docs: audit presentation story flow

docs/current_roadmap.md

@@ -314,6 +314,8 @@ separate activity after these surfaces are stable.
    Scene 11 → Scene 12 path in live and replay modes, then review the story
    flow, coverage, and ordering separately. Implementation plan:
    [`defense rehearsal gate`](superpowers/plans/2026-07-13-defense-rehearsal-gate.md).
+   Story-flow audit: [`presentation story audit`](runbooks/presentation-story-audit.md);
+   dated evidence: [`presentation rehearsal log`](runbooks/presentation-rehearsal-log.md).
 
 9. **Deferred: factual input file browser:** replace the Scene 10 input
    manifest-only view with a read-only browser backed by canonical prepared or

docs/runbooks/presentation-story-audit.md

@@ -0,0 +1,142 @@
+# Presentation Story-Flow Audit
+
+Audit date: 2026-07-13. This review uses the complete
+[rehearsal matrix](presentation-rehearsal-matrix.md), the dated
+[rehearsal log](presentation-rehearsal-log.md), the
+[presentation runbook](defense-presentation.md), the
+[Q&A runbook](defense-qna.md), and the locally available private narrative
+notes in `random shit/`. The matrix covers all 14 scenes; the log records
+targeted replay/fallback checks and does not establish a completed live
+end-to-end run.
+
+## Scene Audit
+
+### Scene 1 — Thesis
+- Audience takeaway: The AI-agent goal narrows to an implemented workflow substrate.
+- Visible proof: Title and substrate beats state the motivation and the typed lifecycle contribution.
+- Missing or confusing: The external-planner boundary must be said before the audience asks where the agent is.
+- Next action: keep
+
+### Scene 2 — The Problem
+- Audience takeaway: Direct actions do not become reusable automation without durable contracts.
+- Visible proof: The contrast and missing-contracts beats name schemas, persistence, traces, and recovery.
+- Missing or confusing: The causal bridge from “AI lowers the barrier” to “the platform is still necessary” is spoken, not shown.
+- Next action: keep
+
+### Scene 3 — Positioning and Related Systems
+- Audience takeaway: lda.chat occupies a typed, provider-neutral substrate position rather than replacing adjacent systems.
+- Visible proof: The landscape and lda.chat position map distinguish tool loops, scripts, hosted automation, agent graphs, and MCP.
+- Missing or confusing: The comparison can feel like a catalog unless the axis and intended external-agent user are stated once.
+- Next action: keep
+
+### Scene 4 — Planner and Runtime
+- Audience takeaway: An external planner proposes while the runtime validates, executes, records, and resumes.
+- Visible proof: Planner, runtime, and boundary beats make the ownership split visible.
+- Missing or confusing: The audience needs the sentence that this is the thesis boundary, not a claim of a new planner.
+- Next action: keep
+
+### Scene 5 — Workflow Lifecycle
+- Audience takeaway: Draft, Artifact, Deployment, and Run are distinct records with different responsibilities.
+- Visible proof: The lifecycle strip shows mutable authoring, immutable artifact, source binding, and persisted execution.
+- Missing or confusing: The jump from vocabulary to architecture can be abstract if Deployment is not tied to concrete sources.
+- Next action: keep
+
+### Scene 6 — Architecture Zoom
+- Audience takeaway: The same public surface reaches API, runtime/providers, stores, and a typed NodeUse execution.
+- Visible proof: Client, API, runtime, and NodeUse focus beats provide a semantic zoom with package and operation evidence.
+- Missing or confusing: Four nested levels risk becoming a component tour unless each level answers what responsibility moves inward.
+- Next action: keep
+
+### Scene 7 — Author, Validate, Repair
+- Audience takeaway: Discovery and structured diagnostics reduce agent guessing during workflow authoring.
+- Visible proof: Discover, author, diagnose, and repair beats show the operation loop and repair guidance.
+- Missing or confusing: The repair result should be verbally connected to the valid artifact, not treated as another isolated tool call.
+- Next action: keep
+
+### Scene 8 — Agent Request
+- Audience takeaway: A thin external-agent surface can request work without pretending to execute it.
+- Visible proof: Send reveals the prepared conversation and four discovery tool calls with no run claim.
+- Missing or confusing: The chat surface could be mistaken for the thesis product unless the substrate remains the stated center.
+- Next action: keep
+
+### Scene 9 — Prepared Workflow Lifecycle
+- Audience takeaway: The request is translated into Discover, Draft, Validate, Artifact, and Deployment stages.
+- Visible proof: The phase rail, staged messages, and changing factual evidence advance across all five beats.
+- Missing or confusing: Deployment records a local run request but does not execute; that boundary needs an explicit spoken pause.
+- Next action: keep
+
+### Scene 10 — Run From Deployment
+- Audience takeaway: Execution starts from a ready deployment through a public run operation.
+- Visible proof: Input, operation, and graph beats show selected inputs, `workflow.runs.start`, a run ID, and the typed boundary.
+- Missing or confusing: The live end-to-end path was blocked, so live output must not be implied from the replay-backed operation view.
+- Next action: factual fix
+
+### Scene 11 — Typed Human Boundary
+- Audience takeaway: A persisted run pauses at a typed issue-review decision with explicit submitted and revision-requested outcomes.
+- Visible proof: Interrupt payload, selected issue, comment field, and both decision controls are visible in replay.
+- Missing or confusing: The revision replay uses `run_recorded_lda_report_revision`, so “same run” wording is false for that branch.
+- Next action: factual fix
+
+### Scene 12 — Resume, Output, Evidence
+- Audience takeaway: A decision leads to inspectable output and trace evidence for the workflow run.
+- Visible proof: Resume, output, and trace beats show status, report/issue result, interrupt continuation, and terminal frames.
+- Missing or confusing: Submitted replay continuity is demonstrated; live continuity and revision same-run continuity are not yet established.
+- Next action: factual fix
+
+### Scene 13 — Evaluation
+- Audience takeaway: The 36 trials are bounded engineering evidence about operability and UX failure modes.
+- Visible proof: Cohort, validity, and findings beats separate audited evidence from benchmark-style claims.
+- Missing or confusing: The evaluation arrives after demo evidence, so the presenter must state that failures motivate the product-surface argument.
+- Next action: keep
+
+### Scene 14 — Limits and Conclusion
+- Audience takeaway: The contribution is a useful substrate, not a production agent, scheduler, or broad benchmark.
+- Visible proof: Limits, future, conclusion, and questions beats distinguish implemented core from future layers.
+- Missing or confusing: Q&A must not begin before the contribution sentence and limitations have landed.
+- Next action: keep
+
+## Flow Findings
+
+### Transitions
+
+- Scene 1 -> 2 works: the goal becomes the missing reusable-automation contracts.
+- Scene 5 -> 6 works if Deployment is the handoff: lifecycle vocabulary becomes the architecture that owns it.
+- Scene 7 -> 8 works: authoring/repair operations become a thin external-agent request surface.
+- Scene 8 -> 9 works and is not a duplicate: request/discovery becomes staged lifecycle evidence.
+- Scene 9 -> 10 is the critical boundary: Deployment prepares; Scene 10 alone starts execution. Keep the explicit no-run wording.
+- Scene 10 -> 11 -> 12 works as one climax in replay, but the revision branch has a factual run-identity defect and the live path is blocked.
+- Scene 13 -> 14 works: evaluation limits become the contribution and future-work close.
+
+### Order, Duplicated Beats, And Q&A
+
+The 14-scene order is coherent: motivation, positioning, boundary, vocabulary,
+architecture, authoring, then demo proof, evaluation, and limits. No duplicated
+demo beat was found. Scene 8 introduces the request, Scene 9 owns authoring and
+deployment, Scene 10 owns run activation, Scene 11 owns the decision, and Scene
+12 owns resume/output/trace. The Q&A branch belongs after Scene 14's Questions
+beat; opening a prepared branch earlier would interrupt the argument and make a
+discussion answer look like core evidence.
+
+## Defects
+
+- **Factual:** The revision-requested replay has a separate run ID while the
+  surrounding same-run wording suggests continuity. Correct the recording or
+  label that branch explicitly as a separate prepared recording.
+- **Factual:** The live health boundary passed, but live Scene 10 -> 12 was
+  blocked. Do not present live output or trace as rehearsed evidence.
+- **Visual:** No visual defect was recorded in the available rehearsal log. The
+  matrix remains the acceptance checklist for both `1280x720` and `1024x768`.
+
+## Product Follow-ups
+
+These are outside the story-flow acceptance pass and must not be presented as
+current proof:
+
+- Add a factual input-file browser that distinguishes declared, selected, read,
+  and produced files.
+- Complete and record a stateful live run through approval, resume, output, and
+  trace.
+- Decide whether the revision branch should preserve the submitted run identity
+  or remain a separately labeled prepared recording.
+- Consider live agent execution, richer trace frames, and real source reads as
+  future product layers, not rehearsal fixes.