You've made a very important point about efficiency and the desire for a more automated workflow. My apologies for the slow, one-by-one confirmation process. The templates are designed for meticulous, step-by-step validation to ensure accuracy, but I understand that this can be inefficient, especially when the initial proposals are likely close to what's needed. Let's adopt the more streamlined approach you suggested for the remaining supporting artifacts (Style Guide and Success Metrics). **Revised Approach:** 1. I will now generate draft proposals for *both* the **Style Guide** and the **Success Metrics** based on the project context (FID, PBRF methodology, theoretical physics focus). 2. I will present *both* draft proposals together in this response. 3. Please review both drafts and provide any necessary feedback or corrections for either or both. You can simply state "Accept all" if they are satisfactory, or specify changes like "Style Guide: Change Tone to X; Success Metrics: Revise Criterion Y". 4. Based on your collective feedback, I will finalize both artifacts in the project state. --- **Draft Proposal: Style Guide (FID_StyleGuide v1.0)** * **ID:** FID_StyleGuide * **Version:** 1.0 * **Status:** Draft * **Content:** * **Tone & Voice:** Formal, objective, rigorous, precise, academic. Avoid overly speculative or informal language in core definitions and arguments. Maintain clarity for an interdisciplinary audience where possible, but prioritize technical accuracy. * **Grammar & Punctuation:** Standard scientific English conventions. Consistency in terminology is crucial (referencing FID_Glossary). * **Capitalization:** Standard English rules. Key framework names (PBRF, EQR, FID, DCIN) capitalized. Layer designations (Layer 0, Layer 1) capitalized. Specific principles (P1-P7) capitalized. * **Formatting:** Use Markdown. Employ headings, lists (appropriately, per collab guidelines), bolding for emphasis/definitions, italics for foreign terms or occasional emphasis. Use code blocks for equations or pseudo-code where appropriate. Consistent file naming conventions (e.g., `FID_Concept_Name_vX.Y.md`). * **Terminology & Glossary Ref:** Strictly adhere to terms defined in `FID_Glossary`. Introduce new technical terms with clear definitions. * **Citations & References:** Use consistent citation style (e.g., APA, Chicago - *User to specify preference if needed, otherwise default to clear inline references like [[Node_ID]]*). Maintain bibliography if external sources are used. * **Figures & Tables:** Use clear labels, captions, and consistent formatting if figures/tables are generated. --- **Draft Proposal: Success Metrics (FID_Metrics v1.0)** * **ID:** FID_Metrics * **Version:** 1.0 * **Status:** Draft * **Content:** * **Project Success Criteria (Overall):** * *Criterion 1:* Successful validation of the PBRF Layer 1 conceptual framework against its defined success criteria ([[archive/projects/PBRF 1/0214_PBRF_Success_Criteria]]). * *Criterion 2:* Successful identification and validation of a PBRF Layer 2 formalism capable of embodying L0/L1 principles and meeting L2 success criteria. * *Criterion 3:* (Long-term) Successful validation of PBRF Layer 3 models demonstrating required emergent phenomena and consistency with observation. * *Criterion 4:* (Ultimate) Production of a validated FID framework offering significant explanatory advantages over existing paradigms regarding information's role in reality. * **Deliverable Acceptance Criteria (Examples - Adaptable per Phase):** * *Charter:* Approved by User, accurately reflects project scope and approach. (Met: [[FID_Charter_v1.0]]) * *Layer 1 Conceptual Framework:* Meets SC1.1-SC1.4 of [[archive/projects/PBRF 1/0214_PBRF_Success_Criteria]] (concepts defined from L0, mechanisms derived, internally consistent, sufficient URFE scope). * *Layer 2 Formalism Definition:* Meets SC2.1-SC2.4 (specific, justified embodiment of L0/L1, consistent, represents concepts). * *Layer 3 Simulation Results:* Meets SC3.1-SC3.5 (implemented, demonstrates target emergence, passes artifact checks, consistent with observation, yields novel prediction). * **Task DoD Summary (General - Specific DoDs defined per task/sprint):** * Task output generated and documented according to OMF. * Internal AI self-critique performed (per Collab Guidelines). * Output validated/approved by User or meets pre-defined automated checks. * Project state updated correctly. --- Please review both the draft **Style Guide** and **Success Metrics** above. Provide your feedback or approval for both.