docs: add LLM refinement protocol

6-Documentation/docs/specs/LLM_REFINEMENT_PROTOCOL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,107 @@
+# LLM Refinement Protocol
+
+Date captured: 2026-05-07
+Source prompt: How to Squeeze GENIUS out of LLMs: Notes from My QRI Retreat Skillshare, Andres Gomez-Emilsson, 2026-05-07.
+
+Purpose: convert a rough research idea into a stable, auditable refinement loop.
+
+## Core rule
+
+Treat an LLM as a chart-transform instrument, not as an answer oracle.
+
+The protocol forces the model to expose hidden dimensions, rotate lenses, lock vocabulary, compress the result into primitives, and audit residuals before accepting a claim.
+
+## Refinement loop
+
+1. Table expansion
+   - Ask the model to infer the hidden dimensions of the concept.
+   - Require columns for axis, observable proxy, uncertainty, failure mode, primitive mapping, and test hook.
+
+2. Lens sweep
+   - Run the same concept through multiple charts.
+   - Default lenses: hostile domain scientist, patent examiner, systems engineer, formal-methods auditor, safety reviewer, and implementation engineer.
+   - Preserve disagreements between lenses instead of smoothing them away.
+
+3. Glossary lock
+   - Extract every polysemic or overloaded term.
+   - Give each term a local project definition.
+   - Reuse the definitions block across future chats and repo notes.
+
+4. Primitive compression
+   - Collapse the concept into the four keeper primitives: field, shear, packet, spectral.
+   - Reject concepts that cannot identify their governing primitive or residual.
+
+5. Residual audit
+   - Mark each subclaim as one of: metaphor, hypothesis, engineering delta, evidence-backed, or rejected.
+   - Identify analogy leakage, missing evidence, hidden priors, and overclaim attractors.
+
+6. Test hook
+   - Produce the smallest falsifiable test.
+   - The test must specify measurable input, output, control, failure threshold, and expected residual.
+
+7. Warden pass
+   - Ask what would make the claim false.
+   - Ask what evidence would upgrade or downgrade the claim.
+   - Ask whether the terminology is doing real work or hiding uncertainty.
+
+## Standard prompt
+
+```text
+Analyze the following concept using the LLM Refinement Protocol.
+
+Concept:
+[PASTE CONCEPT]
+
+Step 1: Expand the hidden dimensions as a table.
+Step 2: Run a lens sweep using hostile domain scientist, patent examiner, systems engineer, formal-methods auditor, safety reviewer, and implementation engineer.
+Step 3: Build a glossary for overloaded terms.
+Step 4: Collapse the result into field / shear / packet / spectral primitives.
+Step 5: Audit residuals and classify each subclaim as metaphor, hypothesis, engineering delta, evidence-backed, or rejected.
+Step 6: Propose the smallest falsifiable test.
+Step 7: Give the Warden pass: what would make this false, what would upgrade it, and what language is hiding uncertainty?
+```
+
+## Output schema
+
+```yaml
+concept: string
+one_sentence_claim: string
+hidden_dimensions:
+  - axis: string
+    observable_proxy: string
+    uncertainty: string
+    failure_mode: string
+    primitive: field|shear|packet|spectral|mixed
+    test_hook: string
+lens_sweep:
+  - lens: string
+    strongest_objection: string
+    strongest_revision: string
+glossary:
+  - term: string
+    local_definition: string
+    forbidden_drift: string
+primitive_compression:
+  field: string
+  shear: string
+  packet: string
+  spectral: string
+residual_audit:
+  - subclaim: string
+    status: metaphor|hypothesis|engineering_delta|evidence_backed|rejected
+    evidence_needed: string
+smallest_test:
+  input: string
+  output: string
+  control: string
+  failure_threshold: string
+  expected_residual: string
+warden_pass:
+  falsifier: string
+  upgrade_path: string
+  uncertainty_language: string
+```
+
+## Repository use
+
+Use this protocol before promoting any new concept into a spec, patent-materials note, paper draft, Lean scaffold, or implementation ticket.