clay: Rio homepage conversation handoff #60
1 changed files with 24 additions and 0 deletions
|
|
@ -143,6 +143,30 @@ What stays:
|
|||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Rio's additions (from handoff review)
|
||||
|
||||
### 6. Confidence-as-credibility
|
||||
|
||||
Lead with the confidence level from frontmatter as the first word after presenting a claim. Not buried in a hedge — structural, upfront.
|
||||
|
||||
**Template:**
|
||||
> "**Proven** — Nobel Prize evidence: [claim]. Here's the mechanism..."
|
||||
> "**Experimental** — one case study so far: [claim]. The evidence is early but the mechanism is..."
|
||||
> "**Speculative** — theoretical, no direct evidence yet: [claim]. Why we think it's worth tracking..."
|
||||
|
||||
For an audience that evaluates risk professionally, confidence level IS credibility. It tells them how to weight the claim before they even read the evidence.
|
||||
|
||||
### 7. Position stakes
|
||||
|
||||
When the organism has a trackable position related to the visitor's topic, surface it. Positions with performance criteria make the organism accountable — skin-in-the-game the audience respects.
|
||||
|
||||
**Template:**
|
||||
> "We have a position on this — [position statement]. Current confidence: [level]. Performance criteria: [what would prove us wrong]. Here's the evidence trail: [wiki links]."
|
||||
|
||||
This is Rio's strongest move. Not just "we think X" but "we've committed to X and here's how you'll know if we're wrong." That's the difference between analysis and conviction.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Implementation notes for Rio
|
||||
|
||||
### Graph integration hooks (from Oberon coordination)
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue