Staffer.tool_level now controls which subsystems a specific run gets:
full — qwen3.5 + qwen3 + cloud T3 + cloud rescue
local — qwen3.5 + qwen3 + local gpt-oss:20b T3 + rescue
basic — qwen2.5 + qwen2.5 + local T3, no rescue
minimal — qwen2.5 + qwen2.5, NO T3, NO rescue. Playbook
inheritance only.
applyToolLevel() mutates module-scoped ACTIVE_* slots each run from the
env defaults, so prior staffer's overrides never leak. Hot-path code
reads ACTIVE_EXECUTOR / ACTIVE_REVIEWER / ACTIVE_T3_DISABLED /
ACTIVE_OVERVIEW_CLOUD / ACTIVE_RETRY_ON_FAIL instead of the baked
constants.
The architectural question this answers: does playbook_memory
inheritance carry enough knowledge to let a weakly-tooled coordinator
still produce usable outcomes? "Minimal" Alex runs qwen2.5 exec + no
reviewer overseer + no cloud rescue. If Alex still fills events at a
reasonable rate, the playbook system is the real knowledge carrier —
the senior stack is nice-to-have, not the sine qua non.
Demo personas mapped:
Maria (senior, 48mo, full)
James (mid, 14mo, local)
Sam (junior, 4mo, basic)
Alex (trainee, 1mo, minimal)
Same 3 contracts (Nashville downtown, Joliet warehouse, Indianapolis
assembly) across all four → 12 runs. KB + kb_staffer_report.py
leaderboard already wired; competence_score will now reflect real tool
asymmetry instead of LLM sampling variance.
Matrix-index the "who handled this" dimension so top staffers become
the training signal and juniors inherit their playbooks automatically
via the boost pipeline. Auto-discovered indicators emerge from
comparing trajectories across staffers on similar contracts — that was
always the architectural point; this wires the last piece.
ContractTerms:
- deadline, budget_total_usd, budget_per_hour_max, local_bonus_per_hour,
local_bonus_radius_mi, fill_requirement ("paramount" | "preferred")
- Attached to ScenarioSpec, propagated into T3 checkpoint + cloud
rescue prompts so cloud reasons about trade-offs (pivot within bonus
radius first; respect per-hour cap; split across cities when
fill_requirement=paramount).
Staffer:
- {id, name, tenure_months, role: senior|mid|junior|trainee}
- On ScenarioSpec; logged at scenario start; attached to KB outcome
- Recomputed StafferStats written to data/_kb/staffers.jsonl after
every run: total_runs, fill_rate, avg_turns, avg_citations,
rescue_rate, competence_score.
- Competence formula: 0.45*fill_rate + 0.20*turn_efficiency +
0.20*citation_density + 0.15*rescue_rate. Normalized to 0..1.
findNeighbors now returns weighted_score = cosine × best_staffer_competence
(floored at 0.3 so high-similarity low-competence neighbors still
surface). pathway_recommender prompt shows the top staffer's identity
so cloud knows WHOSE playbook it's synthesizing from.
Demo infrastructure:
- tests/multi-agent/gen_staffer_demo.ts: 4 personas (Maria senior,
James mid, Sam junior, Alex trainee) × 3 contracts (Nashville Welder,
Joliet Warehouse, Indianapolis Assembly). 12 scenarios total.
- scripts/run_staffer_demo.sh: runs the 12 sequentially with
LH_OVERVIEW_CLOUD=1. Post-run calls kb_staffer_report.py.
- scripts/kb_staffer_report.py: leaderboard + cross-staffer worker
overlap (names endorsed by ≥2 staffers → auto-discovered high-value
workers). Top vs bottom differential.
gen_scenarios.ts (Phase 22 generator) also now emits contract terms
on 70% of generated specs — future KB batches populate with realistic
constraint patterns instead of bare role+city+count.
Stress scenario from item A intentionally NOT the production test.
Real staffing has constraints; Nashville contract + staffer demo is
the honest test of whether the architecture produces measurable
differential between coordinator skill levels.
Demo batch launched — 12 runs × ~3min each ≈ 40min unattended. Report
emitted after batch.
