09B_Extraction_Lifecycle_Review_Prompt.md
Memory Rebuild Docs/Memory Rebuild Review Packs/Archived Memory Rebuild Zips/DOC80_Memory_Control_Plane_PreSpec_Review_Pack_v1_0_2026-05-25/09B_Extraction_Lifecycle_Review_Prompt.md
ELNOR REPO READER TEXT MIRROR Original path: Memory Rebuild Docs/Memory Rebuild Review Packs/Archived Memory Rebuild Zips/DOC80_Memory_Control_Plane_PreSpec_Review_Pack_v1_0_2026-05-25/09B_Extraction_Lifecycle_Review_Prompt.md Source repo: /Users/OpenClaw1/Elnor/Elnor Specs Git branch: main Git commit: dbaa25962edc11ab30e8d4ca1715f9ae5bf77331 Generated: 2026-06-09T01:23:58.539Z --- # Round B Prompt — Extraction, Assertion Lifecycle, Promotion, and Degradation Review ## Assignment Review whether the extraction and lifecycle model is workable for extraction agents and memory governance. Do not review UI or flattening except where they affect extraction/lifecycle correctness. ## Required attachments - `02_Concept_Model_and_Canonical_Knowledge_Resolution.md` - `03_DAMS_V5_Spec_Outline.md` - `05_Worked_Examples_and_Fixtures.md` ## Core question Can an extraction agent classify information into the right output kind, prevent memory pollution, and promote/degrade assertions correctly? ## Issues to attack 1. Is `ExtractionOutputKind` small enough for an extraction agent to use? 2. Is `ExtractionRouteContext` sufficient to record Topic extraction, Library/corpus ingestion, chat capture, Project-mode capture, task output extraction, and manual additions? 3. Does `AssertionCandidateDisposition` route ephemeral statements correctly? 4. Does `AssertionTemporalProfile` handle: - instant status; - session-lifetime statements; - short incidents; - rolling operational facts; - project-bounded diagnoses; - source-bounded syntheses; - durable domain assertions; - historical facts; - standing preferences? 5. Are promotion rules concrete enough? 6. Are degradation rules concrete enough? 7. Does “Qwen is not working” avoid becoming durable truth while still creating useful friction/incident memory? 8. Does “memory system broke because specs were underspecified” route as an IssueFrame/diagnosis before durable Assertion? 9. Does “Ninth Circuit scienter elements” dedupe across Topic extraction and Library/corpus extraction? 10. What exact extraction decision tree should be normative? ## Required output ```text 1. Bottom-line disposition 2. Extraction output taxonomy review 3. Assertion lifecycle review 4. Promotion/degradation review 5. Topic extraction review 6. CU/extraction interaction review 7. Fixture failures or ambiguities 8. Required schema changes 9. Required acceptance tests ``` Every ambiguity in fixture classification counts as a spec defect unless the ambiguity is deliberately preserved with a review queue.