:orphan: .. meta:: :description: Refinement prompts for all five b12 audience papers, to be run AFTER adversarial review. :keywords: b12, e7Day, refinement, audience-specific, paper revision ************************************************************* Paper b12 --- Refinement Prompts (2026m04d05) ************************************************************* Run these AFTER the adversarial review prompts. Each refinement session reads both the paper and its review, then produces a revised version. b12-math: Formal Refinement ============================== .. code-block:: text /effort max TASK: Refine the b12-math paper based on its adversarial review. Read (in order): 1. .claude/CLAUDE.md 2. source/matheology/hell/mm/b/12/mmv2/b12-math_2026m04d05.rst (the paper) 3. source/matheology/hell/ll/study/b/12/review_b12-math_2026m04dNN.rst (the review) 4. source/matheology/model/e7day/axioms.rst (canonical axiom source) 5. source/matheology/model/e7day/theorems.rst (canonical theorem source) For EACH issue in the review: - If Critical: fix it. If unfixable, explain why and flag as an open problem. - If Major: fix it or explain why the reviewer's objection does not hold (steelman the reviewer, then respond). - If Minor: fix if easy; defer if not. SPECIFIC PRIORITIES: - Expand all derivation sketches to show each intermediate step - Check every formal statement against the canonical source - Address the constructive witness for m0 question - Audit the BEST Names table for consistency with actual usage - Add any missing formal notes about the multi-sorted nature of the system TARGET: ~15K words. Self-contained for logicians and mathematicians. Cross-references to companion papers should be brief (1 sentence each). Save refined paper at: source/matheology/hell/mm/b/12/mmv2/b12-math_2026m04dNN.rst (new date = new version; do NOT overwrite the original) Create an llog entry appended to the existing llog at: source/matheology/hell/ll/study/b/12/study_ll_2026m04d05_a2-e7day-llog.rst b12-theophil: Theological Refinement ======================================= .. code-block:: text /effort max TASK: Refine the b12-theophil paper based on its adversarial review. Read (in order): 1. .claude/CLAUDE.md 2. source/matheology/hell/mm/b/12/mmv2/b12-theophil_2026m04d05.rst 3. source/matheology/hell/ll/study/b/12/review_b12-theophil_2026m04dNN.rst 4. source/matheology/hell/ll/study/b/12/study_ll_2026m04d05_a2-e7day-llog.rst (especially the WoLC reference search report) SPECIFIC PRIORITIES: - Address the eisegesis vs. exegesis objection for each Genesis correspondence. For each, distinguish: what the model predicts independently BEFORE looking at Genesis (prediction) vs. what is found AFTER looking at Genesis (confirmation). This distinction is the difference between eisegesis and structural prediction. - Develop the cross-traditional convergence further. The Buddhist dependent origination parallel is the strongest; give it more space. - Address the Omphalos firewall objection honestly. If the Genesis framing does smuggle in a theological commitment, say so. - Add Teilhard de Chardin for the lower WoLC (BASE/LIFE/INFO) - Strengthen the theodicy reframing by steelmanning the objection that "structural tension" is just "designed suffering" TARGET: ~15K words. Self-contained for theologians and philosophers. Save at: source/matheology/hell/mm/b/12/mmv2/b12-theophil_2026m04dNN.rst b12-syseng: Engineering Refinement ===================================== .. code-block:: text /effort max TASK: Refine the b12-syseng paper based on its adversarial review. Read (in order): 1. .claude/CLAUDE.md 2. source/matheology/hell/mm/b/12/mmv2/b12-syseng_2026m04d05.rst 3. source/matheology/hell/ll/study/b/12/review_b12-syseng_2026m04dNN.rst SPECIFIC PRIORITIES: - Add 3 real-world case studies for OSCR (one financial, one organizational, one technological). Use web search to find well-documented system failures that fit the pattern. DO NOT FABRICATE cases. - Ground the 6:1 ratio claim in evidence (or weaken it to "a defensible heuristic" if evidence is lacking) - Make OSCR detection indicators more concrete: what specific metrics, what tools, what thresholds - Address the OKO pattern's interaction with regulatory compliance and ship dates - Compare the WoLC maturity model to CMMI and DORA explicitly TARGET: ~12K words. Self-contained for engineers. Save at: source/matheology/hell/mm/b/12/mmv2/b12-syseng_2026m04dNN.rst b12-socpsy: Psychology Refinement ==================================== .. code-block:: text /effort max TASK: Refine the b12-socpsy paper based on its adversarial review. Read (in order): 1. .claude/CLAUDE.md 2. source/matheology/hell/mm/b/12/mmv2/b12-socpsy_2026m04d05.rst 3. source/matheology/hell/ll/study/b/12/review_b12-socpsy_2026m04dNN.rst SPECIFIC PRIORITIES: - Address the Erikson ordering mismatch honestly. Develop the "individual development vs. system construction" explanation more fully. If the ordering mismatch is fatal to the parallel, say so. - Find and cite actual metacognition research on whether OK self-assessment at high competence produces the same consequences as at low competence. Use web search. DO NOT FABRICATE citations. - Make the supervillain theorem testable: what specific historical data would confirm/disconfirm it? Propose a research design. - Operationalize the five-gate compassion model: propose a measurement instrument with specific items for each gate. - Add clinical examples for each gate (Gate 4 especially needs a concrete example of "good intentions + noisy execution") TARGET: ~12K words. Self-contained for psychologists. Save at: source/matheology/hell/mm/b/12/mmv2/b12-socpsy_2026m04dNN.rst b12-intro: General Audience Refinement ========================================= .. code-block:: text /effort max TASK: Refine the b12-intro paper based on its editorial review. Read (in order): 1. .claude/CLAUDE.md 2. source/matheology/hell/mm/b/12/mmv2/b12-intro_2026m04d05.rst 3. source/matheology/hell/ll/study/b/12/review_b12-intro_2026m04dNN.rst SPECIFIC PRIORITIES: - Fix every jargon instance flagged by the reviewer - Strengthen the teaser: make sure it works standalone - Address the "Genesis framing" concern for secular readers: add an early signal that the formal structure is independent of theology - Make Section 4 ("What To Do With This") more concrete and actionable - Add emotional hooks where the reviewer identified reader check-out - Trim any section that drags; expand any section that rushes - The eschatological warfare framing (Section 3.1) is critical --- make it vivid without being alarmist TARGET: ~10K words + 1K teaser. Self-contained for general readers. Save at: source/matheology/hell/mm/b/12/mmv2/b12-intro_2026m04dNN.rst