---
name: artefacted-revision-report
description: 'Write replayable adversarial review notes into the active artefact folder so later Miadi, RISE, and wiki waves can resume from concrete evidence instead of chat memory.'
---

# Artefacted Revision Report

After a review wave, write a markdown report into the active artefact folder when one is available.

## Report purpose

The report should let a later session answer three questions without re-reading the whole conversation:

1. what was reviewed
2. what evidence was checked
3. what must change before promotion

## Required sections

1. `Scope reviewed`
2. `Evidence paths`
3. `Desired outcome reconstructed`
4. `Current reality observed`
5. `Strongest disagreements found`
6. `Revision actions`
7. `Blocked promotions`
8. `What may advance with conditions`
9. `Next wave starting point`

## Quality rules

- Prefer exact file paths and quoted claims over paraphrase.
- If a conclusion depends on missing evidence, say that explicitly.
- Separate what is proven from what is inferred.
- Preserve the promotion status used in the review (`BLOCK`, `HOLD`, or `ADVANCE WITH CONDITIONS`).

## Suggested filename

Use a durable, scope-specific name such as:

`adversarial-review--<scope>--<yyyymmddhhmm>.md`

If the wave already asked for a specific report path, use that instead.