Verification — goal-alignment (pilot #1)

Date: 2026-07-24 · Runner: Claude (agent, following SKILL.md) Inputs: source ../project-ltp/dashboard/public/projects/individual-swe-example/model.yaml (synthetic toy example — one engineer's TODO/journal/project notes) + target ../project-ltp/dashboard/public/projects/second-renaissance/model.yaml Output: ../project-ltp/dashboard/public/projects/alignments/individual-swe-example__second-renaissance.yaml

What this is, and isn't, evidence of

This is the AI-suggested half of the IO-5 comparison the project's own 2r-research-circle model already prescribes ("AI and steward mappings are compared on real contributions with errors and corrections recorded") — before matching is trusted further. It is not yet that comparison: no human with standing over the Second Renaissance tree has reviewed these 6 suggestions. Until that happens, treat every one as status: suggested, not as an accepted alignment.

It also runs on a synthetic toy tree, not a real person's actual notes repo — per this project's own convention of validating a new skill against a toy example before pointing it at real data (PLAN.md, "Decisions locked"). The individual model was hand-authored to include one deliberately unrelated action (ACT-5, a routine CRDT-library PR) as a control case.

Mechanical checks

Every source_entity id (ACT-1, INJ-1, ACT-2, ACT-4, ACT-5) exists in individual-swe-example/model.yaml.
Every target_entity id (INJ-0, CSF-2, NC-6, RC-0, INJ-5, G-1) exists in second-renaissance/model.yaml.
Every suggestion has relation, rationale, confidence, and status: suggested, matching references/alignment-suggestions.schema.json.
Confidence is not uniform: 1 high (AL-001), 4 medium, 1 low (AL-006, the deliberate control case) — the calibration principle in SKILL.md §1/§5 held rather than defaulting every match to "high."

Judgment check

The strongest suggestion, AL-001 (ship the decision-log tool → Second Renaissance's own INJ-0, "a lightweight stewardship and revision protocol for the trees"), is a same-shape-artifact match: both are a versioned, stable-ID, rationale-carrying record, one already built at small scale. The weakest, AL-006, is included specifically to show the skill will say "unclear" rather than manufacture a connection between an unrelated open-source PR and the collective goal (the NBR-2 risk named in 2r-research-circle/model.yaml).

Verdict

Pass on the mechanical contract (schema-valid, all IDs resolve, confidence calibrated, no manufactured-significance suggestion left unflagged).

Not yet run: the actual IO-5 step — an independent human/steward mapping on the same pair of models, compared against this AI-suggested one, with errors and corrections recorded. That comparison, not this file alone, is what should decide whether goal-alignment is trusted on a real individual's notes repo.