Files
waggle-os/docs/decisions/2026-04-25-launch-gate-reframe-decision-matrix.md
Oleg Maslov 0c3e2ead3b
Some checks failed
Installer Smoke / installer-smoke (push) Has been cancelled
moving
2026-09-02 10:10:29 +02:00

299 lines
15 KiB
Markdown
Raw Permalink Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters
This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
# Launch Gate Reframe Decision Matrix — Task #28
**Date**: 2026-04-25
**Author**: claude-opus-4-7 (PM Cowork)
**Status**: Decision document, pending Marko ratification post-Stage 3 verdict
**Trigger**: Phase 2 N=400 will deliver Fisher H1 verdict + per-cell pass rates within hours; this matrix prepares Marko's launch posture decisions in advance so the decision moment after results don't require multi-hour brainstorm
---
## §0 What this document does
When Phase 2 N=400 finishes (agentic cell + 5-cell aggregate analysis), Marko gets a verdict:
- **PASS**: Fisher one-sided p < 0.10 + LoCoMo aggregate ≥ 91.6 baseline
- **PARTIAL**: Fisher PASS but LoCoMo 85-91 (clean win in local-first quadrant only)
- **FAIL**: Fisher FAIL or LoCoMo < 85 (no SOTA narrative defensible)
This document pre-records Marko-ova posture for each scenario across **8 decision dimensions** (claim narrative, launch coupling, pricing, audience, press/PR, hires, investor, KVARK timing), so when results land Marko makes a 30-minute ratification call, not a multi-hour planning call.
---
## §1 Pre-registered narrative bands (LOCKED, do not shift post-hoc)
Per Sprint 10 Task 2.2 close-out (LOCKED 2026-04-19):
| Aggregate LoCoMo | Banner | Narrative scope | Honest description |
|---|---|---|---|
| ≥ 91.6 | **NEW_SOTA** | "Beat Mem0 published number" | Headline-driven, comparable-to-SOTA, full launch coupling |
| 85.0-91.5 | **SOTA_IN_LOCAL_FIRST** | "Clean win in local-first quadrant" | Acknowledged honest framing — best Apache 2.0 + local-first + graph result published |
| < 85.0 | **GO_NOGO_REVIEW** | reframe required | Halt SOTA narrative; pivot to ergonomics / infrastructure narrative |
**Pre-registration honor**: do NOT shift bands post-result. If aggregate hits 89.7, banner is `SOTA_IN_LOCAL_FIRST`, not "we hit SOTA-adjacent" creative reframe. Honesty is the moat.
---
## §2 Decision dimension #1 — Claim narrative
### Scenario PASS
**Lead claim**: "Waggle hit [LOCOMO_SCORE]% on LoCoMo, beating Mem0's [BASELINE_REF]% reference. Built on hive-mind, the local-first Apache-2.0 cognitive substrate."
**Supporting**: pre-registered methodology, judge ensemble Fleiss κ, MiniMax M2.7 + Opus 4.7 + GPT-5.4 trio, full audit trail.
**Honest caveats** (always include): agentic cell weaker κ, Qwen 35B subject (single-model evaluation), n=400 not n=1540, Chinese judge ensemble jurisdiction note.
### Scenario PARTIAL
**Lead claim**: "Waggle hit [LOCOMO_SCORE]% on LoCoMo. The first **local-first, Apache-2.0** memory substrate to publish a comparable LoCoMo result. No cloud dependency."
**Supporting**: same methodology + judge ensemble + audit trail. Add explicit framing: "we're 2-7 points behind cloud-shaped Mem0; that gap is the price of local-first sovereignty."
**Defensive note**: acknowledge Mem0 is ahead on aggregate but ours wins on (a) local-first compliance, (b) Apache 2.0 fully, (c) bitemporal graph + I/P/B + harvest breadth.
### Scenario FAIL
**Lead claim**: NOT a benchmark claim. Pivot to: "hive-mind is the Apache-2.0 cognitive substrate that follows you across Claude Code, Cursor, Hermes, Codex, OpenCode, and OpenClaw. One memory file. Zero cloud."
**Supporting**: shim portfolio per Universal Silent Capture brief is the launch substance. Benchmark numbers go in a methodology blog post separate from launch announcement, framed as "honest results from our pre-registered evaluation."
**Honest framing**: "Our LoCoMo result was [LOCOMO_SCORE]%. We don't lead with that number because it's not a SOTA claim. We lead with what hive-mind actually delivers — portable memory across IDEs."
---
## §3 Decision dimension #2 — Launch coupling sequence
### Scenario PASS
**Coupled simultaneous launch — Day 0 ship everything.**
- hive-mind core public (GitHub Apache 2.0, npm + PyPI release)
- hive-mind-clients monorepo public (3 MVP shims: Claude Code + Cursor + Hermes)
- Waggle landing live (waggle-os.ai), Free tier downloadable, Pro/Teams Stripe checkout active
- Technical blog post + LinkedIn long-form + Twitter thread + HN/Reddit submissions synchronized within 30-min window
- Email broadcast to waitlist 24h later
**Why coupled**: SOTA claim is the hook; shims are the adoption multiplier; Waggle is the commercial product. Don't fragment the moment.
### Scenario PARTIAL
**Decoupled launch — hive-mind first (week 0), Waggle second (week 2-4).**
- Day 0: hive-mind core + 3 MVP shims public; "the local-first memory infrastructure for AI IDEs"
- Day 0 narrative: developer-led, infrastructure-led, "we have a clean win in the local-first quadrant"
- Week 2-4: Waggle landing live posle developer adoption signals; "the fully featured cousin that includes everything you can't OSS — agent runtime, GEPA self-evolution, compliance vault"
- Risk: split attention; reward: separate news cycles, easier per-event amplification
### Scenario FAIL
**Pivot launch — hive-mind shims as primary product, Waggle delayed 4-8 weeks.**
- Day 0: hive-mind + 3 shims; pure infrastructure narrative; benchmark numbers buried in methodology post
- Don't launch Waggle simultaneously — without SOTA claim Waggle is "another agent IDE", crowded space, weak differentiator
- Re-evaluate Waggle launch posture in 4-8 weeks: maybe enterprise-first KVARK pilots; maybe wait for second benchmark (LongMemEval); maybe pivot to "the memory infra for AI agent IDEs that wants compliance built-in"
---
## §4 Decision dimension #3 — Pricing posture
### Scenario PASS
**Hold ratified pricing**: Free / Pro $19/mo / Teams $49/seat/mo (LOCKED 2026-04-18 per `project_locked_decisions.md`).
**SOTA premium justified**: $19 for Pro is below Mem0 Starter $19 sa weaker local-first story, $249 Mem0 Pro for graph memory which Waggle has Free. Pricing power is real.
### Scenario PARTIAL
**Hold pricing, but soften messaging**: emphasize Free tier value above Pro/Teams initially. Pro/Teams targeted at users for whom local-first is mandate (compliance-driven), not for whom benchmark is the buy reason.
### Scenario FAIL
**Pricing pivot signal**: consider extending Free tier (e.g., 10 workspaces vs 5, all skills marketplace tiers free) to drive raw adoption. Pro tier becomes "early supporter" at $9/mo introductory price for first 1000 users. Teams tier holds at $49 since enterprise sale doesn't depend on benchmark.
**Subtle narrative**: "Pricing reflects what we think you'll pay; we welcome feedback." Open posture for first 30 days.
---
## §5 Decision dimension #4 — Audience targeting
### Scenario PASS
**Three primary audiences day 0:**
1. **AI/ML researchers + tool builders** — landing page deep-link to methodology + pre-reg manifest
2. **Compliance-conscious enterprises** (banks, healthcare, EU regulated) — KVARK lead capture
3. **Privacy-conscious power-users devs** — Cursor + Claude Code + Hermes + Codex audiences via shim distribution
### Scenario PARTIAL
**Two primary audiences, narrower:**
1. **Privacy-conscious devs** (most receptive to local-first message)
2. **Compliance-mandated enterprises** (KVARK targeted outreach)
ML research audience deferred to second blog post 2-4 weeks later focused on methodology + benchmark interpretation.
### Scenario FAIL
**One primary audience day 0**: developers using AI IDE tooling. Lead with cross-IDE shim portfolio, lead with "your memory follows you", deprioritize ML research audience until later (sequel benchmark or different paper).
---
## §6 Decision dimension #5 — Press / PR strategy
### Scenario PASS
**Synchronized launch with press embargo:**
- Pre-brief: TechCrunch, The Verge, Ars Technica, IEEE Spectrum, AI newsletters (TLDR, Ben's Bites, AI Tidbits)
- Embargo 48h before public; sa NDA on numbers
- Day 0: simultaneous press + community + product release
- Hacker News + Reddit submissions by Marko personally (community gravity > paid PR)
### Scenario PARTIAL
**Soft press strategy:**
- No paid PR
- Community-first (HN, Reddit, Twitter, Discord) — let it bubble up
- Reach out to specific researchers/orgs (DAIR, Anthropic researchers, Nous Research, EU AI Act offices) post-launch
### Scenario FAIL
**No press push at all initially.**
- Quiet launch via GitHub + Twitter
- Let dev community discover organically
- Methodology blog post (separate from launch) targets researchers a few weeks later
---
## §7 Decision dimension #6 — Hires plan
### Scenario PASS
**Aggressive hire signal day 0**: jobs.egzakta.com active sa 3-5 roles (DevRel, Senior eng OSS maintenance, GTM lead, enterprise sales)
**Plus**: prominent "We're hiring" CTAs in blog post + LinkedIn
### Scenario PARTIAL
**Moderate hire signal**: 1-2 roles posted (OSS maintainer, DevRel). Hold enterprise sales hire until adoption metrics inform.
### Scenario FAIL
**No hiring announcements at launch**: hold until 4-8 weeks of adoption metrics validate org capacity needed.
---
## §8 Decision dimension #7 — Investor narrative
### Scenario PASS
**Open conversations with seed/A funds aktivno:**
- Pitch deck v1: "First Apache 2.0 local-first cognitive substrate that beat cloud SOTA on LoCoMo"
- Targets: Initialized, BoxGroup, Founders Fund, NEA (memory-tech adjacent), DCVC, Acrew
- Use Egzakta cash flow signal as bootstrap credential
- Aim: $5-10M seed at $20-40M post-money
### Scenario PARTIAL
**Silent investor conversations only**: pitch deck v1.5 emphasizes "best local-first published result" + commercial trajectory + Egzakta financials. More targeted (5-10 funds), no broad outreach. Aim: $3-7M seed at $15-25M post-money.
### Scenario FAIL
**Defer fundraise 6-12 months**: continue bootstrap from Egzakta; revisit benchmark methodology + ship LongMemEval and BEAM 1M results before next pitch. Use this period to build adoption + revenue signal.
---
## §9 Decision dimension #8 — KVARK enterprise pivot timing
### Scenario PASS
**KVARK pilots active immediately**: 5-10 named enterprise prospects from Egzakta network, EU compliance-driven, sovereign on-prem deployment value prop. Pricing custom per deployment.
### Scenario PARTIAL
**KVARK pilots active 4-8 weeks later**: build case from Waggle adoption metrics first; pilot conversations are "our local-first stack you've heard about, now sovereign-deployed for your hardware."
### Scenario FAIL
**KVARK becomes the lead commercial track**: with Waggle launch deferred, enterprise compliance-mandated deployment is the highest-confidence revenue path. Build sa Egzakta consulting context (already 4.5M EBITDA), bundle KVARK + advisory + LM TEK hardware. Aim for 3-5 paid pilots in 90 days.
---
## §10 Cross-cutting decisions (scenario-independent)
These are decisions Marko makes regardless of scenario:
### 10.1 Honest framing always
Pre-registration honored, banners not shifted, caveats always included (agentic κ, Qwen subject, n=400, Chinese judge jurisdictional note). Honesty is the strategic moat — public benchmark wars (Zep ↔ Mem0) demonstrate that overstated claims unwind.
### 10.2 Apache 2.0 commitment locked
Even if shims are weak adoption signal, OSS commitment doesn't yo-yo. Apache 2.0 stays.
### 10.3 hive-mind core scope locked
Per `research/2026-04-22-hive-mind-positioning/01-architecture.md`: hive-mind = local-first memory substrate; agent runtime + GEPA + compliance + tiers stay in Waggle. This boundary doesn't move regardless of scenario.
### 10.4 EU AI Act + GDPR positioning preserved
Audit triggers, bitemporal graph, local-first storage are uniform features regardless of scenario. Compliance narrative stable across all 3 paths.
### 10.5 Domain locked
waggle-os.ai stays primary; egzakta.com / kvark.com / hive-mind related domains continue per existing setup.
---
## §11 Marko's decision protocol — when results land
When Phase 2 final halt ping arrives sa H1 verdict + LoCoMo aggregate, Marko ratifies:
**Step 1 (5 min)**: Read final halt ping + halt ping classification (PASS/PARTIAL/FAIL based on bands).
**Step 2 (10 min)**: Read this matrix's relevant scenario column across 8 dimensions (#2-#9) + cross-cutting (#10).
**Step 3 (10 min)**: Open `briefs/2026-04-25-launch-comms-templates.md` + decide which template variants apply (each template has scenario-specific reframe options pre-written).
**Step 4 (5 min)**: PM-RATIFY-V6-N400-COMPLETE + sign off on Gate D exit.
**Step 5 (variable)**: Trigger downstream actions per scenario:
- PASS: Marko paste-uje apps/www brief u CC-1 + populates launch comms placeholders + scheduled publish window
- PARTIAL: Marko populates softer comms variants + signals decoupled timing
- FAIL: Marko reviews pivot strategy + ratifies new sequencing for hive-mind shims first launch + 4-8 week Waggle deferral
Total decision time: **30-45 min** instead of multi-hour brainstorm.
---
## §12 Risk register — what could go wrong post-decision
### Risk: scenario classification ambiguity
If LoCoMo lands at exactly 91.4 (almost-SOTA), bands say PARTIAL but instinct may push PASS. **Mitigation**: pre-registration locked the bands. Honor PARTIAL framing.
### Risk: Fisher PASS but accuracy under 85
If H1 PASS (retrieval significantly > no-context) but absolute pass rates low: technically the architecture works (memory adds value) but absolute numbers don't support SOTA narrative. **Treatment**: PARTIAL classification with explicit "structural validation" framing.
### Risk: agentic cell completely fails (parse rate < 50%)
If MiniMax struggles on agentic specifically (κ=0.6875 caveat materializes badly), the cell may be unusable. **Treatment**: report 4-cell aggregate excluding agentic, full transparency about which cell was descriptive-only. Banner pre-reg honored on 4-cell.
### Risk: methodology re-litigation by Mem0 or Cognee
Public benchmark dispute (Zep ↔ Mem0 saga) precedent. Anyone can re-evaluate our pre-reg fixture. **Mitigation**: full open-source pre-reg, judge prompts, raw outputs public. Transparency is the defense.
### Risk: launch coupling stress
If Vercel deploy breaks on launch day, if Stripe webhook fails, if waitlist email gets caught in spam, if GitHub release notes have typos. **Mitigation**: launch comms templates have 24h delay between hive-mind public + Waggle public, giving deploy verification time. Pre-publish checklist enforced.
---
## §13 Output of this matrix — the Marko-readiness state
After Phase 2 final halt ping:
1. PM emits `decisions/2026-04-25-pm-ratify-v6-n400-final.md` sa scenario classification + this matrix referenced
2. Marko reads final halt ping + matrix scenario column + chooses
3. PM populates launch comms placeholders sa actual numbers
4. CC-1 receives apps/www brief in correct context
5. Hive-mind-clients monorepo creation triggered (if accepted in §11 of universal-silent-capture-strategy brief)
6. Launch publish window scheduled
This document's job is done at Step 2 — Marko's posture pre-decided across 8 dimensions × 3 scenarios = 24 cells of pre-thought reactions, freed from brainstorm pressure when results pressure arrives.
---
## §14 Authorized by
PM (claude-opus-4-7) authoring 2026-04-25 morning, parallel sa Phase 2 agentic cell execution. Marko ratifies after Phase 2 final halt ping arrives.