magnus919_agent-skills/artifact-pyramids/references/output-classification-framework.md

Output Classification Framework

A role-agnostic system for mapping any specialist's outputs into the artifact pyramid, with strict layer-specific content contracts to eliminate duplication.

The Problem

Every specialist profile (editor, researcher, technical-architect, product-manager, copy-editor, SEO specialist) independently answers the same question: "Where does my stuff go in the pyramid?"

Without a shared framework, this produces inconsistent mappings. The same type of output ends up in different layers across profiles. Content duplicates between 00-index.md and 01-summary/. The boundary between "navigation" and "verdict" blurs.

This framework fixes that by providing three classification questions any specialist can ask about their outputs, independent of domain.

The Three Classification Questions

For every distinct type of output a specialist produces, ask:

1. Who consumes this?

The consumer determines the layer, because each consumer needs a different level of abstraction.

Consumer	Example roles	What they need	Layer
Decider	Orchestrator, author, pipeline gate	A verdict and priority actions. "Should I ship this? What should I fix first?"	L1 (Summary)
Practitioner	The specialist's counterpart, downstream implementer	Evidence organized by dimension. "Why is this broken? How do I fix it?"	L2 (Analysis)
Skeptic	Verifier, proofreader, challenger, reviewer	Raw material to verify claims. "Is this source real? Show me the test output."	L3 (Dossiers)

Rule: If a piece of output serves more than one consumer, it belongs at the layer of the least abstract consumer who needs it. If both the decider and practitioner need it, put it in L2 — the decider can still read it there (they just descend one level).

2. How often is it consumed?

Consumption frequency confirms the layer assignment and tells you how many files to create.

Frequency	Pattern	Layer	Cardinality
Every pipeline handoff	The first thing anyone reads to decide whether to proceed	L1	Exactly one file per project
Per dimension, on demand	Someone drills into this only when they need that specific dimension	L2	One file per analytical dimension
On challenge or deep review	Rarely accessed — pulled only when someone needs to verify	L3	One file per evidence set

Rule: If an output is consumed every time the artifact is touched, it belongs in L1 or the 00-index. If it's consumed only when someone needs a specific question answered, it belongs in L2 or L3.

3. What question does it answer?

This is the content boundary check — the rule that prevents duplication.

Question	Layer	File answers	File does NOT answer
"What should I do?"	L1	The verdict, the score, the priority actions	How the verdict was reached (that's L2), where the raw data lives (that's L3)
"Why should I do it?"	L2	Evidence, analysis, reasoning per dimension	What to do (that's L1), the primary sources (that's L3)
"Is this real / can I prove it?"	L3	Raw output, test results, source excerpts, capture metadata	What it means (that's L2), what to do about it (that's L1)

Rule: Every sentence in a file must answer its layer's assigned question. If a sentence answers a different layer's question, it belongs in that other layer. If a sentence answers no layer's question, it doesn't belong in the pyramid at all.

Applying the Framework

Step-by-step

1. Inventory your outputs: List every distinct type of artifact your specialist produces. (A copy-editor produces: a verdict, mechanical findings, line-edit findings, consistency findings, cross-reference results, a style sheet, a change log, a query list, verified source links.)

2. For each output, ask the three questions:

   • Who consumes this? → Decider, practitioner, or skeptic?
   • How often? → Every handoff, per dimension, or on challenge?
   • What question does it answer? → "What should I do?", "Why?", or "Is this real?"

3. Classify to layer: The answers determine the layer. If they disagree (e.g., consumed every handoff but answers "why"), the stricter constraint wins — protect the consumer who needs it the least.

4. Verify with the quality gate: For each file, check every sentence against its layer's question.

Worked Example: Copy-Editor

Output	Who consumes?	How often?	Answers?	Layer
Verdict, key counts, top findings	Decider (orchestrator, author)	Every handoff	"What should I do?"	L1
Mechanical edit findings	Practitioner (author, writer)	Per dimension	"Why fix this?"	L2
Line-edit findings	Practitioner (author, writer)	Per dimension	"Why rephrase this?"	L2
Consistency findings	Practitioner (author, writer)	Per dimension	"Why standardize this?"	L2
Cross-referencing results	Practitioner (author)	Per dimension	"Which links are broken?"	L2
Style sheet	Practitioner (proofreader)	Per project, on demand	"What style conventions were applied?"	L3
Change log	Skeptic (challenger)	On challenge	"What exactly changed?"	L3
Verified sources	Skeptic (verifier)	On challenge	"Which links actually resolve?"	L3
Query list	Decider (author)	Every handoff	"What questions remain open?"	L1 (adjunct)

Worked Example: SEO Specialist

Output	Who consumes?	How often?	Answers?	Layer
Overall verdict + score	Decider (pipeline, author)	Every handoff	"What should I fix?"	L1
Technical SEO findings	Practitioner (developer)	Per dimension	"Why is this a problem?"	L2
On-page findings	Practitioner (writer, editor)	Per dimension	"Why optimize this?"	L2
Schema validation	Practitioner (developer)	Per dimension	"What's broken in my schema?"	L2
Ghost metadata audit	Practitioner (editor)	Per dimension	"Which fields are missing?"	L2
AEO analysis	Practitioner (writer, editor)	Per dimension	"Why isn't this LLM-visible?"	L2
Raw crawl output	Skeptic (verifier)	On challenge	"What actual HTTP responses were seen?"	L3
Raw schema test results	Skeptic (verifier)	On challenge	"What did the validator say?"	L3

The 00-index / L1 Boundary

The most common duplication failure is between 00-index.md and files inside 01-summary/. The solution is to assign them distinct questions:

File	Answers	Contains	Does NOT contain
00-index.md	"Where do I find what I need?"	Navigation tree, project metadata, 1-sentence orientation, SOURCES	Findings, verdict, scores, priority actions, analysis, raw data
01-summary/*	"What should I do?"	Verdict, score, priority findings, recommended actions	Navigation, metadata, file lists, raw evidence, methodology

00-index.md exists only to get the consumer to the right layer file. It is navigation and provenance, not analysis. If the consumer reads 00-index.md and can decide whether to proceed, they don't need more from the index. If they need to decide what to do, they descend to 01-summary.

Quality Gates

Every file in the pyramid must pass its layer's gate. The gate is a single question:

Layer	Gate Question	Pass condition
00-index	"Is this file only navigation and provenance?"	No findings, verdict, scores, or analysis sentences
L1 (Summary)	"Does every sentence tell me what to do or what's most important?"	No raw data, no methodology, no file listings
L2 (Analysis)	"Does every sentence give me evidence organized by dimension?"	No verdict statements, no primary source text
L3 (Dossiers)	"Does every sentence present raw material without interpreting it?"	No recommendations, no judgments, no analytical framing

How to audit

For each file, read every sentence and ask: "Does this answer my layer's question?" If the answer is no for any sentence, that sentence belongs in a different layer or doesn't belong at all.

Common failure patterns:

• 00-index.md contains "Top 3 Critical Findings" → belongs in 01-summary
• 01-summary/verdict.md contains metadata (author, date, word count) → belongs in 00-index
• 02-analysis/findings.md contains "Recommendation: fix X" → this is a verdict (L1), not evidence (L2)
• 03-dossiers/raw-data.md contains "this suggests that..." → interpretation (L2), not raw material (L3)

Relationship to Other References

Reference	How this framework extends it
pipeline-stages.md	Defines what the layers ARE. This framework defines how to DECIDE what goes WHERE.
methodology-to-pyramid-mapping.md	Shows how specific roles (technical-architect, researcher) map their domain. This framework is the ROLE-AGNOSTIC abstraction they all follow.
quality-gates.md	Defines verification for a finished pyramid. This framework defines the CONTENT CONTRACTS that prevent violations from being created in the first place.