Didactopus/docs/review_and_promotion_workfl...

6.3 KiB

Review-and-Promotion Workflow for Learner-Derived Knowledge

Purpose

Learner-derived knowledge should move through a controlled path from raw observation to reusable system asset. This workflow is designed to turn exports into reviewed candidates that can become:

  • accepted pack improvements
  • curriculum drafts
  • reusable skill bundles
  • archived but unadopted suggestions

Design goals

  • preserve learner discoveries without assuming correctness
  • support reviewer triage and provenance
  • separate candidate knowledge from accepted knowledge
  • allow multiple promotion targets
  • keep enough traceability to understand why a candidate was accepted or rejected

Workflow stages

1. Capture

Input sources include:

  • learner knowledge exports
  • mentor observations
  • evaluator traces
  • synthesis-engine proposals
  • artifact-derived observations

Output:

  • one or more knowledge candidates

2. Normalize

Convert raw export text and metadata into structured candidate records, such as:

  • concept observation
  • hidden prerequisite suggestion
  • misconception note
  • analogy / cross-pack link suggestion
  • curriculum draft fragment
  • skill-bundle candidate

3. Triage

Each candidate is routed into a review lane:

  • pack improvement
  • curriculum draft
  • skill bundle
  • archive / backlog

Triage criteria:

  • relevance to existing packs
  • novelty
  • evidence quality
  • reviewer priority
  • confidence / ambiguity

4. Review

Human or automated reviewers inspect the candidate.

Reviewer questions:

  • is the claim coherent?
  • is it genuinely new or just a restatement?
  • does evidence support it?
  • does it fit one or more promotion targets?
  • what are the risks if promoted?

5. Decision

Possible outcomes:

  • accept into pack improvement queue
  • promote to curriculum draft
  • promote to skill bundle draft
  • archive but keep discoverable
  • reject as invalid / duplicate / unsupported

6. Promotion

Accepted items are transformed into target-specific assets:

  • pack patch proposal
  • curriculum draft object
  • skill bundle object

7. Feedback and provenance

Every decision stores:

  • source export
  • source learner
  • source pack
  • reviewer identity
  • rationale
  • timestamps
  • superseding links if a later decision replaces an earlier one

Target lanes

A. Accepted pack improvements

Typical promoted items:

  • missing prerequisite
  • poor concept ordering
  • missing example
  • misleading terminology
  • clearer analogy
  • cross-pack link worth formalizing

Output objects:

  • patch proposals
  • revised concept metadata
  • candidate new edges
  • explanation replacement suggestions

Recommended fields:

  • pack_id
  • concept_ids_affected
  • patch_type
  • proposed_change
  • evidence_summary
  • reviewer_notes
  • promotion_status

B. Curriculum drafts

Typical promoted items:

  • lesson outline
  • concept progression plan
  • exercise cluster
  • misconceptions guide
  • capstone prompt
  • study guide segment

Output objects:

  • draft lessons
  • outline sections
  • teacher notes
  • question banks

Recommended fields:

  • curriculum_product_type
  • topic_focus
  • target audience
  • prerequisite level
  • source concepts
  • generated draft
  • editorial notes

C. Reusable skill bundles

Typical promoted items:

  • concept mastery checklist
  • canonical examples
  • error patterns
  • prerequisite structure
  • evaluation rubrics
  • recommended actions

Output objects:

  • skill manifest
  • skill tests
  • skill examples
  • operational notes

Recommended fields:

  • skill_name
  • target domain
  • prerequisites
  • expected inputs
  • failure modes
  • validation checks
  • source pack links

D. Archived but unadopted suggestions

Some observations should remain searchable even if not promoted.

Use this lane when:

  • evidence is interesting but incomplete
  • idea is plausible but low priority
  • reviewer is uncertain
  • concept does not fit a current roadmap
  • duplication risk exists but insight might still help later

Recommended fields:

  • archive_reason
  • potential_future_use
  • reviewer_notes
  • related packs
  • revisit_after

Core data model

KnowledgeCandidate

  • candidate_id
  • source_type
  • source_artifact_id
  • learner_id
  • pack_id
  • candidate_kind
  • title
  • summary
  • structured_payload
  • evidence_summary
  • confidence_hint
  • novelty_score
  • synthesis_score
  • triage_lane
  • current_status
  • created_at

ReviewRecord

  • review_id
  • candidate_id
  • reviewer_id
  • review_kind
  • verdict
  • rationale
  • requested_changes
  • created_at

PromotionRecord

  • promotion_id
  • candidate_id
  • promotion_target
  • target_object_id
  • promotion_status
  • promoted_by
  • created_at
  • link_id
  • candidate_id
  • related_candidate_id
  • relation_kind
  • note

Suggested states

Candidate states:

  • captured
  • normalized
  • triaged
  • under_review
  • accepted
  • promoted
  • archived
  • rejected

Pack improvement states:

  • proposed
  • approved
  • merged
  • superseded

Curriculum draft states:

  • draft
  • editorial_review
  • approved
  • published

Skill bundle states:

  • draft
  • validation
  • approved
  • deployed

Promotion rules

Pack improvements

Promote when:

  • directly improves pack clarity or structure
  • supported by evidence or synthesis signal
  • low risk of destabilizing pack semantics

Curriculum drafts

Promote when:

  • pedagogically useful even if not strictly a pack change
  • enough material exists to support a lesson, guide, or exercise group

Skill bundles

Promote when:

  • insight can be operationalized into a reusable structured behavior package
  • prerequisites, examples, and evaluation logic are sufficiently clear

Archive

Use when:

  • the idea is promising but under-evidenced
  • better future context may make it valuable
  • reviewer wants traceability without immediate adoption

Review UX recommendations

Reviewer interface should show:

  • candidate summary
  • source artifact and export trace
  • related concepts and packs
  • novelty score
  • synthesis score
  • suggested promotion targets
  • side-by-side comparison with current pack text
  • one-click actions for:
    • accept as pack improvement
    • promote to curriculum draft
    • promote to skill bundle
    • archive
    • reject

Integration with synthesis engine

Synthesis proposals should enter the same workflow as learner-derived candidates. This creates a unified promotion pipeline for:

  • human observations
  • AI learner observations
  • automated synthesis discoveries