docs: design presentation opening visuals

docs/current_roadmap.md

@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ Design contracts:
 - [`Scene 10 guided product moment`](superpowers/specs/2026-07-09-scene-10-guided-product-moment-design.md)
 - [`presentation live/replay truth`](superpowers/specs/2026-07-09-presentation-live-replay-truth-design.md)
 - [`presentation lifecycle story expansion`](superpowers/specs/2026-07-09-presentation-lifecycle-story-expansion-design.md)
+- [`presentation opening visuals`](superpowers/specs/2026-07-10-presentation-opening-visuals-design.md)
 
 Implementation order:
 
@@ -194,7 +195,8 @@ Recommended next visual slices:
 
 1. Opening visuals: rebuild Scenes 1 and 2 around concrete diagrams for
    "AI-agent pursuit -> workflow substrate" and "direct actions are not reusable
-   automation".
+   automation". Design:
+   [`presentation opening visuals`](superpowers/specs/2026-07-10-presentation-opening-visuals-design.md).
 2. Demo surface cleanup: normalize Scenes 8-12 into a single product-flow
    language with factual panes, graph context, and fewer competing panels.
 3. Evidence and closing visuals: make Scenes 13 and 14 readable as a defense

docs/superpowers/specs/2026-07-10-presentation-opening-visuals-design.md

@@ -0,0 +1,200 @@
+# Presentation Opening Visuals Design
+
+## Purpose
+
+Scenes 1 and 2 currently start the defense with too much text and too little
+visual argument. The opening should make the thesis title defensible before the
+technical slides begin: the project started as an AI-agent ambition, but the
+implemented contribution is the workflow platform layer that makes external
+agents useful for reusable workspace automation.
+
+The opening must feel like a story, not a disclaimer.
+
+## Core Framing
+
+The first minute should use an origin-story stance:
+
+```text
+I wanted to build an AI agent for workspace workflows.
+I found that the durable platform underneath the agent was the hard part.
+This thesis focuses on that platform layer.
+```
+
+The title should decompose into three conceptual parts:
+
+```text
+Planner -> Tool Surface -> Workflow Platform
+```
+
+Known products should appear only where they clarify the model:
+
+- `Codex`, `Claude`, and `ChatGPT` sit under `Planner`.
+- `CLI`, `MCP`, and `APIs` sit under `Tool Surface`.
+- `lda.chat` is highlighted as the submitted workflow-platform/substrate
+  implementation.
+
+Do not introduce `wf` CLI branding in the opening. The CLI appears later as one
+implementation surface.
+
+## Scene 1: Thesis Origin
+
+Scene 1 should have two beats.
+
+### Beat 1: Title reveal
+
+Primary visual:
+
+- A cinematic title reveal using the real thesis title.
+- The title should be readable at 720p and not collapse into a wall of text.
+- The subtitle may keep the forced "AI Agent" wording, but the animation should
+  prepare the decomposition that follows.
+
+Required visual elements:
+
+- Large title typography.
+- Three faint latent components behind or below the title: `Planner`,
+  `Tool Surface`, `Workflow Platform`.
+- Simple iconography for the three components:
+  - Planner: model/chat/brain-like symbol.
+  - Tool Surface: terminal/API/plug-like symbol.
+  - Workflow Platform: durable graph/store/records-like symbol.
+
+### Beat 2: Contribution focus
+
+Primary visual:
+
+```text
+Planner             Tool Surface           Workflow Platform
+Codex / Claude      CLI / MCP / APIs        lda.chat
+ChatGPT                                   Typed · Durable · Inspectable
+```
+
+The workflow-platform block should become dominant. `lda.chat` is branding here;
+it is not replaced by `wf`.
+
+Required behavior:
+
+- The visual emphasis moves from the whole "AI agent" phrase to the platform
+  block.
+- A defense question pill remains available: `Where is the AI agent?`
+- The main slide body should not say "this thesis does not implement a new
+  autonomous planning algorithm." That sentence belongs in speaker notes or the
+  Q&A branch, not the primary visual.
+
+Speaker-script intent:
+
+```text
+By AI agent, I do not mean I built a new Codex or Claude. Existing agents can
+already plan and call tools. I focused on the workflow platform layer: the part
+that makes their work typed, durable, inspectable, and reusable.
+```
+
+## Scene 2: From Action Sequence To Automation
+
+Scene 2 should also have two beats.
+
+### Beat 1: Agent loop
+
+Primary visual:
+
+```text
+Action sequence
+think -> tool -> observe -> tool -> done
+```
+
+The left side should show a transcript/action sequence that can prove what
+happened once but does not itself become reusable automation.
+
+Required visual elements:
+
+- Small, recognizable action icons: thought bubble, tool call, observation,
+  second tool call, done marker.
+- The transcript should visually fade, compress, or trail off. It should not be
+  framed as useless; it is useful but insufficient.
+
+### Beat 2: Reusable automation
+
+Primary visual:
+
+```text
+Reusable automation
+design -> save -> connect -> run -> inspect
+```
+
+Use simple verbs. Do not introduce the formal lifecycle terms
+`Draft / Artifact / Deployment / Run / Trace` yet. Those belong in Scene 5.
+
+Required visual elements:
+
+- Five concrete icons:
+  - Design: pencil/diagram.
+  - Save: versioned file/artifact.
+  - Connect: plug/binding.
+  - Run: play/execution.
+  - Inspect: magnifier/trace.
+- A persistent container or rail that implies durability across time.
+- A short contrast line:
+  `The agent loop acts once. The platform makes work reusable.`
+
+Speaker-script intent:
+
+```text
+The problem is not whether an agent can act. The problem is whether its action
+becomes something reusable. A transcript can prove what happened, but workspace
+automation needs a platform that can design, save, connect, run, and inspect the
+work.
+```
+
+## Visual Requirements
+
+- Use icons and shapes, not text-only lists.
+- Avoid overusing generic cards. Prefer one dominant diagram per beat.
+- Keep copy large enough for a 720p display.
+- Motion should be scripted, not interactive. Save click/zoom interactions for
+  architecture, demo, and Q&A scenes.
+- The opening should be confident. Avoid defensive wording in the main visual.
+- Scenes 3, 4, and 5 are baseline-good and out of scope for this slice.
+
+## Data And Components
+
+Likely implementation targets:
+
+- `web/apps/console/src/presentation/storyboard.ts`
+- `web/apps/console/src/presentation/SceneBody.tsx`
+- `web/apps/console/src/presentation/presentation.css`
+- New focused components are acceptable if they keep `SceneBody.tsx` lean.
+
+Suggested component split:
+
+- `OpeningThesisScene`: title reveal and decomposition.
+- `ProblemLoopScene`: action sequence vs reusable automation.
+- Optional shared `ConceptIcon` if icons stay inline/SVG.
+
+The visuals can be hand-authored SVG/CSS. Do not add a new icon package unless
+the implementation plan justifies it.
+
+## Tests
+
+Add tests that pin behavior without overfitting animation details:
+
+- Scene 1 renders `Planner`, `Tool Surface`, `Workflow Platform`, known agent
+  names, `lda.chat`, and `Typed · Durable · Inspectable`.
+- Scene 1 exposes a `Where is the AI agent?` discussion action.
+- Scene 2 renders `Action sequence` and `Reusable automation`.
+- Scene 2 uses simple verbs: `design`, `save`, `connect`, `run`, `inspect`.
+- Scene 2 does not render formal lifecycle names before Scene 5.
+
+Visual smoke should capture:
+
+- `#scene/thesis/title`
+- `#scene/thesis/substrate`
+- `#scene/problem/direct-actions`
+- `#scene/problem/missing-contracts`
+
+## Out Of Scope
+
+- Redesigning Scenes 3, 4, or 5.
+- Changing thesis title text.
+- Adding live LLM behavior.
+- Reworking the report workflow demo.
+- Adding named related-system comparisons before Scene 3.