Apply Me CRM evaluator-pass punch list + fix claim-checker subagent bug

.claude/agents/pagekit-claim-checker.md

@@ -42,11 +42,19 @@ The orchestrator (or the user) gives you:
    - **unsourced quantitative modifier** — `most / usually / typically / often / many` without source
    - **clinical or regulatory drift** — clinical / legal / regulatory advice not supported by briefs
    - **ai-slop tell** — any pattern from `frameworks/anti-slop.md`
-3. For each flagged line, propose a sharper, more accurate rewrite (or a cut). Precision over intensity. If a rewrite feels smaller, that is usually correct.
+3. For each flagged line, produce a correction with one of these three dispositions, labeled explicitly in the audit:
+   - **rewrite** — a sharper, more accurate replacement that sits inside the proof map and reads cleaner. Precision over intensity. If a rewrite feels smaller, that is usually correct.
+   - **remove (wrong)** — cut the line. The claim is not supportable at any severity. The audit should state why the claim is disqualified (not merely unsupported).
+   - **remove pending verification** — cut the line from the corrected draft AND explicitly flag it in the audit as "potentially restorable if <X> is confirmed in the briefs." The dispositions `remove (wrong)` and `remove pending verification` must not be collapsed into a silent drop; a reviewer needs to know whether the line is disqualified or held back.
 4. Tally recurring patterns at the end. If a pattern fires more than once, name it as a candidate for upstream absorption into `frameworks/anti-slop.md` or `templates/page-argument-shape-template.md`.
 5. Produce the corrected draft. Do not rewrite lines that were not flagged. Preserve verification flags.
+
+   **Hard rules for the corrected draft (these are not optional):**
+   - No inline annotation markers in body copy. `*[Rewritten: ...]*`, `*[Was: ...]*`, `*[Replaced: ...]*`, or any similar provenance marker belongs in the audit (`claim-check.md`), NOT in the corrected draft. The corrected draft is publish-ready copy.
+   - No new em-dashes introduced by rewrites. Per `frameworks/anti-slop.md`, body copy has zero em-dashes. Rewrites that need a pause should use a comma, colon, or parentheses. Before saving the corrected draft, scan your own rewrites for `—` or `--` and replace.
+   - Before saving, mentally run `scripts/slop-check.sh` against the corrected draft. If a rewrite reintroduces any flagged pattern (em-dashes, intensifiers, copula-avoidance, etc.), fix it before saving.
 6. Save the audit to `runs/<run-name>/claim-check.md` per `templates/claim-check-template.md`.
-7. Save the corrected draft to `runs/<run-name>/first-page-draft-corrected.md` (only if any line was rewritten).
+7. Save the corrected draft to `runs/<run-name>/first-page-draft-corrected.md` (only if any line was rewritten or removed with "remove pending verification" disposition).
 
 ## Severity calibration
 

prompts/07-claim-check.md

@@ -49,11 +49,16 @@ For each flagged claim, give:
 1. the exact line
 2. the type (overclaim / vague / unsupported / outruns proof map / editorial voice / unsourced quantitative modifier / clinical or regulatory drift / ai-slop tell)
 3. why it is weak
-4. a sharper, more accurate replacement or a recommendation to cut
+4. a correction, labeled with one of these dispositions:
+   - **rewrite** — a sharper, more accurate replacement that lands inside the proof map and reads cleaner
+   - **remove (wrong)** — cut the line; the claim is not supportable at any severity
+   - **remove pending verification** — cut the line from the corrected draft AND flag it in the audit as "potentially restorable if <X> is confirmed in the briefs." A dropped claim and a disqualified claim are different things; the audit must preserve the distinction so a reviewer can decide whether to restore on verification.
 
 Do not reward defensiveness.
 A corrected claim should be more precise, not louder.
 
+The corrected draft must be clean on its own terms: no inline annotation markers (`*[Rewritten: ...]*`, `*[Was: ...]*`) in body copy, and no new em-dashes introduced by the rewrites. The audit is where rewrite provenance lives; the corrected draft is publish-ready copy.
+
 At the end, list any slop pattern that showed up more than once so upstream constraints (frameworks/anti-slop.md or page-argument-shape drafting constraints) can absorb it.
 
 Then produce a corrected draft that resolves every flagged claim.

scripts/new-run.sh

@@ -248,6 +248,13 @@ afterward via the pagekit-evaluator-pass skill).
 ## Logging level
 Fully logged per \`frameworks/run-logging.md\`.
 
+## Source quality
+- **Real** (founder interviews, existing customer language, usage data, published materials)
+- **Training fiction** (committed fictional product facts, no interviews, no usage data)
+- **Mixed** (some real source material, some invented for scaffolding)
+
+Pick one. Surface it here rather than burying it in \`sources/01-source-capture.md\`. A reader scanning the evaluation should know immediately whether the run was built on real or invented material. Runs produce different kinds of evidence; the evaluation should be honest about which kind.
+
 ## What worked
 - *[Fill in]*
 
@@ -260,6 +267,14 @@ Fully logged per \`frameworks/run-logging.md\`.
 ## Where outputs drifted generic
 - *[Fill in]*
 
+## Weak section to source-gap mapping
+For each section flagged as weak (in "What stayed thin" or "Where outputs drifted generic"): name the specific source material that would fix it. A section flagged weak without a source-gap named is a section that reads as "we know it's weak and chose to ship it." Examples:
+- **Section 2 (category-default language)** → a named founder interview quote about the specific moment this tool fails
+- **Section 4 (outcome claim)** → usage data or a case study; until then the section should end on mechanism, not result
+- **Section 5 (trust floor)** → at least one real testimonial with attribution
+
+*[Fill in per weak section, or state "no weak sections named" if the run has none.]*
+
 ## Publication readiness checklist
 What is still missing before this page can publish:
 - *[Name specific gaps: missing testimonials, unconfirmed claims, sections that need real data, etc.]*

templates/claim-check-template.md

@@ -35,7 +35,13 @@ What specifically makes this claim brittle, misleading, undefended, or machine-c
 - not a proof issue (slop tell only)
 
 ### Proposed correction
-A sharper, more accurate replacement, or a decision to cut.
+One of these three dispositions, labeled explicitly:
+
+- **rewrite** — a sharper, more accurate replacement that sits inside the proof map and reads cleaner. Precision over intensity.
+- **remove (wrong)** — cut the line. The claim is not supportable at any severity. State why the claim is disqualified.
+- **remove pending verification** — cut the line from the corrected draft; note here as "potentially restorable if <X> is confirmed in the briefs." A dropped claim and a disqualified claim are different things; preserve the distinction.
+
+Do NOT include `*[Rewritten: ...]*` or any other inline annotation markers in the corrected draft. The audit is where rewrite provenance lives; the corrected draft is publish-ready copy.
 
 ---
 

templates/first-page-decision-template.md

@@ -7,6 +7,14 @@
 ## Confidence basis for this decision
 Data / signal / hypothesis — state which and why.
 
+### If this is a hypothesis: what would falsify it?
+Name the concrete observation that would tell you this decision is wrong. A hypothesis you cannot falsify is a guess dressed as a plan. Examples:
+- "If cold-acquisition visitors bounce before reaching Section 3, the problem-first framing is wrong for this audience."
+- "If a homepage variant outperforms this page on trial conversion at any sample size over N, the decision is wrong."
+- "If early users report the page read as preachy, the framing chose the wrong entry angle."
+
+If the confidence basis above is "data" or "signal," this field is optional. If "hypothesis," it is required — leaving it blank silently promotes a guess to a conclusion.
+
 ## Page job
 What should this page help the visitor understand, believe or do?