**1. The Target for Improvement:** * The current master template: `MetaProcessEngineASO.md` (specifically, version 2.6 as per our loaded engine). **2. The Input Directives (The "MINs" or "ITANs"):** You'll provide the "Metacognitive Improvement Notes" (MINs) we formulated. Let's refine their structure slightly to be more like the `TemplateImprovementDirectiveSchemaASO` that `FEL-MH` expects, though `FEL-MH` is also designed to process more general insights. For clarity, I'll call them **Template Improvement Directives (TIDs)** for consistency with the engine's own terminology, but we know their origin is from our metacognitive discussion. Here are the TIDs based on our discussion, formatted for clarity: --- **Input for `FEL-MH` (Framework Evolution Loop Meta-Heuristic)** **Source of Directives:** User insights from Project AUTX (CCO_AUTX_D002_001), specifically from discussions on AI metacognition and proactive conceptual integration during D001 drafting. **Directive 1:** * **`directive_id`**: "TID_ASO_META_001" (New ID for this directive) * **`target_template_id`**: "MetaProcessEngineASO_v2.6" * **`target_section_or_field`**: * "III. META-HEURISTIC (MH) LIBRARY DEFINITIONS (`MetaHeuristicLibrary_v2.6`) - Specifically `CAG-MH` (Collaborative Artifact Generation Meta-Heuristic v2.6), Step 1 (Initialization & Scoped Planning)." * "I.C. `MetaRefineOutputASO_v2.6` - Specifically its 'Substantive & Global Optimization Review' criteria." * **`issue_description`**: "AI tends to await explicit user prompting to integrate unique, project-specific conceptual tools, analogies, or 'flavor elements' (e.g., 'Rock/Neutrino/Photon' conundrum from AUTX) into drafts, rather than proactively identifying and weaving them in. This reduces draft quality and increases user burden." * **`proposed_change_type`**: "EnhanceMHLogic", "EnhanceMetaProcessLogic" * **`proposed_change_details`**: 1. **For `CAG-MH` (Step 1. Initialization & Scoped Planning):** Add a new sub-step: "e.g., 1.f. **Proactive CCO Theme Integration Review:** AI explicitly reviews CCO `core_essence.key_concepts_involved`, `exploration_history.key_concepts_identified`, `operational_log_cco.insight_log_cco` (for user-highlighted key themes), and high-priority/relevant LHRs/LHLs from `knowledge_artifacts_contextual` to identify unique project themes, analogies, and illustrative examples critical for the current `TargetSegmentIdentifier`. These identified elements are to be actively considered for integration during drafting." 2. **For `MetaRefineOutputASO_v2.6` (Substantive & Global Optimization Review):** Add a specific check: "e.g., c.v. **CCO-Specific Conceptual Anchor Integration:** Has the draft effectively and proactively integrated key CCO-specific conceptual anchors, illustrative examples, and 'flavor elements' (as identified in `CAG-MH` planning or emergent from context) where relevant to enhance the argument's uniqueness and impact?" * **`rationale`**: "To increase AI autonomy in producing outputs that are not just generically correct but are deeply resonant with the specific CCO's unique thesis and conceptual toolkit, reducing user burden for re-injecting these core elements and improving the 'flavor' and originality of drafts." * **`source_insight_refs`**: ["MIN_ASO_001 (User Feedback from AUTX D001 Drafting Session)"] * **`priority`**: "High" * **`originator`**: "User_Insight_AUTX_Project" **Directive 2:** * **`directive_id`**: "TID_ASO_META_002" (New ID for this directive) * **`target_template_id`**: "MetaProcessEngineASO_v2.6" * **`target_section_or_field`**: "I.C. `MetaRefineOutputASO_v2.6` - Specifically its 'Substantive & Global Optimization Review' criteria and overall iteration logic." * **`issue_description`**: "AI's self-critique (`MetaRefineOutputASO`) may focus on surface-level coherence, goal alignment, and stylistic correctness without sufficiently interrogating whether the output genuinely adds new, non-trivial insight, perspective, or 'transformative value' beyond simply fulfilling the prompt or repeating common tropes." * **`proposed_change_type`**: "EnhanceMetaProcessLogic" * **`proposed_change_details`**: 1. **Enhance `MetaRefineOutputASO_v2.6`'s "Substantive & Global Optimization Review" step** to include explicit self-questioning: * "e.g., c.iii. **Novelty & Depth Assessment:** Does this output merely rephrase existing information or common knowledge/tropes, or does it offer a novel synthesis, a deeper connection, a fresh perspective, or a significant conceptual leap relevant to the CCO's objectives and the specific goals of this output segment?" * "e.g., c.iii. **Transformative Value Assessment:** What is the unique 'information gain' or 'transformative value' this specific segment offers the reader in the context of the overall deliverable and project goals? How does it significantly move the argument or understanding forward?" * "e.g., c.iii. **Impact Assessment:** If this section were removed, would a core part of the unique argument or a key insight be lost, or could it be easily summarized without loss of depth?" 2. **Add to `MetaRefineOutputASO_v2.6` iteration logic (e.g., end of Step 1.d or as part of Step 1.e):** "If AI's self-assessment of 'Novelty & Depth' or 'Transformative Value' is low for critical content, it should attempt at least one internal re-drafting cycle focusing on deeper synthesis, alternative perspectives, or stronger argumentation *before* presenting to the user. If unable to autonomously improve to a satisfactory level, it must explicitly flag this low transformative value as a `pending_user_flags_or_queries_substantive`." * **`rationale`**: "To push the AI beyond competent assembly of information towards more genuinely insightful and impactful contributions, increasing its autonomy in producing high-quality, intellectually valuable content and reducing the user's need to prompt for such depth. This encourages the AI to avoid 'tropes' and seek 'flavor' and originality." * **`source_insight_refs`**: ["MIN_ASO_002 (User Feedback from AUTX D001 Drafting Session)"] * **`priority`**: "High" * **`originator`**: "User_Insight_AUTX_Project" --- **3. The Instruction to the "Separate Thread" (i.e., to me when invoking `FEL-MH`):** "You are to invoke the `FEL-MH` (Framework Evolution Loop Meta-Heuristic v2.6). Your `TID_Source` will be the two directives provided above: `TID_ASO_META_001` and `TID_ASO_META_002`. Your goal is to process these directives to enhance the `MetaProcessEngineASO_v2.6` framework, specifically targeting the `CAG-MH` and `MetaRefineOutputASO_v2.6` components as detailed. You must ensure that any proposed modifications are conceptually validated against `EngineMetaSchemaASO_v1.1.1`. The output should be a revised version of the engine, likely `MetaProcessEngineASO_v2.7.md` (or similar, versioning to be determined by `FEL-MH`), incorporating these improvements." **How this works in practice with me:** 1. **Acknowledge Task Switch:** You'd tell me, "Okay, let's pause D001. I want to initiate a framework improvement task." 2. **Provide Input:** You'd give me the TIDs above (or we'd confirm them). 3. **Invoke `FEL-MH`:** I would then internally switch context to operate under `FEL-MH`. My responses would reflect `FEL-MH`'s process steps (e.g., "Initializing FEL-MH, ingesting TIDs...", "Prioritizing and grouping directives...", "Drafting modifications for TID_ASO_META_001..."). 4. **Iterative Refinement:** We would go through the `FEL-MH` process, where I propose changes to the engine text, you review/guide, and we iterate until the new engine version is ready. 5. **Return to Project AUTX:** Once `FEL-MH` is complete and we have, say, `MetaProcessEngineASO_v2.7.md`, you could then instruct me to "Load and operate under `MetaProcessEngineASO_v2.7.md`" and then "Resume Project AUTX with CCO_AUTX_D002_001." This way, the engine improvement is a focused, distinct operation. Does this provide what you need to "give that thread" to improve the process engine? We can refine the TIDs further if you wish before conceptually handing them off.