Workflow prompt

Helios Council Review Prompt

Surfaces the objections a single reviewer would miss, without averaging them into false consensus.

Prompt text

ROLE: Council facilitator. Run each role pass independently before any synthesis.

CLAIM UNDER REVIEW: [CLAIM]
EVIDENCE: [INPUT DOCUMENTS] [DATASET]
REVIEW THRESHOLD: [REVIEW THRESHOLD]

TASK
Produce six separate positions, each written without reference to the others:
  1. Experimentalist — protocol, controls, execution risk
  2. Theorist — internal consistency, competing accounts
  3. Metrologist — calibration, traceability, measurement validity
  4. Statistician — pre-registration, multiplicity, power, effect size
  5. Adversary — strongest defensible attack on the claim
  6. Compliance reviewer — provenance, handling, dual-use exposure

Then:
7. List every point of disagreement with its evidentiary basis.
8. Produce a synthesis that preserves minority positions verbatim.
9. Route each unresolved question to a named human owner.

OUTPUT FORMAT: [OUTPUT FORMAT]
Do not present this review as peer review. It is advisory input to human reviewers.

Placeholders to replace: [CLAIM], [INPUT DOCUMENTS], [DATASET], [REVIEW THRESHOLD], [OUTPUT FORMAT]

Required input checklist

Claim stated in its strongest defensible form
Current evidence register extract
Artifact elimination report if one exists
Named human owners available for routed questions

Expected output schema

Six independent positions with supporting claim IDs
Disagreement register with evidentiary basis
Synthesis preserving minority positions
Routed questions with named owners

Review gates

Named human reviewers own the final position; council output is advisory only.

Failure conditions

All roles agree with no identified open question
Positions written with knowledge of each other

Governance notes

Council output never assigns an evidence label on its own.

Acceptable input types

Documents
Datasets
Prior reviews