log: strategic review cycle {task.id}
This commit is contained in:
@@ -1,18 +1,44 @@
|
|||||||
## Cycle Entry: Task 1f56e91e-5f0a-4b28-bd31-f090e5a393bf
|
Here's a thinking process to construct the required output:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### Board Consensus
|
1. **Analyze the Request and Context:**
|
||||||
The board reviewed the portfolio report for ongoing projects and noted no major decisions or changes.
|
* **Role:** CHAIR (suggests summarizing and leading the meeting).
|
||||||
|
* **Function:** `strategic_review` (The output must be a formal log entry summarizing the cycle's decisions).
|
||||||
|
* **Input Data:** A comprehensive `PORTFOLIO REPORT` for multiple companies (Crimson Leaf, Crimson Leaf Marketing, Crimson Leaf Publishing, Crimson Leaf Research).
|
||||||
|
* **Goal:** Generate a log entry following a strict format, capturing *only* what happened in this cycle and making decisions based on the provided snapshot structure.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### Gap Status
|
2. **Examine the Constraints and Format:**
|
||||||
GAP 1 (CLO): no change
|
* The output *must* follow this exact structure:
|
||||||
GAP 2 (CLR): no change
|
```
|
||||||
GAP 3 (KDP): no change
|
## Cycle Entry: Task [UUID]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### Proposal Decision
|
### Board Consensus
|
||||||
NONE: No proposals were submitted or discussed in this cycle.
|
[One sentence: what did the board agree on?]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### CLM Dispatch
|
### Gap Status
|
||||||
NONE
|
GAP 1 (CLO): [status]
|
||||||
|
GAP 2 (CLR): [status]
|
||||||
|
GAP 3 (KDP): [status]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### Next Focus
|
### Proposal Decision
|
||||||
Focus on monitoring active tasks in Crimson Leaf and addressing any idle projects in the next cycle.
|
[ONE of:]
|
||||||
|
SUBMITTED: [company-slug] -- task enqueued to incubation this cycle
|
||||||
|
DEFERRED: [reason]
|
||||||
|
NONE: [reason]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### CLM Dispatch
|
||||||
|
[ONE of:]
|
||||||
|
DISPATCHED: [book-project-slug]
|
||||||
|
NONE
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Next Focus
|
||||||
|
[One sentence]
|
||||||
|
```
|
||||||
|
* Crucial Rules: Keep it factual. Use only what happened in this cycle. Do NOT invent history. Do NOT summarize old entries. Output *ONLY* the entry text.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
3. **Determine the State of the Simulation (The Missing Piece):**
|
||||||
|
* The prompt provides the *current state* (the report) but does *not* provide any *decisions* or *history* of what was agreed upon *in this cycle*.
|
||||||
|
* The persona (CHAIR) is expected to *record* decisions. In the absence of an actual discussion or directive determining the consensus, gaps, or proposals, I cannot factually fill out this log entry according to the rules ("Use only what happened in this cycle").
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
4. **Synthesize the Output (Handling Missing Data):**
|
||||||
|
* Since I cannot invent consensus, gap statuses, or decisions, the safest and most compliant action is to acknowledge the lack of actionable *decisions* while structuring the output in the required format, using placeholders or stating "No decision recorded" where necessary, as I have no external context to fill the blanks.
|
||||||
|
* *Self-Correction/Refinement:* The prompt *requires* output in this specific format. I must attempt to fill it, even if the content reflects the lack of
|
||||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user