reviewing-actuarial-ux-syntheses

name	reviewing-actuarial-ux-syntheses
description	Use when comparing, reviewing, reconciling, adjudicating, or finalizing multiple completed actuarial UX synthesis passes, especially Prediction Lab research syntheses, before using findings for product or design decisions.

Reviewing actuarial UX syntheses

Core principle

This is a terminal evidence audit, not a vote among summaries. Agreement across synthesis passes measures interpretive stability; evidence strength still comes from unique raw reports, source fingerprints, source classes, directness, relevance, recency, and credible challenge.

Input boundary

1. Read references/meta-synthesis-protocol.md and references/final-output-template.md completely.
2. Use a caller-supplied campaign directory when present. Otherwise resolve the user's Desktop and use RESEARCH-LAB/prediction-lab-actuarial-ux/. Request narrowly scoped filesystem approval if that existing folder is sandbox-protected; use repository fallback research/actuarial-ux/prediction-lab-actuarial-ux/ only if approval is denied or Desktop remains unavailable.
3. Discover completed layer-two pass directories under synthesis/. Recognize artifact roles from content and structure, not exact filenames alone. Freeze and hash the input manifest before analysis. Never add a pass that appears after the freeze.
4. Exclude final/, previous layer-three outputs, partial output directories, and raw runs/ reports from the primary input set. Do not browse the web or introduce new external evidence. If only one valid synthesis exists, perform a pass-quality audit but make no cross-pass convergence claim.
5. Do not read a previous final before the current review is frozen. Read one only when the user explicitly requests a legacy delta audit; it contributes zero evidence and imports nothing without raw lineage.

Review workflow

1. Inventory every pass and artifact. Assign chronological aliases P01, P02, and so on; record path, hashes, model, date, input-report hashes, blindness, contamination, and missing artifacts.
2. Assess each pass using the protocol's separate quality dimensions. Retain incomplete and contaminated passes, but qualify their use. A pass that read another synthesis contributes zero independent interpretive convergence. An untraceable claim cannot affect final confidence until lineage is repaired.
3. Namespace every local identifier: P01/CAN-006, P02/MS-014, P01/OUT-001. Local IDs and matching prose are not global identity.
4. Normalize atomic propositions and underlying sources. Merge only equivalent claims. Preserve supports, extends, narrows, qualifies, contradicts, alternative cause, and distinct segment relationships.
5. Build the reversible chain: final claim → namespaced synthesis claims → raw finding IDs → run-local source IDs → global source fingerprints. Inspect raw reports only to repair or verify missing lineage, material contradictions, or high-impact claims; do not redo layer one or two.
6. Recompute evidence confidence independently of pass agreement. Report interpretive convergence, raw-report independence, source independence, source-class diversity, segment coverage, and challenges as separate dimensions. Never average local confidence labels or use majority rule.
7. Produce every artifact in the final-output template. Every accepted, rejected, split, merged, contradicted, or quarantined synthesis claim must be accounted for.
8. Capture completion time in UTC and save under final/YYYY-MM-DDTHH-mm-ssZ--<review-id>--<model>/. Normalize identifiers to lowercase kebab-case; append --02, then --03 on collision. Never overwrite or leave the review only in chat. Return the exact absolute output paths and any persistence limitation.

Completion gate

• Every frozen synthesis pass and recognized claim is inventoried.
• Every final factual claim traces to raw evidence or is explicitly quarantined.
• Pass convergence is never presented as source corroboration.
• Contamination, missing lineage, contradictions, minority claims, and negative evidence remain visible.
• Counts reconcile and every dedupe decision is reversible.
• Product/design implications distinguish established requirements, contested interpretations, and hypotheses.
• No web evidence, previous final, or post-freeze synthesis silently entered the corpus.

Anti-patterns

• “Five of six syntheses agree, therefore confidence is strong”
• Treating repeated raw reports or source families as new evidence
• Matching local CAN-* or MS-* IDs across passes by number
• Silently discarding incomplete, contaminated, minority, or untraceable material
• Reading previous finals before freezing an independent review
• Re-running the original research instead of auditing synthesis behavior
• Producing one polished summary without lineage, accounting, and disagreement artifacts