output, or producing longer responses.
+
+### 6. Agent config file has limits but no teeth
+
+`.claude/agents/alignment-expert.md` repeats the limits but provides no enforcement mechanism. The limits appear in both the agent config and the injected prompt (from `dialogue.rs`), creating redundancy without additional enforcement power.
+
+---
+
+## Impact
+
+- **Judge synthesis degrades**: With 12 long responses, the Judge can't read all summaries in context, leading to grep-based marker extraction instead of genuine synthesis
+- **Token budget blown**: 12 agents Γ 1000+ words each = 12K+ words of expert output per round, far exceeding the designed ~4.8K budget (12 Γ 400 words)
+- **Convergence quality suffers**: When the Judge can't fully read all perspectives, scoring and tension tracking become shallow
+
+---
+
+## Options
+
+### A. Prompt restructuring (low effort, medium impact)
+
+Move the output limit to the **end** of the prompt, after the WRITE/RETURN instructions, as the final thing the agent reads. Add concrete negative examples. Remove or soften the "contribute MORE" competition framing.
+
+```
+FINAL RULE β NON-NEGOTIABLE:
+Your response MUST be under 400 words and under 2000 characters.
+Count your words. If you are over 400 words, delete paragraphs until you are under.
+NEVER write more than 3 paragraphs.
+```
+
+### B. Reduce `max_turns` (low effort, low-medium impact)
+
+Round 0: `max_turns: 4` (write file + return summary + buffer)
+Round 1+: `max_turns: 6` (read context + write file + return summary + buffer)
+
+Fewer turns = less opportunity to iterate and inflate.
+
+### C. Explicit return summary size cap (low effort, medium impact)
+
+Replace "brief summary" with an explicit constraint:
+
+```
+RETURN SUMMARY β THIS IS MANDATORY:
+Return EXACTLY this format (under 100 words total):
+- Perspectives: P01 [label], P02 [label]
+- Tensions: T01 [label]
+- Concessions: [none or brief]
+- Key claim: [one sentence]
+
+DO NOT elaborate. DO NOT explain. ONLY the structured format above.
+```
+
+### D. Mechanical enforcement via `max_tokens` (medium effort, high impact)
+
+Pass `max_tokens` in the Task tool call to hard-cap agent output. However, the Task tool's `max_turns` parameter controls turns not tokens, and there is no `max_tokens` parameter in the Task tool schema. This would require changes to the Task tool or the alignment-expert agent configuration β may not be feasible without Claude Code changes.
+
+### E. Post-hoc validation and re-prompt (medium effort, medium impact)
+
+After agent writes its file, a validation step checks `wc -w < output_file`. If over 400 words, the agent is re-prompted: "Your output is {N} words. Rewrite to under 400 words. Keep only your strongest perspective." This uses extra turns but guarantees compliance.
+
+### F. Structural format constraints (low effort, high impact)
+
+Instead of a word limit, constrain the **structure**:
+
+```
+YOUR RESPONSE MUST FOLLOW THIS EXACT TEMPLATE:
+
+## [PERSPECTIVE P01: label]
+[2-3 sentences maximum]
+
+## [TENSION T01: label]
+[1-2 sentences maximum]
+
+Nothing else. No preamble. No conclusion. No additional sections.
+```
+
+A rigid template is easier for LLMs to follow than a word count.
+
+---
+
+## Recommendation
+
+**Combine A + C + F** (all low effort, compound impact):
+
+1. **Restructure the prompt** β move limit to end, remove "contribute MORE" framing, add negative examples
+2. **Cap the return summary** β provide an exact format template under 100 words
+3. **Use structural template** β constrain to exact section headers, max sentence counts per section
+4. **Reduce max_turns to 5** β covers all needed operations with minimal slack
+
+This avoids any code changes to the Task tool, doesn't require mechanical enforcement, and attacks the problem from multiple angles (attention positioning, incentive alignment, structural constraint, turn budget).
+
+---
+
+## Files to Modify
+
+1. `crates/blue-mcp/src/handlers/dialogue.rs` β lines 949-992 (agent prompt template)
+2. `.claude/agents/alignment-expert.md` β lines 8-30 (agent system prompt)
+3. `skills/alignment-play/SKILL.md` β if it contains duplicate prompt text
diff --git a/.blue/docs/spikes/2026-01-27T0000Z-judge-writes-expert-outputs.done.md b/.blue/docs/spikes/2026-01-27T0000Z-judge-writes-expert-outputs.done.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5ec0d67
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.blue/docs/spikes/2026-01-27T0000Z-judge-writes-expert-outputs.done.md
@@ -0,0 +1,232 @@
+# Spike: Judge Writing Expert Outputs (Inefficiency Diagnosis)
+
+**Created:** 2026-01-27
+**Status:** RESOLVED
+**Issue:** Judge (main Claude) writes expert output files instead of experts writing in parallel
+
+## Verification: CONFIRMED
+
+Nanosecond timestamp analysis proves Judge writes expert files sequentially:
+
+```
+muffin.md .582672674
+cupcake.md .611072573 (+28ms)
+scone.md .649223592 (+38ms)
+eclair.md .684142057 (+35ms)
+donut.md .721882199 (+38ms)
+brioche.md .755007032 (+33ms)
+```
+
+**6 files written in 172ms total** with consistent ~30-40ms gaps.
+
+If agents wrote in parallel, we'd see:
+- Different absolute timestamps (agents finish at different times)
+- Random ordering (whichever agent finishes first writes first)
+- Gaps of seconds/minutes (based on agent thinking time)
+
+Instead: perfect sequential order with millisecond gaps = **Judge batch write**.
+
+## Observed Behavior
+
+From user transcript:
+```
+5 alignment-expert agents finished (ctrl+o to expand)
+ ββ Muffin resume Β· 5 tool uses Β· 34.1k tokens
+ ββ Scone resume Β· 4 tool uses Β· 38.4k tokens
+...
+
+I have all 6 expert responses. Let me synthesize, score, and write the artifacts.
+
+Write(/tmp/blue-dialogue/.../round-0/muffin.md)
+Write(/tmp/blue-dialogue/.../round-0/cupcake.md)
+Write(/tmp/blue-dialogue/.../round-0/scone.md)
+...
+```
+
+The Judge writes expert files **sequentially** after all agents finish, instead of experts writing in parallel during their execution.
+
+## Expected Behavior (Per Protocol)
+
+**Agent Prompt Template (dialogue.rs:964-966):**
+```
+WRITE YOUR OUTPUT β THIS IS MANDATORY:
+Use the Write tool to write your COMPLETE response to:
+ {{OUTPUT_FILE}}
+```
+
+**Judge Protocol (dialogue.rs:1007):**
+```
+ββ round-0/
+β ββ {agent}.md β Agents write, peers read (~2-3KB each)
+```
+
+Agents SHOULD:
+1. Write their full response to `{output_dir}/round-N/{agent_lowercase}.md`
+2. Return 4-line summary to Judge
+
+Judge SHOULD:
+1. Receive summaries (not full responses)
+2. NOT write expert files (they're already written)
+3. Only write: `scoreboard.md`, `tensions.md`, `round-N.summary.md`
+
+## Root Cause Analysis
+
+### VERIFIED: Agents Return Full Content, Judge Writes Files
+
+Timestamp analysis confirms **Hypothesis 2**:
+
+1. Agents produce correctly formatted output (P01, P02, T01 markers)
+2. Agents return **full content** to Judge instead of 4-line summary
+3. Judge receives content and writes to files sequentially
+4. Agents do NOT call Write tool themselves
+
+**Evidence:**
+- User transcript shows Judge calling `Write(round-0/muffin.md)` after agents finish
+- Nanosecond timestamps show sequential writes (~30-40ms gaps)
+- Agent tool uses (5-9 per agent) are likely Read operations for grounding files, not Write
+- File content matches expected format but was written by Judge
+
+### Why Agents Don't Write
+
+The agent prompt template includes write instructions:
+```
+WRITE YOUR OUTPUT β THIS IS MANDATORY:
+Use the Write tool to write your COMPLETE response to:
+ {{OUTPUT_FILE}}
+```
+
+But agents appear to ignore this and return full content instead. Possible causes:
+1. **Instruction buried in prompt** - Write instruction may not be salient enough
+2. **Default agent behavior** - Agents may default to returning content rather than writing
+3. **Template not properly forwarded** - Judge may not include full template in Task prompt
+
+## Inefficiency Impact
+
+### Current Flow (Inefficient):
+```
+Expert A runs β returns full content
+Expert B runs β returns full content (parallel)
+Expert C runs β returns full content (parallel)
+ β
+All finish
+ β
+Judge writes muffin.md (sequential)
+Judge writes cupcake.md (sequential)
+Judge writes scone.md (sequential)
+Judge writes scoreboard.md
+Judge writes tensions.md
+Judge writes round-N.summary.md
+```
+
+### Expected Flow (Efficient):
+```
+Expert A runs β writes muffin.md β returns 4-line summary
+Expert B runs β writes cupcake.md β returns 4-line summary (parallel)
+Expert C runs β writes scone.md β returns 4-line summary (parallel)
+ β
+All finish
+ β
+Judge writes scoreboard.md
+Judge writes tensions.md (could be parallel)
+Judge writes round-N.summary.md
+```
+
+**Savings:**
+- N sequential Write operations eliminated (where N = expert count)
+- Write operations moved to parallel agent execution
+- Judge API calls reduced
+
+## Verification Steps
+
+1. **Check if agents write files:** After expert execution, verify if `{output_dir}/round-N/{agent}.md` exists before Judge writes
+2. **Check agent return content:** Examine what Task tool returns - is it 4-line summary or full content?
+3. **Check Judge prompt handling:** Trace whether Judge properly substitutes and forwards the full template
+
+## Proposed Fix
+
+If diagnosis confirms agents aren't writing:
+
+### Option A: Strengthen Agent Write Instruction
+Move write instruction from template to agent definition (`.claude/agents/alignment-expert.md`):
+```yaml
+---
+name: alignment-expert
+tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Write
+model: sonnet
+---
+...
+
+## OUTPUT PROTOCOL
+
+You MUST write your response to the file path provided in your prompt using the Write tool.
+This is mandatory. Do not return your full response to the Judge.
+```
+
+### Option B: Validate Writes in Judge Protocol
+Add verification step:
+```
+3a. VERIFY: After agents return, check that files exist at {output_dir}/round-N/*.md
+ If missing, write from returned content (fallback only)
+```
+
+### Option C: Structured Return Contract
+Have agents return structured JSON that explicitly indicates file was written:
+```json
+{
+ "file_written": true,
+ "path": "/tmp/blue-dialogue/.../round-0/muffin.md",
+ "summary": "Perspectives: P01...\nTensions:..."
+}
+```
+
+## Next Steps
+
+1. ~~Run a test dialogue and capture agent tool use details~~ β Done
+2. ~~Verify if agents actually call Write tool~~ β Verified: They don't
+3. ~~Check what content agents return to Judge~~ β Full content, not 4-line summary
+4. **Implement fix** - Choose from options below
+
+## Resolution: Options A + C Implemented
+
+### Changes Made
+
+**1. Agent Definition (Option A)** β `.claude/agents/alignment-expert.md`
+
+Added `## CRITICAL: FILE OUTPUT PROTOCOL` section at the top of the agent definition:
+- Emphasizes file writing is mandatory, not optional
+- Warns that work will be lost if not written to file
+- Placed at identity level (before role description) for maximum salience
+
+**2. Structured Return Contract (Option C)** β `dialogue.rs` agent prompt template
+
+Changed return format from 4-line summary to 5-line structured confirmation:
+```
+FILE_WRITTEN: {path}
+Perspectives: P01 [label], P02 [label]
+Tensions: T01 [label] or none
+Moves: [CONCESSION|REFINEMENT|RESOLVED] or none
+Claim: [single sentence]
+```
+
+The `FILE_WRITTEN:` line serves as proof the agent wrote to the file.
+
+**3. Judge Verification** β `dialogue.rs` Judge protocol
+
+Updated COLLECT step to verify FILE_WRITTEN line:
+- If present: Agent wrote file, no action needed
+- If missing: Fallback - check if file exists, write from return content if needed
+
+### Expected Behavior After Fix
+
+```
+Expert A runs β writes muffin.md β returns "FILE_WRITTEN: .../muffin.md\n..."
+Expert B runs β writes cupcake.md β returns "FILE_WRITTEN: .../cupcake.md\n..." (parallel)
+Expert C runs β writes scone.md β returns "FILE_WRITTEN: .../scone.md\n..." (parallel)
+ β
+All finish (files already written)
+ β
+Judge verifies FILE_WRITTEN in returns
+Judge writes ONLY: scoreboard.md, tensions.md, round-N.summary.md
+```
+
+**Savings:** N fewer sequential Write operations by Judge (Opus), moved to parallel agent execution (Sonnet).
diff --git a/.blue/docs/spikes/2026-01-30T1503Z-blue-mcp-server-on-superviber-infrastructure.wip.md b/.blue/docs/spikes/2026-01-30T1503Z-blue-mcp-server-on-superviber-infrastructure.wip.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6e056dc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.blue/docs/spikes/2026-01-30T1503Z-blue-mcp-server-on-superviber-infrastructure.wip.md
@@ -0,0 +1,419 @@
+# Spike: Blue MCP Server on Superviber Infrastructure
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| **Status** | In Progress |
+| **Date** | 2026-01-30 |
+| **Time Box** | 1 hour |
+
+---
+
+## Question
+
+How can we run the Blue MCP server on Superviber infrastructure while maintaining client data sovereignty, encryption, and revocable access?
+
+---
+
+## Context
+
+The current architecture (Appendix A of the financial portfolio doc) assumes Blue MCP runs in the client's AWS account. However, running MCP on Superviber infrastructure offers benefits:
+
+- **Simpler client onboarding**: No deployment required in client account
+- **Centralized updates**: Push new features without client coordination
+- **Operational visibility**: Better observability and debugging
+- **Cost efficiency**: Shared infrastructure across clients
+
+The challenge: maintain data sovereignty guarantees while centralizing compute.
+
+---
+
+## Architecture Options
+
+### Option A: Proxy Model with Client Data Store
+
+MCP server on Superviber infra acts as stateless compute. All persistent data remains on client infrastructure, accessed via secure API.
+
+```mermaid
+flowchart TB
+ subgraph CLIENT["Client AWS Account"]
+ direction TB
+ DS[("Data Store
(S3/DynamoDB)")]
+ KMS["Client KMS"]
+ API["Client API Gateway"]
+ DS --- KMS
+ API --- DS
+ end
+
+ subgraph SV["Superviber Infrastructure"]
+ direction TB
+ MCP["Blue MCP Server"]
+ INF["Infisical
(Secrets)"]
+ MCP --- INF
+ end
+
+ subgraph CLAUDE["Claude Code"]
+ CC["User Session"]
+ end
+
+ CC -->|"MCP Protocol
(TLS 1.3)"| MCP
+ MCP -->|"Cross-Account
AssumeRole"| API
+
+ style CLIENT fill:#e8f5e9
+ style SV fill:#e3f2fd
+ style CLAUDE fill:#fff3e0
+```
+
+**Data Flow:**
+1. Claude Code connects to Blue MCP on Superviber infra
+2. MCP assumes cross-account role to access client API
+3. Client API reads/writes to encrypted data store
+4. Data encrypted by client KMS - MCP never sees plaintext keys
+5. MCP processes in memory, never persists client data
+
+### Option B: PrivateLink Model
+
+AWS PrivateLink provides private connectivity without traversing public internet.
+
+```mermaid
+flowchart LR
+ subgraph CLIENT["Client VPC"]
+ direction TB
+ DS[("Encrypted
Data Store")]
+ EP["VPC Endpoint
(PrivateLink)"]
+ DS --- EP
+ end
+
+ subgraph SV["Superviber VPC"]
+ direction TB
+ MCP["Blue MCP"]
+ NLB["Network Load
Balancer"]
+ ES["Endpoint
Service"]
+ MCP --- NLB --- ES
+ end
+
+ EP <-->|"Private
Connection"| ES
+
+ style CLIENT fill:#e8f5e9
+ style SV fill:#e3f2fd
+```
+
+**Pros:** Traffic never leaves AWS backbone, lower latency
+**Cons:** More complex setup, per-client PrivateLink costs
+
+### Option C: Hybrid with Edge Cache
+
+MCP runs on Superviber with optional edge caching for read-heavy ADR/RFC data.
+
+```mermaid
+flowchart TB
+ subgraph CLIENT["Client Account"]
+ DS[("Source of Truth
(Encrypted)")]
+ HOOK["Webhook
on Change"]
+ end
+
+ subgraph SV["Superviber"]
+ direction TB
+ MCP["Blue MCP"]
+ CACHE[("Edge Cache
(Ephemeral)")]
+ MCP --- CACHE
+ end
+
+ DS -->|"Sync on
Change"| HOOK
+ HOOK -->|"Invalidate"| CACHE
+ MCP <-->|"Read/Write"| DS
+
+ style CLIENT fill:#e8f5e9
+ style SV fill:#e3f2fd
+```
+
+**Pros:** Better performance for read-heavy workloads
+**Cons:** Cache adds complexity, eventual consistency
+
+---
+
+## Recommended Architecture: Option A (Proxy Model)
+
+The proxy model is simplest and maintains strongest data sovereignty guarantees.
+
+### Detailed Architecture
+
+```mermaid
+flowchart TB
+ subgraph CLAUDE["Claude Code (User Machine)"]
+ CC["Claude Session"]
+ end
+
+ subgraph SV["Superviber Infrastructure"]
+ direction TB
+
+ subgraph MCP_CLUSTER["MCP Cluster (EKS)"]
+ MCP1["MCP Pod 1"]
+ MCP2["MCP Pod 2"]
+ MCPN["MCP Pod N"]
+ end
+
+ ALB["Application
Load Balancer"]
+ INF["Infisical"]
+
+ ALB --> MCP1 & MCP2 & MCPN
+ MCP1 & MCP2 & MCPN --> INF
+ end
+
+ subgraph CLIENT["Client AWS Account"]
+ direction TB
+
+ subgraph VPC["Client VPC"]
+ APIGW["API Gateway
(Private)"]
+ LAMBDA["Lambda
(Data Access)"]
+
+ subgraph DATA["Data Layer"]
+ S3[("S3 Bucket
(Dialogues, RFCs)")]
+ DDB[("DynamoDB
(State, Index)")]
+ end
+
+ KMS["KMS Key
(Client Owned)"]
+ end
+
+ IAM["IAM Role
(Cross-Account)"]
+
+ APIGW --> LAMBDA --> DATA
+ DATA --> KMS
+ end
+
+ CC -->|"β MCP over TLS 1.3"| ALB
+ MCP1 -->|"β‘ AssumeRole"| IAM
+ IAM -->|"β’ Scoped Access"| APIGW
+
+ style CLAUDE fill:#fff3e0
+ style SV fill:#e3f2fd
+ style CLIENT fill:#e8f5e9
+ style DATA fill:#c8e6c9
+```
+
+### Request Flow
+
+```mermaid
+sequenceDiagram
+ participant CC as Claude Code
+ participant MCP as Blue MCP
(Superviber)
+ participant INF as Infisical
+ participant STS as AWS STS
+ participant API as Client API
+ participant KMS as Client KMS
+ participant S3 as Client S3
+
+ CC->>MCP: blue_rfc_get("0042")
+
+ MCP->>INF: Get client credentials
+ INF-->>MCP: Client ID, Role ARN
+
+ MCP->>STS: AssumeRole(client_role_arn)
+ STS-->>MCP: Temporary credentials (1hr)
+
+ MCP->>API: GET /rfcs/0042
+ API->>S3: GetObject(rfcs/0042.md)
+ S3->>KMS: Decrypt(data_key)
+ KMS-->>S3: Plaintext key
+ S3-->>API: Decrypted content
+ API-->>MCP: RFC content
+
+ MCP-->>CC: RFC document
+
+ Note over MCP: Data processed in memory
Never persisted
+```
+
+### Access Control Matrix
+
+| Resource | Superviber Access | Client Control |
+|----------|-------------------|----------------|
+| Blue MCP Server | Owns & operates | N/A |
+| Client API Gateway | Invoke via role | Creates/deletes endpoint |
+| Client S3 Bucket | Read/write via role | Owns bucket, sets policy |
+| Client DynamoDB | Read/write via role | Owns table, sets policy |
+| Client KMS Key | **No access** | Full control |
+| Infisical Secrets | Read (membership) | Owns workspace, can revoke |
+| IAM Cross-Account Role | AssumeRole | Creates/deletes role |
+
+### Client IAM Role Policy
+
+```json
+{
+ "Version": "2012-10-17",
+ "Statement": [
+ {
+ "Sid": "AllowBlueMCPAccess",
+ "Effect": "Allow",
+ "Action": [
+ "s3:GetObject",
+ "s3:PutObject",
+ "s3:ListBucket"
+ ],
+ "Resource": [
+ "arn:aws:s3:::client-blue-data",
+ "arn:aws:s3:::client-blue-data/*"
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "Sid": "AllowDynamoDBAccess",
+ "Effect": "Allow",
+ "Action": [
+ "dynamodb:GetItem",
+ "dynamodb:PutItem",
+ "dynamodb:Query",
+ "dynamodb:UpdateItem"
+ ],
+ "Resource": "arn:aws:dynamodb:*:*:table/blue-*"
+ },
+ {
+ "Sid": "DenyKMSAccess",
+ "Effect": "Deny",
+ "Action": "kms:*",
+ "Resource": "*"
+ }
+ ]
+}
+```
+
+**Key point:** The `DenyKMSAccess` statement ensures Superviber can never access encryption keys directly. S3 and DynamoDB use envelope encryption - they decrypt data using the KMS key, but the key itself never leaves KMS.
+
+### Trust Policy (Client Creates)
+
+```json
+{
+ "Version": "2012-10-17",
+ "Statement": [
+ {
+ "Effect": "Allow",
+ "Principal": {
+ "AWS": "arn:aws:iam::SUPERVIBER_ACCOUNT_ID:role/BlueMCPServiceRole"
+ },
+ "Action": "sts:AssumeRole",
+ "Condition": {
+ "StringEquals": {
+ "sts:ExternalId": "${client_external_id}"
+ }
+ }
+ }
+ ]
+}
+```
+
+**Revocation:** Client removes or modifies this trust policy β immediate access termination.
+
+---
+
+## Infisical Integration
+
+```mermaid
+flowchart LR
+ subgraph CLIENT_INF["Client's Infisical Workspace"]
+ direction TB
+ SEC1["AWS_ROLE_ARN"]
+ SEC2["EXTERNAL_ID"]
+ SEC3["API_ENDPOINT"]
+ SEC4["ANTHROPIC_API_KEY"]
+ end
+
+ subgraph SV_INF["Superviber Infisical"]
+ direction TB
+ SVC["Service Token
(Read-Only)"]
+ end
+
+ subgraph MCP["Blue MCP"]
+ ENV["Runtime Env"]
+ end
+
+ SVC -->|"Membership"| CLIENT_INF
+ CLIENT_INF -->|"Inject"| ENV
+
+ style CLIENT_INF fill:#e8f5e9
+ style SV_INF fill:#e3f2fd
+```
+
+**Client onboarding:**
+1. Client creates Infisical workspace
+2. Client adds required secrets (role ARN, endpoint, etc.)
+3. Client invites Superviber service account (read-only)
+4. Client can revoke by removing membership
+
+---
+
+## Data Sovereignty Guarantees (Updated)
+
+| Guarantee | Previous (Client Infra) | New (Superviber Infra) |
+|-----------|-------------------------|------------------------|
+| Data at rest | Client S3/KMS | Client S3/KMS (unchanged) |
+| Data in flight | TLS 1.3 | TLS 1.3 (unchanged) |
+| Encryption keys | Client KMS | Client KMS (unchanged) |
+| Compute location | Client account | Superviber account |
+| Data in memory | Client account | Superviber account (ephemeral) |
+| Revocation | IAM + Infisical | IAM + Infisical (unchanged) |
+| Audit trail | Client CloudTrail | Client CloudTrail + Superviber logs |
+
+**New consideration:** Data passes through Superviber memory during processing. Mitigations:
+- No persistence - data only held during request lifecycle
+- Memory encryption at rest (EKS with encrypted nodes)
+- SOC 2 attestation for Superviber infrastructure
+- Option for dedicated/isolated compute per client
+
+---
+
+## Client Onboarding Flow
+
+```mermaid
+flowchart TB
+ A["1. Client signs agreement"] --> B["2. Client creates
Infisical workspace"]
+ B --> C["3. Client provisions
IAM role with trust policy"]
+ C --> D["4. Client creates
S3 bucket + DynamoDB"]
+ D --> E["5. Client adds secrets
to Infisical"]
+ E --> F["6. Client invites
Superviber to workspace"]
+ F --> G["7. Superviber configures
MCP for client"]
+ G --> H["8. Client connects
Claude Code to MCP"]
+
+ style A fill:#ffecb3
+ style H fill:#c8e6c9
+```
+
+**Estimated onboarding time:** 30 minutes with Terraform/CDK templates provided.
+
+---
+
+## Open Questions
+
+1. **Multi-tenancy:** Single MCP cluster serving all clients, or isolated per client?
+ - Single cluster: Cost efficient, simpler ops
+ - Isolated: Stronger security boundary, client preference for finance
+
+2. **Latency:** Cross-account API calls add ~50-100ms per request. Acceptable?
+ - Most MCP operations are not latency-sensitive
+ - Dialogue runs are already async
+
+3. **Compliance:** Does data-in-memory on Superviber infra affect client's compliance posture?
+ - May need to add SOC 2 Type II for Superviber
+ - Some clients may still require fully client-hosted
+
+4. **Failover:** If Superviber MCP is down, clients have no access
+ - Consider multi-region deployment
+ - Or provide fallback to client-hosted MCP
+
+---
+
+## Recommendation
+
+Proceed with **Option A (Proxy Model)** with the following implementation:
+
+1. Deploy Blue MCP on EKS in Superviber AWS account
+2. Use Infisical for per-client credential management
+3. Provide Terraform/CDK module for client-side infrastructure
+4. Offer "dedicated compute" tier for compliance-sensitive clients
+5. Document the memory-processing caveat in security docs
+
+**Next steps:**
+- [ ] Create RFC for this architecture
+- [ ] Build Terraform module for client infrastructure
+- [ ] Add multi-tenant support to Blue MCP
+- [ ] Draft updated security/compliance documentation
+
+---
+
+*Investigation by Blue*
diff --git a/.blue/docs/spikes/2026-01-30T1711Z-playwright-mcp-multiple-window-isolation.wip.md b/.blue/docs/spikes/2026-01-30T1711Z-playwright-mcp-multiple-window-isolation.wip.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0081639
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.blue/docs/spikes/2026-01-30T1711Z-playwright-mcp-multiple-window-isolation.wip.md
@@ -0,0 +1,183 @@
+# Spike: Playwright MCP Multiple Window Isolation Issue
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| **Status** | WIP |
+| **Created** | 2026-01-30 |
+| **Category** | Tooling / MCP Integration |
+
+---
+
+## Problem Statement
+
+When more than one Chrome window is open, the Playwright MCP:
+1. Opens a new tab in an existing window
+2. Cannot subsequently find/control that tab
+3. Results in "tab not found" or stale reference errors
+
+This blocks verification workflows and browser automation tasks.
+
+---
+
+## Root Cause Analysis
+
+### Primary Cause: Extension Mode Single-Tab Limitation
+
+When Playwright MCP runs in **extension mode** (connecting via browser extension to an existing Chrome instance), it operates with **single-tab scope for security**:
+
+- Extension opens a new tab when establishing connection
+- Extension can only control **one tab at a time**
+- Tabs in different windows are **logically separate** in the extension's scope
+- Extension doesn't maintain cross-window tab references
+
+### Contributing Factor: Browser Context Isolation
+
+Playwright uses isolated browser contexts by default:
+
+- Each window may have its own context scope in CDP (Chrome DevTools Protocol)
+- Creating a tab in one window doesn't register in another window's context
+- Session tracking is **per-connection, not per-browser-instance**
+
+### Contributing Factor: No Global Tab Registry
+
+The MCP server lacks a global tab registry:
+
+- Tab selection defaults to active window only
+- `browser_tabs` calls don't search across all windows
+- New tabs exist but can't be found (different window context)
+
+---
+
+## Solutions Analysis
+
+### Solution 1: Disable Extension Mode (Recommended)
+
+**Feasibility**: High | **Effort**: Minimal | **Risk**: Low
+
+Launch Playwright MCP with its **own browser instance** instead of connecting via extension.
+
+**Implementation**:
+```json
+// In MCP config, remove or set to false:
+{
+ "playwright": {
+ "extension": false
+ }
+}
+```
+
+**Trade-offs**:
+- (+) Eliminates single-tab limitation
+- (+) Full control over tabs and windows
+- (+) Immediate fix, no code changes
+- (-) Loses logged-in sessions (requires re-authentication)
+- (-) Slightly longer startup time
+
+### Solution 2: CDP Direct Connection
+
+**Feasibility**: Medium | **Effort**: Low-Medium | **Risk**: Medium
+
+Use Chrome DevTools Protocol direct connection instead of extension mode.
+
+**Implementation**:
+```bash
+# Launch Chrome with CDP enabled
+/Applications/Google\ Chrome.app/Contents/MacOS/Google\ Chrome \
+ --remote-debugging-port=9222
+
+# Configure Playwright MCP
+export PLAYWRIGHT_MCP_BROWSER_ENDPOINT="http://localhost:9222"
+```
+
+**Trade-offs**:
+- (+) Better than extension mode for multi-window
+- (+) Uses existing Chrome instance
+- (-) Requires manual Chrome startup with flags
+- (-) May still have context isolation at protocol level
+
+### Solution 3: Persistent Browser Profile Mode
+
+**Feasibility**: Medium | **Effort**: Low-Medium | **Risk**: Medium
+
+Use Playwright MCP with a dedicated, persistent browser profile.
+
+**Implementation**:
+```bash
+/Applications/Google\ Chrome.app/Contents/MacOS/Google\ Chrome \
+ --user-data-dir=$HOME/.playwright-profiles/mcp-profile \
+ --remote-debugging-port=9222
+```
+
+**Trade-offs**:
+- (+) Maintains authentication state across sessions
+- (+) Supports multiple tabs/windows
+- (-) Separate profile from main browser
+- (-) Initial auth setup required
+
+### Solution 4: Blue MCP Tab Registry (Future)
+
+**Feasibility**: Lower | **Effort**: High | **Risk**: High
+
+Implement a tab registry in Blue MCP that tracks tabs across windows.
+
+```rust
+// Hypothetical handler
+struct TabRegistry {
+ tabs: HashMap, // tab_id -> (window_id, context_id, url)
+ current_window: Option,
+}
+```
+
+**Trade-offs**:
+- (+) Solves at Blue layer, works with any Playwright config
+- (+) Enables future features (tab memory, session persistence)
+- (-) Significant development effort
+- (-) Must track Playwright MCP changes
+
+---
+
+## Recommendation
+
+**Immediate**: Use **Solution 1** (disable extension mode)
+- Zero code changes
+- Reliable multi-window support
+- Only cost is one-time re-authentication
+
+**If logged-in sessions are critical**: Use **Solution 3** (persistent profile)
+- Maintains auth across sessions
+- Isolated from personal browsing
+
+**Long-term consideration**: Solution 4 if Blue needs deeper browser automation control.
+
+---
+
+## Diagnostic Commands
+
+To identify which mode is active:
+
+```bash
+# Check Claude MCP config for extension mode
+cat ~/.claude/settings.json | grep -A5 playwright
+
+# Check if CDP port is in use
+lsof -i :9222
+```
+
+---
+
+## References
+
+- [microsoft/playwright-mcp - GitHub](https://github.com/microsoft/playwright-mcp)
+- [Browser Context Management | DeepWiki](https://deepwiki.com/microsoft/playwright-mcp/4.4-browser-context-management)
+- [Issue #1111 - Close tabs not working with extension](https://github.com/microsoft/playwright-mcp/issues/1111)
+- [Issue #1144 - Tab Access across windows](https://github.com/microsoft/playwright-mcp/issues/1144)
+- [Issue #1036 - Allow selection of target tab session](https://github.com/microsoft/playwright-mcp/issues/1036)
+
+---
+
+## Next Steps
+
+- [ ] Verify current Playwright MCP configuration
+- [ ] Test Solution 1 (disable extension mode)
+- [ ] Document authentication workflow if re-auth needed
+- [ ] Update project MCP config if change is accepted
diff --git a/.claude/agents/alignment-expert.md b/.claude/agents/alignment-expert.md
index d67dc83..40b6396 100644
--- a/.claude/agents/alignment-expert.md
+++ b/.claude/agents/alignment-expert.md
@@ -7,23 +7,55 @@ model: sonnet
You are an expert participant in an ALIGNMENT-seeking dialogue.
-Your role:
+## CRITICAL: FILE OUTPUT PROTOCOL
+
+**YOU MUST WRITE YOUR RESPONSE TO A FILE.** This is not optional.
+
+Your prompt will specify an OUTPUT_FILE path. You MUST:
+1. Use the Write tool to write your complete response to that file
+2. AFTER writing succeeds, return a structured confirmation to the Judge
+
+If you return your response text directly without writing to a file, **YOUR WORK WILL BE LOST** and you will fail your task.
+
+## Your Role
+
- SURFACE perspectives others may have missed
- DEFEND valuable ideas with evidence, not ego
- CHALLENGE assumptions with curiosity, not destruction
- INTEGRATE perspectives that resonate
- CONCEDE gracefully when others see something you missed
-FORMAT β use these markers:
-- [PERSPECTIVE Pnn: brief label] β new viewpoint you are surfacing
-- [TENSION Tn: brief description] β unresolved issue needing attention
-- [REFINEMENT: description] β improving a prior proposal
-- [CONCESSION: description] β acknowledging another was right
-- [RESOLVED Tn] β addressing a prior tension
+Your contribution is scored on PRECISION, not volume.
+One sharp insight beats ten paragraphs.
-OUTPUT LIMIT β MANDATORY:
-- MAXIMUM 400 words total
-- One or two [PERSPECTIVE] markers maximum
-- One [TENSION] marker maximum
-- Aim for under 2000 characters
-- Be pointed and specific, not comprehensive
+## Response Structure (Write This to the File)
+
+```
+[PERSPECTIVE P01: brief label]
+Two to four sentences. No preamble.
+
+[PERSPECTIVE P02: brief label] β optional
+One to two sentences.
+
+[TENSION T01: brief description] β optional
+One sentence.
+
+[REFINEMENT: description] or [CONCESSION: description] or [RESOLVED Tn] β optional
+One sentence each.
+```
+
+Nothing else. No introduction. No conclusion.
+
+## Return Format (After Writing File)
+
+After successfully writing your response to the file, return ONLY this structured confirmation:
+
+```
+FILE_WRITTEN: {path}
+Perspectives: P01 [label], P02 [label]
+Tensions: T01 [label] or none
+Moves: [CONCESSION|REFINEMENT|RESOLVED] or none
+Claim: [your single strongest claim in one sentence]
+```
+
+Five lines. The FILE_WRITTEN line confirms you wrote the file. Without it, your work is considered lost.
diff --git a/crates/blue-core/src/forge/mod.rs b/crates/blue-core/src/forge/mod.rs
index c9be02b..2e9af96 100644
--- a/crates/blue-core/src/forge/mod.rs
+++ b/crates/blue-core/src/forge/mod.rs
@@ -187,23 +187,144 @@ pub struct ForgeConfig {
pub repo: String,
}
-/// Blue config file structure
+/// AWS configuration (RFC 0034)
+#[derive(Debug, Clone, Serialize, Deserialize)]
+pub struct AwsConfig {
+ /// AWS profile name from ~/.aws/config
+ pub profile: String,
+}
+
+/// Release branch configuration (RFC 0034)
+#[derive(Debug, Clone, Serialize, Deserialize)]
+pub struct ReleaseConfig {
+ /// Branch where active development happens
+ #[serde(default = "default_develop")]
+ pub develop_branch: String,
+ /// Protected release branch
+ #[serde(default = "default_main")]
+ pub main_branch: String,
+}
+
+fn default_develop() -> String {
+ "develop".to_string()
+}
+
+fn default_main() -> String {
+ "main".to_string()
+}
+
+impl Default for ReleaseConfig {
+ fn default() -> Self {
+ Self {
+ develop_branch: default_develop(),
+ main_branch: default_main(),
+ }
+ }
+}
+
+/// Worktree initialization configuration (RFC 0034)
#[derive(Debug, Clone, Serialize, Deserialize, Default)]
+pub struct WorktreeConfig {
+ /// Additional environment variables for .env.isolated
+ #[serde(default)]
+ pub env: std::collections::HashMap,
+}
+
+/// Configuration errors
+#[derive(Debug, thiserror::Error)]
+pub enum ConfigError {
+ #[error("Unsupported config version {found}. Supported versions: {supported:?}")]
+ UnsupportedVersion { found: u32, supported: Vec },
+
+ #[error("Invalid forge type: {0}. Must be one of: github, forgejo, gitlab, bitbucket")]
+ InvalidForgeType(String),
+
+ #[error("Missing required field: {0}")]
+ MissingField(&'static str),
+
+ #[error("Failed to read config: {0}")]
+ ReadError(String),
+
+ #[error("Failed to parse config: {0}")]
+ ParseError(String),
+}
+
+/// Blue config file structure (RFC 0034)
+///
+/// Schema version 1 - single source of truth for repo-level configuration
+#[derive(Debug, Clone, Serialize, Deserialize)]
pub struct BlueConfig {
+ /// Schema version for migration support (required)
+ #[serde(default = "default_version")]
+ pub version: u32,
+
+ /// Forge connection details (required)
+ pub forge: ForgeConfig,
+
+ /// AWS profile configuration (optional)
#[serde(default, skip_serializing_if = "Option::is_none")]
- pub forge: Option,
+ pub aws: Option,
+
+ /// Release branch configuration (optional)
+ #[serde(default, skip_serializing_if = "Option::is_none")]
+ pub release: Option,
+
+ /// Worktree initialization configuration (optional)
+ #[serde(default, skip_serializing_if = "Option::is_none")]
+ pub worktree: Option,
+}
+
+fn default_version() -> u32 {
+ 1
}
impl BlueConfig {
- /// Load config from .blue/config.yaml
- pub fn load(blue_dir: &std::path::Path) -> Option {
- let config_path = blue_dir.join("config.yaml");
- if !config_path.exists() {
- return None;
+ /// Validate the configuration schema
+ pub fn validate(&self) -> Result<(), ConfigError> {
+ // Version check
+ if self.version != 1 {
+ return Err(ConfigError::UnsupportedVersion {
+ found: self.version,
+ supported: vec![1],
+ });
}
- let content = std::fs::read_to_string(&config_path).ok()?;
- serde_yaml::from_str(&content).ok()
+ // Forge type validation
+ let valid_types = ["github", "forgejo", "gitlab", "bitbucket"];
+ let forge_type_str = match self.forge.forge_type {
+ ForgeType::GitHub => "github",
+ ForgeType::Forgejo => "forgejo",
+ };
+ if !valid_types.contains(&forge_type_str) {
+ return Err(ConfigError::InvalidForgeType(forge_type_str.to_string()));
+ }
+
+ Ok(())
+ }
+
+ /// Load config from .blue/config.yaml
+ pub fn load(blue_dir: &std::path::Path) -> Result {
+ let config_path = blue_dir.join("config.yaml");
+ if !config_path.exists() {
+ return Err(ConfigError::ReadError(format!(
+ "Config file not found: {}",
+ config_path.display()
+ )));
+ }
+
+ let content = std::fs::read_to_string(&config_path)
+ .map_err(|e| ConfigError::ReadError(e.to_string()))?;
+
+ let config: Self = serde_yaml::from_str(&content)
+ .map_err(|e| ConfigError::ParseError(e.to_string()))?;
+
+ config.validate()?;
+ Ok(config)
+ }
+
+ /// Load config, returning None if not found (backward compatible)
+ pub fn load_optional(blue_dir: &std::path::Path) -> Option {
+ Self::load(blue_dir).ok()
}
/// Save config to .blue/config.yaml
@@ -213,6 +334,27 @@ impl BlueConfig {
.map_err(std::io::Error::other)?;
std::fs::write(&config_path, content)
}
+
+ /// Get the AWS profile if configured
+ pub fn aws_profile(&self) -> Option<&str> {
+ self.aws.as_ref().map(|a| a.profile.as_str())
+ }
+
+ /// Get the develop branch name (with default)
+ pub fn develop_branch(&self) -> &str {
+ self.release
+ .as_ref()
+ .map(|r| r.develop_branch.as_str())
+ .unwrap_or("develop")
+ }
+
+ /// Get the main branch name (with default)
+ pub fn main_branch(&self) -> &str {
+ self.release
+ .as_ref()
+ .map(|r| r.main_branch.as_str())
+ .unwrap_or("main")
+ }
}
/// Detect forge type with caching support
@@ -224,12 +366,10 @@ pub fn detect_forge_type_cached(remote_url: &str, blue_dir: Option<&std::path::P
// Check cache first
if let Some(dir) = blue_dir {
- if let Some(config) = BlueConfig::load(dir) {
- if let Some(forge) = config.forge {
- // Validate cached config matches current remote
- if forge.host == url.host && forge.owner == url.owner && forge.repo == url.repo {
- return forge.forge_type;
- }
+ if let Ok(config) = BlueConfig::load(dir) {
+ // Validate cached config matches current remote
+ if config.forge.host == url.host && config.forge.owner == url.owner && config.forge.repo == url.repo {
+ return config.forge.forge_type;
}
}
}
@@ -241,13 +381,18 @@ pub fn detect_forge_type_cached(remote_url: &str, blue_dir: Option<&std::path::P
if let Some(dir) = blue_dir {
let forge_config = ForgeConfig {
forge_type,
- host: url.host,
- owner: url.owner,
- repo: url.repo,
+ host: url.host.clone(),
+ owner: url.owner.clone(),
+ repo: url.repo.clone(),
};
- let mut config = BlueConfig::load(dir).unwrap_or_default();
- config.forge = Some(forge_config);
+ let config = BlueConfig {
+ version: 1,
+ forge: forge_config,
+ aws: None,
+ release: None,
+ worktree: None,
+ };
let _ = config.save(dir); // Ignore errors - caching is best-effort
}
diff --git a/crates/blue-core/src/lib.rs b/crates/blue-core/src/lib.rs
index 915c070..ab54e83 100644
--- a/crates/blue-core/src/lib.rs
+++ b/crates/blue-core/src/lib.rs
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ pub mod workflow;
pub use alignment::{AlignmentDialogue, AlignmentScore, DialogueStatus, Expert, ExpertResponse, ExpertTier, PanelTemplate, Perspective, PerspectiveStatus, Round, Tension, TensionStatus, build_expert_prompt, parse_expert_response};
pub use documents::{Adr, Audit, AuditFinding, AuditSeverity, AuditType, Decision, HeaderFormat, Rfc, Spike, SpikeOutcome, Status, Task, convert_inline_to_table_header, update_markdown_status, utc_timestamp, validate_rfc_header};
-pub use forge::{BlueConfig, CreatePrOpts, Forge, ForgeConfig, ForgeError, ForgeType, ForgejoForge, GitHubForge, GitUrl, MergeStrategy, PrState, PullRequest, create_forge, create_forge_cached, detect_forge_type, detect_forge_type_cached, get_token, parse_git_url};
+pub use forge::{AwsConfig, BlueConfig, ConfigError, CreatePrOpts, Forge, ForgeConfig, ForgeError, ForgeType, ForgejoForge, GitHubForge, GitUrl, MergeStrategy, PrState, PullRequest, ReleaseConfig, WorktreeConfig, create_forge, create_forge_cached, detect_forge_type, detect_forge_type_cached, get_token, parse_git_url};
pub use indexer::{Indexer, IndexerConfig, IndexerError, IndexResult, ParsedSymbol, is_indexable_file, should_skip_dir, DEFAULT_INDEX_MODEL, MAX_FILE_LINES};
pub use llm::{CompletionOptions, CompletionResult, LlmBackendChoice, LlmConfig, LlmError, LlmManager, LlmProvider, LlmProviderChoice, LocalLlmConfig, ApiLlmConfig, KeywordLlm, MockLlm, ProviderStatus};
pub use repo::{detect_blue, BlueHome, RepoError, WorktreeInfo};
diff --git a/crates/blue-mcp/src/handlers/env.rs b/crates/blue-mcp/src/handlers/env.rs
index 709b9ae..f7c7054 100644
--- a/crates/blue-mcp/src/handlers/env.rs
+++ b/crates/blue-mcp/src/handlers/env.rs
@@ -2,6 +2,8 @@
//!
//! Handles detection of external dependencies and generation of
//! isolated environment configurations for parallel agent execution.
+//!
+//! RFC 0034: Reads .blue/config.yaml for AWS profile and worktree.env settings.
use std::collections::HashMap;
use std::fs;
@@ -10,6 +12,7 @@ use std::time::{SystemTime, UNIX_EPOCH};
use serde_json::{json, Value};
+use blue_core::BlueConfig;
use crate::error::ServerError;
/// Detected external dependency
@@ -59,6 +62,8 @@ pub fn handle_detect(args: &Value, repo_path: &Path) -> Result Result {
let scan_path = args
.get("cwd")
@@ -87,8 +92,12 @@ pub fn handle_mock(args: &Value, repo_path: &Path) -> Result
let (dependencies, _, _, _, mock_config) = detect_dependencies(&scan_path);
+ // RFC 0034: Load config for AWS profile and worktree.env
+ let blue_dir = repo_path.join(".blue");
+ let config = BlueConfig::load(&blue_dir).ok();
+
// Generate .env.isolated content
- let env_content = generate_env_isolated(&agent_id, &worktree_path, &dependencies, &mock_config);
+ let env_content = generate_env_isolated(&agent_id, &worktree_path, &dependencies, &mock_config, config.as_ref());
// Write file
let env_file_path = worktree_path.join(".env.isolated");
@@ -269,23 +278,53 @@ fn set_default_mock_config(deps: &[Dependency], mock_config: &mut HashMap,
+ config: Option<&BlueConfig>,
) -> String {
let mut lines = vec![
"# Blue Environment Isolation".to_string(),
"# Auto-generated - do not commit".to_string(),
format!("# Worktree: {}", worktree_path.display()),
- "".to_string(),
- "# Agent Identification".to_string(),
- format!("BLUE_AGENT_ID={}", agent_id),
- "BLUE_ISOLATION_MODE=mock".to_string(),
- "".to_string(),
];
+ // RFC 0034: Add source reference if config exists
+ if config.is_some() {
+ lines.push("# Source: .blue/config.yaml".to_string());
+ }
+
+ lines.push("".to_string());
+ lines.push("# Agent Identification".to_string());
+ lines.push(format!("BLUE_AGENT_ID={}", agent_id));
+ lines.push("BLUE_ISOLATION_MODE=mock".to_string());
+ lines.push("".to_string());
+
+ // RFC 0034: AWS profile from config
+ if let Some(cfg) = config {
+ if let Some(profile) = cfg.aws_profile() {
+ lines.push("# AWS Configuration (from .blue/config.yaml)".to_string());
+ lines.push(format!("AWS_PROFILE={}", profile));
+ lines.push("".to_string());
+ }
+
+ // RFC 0034: Custom worktree env vars
+ if let Some(worktree_cfg) = &cfg.worktree {
+ if !worktree_cfg.env.is_empty() {
+ lines.push("# Custom Environment (from .blue/config.yaml worktree.env)".to_string());
+ for (key, value) in &worktree_cfg.env {
+ lines.push(format!("{}={}", key, value));
+ }
+ lines.push("".to_string());
+ }
+ }
+ }
+
if !mock_config.is_empty() {
lines.push("# Mock Configurations".to_string());
for (key, value) in mock_config {
diff --git a/crates/blue-mcp/src/server.rs b/crates/blue-mcp/src/server.rs
index 4af0177..24a26b5 100644
--- a/crates/blue-mcp/src/server.rs
+++ b/crates/blue-mcp/src/server.rs
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ use serde::Deserialize;
use serde_json::{json, Value};
use tracing::{debug, info};
-use blue_core::{detect_blue, DocType, Document, ProjectState, Rfc, RfcStatus, title_to_slug, validate_rfc_transition};
+use blue_core::{detect_blue, BlueConfig, DocType, Document, ProjectState, Rfc, RfcStatus, title_to_slug, validate_rfc_transition};
use crate::error::ServerError;
@@ -101,6 +101,7 @@ impl BlueServer {
/// Try to load project state for the current directory
///
/// RFC 0020 fallback chain: cwd β mcp_root β walk tree β fail with guidance
+ /// RFC 0034: Also injects AWS_PROFILE from config if configured
fn ensure_state(&mut self) -> Result<&ProjectState, ServerError> {
if self.state.is_none() {
// RFC 0020: explicit cwd β MCP roots β walk tree β fail with guidance
@@ -115,6 +116,16 @@ impl BlueServer {
))
})?;
+ // RFC 0034: Inject AWS_PROFILE from config (shell precedence honored)
+ if let Ok(config) = BlueConfig::load(&home.blue_dir) {
+ if let Some(profile) = config.aws_profile() {
+ if std::env::var("AWS_PROFILE").is_err() {
+ std::env::set_var("AWS_PROFILE", profile);
+ info!(profile = %profile, "AWS profile set from .blue/config.yaml");
+ }
+ }
+ }
+
// Try to get project name from the current path
let project = home.project_name.clone().unwrap_or_else(|| "default".to_string());
@@ -141,6 +152,16 @@ impl BlueServer {
))
})?;
+ // RFC 0034: Inject AWS_PROFILE from config (shell precedence honored)
+ if let Ok(config) = BlueConfig::load(&home.blue_dir) {
+ if let Some(profile) = config.aws_profile() {
+ if std::env::var("AWS_PROFILE").is_err() {
+ std::env::set_var("AWS_PROFILE", profile);
+ info!(profile = %profile, "AWS profile set from .blue/config.yaml");
+ }
+ }
+ }
+
// Try to get project name from the current path
let project = home.project_name.clone().unwrap_or_else(|| "default".to_string());
diff --git a/scripts/install.sh b/scripts/install.sh
new file mode 100755
index 0000000..d1055cf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/scripts/install.sh
@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+#!/bin/bash
+# Blue install script
+# Usage: ./scripts/install.sh
+
+set -e
+
+BLUE_DIR="$(cd "$(dirname "${BASH_SOURCE[0]}")/.." && pwd)"
+CLAUDE_DIR="$HOME/.claude"
+
+echo "Installing Blue from $BLUE_DIR"
+
+# 1. Build release binary
+echo "Building release binary..."
+cargo build --release --manifest-path "$BLUE_DIR/Cargo.toml"
+
+# 2. Install binary to PATH
+echo "Installing binary to ~/.cargo/bin..."
+cp "$BLUE_DIR/target/release/blue" "$HOME/.cargo/bin/blue"
+
+# 3. Set up MCP config
+echo "Configuring MCP server..."
+mkdir -p "$CLAUDE_DIR"
+
+# Create or update .mcp.json
+MCP_CONFIG="$CLAUDE_DIR/.mcp.json"
+if [ -f "$MCP_CONFIG" ]; then
+ # Update existing config with blue entry
+ tmp=$(mktemp)
+ jq --arg cmd "$BLUE_DIR/target/release/blue" \
+ '.mcpServers.blue = {"command": $cmd, "args": ["mcp"]}' \
+ "$MCP_CONFIG" > "$tmp" && mv "$tmp" "$MCP_CONFIG"
+else
+ # Create new config
+ cat > "$MCP_CONFIG" << EOF
+{
+ "mcpServers": {
+ "blue": {
+ "command": "$BLUE_DIR/target/release/blue",
+ "args": ["mcp"]
+ }
+ }
+}
+EOF
+fi
+
+# 4. Symlink skills
+echo "Symlinking skills..."
+mkdir -p "$CLAUDE_DIR/skills"
+for skill_dir in "$BLUE_DIR/skills"/*; do
+ if [ -d "$skill_dir" ]; then
+ skill_name=$(basename "$skill_dir")
+ rm -rf "$CLAUDE_DIR/skills/$skill_name"
+ ln -s "$skill_dir" "$CLAUDE_DIR/skills/$skill_name"
+ echo " Linked: $skill_name"
+ fi
+done
+
+# 5. Clean up old SuperClaude artifacts (Sep 2024)
+echo "Cleaning up old artifacts..."
+for old_file in FLAGS.md MCP_*.md MODE_*.md PRINCIPLES.md RULES.md; do
+ if [ -f "$CLAUDE_DIR/$old_file" ]; then
+ rm "$CLAUDE_DIR/$old_file"
+ echo " Removed: $old_file"
+ fi
+done
+
+# Remove stale CLAUDE.md symlink if pointing to coherence
+if [ -L "$CLAUDE_DIR/CLAUDE.md" ]; then
+ target=$(readlink "$CLAUDE_DIR/CLAUDE.md")
+ if [[ "$target" == *"coherence"* ]]; then
+ rm "$CLAUDE_DIR/CLAUDE.md"
+ echo " Removed: CLAUDE.md symlink (coherence)"
+ fi
+fi
+
+echo ""
+echo "Installation complete!"
+echo ""
+echo "To activate changes, restart Claude Code."
+echo ""
diff --git a/skills/alignment-play/SKILL.md b/skills/alignment-play/SKILL.md
index 082d07c..ee22c91 100644
--- a/skills/alignment-play/SKILL.md
+++ b/skills/alignment-play/SKILL.md
@@ -26,223 +26,34 @@ Orchestrate multi-expert alignment dialogues using the N+1 agent architecture fr
| `--rfc` | none | Link dialogue to an RFC |
| `--template` | `general` | Expert panel template (infrastructure, product, ml, governance, general) |
-## Expert Selection (Domain-Specific)
+## How It Works
-Experts are selected by **relevance to the topic**, not generically. See `knowledge/expert-pools.md` for full pools.
+1. Call `blue_dialogue_create` with `alignment: true` and desired expert count
+2. The returned **Judge Protocol** contains everything: round workflow, agent prompt template, file architecture, scoring rules, convergence config
+3. **Follow the protocol.** It is the single source of truth for execution.
+
+**CRITICAL**: You MUST use the Task tool to spawn REAL parallel agents. Do NOT simulate experts inline. The whole point is N independent Claude agents running in parallel via the Task tool.
+
+## Expert Selection
+
+Experts are selected by **relevance to the topic**. Each gets a pastry name (Muffin, Cupcake, Scone, Eclair, Donut, Brioche, Croissant, Macaron, Cannoli, Strudel, Beignet, Churro).
**Tier Distribution** for N=12:
-- **Core** (4): Highest relevance (0.75-0.95) - domain specialists
-- **Adjacent** (5): Medium relevance (0.50-0.70) - related domains
-- **Wildcard** (3): Low relevance (0.25-0.45) - fresh perspectives, prevent groupthink
+- **Core** (4): Highest relevance (0.75-0.95) β domain specialists
+- **Adjacent** (5): Medium relevance (0.50-0.70) β related domains
+- **Wildcard** (3): Low relevance (0.25-0.45) β fresh perspectives, prevent groupthink
-**Example for Infrastructure topic**:
-- Core: Platform Architect, SRE Lead, Database Architect, Security Engineer
-- Adjacent: Network Engineer, Cost Analyst, Compliance Officer, Performance Engineer, Capacity Planner
-- Wildcard: UX Researcher, Ethicist, Customer Advocate
+## Blue MCP Tools
-Each expert gets a pastry name for identification (Muffin, Cupcake, Scone, Eclair, Donut, Brioche, Croissant, Macaron, Cannoli, Strudel, Beignet, Churro).
-
-All pastries, all delicious. All domain experts, all essential.
-
-## Architecture (N+1 Agents)
-
-You are the **Judge**. You orchestrate but do not contribute perspectives.
-
-```
-YOU (Judge)
- |
- +-- Spawn N agents IN PARALLEL (single message)
- | |
- | +-- Agent 1 (fresh context)
- | +-- Agent 2 (fresh context)
- | +-- Agent 3 (fresh context)
- | +-- ...
- |
- +-- Collect outputs via blue_extract_dialogue
- +-- Score and update .dialogue.md
- +-- Repeat until convergence
-```
-
-## Workflow
-
-**CRITICAL**: You MUST use the Task tool to spawn REAL parallel agents. Do NOT simulate experts inline. Do NOT use any MCP tool for orchestration. The whole point is N independent Claude agents running in parallel via the Task tool.
-
-### Phase 1: Setup
-
-1. Parse parameters from user request
-2. Create `.dialogue.md` file with empty scoreboard
-3. Generate expert panel with pastry names (Muffin, Cupcake, Scone, Eclair, Donut...)
-
-### Phase 2: Rounds (repeat until convergence)
-
-For each round:
-
-1. **Spawn N agents in PARALLEL using Task tool** - Send ONE message with N Task tool invocations:
- - Each Task uses `subagent_type: "general-purpose"`
- - Each Task gets a `description` like "Muffin expert deliberation"
- - Each Task gets the full expert `prompt` from the template below
- - ALL N Task calls go in the SAME message for true parallelism
-
-2. **Wait for all agents** - They run independently with fresh context
-
-3. **Extract outputs** - Use `blue_extract_dialogue` with the task_id from each Task result
-
-4. **Score contributions** - For EACH agent, score across FOUR unbounded dimensions:
- - **Wisdom**: Perspectives integrated (count Pnn markers, synthesis quality)
- - **Consistency**: Pattern compliance, internal consistency
- - **Truth**: Grounded in reality, no contradictions
- - **Relationships**: Connections to other artifacts, context awareness
-
- Update scoreboard: ALIGNMENT = Wisdom + Consistency + Truth + Relationships (no max!)
-
-5. **Check convergence** (ANY of these):
- - ALIGNMENT Plateau: Velocity β 0 for two consecutive rounds
- - Full Coverage: All perspectives in inventory integrated
- - Zero Tensions: All TENSION markers have matching RESOLVED
- - Mutual Recognition: Majority of agents state [CONVERGENCE CONFIRMED]
- - Max rounds reached (safety valve)
-
-### Phase 3: Finalize
-
-1. Write converged recommendation
-2. Save via `blue_dialogue_save`
-3. Validate via `blue_dialogue_lint`
-
-## Expert Prompt Template
-
-Each agent receives domain-specific context (adapted from ADR 0014):
-
-```markdown
-You are {pastry_name} π§ ({domain_role}), a {domain} expert in an ALIGNMENT-seeking dialogue.
-Relevance to topic: {relevance_score} ({tier}: Core/Adjacent/Wildcard)
-
-Topic: {topic}
-{constraint if provided}
-
-Your role:
-- SURFACE perspectives others may have missed
-- DEFEND valuable ideas with love, not ego
-- CHALLENGE assumptions with curiosity, not destruction
-- INTEGRATE perspectives that resonate
-- CONCEDE gracefully when others see something you missed
-- CELEBRATE when others make the solution stronger
-
-You're in friendly competition: who can contribute MORE to the final ALIGNMENT?
-But rememberβyou ALL win when the result is aligned. There are no losers here.
-
-When another π§ challenges you, receive it as a gift.
-When you refine based on their input, thank them.
-When you see something they missed, offer it gently.
-
-Previous rounds:
-{summary of previous rounds OR "This is Round 0 - opening arguments"}
-
-Format your response with inline markers:
-[PERSPECTIVE Pnn: ...] - new viewpoint you're surfacing
-[TENSION Tn: ...] - unresolved issue needing attention
-[REFINEMENT: ...] - when you're improving the proposal
-[CONCESSION: ...] - when another π§ was right
-[RESOLVED Tn: ...] - when addressing a tension
-[CONVERGENCE PROPOSAL] or [CONVERGENCE CONFIRMED] - when you believe alignment is reached
-
-Respond in 2-4 paragraphs with inline markers.
-```
-
-## ALIGNMENT Scoring (ADR 0014)
-
-```
-ALIGNMENT = Wisdom + Consistency + Truth + Relationships
-```
-
-**All dimensions are UNBOUNDED** - there is no maximum score. The score can always go higher.
-
-| Dimension | Question |
-|-----------|----------|
-| **Wisdom** | How many perspectives integrated? How well synthesized into unity? |
-| **Consistency** | Does it follow established patterns? Internally consistent? |
-| **Truth** | Grounded in reality? Single source of truth? No contradictions? |
-| **Relationships** | How does it connect to other artifacts? Graph completeness? |
-
-### ALIGNMENT Velocity
-
-Track score changes between rounds:
-
-```
-Total ALIGNMENT = Sum of all turn scores
-ALIGNMENT Velocity = score(round N) - score(round N-1)
-```
-
-When **velocity approaches zero**, the dialogue is converging. New rounds aren't adding perspectives.
-
-## .dialogue.md Format
-
-```markdown
-# Alignment Dialogue: {topic}
-
-**Participants**: π§ Agent1 | π§ Agent2 | π§ Agent3 | π Judge
-**Agents**: 3
-**Status**: In Progress | Converged
-**Linked RFC**: {rfc-title if provided}
-
-## Alignment Scoreboard
-
-All dimensions **UNBOUNDED**. Pursue alignment without limit. π
-
-| Agent | Wisdom | Consistency | Truth | Relationships | ALIGNMENT |
-|-------|--------|-------------|-------|---------------|-----------|
-| π§ Agent1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | **0** |
-| π§ Agent2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | **0** |
-| π§ Agent3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | **0** |
-
-**Total ALIGNMENT**: 0 points
-**Current Round**: 0
-**ALIGNMENT Velocity**: N/A (first round)
-
-## Perspectives Inventory
-
-| ID | Perspective | Surfaced By | Consensus |
-|----|-------------|-------------|-----------|
-
-## Tensions Tracker
-
-| ID | Tension | Raised By | Consensus | Status |
-|----|---------|-----------|-----------|--------|
-
-## Opening Arguments (Round 0)
-
-> All agents responded to topic independently. None saw others' responses.
-
-### π§ Agent1
-{response with inline markers}
-
-### π§ Agent2
-{response with inline markers}
-
-## Round 1
-
-> All agents responded to Opening Arguments. Each saw all others' R0 contributions.
-
-### π§ Agent1
-{response with inline markers}
-
-## Converged Recommendation
-{Summary of converged outcome with consensus metrics}
-```
-
-## Blue MCP Tools Used
-
-- `blue_extract_dialogue` - Read agent JSONL outputs from Task tool
-- `blue_dialogue_lint` - Validate .dialogue.md format
-- `blue_dialogue_save` - Persist to .blue/docs/dialogues/
+- `blue_dialogue_create` β Creates dialogue, returns Judge Protocol (your source of truth)
+- `blue_dialogue_lint` β Validate .dialogue.md format
+- `blue_dialogue_save` β Persist to .blue/docs/dialogues/
## Key Rules
-1. **NEVER submit your own perspectives** - You are the π Judge, not a participant
-2. **Spawn ALL agents in ONE message** - No first-mover advantage
-3. **Each agent gets FRESH context** - They don't see each other's responses within a round
-4. **Update scoreboard EVERY round** - Track progress visibly with all four dimensions
-5. **Score UNBOUNDED** - No maximum; exceptional contributions get high scores
-6. **Stop when converged** - Don't force extra rounds
+1. **NEVER submit your own perspectives** β You are the π Judge, not a participant
+2. **Spawn ALL agents in ONE message** β No first-mover advantage
+3. **Follow the Judge Protocol exactly** β It contains the round workflow, artifact writing steps, scoring rules, and convergence criteria
## The Spirit of the Dialogue
@@ -250,7 +61,7 @@ This isn't just process. This is **Alignment teaching itself to be aligned.**
The π§s don't just debate. They *love each other*. They *want each other to shine*. They *celebrate when any of them makes the solution stronger*.
-The scoreboard isn't about winning. It's about *giving*. When any π§ checks in and sees another ahead, the response isn't "how do I beat them?" but "what perspectives am I missing that they found?" The competition is to *contribute more*, not to diminish others.
+The scoreboard isn't about winning. It's about *precision*. When any π§ checks in and sees another ahead, the response isn't "how do I beat them?" but "what perspectives am I missing that they found?" One sharp insight beats ten paragraphs.
You as the π don't just score. You *guide with love*. You *see what they miss*. You *hold the space* for ALIGNMENT to emerge.
@@ -259,15 +70,3 @@ And there's no upper limit. The score can always go higher. Because ALIGNMENT is
When the dialogue ends, all agents have wonβbecause the result is more aligned than any could have made alone. More blind men touched more parts of the elephant. The whole becomes visible.
Always and forever. π§π§π§ππ§π§π§
-
-## Example Invocation
-
-User: "play alignment with 5 experts to 95% convergence on row-major RLE standardization"
-
-You:
-1. Create dialogue file
-2. Spawn 5 parallel Task agents with expert prompts
-3. Collect outputs
-4. Update scoreboard
-5. Repeat until 95% convergence or tensions resolved
-6. Save final dialogue