Academic Delivery

Academic Delivery Skill

Purpose: Structured pipeline for academic/knowledge deliverables. Prevents the V1-is-weak failure mode by auto-triggering adversarial review. Origin: Extracted from real-world execution of client assignments. Every assignment manually reconstructed this pipeline — now it's codified.

The 8-Step Pipeline

Step 1: INTAKE

• Parse brief/requirements document
• Extract: word count, format (essay/report/problem set), rubric criteria, deadline, client name
• Identify prescribed frameworks or sources (e.g., "use Hirshfield as critical lens")
• Log to .context/client_work/pricing_log.md if commercial

Step 2: SCOPE

• Classify deliverable type:
  • Essay (argumentative, comparative, reflective)
  • Report (technical, research, capstone)
  • Problem Set (calculations, code, SPSS)
  • Presentation (slides, pitch deck)
• Estimate complexity (Λ score)
• If commercial: trigger client-pricing skill for quote generation

Step 3: RESEARCH

• Load domain context via Exocortex (smart_search.py)
• If external research needed: trigger deep-research-loop (Cluster #12)
• Extract key frameworks, models, citations
• Build a reference spine (3–7 sources minimum for essays)

Step 4: DRAFT (V1)

• Write full first draft to spec
• Embed citations inline
• Target 90–95% of word count (leave room for red-team additions)
• DO NOT deliver V1. V1 is always a working draft, never the output.

Step 5: RED-TEAM (Mandatory — Auto-Triggered)

[!IMPORTANT] This step is non-negotiable. It fires automatically after Step 4. Shipping V1 with zero counter-readings and zero formal analysis is the canonical failure mode.

• Feed V1 through adversarial review (Cluster #8 — red-team-review)
• Evaluate against:
  1. Counter-reading: Does the draft contain at least one steelmanned opposing interpretation + rebuttal? (~80 words, non-negotiable)
  2. Formal analysis: For literary/theoretical work — does it engage with the form (enjambment, structure, methodology), not just content?
  3. Evidence density: Every claim backed by textual evidence or citation?
  4. Rubric alignment: Does the draft hit every criterion in the brief?
  5. Genre compliance: Is the output in the correct academic register? (MLA vs APA vs report format)
• Generate a fix list with accept/reject decisions for each criticism
• Reject invalid criticisms (category errors, phantom rubric scoring, n=1 methodology applied to literary analysis)

Step 6: REVISE (V2+)

• Incorporate accepted fixes from red-team
• If >3 structural issues found, produce V3 (rare — V2 is usually sufficient)
• Re-check word count against target
• Verify counter-reading and formal analysis are present

Step 7: COMPILE

• Format per submission requirements:
  • Cover page (if required)
  • Table of Contents (forces a structural audit — per Session 06 learning)
  • Section headers (topic-based, not numbered, for MLA essays)
  • Works Cited / References (MLA, APA, or Harvard as specified)
  • Appendices (if applicable)
• Compaction triage: If over word count, cut from infrastructure (setup/transition/repetition) first, analytical core last. Ratio: 70% infrastructure cuts, 30% analysis cuts.
• Paragraphing pass — wall-of-text paragraphs are a delivery failure, not a content failure.

Step 8: DELIVER

• Final proofread (grammar, citation format, page numbers)
• Export to required format (Markdown → Google Doc → DOCX)
• If commercial: send to client with scope confirmation
• Log completion to activeContext / quicksave

Exit Gate

No deliverable leaves Step 8 without:

• Counter-reading present (if argumentative/analytical)
• Formal analysis present (if literary/theoretical)
• Word count within ±5% of target
• All rubric criteria addressed
• Format compliant (citations, headers, cover page)

Reflexion Archive

[REFLEXION] What failed: V1 shipped with zero counter-readings and zero formal analysis. Why: Over-optimised for clean thesis confirmation. Lesson: Auto-trigger red-team after V1. 80 words for a counter-reading is non-negotiable.

[REFLEXION] What failed: A capstone delivered at $83/hr effective rate (73% rate collapse vs benchmark). Why: No pricing skill fired during intake. Lesson: Step 2 (SCOPE) must trigger pricing evaluation for commercial work.