What to review
One problem arena narrowed. Real evidence still locked.
This is the control room for narrowing a 10-year problem thesis. It is not a customer product, and it does not prove demand, WTP, PMF, build readiness, or product validity.
Plain meaning: ADEP has narrowed one candidate problem and rehearsed the session flow, but it has not earned a product thesis, prototype, or build decision yet.
No-real-reviewer mode: keep improving the rehearsal, session clarity, and UI hygiene; do not move evidence confidence until a real external reviewer produces a sanitized handoff.
Synthetic routing counts only. These numbers do not prove demand, WTP, PMF, moat, product validity, or build readiness.
Agent autopilot
One question becomes one gated decision packet.
The operator does not upload a task list. ADEP treats the question as a routing instruction, then agents propose labels, source routes, extraction candidates, and blockers for validators to accept or reject.
No form, no 100-item manual entry.
Weak-signal agents collect permitted clues.
Candidate source and object hints only.
Labels are suggestions, not verdicts.
Existing gates decide what survives.
Inspect one packet and the blocked claims.
Boundary
Model output cannot prove demand, WTP, PMF, product thesis, safety, moat, or build readiness.
Operator command
One allowed move. Everything else stays locked.
Do this next. Do not build yet.
ADEP keeps the team focused on private CRM signoff and controlled evidence while blocking product claims that are not proven.
No product thesis movement from synthetic evidence.
Agents gather; reviewer inspects one packet.
Founder answer
Selector built. Product thesis not issued.
This strip is the five-second answer: what exists now, what target thesis artifact is not issued yet, why it is still held, and the single next action that can change confidence.
Current result
ADEP validation engine + reviewer demo.
The current output is the operating system for choosing a 10-year product thesis. It is not the final customer product.
You are here
Phase 0 engine is built. Product choice is still locked.
The current arena is narrowed to source-linked lifecycle review, but the next confidence change comes only from external controlled reviewer evidence after sanitized handoff review.
Schemas, gates, validators, and this review surface.
One controlled evidence sprint, not a product thesis.
Demand, WTP, PMF, moat, and build readiness are not proven.
Phase 1 snapshot
What we know, what is blocked, and what changes next.
This is the founder-level status card. It compresses the agent work into one inspectable state without turning research progress into product validation.
Blocked claims stay blocked until controlled evidence changes confidence.
Final result
ADEP ends with one thesis candidate that survives the gates.
The desired output is not a pretty demo. It is a single problem thesis candidate that has passed evidence, user-demand, risk, security, ethics, and wedge checks without unsupported claims.
These require real evidence, not agent confidence or synthetic routing.
Thesis candidate card
The survivor must fit on one inspectable card.
This preview shows the exact shape of the future deliverable. It is a template until controlled evidence, user-demand, risk, and build-gate checks pass.
These claims are absent until the evidence gates explicitly change them.
Validation action queue
The card moves only through gated actions.
This queue turns the candidate-card preview into the next allowed research operations. Agents can prepare the evidence work; confidence cannot move until the required gates pass.
Boundary
Queue progress is research progress only. It is not product validation or build approval.
Confidence change contract
Only controlled evidence can move the thesis.
ADEP can organize agent work, but it cannot trust itself into a product decision. This contract separates evidence that may change confidence from signals that must stay advisory.
Thesis issuance gate
A thesis candidate is issued only when every seal clears.
This gate is the visible stop between research organization and a real product-thesis candidate. If one seal is blocked, the final candidate remains unissued.
Which overlooked problem deserves evidence?
Permitted inputs are grouped before judgment.
Narrow, hold, deepen, or kill with boundaries.
Parallel structure
Agents split the work before a human sees the packet.
The operator does not assemble 100 tasks. Specialist agents scan, test, reject, and compress evidence into one inspectable next move.
Looks for repeated friction without turning it into a claim.
Separates source candidates from verified evidence.
Rejects shallow symptoms and maps the repeated constraint.
Blocks overclaim, privacy risk, false legitimacy, and build drift.
Output
One gated research sprint, not a pile of reviewer chores.
Safety + build lock
Readable stop sign before any prototype.
The system can show a research next move, but build and production stay locked until safety, privacy, ethics, and controlled evidence pass.
Research movement only. No product approval.
Accountability must be explicit before higher-impact use.
What must pass before prototype planning
Source verification lock
Candidate sources are not evidence yet.
Verification has not started in the synthetic demo.
Each source candidate must pass authority, coverage, freshness, ambiguity, and reuse checks.
These checks prevent false authority from entering a reviewer packet.
Source verification is not demand, WTP, PMF, thesis, or build approval.
Evidence intake lock
Real reviewer evidence starts outside git.
Repo-safe preconditions are complete; external reviewer output is still required before any confidence change.
Private CRM signoff remains outside git; repo-side readiness is not product validation.
The synthetic handoff is rehearsal only; it cannot become reviewer evidence or source-of-truth.
Contacts, raw replies, schedules, and private notes stay outside the repository.
Only controlled reviewer evidence can move confidence later.
Repo-safe command
Prints the current unblock card without reading or exposing private CRM content.
Receipt validation
Validates only the repo-safe signoff receipt after outside-git operator signoff; it does not read private CRM, collect reviewer evidence, approve product/build, or create a session pack.
Exact next safe operator sequence
Open research map
How it starts
One question, not 100 uploads.
The operator names the problem arena to investigate. Weak-signal agents collect permitted clues, ADEP blocks unsupported promotions, and the reviewer sees one next research move.
Operator question
Agent labor receipt
- Evidence linked
- Rejected early
- Escalated
Agentic intake
Collect signals before picking an idea.
Weak-signal agents scan public, permitted, and synthetic inputs. ADEP clusters them into one inspectable research sprint.
- No private contacts in git
- No product claim from synthetic signals
- No outreach before evidence and ethics gates
No manual 100-item entry
Agents gather. ADEP clusters. Reviewers inspect one next move.
Research-safe sources only.
Similar pains merge before judgment.
No demand, WTP, PMF, or build inference.
Deepen, hold, or kill.
Output contract
ADEP returns a gated next move, not a product verdict.
The reviewer sees what is allowed next, what is blocked, and what evidence would change confidence.
Problem cluster, wedge test, source needs, ethics boundary, and security boundary.
Synthetic signals can guide research only.
Accept, hold, or kill the next research sprint.
- Next move
- Allowed
- Blocked
- Confidence changes when
- Source packet
Audit and provenance
- Gate decision
- Packet fingerprint
- Gate fingerprint
- Source boundary
- Audit report
- Integrity checks
- Still unresolved
Visual thesis preview
See the problem shape before building.
One visual story connects owned objects to official signals and the next evidence sprint.
Receipt, model name, photo, and warranty live apart.
Recall, repair, safety, or maintenance source changes.
ADEP decides whether deeper evidence is allowed.
Purpose
Clarify the process before choosing the problem.
This map defines what must be true before Global Problem Lab chooses a problem, designs a wedge, or starts building.
Current stage
Problem not chosen yet. Method first.
Where the conversation stopped
Which problem is worth solving?
Compare candidate arenas, reject weak directions, and choose what deserves deeper research.
Convergence result
Deepen one arena first.
Workflow friction only. No buyer demand, WTP, PMF, or final product direction.
Sprint contract
One question / 25 minutes / no 100-item upload
Private CRM and repo-safe handoff gates stay before evidence use.
No product, demand, WTP, PMF, moat, prototype, or build claim.
Collect scattered clues: failures, workarounds, complaints, incidents, regulations, expert notes.
stay out until evidence, user demand, and risk boundaries exist.
Promotion is ; the product decision comes after this process.
All demo data is synthetic. No market claim is made.
This is a research action, not a build approval.
Promotion requires controlled evidence, active evidence boundary, and private CRM signoff outside git.
Open validation packet
Thesis State
Evidence Boundary
Why Not Build Yet
Problem Chain
Thesis Boundary
Open Questions
Sources
Claims
Controls
Risks
Evidence Ceiling
Effect
0
No evidence effect yet
Human Gate
Promotion Gate
This gate decides what the current packet is not allowed to become yet.