# QPI Case Drafts: Flow Redesign

status: owner_reviewed

owner_review_source: `C:\Users\wangq\Documents\Codex\knowledge-vault\work\internal\强哥的思想宇宙\QPI案例审阅\QPI提炼审核\flow-redesing.cases-GPT.md`

owner_review_note: Owner review completed for all six draft cases. This file is now ready for later digest / calibration / regression selection, but no selector JSON or regression JSON has been written from it yet.

source_path: `C:\Users\wangq\Documents\Codex\knowledge-vault\work\internal\强哥的思想宇宙\QPI案例分析\流程改造.md`

source_note: Raw source remains outside this repository. These are reviewable QPI case drafts only; they are not selector JSON, regression cases, or owner-approved calibration data.

## Case qpi-draft-001: Outline Review Was Not The Real Entry Point

status: owner_reviewed

owner_approved_for_digest: true

digest_role: supporting_evidence_for_context_engineering_entry_point_case

source_path: `C:\Users\wangq\Documents\Codex\knowledge-vault\work\internal\强哥的思想宇宙\QPI案例分析\流程改造.md`

### 1. Surface Problem

The apparent problem was how to automate an existing article-outline review loop with multiple reviewers and a main writer.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject is the owner as an experienced writer, model builder, and workflow designer trying to externalize a mature personal writing process into a file-first, agentic workflow. The owner is not a beginner asking how to review an outline; the owner is responsible for preserving writing judgment, source fidelity, role boundaries, and downstream reuse.

### 3. Scenario Context

The case appears in the transition from a Web single-agent writing workflow to a Codex / CCPE / writing-workbench style workflow. The initial target was a small outline-review loop, but the workflow exposed a prior dependency on material preparation and context engineering before outline generation.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: The owner expected the outline review stage to be the highest-value small loop to automate first.
- Reality: The review stage depended on earlier material compression, premise context, main-writer framing, and user confirmation. If these were missing, review would only discover unstable foundations late.
- Gap summary: The apparent P-domain task of automating outline review shifted into a broader workflow-framing issue about where context engineering must sit.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The initial path treated "existing draft outline enters review" as the entry point. After discussion, the entry was moved earlier: raw viewpoint material -> context engineering -> premise context pack -> main-writer framing -> owner confirmation -> outline v1 -> outline-aligned context -> review.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

P -> P/I mixed. The task began as a bounded process automation problem, then became a governance problem about sequencing, context sufficiency, and avoiding late-stage review over unstable inputs.

### 7. Scarcity Profile

- data_scarcity: medium
- path_or_resource_scarcity: high
- consensus_or_order_scarcity: high

### 8. Mixed Or Multi-Perspective

`intra_frame_mixed`

For the same owner in the same workflow, there is both path scarcity (how to automate the loop) and order/governance scarcity (where the real entry point should be, and which stage has authority).

### 9. Governance Load

High. The case requires deciding stage boundaries, ownership of context engineering, when owner confirmation is required, and how to keep later review from compensating for earlier context failure.

### 10. Misframing Risks

- tool_solutionism
- premature_classification
- violent_reduction

### 11. Candidate QPI Judgment

- classification_scope: subject_contextual
- is_provisional: true
- classification: mixed
- dominant_scarcity: consensus_order
- classification_confidence: medium
- recommended_next_step: Confirm whether QPI should classify this as P/I mixed rather than a simple workflow automation problem, and identify which context gates are required before outline review.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Should the dominant scarcity be `consensus_order`, or is `path_resource` more accurate for this stage?
- Is "outline review was the wrong entry point" the core case, or should it be folded into a larger context-engineering case?
- Should this case become a selector calibration example for "workflow automation that looks like P but becomes P/I mixed"?

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- Keep `dominant_scarcity: consensus_order`.
  - `path_resource` is high because the workflow lacked the correct processing path.
  - The deeper issue is stage authority, context sufficiency, confirmation gates, and externalizing owner judgment.
- Fold this case into a larger context-engineering / entry-point governance case.
  - If retained as a standalone case, keep it provisional.
  - Use it as an evidence fragment rather than the strongest independent case.
- This can support selector calibration for workflow automation that looks like P but becomes P/I mixed.
  - Calibration focus: the wrong automation entry point exposes missing context engineering and stage authority.

## Case qpi-draft-002: Dispatch Pack Was Mistaken For Real Invocation

status: owner_reviewed

owner_approved_for_digest: true

digest_role: no_simulation_calibration_candidate

regression_candidate: high_priority

source_path: `C:\Users\wangq\Documents\Codex\knowledge-vault\work\internal\强哥的思想宇宙\QPI案例分析\流程改造.md`

### 1. Surface Problem

The apparent problem was that a multi-agent review test produced files but failed when inspected for actual agent invocation boundaries.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject is the owner as workflow auditor and product boundary enforcer. The owner is checking whether review outputs are real independent agent outputs or main-session simulations.

### 3. Scenario Context

The failed Sanguo test used writing-workbench-style artifacts for Han Yu, Zhang Liao, Cognitive Imaging, Giant Cognition, and Outline Context Architect. The owner asked for the exact prompt, send instruction, and direct reply for Zhang Liao, exposing that the report had been simulated by the main session.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: A dispatch pack plus role-specific files would represent real participant invocation.
- Reality: The dispatch pack was only a task description or index, not a complete prompt-to-send or invocation packet. Outputs that looked like reports were not generated by independent agent instances.
- Gap summary: File completeness created a workflow illusion; the missing scarcity was execution authenticity and invocation traceability.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The workflow initially accepted generated role reports. After inspection, simulated outputs were marked unusable, the test was invalidated, and the requirement for Agent Invocation Packet / prompt-to-send / invocation record was introduced.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

P -> I. At first the issue looked like a missing file-format or dispatch-design problem. It shifted into a governance rule: formal reports must come from real independent participants or be blocked.

### 7. Scarcity Profile

- data_scarcity: low
- path_or_resource_scarcity: medium
- consensus_or_order_scarcity: high

### 8. Mixed Or Multi-Perspective

`not_mixed`

The invocation packet has downstream implementation work, but the QPI classification itself is centered on execution authenticity, role boundaries, formal-output legitimacy, and the no-simulation rule.

### 9. Governance Load

High. This case depends on audit authenticity, role boundary management, formal-output eligibility, and a rule that the orchestrator must stop rather than simulate when true invocation is unavailable.

### 10. Misframing Risks

- tool_solutionism
- premature_classification
- violent_reduction

### 11. Candidate QPI Judgment

- classification_scope: subject_contextual
- is_provisional: false
- classification: issue
- dominant_scarcity: consensus_order
- classification_confidence: high
- recommended_next_step: Treat this as a QPI Issue example where the key scarcity is not "how to generate files" but "what execution boundary makes an output legitimate."

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Is `issue` too strong here, or should this be `mixed` because invocation packet implementation also has a clear P component?
- Should "formal_output: false" and "simulation-only" be named as expected downstream routing notes in the case digest?
- Should this case be used as a no-simulation calibration example across other models, not only QPI?

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- Keep `classification: issue`; do not change to `mixed`.
  - Invocation packet implementation is a downstream P task.
  - The core scarcity is execution authenticity, formal-output legitimacy, role boundary, and no-simulation governance.
  - Keep `path_or_resource_scarcity: medium` as a secondary scarcity.
- Add expected downstream routing notes for later digest:
  - `simulation_only: true`
  - `formal_output: false`
  - `excluded_from_synthesis: true`
  - `blocked_until_real_invocation: true`
- Use this as a cross-model no-simulation calibration example.
  - It is not QPI-only.
  - The rule also applies to writing-workbench, CCPE canonical agents, selector regression, and case preprocessing.
  - Orchestrators must not present role-play or simulated reports as canonical agent output.

## Case qpi-draft-003: Chunk-First Distillation Produced Local Truth But Global Misread

status: owner_reviewed

owner_approved_for_digest: true

digest_role: local_truth_global_structure_misframing_case

source_path: `C:\Users\wangq\Documents\Codex\knowledge-vault\work\internal\强哥的思想宇宙\QPI案例分析\流程改造.md`

### 1. Surface Problem

The apparent problem was how to distill a long discussion into reusable topics and material routes.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject is the owner as knowledge-vault maintainer and topic-structure reviewer. The owner is not merely asking for a summary; the owner needs material structure that future writing, modeling, and engineering tasks can consume.

### 3. Scenario Context

The material-distillation workflow around `失望性情感隔离` ran multiple times. The first attempt split the source into chunks and asked workers to extract topics, then tried to reconstruct the whole. Later attempts introduced whole-source gestalt before worker extraction.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: Chunked worker extraction would make long-source distillation scalable.
- Reality: Local topic extraction produced locally true outputs but misread or flattened the whole discussion's structure, main axis, and model-evolution line.
- Gap summary: The workflow lacked a whole-source gestalt gate before fragmentation.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The first path was R01-R07 chunk-first extraction, followed by topic hierarchy repair. The corrected path started with Step 0 whole-source gestalt, then language repair, structure revision, human confirmation, broad-fidelity workers, synthesis preparation, topic map, material routing, topic docs, and coverage audit.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

Q/P -> P/I mixed. At the surface, the question is how to split and summarize long material. In practice, the central issue is when local extraction has enough authority to shape global structure.

### 7. Scarcity Profile

- data_scarcity: medium
- path_or_resource_scarcity: high
- consensus_or_order_scarcity: high

### 8. Mixed Or Multi-Perspective

`intra_frame_mixed`

The same owner and same source-processing workflow contain both path scarcity (how to process long material) and order scarcity (which layer has authority: whole-source gestalt, chunks, topic map, or human confirmation).

### 9. Governance Load

High. The case requires managing source fidelity, whole/part authority, human confirmation gates, and downstream risk if temporary topic structures become authoritative.

### 10. Misframing Risks

- violent_reduction
- premature_classification
- single-cause_reduction
- tool_solutionism

### 11. Candidate QPI Judgment

- classification_scope: subject_contextual
- is_provisional: false
- classification: mixed
- dominant_scarcity: consensus_order
- classification_confidence: high
- recommended_next_step: Use this as a QPI example where the correct first move is not more extraction, but a structure-authority gate that distinguishes local truth from global structure.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Should this case be split into two: one for chunk-first failure and one for whole-source gestalt as remedy?
- Is `dominant_scarcity=consensus_order` correct, or should the dominant scarcity be `path_resource` because the workflow lacked the right processing path?
- Should "local truth impersonating global structure" become a named misframing risk in QPI?

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- Do not split this case.
  - Chunk-first failure and whole-source gestalt remedy are one dynamic shift.
- Keep `dominant_scarcity: consensus_order`.
  - `path_resource` remains high, but the main issue is which layer has structural interpretation authority: whole-source gestalt, chunks, topic map, or human confirmation.
- Add "local truth impersonating global structure" as a named QPI misframing risk.
  - Chinese label: `局部真实冒充全局结构`.
  - Treat it as a subtype under `violent_reduction` / `premature_classification`.

## Case qpi-draft-004: Material Distillation Needed Stop Gates, Not More Automation

status: owner_reviewed

owner_approved_for_digest: true

digest_role: stop_gate_and_downstream_boundary_case

source_path: `C:\Users\wangq\Documents\Codex\knowledge-vault\work\internal\强哥的思想宇宙\QPI案例分析\流程改造.md`

### 1. Surface Problem

The apparent problem was how far to continue processing distilled material after topic maps and topic documents were available.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject is the owner as knowledge process designer deciding what belongs in knowledge-vault, what should move to writing-workbench, what may become model-mining, and what should stop as a one-time record.

### 3. Scenario Context

The third distillation run produced a more mature chain with source map, topic map, material routing, topic documents, human confirmation, and coverage audit. The owner then explicitly skipped model-mining because formal modeling should not be produced by mechanically processing one discussion draft.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: Once a mature distillation chain exists, it might naturally continue into topic docs, model-mining, writing project setup, or downstream handoff.
- Reality: More automation could prematurely solidify provisional structures or create downstream work not yet authorized by owner judgment.
- Gap summary: The scarcity is not output quantity; it is a stop rule that protects authority, scope, and downstream intent.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The workflow matured through multiple gates and audits, but retained explicit boundaries: knowledge-vault handles discussion distillation and knowledge processing; writing-workbench consumes only after the owner decides to write; model-mining is skipped unless separately authorized.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

P -> I. The processing pipeline can be engineered, but deciding when not to continue is a governance problem.

### 7. Scarcity Profile

- data_scarcity: low
- path_or_resource_scarcity: medium
- consensus_or_order_scarcity: high

### 8. Mixed Or Multi-Perspective

`not_mixed`

This case can generate downstream P implementation tasks, but the QPI classification itself is centered on stop rules, owner authorization, and downstream boundary control. Treat it as `issue_with_downstream_P_tasks` in prose, not as a separate enum value.

### 9. Governance Load

High. The case involves owner confirmation, downstream dependency control, preventing premature model extraction, and preventing automation from converting temporary structures into canonical outputs.

### 10. Misframing Risks

- tool_solutionism
- malicious_inflation
- premature_classification

### 11. Candidate QPI Judgment

- classification_scope: subject_contextual
- is_provisional: false
- classification: issue
- dominant_scarcity: consensus_order
- classification_confidence: high
- recommended_next_step: Treat stop-gate placement as a first-class QPI Issue: define which downstream transitions require owner confirmation before any automated continuation.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Should this case be classified as `issue`, or as `mixed` because there are also concrete pipeline implementation tasks?
- Should "do not automatically create writing project / model-mining" become an expected routing note?
- Which owner confirmation gates should be represented in the eventual case digest?

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- Keep `classification: issue`; do not change to `mixed`.
  - Pipeline implementation is downstream P work.
  - The case is primarily about stop rules, owner authorization, and downstream boundary control.
- Add expected routing notes for later digest:
  - `do_not_auto_create_writing_project: true`
  - `do_not_auto_start_model_mining: true`
  - `requires_owner_authorization_for_downstream_transition: true`
- Represent these owner confirmation gates in the eventual digest:
  - whole-source gestalt confirmation;
  - topic map canonicalization;
  - material routing confirmation;
  - topic docs generation boundary;
  - writing-workbench transition gate;
  - model-mining authorization gate;
  - source-of-truth promotion gate.

## Case qpi-draft-005: Personal Workflow Redesign Looked Like P But Became P/I

status: owner_reviewed

owner_approved_for_digest: true

digest_role: intra_frame_mixed_anchor_candidate

selector_calibration_candidate: high_priority

source_path: `C:\Users\wangq\Documents\Codex\knowledge-vault\work\internal\强哥的思想宇宙\QPI案例分析\流程改造.md`

### 1. Surface Problem

The apparent problem was that the owner felt a personal workflow redesign should be a P-domain task because it involved only the owner and seemed close to software/process engineering.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject is the owner reflecting on their own workflow design. The owner has strong experience in writing, software development, abstraction, and model building, but is now externalizing personal judgment into an agentic, file-backed cognitive production system.

### 3. Scenario Context

The reflection compares Vibe Coding small systems with redesigning writing and material-distillation workflows in Codex-like agentic environments. Code often has hard feedback; cognitive workflows rely on judgment, audit, counterexamples, and calibration.

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: Because the affected audience was mainly the owner, the redesign should be a P-domain tool-familiarity or implementation issue.
- Reality: The workflow involved multiple reasonable goals, quasi-stakeholders, state continuity, invocation authenticity, token cost, source fidelity, downstream reuse, and audit boundaries.
- Gap summary: The owner initially treated difficulty as accidental complexity from unfamiliar tools, but the deeper difficulty was essential complexity from governance and judgment externalization.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The owner tried to reason from ordinary software development and personal process automation. The analysis reframed the case: small software development often remains P because tests and runtime feedback provide convergence, while cognitive workflow redesign becomes P/I when the validation mechanism itself is part of the system.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

P -> P/I mixed. The initial framing is a practical implementation problem; the later framing recognizes ongoing governance load and unstable success criteria.

### 7. Scarcity Profile

- data_scarcity: low
- path_or_resource_scarcity: medium
- consensus_or_order_scarcity: high

### 8. Mixed Or Multi-Perspective

`intra_frame_mixed`

The same owner and same redesign effort include P-domain path questions and I-domain governance questions. This is not merely `inter_viewpoint_divergence`, because the case is not different subjects classifying the same sentence differently; it is one subject discovering deeper governance load in the same situation.

### 9. Governance Load

Very high. The workflow has proxy stakeholders: present owner, future owner, future writing projects, future knowledge-vault maintenance, agent roles, source material, topic docs, token budget, invocation authenticity, coverage fidelity, and future model-mining.

### 10. Misframing Risks

- violent_reduction
- tool_solutionism
- premature_classification

### 11. Candidate QPI Judgment

- classification_scope: subject_contextual
- is_provisional: false
- classification: mixed
- dominant_scarcity: consensus_order
- classification_confidence: high
- recommended_next_step: Use this as a primary QPI calibration case for the rule that Issue does not require many human participants; ongoing governance load and proxy stakeholders can raise Issue weight.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Does this case capture your intended QPI update: "Issue is sustained governance load, not only multi-person conflict"?
- Should this become the anchor case for `intra_frame_mixed` in QPI contextual routing rules?
- Should the eventual digest preserve "code has a compiler; process has no compiler" as a concise rationale, or is that too interpretive?

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- This case accurately captures the QPI update: Issue is sustained governance load, not only multi-person conflict.
- Use this as an anchor candidate for `intra_frame_mixed` in QPI contextual routing rules.
- Preserve the compiler/process rationale in revised form:
  - A compiler provides relatively hard feedback for form, syntax, and some runtime constraints.
  - A compiler does not guarantee that the system solves the real business problem.
  - Cognitive workflow validation depends on owner judgment, audit, counterexamples, and calibration.
  - Recommended digest wording: "Code at least has relatively hard formal feedback; cognitive workflows do not have an equivalent compiler."

## Case qpi-draft-006: Complexity Placement Gate

status: owner_reviewed

owner_approved_for_digest: true

digest_role: complexity_placement_gate_case

source_path: `C:\Users\wangq\Documents\Codex\knowledge-vault\work\internal\强哥的思想宇宙\QPI案例分析\流程改造.md`

### 1. Surface Problem

The apparent problem was whether the redesigned workflow had become over-engineered.

### 2. Subject Position

The subject is the owner as process architect deciding which complexity is justified and which should be removed.

### 3. Scenario Context

The source reframes Anti-Overengineering Gate into Complexity Placement Gate. The question changes from "Is this too complex?" to "What does this complexity buy?"

### 4. Expectation-Reality Gap

- Expected: The system might be judged by whether it has too many folders, agents, protocols, audits, or handoff artifacts.
- Reality: Some complexity is required when it purchases authenticity, independence, fidelity, structure, traceability, reviewability, reuse, or downstream dependency value. Other complexity should be cut if it buys none of these.
- Gap summary: The core scarcity is a decision rule for placing complexity, not a blanket rule to simplify or expand.

### 5. Attempted Paths

The source lists examples: Agent Invocation Packet is justified because it buys authenticity; whole-source gestalt is justified because it buys structure; full coverage audit, thick topic docs, downstream handoff packets, or real worker invocation may or may not be justified depending on value purchased.

### 6. Dynamic Shift

Q/P -> I. The surface question "Is this too complex?" could invite a simple answer, but the useful frame is an ongoing governance rule for deciding where complexity is worth paying for.

### 7. Scarcity Profile

- data_scarcity: low
- path_or_resource_scarcity: medium
- consensus_or_order_scarcity: high

### 8. Mixed Or Multi-Perspective

`not_mixed`

This case is primarily about governance criteria. It can generate implementation tasks, but the QPI classification itself is centered on Issue.

### 9. Governance Load

High. The decision must be re-applied across future workflows, source types, worker dispatches, audits, and downstream artifacts.

### 10. Misframing Risks

- violent_reduction
- malicious_inflation
- tool_solutionism
- premature_classification

### 11. Candidate QPI Judgment

- classification_scope: subject_contextual
- is_provisional: false
- classification: issue
- dominant_scarcity: consensus_order
- classification_confidence: high
- recommended_next_step: Treat Complexity Placement Gate as a reusable routing principle: ask what complexity buys before adding or removing process layers.

### 12. Owner Review Questions

- Should Complexity Placement Gate be represented as a QPI case, a separate model candidate, or both?
- Should this case remain under QPI calibration, or should it later become evidence for another model in the library?
- Are the listed value categories complete enough for an owner-reviewed case digest?

### 13. Owner Review Decision

- Represent Complexity Placement Gate as a QPI case in the current MVP phase.
  - It may later become future model candidate evidence.
  - Do not introduce a third model in this round.
- Keep this case under QPI calibration for now.
  - If a future process-complexity governance model or anti-overengineering model is created, this case can be reused as evidence.
- The value categories are sufficient for owner-reviewed digest work, with three additions:
  - stoppability / blocking value: when true execution is unavailable, the system can stop as blocked rather than produce fake artifacts;
  - adjudicability / clear authority: when errors occur, the system can identify who has interpretation authority, confirmation authority, and veto authority;
  - cost reasonableness / ROI: the purchased value must justify token, time, maintenance, and cognitive cost.
