ebellefontaine Professional Judgment Filter (PJF)
This module answers one question: Should this content from a private source be used in a write to a more-visible destination?
Apply it to every piece of content that came from a private source — a direct message, a private channel or group chat, email (received or sent), a meeting transcript, or any other non-public exchange — before writing anything to a destination more visible than that source: a task or ticket, a project board, a wiki or doc, a draft message, or any shared workspace.
The principle is source-to-destination visibility, not any particular tool. If the destination can be seen by more people than the source, the content is crossing a visibility boundary, and the PJF governs that crossing regardless of which apps are involved.
The Three Gates
Content passes only if ALL THREE conditions are true. Fail any one → skip the content entirely.
Gate 1 — RELEVANCE
The content must directly reference tracked work: a specific task, project, work-item or ticket key, sprint, integration, vendor, known dependency, or a named participant in active work.
Skip if: off-topic conversation, general banter, tool complaints unrelated to a tracked item, personal or social messages, or anything that doesn't connect to a specific piece of active work.
Gate 2 — PROFESSIONAL INTEGRITY
If this content were extracted and written to a more-visible destination, it must accurately represent a work event and preserve the professional reputations of everyone named.
Skip if any of the following apply:
- Jokes, sarcasm, or hyperbole that could be misread as fact (e.g., "we should burn it all down and start over")
- Venting, ranting, or informal opinions that don't represent a real decision
- Anything that would embarrass a named colleague if seen out of context
- Credentials, secrets, API keys, or sensitive security/access details
- Private personal discussions unrelated to work delivery
The test: Would a reasonable colleague be comfortable seeing this written as a factual work note? If no, skip it.
Gate 3 — TASK VALUE
The content must add at least one of these signals:
- A decision made or a decision needed
- A named point of contact or stakeholder
- An implementation detail, integration requirement, or technical constraint
- A deadline, milestone, goal, or metric that was set or changed
- A blocker identified or resolved
- An explicit commitment, ETA, or status change given by a named participant
- An action item with a named owner
Skip if: the message is purely informational background with no one committing to anything, making a decision, or surfacing a constraint.
Output: What to do after filtering
If content FAILS any gate
Skip entirely. Do not:
- Create a task or item from it
- Reference or paraphrase it in a write
- Use it as context in a draft response
- Log it in a run summary with enough detail to expose the private content
Log only: [skipped — PJF: <gate name> failed] so the omission is traceable without revealing the content.
If content PASSES all three gates
Extract the professional fact only:
- State the work-relevant finding in clean, neutral language
- Strip informal language, emotional tone, jokes, and off-the-cuff phrasing
- Never quote private-source text verbatim — paraphrase to the factual substance
- Attribute by source type, not by quoting. Cite where it came from, not what was said:
(per direct message),(per email),(per meeting)— never by reproducing the message
Examples:
| Raw private content | What to write |
|---|---|
| "ugh the stakeholder keeps being difficult about the analytics timeline, they keep pushing it to next quarter" | Stakeholder has pushed the analytics integration target to next quarter. (per direct message) |
| "lol we're literally never going to finish this lmao" | Skip — Gate 2 fails (hyperbole/joke) |
| "hey can you grab lunch tomorrow?" | Skip — Gate 1 fails (not work-relevant) |
| "I'll have the reporting API spec ready by EOD Friday" | Owner committed to reporting API spec delivery by EOD Friday. (per email) |
| "the password for the staging env is " | Skip — Gate 2 fails (credentials) |
Applying it during a run
When a task or workflow references the PJF, apply it per-item before any write, item creation, or draft composition. The filter is not a one-time pass at the start of a run — evaluate each candidate piece of content independently.
If an entire private source fails Gate 1 (nothing in this thread touches tracked work), you can skip scanning the rest of that thread for that run.
If a private source partially passes (some messages pass, some fail), extract only the passing content. Do not let a passing message pull in surrounding context that would fail.
Edge cases
"This might be sarcasm" — when in doubt, treat it as failing Gate 2. Don't make judgment calls that could expose a colleague to embarrassment.
Borderline TASK VALUE — if you're unsure whether something adds value, ask: Does this change what someone would do next? If yes, it passes Gate 3. If it's just background color with no action implications, skip it.
Multiple signals in one message — extract only the passing signals. A message can pass for one fact and fail for another in the same sentence. Extract the fact, leave the rest.
The operator's own outgoing messages — apply the same filter to messages sent by the person on whose behalf you are working. Their own commitments made in email or messages are high-value signals (Gate 3 passes for any commitment), but their informal venting or off-the-cuff remarks still fail Gate 2.