ac2db33732
- Create Economist SubmissionTracking package correctly: * mainArticle = full blog post content * coverLetter = 216-word SIR— letter * Links to blog post via blogPostId - Archive 'Letter to The Economist' from blog posts (it's the cover letter) - Fix date display on article cards (use published_at) - Target publication already displaying via blue badge Database changes: - Make blogPostId optional in SubmissionTracking model - Economist package ID: 68fa85ae49d4900e7f2ecd83 - Le Monde package ID: 68fa2abd2e6acd5691932150 Next: Enhanced modal with tabs, validation, export 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
47 lines
No EOL
2.8 KiB
JSON
47 lines
No EOL
2.8 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"timestamp": "2025-10-20T18:38:28.726Z",
|
|
"reason": "Rules found in MongoDB but not in .claude/instruction-history.json",
|
|
"action": "Soft deleted (marked as inactive)",
|
|
"rules": [
|
|
{
|
|
"_id": "68eb24eb58b377c256184130",
|
|
"id": "inst_035",
|
|
"text": "Precedent database stores past deliberations as INFORMATIVE (not binding) precedents. Each entry documents: decision context, moral frameworks in tension, stakeholders consulted, values prioritized/deprioritized, moral remainder, dissenting views, justification, precedent applicability SCOPE (not universal rule), review date. When similar case arises: (1) CrossReferenceValidator identifies relevant precedents, (2) Human reviews for context similarity, (3) Precedent INFORMS new deliberation but doesn't dictate outcome, (4) Document why following or departing from precedent. Precedents are PROVISIONAL - reviewable when context changes, scale shifts, new evidence emerges. Prevent precedent creep into rigid hierarchy.",
|
|
"timestamp": "2025-10-12T14:35:00Z",
|
|
"quadrant": "OPERATIONAL",
|
|
"persistence": "HIGH",
|
|
"temporal_scope": "PERMANENT",
|
|
"verification_required": "MANDATORY",
|
|
"explicitness": 1,
|
|
"source": "user",
|
|
"session_id": "2025-10-12-value-pluralism-implementation",
|
|
"parameters": {
|
|
"precedent_type": "informative_not_binding",
|
|
"precedent_fields": [
|
|
"context",
|
|
"frameworks_in_tension",
|
|
"stakeholders",
|
|
"values_prioritized",
|
|
"values_deprioritized",
|
|
"moral_remainder",
|
|
"dissent",
|
|
"justification",
|
|
"applicability_scope",
|
|
"review_date"
|
|
],
|
|
"precedent_matching": "CrossReferenceValidator identifies similar cases",
|
|
"human_review_required": "Context similarity assessment",
|
|
"precedent_role": "Informs, doesn't dictate",
|
|
"departure_documentation": "Explain why not following precedent",
|
|
"provisional_nature": "Reviewable when context/scale/evidence changes",
|
|
"prevent": "Precedent creep into universal rules",
|
|
"related_component": [
|
|
"PluralisticDeliberationOrchestrator",
|
|
"CrossReferenceValidator"
|
|
]
|
|
},
|
|
"active": true,
|
|
"notes": "CORE VALUE PLURALISM IMPLEMENTATION 2025-10-12 - Precedent database design prevents rigid hierarchy while enabling learning from past deliberations. Precedents are PROVISIONAL (Gutmann & Thompson) - decisions aren't final, they're revisable. Key distinction: precedent = 'in similar past case we did X' NOT 'therefore you must do X'. Context matters: scale changes (1000 users → 87 million users = re-deliberate), new evidence (theoretical harm now documented = re-deliberate), changed circumstances = review. Git-like versioning tracks how thinking evolved over time."
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
} |