Turn 1: can compression progress originate worthwhile questions?

Before launch

The brief identifies an underdeveloped move from curiosity to question origination. Start with the proposed mechanism rather than another evaluation protocol: what would improvement of a shared account make worth investigating, and what can distinguish learnable structure from novelty or persistent error?

This serves positive steering and its evidence requirements. The strongest alternative is immediately specifying retention or a provenance comparison; park it for sequencing, since what the learner is trying to improve determines what must remain available. This does not require a service consumer or exclude acquisition as an outcome.

Assignments, sequential and fresh: - Explorer A: examine the priority Formal Theory of Creativity source through grounding, its practical progress approximations and limits; critically translate to qualitative KB inquiry. Own explorer-a.md and the named source Quotes exception in the framing. Depth 2/workers 2. - Explorer B: independently search broader KB for a surprising regularity or unexplained success across cases; propose competing question-origination mechanisms without reading A. Own explorer-b.md. Depth 2/workers 2. - Critic: test both proposals against actual prior accounts, rivals and recoverability. Own critic.md; no delegation. - Integrator: retain supported changes/limits and recommend next question rather than automatically a protocol. Own integration.md; no delegation.

All roles inherit the run framing and second brief. Conceptual synthesis uses parent model gpt-6-astra; no bulk retrieval job assigned. Operator intervention: authorization to complete five turns without pauses. Measurements pending; no experiment launched.