# Example: high-context inverted interview

This example shows the shape of an inverted interview for a task that already has
substantial pre-work.

The domain details are intentionally generic. The goal is to show interview
structure, not prescribe a product.

## Starting condition

The user provides:

- prior discussion about a target tool;
- raw input files;
- notes from a domain expert;
- a previous failed auto run;
- a generated handoff package that is useful but not the requested final product.

A blank-slate interview would ask:

```text
What do you want to build?
```

That is not the best first question. The system already has enough context to
propose a requirement model.

## Inverted first turn

```text
Based on the prior context and supplied artifacts, my current understanding is:

1. The final artifact is a reusable local tool, not only static documentation.
2. The tool needs both a repeatable execution surface and a human review surface.
3. The handoff/checklist package is a supporting output generated by the tool.
4. The legacy workflow is a reference behavior source, not something to ignore.
5. New review checks should be candidate alerts, not final expert judgments.
6. Missing required input data must be labeled as insufficient/unchecked, not OK.
7. The previous failed run is evidence of a failure mode, not accepted output.

Which line is wrong or incomplete?
```

## User correction

```text
Line 2: the repeatable execution surface must be the primary surface.
Line 5: candidate alerts must include the expert notes from the recording.
Everything else is right.
```

## Updated synthesis

```text
Updated requirement model:

Confirmed:
1. Primary artifact: reusable local tool.
2. Primary surface: repeatable execution surface.
3. Secondary surface: human review surface.
4. Handoff/checklists are generated supporting outputs.
5. Legacy workflow is a reference behavior source.
6. Expert-note checks are candidate alerts.
7. Missing data must be insufficient/unchecked, not OK.
8. Previous failed output is not accepted as final.

Still ambiguous:
A. Which expert-note checks are mandatory for MVP?
B. Which legacy behaviors must be inherited first?
C. What command/output proves the tool is usable?

Human-only decision:
D. May the MVP drop the human review surface if time is short?
```

## Focused Socratic follow-up

Only the remaining ambiguities are asked:

```text
For MVP, which is the stronger failure: missing a legacy behavior, or missing an
expert-note alert?
```

```text
What output would prove the repeatable execution surface works on a second input?
```

The interview does not restart from first principles.

## Seed readiness rule

The Seed can proceed when:

- confirmed facts are accepted by the user;
- inferred assumptions are either accepted or downgraded to open questions;
- human-only decisions are answered or explicitly blocked;
- the final artifact class is not silently replaced by a supporting output.

## Failure this prevents

Without the inverted pass, the system may choose the supporting handoff package as
the final artifact because it is safer and easier to verify.

With the inverted pass, that becomes visible before Seed generation:

```text
Handoff/checklist package = supporting output, not product.
```

That line can be confirmed, corrected, or rejected by the user before execution.
