1. **"Segment" vs. "Section" vs. "Part" vs. "Chapter":** You're right, they all denote pieces of a whole. I will use "Segment" for the purpose of the Large Output Handling Protocol when breaking up a single conceptual file (like `project_state` or a full draft of a deliverable like D002) for transmission in the dialogue. The `segment_id` in the metadata will clarify what content that segment holds (e.g., "Segment_2_Section_2_Etymology"). This distinguishes it from the formal "Sections" or "Chapters" *within* the document's own structure. 2. **Filenames & Separate Files:** My apologies for the previous confusion. My corrected understanding, which I will strictly adhere to, is: * Each distinct conceptual document (e.g., `AUTX_Charter_v1.5`, `AUTX_Plan_v1.1`, `AUTX_AutaxysPrimer_v2.2`, and now this draft of `AUTX_D002_Draft_v0.1`) will have its own unique `id` (acting as `filename_base`) in its metadata block when presented. * If a single such document is too long for one message, I will use the Large Output Handling Protocol, and the metadata for subsequent segments will clearly indicate they are continuations of the *same document_id* and *same filename_base* from Segment 1, using a `segment_id` to differentiate the pieces. You will then collate these segments into the single file named by `filename_base`. 3. **SOPs / Best Practices for Template Improvements:** This is an excellent idea. We can formalize "Template Improvement Directives" (TIDs) as our mechanism for proposing changes to the global `ProjectOrchestratorASO` (our main SOP). When we identify a "local one-time adjustment" that proves highly effective or addresses a systemic issue (like these output formatting problems), we can then generate a TID to promote it to a global SOP/best practice by modifying the Orchestrator template itself. This creates a clear pathway for evolving our core methodology. I have already logged TIDs for the issues we've discussed.