Loomworks — Example Generator — Scoping Addition — Foundation Document Draft Option — v0.1

Version. 0.1 Date. 2026-06-11 Status. Addition to fold into the current Example Generator scoping note (bridge-note recollection: v0.2; re-ground before folding — see §6). Adds one design decision (the eighth) to the seven already settled. Standalone until CC confirms the real scoping-note version and merges it, bumping that note one minor. Author. Claude.ai (drafting) on Operator direction.

Plain-language summary

The Example Generator gives a prospect a worked example of how Loomworks would help with their work. This addition lets the prospect also take away a draft toward the Foundation Document for an engagement — the four answers they already gave, written into the shape an engagement starts from. It appears as plain text in a box with a Copy button. The page still saves nothing and creates nothing; the prospect copies their own words and pastes them wherever they want — a notes app, or the start of a real engagement inside Loomworks. The output is named a draft, not a finished Foundation Document, because the finished one is made the proper way through the create-engagement conversation, where induction runs.

1. What this adds

One decision, on top of the seven the scoping note already settles:

The Example Generator offers a Foundation Document draft — generated text the prospect can copy and carry anywhere — without saving, creating, or committing anything.

2. The decision

2.1 Mechanism — a text area with Copy

After an example has been generated, the prospect may ask to see a Foundation Document draft. The draft renders as plain text in a read-only text area with a Copy control. The prospect copies it and pastes it wherever they choose. The page persists nothing; no server-side artifact is created.

This is the lowest-friction mechanism available. It needs no carry-the-answers plumbing between the static page and the authenticated flow, and no sign-up funnel. "Nothing is saved" holds in its cleanest form: the person lifts their own words to their own clipboard.

2.2 Labeling — "Foundation Document," qualified as a draft

The prospect-facing surface calls this a draft toward the engagement's Foundation Document (or equivalent: "a starting draft for the Foundation Document"). It does not say "seed." Two reasons:

• Plain-terms discipline. "Seed" is a methodology noun. A public marketing page speaks plain English to a stranger; "Foundation Document" is the plain-English name for what the seed is.
• Honesty. "Foundation Document" carries a settled meaning in the project — the document that names what an engagement is committed to, and that passes induction. Four quick answers are not that. The qualifier "draft toward" tells the prospect they have a starting point, not a finished document, so a prospect who pastes it into create-engagement expects to keep working rather than to be done.

2.3 Trigger — a separate action, not a second output

The draft is generated by a separate action the prospect triggers after seeing the example, not as a second output of the existing analyze→illustrate pass. The prospect who only wants to see how Loomworks would help gets a clean illustration; seed-shaped text is generated only for the prospect who is leaning in and asks for it. This also satisfies "only show what is available" — the draft option surfaces after an example exists, because you cannot draft from nothing.

3. Why this, and not the paths set aside

The trajectory here matters; the alternatives were considered and dropped for reasons worth preserving.

• Literal "create the seed" (an engine commit from the marketing page). Rejected. Seed creation is a three-step authenticated flow in Operator space (POST /engagements → seed/converse → instantiate) followed by Discovery → extract_discovery_to_seed_skill → induct_seed. It requires sign-in, a person to own the artifact, and induction. A save-nothing public page cannot and should not perform the most save-everything action in the system.

• Handoff with plumbing (the earlier lean). Reframed "create" as "carry the answers forward into the authenticated create-engagement flow." Sound on boundaries, but it carried a dependency: a real mechanism to move answers from a static page into an authenticated flow, plus a sign-up funnel. The text-area-with-Copy approach delivers the same value — the prospect's answers, reusable — with zero plumbing. Dropped in favor of the simpler mechanism.

• Download a file labeled "seed." Rejected on the bridge note's own two lessons. §3: this is a fabrication surface; a marketing prompt emitting something called a seed that looks induction-ready but was generated ungrounded is the "confident, fluent, subtly-wrong" artifact that teaches the prospect the wrong model — worse than offering nothing. §2: seed-format conformance would then be a guarantee enforced by asking the prompt nicely, rather than by the apparatus that already enforces it. The draft-not-seed labeling plus the create-engagement conversation (which does the real work) dodges both.

• Bare "seed" label on any output. Rejected. Methodology-noun collision and plain-terms violation on a prospect-facing surface, both at once.

4. How the boundary stays intact

• Nothing saved. The draft is generated client-trip and rendered into a text area; the page persists no artifact. Copy is a clipboard action by the person.
• One creation path. This does not create a second seed-making route. It produces reusable text. The one engagement-creation path (create-engagement → induction) is untouched and is where a real Foundation Document is made.
• Induction still runs structurally. If the prospect later pastes the draft as their opening message in create-engagement, it becomes the start of a conversation the Companion works — not a finished seed submitted to induction. Induction runs at the end of the real flow, per §2 of the bridge note (guarantees enforced in code, not requested in a prompt). The draft is raw material, worked further wherever it lands.

5. The honesty guard, stated once

The generator output is a draft toward a Foundation Document. It is not the finished document. Every surface that presents it carries that qualifier. This is the one invariant of this decision; the wording of the qualifier is stylistic and may be tuned, but the qualifier itself is not optional.

6. Re-grounding and what CC verifies before this folds in

This addition is drafted against the bridge note's recollection, which is conversation-search-derived, not the live artifact. Before folding in:

1. CC surfaces the highest-versioned Example Generator scoping note from loomworks-record and confirms its version (bridge note says v0.2) and the seven settled decisions, so this lands as the eighth without colliding with one already present.
2. CC confirms the glossary version that grounds generation (bridge note says v0.3) and the loomworks-marketing repo HEAD.
3. If any of the seven existing decisions already touches the take-away/output question, this addition is reconciled against it rather than appended blindly.

7. One residual point flagged for the Operator

The qualifier wording. I have it as "a draft toward the engagement's Foundation Document." If you want it shorter on the surface ("Foundation Document draft") or want the bare "Foundation Document" with no qualifier, say so — the bare form reintroduces the honesty concern in §5, which is why I am holding the qualifier as the default rather than choosing the shorter label silently.

DUNIN7 — Done In Seven LLC — Miami, Florida Example Generator — Scoping Addition — Foundation Document Draft Option — v0_1 — 2026-06-11