Integrator assignment

Read completely kb/work/open-ended-work-economics/curiosity-exploration/README.md, kb/work/open-ended-work-economics/bootstrap-exploration/second-exploration-brief.md, kb/work/open-ended-work-economics/README.md, AGENTS.md and kb/work/COLLECTION.md. These bind purpose, scope, evidence, coordination, acceptance and stop conditions. No code, experiments, implementation, commits, extraction, deletion or library/index edits. No new source destination allocated; return ungrounded literature leads as leads, not source-backed conclusions. Existing grounded Quotes may support claims; source analysis is not support. Only A turn 1 had source mutation ownership. Choose methods and research judgments within scope; escalate purpose/authority changes, return partial on missing evidence/tools. Validate owned result. Distinguish source claims, documentary observations, conjectures and demonstrations; preserve strongest rival, discriminating evidence, recoverability needs and reason for parked alternatives. Keep learning value distinct from task benefit; do not force compression scores, text shortening or service-first admission. Fresh integrator turn 2. Read current coordination, both explorers, critic and prior integration. Own only kb/work/open-ended-work-economics/curiosity-exploration/turn-02/integration.md. No delegation. Decide what comparison actually changed and what resisted; do not inflate correction into causal discovery. Recommend next consequential question about positive steering, avoiding spending whole run on recovery attribution. Which practical mechanism can originate/select meaningful questions and compare qualitative progress, with what acquisition/retention limits? Explain why prefer it over strongest alternative, what purpose narrowing serves/leaves untouched. 1000-1500 words.