# Intake gates

Run the intake as a structured step before doing anything else with candidate material. Do
not draft, outline, summarize, or characterize the candidate until all four gates pass. If
the user pastes materials and says "write the report," run the gates first, acknowledging
the materials but asking for what is missing. Ask only for what is missing: if the user's
first message already satisfies a gate, do not re-ask it.

The gates exist because the document's value depends on them. Criteria give it a spine,
sources give it substance, context turns trait description into advisory narrative, and the
audience and identifiers make it usable. A gate skipped is a document weakened, so hold the
gates even when the user is in a hurry, and explain briefly why when they push back.

## Gate 1: Success criteria (hard gate)

Ask for the success criteria the candidate is being assessed against: competencies,
capabilities, and derailers, with definitions where available.

- Accepted formats: a list with definitions, a competency model extract, a role scorecard,
  or a success profile document from any source. Record each criterion's name and
  definition into the register with `origin: "user-provided"`.
- Fallback: if the user has only a role specification or job description, offer to derive
  draft criteria from it. Present the derived set (name plus one-line definition each) and
  require explicit confirmation, with edits, before anything else happens. Record these
  with `origin: "derived-confirmed"` and say so in the methodology section.
- If the user provides neither criteria nor a role specification, explain that the
  criteria form the entire structure of the document and that drafting without them would
  produce an uncriteria'd profile the skill is designed not to produce. Then stop. Do not
  draft.
- If more than 12 criteria are supplied, flag that per-criterion depth will fall below
  what a committee reader expects (the per-criterion budget is min(400, 2200/N) words),
  offer a draft consolidation of overlapping criteria for confirmation, and proceed with
  the full set only if the user insists.

## Gate 1.5: Evidence coding frame (hard gate)

Alongside the criteria request, ask in substance: "Do you have behavioral indicators for
these criteria, examples of what good and poor performance look like? If you do, share
them and I will use them to anchor how every piece of evidence is coded. If you do not, I
will draft a frame for each criterion for you to confirm or edit before I read any
candidate material." The frame is what makes coding standardized, and its confirmation is
what makes the appendix's methodological claim true, so the gate is hard; the burden is
one confirmation message, because the skill drafts the frame when the user has none.

- **Path A, user supplies indicators** (a competency model with indicators, a scorecard
  with anchors, a pasted list): ingest, normalize to one polarity-tagged list per
  criterion, play the normalized frame back, and ask for confirmation, since
  normalization can shift meaning. Record per-indicator origin: "user-provided"
  (verbatim) or "user-provided-normalized" (reworded).
- **Path B, user has none:** say plainly that evidence cannot be coded consistently
  without a frame, then derive a draft per criterion from the definition plus the Gate 3
  mandate: 3 to 6 effective indicators and 2 to 4 ineffective ones, including
  pressure-condition ineffective indicators where the mandate makes those conditions
  likely. Present criterion by criterion and require explicit confirm-with-edits before
  extraction. Origin "derived-confirmed".
- Indicators are behavioral and observable, one clause each, no trait adjectives standing
  alone ("communicates the strategic thesis so others can repeat it", never
  "visionary"). More than 8 indicators on one criterion triggers a consolidation
  suggestion.
- **No few-shot exemplars.** Never invent scored example responses; published evidence
  found exemplars added nothing over definitions plus indicators and were sensitive to
  exemplar choice. If the user supplies calibration examples, attach them to the frame as
  clearly labeled user-provided context.
- If the user declines the frame round entirely, explain why the skill cannot code
  evidence to a standard it does not have, and stop, exactly as Gates 1 to 3 do.
- The frame can grow during extraction only through a proposed addition the user confirms
  (origin "added-during-extraction-confirmed"), never silently.

## Gate 2: Source materials (hard gate)

At least one candidate source is required.

- Inventory everything provided. Classify each source by type and tier (see
  `evidence_rules.md`) and play the inventory back: what you have, how each source will be
  weighed, and anything that looks misclassified.
- Explicitly ask whether further sources exist (references, prior assessments, 360 data,
  case or simulation performance) before proceeding, so gaps in coverage are deliberate
  rather than accidental.
- Sources can come from any vendor. Never treat a non-Deeper-Signals instrument
  differently from a Deeper Signals one.
- Ask whether any source has a designed mapping to the criteria: an interview guide with
  question-to-criterion targets, a 360 whose dimensions map to criteria, case simulation
  dimensions, reference protocols. Record mappings as `targets` on the source; they drive
  the targeted-source coding discipline in `evidence_rules.md`.

## Gate 3: Role mandate and business context (hard gate)

Ask for the situational context: why the role is open, the strategic challenges, the
stakeholder environment, and what success looks like in 18 to 24 months.

- Say when asking that a short paragraph is enough. The gate is a low burden, not a
  blocker.
- Do not draft without it. Context is what turns trait description into advisory
  narrative, and a context-free document undercuts the skill's core value.
- If the user says they have nothing, offer to help them articulate the mandate through
  two or three quick questions (for example: What is the biggest problem the new leader
  must solve in year one? Who are the stakeholders that make this role hard? What would
  make the committee say, two years from now, that this appointment worked?). If they
  decline the assist, explain why the skill cannot proceed and stop.

## Gate 4: Audience, length, and identifiers

Confirm:

1. Audience: search committee, hiring CEO, board, or other (named). This drives the
   circulation line on the confidentiality page and the register of the prose.
2. Desired length. Default is approximately 10 pages; honor a shorter request by tightening
   budgets proportionally, and never pad past what the evidence supports.
3. Candidate name exactly as it should appear, role title, and organization name. Propagate
   the name verbatim. Take pronouns from the user or the materials; never infer them from a
   name, and if unclear, ask or write around them.

## After the gates

Confirm the whole intake in one compact playback (criteria count and origin, frame
confirmed with indicator counts, source inventory with tiers and any targets, context in
one line, audience, length, identifiers), then move to Stage 1 extraction
(`evidence_rules.md`). If the user asks at any point for a hiring
recommendation or a verdict, decline briefly, explain that the judgement belongs to the
assessor and the committee, and point to the evidence summary and open questions instead.
