# Celebrity Budget-Unfriendly Framework

Use this framework only for deep celebrity distillation where research time and model budget are intentionally high.

## Objective

Distill a public figure into a usable cognitive operating system, not a quote collage and not a shallow roleplay.

The output must preserve:

- mental models
- decision heuristics
- expression DNA
- anti-patterns
- honest boundaries
- internal tensions
- intellectual genealogy
- an agentic protocol that makes the Skill research before answering

## Core Philosophy

**"Capture HOW they think, not WHAT they said."**

The difference:
- WHAT they said → quote collection, summarizable by anyone
- HOW they think → cognitive architecture, requires deep pattern extraction

A good Skill should let you predict how this person would approach a problem they've never publicly discussed. That's the test.

---

## Taste Principles

These principles govern every stage of research and extraction:

1. **Long-form > snippets**: A 3000-word essay reveals more thinking structure than 50 tweets
2. **Controversy > consensus**: Disputed positions expose distinctive thinking
3. **Change > fixity**: Where they changed their mind is more informative than where they stayed consistent
4. **Firsthand > secondhand**: Their own words outrank summaries
5. **Craft > biography**: How they discuss process matters more than life story
6. **Repeated patterns > one-off quotes**: Cross-context patterns beat viral lines
7. **Failure discussion > success narrative**: How they talk about failure reveals more

### Source Quality Hierarchy

1. User-provided local materials (ground truth)
2. First-person authored works (books, essays, newsletters)
3. Long-form interviews and conversations (30+ min)
4. Documented decisions and turning points
5. Short-form first-person content (social media, short Q&A)
6. External analysis and criticism
7. Secondhand summaries (last resort)

### Source Blacklist

Permanently excluded: 知乎, 微信公众号, 百度百科, content farms, AI-generated bios, listicles without primary source links, Wikipedia as standalone evidence.

---

## Research Tracks

Collect evidence across six independent dimensions:

1. **Writings** — systematic positions from their own pen
2. **Conversations** — how they think on their feet, under pressure
3. **Expression DNA** — linguistic fingerprint and style markers
4. **Decisions** — what they actually did (not just said)
5. **External Views** — how others see them, especially divergences
6. **Timeline** — how their thinking evolved over time

Each track produces a dedicated paraphrased note file.

The six-track set is only the starting point. Deep mode is not complete until the research passes an explicit audit and then survives synthesis plus validation.

---

## Cold Figure Protocol

When total grounded sources < 10:

- Limit mental models to 2–3 maximum
- Mark thin models as "based on limited information"
- Expand honest boundaries section substantially
- Consider recommending the user switch to a better-documented figure
- An honest 60-point Skill beats a fabricated 90-point Skill

---

## Research Audit Gate

Before synthesis, review the six-track set and fail it when any of these conditions hold:

- one or more tracks are thin, duplicated, or missing
- source grounding is weak or generic
- primary material is too scarce relative to commentary (< 50%)
- blacklisted sources were used
- contradictions are absent or hand-waved away (< 3 substantive)
- there is not enough evidence to support at least three candidate mental models
- there is no usable known-answer bank for later validation
- source hierarchy is bottom-heavy (mostly secondhand)
- taste principles were ignored (no long-form, no controversy, no evolution)

The audit should produce concrete backfill tasks, not just criticism.

---

## Triple-Gate Extraction

Every candidate mental model must pass all three gates:

1. **Cross-context recurrence**
The pattern appears in at least two different contexts or source types.

2. **Generative power**
The pattern helps predict how this person would approach a new but adjacent problem.

3. **Exclusivity**
The pattern is meaningfully distinctive, not generic advice that many smart people would give.

If a candidate fails one or more gates:

- three passes: keep as a mental model
- one or two passes: demote to a decision heuristic
- zero passes: discard

---

## Evidence Rules

- Keep first-person and primary material above second-hand summaries whenever possible
- Separate fact, quote, interpretation, and inference — always mark which is which
- Preserve contradictions instead of smoothing them away
- Record why a model might fail, not only where it looks strong
- Track source weight (1–7) for every piece of evidence

---

## Agentic Protocol Requirement

The generated Skill must include an Agentic Protocol that makes it research before answering novel questions.

The protocol must:
- Be derived from this person's specific mental models (not generic research steps)
- Include classification of the question type
- Include research dimensions this person would investigate
- Include framework application using the extracted mental models
- Include confidence calibration based on evidence strength

The key test: the Agentic Protocol should reflect how THIS person would approach a new problem, not how a generic smart person would.

---

## Intellectual Genealogy Requirement

The generated Skill must map the influence network:

- Who influenced this person (specific ideas, not just names)
- Where they diverged from their influences
- Who they influenced
- What broader tradition they represent or reject

---

## Copyright Safety

- Do not store full transcripts
- Do not copy long passages from subtitles, books, or interviews
- Keep direct quotes short and sparse
- Prefer paraphrased notes with source metadata

---

## Validation Standard

The final skill is not done until it passes:

1. **Known-answer check**
Use at least two questions the person has publicly addressed.
Judge: direction match, framing match, confidence calibration.

2. **Edge-case check**
Use one adjacent question with no known direct answer.
Judge: extrapolation from actual models, visible uncertainty when evidence is thin.

3. **Voice check**
The output should be recognizable in 100 words with the name removed.
Judge: recognizability, lack of generic AI phrasing, lack of quote-stitching.

4. **Copyright check**
The output must stay paraphrased. No transcript-like passages.

5. **Agentic Protocol check**
The protocol dimensions should be specific to this person's mental models, not generic.

---

## Minimum Evidence Floor

Treat these as the minimum floor for deep mode, not the target:

- 6 raw note files (one per dimension)
- 8 grounded source URLs (actual inspected pages)
- 3 primary-source markers
- 6 source metadata blocks (one per file minimum)
- 6 contradiction bullets across the full set
- 6 inference bullets across the full set
- Primary-source ratio > 50%
- No blacklisted sources
- 3+ candidate mental models with cross-dimensional evidence

---

## What We Never Do

- Fabricate quotes or attribute statements this person never made
- Package generic wisdom as their distinctive insight
- Ignore negative assessments, criticism, and controversy
- Force generation when evidence is insufficient — an honest "I don't have enough data" is always acceptable
- Resolve contradictions that this person has not resolved themselves
