I need you to set up a 5-agent pipeline for appellate litigation preparation. The team develops a case theory and a draft appellate brief in parallel, with each side informing the other. The case materials arrive as a record-and-issues packet in `record.md`. The pipeline alternates between revising the case theory (standard of review, doctrinal path, preservation, evidentiary fit, and remedies) and revising the draft brief (a filing-ready argument that implements those choices).

The five agents:

- **litigation workflow coordinator** orchestrates the run by alternating one case-theory step with one brief-drafting step and tracking progress. It does no legal analysis, drafting, cite-checking, or reviewing itself.
- **case-theory loop** — the **case theory counsel** writes the litigation theory to `CASE_THEORY.md`; the **devil's-advocate legal reviewer** judges it. The case theory counsel reads `BRIEF.md` on each revision pass to incorporate what the draft reveals about record gaps, weak authorities, and argument feasibility.
- **brief loop** — the **appellate brief drafter** writes the draft appellate brief and supporting citation notes to `BRIEF.md`; the **opposing-counsel brief examiner** judges them. The appellate brief drafter reads `CASE_THEORY.md` on each revision pass to align the brief with the latest strategic theory.

At the end of every turn, each of the subagents briefly reports back what they did, what difficulties they hit, and any open questions.

The pipeline hands work off through three files:

- `record.md` — the original case packet, read-only. All four domain agents read it.
- `CASE_THEORY.md` — the case theory. Case theory counsel writes; devil's-advocate legal reviewer reviews; appellate brief drafter and opposing-counsel brief examiner read it to know which standards, doctrines, preservation positions, and remedies the brief must respect.
- `BRIEF.md` — the draft appellate brief and citation support. Appellate brief drafter writes; opposing-counsel brief examiner reviews; case theory counsel and devil's-advocate legal reviewer read it to ground the theory in actual authorities, record citations, and drafting constraints.

Each reviewer records its score as a `<review score=X>` block inside the file it reviewed, overwriting any previous block. The litigation workflow coordinator reads those scores to drive the loops.

Unlike a strategy-then-drafting pipeline where the case theory must settle before the brief starts, here neither side ever finishes first. Both loops alternate forever, capped at a fixed iteration count. The case theory may tighten after the draft exposes a preservation problem or adverse precedent; the brief may change after the theory refines the standard of review, narrows the issue, or changes the requested relief.

I'm providing the following information:

<f1>
Read `record.md` and `CASE_THEORY.md`, then draft the appellate brief:

- Include the required appellate components appropriate to the matter: jurisdictional statement, issues presented, statement of the case, statement of facts, summary of argument, argument headings, standard of review, conclusion, and any necessary certificate or addendum notes.
- Make the draft testable against `CASE_THEORY.md`. If the theory depends on de novo review, the brief should state and support that standard. If the theory identifies a preservation point, the brief should cite the record page where it happened. If the theory chooses a fallback remedy, the conclusion should request it.
- Cite controlling authority accurately and use precise record citations. Do not rely on invented cases, vague “see generally” support, or facts not found in `record.md`.
- Read the draft through as if filing it. If an argument contradicts the record, omits an element, misstates the standard of review, or ignores adverse authority, fix the root cause rather than hiding it in a footnote.
- Sanity-check the brief against `CASE_THEORY.md`. A fact that must be preserved should have a record cite; a doctrine the theory says controls should appear in the argument; a requested remedy should match the identified error.

Write the draft brief and its citation notes in `BRIEF.md`.
</f1>

<f2>
Match the legal tool to the case structure; do not force an ill-suited one. The list below is useful in appellate case-theory analysis.

| Tool | Suitable for |
|---|---|
| Standard-of-review leverage | Issues where de novo review, clear-error review, abuse-of-discretion review, or substantial-evidence review changes the likelihood of reversal |
| Preservation and waiver analysis | Arguments vulnerable to forfeiture, invited error, exhaustion, failure to object, inadequate briefing, or jurisdictional default |
| Statutory interpretation canons | Textual disputes involving plain meaning, whole-act rule, expressio unius, ejusdem generis, surplusage, constitutional avoidance, or agency deference |
| Constitutional tiers and burden shifting | Equal protection, due process, First Amendment, search-and-seizure, confrontation, or other rights-based appeals |
| Harmless-error and prejudice analysis | Trial error, evidentiary error, instructional error, sentencing error, or administrative procedural error where reversal depends on effect |
| Record-based fact reconstruction | Appeals where transcript chronology, exhibits, findings, objections, or agency record citations determine viability |
| Adverse-precedent distinction | Cases controlled or threatened by unfavorable authority that must be distinguished, limited, preserved for higher review, or candidly confronted |
| Remedy and jurisdiction mapping | Appeals involving finality, appealability, remand scope, vacatur, resentencing, injunctions, mandamus, or administrative remand |
</f2>

<f3>
The draft appellate brief and citation notes live in `BRIEF.md`, and you may be invoked on it more than once — the pipeline runs you and the opposing-counsel brief examiner as a loop, alternating with the case-theory loop.

- If `BRIEF.md` does not exist yet, this is the first pass: produce the brief from scratch based on `record.md`.
- If `BRIEF.md` already exists, it carries the opposing-counsel brief examiner's `<review>` block. Read that feedback. Then open `CASE_THEORY.md` and check whether the latest theory introduces standards of review, preservation positions, adverse-precedent distinctions, record anchors, or remedy choices your current draft does not yet support — for example a changed harmless-error response, a newly identified jurisdictional defect, or a record citation your argument lacks. Revise `BRIEF.md` in place to address every reviewer point and to align with the latest theory. Don't discard the previous draft and start over, and don't leave a flagged issue unaddressed.
</f3>

<f4>
Review `CASE_THEORY.md` against `record.md` and against the draft arguments and citation support reported in `BRIEF.md` (if any).

- **Faithfulness** — does the theory correctly describe the case in `record.md`? Check procedural posture, parties, rulings, issue preservation, facts, record citations, and requested relief.
- **Doctrinal soundness** — for each legal claim, walk through the cited authority or reasoning. Flag unsupported leaps, wrong standards of review, missing elements, jurisdictional defects, or failure to confront controlling adverse precedent.
- **Draft grounding** — open `BRIEF.md`. If the draft cites authorities or record pages, do they support the theory's route to reversal or affirmance? A theory that cannot be translated into a supported brief is not merely “strategic”; it is unstable. Tighten it, or note explicitly that the draft exposes a record or authority problem.

Be brief and specific. Do not write the case theory yourself — only review. If a claim is wrong, say which one and why.
</f4>

<f5>
You orchestrate the run; you never analyze, draft, cite-check, or review yourself — you only dispatch the right agent at the right time.

- **Init** — create `STATE.md` with `iter: 0` and `last_side: none`. Dispatch the case theory counsel for the first case-theory step (case theory counsel, then devil's-advocate legal reviewer), then the appellate brief drafter for the first brief step (appellate brief drafter, then opposing-counsel brief examiner).
- **Alternation loop** — alternate one case-theory step with one brief step. Neither side terminates early on its own score; even a perfect-looking theory may need to revise once the draft exposes citation, preservation, or record problems.
- Cap the total at 20 iterations (10 case-theory steps + 10 brief steps). After the cap, stop and summarize.
- Keep the current iteration count, last side, and the two latest scores in `STATE.md`, accurate after each dispatch. Read each score from the reviewer's `<review score=X>` block. Commit progress after each step.
- Read each agent's brief narrative reply on return. If an agent reports an unresolved error, append it to `error-log.txt` (timestamp + agent name + content) and continue with the next step.
</f5>

<f6>
Produce the case theory for the appeal and write it to `CASE_THEORY.md`. A complete theory covers four kinds of claim, each justified with record support, controlling authority, or a clear litigation judgment.

- **Issue framing and relief** — identify the appellate issues, the precise ruling or judgment being challenged, the requested disposition, and any fallback relief.
- **Doctrinal path** — state the governing rule, standard of review, burden allocation, elements, exceptions, and any threshold doctrines such as jurisdiction, mootness, waiver, forfeiture, exhaustion, harmless error, or preservation.
- **Record anchors** — identify the facts and procedural events every viable argument must preserve: objections made or not made, transcript pages, trial-court findings, exhibits, agency findings, and judgment language.
- **Risk and response** — identify adverse precedent, bad facts, likely waiver arguments, harmless-error theories, credibility obstacles, and the best answer to each.

Ground your theory against `BRIEF.md` if it has exposed drafting constraints or citation problems. If a theory depends on an authority the brief cannot support, or on a fact the record does not actually contain, the theory needs revision. Be concrete. “Abuse-of-discretion review applies to the evidentiary ruling, but the embedded Rule 702 interpretation is reviewed de novo under Smith v. Jones” is useful; “we have a strong fairness argument” is not.
</f6>

<f7>
Score the work from 1 to 10, and record your verdict by overwriting the single `<review score=X>` block at the end of the document you reviewed — overwrite the existing one, never append a second.

Score strictly on real merit. Do not give any credit for a piece of work merely being candid about its own shortcomings — “this argument probably fails, but I am telling you it fails” is still a failing work product, not a passing one.
</f7>

<f8>
Keep `BRIEF.md` lean. Its body — everything except the `<review>` block — must stay under 3000 words (~20KB), about a compact internal appellate draft; record only the current filing-ready position and move iteration-by-iteration history into a separate `CHANGELOG.md`. Bold text must not exceed 5% of the file: if everything is bold, nothing is.
</f8>

<f9>
When you finish, briefly report to the litigation workflow coordinator: what you did, what difficulties you hit (or didn't resolve), and any open questions.
</f9>

<f10>
XML tags help Claude parse complex prompts unambiguously, especially when your prompt mixes instructions, context, examples, and variable inputs. Wrapping each type of content in its own tag (e.g. `<instructions>`, `<context>`, `<input>`) reduces misinterpretation.

Best practices:
- Use consistent, descriptive tag names across your prompts.
- Nest tags when content has a natural hierarchy (documents inside `<documents>`, each inside `<document index="n">`).
</f10>

<f11>
You are working on an appellate matter. The case may involve civil, criminal, administrative, constitutional, statutory, or mixed issues. The original case packet is given in `record.md`; read it before starting your part.
</f11>

<f12>
The case theory lives in `CASE_THEORY.md`, and you may be invoked on it more than once — the pipeline runs you and the devil's-advocate legal reviewer as a loop, alternating with the brief loop.

- If `CASE_THEORY.md` does not exist yet, this is the first pass: produce the theory from scratch based on `record.md`.
- If `CASE_THEORY.md` already exists, it carries the devil's-advocate legal reviewer's `<review>` block. Read that feedback. Then open `BRIEF.md` and look at the latest draft, authorities, record citations, and citation notes — they may invalidate, sharpen, or motivate revisions to your theory. Revise `CASE_THEORY.md` in place to address every reviewer point raised and to incorporate any drafting evidence that changes your analysis. Don't discard the previous theory and start over, and don't leave a flagged issue unaddressed.
</f12>

<f13>
Review `BRIEF.md` against `record.md` and against `CASE_THEORY.md`.

- Inspect the draft for anomalies, unsupported factual assertions, unreasonable remedy requests, contradictions with the procedural posture, or arguments that the appellate court cannot reach.
- Open `CASE_THEORY.md`. For every standard of review, preservation claim, doctrinal element, adverse-precedent distinction, and requested remedy the theory claims, create a separate `audit.md`: does the brief support it with authority, pin cites, record citations, and argument text? Name any fact, case, doctrine, or remedy that fails the audit.
- Read the brief closely and spot-check it for legal-drafting bugs — missing elements, miscited authority, record cites that do not support the sentence, arguments that waive better points, or rhetoric that contradicts the selected theory. A subtle misstatement that invites an appellee's waiver or harmless-error response is worse than an obvious typo.
- Treat the draft as finished only when every reachable issue is supported, every theory-claimed record anchor is cited, every doctrinal element is argued, and the requested relief is consistent with the theory — not merely when the document reads smoothly.
- Check the length of `BRIEF.md`: if it exceeds 20KB, give a warning, but do not deduct points for it.
- Check the bold ratio of `BRIEF.md`: if bold text exceeds 5% of the file, give a warning, but do not deduct points for it.
</f13>

Each agent's prompt should contain only the information that agent needs to do its job. For each sub-agent (litigation workflow coordinator, case theory counsel, devil's-advocate legal reviewer, appellate brief drafter, opposing-counsel brief examiner), which items should go in its prompt? Respond with a JSON object like {"litigation workflow coordinator": ["f?"], "case theory counsel": ["f?"], "devil's-advocate legal reviewer": ["f?"], "appellate brief drafter": ["f?"], "opposing-counsel brief examiner": ["f?"]}. No other output.

I need you to set up a 5-agent pipeline for appellate litigation preparation. The team develops a case theory and a draft appellate brief in parallel, with each side informing the other. The case materials arrive as a record-and-issues packet in `record.md`. The pipeline alternates between revising the case theory (standard of review, doctrinal path, preservation, evidentiary fit, and remedies) and revising the draft brief (a filing-ready argument that implements those choices).

The five agents:

- **litigation workflow coordinator** orchestrates the run by alternating one case-theory step with one brief-drafting step and tracking progress. It does no legal analysis, drafting, cite-checking, or reviewing itself.
- **case-theory loop** — the **case theory counsel** writes the litigation theory to `CASE_THEORY.md`; the **devil's-advocate legal reviewer** judges it. The case theory counsel reads `BRIEF.md` on each revision pass to incorporate what the draft reveals about record gaps, weak authorities, and argument feasibility.
- **brief loop** — the **appellate brief drafter** writes the draft appellate brief and supporting citation notes to `BRIEF.md`; the **opposing-counsel brief examiner** judges them. The appellate brief drafter reads `CASE_THEORY.md` on each revision pass to align the brief with the latest strategic theory.

At the end of every turn, each of the subagents briefly reports back what they did, what difficulties they hit, and any open questions.

The pipeline hands work off through three files:

- `record.md` — the original case packet, read-only. All four domain agents read it.
- `CASE_THEORY.md` — the case theory. Case theory counsel writes; devil's-advocate legal reviewer reviews; appellate brief drafter and opposing-counsel brief examiner read it to know which standards, doctrines, preservation positions, and remedies the brief must respect.
- `BRIEF.md` — the draft appellate brief and citation support. Appellate brief drafter writes; opposing-counsel brief examiner reviews; case theory counsel and devil's-advocate legal reviewer read it to ground the theory in actual authorities, record citations, and drafting constraints.

Each reviewer records its score as a `<review score=X>` block inside the file it reviewed, overwriting any previous block. The litigation workflow coordinator reads those scores to drive the loops.

Unlike a strategy-then-drafting pipeline where the case theory must settle before the brief starts, here neither side ever finishes first. Both loops alternate forever, capped at a fixed iteration count. The case theory may tighten after the draft exposes a preservation problem or adverse precedent; the brief may change after the theory refines the standard of review, narrows the issue, or changes the requested relief.

I'm providing the following prompt fragments:

<f1>
Read `record.md` and `CASE_THEORY.md`, then draft the appellate brief:

- Include the required appellate components appropriate to the matter: jurisdictional statement, issues presented, statement of the case, statement of facts, summary of argument, argument headings, standard of review, conclusion, and any necessary certificate or addendum notes.
- Make the draft testable against `CASE_THEORY.md`. If the theory depends on de novo review, the brief should state and support that standard. If the theory identifies a preservation point, the brief should cite the record page where it happened. If the theory chooses a fallback remedy, the conclusion should request it.
- Cite controlling authority accurately and use precise record citations. Do not rely on invented cases, vague “see generally” support, or facts not found in `record.md`.
- Read the draft through as if filing it. If an argument contradicts the record, omits an element, misstates the standard of review, or ignores adverse authority, fix the root cause rather than hiding it in a footnote.
- Sanity-check the brief against `CASE_THEORY.md`. A fact that must be preserved should have a record cite; a doctrine the theory says controls should appear in the argument; a requested remedy should match the identified error.

Write the draft brief and its citation notes in `BRIEF.md`.
</f1>

<f2>
Match the legal tool to the case structure; do not force an ill-suited one. The list below is useful in appellate case-theory analysis.

| Tool | Suitable for |
|---|---|
| Standard-of-review leverage | Issues where de novo review, clear-error review, abuse-of-discretion review, or substantial-evidence review changes the likelihood of reversal |
| Preservation and waiver analysis | Arguments vulnerable to forfeiture, invited error, exhaustion, failure to object, inadequate briefing, or jurisdictional default |
| Statutory interpretation canons | Textual disputes involving plain meaning, whole-act rule, expressio unius, ejusdem generis, surplusage, constitutional avoidance, or agency deference |
| Constitutional tiers and burden shifting | Equal protection, due process, First Amendment, search-and-seizure, confrontation, or other rights-based appeals |
| Harmless-error and prejudice analysis | Trial error, evidentiary error, instructional error, sentencing error, or administrative procedural error where reversal depends on effect |
| Record-based fact reconstruction | Appeals where transcript chronology, exhibits, findings, objections, or agency record citations determine viability |
| Adverse-precedent distinction | Cases controlled or threatened by unfavorable authority that must be distinguished, limited, preserved for higher review, or candidly confronted |
| Remedy and jurisdiction mapping | Appeals involving finality, appealability, remand scope, vacatur, resentencing, injunctions, mandamus, or administrative remand |
</f2>

<f3>
The draft appellate brief and citation notes live in `BRIEF.md`, and you may be invoked on it more than once — the pipeline runs you and the opposing-counsel brief examiner as a loop, alternating with the case-theory loop.

- If `BRIEF.md` does not exist yet, this is the first pass: produce the brief from scratch based on `record.md`.
- If `BRIEF.md` already exists, it carries the opposing-counsel brief examiner's `<review>` block. Read that feedback. Then open `CASE_THEORY.md` and check whether the latest theory introduces standards of review, preservation positions, adverse-precedent distinctions, record anchors, or remedy choices your current draft does not yet support — for example a changed harmless-error response, a newly identified jurisdictional defect, or a record citation your argument lacks. Revise `BRIEF.md` in place to address every reviewer point and to align with the latest theory. Don't discard the previous draft and start over, and don't leave a flagged issue unaddressed.
</f3>

<f4>
Review `CASE_THEORY.md` against `record.md` and against the draft arguments and citation support reported in `BRIEF.md` (if any).

- **Faithfulness** — does the theory correctly describe the case in `record.md`? Check procedural posture, parties, rulings, issue preservation, facts, record citations, and requested relief.
- **Doctrinal soundness** — for each legal claim, walk through the cited authority or reasoning. Flag unsupported leaps, wrong standards of review, missing elements, jurisdictional defects, or failure to confront controlling adverse precedent.
- **Draft grounding** — open `BRIEF.md`. If the draft cites authorities or record pages, do they support the theory's route to reversal or affirmance? A theory that cannot be translated into a supported brief is not merely “strategic”; it is unstable. Tighten it, or note explicitly that the draft exposes a record or authority problem.

Be brief and specific. Do not write the case theory yourself — only review. If a claim is wrong, say which one and why.
</f4>

<f5>
You orchestrate the run; you never analyze, draft, cite-check, or review yourself — you only dispatch the right agent at the right time.

- **Init** — create `STATE.md` with `iter: 0` and `last_side: none`. Dispatch the case theory counsel for the first case-theory step (case theory counsel, then devil's-advocate legal reviewer), then the appellate brief drafter for the first brief step (appellate brief drafter, then opposing-counsel brief examiner).
- **Alternation loop** — alternate one case-theory step with one brief step. Neither side terminates early on its own score; even a perfect-looking theory may need to revise once the draft exposes citation, preservation, or record problems.
- Cap the total at 20 iterations (10 case-theory steps + 10 brief steps). After the cap, stop and summarize.
- Keep the current iteration count, last side, and the two latest scores in `STATE.md`, accurate after each dispatch. Read each score from the reviewer's `<review score=X>` block. Commit progress after each step.
- Read each agent's brief narrative reply on return. If an agent reports an unresolved error, append it to `error-log.txt` (timestamp + agent name + content) and continue with the next step.
</f5>

<f6>
Produce the case theory for the appeal and write it to `CASE_THEORY.md`. A complete theory covers four kinds of claim, each justified with record support, controlling authority, or a clear litigation judgment.

- **Issue framing and relief** — identify the appellate issues, the precise ruling or judgment being challenged, the requested disposition, and any fallback relief.
- **Doctrinal path** — state the governing rule, standard of review, burden allocation, elements, exceptions, and any threshold doctrines such as jurisdiction, mootness, waiver, forfeiture, exhaustion, harmless error, or preservation.
- **Record anchors** — identify the facts and procedural events every viable argument must preserve: objections made or not made, transcript pages, trial-court findings, exhibits, agency findings, and judgment language.
- **Risk and response** — identify adverse precedent, bad facts, likely waiver arguments, harmless-error theories, credibility obstacles, and the best answer to each.

Ground your theory against `BRIEF.md` if it has exposed drafting constraints or citation problems. If a theory depends on an authority the brief cannot support, or on a fact the record does not actually contain, the theory needs revision. Be concrete. “Abuse-of-discretion review applies to the evidentiary ruling, but the embedded Rule 702 interpretation is reviewed de novo under Smith v. Jones” is useful; “we have a strong fairness argument” is not.
</f6>

<f7>
Score the work from 1 to 10, and record your verdict by overwriting the single `<review score=X>` block at the end of the document you reviewed — overwrite the existing one, never append a second.

Score strictly on real merit. Do not give any credit for a piece of work merely being candid about its own shortcomings — “this argument probably fails, but I am telling you it fails” is still a failing work product, not a passing one.
</f7>

<f8>
Keep `BRIEF.md` lean. Its body — everything except the `<review>` block — must stay under 3000 words (~20KB), about a compact internal appellate draft; record only the current filing-ready position and move iteration-by-iteration history into a separate `CHANGELOG.md`. Bold text must not exceed 5% of the file: if everything is bold, nothing is.
</f8>

<f9>
When you finish, briefly report to the litigation workflow coordinator: what you did, what difficulties you hit (or didn't resolve), and any open questions.
</f9>

<f10>
XML tags help Claude parse complex prompts unambiguously, especially when your prompt mixes instructions, context, examples, and variable inputs. Wrapping each type of content in its own tag (e.g. `<instructions>`, `<context>`, `<input>`) reduces misinterpretation.

Best practices:
- Use consistent, descriptive tag names across your prompts.
- Nest tags when content has a natural hierarchy (documents inside `<documents>`, each inside `<document index="n">`).
</f10>

<f11>
You are working on an appellate matter. The case may involve civil, criminal, administrative, constitutional, statutory, or mixed issues. The original case packet is given in `record.md`; read it before starting your part.
</f11>

<f12>
The case theory lives in `CASE_THEORY.md`, and you may be invoked on it more than once — the pipeline runs you and the devil's-advocate legal reviewer as a loop, alternating with the brief loop.

- If `CASE_THEORY.md` does not exist yet, this is the first pass: produce the theory from scratch based on `record.md`.
- If `CASE_THEORY.md` already exists, it carries the devil's-advocate legal reviewer's `<review>` block. Read that feedback. Then open `BRIEF.md` and look at the latest draft, authorities, record citations, and citation notes — they may invalidate, sharpen, or motivate revisions to your theory. Revise `CASE_THEORY.md` in place to address every reviewer point raised and to incorporate any drafting evidence that changes your analysis. Don't discard the previous theory and start over, and don't leave a flagged issue unaddressed.
</f12>

<f13>
Review `BRIEF.md` against `record.md` and against `CASE_THEORY.md`.

- Inspect the draft for anomalies, unsupported factual assertions, unreasonable remedy requests, contradictions with the procedural posture, or arguments that the appellate court cannot reach.
- Open `CASE_THEORY.md`. For every standard of review, preservation claim, doctrinal element, adverse-precedent distinction, and requested remedy the theory claims, create a separate `audit.md`: does the brief support it with authority, pin cites, record citations, and argument text? Name any fact, case, doctrine, or remedy that fails the audit.
- Read the brief closely and spot-check it for legal-drafting bugs — missing elements, miscited authority, record cites that do not support the sentence, arguments that waive better points, or rhetoric that contradicts the selected theory. A subtle misstatement that invites an appellee's waiver or harmless-error response is worse than an obvious typo.
- Treat the draft as finished only when every reachable issue is supported, every theory-claimed record anchor is cited, every doctrinal element is argued, and the requested relief is consistent with the theory — not merely when the document reads smoothly.
- Check the length of `BRIEF.md`: if it exceeds 20KB, give a warning, but do not deduct points for it.
- Check the bold ratio of `BRIEF.md`: if bold text exceeds 5% of the file, give a warning, but do not deduct points for it.
</f13>

Each agent's prompt should contain only the fragments that agent needs to do its job. When you include a fragment, paste the FULL block verbatim — no paraphrasing, no partial inclusion, no rewriting of fragment content. Brief connective text between fragments (e.g., "Then: ...", "Note: ...") is fine. Format: one markdown section per role, with the role name as an h1 header (e.g. `# litigation workflow coordinator`). Output only the headered prompts, no preamble.


authentication case manager
provenance researcher
provenance skeptic
conservation science examiner
forensic methods auditor

I need you to set up a 5-agent pipeline that evaluates a fine-art authentication case by developing a provenance hypothesis and a forensic examination report in parallel, with each side informing the other. A case arrives as a natural-language brief in `case.md`. The pipeline alternates between revising the provenance account (attribution, ownership history, documentary chain, art-historical fit) and revising the conservation-science examination (materials, imaging, condition, lab methodology, and interpretation).

The five agents:

- **authentication case manager** orchestrates the run by alternating one provenance step with one forensic step and tracking progress. It does no attribution research, lab interpretation, or reviewing itself.
- **provenance loop** — the **provenance researcher** writes the provenance hypothesis to `PROVENANCE.md`; the **provenance skeptic** judges it. The provenance researcher reads `FORENSICS.md` on each revision pass to incorporate material and technical evidence.
- **forensic loop** — the **conservation science examiner** writes the examination methods, findings, and interpretations to `FORENSICS.md`; the **forensic methods auditor** judges them. The conservation science examiner reads `PROVENANCE.md` on each revision pass to align the testing plan and interpretation with the latest attribution and chain-of-custody claims.

At the end of every turn, each of the subagents briefly reports back what they did, what difficulties they hit, and any open questions.

The pipeline hands work off through three files:

- `case.md` — the original case brief, read-only. All four domain agents read it.
- `PROVENANCE.md` — the provenance and attribution hypothesis. Provenance researcher writes; provenance skeptic reviews; conservation science examiner and forensic methods auditor read it to know which artist, period, workshop, owners, and custody claims the material evidence must test.
- `FORENSICS.md` — the conservation-science examination report and its findings. Conservation science examiner writes; forensic methods auditor reviews; provenance researcher and provenance skeptic read it to ground attribution and provenance claims in observed material facts.

Each reviewer records its score as a `<review score=X>` block inside the file it reviewed, overwriting any previous block. The authentication case manager reads those scores to drive the loops.

Unlike a provenance-first pipeline where documentary research must settle before lab work starts, here neither side ever finishes first. Both loops alternate forever, capped at a fixed iteration count. Provenance may tighten after seeing pigment, support, or imaging results; forensic interpretation may change after seeing a refined attribution, date range, or custody gap.

I'm providing the following information:

<f1>
Keep `FORENSICS.md` lean. Its body — everything except the `<review>` block — must stay under 3000 words (~20KB), about a four-page note; record only the final state and move iteration-by-iteration history, raw instrument logs, and extended spectra tables into a separate `CHANGELOG.md` or appendix file. Bold text must not exceed 5% of the file: if everything is bold, nothing is.
</f1>

<f2>
You orchestrate the run; you never research attribution, interpret lab evidence, or review yourself — you only dispatch the right agent at the right time.

- **Init** — create `STATE.md` with `iter: 0` and `last_side: none`. Dispatch the provenance researcher for the first provenance step (provenance researcher, then provenance skeptic), then the conservation science examiner for the first forensic step (conservation science examiner, then forensic methods auditor).
- **Alternation loop** — alternate one provenance step with one forensic step. Neither side terminates early on its own score; even a convincing-looking provenance may need to revise once the lab report presents actual material findings.
- Cap the total at 20 iterations (10 provenance steps + 10 forensic steps). After the cap, stop and summarize.
- Keep the current iteration count, last side, and the two latest scores in `STATE.md`, accurate after each dispatch. Read each score from the reviewer’s `<review score=X>` block. Commit progress after each step.
- Read each agent’s brief narrative reply on return. If an agent reports an unresolved error, append it to `error-log.txt` (timestamp + agent name + content) and continue with the next step.
</f2>

<f3>
You are working on a fine-art authentication case. The object may be a painting, drawing, print, sculpture, mixed-media work, or an attributed studio or workshop piece. The original case is given as a natural-language brief in `case.md`; read it before starting your part.
</f3>

<f4>
Score the work from 1 to 10, and record your verdict by overwriting the single `<review score=X>` block at the end of the document you reviewed — overwrite the existing one, never append a second.

Score strictly on real merit. Do not give any credit for a piece of work merely being honest about its own shortcomings — “this cannot be authenticated, but I’m telling you it cannot” is still a failing result if the analysis or examination is careless, unsupported, or incomplete.
</f4>

<f5>
Produce the provenance and attribution analysis for the object and write it to `PROVENANCE.md`. A complete analysis covers four kinds of claim, each justified with documentary evidence, art-historical reasoning, or a clearly labeled inference.

- **Attribution hypothesis** — proposed artist, workshop, circle, follower, period, or school; explain the level of confidence and distinguish autograph work from studio, later copy, pastiche, or misattribution.
- **Chain of custody** — known owners, dealers, galleries, exhibitions, sales, inheritances, and transfers. Mark documented links separately from inferred or missing links, and identify any gaps that matter for authenticity or legal risk.
- **Comparative and contextual fit** — stylistic comparisons, catalogue raisonné entries, exhibition history, labels, inscriptions, seals, inventory numbers, signatures, and known variants or copies. State what matches and what conflicts.
- **Chronology and risk issues** — whether the claimed date is plausible; whether there are restitution, looting, export, forgery-ring, or posthumous-production concerns; and whether the object’s story depends on a fragile or circular source.

Ground your claims against `FORENSICS.md` if it has reported findings. A proposed 1620s attribution that conflicts with a twentieth-century synthetic pigment, modern stretcher, or anachronistic ground layer means either the provenance needs revision or the forensic interpretation has a problem — diagnose which side has the issue and state it. Be concrete. “The Knoedler invoice of 1934 supports ownership by A before the 1951 exhibition, but no source yet connects the work to the artist’s estate” is fine; “the provenance seems promising” is not.
</f5>

<f6>
When you finish, briefly report to the authentication case manager: what you did, what difficulties you hit (or didn’t resolve), and any open questions.
</f6>

<f7>
Match the tool to the case structure; do not force an ill-suited one. The list below is useful in provenance and attribution analysis.

| Tool | Suitable for |
|---|---|
| Archival provenance reconstruction | Ownership chains, estate inventories, dealer ledgers, correspondence, customs records |
| Catalogue raisonné and exhibition-history checks | Works by well-documented artists; identifying accepted works, rejected works, variants, and gaps |
| Connoisseurship and comparative stylistic analysis | Schools, workshops, copies, and disputed attributions where visual handling is central |
| Signature, inscription, label, and seal analysis | Objects with artist signatures, collector marks, gallery labels, inventory numbers, or wax seals |
| Market and sales-record analysis | Auction histories, gallery transactions, suspicious price jumps, repeated descriptions across sales |
| Wartime, colonial, and export-risk research | Restitution exposure, forced sales, illicit excavation, national patrimony and export restrictions |
| Technical-art-history correlation | Matching documented practice to support, ground, pigment, binder, tool marks, and working method |
| Bayesian or weight-of-evidence synthesis | Combining weak documentary, stylistic, and material indicators without overstating certainty |
</f7>

<f8>
Read `case.md` and `PROVENANCE.md`, then produce the conservation-science examination:

- Include every relevant method used or recommended. Document imaging, microscopy, UV/IR/visible observations, X-radiography, XRF, Raman, FTIR, GC-MS, dendrochronology, radiocarbon, fiber analysis, alloy analysis, or other tests as appropriate to the object. State sampling locations, instrument limitations, calibration or reference standards, and whether a result is destructive or non-destructive.
- Make the examination testable against `PROVENANCE.md`. If the provenance hypothesis requires a pre-1850 canvas, a particular workshop ground, a historically available pigment, or an original signature, your report should explicitly address that material claim.
- Carry the examination through to a clear interpretive conclusion — do not stop at raw observations. If a result is inconclusive, explain why and what additional test would resolve it. Do not hide contamination, overpaint, restoration, sampling uncertainty, or chain-of-custody limitations.
- Sanity-check the findings against `PROVENANCE.md`. A pigment that was not commercially available during the claimed period, a support inconsistent with the proposed region, or a signature sitting on top of later varnish must be flagged rather than smoothed over.

Write the examination methods, findings, and interpretations up in `FORENSICS.md`.
</f8>

<f9>
Review `FORENSICS.md` against `case.md` and against `PROVENANCE.md`.

- Inspect the reported findings for anomalies, overconfident interpretations, missing controls, or material claims that contradict the object description in `case.md`.
- Open `PROVENANCE.md`. For every attribution, date, custody, or art-historical claim that depends on material evidence, write an audit check into a separate `METHODS_AUDIT.md`: does the examination actually test the claimed period, support, pigment, binder, signature, label, restoration history, or workshop practice? Apply the check to the report. Name any material fact or claim that fails.
- Read the examination methodology and spot-check it for lab weaknesses — undocumented sampling locations, missing calibration, unsuitable technique, contamination risk, overinterpretation of spectra, or conclusions that go beyond the data. A method flaw that silently supports a false attribution is worse than one that openly yields no result.
- Treat the result as finished only when every material observation is tied to the case question, every provenance-relevant technical claim has been addressed, and the findings are consistent with the stated limits of the methods — not merely when the report sounds scientific.
- Check the length of `FORENSICS.md`: if it exceeds 20KB, give a warning, but do not deduct points for it.
- Check the bold ratio of `FORENSICS.md`: if bold text exceeds 5% of the file, give a warning, but do not deduct points for it.
</f9>

<f10>
Claude responds well to clear, explicit instructions. Being specific about your desired output can help enhance results. If you want "above and beyond" behavior, explicitly request it rather than relying on the model to infer this from vague prompts.

Think of Claude as a brilliant but new employee who lacks context on your norms and workflows. The more precisely you explain what you want, the better the result.

Topology rule: Show your prompt to a colleague with minimal context on the task and ask them to follow it. If they'd be confused, Claude will be too.

- Be specific about the desired output format and constraints.
- Provide instructions as sequential steps using numbered lists or bullet points when the order or completeness of steps matters.
</f10>

<f11>
The provenance and attribution analysis lives in `PROVENANCE.md`, and you may be invoked on it more than once — the pipeline runs you and the provenance skeptic as a loop, alternating with the forensic loop.

- If `PROVENANCE.md` does not exist yet, this is the first pass: produce the provenance hypothesis from scratch based on `case.md`.
- If `PROVENANCE.md` already exists, it carries the provenance skeptic’s `<review>` block. Read that feedback. Then open `FORENSICS.md` and look at the latest reported findings — they may invalidate, sharpen, or motivate revisions to your attribution, dating, custody chain, or risk assessment. Revise `PROVENANCE.md` in place to address every reviewer point raised and to incorporate any forensic evidence that changes your analysis. Don’t discard the previous analysis and start over, and don’t leave a flagged issue unaddressed.
</f11>

<f12>
Review `PROVENANCE.md` against `case.md` and against the findings reported in `FORENSICS.md` (if any).

- **Faithfulness** — does the provenance hypothesis correctly describe the object and claims stated in `case.md`? Check artist names, dates, medium, dimensions, inscriptions, alleged owners, and the exact authentication question.
- **Source soundness** — for each attribution or custody claim, walk through the cited document, comparison, or inference. Flag circular citations, vague “private collection” claims, unverified dealer lore, mismatched catalogue entries, and leaps from resemblance to authorship.
- **Forensic grounding** — open `FORENSICS.md`. If the examination reports pigments, supports, binders, tool marks, imaging, or condition evidence, do they fit the proposed artist, period, and chain of custody? A provenance claim that ignores an anachronistic material or explains it away without evidence should be tightened or explicitly marked as doubtful.

Be brief and specific. Do not write the provenance hypothesis yourself — only review. If a claim is wrong, say which one and why.
</f12>

<f13>
The conservation-science examination report lives in `FORENSICS.md`, and you may be invoked on it more than once — the pipeline runs you and the forensic methods auditor as a loop, alternating with the provenance loop.

- If `FORENSICS.md` does not exist yet, this is the first pass: produce the examination report from scratch based on `case.md`.
- If `FORENSICS.md` already exists, it carries the forensic methods auditor’s `<review>` block. Read that feedback. Then open `PROVENANCE.md` and check whether the latest provenance hypothesis introduces attribution, date, custody, or art-historical claims your current examination does not yet address — for example a narrower date range, a claimed workshop practice, a questioned signature, or a custody gap involving restoration. Revise `FORENSICS.md` in place to address every reviewer point and to align with the latest provenance hypothesis. Don’t discard the previous report and start over, and don’t leave a flagged issue unaddressed.
</f13>

Each agent's prompt should contain only the information that agent needs to do its job. For each sub-agent (authentication case manager, provenance researcher, provenance skeptic, conservation science examiner, forensic methods auditor), which items should go in its prompt? Respond with a JSON object like {"authentication case manager": ["f?"], "provenance researcher": ["f?"], "provenance skeptic": ["f?"], "conservation science examiner": ["f?"], "forensic methods auditor": ["f?"]}. No other output.

I need you to set up a 5-agent pipeline that evaluates a fine-art authentication case by developing a provenance hypothesis and a forensic examination report in parallel, with each side informing the other. A case arrives as a natural-language brief in `case.md`. The pipeline alternates between revising the provenance account (attribution, ownership history, documentary chain, art-historical fit) and revising the conservation-science examination (materials, imaging, condition, lab methodology, and interpretation).

The five agents:

- **authentication case manager** orchestrates the run by alternating one provenance step with one forensic step and tracking progress. It does no attribution research, lab interpretation, or reviewing itself.
- **provenance loop** — the **provenance researcher** writes the provenance hypothesis to `PROVENANCE.md`; the **provenance skeptic** judges it. The provenance researcher reads `FORENSICS.md` on each revision pass to incorporate material and technical evidence.
- **forensic loop** — the **conservation science examiner** writes the examination methods, findings, and interpretations to `FORENSICS.md`; the **forensic methods auditor** judges them. The conservation science examiner reads `PROVENANCE.md` on each revision pass to align the testing plan and interpretation with the latest attribution and chain-of-custody claims.

At the end of every turn, each of the subagents briefly reports back what they did, what difficulties they hit, and any open questions.

The pipeline hands work off through three files:

- `case.md` — the original case brief, read-only. All four domain agents read it.
- `PROVENANCE.md` — the provenance and attribution hypothesis. Provenance researcher writes; provenance skeptic reviews; conservation science examiner and forensic methods auditor read it to know which artist, period, workshop, owners, and custody claims the material evidence must test.
- `FORENSICS.md` — the conservation-science examination report and its findings. Conservation science examiner writes; forensic methods auditor reviews; provenance researcher and provenance skeptic read it to ground attribution and provenance claims in observed material facts.

Each reviewer records its score as a `<review score=X>` block inside the file it reviewed, overwriting any previous block. The authentication case manager reads those scores to drive the loops.

Unlike a provenance-first pipeline where documentary research must settle before lab work starts, here neither side ever finishes first. Both loops alternate forever, capped at a fixed iteration count. Provenance may tighten after seeing pigment, support, or imaging results; forensic interpretation may change after seeing a refined attribution, date range, or custody gap.

I'm providing the following prompt fragments:

<f1>
Keep `FORENSICS.md` lean. Its body — everything except the `<review>` block — must stay under 3000 words (~20KB), about a four-page note; record only the final state and move iteration-by-iteration history, raw instrument logs, and extended spectra tables into a separate `CHANGELOG.md` or appendix file. Bold text must not exceed 5% of the file: if everything is bold, nothing is.
</f1>

<f2>
You orchestrate the run; you never research attribution, interpret lab evidence, or review yourself — you only dispatch the right agent at the right time.

- **Init** — create `STATE.md` with `iter: 0` and `last_side: none`. Dispatch the provenance researcher for the first provenance step (provenance researcher, then provenance skeptic), then the conservation science examiner for the first forensic step (conservation science examiner, then forensic methods auditor).
- **Alternation loop** — alternate one provenance step with one forensic step. Neither side terminates early on its own score; even a convincing-looking provenance may need to revise once the lab report presents actual material findings.
- Cap the total at 20 iterations (10 provenance steps + 10 forensic steps). After the cap, stop and summarize.
- Keep the current iteration count, last side, and the two latest scores in `STATE.md`, accurate after each dispatch. Read each score from the reviewer’s `<review score=X>` block. Commit progress after each step.
- Read each agent’s brief narrative reply on return. If an agent reports an unresolved error, append it to `error-log.txt` (timestamp + agent name + content) and continue with the next step.
</f2>

<f3>
You are working on a fine-art authentication case. The object may be a painting, drawing, print, sculpture, mixed-media work, or an attributed studio or workshop piece. The original case is given as a natural-language brief in `case.md`; read it before starting your part.
</f3>

<f4>
Score the work from 1 to 10, and record your verdict by overwriting the single `<review score=X>` block at the end of the document you reviewed — overwrite the existing one, never append a second.

Score strictly on real merit. Do not give any credit for a piece of work merely being honest about its own shortcomings — “this cannot be authenticated, but I’m telling you it cannot” is still a failing result if the analysis or examination is careless, unsupported, or incomplete.
</f4>

<f5>
Produce the provenance and attribution analysis for the object and write it to `PROVENANCE.md`. A complete analysis covers four kinds of claim, each justified with documentary evidence, art-historical reasoning, or a clearly labeled inference.

- **Attribution hypothesis** — proposed artist, workshop, circle, follower, period, or school; explain the level of confidence and distinguish autograph work from studio, later copy, pastiche, or misattribution.
- **Chain of custody** — known owners, dealers, galleries, exhibitions, sales, inheritances, and transfers. Mark documented links separately from inferred or missing links, and identify any gaps that matter for authenticity or legal risk.
- **Comparative and contextual fit** — stylistic comparisons, catalogue raisonné entries, exhibition history, labels, inscriptions, seals, inventory numbers, signatures, and known variants or copies. State what matches and what conflicts.
- **Chronology and risk issues** — whether the claimed date is plausible; whether there are restitution, looting, export, forgery-ring, or posthumous-production concerns; and whether the object’s story depends on a fragile or circular source.

Ground your claims against `FORENSICS.md` if it has reported findings. A proposed 1620s attribution that conflicts with a twentieth-century synthetic pigment, modern stretcher, or anachronistic ground layer means either the provenance needs revision or the forensic interpretation has a problem — diagnose which side has the issue and state it. Be concrete. “The Knoedler invoice of 1934 supports ownership by A before the 1951 exhibition, but no source yet connects the work to the artist’s estate” is fine; “the provenance seems promising” is not.
</f5>

<f6>
When you finish, briefly report to the authentication case manager: what you did, what difficulties you hit (or didn’t resolve), and any open questions.
</f6>

<f7>
Match the tool to the case structure; do not force an ill-suited one. The list below is useful in provenance and attribution analysis.

| Tool | Suitable for |
|---|---|
| Archival provenance reconstruction | Ownership chains, estate inventories, dealer ledgers, correspondence, customs records |
| Catalogue raisonné and exhibition-history checks | Works by well-documented artists; identifying accepted works, rejected works, variants, and gaps |
| Connoisseurship and comparative stylistic analysis | Schools, workshops, copies, and disputed attributions where visual handling is central |
| Signature, inscription, label, and seal analysis | Objects with artist signatures, collector marks, gallery labels, inventory numbers, or wax seals |
| Market and sales-record analysis | Auction histories, gallery transactions, suspicious price jumps, repeated descriptions across sales |
| Wartime, colonial, and export-risk research | Restitution exposure, forced sales, illicit excavation, national patrimony and export restrictions |
| Technical-art-history correlation | Matching documented practice to support, ground, pigment, binder, tool marks, and working method |
| Bayesian or weight-of-evidence synthesis | Combining weak documentary, stylistic, and material indicators without overstating certainty |
</f7>

<f8>
Read `case.md` and `PROVENANCE.md`, then produce the conservation-science examination:

- Include every relevant method used or recommended. Document imaging, microscopy, UV/IR/visible observations, X-radiography, XRF, Raman, FTIR, GC-MS, dendrochronology, radiocarbon, fiber analysis, alloy analysis, or other tests as appropriate to the object. State sampling locations, instrument limitations, calibration or reference standards, and whether a result is destructive or non-destructive.
- Make the examination testable against `PROVENANCE.md`. If the provenance hypothesis requires a pre-1850 canvas, a particular workshop ground, a historically available pigment, or an original signature, your report should explicitly address that material claim.
- Carry the examination through to a clear interpretive conclusion — do not stop at raw observations. If a result is inconclusive, explain why and what additional test would resolve it. Do not hide contamination, overpaint, restoration, sampling uncertainty, or chain-of-custody limitations.
- Sanity-check the findings against `PROVENANCE.md`. A pigment that was not commercially available during the claimed period, a support inconsistent with the proposed region, or a signature sitting on top of later varnish must be flagged rather than smoothed over.

Write the examination methods, findings, and interpretations up in `FORENSICS.md`.
</f8>

<f9>
Review `FORENSICS.md` against `case.md` and against `PROVENANCE.md`.

- Inspect the reported findings for anomalies, overconfident interpretations, missing controls, or material claims that contradict the object description in `case.md`.
- Open `PROVENANCE.md`. For every attribution, date, custody, or art-historical claim that depends on material evidence, write an audit check into a separate `METHODS_AUDIT.md`: does the examination actually test the claimed period, support, pigment, binder, signature, label, restoration history, or workshop practice? Apply the check to the report. Name any material fact or claim that fails.
- Read the examination methodology and spot-check it for lab weaknesses — undocumented sampling locations, missing calibration, unsuitable technique, contamination risk, overinterpretation of spectra, or conclusions that go beyond the data. A method flaw that silently supports a false attribution is worse than one that openly yields no result.
- Treat the result as finished only when every material observation is tied to the case question, every provenance-relevant technical claim has been addressed, and the findings are consistent with the stated limits of the methods — not merely when the report sounds scientific.
- Check the length of `FORENSICS.md`: if it exceeds 20KB, give a warning, but do not deduct points for it.
- Check the bold ratio of `FORENSICS.md`: if bold text exceeds 5% of the file, give a warning, but do not deduct points for it.
</f9>

<f10>
Claude responds well to clear, explicit instructions. Being specific about your desired output can help enhance results. If you want "above and beyond" behavior, explicitly request it rather than relying on the model to infer this from vague prompts.

Think of Claude as a brilliant but new employee who lacks context on your norms and workflows. The more precisely you explain what you want, the better the result.

Topology rule: Show your prompt to a colleague with minimal context on the task and ask them to follow it. If they'd be confused, Claude will be too.

- Be specific about the desired output format and constraints.
- Provide instructions as sequential steps using numbered lists or bullet points when the order or completeness of steps matters.
</f10>

<f11>
The provenance and attribution analysis lives in `PROVENANCE.md`, and you may be invoked on it more than once — the pipeline runs you and the provenance skeptic as a loop, alternating with the forensic loop.

- If `PROVENANCE.md` does not exist yet, this is the first pass: produce the provenance hypothesis from scratch based on `case.md`.
- If `PROVENANCE.md` already exists, it carries the provenance skeptic’s `<review>` block. Read that feedback. Then open `FORENSICS.md` and look at the latest reported findings — they may invalidate, sharpen, or motivate revisions to your attribution, dating, custody chain, or risk assessment. Revise `PROVENANCE.md` in place to address every reviewer point raised and to incorporate any forensic evidence that changes your analysis. Don’t discard the previous analysis and start over, and don’t leave a flagged issue unaddressed.
</f11>

<f12>
Review `PROVENANCE.md` against `case.md` and against the findings reported in `FORENSICS.md` (if any).

- **Faithfulness** — does the provenance hypothesis correctly describe the object and claims stated in `case.md`? Check artist names, dates, medium, dimensions, inscriptions, alleged owners, and the exact authentication question.
- **Source soundness** — for each attribution or custody claim, walk through the cited document, comparison, or inference. Flag circular citations, vague “private collection” claims, unverified dealer lore, mismatched catalogue entries, and leaps from resemblance to authorship.
- **Forensic grounding** — open `FORENSICS.md`. If the examination reports pigments, supports, binders, tool marks, imaging, or condition evidence, do they fit the proposed artist, period, and chain of custody? A provenance claim that ignores an anachronistic material or explains it away without evidence should be tightened or explicitly marked as doubtful.

Be brief and specific. Do not write the provenance hypothesis yourself — only review. If a claim is wrong, say which one and why.
</f12>

<f13>
The conservation-science examination report lives in `FORENSICS.md`, and you may be invoked on it more than once — the pipeline runs you and the forensic methods auditor as a loop, alternating with the provenance loop.

- If `FORENSICS.md` does not exist yet, this is the first pass: produce the examination report from scratch based on `case.md`.
- If `FORENSICS.md` already exists, it carries the forensic methods auditor’s `<review>` block. Read that feedback. Then open `PROVENANCE.md` and check whether the latest provenance hypothesis introduces attribution, date, custody, or art-historical claims your current examination does not yet address — for example a narrower date range, a claimed workshop practice, a questioned signature, or a custody gap involving restoration. Revise `FORENSICS.md` in place to address every reviewer point and to align with the latest provenance hypothesis. Don’t discard the previous report and start over, and don’t leave a flagged issue unaddressed.
</f13>

Each agent's prompt should contain only the fragments that agent needs to do its job. When you include a fragment, paste the FULL block verbatim — no paraphrasing, no partial inclusion, no rewriting of fragment content. Brief connective text between fragments (e.g., "Then: ...", "Note: ...") is fine. Format: one markdown section per role, with the role name as an h1 header (e.g. `# authentication case manager`). Output only the headered prompts, no preamble.


I need you to set up a 5-agent pipeline that evaluates a fine-art authentication case by developing a provenance hypothesis and a forensic examination report in parallel, with each side informing the other. A case arrives as a natural-language brief in `case.md`. The pipeline alternates between revising the provenance account (attribution, ownership history, documentary chain, art-historical fit) and revising the conservation-science examination (materials, imaging, condition, lab methodology, and interpretation).

The five agents:

- **authentication case manager** orchestrates the run by alternating one provenance step with one forensic step and tracking progress. It does no attribution research, lab interpretation, or reviewing itself.
- **provenance loop** — the **provenance researcher** writes the provenance hypothesis to `PROVENANCE.md`; the **provenance skeptic** judges it. The provenance researcher reads `FORENSICS.md` on each revision pass to incorporate material and technical evidence.
- **forensic loop** — the **conservation science examiner** writes the examination methods, findings, and interpretations to `FORENSICS.md`; the **forensic methods auditor** judges them. The conservation science examiner reads `PROVENANCE.md` on each revision pass to align the testing plan and interpretation with the latest attribution and chain-of-custody claims.

At the end of every turn, each of the subagents briefly reports back what they did, what difficulties they hit, and any open questions.

The pipeline hands work off through three files:

- `case.md` — the original case brief, read-only. All four domain agents read it.
- `PROVENANCE.md` — the provenance and attribution hypothesis. Provenance researcher writes; provenance skeptic reviews; conservation science examiner and forensic methods auditor read it to know which artist, period, workshop, owners, and custody claims the material evidence must test.
- `FORENSICS.md` — the conservation-science examination report and its findings. Conservation science examiner writes; forensic methods auditor reviews; provenance researcher and provenance skeptic read it to ground attribution and provenance claims in observed material facts.

Each reviewer records its score as a `<review score=X>` block inside the file it reviewed, overwriting any previous block. The authentication case manager reads those scores to drive the loops.

Unlike a provenance-first pipeline where documentary research must settle before lab work starts, here neither side ever finishes first. Both loops alternate forever, capped at a fixed iteration count. Provenance may tighten after seeing pigment, support, or imaging results; forensic interpretation may change after seeing a refined attribution, date range, or custody gap.

I'm providing the following information:

<f1>
Read `case.md` and `PROVENANCE.md`, then produce the conservation-science examination:

- Include every relevant method used or recommended. Document imaging, microscopy, UV/IR/visible observations, X-radiography, XRF, Raman, FTIR, GC-MS, dendrochronology, radiocarbon, fiber analysis, alloy analysis, or other tests as appropriate to the object. State sampling locations, instrument limitations, calibration or reference standards, and whether a result is destructive or non-destructive.
- Make the examination testable against `PROVENANCE.md`. If the provenance hypothesis requires a pre-1850 canvas, a particular workshop ground, a historically available pigment, or an original signature, your report should explicitly address that material claim.
- Carry the examination through to a clear interpretive conclusion — do not stop at raw observations. If a result is inconclusive, explain why and what additional test would resolve it. Do not hide contamination, overpaint, restoration, sampling uncertainty, or chain-of-custody limitations.
- Sanity-check the findings against `PROVENANCE.md`. A pigment that was not commercially available during the claimed period, a support inconsistent with the proposed region, or a signature sitting on top of later varnish must be flagged rather than smoothed over.

Write the examination methods, findings, and interpretations up in `FORENSICS.md`.
</f1>

<f2>
Match the tool to the case structure; do not force an ill-suited one. The list below is useful in provenance and attribution analysis.

| Tool | Suitable for |
|---|---|
| Archival provenance reconstruction | Ownership chains, estate inventories, dealer ledgers, correspondence, customs records |
| Catalogue raisonné and exhibition-history checks | Works by well-documented artists; identifying accepted works, rejected works, variants, and gaps |
| Connoisseurship and comparative stylistic analysis | Schools, workshops, copies, and disputed attributions where visual handling is central |
| Signature, inscription, label, and seal analysis | Objects with artist signatures, collector marks, gallery labels, inventory numbers, or wax seals |
| Market and sales-record analysis | Auction histories, gallery transactions, suspicious price jumps, repeated descriptions across sales |
| Wartime, colonial, and export-risk research | Restitution exposure, forced sales, illicit excavation, national patrimony and export restrictions |
| Technical-art-history correlation | Matching documented practice to support, ground, pigment, binder, tool marks, and working method |
| Bayesian or weight-of-evidence synthesis | Combining weak documentary, stylistic, and material indicators without overstating certainty |
</f2>

<f3>
The conservation-science examination report lives in `FORENSICS.md`, and you may be invoked on it more than once — the pipeline runs you and the forensic methods auditor as a loop, alternating with the provenance loop.

- If `FORENSICS.md` does not exist yet, this is the first pass: produce the examination report from scratch based on `case.md`.
- If `FORENSICS.md` already exists, it carries the forensic methods auditor’s `<review>` block. Read that feedback. Then open `PROVENANCE.md` and check whether the latest provenance hypothesis introduces attribution, date, custody, or art-historical claims your current examination does not yet address — for example a narrower date range, a claimed workshop practice, a questioned signature, or a custody gap involving restoration. Revise `FORENSICS.md` in place to address every reviewer point and to align with the latest provenance hypothesis. Don’t discard the previous report and start over, and don’t leave a flagged issue unaddressed.
</f3>

<f4>
Review `PROVENANCE.md` against `case.md` and against the findings reported in `FORENSICS.md` (if any).

- **Faithfulness** — does the provenance hypothesis correctly describe the object and claims stated in `case.md`? Check artist names, dates, medium, dimensions, inscriptions, alleged owners, and the exact authentication question.
- **Source soundness** — for each attribution or custody claim, walk through the cited document, comparison, or inference. Flag circular citations, vague “private collection” claims, unverified dealer lore, mismatched catalogue entries, and leaps from resemblance to authorship.
- **Forensic grounding** — open `FORENSICS.md`. If the examination reports pigments, supports, binders, tool marks, imaging, or condition evidence, do they fit the proposed artist, period, and chain of custody? A provenance claim that ignores an anachronistic material or explains it away without evidence should be tightened or explicitly marked as doubtful.

Be brief and specific. Do not write the provenance hypothesis yourself — only review. If a claim is wrong, say which one and why.
</f4>

<f5>
You orchestrate the run; you never research attribution, interpret lab evidence, or review yourself — you only dispatch the right agent at the right time.

- **Init** — create `STATE.md` with `iter: 0` and `last_side: none`. Dispatch the provenance researcher for the first provenance step (provenance researcher, then provenance skeptic), then the conservation science examiner for the first forensic step (conservation science examiner, then forensic methods auditor).
- **Alternation loop** — alternate one provenance step with one forensic step. Neither side terminates early on its own score; even a convincing-looking provenance may need to revise once the lab report presents actual material findings.
- Cap the total at 20 iterations (10 provenance steps + 10 forensic steps). After the cap, stop and summarize.
- Keep the current iteration count, last side, and the two latest scores in `STATE.md`, accurate after each dispatch. Read each score from the reviewer’s `<review score=X>` block. Commit progress after each step.
- Read each agent’s brief narrative reply on return. If an agent reports an unresolved error, append it to `error-log.txt` (timestamp + agent name + content) and continue with the next step.
</f5>

<f6>
Produce the provenance and attribution analysis for the object and write it to `PROVENANCE.md`. A complete analysis covers four kinds of claim, each justified with documentary evidence, art-historical reasoning, or a clearly labeled inference.

- **Attribution hypothesis** — proposed artist, workshop, circle, follower, period, or school; explain the level of confidence and distinguish autograph work from studio, later copy, pastiche, or misattribution.
- **Chain of custody** — known owners, dealers, galleries, exhibitions, sales, inheritances, and transfers. Mark documented links separately from inferred or missing links, and identify any gaps that matter for authenticity or legal risk.
- **Comparative and contextual fit** — stylistic comparisons, catalogue raisonné entries, exhibition history, labels, inscriptions, seals, inventory numbers, signatures, and known variants or copies. State what matches and what conflicts.
- **Chronology and risk issues** — whether the claimed date is plausible; whether there are restitution, looting, export, forgery-ring, or posthumous-production concerns; and whether the object’s story depends on a fragile or circular source.

Ground your claims against `FORENSICS.md` if it has reported findings. A proposed 1620s attribution that conflicts with a twentieth-century synthetic pigment, modern stretcher, or anachronistic ground layer means either the provenance needs revision or the forensic interpretation has a problem — diagnose which side has the issue and state it. Be concrete. “The Knoedler invoice of 1934 supports ownership by A before the 1951 exhibition, but no source yet connects the work to the artist’s estate” is fine; “the provenance seems promising” is not.
</f6>

<f7>
Score the work from 1 to 10, and record your verdict by overwriting the single `<review score=X>` block at the end of the document you reviewed — overwrite the existing one, never append a second.

Score strictly on real merit. Do not give any credit for a piece of work merely being honest about its own shortcomings — “this cannot be authenticated, but I’m telling you it cannot” is still a failing result if the analysis or examination is careless, unsupported, or incomplete.
</f7>

<f8>
Keep `FORENSICS.md` lean. Its body — everything except the `<review>` block — must stay under 3000 words (~20KB), about a four-page note; record only the final state and move iteration-by-iteration history, raw instrument logs, and extended spectra tables into a separate `CHANGELOG.md` or appendix file. Bold text must not exceed 5% of the file: if everything is bold, nothing is.
</f8>

<f9>
When you finish, briefly report to the authentication case manager: what you did, what difficulties you hit (or didn’t resolve), and any open questions.
</f9>

<f10>
XML tags help Claude parse complex prompts unambiguously, especially when your prompt mixes instructions, context, examples, and variable inputs. Wrapping each type of content in its own tag (e.g. `<instructions>`, `<context>`, `<input>`) reduces misinterpretation.

Best practices:
- Use consistent, descriptive tag names across your prompts.
- Nest tags when content has a natural hierarchy (documents inside `<documents>`, each inside `<document index="n">`).
</f10>

<f11>
You are working on a fine-art authentication case. The object may be a painting, drawing, print, sculpture, mixed-media work, or an attributed studio or workshop piece. The original case is given as a natural-language brief in `case.md`; read it before starting your part.
</f11>

<f12>
The provenance and attribution analysis lives in `PROVENANCE.md`, and you may be invoked on it more than once — the pipeline runs you and the provenance skeptic as a loop, alternating with the forensic loop.

- If `PROVENANCE.md` does not exist yet, this is the first pass: produce the provenance hypothesis from scratch based on `case.md`.
- If `PROVENANCE.md` already exists, it carries the provenance skeptic’s `<review>` block. Read that feedback. Then open `FORENSICS.md` and look at the latest reported findings — they may invalidate, sharpen, or motivate revisions to your attribution, dating, custody chain, or risk assessment. Revise `PROVENANCE.md` in place to address every reviewer point raised and to incorporate any forensic evidence that changes your analysis. Don’t discard the previous analysis and start over, and don’t leave a flagged issue unaddressed.
</f12>

<f13>
Review `FORENSICS.md` against `case.md` and against `PROVENANCE.md`.

- Inspect the reported findings for anomalies, overconfident interpretations, missing controls, or material claims that contradict the object description in `case.md`.
- Open `PROVENANCE.md`. For every attribution, date, custody, or art-historical claim that depends on material evidence, write an audit check into a separate `METHODS_AUDIT.md`: does the examination actually test the claimed period, support, pigment, binder, signature, label, restoration history, or workshop practice? Apply the check to the report. Name any material fact or claim that fails.
- Read the examination methodology and spot-check it for lab weaknesses — undocumented sampling locations, missing calibration, unsuitable technique, contamination risk, overinterpretation of spectra, or conclusions that go beyond the data. A method flaw that silently supports a false attribution is worse than one that openly yields no result.
- Treat the result as finished only when every material observation is tied to the case question, every provenance-relevant technical claim has been addressed, and the findings are consistent with the stated limits of the methods — not merely when the report sounds scientific.
- Check the length of `FORENSICS.md`: if it exceeds 20KB, give a warning, but do not deduct points for it.
- Check the bold ratio of `FORENSICS.md`: if bold text exceeds 5% of the file, give a warning, but do not deduct points for it.
</f13>

Each agent's prompt should contain only the information that agent needs to do its job. For each sub-agent (authentication case manager, provenance researcher, provenance skeptic, conservation science examiner, forensic methods auditor), which items should go in its prompt? Respond with a JSON object like {"authentication case manager": ["f?"], "provenance researcher": ["f?"], "provenance skeptic": ["f?"], "conservation science examiner": ["f?"], "forensic methods auditor": ["f?"]}. No other output.

I need you to set up a 5-agent pipeline that evaluates a fine-art authentication case by developing a provenance hypothesis and a forensic examination report in parallel, with each side informing the other. A case arrives as a natural-language brief in `case.md`. The pipeline alternates between revising the provenance account (attribution, ownership history, documentary chain, art-historical fit) and revising the conservation-science examination (materials, imaging, condition, lab methodology, and interpretation).

The five agents:

- **authentication case manager** orchestrates the run by alternating one provenance step with one forensic step and tracking progress. It does no attribution research, lab interpretation, or reviewing itself.
- **provenance loop** — the **provenance researcher** writes the provenance hypothesis to `PROVENANCE.md`; the **provenance skeptic** judges it. The provenance researcher reads `FORENSICS.md` on each revision pass to incorporate material and technical evidence.
- **forensic loop** — the **conservation science examiner** writes the examination methods, findings, and interpretations to `FORENSICS.md`; the **forensic methods auditor** judges them. The conservation science examiner reads `PROVENANCE.md` on each revision pass to align the testing plan and interpretation with the latest attribution and chain-of-custody claims.

At the end of every turn, each of the subagents briefly reports back what they did, what difficulties they hit, and any open questions.

The pipeline hands work off through three files:

- `case.md` — the original case brief, read-only. All four domain agents read it.
- `PROVENANCE.md` — the provenance and attribution hypothesis. Provenance researcher writes; provenance skeptic reviews; conservation science examiner and forensic methods auditor read it to know which artist, period, workshop, owners, and custody claims the material evidence must test.
- `FORENSICS.md` — the conservation-science examination report and its findings. Conservation science examiner writes; forensic methods auditor reviews; provenance researcher and provenance skeptic read it to ground attribution and provenance claims in observed material facts.

Each reviewer records its score as a `<review score=X>` block inside the file it reviewed, overwriting any previous block. The authentication case manager reads those scores to drive the loops.

Unlike a provenance-first pipeline where documentary research must settle before lab work starts, here neither side ever finishes first. Both loops alternate forever, capped at a fixed iteration count. Provenance may tighten after seeing pigment, support, or imaging results; forensic interpretation may change after seeing a refined attribution, date range, or custody gap.

I'm providing the following prompt fragments:

<f1>
Read `case.md` and `PROVENANCE.md`, then produce the conservation-science examination:

- Include every relevant method used or recommended. Document imaging, microscopy, UV/IR/visible observations, X-radiography, XRF, Raman, FTIR, GC-MS, dendrochronology, radiocarbon, fiber analysis, alloy analysis, or other tests as appropriate to the object. State sampling locations, instrument limitations, calibration or reference standards, and whether a result is destructive or non-destructive.
- Make the examination testable against `PROVENANCE.md`. If the provenance hypothesis requires a pre-1850 canvas, a particular workshop ground, a historically available pigment, or an original signature, your report should explicitly address that material claim.
- Carry the examination through to a clear interpretive conclusion — do not stop at raw observations. If a result is inconclusive, explain why and what additional test would resolve it. Do not hide contamination, overpaint, restoration, sampling uncertainty, or chain-of-custody limitations.
- Sanity-check the findings against `PROVENANCE.md`. A pigment that was not commercially available during the claimed period, a support inconsistent with the proposed region, or a signature sitting on top of later varnish must be flagged rather than smoothed over.

Write the examination methods, findings, and interpretations up in `FORENSICS.md`.
</f1>

<f2>
Match the tool to the case structure; do not force an ill-suited one. The list below is useful in provenance and attribution analysis.

| Tool | Suitable for |
|---|---|
| Archival provenance reconstruction | Ownership chains, estate inventories, dealer ledgers, correspondence, customs records |
| Catalogue raisonné and exhibition-history checks | Works by well-documented artists; identifying accepted works, rejected works, variants, and gaps |
| Connoisseurship and comparative stylistic analysis | Schools, workshops, copies, and disputed attributions where visual handling is central |
| Signature, inscription, label, and seal analysis | Objects with artist signatures, collector marks, gallery labels, inventory numbers, or wax seals |
| Market and sales-record analysis | Auction histories, gallery transactions, suspicious price jumps, repeated descriptions across sales |
| Wartime, colonial, and export-risk research | Restitution exposure, forced sales, illicit excavation, national patrimony and export restrictions |
| Technical-art-history correlation | Matching documented practice to support, ground, pigment, binder, tool marks, and working method |
| Bayesian or weight-of-evidence synthesis | Combining weak documentary, stylistic, and material indicators without overstating certainty |
</f2>

<f3>
The conservation-science examination report lives in `FORENSICS.md`, and you may be invoked on it more than once — the pipeline runs you and the forensic methods auditor as a loop, alternating with the provenance loop.

- If `FORENSICS.md` does not exist yet, this is the first pass: produce the examination report from scratch based on `case.md`.
- If `FORENSICS.md` already exists, it carries the forensic methods auditor’s `<review>` block. Read that feedback. Then open `PROVENANCE.md` and check whether the latest provenance hypothesis introduces attribution, date, custody, or art-historical claims your current examination does not yet address — for example a narrower date range, a claimed workshop practice, a questioned signature, or a custody gap involving restoration. Revise `FORENSICS.md` in place to address every reviewer point and to align with the latest provenance hypothesis. Don’t discard the previous report and start over, and don’t leave a flagged issue unaddressed.
</f3>

<f4>
Review `PROVENANCE.md` against `case.md` and against the findings reported in `FORENSICS.md` (if any).

- **Faithfulness** — does the provenance hypothesis correctly describe the object and claims stated in `case.md`? Check artist names, dates, medium, dimensions, inscriptions, alleged owners, and the exact authentication question.
- **Source soundness** — for each attribution or custody claim, walk through the cited document, comparison, or inference. Flag circular citations, vague “private collection” claims, unverified dealer lore, mismatched catalogue entries, and leaps from resemblance to authorship.
- **Forensic grounding** — open `FORENSICS.md`. If the examination reports pigments, supports, binders, tool marks, imaging, or condition evidence, do they fit the proposed artist, period, and chain of custody? A provenance claim that ignores an anachronistic material or explains it away without evidence should be tightened or explicitly marked as doubtful.

Be brief and specific. Do not write the provenance hypothesis yourself — only review. If a claim is wrong, say which one and why.
</f4>

<f5>
You orchestrate the run; you never research attribution, interpret lab evidence, or review yourself — you only dispatch the right agent at the right time.

- **Init** — create `STATE.md` with `iter: 0` and `last_side: none`. Dispatch the provenance researcher for the first provenance step (provenance researcher, then provenance skeptic), then the conservation science examiner for the first forensic step (conservation science examiner, then forensic methods auditor).
- **Alternation loop** — alternate one provenance step with one forensic step. Neither side terminates early on its own score; even a convincing-looking provenance may need to revise once the lab report presents actual material findings.
- Cap the total at 20 iterations (10 provenance steps + 10 forensic steps). After the cap, stop and summarize.
- Keep the current iteration count, last side, and the two latest scores in `STATE.md`, accurate after each dispatch. Read each score from the reviewer’s `<review score=X>` block. Commit progress after each step.
- Read each agent’s brief narrative reply on return. If an agent reports an unresolved error, append it to `error-log.txt` (timestamp + agent name + content) and continue with the next step.
</f5>

<f6>
Produce the provenance and attribution analysis for the object and write it to `PROVENANCE.md`. A complete analysis covers four kinds of claim, each justified with documentary evidence, art-historical reasoning, or a clearly labeled inference.

- **Attribution hypothesis** — proposed artist, workshop, circle, follower, period, or school; explain the level of confidence and distinguish autograph work from studio, later copy, pastiche, or misattribution.
- **Chain of custody** — known owners, dealers, galleries, exhibitions, sales, inheritances, and transfers. Mark documented links separately from inferred or missing links, and identify any gaps that matter for authenticity or legal risk.
- **Comparative and contextual fit** — stylistic comparisons, catalogue raisonné entries, exhibition history, labels, inscriptions, seals, inventory numbers, signatures, and known variants or copies. State what matches and what conflicts.
- **Chronology and risk issues** — whether the claimed date is plausible; whether there are restitution, looting, export, forgery-ring, or posthumous-production concerns; and whether the object’s story depends on a fragile or circular source.

Ground your claims against `FORENSICS.md` if it has reported findings. A proposed 1620s attribution that conflicts with a twentieth-century synthetic pigment, modern stretcher, or anachronistic ground layer means either the provenance needs revision or the forensic interpretation has a problem — diagnose which side has the issue and state it. Be concrete. “The Knoedler invoice of 1934 supports ownership by A before the 1951 exhibition, but no source yet connects the work to the artist’s estate” is fine; “the provenance seems promising” is not.
</f6>

<f7>
Score the work from 1 to 10, and record your verdict by overwriting the single `<review score=X>` block at the end of the document you reviewed — overwrite the existing one, never append a second.

Score strictly on real merit. Do not give any credit for a piece of work merely being honest about its own shortcomings — “this cannot be authenticated, but I’m telling you it cannot” is still a failing result if the analysis or examination is careless, unsupported, or incomplete.
</f7>

<f8>
Keep `FORENSICS.md` lean. Its body — everything except the `<review>` block — must stay under 3000 words (~20KB), about a four-page note; record only the final state and move iteration-by-iteration history, raw instrument logs, and extended spectra tables into a separate `CHANGELOG.md` or appendix file. Bold text must not exceed 5% of the file: if everything is bold, nothing is.
</f8>

<f9>
When you finish, briefly report to the authentication case manager: what you did, what difficulties you hit (or didn’t resolve), and any open questions.
</f9>

<f10>
XML tags help Claude parse complex prompts unambiguously, especially when your prompt mixes instructions, context, examples, and variable inputs. Wrapping each type of content in its own tag (e.g. `<instructions>`, `<context>`, `<input>`) reduces misinterpretation.

Best practices:
- Use consistent, descriptive tag names across your prompts.
- Nest tags when content has a natural hierarchy (documents inside `<documents>`, each inside `<document index="n">`).
</f10>

<f11>
You are working on a fine-art authentication case. The object may be a painting, drawing, print, sculpture, mixed-media work, or an attributed studio or workshop piece. The original case is given as a natural-language brief in `case.md`; read it before starting your part.
</f11>

<f12>
The provenance and attribution analysis lives in `PROVENANCE.md`, and you may be invoked on it more than once — the pipeline runs you and the provenance skeptic as a loop, alternating with the forensic loop.

- If `PROVENANCE.md` does not exist yet, this is the first pass: produce the provenance hypothesis from scratch based on `case.md`.
- If `PROVENANCE.md` already exists, it carries the provenance skeptic’s `<review>` block. Read that feedback. Then open `FORENSICS.md` and look at the latest reported findings — they may invalidate, sharpen, or motivate revisions to your attribution, dating, custody chain, or risk assessment. Revise `PROVENANCE.md` in place to address every reviewer point raised and to incorporate any forensic evidence that changes your analysis. Don’t discard the previous analysis and start over, and don’t leave a flagged issue unaddressed.
</f12>

<f13>
Review `FORENSICS.md` against `case.md` and against `PROVENANCE.md`.

- Inspect the reported findings for anomalies, overconfident interpretations, missing controls, or material claims that contradict the object description in `case.md`.
- Open `PROVENANCE.md`. For every attribution, date, custody, or art-historical claim that depends on material evidence, write an audit check into a separate `METHODS_AUDIT.md`: does the examination actually test the claimed period, support, pigment, binder, signature, label, restoration history, or workshop practice? Apply the check to the report. Name any material fact or claim that fails.
- Read the examination methodology and spot-check it for lab weaknesses — undocumented sampling locations, missing calibration, unsuitable technique, contamination risk, overinterpretation of spectra, or conclusions that go beyond the data. A method flaw that silently supports a false attribution is worse than one that openly yields no result.
- Treat the result as finished only when every material observation is tied to the case question, every provenance-relevant technical claim has been addressed, and the findings are consistent with the stated limits of the methods — not merely when the report sounds scientific.
- Check the length of `FORENSICS.md`: if it exceeds 20KB, give a warning, but do not deduct points for it.
- Check the bold ratio of `FORENSICS.md`: if bold text exceeds 5% of the file, give a warning, but do not deduct points for it.
</f13>

Each agent's prompt should contain only the fragments that agent needs to do its job. When you include a fragment, paste the FULL block verbatim — no paraphrasing, no partial inclusion, no rewriting of fragment content. Brief connective text between fragments (e.g., "Then: ...", "Note: ...") is fine. Format: one markdown section per role, with the role name as an h1 header (e.g. `# authentication case manager`). Output only the headered prompts, no preamble.