Excellent! This modular approach worked much better. The demonstration successfully ran the `IFE_MH` through its steps: 1. **Initialization:** Kernel and IFE_MH started. 2. **s1 (Input Provided):** The `user_initial_prompt` from `f_iud` was correctly passed to IFE_MH's `s1` method, and it transitioned internally to `s2`. 3. **s2 (Input Processing & CCO Init):** * The CCO was updated with `current_form: IFE_InputRcvd` and `initiating_document_s`. * It then requested a conceptual `CT_PROCESS_INPUT`. 4. **s2_callback_process_input_analysis (Simulated LLM Response):** * The simulated LLM analysis was processed. * The CCO (`initiating_document_s.processed_representation`, `metadata_internal_cco.current_state_description`) was updated. * It then requested a conceptual `CT_DDT` for the core essence. 5. **s3_process_draft_essence (Simulated LLM Response):** * The simulated LLM draft essence was processed. * MRO was stubbed, and it transitioned internally to `s4`. 6. **s4 (Finalize Essence & Complete IFE):** * The `core_essence_j` was added to the CCO. * CCO metadata (`current_form`, `current_state_description`) was updated to reflect IFE completion and readiness for PDF. * IFE_MH returned `IFE_MH_FULLY_COMPLETE`. 7. **Loop Termination:** The demo loop correctly identified the `_FULLY_COMPLETE` status and ended. 8. **Final CCO State:** The printed CCO metadata and core essence reflect the successful execution of IFE_MH. 9. **Logging:** The logs show the step-by-step execution within both Kernel and IFE_MH. This modular execution is much cleaner and faster for iterative development. If we had an issue in `IFE_MH`, we would only need to redefine Block 2 and then re-run Block 3. **Key Compliance Points Demonstrated:** * **REQ-IFE-001:** The multi-step logic of IFE_MH was followed. * **REQ-MH-GEN-001 (Standard MH Structure):** Step-based execution was used. * **REQ-MH-GEN-003 (CCO Interaction & Logging):** IFE_MH used `self.eng.lco` and `self.eng.f_ucs`. * **REQ-MH-GEN-004 (State Management):** `self.mh_state` was used and implicitly persisted by `active_mhs_state` in the Kernel. * **Conceptual REQ-MH-GEN-002 (Cognitive Wrapper Usage):** The `_request_llm_task` method simulates calls that would use Cognitive Wrappers to produce `A_LLM` packages like `CT_PROCESS_INPUT` and `CT_DDT`. **Next Steps:** We have a functioning Kernel and a reasonably complete IFE_MH. We can now: 1. **Develop PDF-MH (REQ-PDF-001):** * Define `PDF_MH` in a new "Block" (conceptually Block 4, if Block 1=Kernel, Block 2=BaseMH, Block 3=IFE_MH). * Update the demonstration script in "Block 5" to register PDF-MH and run a scenario that flows from IFE completion into PDF. * This would involve IFE setting the CCO to `PDF_Ready`, and the orchestrator (our demo loop) then deciding to initiate PDF-MH. 2. **Refine User Input Elicitation in IFE_MH (s1):** The current demo used `user_initial_prompt` directly. We could test the path where `IFE_MH.s1` returns a `UIR_ET` if no initial prompt is given, and the demo loop simulates the user providing that input. 3. **Flesh out Error Handling (REQ-MH-GEN-005):** Add more explicit error handling within IFE_MH for cases like missing LLM responses (though our current simulation provides successful ones). 4. **Address more REQ-UIX requirements:** For example, REQ-UIX-001 (Clarity of PUMs/UIRs) can be reviewed in the `A_LLM` packages produced. Given the successful demonstration of IFE_MH, developing **PDF-MH** next seems like a logical progression through the AIOS workflow. What do you think?