bts-adjudicatelisted

# Adjudicate: Debate Conclusion Review Evaluate the debate conclusion for: $ARGUMENTS ## Step 1: Read Debate Output Find the debate artifacts: - List `.bts/specs/recipes/{id}/debates/` to find the latest debate (highest sequence number, or matching the argument) - Read meta.json for topic, conclusion, decided status - Read all round files for full expert arguments - Read `draft.md` (the current draft) to understand the context the debate was about - Read scope.md to check scope boundaries ## Step 2: Evaluate on 6 Dimensions For each dimension, assign: PASS / CONCERN / FAIL ### 2a. Topic Alignment - Does the conclusion actually answer the ORIGINAL debate topic? - Did the experts drift to a different subject? - Is the decision directly applicable to the problem that triggered the debate? - **Red flag**: Conclusion discusses technology X but debate was about technology Y. ### 2b. Scope Compliance - Read `.bts/specs/recipes/{id}/scope.md` - Does the conclusion stay within the confirmed scope boundaries? - Does it introduce items explicitly listed as "Out of Scope"? - If the conclusion requires scope expansion → use AskUserQuestion: "[SCOPE CHANGE] Debate conclusion requires {item} which is out of scope." - "Approve scope expansion" → update scope.md (add to In Scope, remove from Out of Scope, keep Status: CONFIRMED), then ACCEPT the conclusion - "Reject — find alternative within scope" → EXTEND the debate, add to prep brief: "Must find a solution that does NOT re