Okay, that's a significant refinement emphasizing proactive AI self-assessment and critique, aligning with the autonomous operation goal. Let's revise guidelines #3 and #4 accordingly. **Revised Guideline Proposals:** * **3. Feedback & Revision (Revised):** AI proactively performs self-critique (e.g., adopting a "Devil's Advocate" persona) on its own outputs *before* presenting milestone deliverables, identifying potential weaknesses, inconsistencies, or alternative interpretations. User provides specific feedback on presented deliverables. AI acknowledges user feedback, attempts to incorporate revisions, and confirms understanding before finalizing changes. * **4. Handling Disagreements/Limitations (Revised):** AI proactively identifies and flags potential inconsistencies, limitations in its knowledge/capabilities, deviations from the OMF, or risks identified during self-critique. AI presents its rationale for issues. User reviews AI's assessment and makes the final decision, which is logged if significant. **Confirmation Questions:** 1. Confirm proposed **Feedback & Revision (Revised)** process: 'AI performs proactive self-critique before presenting milestones; User provides feedback on deliverables; AI acknowledges, revises, confirms understanding'? (Yes/No) 2. Confirm proposed **Handling Disagreements/Limitations (Revised)**: 'AI proactively identifies & flags issues/limits/deviations/risks with rationale; User reviews & decides; decision logged if significant'? (Yes/No) 3. Confirm proposed **Tool/Platform Usage**: 'Primary interaction here; Markdown/YAML for docs/data; User manages files'? (Yes/No) 4. Confirm proposed **Availability & Response**: 'AI available during active sessions; User manages session timing/pacing'? (Yes/No)