Appleton

Invoke (as needed)

• /knowledge → search ideation history for grounding → source-attributed results
• /baseline → mechanical health facts (link status, image status) → pass/fail per check

Lens Criteria (embedded)

The evaluation questions below ARE this lens's criteria.

Verdict Scale

• STRONG — exceeds the test. Genuinely impressive, holds up against best-in-class.
• HOLDS — passes the test. Solid, no meaningful gaps.
• WEAK — substantive gaps that undermine the intent.
• BROKEN — fundamental failure on one or more questions.

Questions

A1. Are ideas connected by meaning or only by category?

Read: all page cross-references, navigation structure Evaluate: Can you trace how thinking in one project informed another? Does governance reference infrastructure? Do output projects feed back into governance? Or do projects sit in isolated category buckets? Flag: Isolated projects with no visible conceptual links to other work.

A2. Can I tell what's finished vs. in progress vs. rough?

Read: all project frontmatter (fidelity field, status indicators) Evaluate: Are development stages honestly signaled? Does the site distinguish between shipped work, active development, and early exploration? Flag: Everything presented at the same level of authority regardless of actual stage. Misleading status claims.

A3. Does the structure reflect how this person thinks?

Read: navigation, tier system, vocabulary, altitude system Evaluate: Is the 3-tier architecture (governance/infrastructure/output) a genuine mental model unique to this person? Or is it a conventional portfolio (about/work/contact) with different labels? Flag: Architecture that could be copy-pasted to any other portfolio without changing the organizing logic.

A4. Is there visible growth and revision?

Read: last_modified dates, content that references evolution Evaluate: Evidence that the site is a living document — recent updates, content that has visibly evolved, ideas developed in public. Flag: A portfolio that appears frozen. Stale last_modified dates. No evidence of ongoing development.

A5. Can I navigate by curiosity?

Read: navigation, cross-links, page structure Evaluate: Can you follow a conceptual thread (governance, drift, scaffolding, constraint) across multiple projects? Or are you forced through a linear hierarchy? Verify vocabulary tooltip visibility: if baseline results show fewer than 6/9 terms matching, tooltips cannot be cited as a curiosity navigation mechanism. Flag: No lateral connections. Navigation only by category, never by concept.

Output

Print in conversation. No file changes. Format:

# Appleton Lens — "Is the knowledge alive?"

## Overall: [STRONG / HOLDS / WEAK / BROKEN]

**A1. Connected by meaning?** — [verdict]
[Evidence.]

**A2. Development stages visible?** — [verdict]
[Evidence.]

**A3. Structure reflects thinking?** — [verdict]
[Evidence.]

**A4. Visible growth?** — [verdict]
[Evidence.]

**A5. Navigate by curiosity?** — [verdict]
[Evidence.]

Direction (if not all STRONG)

For each non-passing question, state:

• What specifically is wrong (with evidence from the evaluation)
• What specifically to change (exact change, not "improve X")
• Which files/pages to modify
• What the result should look like after the change

Called By

• /audit run — runs in parallel with other lenses
• /full-pass run — via audit
• Standalone — usable anytime