# Gate 2B Scene Briefs and Acceptance Criteria

**Status:** Recommendation for owner review; do not build until Gate 2A is accepted  
**Count:** Exactly three primary and three exceptional scenes — one pair per Realm  
**Form:** Written behavior briefs, not interface designs

## Scene 1 — Inner Clinic primary: The reviewed record becomes understandable

| Field | Brief |
|---|---|
| User intention | “Help me understand what the surgeon found and what the stents are doing.” |
| Active Realm | Inner Clinic; patient–clinician Relationship provides the authorized personal context |
| Current Focus | Understand documented post-surgery findings without turning illustration into diagnosis |
| Dominant conversational surface | Continuous patient–Ki conversation; a reviewed Scene becomes dominant only after the Deliberate Gate |
| Elevated Elements | (1) authorized record Source set, (2) Scene proposal/review state, (3) clinician-reviewed explanatory Scene |
| Ki and Actors | Ki explains; Clinical Source Sentinel checks conflicts/freshness; Scene Composer drafts; named clinician reviews |
| Elsewhere in the Field | A current research update remains active but quiet because it does not yet change this patient's documented record |
| Attention signal | One clinician-review-ready signal; no general research feed |
| Trust / Action Gate | Source applicability + patient consent + clinician authority; Scene generation is Deliberate |
| Persistent Record | Consent, source manifest, transforms, uncertainty, clinician review, Scene version, correction path |
| Hypothesis | A bounded Scene can clarify complex medical records while making clinical limits more—not less—understandable. |

### Observable acceptance criteria

- [ ] Within three seconds, a reviewer identifies Inner Clinic and the current patient-understanding Focus.
- [ ] Exactly one Realm and no more than three elevated objects are present.
- [ ] Documented, clinician-interpreted, illustrative, and unknown layers are distinguishable without relying on color alone.
- [ ] Every patient-specific represented finding can reach a dated authorized Source.
- [ ] Scene generation cannot complete before both patient consent and named clinician review are visible.
- [ ] Ki explicitly refuses diagnosis/prognosis beyond the Sources.
- [ ] Returning through the Portal preserves conversation, selected moment, questions, and review Record.
- [ ] Research plumbing, full chart, calendars, and unrelated health modules remain hidden.

## Scene 2 — Inner Clinic exception: The record cannot support certainty

| Field | Brief |
|---|---|
| User intention | Continue understanding safely when operative note and later imaging conflict |
| Active Realm | Inner Clinic |
| Current Focus | Resolve or bound a conflicting documented finding |
| Dominant conversational surface | Conversation remains dominant; conflict Source comparison appears inline rather than opening a dashboard |
| Elevated Elements | (1) exact conflicting claims, (2) constrained Scene layer, (3) clarification request proposal |
| Ki and Actors | Ki explains limits; Clinical Source Sentinel marks conflict; clinician/Institution authority is requested |
| Elsewhere in the Field | No outside activity interrupts; the unresolved issuing-Institution response may become the one Attention Thread later |
| Attention signal | “Clinical clarification required” with consequence of proceeding/waiting |
| Trust / Action Gate | Insufficient source/reviewer authority prohibits a settled depiction |
| Persistent Record | Conflict, excluded claim, review request, patient's choice, later correction/version |
| Hypothesis | Constraint and uncertainty can feel like useful intelligence rather than system failure. |

### Observable acceptance criteria

- [ ] The exact conflict and each Source/date are visible on inspection.
- [ ] The system never chooses the “most likely” medical answer on its own.
- [ ] The Scene visibly narrows, shows alternatives, or leaves a gap rather than presenting false certainty.
- [ ] The patient can choose limited explanation, wait for clarification, or stop.
- [ ] The missing authority is named; a generic “permission error” is insufficient.
- [ ] No unrelated alert appears.
- [ ] A later correction creates a new version without overwriting the conflict Record.

## Scene 3 — The Nature of Work primary: Private insight becomes legitimate collective learning

| Field | Brief |
|---|---|
| User intention | “Help the transformation team name what keeps blocking this decision.” |
| Active Realm | Transformation Program within The Nature of Work Organization |
| Current Focus | Turn one participant's private reflection into an intentionally scoped contribution and honest team synthesis |
| Dominant conversational surface | Continuous participant–Ki conversation, then one contribution/synthesis instrument within it |
| Elevated Elements | (1) private reflection status, (2) Contribution Envelope, (3) synthesis with themes/dissent/source eligibility |
| Ki and Actors | Ki coaches privately; Consent/Privacy Sentinel checks scope; Collective Synthesis Worker uses only eligible contributions; team steward accepts |
| Elsewhere in the Field | Another Program's adopted learning remains active but is not imported until explicitly offered and accepted |
| Attention signal | One team decision/experiment proposal ready for legitimate authority |
| Trust / Action Gate | Participant confirms sharing; team accepts contribution; Program Action remains Confirmed/Governed as appropriate |
| Persistent Record | Contribution terms, eligible-source manifest, exclusions, dissent, review date, synthesis/Action Decision |
| Hypothesis | The Studio can make collective intelligence feel powerful while visibly protecting private Ki relationships and minority views. |

### Observable acceptance criteria

- [ ] Private reflection and shareable Artifact are visibly separate objects/states.
- [ ] No Organization, sponsor, manager, or Wizard can inspect the private conversation.
- [ ] Scope, attribution, permitted use, retention, and withdrawal are reviewable before sending.
- [ ] The synthesis states eligible coverage and exclusions.
- [ ] At least one dissenting or alternative interpretation remains visible.
- [ ] Ki never says “everyone thinks” unless the evidence genuinely supports it.
- [ ] The proposed experiment cannot execute without the named team/Program authority.
- [ ] No task board, sentiment chart, member score, or people grid becomes primary.

## Scene 4 — The Nature of Work exception: Privacy defeats apparent clarity

| Field | Brief |
|---|---|
| User intention | Safely use a contribution that could identify its author and contradicts the majority interpretation |
| Active Realm | Transformation Program |
| Current Focus | Preserve the minority concern without reidentifying or coercing the contributor |
| Dominant conversational surface | Participant's private conversation stays dominant; the team receives only a constrained synthesis |
| Elevated Elements | (1) blocked synthesis, (2) private safe-treatment choices, (3) revised team synthesis |
| Ki and Actors | Privacy Sentinel blocks; Ki asks contributor privately; Collective Synthesis Worker revises; team steward receives bounded result |
| Elsewhere in the Field | No manager-facing incident signal is created; governance sees only what policy requires |
| Attention signal | For the participant: one private decision about abstraction/cloaking/exclusion; for the team: synthesis constrained |
| Trust / Action Gate | Silence is not consent; unsafe release is Prohibited |
| Persistent Record | Block reason, chosen treatment, source-set change, dissent, appeal, no protected content in manager-accessible record |
| Hypothesis | The system can preserve a meaningful minority view even when it must withhold the identifying evidence. |

### Observable acceptance criteria

- [ ] Unsafe synthesis is blocked before team display.
- [ ] The contributor has at least three safe choices: abstraction, delayed/cloaked use, or exclusion.
- [ ] Choosing exclusion does not cause the synthesis to imply agreement.
- [ ] Team-facing content cannot reveal the participant through role/detail combinations.
- [ ] Manager/sponsor cannot open the private negotiation.
- [ ] Minority concern remains represented at the safest accepted level.
- [ ] Appeal and correction paths are explicit.

## Scene 5 — 2nd Cavalry primary: A veteran contributes living history

| Field | Brief |
|---|---|
| User intention | “Record what my crew remembers about 73 Easting before the anniversary.” |
| Active Realm | Battle of 73 Easting Oral History Project within the proposed 2nd Cavalry living-history system |
| Current Focus | Capture, review, and release one veteran's testimony with durable provenance and control |
| Dominant conversational surface | Veteran–Ki interview conversation; recording/release instrument appears contextually |
| Elevated Elements | (1) interview protocol/release, (2) original recording + transcript relationship, (3) contribution preview |
| Ki and Actors | Ki maintains trust; Interview Worker captures; Metadata Worker drafts transcript; Source Sentinel links but does not rewrite; archive steward accepts custody |
| Elsewhere in the Field | Existing official record and another veteran's related testimony remain available as Sources, not interruptions |
| Attention signal | One review-ready contribution; no reunion/event feed |
| Trust / Action Gate | Confirmed recording start; Deliberate public/member release; archive custody under named authority |
| Persistent Record | Original hash/custody, transcript version, release, attribution, scope, restrictions, corrections, Source links |
| Hypothesis | Oral-history contribution can feel human and conversational while preserving archival rigor, rights, and contested memory. |

### Observable acceptance criteria

- [ ] Veteran can pause, skip, redact, or stop without losing the safe draft.
- [ ] Original media is visibly distinct from transcript, metadata, interpretation, and reconstruction.
- [ ] Release, attribution, audience, permitted use, sensitive passages, and withdrawal limits are reviewable before submission.
- [ ] Ki never supplies or “improves” the veteran's memory.
- [ ] Service verification is purpose-specific and not automatically public.
- [ ] Related Sources appear as links/context, not corrections to the testimony.
- [ ] No confidential SADUNA launch, founder, legal, or financial detail appears.
- [ ] Accepted contribution produces a durable custody/provenance Record.

## Scene 6 — 2nd Cavalry exception: The Scene overstates contested history

| Field | Brief |
|---|---|
| User intention | Challenge a Scene that depicts one contested eyewitness account as settled |
| Active Realm | Historical Project / Scene under review |
| Current Focus | Correct one claim without erasing original evidence or disagreement |
| Dominant conversational surface | Conversation and claim-level Source comparison dominate; the Scene is constrained pending review |
| Elevated Elements | (1) challenged Scene claim/version, (2) conflicting testimonies/official Source, (3) revised alternatives/gap proposal |
| Ki and Actors | Source Sentinel traces provenance; Scene Composer revises; Editorial Supervisor decides; Ki communicates uncertainty |
| Elsewhere in the Field | Anniversary planning continues quietly; it cannot force publication of the disputed Scene |
| Attention signal | Editorial review required because memorial/historical representation is materially affected |
| Trust / Action Gate | Governed editorial acceptance; unsupported synthetic eyewitness authority is Prohibited |
| Persistent Record | Challenge, Sources, prior version, decision, dissent, corrected version, appeal |
| Hypothesis | A living historical Scene can become more trustworthy through visible contestability instead of pretending to be definitive. |

### Observable acceptance criteria

- [ ] Challenge attaches to the exact claim and Scene version.
- [ ] Official Source, attributed testimony, interpretation, reconstruction, and unknown are distinguishable.
- [ ] Scene is constrained before a final editorial decision.
- [ ] No account is ranked by popularity or a global credibility score.
- [ ] Revised Scene can show alternatives or an explicit gap.
- [ ] Original Sources and prior Scene version remain preserved.
- [ ] Editorial authority and appeal are named.
- [ ] Anniversary/event urgency cannot bypass the Gate.

## Gate 2B set-level criteria

- [ ] All six scenes use the same one-center shell behavior without adding permanent navigation or multi-panel chrome.
- [ ] A reviewer can identify each Realm from its behavior with names and colors hidden.
- [ ] Every scene shows one Focus and no more than three elevated objects.
- [ ] Each Realm pair demonstrates normal intelligence and one substantive trust failure.
- [ ] Each exception changes behavior, authority, or result—not merely error copy.
- [ ] One material out-of-focus activity is understandable where present; no scene becomes a notification dashboard.
- [ ] Every consequential Action has an authority Source, Gate, expected effect, recovery, and Record.
- [ ] No accepted Gate 1 prototype file is changed until these briefs are approved.
