Elnor Repo Reader

# Round A Prompt — Concept Model and Canonical Knowledge Resolution Review

## Assignment

Review the DAMS V5 / Memory Control Plane concept model. Do **not** review the flattening plan except where a concept-model problem would make later flattening impossible.

## Required attachments

- `00_README_DAMS_V5_PreSpec_Review_Pack.md`
- `01_Adjudication_Delta.md`
- `02_Concept_Model_and_Canonical_Knowledge_Resolution.md`
- `05_Worked_Examples_and_Fixtures.md`
- `06_Research_to_Requirements_Matrix.md`

## Core question

Is the proposed concept model clear, domain-agnostic, and strong enough to serve as the basis for DAMS V5 / the flattened memory architecture?

## Issues to attack

1. Does the Source / Extraction Route / Canonical Object / Organization / Delivery distinction work?
2. Does the nine-plane architecture clarify the system, or create abstraction bloat?
3. Does `Assertion` work as the canonical truth-apt knowledge object?
4. Should `PremiseFamily`, `Claim`, or `Understanding` remain canonical terms instead?
5. Does the model clearly distinguish:
   - Assertion;
   - AssertionCandidate;
   - ConsolidatedUnderstanding;
   - Topic;
   - Library/corpus;
   - EvidenceRecord;
   - IssueFrame;
   - Episode?
6. Does Topic-driven extraction feed the same canonical pipeline as Library/corpus extraction?
7. Does the model prevent parallel truth stores?
8. Are `IssueFrame` and `WorkingStateEvent` necessary, or are they phantom/duplicative?
9. Are non-legal examples handled as cleanly as legal examples?
10. Which terms should be renamed before spec drafting?

## Required output

Use this structure:

```text
1. Bottom-line disposition
2. Accepted concepts
3. Concepts to modify
4. Concepts to reject
5. Naming fixes
6. Missing concepts
7. Fixture stress-test results
8. Highest-risk ambiguity
9. Specific spec changes recommended
```

Every bug must include a fix.