Names that belong
in the story.

Inputs · proposed contract

• Define narrative job and actual scenes.
• Declare fixed story facts and existing names.
• List real-language and historical claims needing support.

Rules

• Separate hard constraints from preferences.
• Flag contradictory constraints and missing setting details.
• Convert each preference into a scene or reader check; do not invent a cultural fact.
• Recommend a task workflow based on the required decision, not a genre keyword.

Structured outputs

• Prioritized decision brief
• Conflict list
• Suggested next task with reason

Two capability proposals

• Explain which requested conditions cannot jointly be met.
• Create a scene-specific review checklist from the author's own stakes.

Why a separate page?

Turn an underspecified story request into ranked, testable naming requirements before choosing names; output is an actionable brief, not a candidate list.

implemented-task-scope; original-plan-and-limitations-retained · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• naming-project-brief
• character-name-pronunciation-brief
• pen-name-translation-brief

Editorial brief · not a finished article

A good name begins with a decision brief that can reject an attractive but unusable candidate.

• Separate wishes from obligations
• Name the scene where the choice matters
• Repair a contradictory brief
• Use evidence questions before a word pool

Fictional example synopsis: Fictional example: a novelist asks for a secret heir's conspicuously royal name, then discovers it spoils the opening disguise. The brief instead reserves the royal form for a later document.

The useful change is a revised information constraint, not a more unusual syllable.

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• A locked name also excluded as an exact match creates a conflict.
• Unknown period stays unknown, not contemporary by default.
• A symbol request is labeled a creative preference.
• A family inheritance requirement routes to a graph task.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Original bilingual long-form manuscripts and AI-assisted story edits exist; autonomous editorial checks proceed; no independent human expert review is asserted.
• Detailed contract is a design artifact, not executed behavior or independent-value approval.

English reserved path

/en/tools/character-naming-brief/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/character-naming-brief/

Evidence status

autonomous-content-and-behavior-checks-recorded; no human expert signature asserted

Inputs · proposed contract

• undefined
• undefined
• undefined
• undefined
• undefined
• undefined

Rules

• 2–12 exact id/name/note records; identical scene frame with {name} once and an explicit decision context. Names are candidate alternatives for one author task, not a cast assignment.
• Every unordered pair has a direct a/b/tie/defer judgment with reason and exact candidate/scene/context expectation; absent, deferred, stale and orphan decisions remain unresolved. No preference path fills a missing comparison.
• Only current strict preferences form directed edges. Report one concrete cycle witness per mutually reachable cyclic component, not every circuit. A cycle is a tradeoff, not a logical contradiction or defect.
• Direct winner requires a win over every other supplied candidate. Possible winners have no current loss or tie. Counts are not artistic scores or reader-study statistics.
• One exact-context uncommitted trial replaces one preference in a separate graph without changing actual judgments, selection or memo. Stale/orphan trial is not applied and does not block a complete real memo.
• Final author selection needs a nonblank reason and all source candidates, scene, purpose and actual judgments as basis. Later edits stale it. Full memo requires every direct pair resolved and current selection; a cycle is allowed.
• Exports preserve original candidate notes and actual reasons. Trial is excluded from the complete memo; private audit preserves unfinished work and hypothetical records.

Structured outputs

• Literal scene previews, per-candidate direct wins/losses/ties/pending opponents and context-specific copy.
• All bounded direct pair questions, state and reason; graph cycle nodes and judgment IDs, actual and hypothetical direct/possible winners.
• Unresolved and orphan obligations, current/stale final choice, private worksheet always and complete naming decision memo only after required checks.

Two capability proposals

• Expose nontransitive author preferences with actual cyclic paths while refusing to infer unreviewed direct comparisons.
• Change one comparison in a separately labelled what-if graph without committing the preference or contaminating the final memo.
• Bind a reasoned final author choice to all candidates, scene, purpose and comparisons; preserve stale/orphan reasoning instead of silently discarding it.

Why a separate page?

The brief defines typed obligations before candidates exist, assignment distributes a name pool across several roles, and recall compares actual supplied participant responses. This board instead captures one author’s direct pairwise tradeoffs in a shared scene, refuses transitive filling, explains cyclic preferences, compares an isolated what-if graph and binds a final decision to its exact basis.

implemented-task-scope; original-plan-and-limitations-retained · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• name-shortlist-blind-test
• historical-address-scene-audit
• naming-scene-laboratory

Editorial brief · not a finished article

A shortlist should lead to a scene-specific author decision, with tradeoffs and uncertainty retained rather than concealed by a quality score.

• When generating more names stops helping
• Original theatre-clock scene and alternative-name counterfactual
• Prepare comparable candidate and scene scopes
• Record three direct comparisons without transitive assumptions
• Read preference cycles and narrow winner definitions
• Isolated one-comparison what-if
• Explicit final choice and complete memo
• Context invalidation, recovery and private handoffs

Fictional example synopsis: A miniature theatre clock repeats the same ending until an apprentice asks Oru Vale to leave one wheel unrepaired. The repairer leaves the last door under manual control, accepting a pause where different audience members imagine sea or sky. The name is compared at the exact line asking the repairer to relinquish automatic completion.

Changing Oru to Taren does not impose personality, but may lead this author to lengthen the reply’s hesitation. Character action still establishes the change. Firmness, compact address and quiet ending can support a cyclic preference rather than an objective ranking.

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Default has three candidates, three unreviewed pairs, no inferred reader observations and no selected name.
• lan > mio > oru > lan shows a genuine closed preference cycle and no direct winner; all three resolved pairs permit an explicit reasoned author choice.
• A two-edge preference path never resolves the missing third pair. Ties count as completed comparisons but prevent strict direct wins.
• Reversing lan/oru only in trial yields a separate direct winner while the real cycle, stored judgments and complete memo stay unchanged.
• Source, purpose, actual reason and hidden judgment edits invalidate appropriate controls or selections. Orphans require explicit removal. Invalid input clears results; all 66 bounded pairs remain visible.
• Actual copies, favorites, complete memo/audit/project/results files, project restoration and both localized desktop/mobile keyboard submissions require recorded evidence.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Original bilingual long-form manuscripts and AI-assisted story edits exist; autonomous editorial checks proceed; no independent human expert review is asserted.
• Detailed contract is a design artifact, not executed behavior or independent-value approval.

English reserved path

/en/tools/protagonist-name-shortlist/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/protagonist-name-shortlist/

Evidence status

autonomous-content-and-behavior-checks-recorded; no human expert signature asserted

Inputs · proposed contract

• Stable role IDs, display labels, editorial priority and optional locked candidate ID.
• Stable candidate IDs, full display, dialogue form and confirmed reading.
• Explicit allowed or forbidden role-candidate pairs.
• Role pairs that must not share supplied short or reading forms.
• Fixed bounded search ceiling disclosed with explored-node count, not an unlimited guarantee.

Rules

• Candidate IDs are allocated at most once; locks consume the same pool as free roles.
• Validate missing IDs, conflicting locks and empty role domains before search.
• Normalize only comparisons with a disclosed rule; retain original candidate displays.
• Use deterministic most-constrained-role search, with editorial priority only as a tie-break.
• Check scene-specific exact short/approved-reading collisions during allocation.
• Return partial assignments as partial, and distinguish exhausted search from a limit reached.
• Do not infer genre fit, gender, social class or whether a name eclipses the protagonist.

Structured outputs

• Identity-to-candidate assignment with original forms
• Unfilled roles, eligibility reasons and lock trace
• Search status, explored nodes and bounded failure explanation

Two capability proposals

• Repair a greedy dead end by backtracking instead of quietly reusing a name.
• Show how a fixed casting decision constrains other roles without inventing taste scores.

Why a separate page?

The user needs one feasible joint allocation, not another list or a diagnosis of an existing cast. A choice for one role consumes a candidate and can make other roles impossible.

implemented-task-scope; original-plan-and-limitations-retained · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• mage-council-title-assignment
• quest-marker-name-labels
• naming-project-brief

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Allocate the cast together because the last available name is a consequence of earlier choices.

• Draw role domains before judging candidates
• A greedy allocation can strand the last role
• Fictional scene: a rehearsal roster and two fixed credits
• Compare a complete solution with an honest partial assignment
• Keep suitability judgments outside feasibility

Fictional example synopsis: A small comic production assigns three established credits to three speaking roles. A hurried first choice leaves the last role without an eligible form. Swapping the first two allocations solves the constraint without inventing a fourth person.

Changing one lock can make the joint plan impossible. Explain why an individually attractive choice differs from a feasible cast allocation.

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• A fixture where greedy allocation fails but a feasible swapped assignment exists is solved.
• Two roles cannot lock the same candidate.
• A forbidden scene pair changes the feasible result.
• An exhausted finite case is distinguished from a node-limit case.
• Export preserves IDs, input scope and whether the allocation is complete.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Original bilingual long-form manuscripts and AI-assisted story edits exist; autonomous editorial checks proceed; no independent human expert review is asserted.
• Detailed contract is a design artifact, not executed behavior or independent-value approval.

English reserved path

/en/tools/supporting-character-name-assignment/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/supporting-character-name-assignment/

Evidence status

autonomous-content-and-behavior-checks-recorded; no human expert signature asserted

Inputs · proposed contract

• role brief: constrain narrative prominence
• setting and dates: bound evidence
• fixed name parts: preserve accepted identity

Rules

• separate name form from author's interpretation
• evaluate candidates against supplied story vocabulary

Structured outputs

• candidate identity forms
• fit rationale tied to the brief
• tradeoffs and revision alternatives

Two capability proposals

• lock a supplied component and explain constrained alternatives
• trace a proposed choice to affected narrative references

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Separate self presentation from externally documented identity. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• anonymous-narrator-reveal
• unreliable-name-attribution
• names-as-citizenship

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Separate self presentation from externally documented identity

• Explain the specific decision: Separate self presentation from externally documented identity
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Unreliable narrator naming
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Separate self presentation from externally documented identity
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/unreliable-narrator-naming/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/unreliable-narrator-naming/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• role brief: constrain narrative prominence
• setting and dates: bound evidence
• fixed name parts: preserve accepted identity

Rules

• separate name form from author's interpretation
• evaluate candidates against supplied story vocabulary

Structured outputs

• candidate identity forms
• fit rationale tied to the brief
• tradeoffs and revision alternatives

Two capability proposals

• lock a supplied component and explain constrained alternatives
• trace a proposed choice to affected narrative references

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Compare pronoun only narration against staged name disclosure. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• anonymous-narrator-reveal
• japanese-difficult-name-introduction
• character-list-spoiler-test

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Compare pronoun only narration against staged name disclosure

• Explain the specific decision: Compare pronoun only narration against staged name disclosure
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Unnamed narrator decision
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Compare pronoun only narration against staged name disclosure
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/unnamed-narrator-decision/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/unnamed-narrator-decision/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• role brief: constrain narrative prominence
• setting and dates: bound evidence
• fixed name parts: preserve accepted identity

Rules

• separate name form from author's interpretation
• evaluate candidates against supplied story vocabulary

Structured outputs

• candidate identity forms
• fit rationale tied to the brief
• tradeoffs and revision alternatives

Two capability proposals

• lock a supplied component and explain constrained alternatives
• trace a proposed choice to affected narrative references

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Build a family identifier with explicit inheritance assumptions. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• invented-surname-inheritance
• maiden-surname-reveal-fiction
• magic-school-house-identity

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Build a family identifier with explicit inheritance assumptions

• Explain the specific decision: Build a family identifier with explicit inheritance assumptions
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Character surname construction
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Build a family identifier with explicit inheritance assumptions
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/character-surname-construction/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/character-surname-construction/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• role brief: constrain narrative prominence
• setting and dates: bound evidence
• fixed name parts: preserve accepted identity

Rules

• separate name form from author's interpretation
• evaluate candidates against supplied story vocabulary

Structured outputs

• candidate identity forms
• fit rationale tied to the brief
• tradeoffs and revision alternatives

Two capability proposals

• lock a supplied component and explain constrained alternatives
• trace a proposed choice to affected narrative references

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Repair an existing full name without replacing its fixed component. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• japanese-surname-given-name-boundary
• shipboard-rank-reference
• campaign-downtime-household-names

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Repair an existing full name without replacing its fixed component

• Explain the specific decision: Repair an existing full name without replacing its fixed component
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Given name surname fit
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Repair an existing full name without replacing its fixed component
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/given-name-surname-fit/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/given-name-surname-fit/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• role brief: constrain narrative prominence
• setting and dates: bound evidence
• fixed name parts: preserve accepted identity

Rules

• separate name form from author's interpretation
• evaluate candidates against supplied story vocabulary

Structured outputs

• candidate identity forms
• fit rationale tied to the brief
• tradeoffs and revision alternatives

Two capability proposals

• lock a supplied component and explain constrained alternatives
• trace a proposed choice to affected narrative references

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Decide where a middle name matters in dialogue and records. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• alias-retirement-plan
• divorce-name-continuity
• player-renaming-story-integration

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Decide where a middle name matters in dialogue and records

• Explain the specific decision: Decide where a middle name matters in dialogue and records
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Character middle name use
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Decide where a middle name matters in dialogue and records
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/character-middle-name-use/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/character-middle-name-use/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• role brief: constrain narrative prominence
• setting and dates: bound evidence
• fixed name parts: preserve accepted identity

Rules

• separate name form from author's interpretation
• evaluate candidates against supplied story vocabulary

Structured outputs

• candidate identity forms
• fit rationale tied to the brief
• tradeoffs and revision alternatives

Two capability proposals

• lock a supplied component and explain constrained alternatives
• trace a proposed choice to affected narrative references

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Maintain referential clarity for a character with one public name. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• unspoken-name-scene
• comic-off-panel-name-reference
• military-callsign-design

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Maintain referential clarity for a character with one public name

• Explain the specific decision: Maintain referential clarity for a character with one public name
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Mononym character design
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Maintain referential clarity for a character with one public name
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/mononym-character-design/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/mononym-character-design/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• role brief: constrain narrative prominence
• setting and dates: bound evidence
• fixed name parts: preserve accepted identity

Rules

• separate name form from author's interpretation
• evaluate candidates against supplied story vocabulary

Structured outputs

• candidate identity forms
• fit rationale tied to the brief
• tradeoffs and revision alternatives

Two capability proposals

• lock a supplied component and explain constrained alternatives
• trace a proposed choice to affected narrative references

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Track a namesake relationship and the character's response to it. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• inherited-secret-name
• inherited-mantle-identity
• inherited-pen-name-fiction

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Track a namesake relationship and the character's response to it

• Explain the specific decision: Track a namesake relationship and the character's response to it
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Inherited name burden
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Track a namesake relationship and the character's response to it
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/inherited-name-burden/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/inherited-name-burden/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• role brief: constrain narrative prominence
• setting and dates: bound evidence
• fixed name parts: preserve accepted identity

Rules

• separate name form from author's interpretation
• evaluate candidates against supplied story vocabulary

Structured outputs

• candidate identity forms
• fit rationale tied to the brief
• tradeoffs and revision alternatives

Two capability proposals

• lock a supplied component and explain constrained alternatives
• trace a proposed choice to affected narrative references

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Design a chosen identity with consent and viewpoint boundaries. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• playable-character-preset-names
• religious-office-name
• amnesiac-placeholder-name

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Design a chosen identity with consent and viewpoint boundaries

• Explain the specific decision: Design a chosen identity with consent and viewpoint boundaries
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Self chosen character name
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Design a chosen identity with consent and viewpoint boundaries
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/self-chosen-character-name/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/self-chosen-character-name/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• role brief: constrain narrative prominence
• setting and dates: bound evidence
• fixed name parts: preserve accepted identity

Rules

• separate name form from author's interpretation
• evaluate candidates against supplied story vocabulary

Structured outputs

• candidate identity forms
• fit rationale tied to the brief
• tradeoffs and revision alternatives

Two capability proposals

• lock a supplied component and explain constrained alternatives
• trace a proposed choice to affected narrative references

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Supply author approved pronunciations without invented etymology. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• japanese-name-screen-reader-brief
• pen-name-pronunciation
• character-naming-brief

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Supply author approved pronunciations without invented etymology

• Explain the specific decision: Supply author approved pronunciations without invented etymology
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Character name pronunciation brief
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Supply author approved pronunciations without invented etymology
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/character-name-pronunciation-brief/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/character-name-pronunciation-brief/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• role brief: constrain narrative prominence
• setting and dates: bound evidence
• fixed name parts: preserve accepted identity

Rules

• separate name form from author's interpretation
• evaluate candidates against supplied story vocabulary

Structured outputs

• candidate identity forms
• fit rationale tied to the brief
• tradeoffs and revision alternatives

Two capability proposals

• lock a supplied component and explain constrained alternatives
• trace a proposed choice to affected narrative references

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Reconcile names across documents, dialogue and narration. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• localized-prop-name-continuity
• japanese-name-order-policy
• character-cue-name-system

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Reconcile names across documents, dialogue and narration

• Explain the specific decision: Reconcile names across documents, dialogue and narration
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Character dossier name system
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Reconcile names across documents, dialogue and narration
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/character-dossier-name-system/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/character-dossier-name-system/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• Select a confirmed character rather than every matching word.
• Link names to scenes, props, clues and quotations.
• Supply a replacement mapping and locked exceptions.

Rules

• Preview occurrence-scoped edits before commitment.
• Keep quoted document errors when explicitly intentional.
• Invalidate initials, anagrams and other dependent clues.
• Maintain prior forms in an edit ledger for undo.

Structured outputs

• Proposed edit patch
• Dependent creative work list
• Reversible before-after mapping

Two capability proposals

• Show non-text dependencies that a rename breaks.
• Undo a rename without overwriting unrelated subsequent decisions.

Why a separate page?

Replace an established identity with a reversible dependency-aware patch, rather than produce fresh suggestions detached from the manuscript.

implemented-task-scope; original-plan-and-limitations-retained · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• name-symbolism-restraint-exercise
• name-clue-revision-exercise
• wrong-honorific-clue

Editorial brief · not a finished article

A rename is an editorial migration, not a find-and-replace command.

• Confirm identity before matching text
• Audit props and puzzles
• Preview a scoped patch
• Restore a previous decision safely

Fictional example synopsis: Fictional example: changing a suspect's surname breaks a visible monogram on a suitcase. The editor repairs the clue or chooses a different replacement rather than leave the old evidence unexplained.

Compare a string-only replacement with a dependency-aware patch and enumerate the changed reader deductions.

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• A different person with the same string is not replaced.
• A dependent initials clue becomes unresolved.
• A locked quotation remains unchanged.
• Undo restores only the recorded affected fields.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Original bilingual long-form manuscripts and AI-assisted story edits exist; autonomous editorial checks proceed; no independent human expert review is asserted.
• Detailed contract is a design artifact, not executed behavior or independent-value approval.

English reserved path

/en/tools/character-name-replacement/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/character-name-replacement/

Evidence status

autonomous-content-and-behavior-checks-recorded; no human expert signature asserted

Inputs · proposed contract

• role brief: constrain narrative prominence
• setting and dates: bound evidence
• fixed name parts: preserve accepted identity

Rules

• separate name form from author's interpretation
• evaluate candidates against supplied story vocabulary

Structured outputs

• candidate identity forms
• fit rationale tied to the brief
• tradeoffs and revision alternatives

Two capability proposals

• lock a supplied component and explain constrained alternatives
• trace a proposed choice to affected narrative references

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Limit symbolic signals so a name does not announce the plot. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• prophetic-name-restraint
• invented-names-without-surnames
• name-symbolism-restraint-exercise

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Limit symbolic signals so a name does not announce the plot

• Explain the specific decision: Limit symbolic signals so a name does not announce the plot
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Character name motif restraint
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Limit symbolic signals so a name does not announce the plot
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/character-name-motif-restraint/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/character-name-motif-restraint/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• Candidate IDs and exact author-approved spellings, not explanations shown beside them.
• Exposure material, stated delay and permitted answer normalization.
• Participant token, candidate ID, response, completed/omitted/not-tested state.
• Versioned condition IDs; conditions cannot silently be pooled.

Rules

• Never create participants, responses or measured delays.
• Separate not-tested from an observed blank response.
• Use a disclosed exact or normalized string comparison only; no inferred recognition.
• Report per-item numerators and actual observed denominators, with raw rows available.
• Block duplicate participant-item-condition keys.
• Do not infer generalizability, causation, cultural quality or population confidence from a convenience sample.
• Exposure exports omit answer explanations; analysis export contains answer keys and is labeled separately.

Structured outputs

• Exposure and response sheets
• Per-item exact-match counts with missing-state accounting
• Protocol deviations and condition-specific observations

Two capability proposals

• Recompute actual denominators when a response changes from not-tested to an observed omission.
• Keep blind exposure separate from the author analysis key.

Why a separate page?

The task collects actual response observations and checks a study protocol; generating names or exporting a blind worksheet cannot calculate recall from absent responses.

implemented-task-scope; original-plan-and-limitations-retained · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• localized-name-memory-test
• audio-cast-recognition-test
• possession-naming-test

Editorial brief · not a finished article

A recall figure is a summary of recorded answers under stated conditions, not a name-quality score.

• Write the protocol before looking at answers
• Separate exposure from the key
• Fictional scene: two readers and one forgotten surname
• Missing observation is not failure
• Explain the result without promising a memorable name

Fictional example synopsis: A writer gives two volunteer readers the same short scene and later asks for names without showing the roster. One reader was interrupted and never completed the exercise. Counting that person as a failed recall changes the denominator and misrepresents what happened.

Changing the name may not change recall if the scene gave one character much more exposure. Compare actual protocol limitations rather than invent a winner.

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• No responses means no recall percentage, never a manufactured zero.
• An observed omission counts in its stated denominator; not-tested does not.
• Duplicate observation keys fail.
• Changing normalization changes only the declared comparison, with raw spellings retained.
• A comparison across protocol conditions remains stratified.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Original bilingual long-form manuscripts and AI-assisted story edits exist; autonomous editorial checks proceed; no independent human expert review is asserted.
• Detailed contract is a design artifact, not executed behavior or independent-value approval.

English reserved path

/en/tools/character-name-memorability-test/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/character-name-memorability-test/

Evidence status

autonomous-content-and-behavior-checks-recorded; no human expert signature asserted

Inputs · proposed contract

• role brief: constrain narrative prominence
• setting and dates: bound evidence
• fixed name parts: preserve accepted identity

Rules

• separate name form from author's interpretation
• evaluate candidates against supplied story vocabulary

Structured outputs

• candidate identity forms
• fit rationale tied to the brief
• tradeoffs and revision alternatives

Two capability proposals

• lock a supplied component and explain constrained alternatives
• trace a proposed choice to affected narrative references

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Decide which confusions are intentional and which need repair. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• localized-name-ambiguity-budget
• anonymous-crowd-reference-plan
• name-data-cohort-bias

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Decide which confusions are intentional and which need repair

• Explain the specific decision: Decide which confusions are intentional and which need repair
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Character name ambiguity budget
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Decide which confusions are intentional and which need repair
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/character-name-ambiguity-budget/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/character-name-ambiguity-budget/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• Compute a fictional birth interval from story date and age uncertainty.
• Limit evidence scope rather than infer nationality.
• Require dated counts, population coverage and permitted use.

Rules

• Do not substitute present-day frequency for birth-cohort evidence.
• Report not covered for out-of-range dates or missing populations.
• Frequency is not proof of suitability for one individual.
• Keep age uncertainty as a range instead of rounding to one year.

Structured outputs

• Eligible evidence window
• Candidate counts with denominator where available
• Coverage gaps and interpretation limits

Two capability proposals

• Compare the same candidate across two supported birth windows.
• Expose how a broader age range changes evidence coverage.

Why a separate page?

Evaluate candidates against dated, geographically bounded evidence and disclose source coverage; a style toggle cannot substantiate a cohort claim.

implemented-task-scope; original-plan-and-limitations-retained · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• academy-cohort-naming
• coming-of-age-chosen-name
• dragon-age-name-layers

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Period plausibility depends on evidence coverage, not a vintage-sounding name.

• Infer the birth window carefully
• Read the denominator and the missing populations
• A grandparent younger than the archive assumes
• Keep evidence separate from creative choice

Fictional example synopsis: Fictional example: a serial changes its calendar while retaining a character's age. A cohort check reveals that the author's selected evidence no longer covers the implied birth years.

The fix may change the timeline or research source rather than the character's name.

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Unsupported year produces not covered, not zero popularity.
• No dataset produces no frequency claim.
• Negative ages are rejected.
• Dataset population mismatch is displayed before ranking.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Original bilingual long-form manuscripts and AI-assisted story edits exist; autonomous editorial checks proceed; no independent human expert review is asserted.
• Detailed contract is a design artifact, not executed behavior or independent-value approval.

English reserved path

/en/tools/character-age-cohort-naming/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/character-age-cohort-naming/

Evidence status

autonomous-content-and-behavior-checks-recorded; no human expert signature asserted

Inputs · proposed contract

• role brief: constrain narrative prominence
• setting and dates: bound evidence
• fixed name parts: preserve accepted identity

Rules

• separate name form from author's interpretation
• evaluate candidates against supplied story vocabulary

Structured outputs

• candidate identity forms
• fit rationale tied to the brief
• tradeoffs and revision alternatives

Two capability proposals

• lock a supplied component and explain constrained alternatives
• trace a proposed choice to affected narrative references

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Compare public formality with private address without stereotyping. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• character-identity-under-fame
• invented-commoner-register
• companion-nickname-unlock

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Compare public formality with private address without stereotyping

• Explain the specific decision: Compare public formality with private address without stereotyping
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Character social register naming
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Compare public formality with private address without stereotyping
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/character-social-register-naming/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/character-social-register-naming/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• role brief: constrain narrative prominence
• setting and dates: bound evidence
• fixed name parts: preserve accepted identity

Rules

• separate name form from author's interpretation
• evaluate candidates against supplied story vocabulary

Structured outputs

• candidate identity forms
• fit rationale tied to the brief
• tradeoffs and revision alternatives

Two capability proposals

• lock a supplied component and explain constrained alternatives
• trace a proposed choice to affected narrative references

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Track retained, adapted and imposed forms across a journey. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• series-localization-drift
• npc-migration-between-towns
• abdicated-ruler-reference

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Track retained, adapted and imposed forms across a journey

• Explain the specific decision: Track retained, adapted and imposed forms across a journey
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Character migration naming
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Track retained, adapted and imposed forms across a journey
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/character-migration-naming/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/character-migration-naming/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• role brief: constrain narrative prominence
• setting and dates: bound evidence
• fixed name parts: preserve accepted identity

Rules

• separate name form from author's interpretation
• evaluate candidates against supplied story vocabulary

Structured outputs

• candidate identity forms
• fit rationale tied to the brief
• tradeoffs and revision alternatives

Two capability proposals

• lock a supplied component and explain constrained alternatives
• trace a proposed choice to affected narrative references

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Distinguish how a character writes a name from how others record it. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• character-returns-to-family-name
• clan-branch-registry
• comic-title-versus-name-caption

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Distinguish how a character writes a name from how others record it

• Explain the specific decision: Distinguish how a character writes a name from how others record it
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Character literacy naming
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Distinguish how a character writes a name from how others record it
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/character-literacy-naming/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/character-literacy-naming/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• role brief: constrain narrative prominence
• setting and dates: bound evidence
• fixed name parts: preserve accepted identity

Rules

• separate name form from author's interpretation
• evaluate candidates against supplied story vocabulary

Structured outputs

• candidate identity forms
• fit rationale tied to the brief
• tradeoffs and revision alternatives

Two capability proposals

• lock a supplied component and explain constrained alternatives
• trace a proposed choice to affected narrative references

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Map who avoids a name and what substitute each speaker uses. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• shared-campaign-naming-authority
• character-name-after-betrayal
• grandparent-nickname-dialogue

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Map who avoids a name and what substitute each speaker uses

• Explain the specific decision: Map who avoids a name and what substitute each speaker uses
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Character name aversion
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Map who avoids a name and what substitute each speaker uses
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/character-name-aversion/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/character-name-aversion/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• role brief: constrain narrative prominence
• setting and dates: bound evidence
• fixed name parts: preserve accepted identity

Rules

• separate name form from author's interpretation
• evaluate candidates against supplied story vocabulary

Structured outputs

• candidate identity forms
• fit rationale tied to the brief
• tradeoffs and revision alternatives

Two capability proposals

• lock a supplied component and explain constrained alternatives
• trace a proposed choice to affected narrative references

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Design recoverable mishearings that do not depend on false phonetics. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• invented-names-without-surnames
• localized-reveal-regression-test
• npc-mistaken-identity-encounter

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Design recoverable mishearings that do not depend on false phonetics

• Explain the specific decision: Design recoverable mishearings that do not depend on false phonetics
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Character name mishearing
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Design recoverable mishearings that do not depend on false phonetics
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/character-name-mishearing/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/character-name-mishearing/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• role brief: constrain narrative prominence
• setting and dates: bound evidence
• fixed name parts: preserve accepted identity

Rules

• separate name form from author's interpretation
• evaluate candidates against supplied story vocabulary

Structured outputs

• candidate identity forms
• fit rationale tied to the brief
• tradeoffs and revision alternatives

Two capability proposals

• lock a supplied component and explain constrained alternatives
• trace a proposed choice to affected narrative references

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Create signoffs and salutations tied to relationship distance. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• letters-versus-speech-address
• campaign-title-reward
• localized-formal-informal-contrast

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Create signoffs and salutations tied to relationship distance

• Explain the specific decision: Create signoffs and salutations tied to relationship distance
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Character name in letters
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Create signoffs and salutations tied to relationship distance
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/character-name-in-letters/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/character-name-in-letters/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• role brief: constrain narrative prominence
• setting and dates: bound evidence
• fixed name parts: preserve accepted identity

Rules

• separate name form from author's interpretation
• evaluate candidates against supplied story vocabulary

Structured outputs

• candidate identity forms
• fit rationale tied to the brief
• tradeoffs and revision alternatives

Two capability proposals

• lock a supplied component and explain constrained alternatives
• trace a proposed choice to affected narrative references

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Keep official record forms separate from narrative display. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• stateless-fictional-character-records
• border-town-name-register
• disputed-heir-name-evidence

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Keep official record forms separate from narrative display

• Explain the specific decision: Keep official record forms separate from narrative display
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Character name in records
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Keep official record forms separate from narrative display
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/character-name-in-records/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/character-name-in-records/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• role brief: constrain narrative prominence
• setting and dates: bound evidence
• fixed name parts: preserve accepted identity

Rules

• separate name form from author's interpretation
• evaluate candidates against supplied story vocabulary

Structured outputs

• candidate identity forms
• fit rationale tied to the brief
• tradeoffs and revision alternatives

Two capability proposals

• lock a supplied component and explain constrained alternatives
• trace a proposed choice to affected narrative references

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Choose among supplied candidates using explicit rejection criteria. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• pen-name-candidate-decision
• naming-project-batch-review
• npc-recruit-list-clarity

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Choose among supplied candidates using explicit rejection criteria

• Explain the specific decision: Choose among supplied candidates using explicit rejection criteria
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Character naming deadline
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Choose among supplied candidates using explicit rejection criteria
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/character-naming-deadline/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/character-naming-deadline/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• role brief: constrain narrative prominence
• setting and dates: bound evidence
• fixed name parts: preserve accepted identity

Rules

• separate name form from author's interpretation
• evaluate candidates against supplied story vocabulary

Structured outputs

• candidate identity forms
• fit rationale tied to the brief
• tradeoffs and revision alternatives

Two capability proposals

• lock a supplied component and explain constrained alternatives
• trace a proposed choice to affected narrative references

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Generate blind comparison prompts and record reader confusion. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• cast-onboarding-reader-test
• name-arc-reader-interpretation-test
• localized-name-memory-test

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Generate blind comparison prompts and record reader confusion

• Explain the specific decision: Generate blind comparison prompts and record reader confusion
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Character name beta reader test
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Generate blind comparison prompts and record reader confusion
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/character-name-beta-reader-test/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/character-name-beta-reader-test/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• role brief: constrain narrative prominence
• setting and dates: bound evidence
• fixed name parts: preserve accepted identity

Rules

• separate name form from author's interpretation
• evaluate candidates against supplied story vocabulary

Structured outputs

• candidate identity forms
• fit rationale tied to the brief
• tradeoffs and revision alternatives

Two capability proposals

• lock a supplied component and explain constrained alternatives
• trace a proposed choice to affected narrative references

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Track why a name changed and dependent scenes to revisit. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• manuscript-rename-impact-map
• alternate-history-name-divergence
• existing-pen-name-revision

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Track why a name changed and dependent scenes to revisit

• Explain the specific decision: Track why a name changed and dependent scenes to revisit
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Character name revision history
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Track why a name changed and dependent scenes to revisit
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/character-name-revision-history/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/character-name-revision-history/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• role brief: constrain narrative prominence
• setting and dates: bound evidence
• fixed name parts: preserve accepted identity

Rules

• separate name form from author's interpretation
• evaluate candidates against supplied story vocabulary

Structured outputs

• candidate identity forms
• fit rationale tied to the brief
• tradeoffs and revision alternatives

Two capability proposals

• lock a supplied component and explain constrained alternatives
• trace a proposed choice to affected narrative references

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Separate verified cultural claims from author associations. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• name-claim-evidence-mapping
• mispronunciation-character-arc
• serial-reader-correction-log

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Separate verified cultural claims from author associations

• Explain the specific decision: Separate verified cultural claims from author associations
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Character name evidence ledger
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Separate verified cultural claims from author associations
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/character-name-evidence-ledger/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/character-name-evidence-ledger/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• role brief: constrain narrative prominence
• setting and dates: bound evidence
• fixed name parts: preserve accepted identity

Rules

• separate name form from author's interpretation
• evaluate candidates against supplied story vocabulary

Structured outputs

• candidate identity forms
• fit rationale tied to the brief
• tradeoffs and revision alternatives

Two capability proposals

• lock a supplied component and explain constrained alternatives
• trace a proposed choice to affected narrative references

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Record who may use a chosen, former or intimate name. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• localized-nickname-relationship
• reclaimed-insult-name
• name-based-social-status-scene

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Record who may use a chosen, former or intimate name

• Explain the specific decision: Record who may use a chosen, former or intimate name
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Character name consent map
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Record who may use a chosen, former or intimate name
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/character-name-consent-map/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/character-name-consent-map/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• role brief: constrain narrative prominence
• setting and dates: bound evidence
• fixed name parts: preserve accepted identity

Rules

• separate name form from author's interpretation
• evaluate candidates against supplied story vocabulary

Structured outputs

• candidate identity forms
• fit rationale tied to the brief
• tradeoffs and revision alternatives

Two capability proposals

• lock a supplied component and explain constrained alternatives
• trace a proposed choice to affected narrative references

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Compare intended characterization against reader supplied impressions. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• name-spelling-dictation-test
• cast-glossary-spoiler-audit
• character-role-association-test

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Compare intended characterization against reader supplied impressions

• Explain the specific decision: Compare intended characterization against reader supplied impressions
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Character name first impression
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Compare intended characterization against reader supplied impressions
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/character-name-first-impression/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/character-name-first-impression/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• role brief: constrain narrative prominence
• setting and dates: bound evidence
• fixed name parts: preserve accepted identity

Rules

• separate name form from author's interpretation
• evaluate candidates against supplied story vocabulary

Structured outputs

• candidate identity forms
• fit rationale tied to the brief
• tradeoffs and revision alternatives

Two capability proposals

• lock a supplied component and explain constrained alternatives
• trace a proposed choice to affected narrative references

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Detect conflicts between name motifs and other story symbols. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• rebel-cell-identity-separation
• name-symbolism-restraint-exercise
• family-nickname-inheritance

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Detect conflicts between name motifs and other story symbols

• Explain the specific decision: Detect conflicts between name motifs and other story symbols
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Character name semantic overload
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Detect conflicts between name motifs and other story symbols
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/character-name-semantic-overload/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/character-name-semantic-overload/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• role brief: constrain narrative prominence
• setting and dates: bound evidence
• fixed name parts: preserve accepted identity

Rules

• separate name form from author's interpretation
• evaluate candidates against supplied story vocabulary

Structured outputs

• candidate identity forms
• fit rationale tied to the brief
• tradeoffs and revision alternatives

Two capability proposals

• lock a supplied component and explain constrained alternatives
• trace a proposed choice to affected narrative references

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Test headings against viewpoint identity and spoiler exposure. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• audiobook-chapter-name-headings
• comic-chapter-title-name-spoiler
• anonymous-narrator-reveal

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Test headings against viewpoint identity and spoiler exposure

• Explain the specific decision: Test headings against viewpoint identity and spoiler exposure
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Character name chapter heading
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Test headings against viewpoint identity and spoiler exposure
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/character-name-chapter-heading/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/character-name-chapter-heading/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• role brief: constrain narrative prominence
• setting and dates: bound evidence
• fixed name parts: preserve accepted identity

Rules

• separate name form from author's interpretation
• evaluate candidates against supplied story vocabulary

Structured outputs

• candidate identity forms
• fit rationale tied to the brief
• tradeoffs and revision alternatives

Two capability proposals

• lock a supplied component and explain constrained alternatives
• trace a proposed choice to affected narrative references

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Identify missing research before committing a culturally situated name. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• setting-name-rule-exception-map
• character-localization-name-map
• character-name-consent-map

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Identify missing research before committing a culturally situated name

• Explain the specific decision: Identify missing research before committing a culturally situated name
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Character naming uncertainty map
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Identify missing research before committing a culturally situated name
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/character-naming-uncertainty-map/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/character-naming-uncertainty-map/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• Stable ID, parent links, household and fixed given or family fields; unknown parents stay unknown.
• Choose authored maternal, paternal, dual-component or explicit per-child inheritance, not a presumed cultural universal.
• Optional author supplied marker table indexed by generation; do not infer generation from age.
• Identify relatives likely to be introduced together for confusion checks.

Rules

• Validate IDs, missing references and parent cycles before generating.
• Topologically traverse the relationship graph; derive only fields enabled by the selected inheritance policy.
• Locks override generation but never silently override inherited constraints; return a named conflict.
• A household change alone never changes a surname.
• Compare confirmed readings and visible short forms within each scene group.
• Follow the selected maternal parent ID only
• Follow the selected paternal parent ID only
• Preserve ordered maternal and paternal components
• Shared marker does not exempt a pair from collision review
• Evaluate all three pairs in a three-person introduction

Structured outputs

• personId and approved name components
• inheritedFrom path
• generation marker and exception reason
• within-family confusion pairs
• minimal unlocked alternatives
• Derivation source ID
• Derivation source ID
• Ordered surname parts
• Pair link and separate short forms
• Three pairwise findings

Two capability proposals

• Preview a changed ancestor surname through the affected descendant subtree.
• Compare graph state before and after adoption while retaining approved earlier identities.

Why a separate page?

A family graph must be solved jointly; one-person generation cannot propagate inherited components or expose inconsistent relatives.

implemented-task-scope; original-plan-and-limitations-retained · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• hyphenated-family-name-limits
• family-naming-scene-exercise
• diaspora-family-continuity

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Inheritance is a relationship rule, not a visual surname theme.

• Draw the family before choosing a name pool
• When a shared surname is useful and when it is misleading
• One adoption event, three explicit naming decisions
• Distinguish cousins readers meet in the same scene
• Repair a locked-name conflict without rewriting the entire family

Fictional example synopsis: Fictional example: a household census labels an adopted mapmaker as a visitor because her retained surname differs. Her cousin corrects the household record without asking her to erase her earlier identity.

Compare retained identity plus an explicit household field with forced surname conformity. The misunderstanding depends on a record policy, not on a supposed universal adoption custom.

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Changing a fictional inherited surname updates eligible unlocked descendants and no unrelated household.
• A parent cycle returns the exact cycle; no partial family is committed.
• A locked child surname incompatible with the chosen policy returns a conflict with two explicit resolution options.
• Unknown parentage does not invent relatives.
• Maternal surname changes only eligible unlocked children
• Paternal surname change does not alter maternal-policy children
• Swapping order reverses parts without changing person IDs
• Two same-reading twins remain flagged despite an intentional link
• Three names produce exactly three comparisons

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Executable task workflows and automated scenarios exist; autonomous checks proceed under the user’s authorization; no human signature is asserted.
• Original bilingual long-form manuscripts and AI-assisted story edits exist; autonomous editorial checks proceed; no independent human expert review is asserted.

English reserved path

/en/tools/family-name-planner/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/family-name-planner/

Evidence status

autonomous-content-and-behavior-checks-recorded; no human expert signature asserted

Inputs · proposed contract

• relationship graph: establish actual kinship
• household timeline: distinguish cohabitation from descent
• inheritance policy: constrain shared components

Rules

• derive inherited fields from directed relationships
• record explicit exceptions rather than infer parentage from spelling

Structured outputs

• person keyed name table
• inheritance path and exceptions
• relative confusion warnings

Two capability proposals

• propagate a parent name change through eligible descendants
• preview household forms before and after a dated event

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Model different households and documented surname paths. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• lost-sibling-reunion-names
• japanese-surname-address-map
• workplace-ensemble-name-map

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Model different households and documented surname paths

• Explain the specific decision: Model different households and documented surname paths
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Half sibling surname logic
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Model different households and documented surname paths
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/half-sibling-surname-logic/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/half-sibling-surname-logic/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• relationship graph: establish actual kinship
• household timeline: distinguish cohabitation from descent
• inheritance policy: constrain shared components

Rules

• derive inherited fields from directed relationships
• record explicit exceptions rather than infer parentage from spelling

Structured outputs

• person keyed name table
• inheritance path and exceptions
• relative confusion warnings

Two capability proposals

• propagate a parent name change through eligible descendants
• preview household forms before and after a dated event

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Distinguish household membership from inherited naming. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• court-retainer-identity
• fictional-house-identity-system
• capital-court-name-hierarchy

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Distinguish household membership from inherited naming

• Explain the specific decision: Distinguish household membership from inherited naming
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Stepfamily address map
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Distinguish household membership from inherited naming
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/stepfamily-address-map/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/stepfamily-address-map/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• relationship graph: establish actual kinship
• household timeline: distinguish cohabitation from descent
• inheritance policy: constrain shared components

Rules

• derive inherited fields from directed relationships
• record explicit exceptions rather than infer parentage from spelling

Structured outputs

• person keyed name table
• inheritance path and exceptions
• relative confusion warnings

Two capability proposals

• propagate a parent name change through eligible descendants
• preview household forms before and after a dated event

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Track birth, placement and chosen names by story event. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• character-rewrites-own-myth
• name-based-alibi-timeline
• live-roleplay-alias-reveal

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Track birth, placement and chosen names by story event

• Explain the specific decision: Track birth, placement and chosen names by story event
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Adopted character name timeline
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Track birth, placement and chosen names by story event
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/adopted-character-name-timeline/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/adopted-character-name-timeline/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• relationship graph: establish actual kinship
• household timeline: distinguish cohabitation from descent
• inheritance policy: constrain shared components

Rules

• derive inherited fields from directed relationships
• record explicit exceptions rather than infer parentage from spelling

Structured outputs

• person keyed name table
• inheritance path and exceptions
• relative confusion warnings

Two capability proposals

• propagate a parent name change through eligible descendants
• preview household forms before and after a dated event

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Preserve separate legal and informal family relationships. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• military-settlement-household-names
• invented-multilingual-household
• magic-school-house-identity

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Preserve separate legal and informal family relationships

• Explain the specific decision: Preserve separate legal and informal family relationships
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Foster household naming
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Preserve separate legal and informal family relationships
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/foster-household-naming/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/foster-household-naming/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• relationship graph: establish actual kinship
• household timeline: distinguish cohabitation from descent
• inheritance policy: constrain shared components

Rules

• derive inherited fields from directed relationships
• record explicit exceptions rather than infer parentage from spelling

Structured outputs

• person keyed name table
• inheritance path and exceptions
• relative confusion warnings

Two capability proposals

• propagate a parent name change through eligible descendants
• preview household forms before and after a dated event

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Design elective kinship terms without implying blood relationship. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• family-secret-address-slip
• nonhuman-family-transmission
• localized-kinship-address-policy

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Design elective kinship terms without implying blood relationship

• Explain the specific decision: Design elective kinship terms without implying blood relationship
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Found family address system
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Design elective kinship terms without implying blood relationship
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/found-family-address-system/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/found-family-address-system/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• relationship graph: establish actual kinship
• household timeline: distinguish cohabitation from descent
• inheritance policy: constrain shared components

Rules

• derive inherited fields from directed relationships
• record explicit exceptions rather than infer parentage from spelling

Structured outputs

• person keyed name table
• inheritance path and exceptions
• relative confusion warnings

Two capability proposals

• propagate a parent name change through eligible descendants
• preview household forms before and after a dated event

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Allocate names over a dated family tree without accidental recycling. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• japanese-family-repeated-kanji
• diaspora-family-continuity
• family-records-mismatch

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Allocate names over a dated family tree without accidental recycling

• Explain the specific decision: Allocate names over a dated family tree without accidental recycling
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Multigenerational family names
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Allocate names over a dated family tree without accidental recycling
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/multigenerational-family-names/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/multigenerational-family-names/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• relationship graph: establish actual kinship
• household timeline: distinguish cohabitation from descent
• inheritance policy: constrain shared components

Rules

• derive inherited fields from directed relationships
• record explicit exceptions rather than infer parentage from spelling

Structured outputs

• person keyed name table
• inheritance path and exceptions
• relative confusion warnings

Two capability proposals

• propagate a parent name change through eligible descendants
• preview household forms before and after a dated event

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Show repeated names with unambiguous narrative references. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• character-breaks-namesake-cycle
• family-generational-confusion-audit
• family-rename-counterfactual

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Show repeated names with unambiguous narrative references

• Explain the specific decision: Show repeated names with unambiguous narrative references
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Namesake ancestor chain
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Show repeated names with unambiguous narrative references
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/namesake-ancestor-chain/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/namesake-ancestor-chain/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• relationship graph: establish actual kinship
• household timeline: distinguish cohabitation from descent
• inheritance policy: constrain shared components

Rules

• derive inherited fields from directed relationships
• record explicit exceptions rather than infer parentage from spelling

Structured outputs

• person keyed name table
• inheritance path and exceptions
• relative confusion warnings

Two capability proposals

• propagate a parent name change through eligible descendants
• preview household forms before and after a dated event

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Apply an author defined generation scheme to eligible relatives. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• generation-ship-family-names
• npc-family-generation
• family-nickname-inheritance

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Apply an author defined generation scheme to eligible relatives

• Explain the specific decision: Apply an author defined generation scheme to eligible relatives
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Family generation marker
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Apply an author defined generation scheme to eligible relatives
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/family-generation-marker/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/family-generation-marker/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• relationship graph: establish actual kinship
• household timeline: distinguish cohabitation from descent
• inheritance policy: constrain shared components

Rules

• derive inherited fields from directed relationships
• record explicit exceptions rather than infer parentage from spelling

Structured outputs

• person keyed name table
• inheritance path and exceptions
• relative confusion warnings

Two capability proposals

• propagate a parent name change through eligible descendants
• preview household forms before and after a dated event

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Resolve accumulated surnames across generations. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• diaspora-family-continuity
• family-name-planner
• inherited-secret-name

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Resolve accumulated surnames across generations

• Explain the specific decision: Resolve accumulated surnames across generations
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Hyphenated family name limits
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Resolve accumulated surnames across generations
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/hyphenated-family-name-limits/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/hyphenated-family-name-limits/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• relationship graph: establish actual kinship
• household timeline: distinguish cohabitation from descent
• inheritance policy: constrain shared components

Rules

• derive inherited fields from directed relationships
• record explicit exceptions rather than infer parentage from spelling

Structured outputs

• person keyed name table
• inheritance path and exceptions
• relative confusion warnings

Two capability proposals

• propagate a parent name change through eligible descendants
• preview household forms before and after a dated event

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Compare retained, combined and changed names in a fictional household. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• naming-project-decision-record
• invented-legal-name-layers
• space-colony-name-registry

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Compare retained, combined and changed names in a fictional household

• Explain the specific decision: Compare retained, combined and changed names in a fictional household
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Marriage name decision
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Compare retained, combined and changed names in a fictional household
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/marriage-name-decision/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/marriage-name-decision/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• relationship graph: establish actual kinship
• household timeline: distinguish cohabitation from descent
• inheritance policy: constrain shared components

Rules

• derive inherited fields from directed relationships
• record explicit exceptions rather than infer parentage from spelling

Structured outputs

• person keyed name table
• inheritance path and exceptions
• relative confusion warnings

Two capability proposals

• propagate a parent name change through eligible descendants
• preview household forms before and after a dated event

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Maintain records and dialogue references before and after separation. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• name-erasure-story-continuity
• player-renaming-story-integration
• localized-prop-name-continuity

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Maintain records and dialogue references before and after separation

• Explain the specific decision: Maintain records and dialogue references before and after separation
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Divorce name continuity
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Maintain records and dialogue references before and after separation
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/divorce-name-continuity/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/divorce-name-continuity/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• relationship graph: establish actual kinship
• household timeline: distinguish cohabitation from descent
• inheritance policy: constrain shared components

Rules

• derive inherited fields from directed relationships
• record explicit exceptions rather than infer parentage from spelling

Structured outputs

• person keyed name table
• inheritance path and exceptions
• relative confusion warnings

Two capability proposals

• propagate a parent name change through eligible descendants
• preview household forms before and after a dated event

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Model deliberate name retention and speaker expectations. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• character-middle-name-use
• dialogue-label-name-policy
• japanese-surname-address-map

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Model deliberate name retention and speaker expectations

• Explain the specific decision: Model deliberate name retention and speaker expectations
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Widowed character name use
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Model deliberate name retention and speaker expectations
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/widowed-character-name-use/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/widowed-character-name-use/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• relationship graph: establish actual kinship
• household timeline: distinguish cohabitation from descent
• inheritance policy: constrain shared components

Rules

• derive inherited fields from directed relationships
• record explicit exceptions rather than infer parentage from spelling

Structured outputs

• person keyed name table
• inheritance path and exceptions
• relative confusion warnings

Two capability proposals

• propagate a parent name change through eligible descendants
• preview household forms before and after a dated event

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Control how much shared structure reveals relatedness. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• secret-sibling-alias-clues
• family-relation-inference-test
• name-memory-scene-exercise

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Control how much shared structure reveals relatedness

• Explain the specific decision: Control how much shared structure reveals relatedness
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Estranged sibling name clues
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Control how much shared structure reveals relatedness
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/estranged-sibling-name-clues/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/estranged-sibling-name-clues/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• relationship graph: establish actual kinship
• household timeline: distinguish cohabitation from descent
• inheritance policy: constrain shared components

Rules

• derive inherited fields from directed relationships
• record explicit exceptions rather than infer parentage from spelling

Structured outputs

• person keyed name table
• inheritance path and exceptions
• relative confusion warnings

Two capability proposals

• propagate a parent name change through eligible descendants
• preview household forms before and after a dated event

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Place bounded clues without proving lineage through a name alone. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• secret-sibling-alias-clues
• secret-title-inheritance
• family-rename-counterfactual

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Place bounded clues without proving lineage through a name alone

• Explain the specific decision: Place bounded clues without proving lineage through a name alone
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Secret parentage name clues
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Place bounded clues without proving lineage through a name alone
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/secret-parentage-name-clues/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/secret-parentage-name-clues/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• relationship graph: establish actual kinship
• household timeline: distinguish cohabitation from descent
• inheritance policy: constrain shared components

Rules

• derive inherited fields from directed relationships
• record explicit exceptions rather than infer parentage from spelling

Structured outputs

• person keyed name table
• inheritance path and exceptions
• relative confusion warnings

Two capability proposals

• propagate a parent name change through eligible descendants
• preview household forms before and after a dated event

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Separate claimed descent, documentary forms and narrative inference. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• character-name-in-records
• historical-title-evidence-file
• character-name-evidence-ledger

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Separate claimed descent, documentary forms and narrative inference

• Explain the specific decision: Separate claimed descent, documentary forms and narrative inference
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Disputed heir name evidence
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Separate claimed descent, documentary forms and narrative inference
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/disputed-heir-name-evidence/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/disputed-heir-name-evidence/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• relationship graph: establish actual kinship
• household timeline: distinguish cohabitation from descent
• inheritance policy: constrain shared components

Rules

• derive inherited fields from directed relationships
• record explicit exceptions rather than infer parentage from spelling

Structured outputs

• person keyed name table
• inheritance path and exceptions
• relative confusion warnings

Two capability proposals

• propagate a parent name change through eligible descendants
• preview household forms before and after a dated event

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Mark branches without treating all cousins as interchangeable. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• multigenerational-family-names
• family-records-mismatch
• nonhuman-family-transmission

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Mark branches without treating all cousins as interchangeable

• Explain the specific decision: Mark branches without treating all cousins as interchangeable
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Family branch differentiation
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Mark branches without treating all cousins as interchangeable
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/family-branch-differentiation/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/family-branch-differentiation/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• relationship graph: establish actual kinship
• household timeline: distinguish cohabitation from descent
• inheritance policy: constrain shared components

Rules

• derive inherited fields from directed relationships
• record explicit exceptions rather than infer parentage from spelling

Structured outputs

• person keyed name table
• inheritance path and exceptions
• relative confusion warnings

Two capability proposals

• propagate a parent name change through eligible descendants
• preview household forms before and after a dated event

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Integrate an outsider into an invented clan's explicit rules. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• npc-adoption-event-names
• player-nickname-adoption
• invented-clan-name-affixes

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Integrate an outsider into an invented clan's explicit rules

• Explain the specific decision: Integrate an outsider into an invented clan's explicit rules
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Clan adoption naming
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Integrate an outsider into an invented clan's explicit rules
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/clan-adoption-naming/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/clan-adoption-naming/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• relationship graph: establish actual kinship
• household timeline: distinguish cohabitation from descent
• inheritance policy: constrain shared components

Rules

• derive inherited fields from directed relationships
• record explicit exceptions rather than infer parentage from spelling

Structured outputs

• person keyed name table
• inheritance path and exceptions
• relative confusion warnings

Two capability proposals

• propagate a parent name change through eligible descendants
• preview household forms before and after a dated event

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Map speaker status and address without making a universal cultural claim. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• cast-dialogue-address-permissions
• name-rationing-society
• address-relationship-graph

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Map speaker status and address without making a universal cultural claim

• Explain the specific decision: Map speaker status and address without making a universal cultural claim
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Household servant address
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Map speaker status and address without making a universal cultural claim
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/household-servant-address/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/household-servant-address/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• relationship graph: establish actual kinship
• household timeline: distinguish cohabitation from descent
• inheritance policy: constrain shared components

Rules

• derive inherited fields from directed relationships
• record explicit exceptions rather than infer parentage from spelling

Structured outputs

• person keyed name table
• inheritance path and exceptions
• relative confusion warnings

Two capability proposals

• propagate a parent name change through eligible descendants
• preview household forms before and after a dated event

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Track a nickname transferred between relatives. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• family-inheritance-exception
• family-generation-marker
• localized-nickname-relationship

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Track a nickname transferred between relatives

• Explain the specific decision: Track a nickname transferred between relatives
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Family nickname inheritance
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Track a nickname transferred between relatives
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/family-nickname-inheritance/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/family-nickname-inheritance/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• relationship graph: establish actual kinship
• household timeline: distinguish cohabitation from descent
• inheritance policy: constrain shared components

Rules

• derive inherited fields from directed relationships
• record explicit exceptions rather than infer parentage from spelling

Structured outputs

• person keyed name table
• inheritance path and exceptions
• relative confusion warnings

Two capability proposals

• propagate a parent name change through eligible descendants
• preview household forms before and after a dated event

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Keep different speakers' kin terms attached to the same person. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• sibling-birth-order-address
• cross-household-child-address
• respectful-address-disagreement

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Keep different speakers' kin terms attached to the same person

• Explain the specific decision: Keep different speakers' kin terms attached to the same person
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Grandparent address network
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Keep different speakers' kin terms attached to the same person
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/grandparent-address-network/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/grandparent-address-network/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• relationship graph: establish actual kinship
• household timeline: distinguish cohabitation from descent
• inheritance policy: constrain shared components

Rules

• derive inherited fields from directed relationships
• record explicit exceptions rather than infer parentage from spelling

Structured outputs

• person keyed name table
• inheritance path and exceptions
• relative confusion warnings

Two capability proposals

• propagate a parent name change through eligible descendants
• preview household forms before and after a dated event

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Avoid collisions during a large family gathering scene. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• cast-confusion-severity-triage
• campaign-cast-registry
• cast-name-relationship-heatmap

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Avoid collisions during a large family gathering scene

• Explain the specific decision: Avoid collisions during a large family gathering scene
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Cousin reunion cast names
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Avoid collisions during a large family gathering scene
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/cousin-reunion-cast-names/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/cousin-reunion-cast-names/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• undefined
• undefined
• undefined
• undefined
• undefined
• undefined
• undefined
• undefined
• undefined
• undefined
• undefined
• undefined

Rules

• 1–80 unique people with full/short labels, 1–100 occurrence boxes referencing existing person IDs, 0–160 exact directed occurrence links. Repeated people across boxes are allowed, self-links, duplicate edges and directed cycles are rejected. No inferred blood, household or legal relations.
• Layer by longest directed path; top-to-bottom or left-to-right geometry uses literal full/short labels, reported full fallbacks and separately controlled layer/within-layer gaps. Unplaced people remain explicit.
• Initial text dimensions are disclosed estimates including visible ID lines. Browser capture waits document fonts and measures literal Georgia/serif label and ID width; source key ties supplied dimensions to labels and font. Changes reject stale bounds. Supplied records are not independently authenticated.
• Eight alternating barycentric sweeps retain only strict improvements in proper straight-segment crossing count. No global optimality claim. Inspect unrelated-box line intersections, rectangle overlaps, same labels across different people and target-frame overflow separately.
• Target frame does not shrink text to force success. SVG preserves actual geometry, visible occurrence/person IDs, dimension mode and private source/context metadata; escaping retains literal markup-like names. Download refuses a changed worksheet until recomputed.
• Copy/favorites/compare/project/audit preserve person-versus-occurrence distinction. A diagram is a production artifact, not an authenticated genealogy.

Structured outputs

• Accessible literal-name SVG with occurrence/person IDs and source metadata.
• Initial/retained crossings, line-through-box witnesses, overlaps, outside-frame occurrences and distinct-person same-label pairs.
• Per-person occurrence map, unplaced people and exact coordinates.
• Private audit and source-guarded SVG download.

Two capability proposals

• Separate identity records from chart occurrences, preserving repeated identity across different branches and unplaced supplied people.
• Actual browser label/ID width capture, stale-dimension detection and explicitly estimated fallback.
• Finite layered layout with retained crossing improvements, independent obstruction/frame findings and exact escaped SVG.

Why a separate page?

Family naming creates names and resolves declared shared structures. Identity review evaluates same/separate declarations. This page assumes those decisions and prepares a physical diagram: repeated occurrences, measured boxes, layered positions, straight-link geometry and source-guarded SVG. Switching a surname option cannot perform that production task.

implemented-task-scope; original-plan-and-limitations-retained · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• campaign-family-tree
• family-naming-bible
• merchant-family-trade-names

Editorial brief · not a finished article

The physical representation of a name can manufacture a second person; identity references and readable geometry must be edited together.

• A diagram can multiply a person
• Original two portraits for one ancestor
• People versus appearances
• Arrows need a declared meaning
• Estimated versus browser dimensions
• Bounded crossing improvements
• Frame as production constraint
• Accountable private picture
• Revise explanation as well as geometry

Fictional example synopsis: Tavi draws two versions of Ena after seeing two branches. The maker keeps repeated occurrence boxes with a common person ID and explains the navigation choice, letting both portraits become views of one fictional person.

If the two E nas were truly different namesakes, one person ID would erase an identity. Separate IDs and a same-label finding support a different caption; the software must not merge them for visual neatness.

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Default has five boxes but four people; two Ena occurrences resolve to person ena.
• A directed cycle, duplicate reversed-property-order edge, unknown person or stale dimensions clears diagram.
• Simple crossed pair improves one crossing to zero; no retained result increases crossings.
• Browser capture changes actual geometry; label/font changes require recapture, orientation/gap changes retain valid dimensions.
• Small frame exposes overflow without scaling text; short fallback and same-label different people remain explicit.
• Actual SVG download contains visible IDs, escaped names and private metadata; changed source cannot export stale layout.
• Both full localized guides and all four viewport submissions must pass.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Original bilingual long-form manuscripts and AI-assisted story edits exist; autonomous editorial checks proceed; no independent human expert review is asserted.
• Detailed contract is a design artifact, not executed behavior or independent-value approval.

English reserved path

/en/tools/family-tree-label-layout/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/family-tree-label-layout/

Evidence status

autonomous-content-and-behavior-checks-recorded; no human expert signature asserted

Inputs · proposed contract

• relationship graph: establish actual kinship
• household timeline: distinguish cohabitation from descent
• inheritance policy: constrain shared components

Rules

• derive inherited fields from directed relationships
• record explicit exceptions rather than infer parentage from spelling

Structured outputs

• person keyed name table
• inheritance path and exceptions
• relative confusion warnings

Two capability proposals

• propagate a parent name change through eligible descendants
• preview household forms before and after a dated event

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Reconcile names learned in separate households. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• half-sibling-surname-logic
• alias-obituary-clue
• campaign-lore-naming-conflict

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Reconcile names learned in separate households

• Explain the specific decision: Reconcile names learned in separate households
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Lost sibling reunion names
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Reconcile names learned in separate households
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/lost-sibling-reunion-names/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/lost-sibling-reunion-names/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• relationship graph: establish actual kinship
• household timeline: distinguish cohabitation from descent
• inheritance policy: constrain shared components

Rules

• derive inherited fields from directed relationships
• record explicit exceptions rather than infer parentage from spelling

Structured outputs

• person keyed name table
• inheritance path and exceptions
• relative confusion warnings

Two capability proposals

• propagate a parent name change through eligible descendants
• preview household forms before and after a dated event

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Explain alternate spellings without silently merging characters. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• multigenerational-family-names
• game-name-import-validation
• historical-name-source-contradiction

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Explain alternate spellings without silently merging characters

• Explain the specific decision: Explain alternate spellings without silently merging characters
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Family records mismatch
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Explain alternate spellings without silently merging characters
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/family-records-mismatch/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/family-records-mismatch/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• relationship graph: establish actual kinship
• household timeline: distinguish cohabitation from descent
• inheritance policy: constrain shared components

Rules

• derive inherited fields from directed relationships
• record explicit exceptions rather than infer parentage from spelling

Structured outputs

• person keyed name table
• inheritance path and exceptions
• relative confusion warnings

Two capability proposals

• propagate a parent name change through eligible descendants
• preview household forms before and after a dated event

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Reconcile two invented inheritance policies. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• campaign-lore-naming-conflict
• culture-naming-contrast
• institution-merged-identity-systems

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Reconcile two invented inheritance policies

• Explain the specific decision: Reconcile two invented inheritance policies
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Intermarried fictional houses
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Reconcile two invented inheritance policies
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/intermarried-fictional-houses/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/intermarried-fictional-houses/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• relationship graph: establish actual kinship
• household timeline: distinguish cohabitation from descent
• inheritance policy: constrain shared components

Rules

• derive inherited fields from directed relationships
• record explicit exceptions rather than infer parentage from spelling

Structured outputs

• person keyed name table
• inheritance path and exceptions
• relative confusion warnings

Two capability proposals

• propagate a parent name change through eligible descendants
• preview household forms before and after a dated event

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Apply an invented ban while showing exceptions and their costs. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• family-generation-marker
• character-rejects-family-name
• character-returns-to-family-name

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Apply an invented ban while showing exceptions and their costs

• Explain the specific decision: Apply an invented ban while showing exceptions and their costs
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Family taboo name rule
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Apply an invented ban while showing exceptions and their costs
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/family-taboo-name-rule/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/family-taboo-name-rule/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• relationship graph: establish actual kinship
• household timeline: distinguish cohabitation from descent
• inheritance policy: constrain shared components

Rules

• derive inherited fields from directed relationships
• record explicit exceptions rather than infer parentage from spelling

Structured outputs

• person keyed name table
• inheritance path and exceptions
• relative confusion warnings

Two capability proposals

• propagate a parent name change through eligible descendants
• preview household forms before and after a dated event

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Track whom a child is named for and who knows the connection. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• character-rejects-family-name
• character-returns-to-family-name
• family-name-planner

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Track whom a child is named for and who knows the connection

• Explain the specific decision: Track whom a child is named for and who knows the connection
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Family memorial naming
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Track whom a child is named for and who knows the connection
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/family-memorial-naming/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/family-memorial-naming/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• relationship graph: establish actual kinship
• household timeline: distinguish cohabitation from descent
• inheritance policy: constrain shared components

Rules

• derive inherited fields from directed relationships
• record explicit exceptions rather than infer parentage from spelling

Structured outputs

• person keyed name table
• inheritance path and exceptions
• relative confusion warnings

Two capability proposals

• propagate a parent name change through eligible descendants
• preview household forms before and after a dated event

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Model succession choices when a fictional line has no designated heir. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• generation-ship-family-names
• invented-surname-inheritance
• nonhuman-family-transmission

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Model succession choices when a fictional line has no designated heir

• Explain the specific decision: Model succession choices when a fictional line has no designated heir
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Family surname extinction
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Model succession choices when a fictional line has no designated heir
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/family-surname-extinction/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/family-surname-extinction/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• relationship graph: establish actual kinship
• household timeline: distinguish cohabitation from descent
• inheritance policy: constrain shared components

Rules

• derive inherited fields from directed relationships
• record explicit exceptions rather than infer parentage from spelling

Structured outputs

• person keyed name table
• inheritance path and exceptions
• relative confusion warnings

Two capability proposals

• propagate a parent name change through eligible descendants
• preview household forms before and after a dated event

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Audit narrator and character labels without endorsing discriminatory categories. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• cast-role-label-transition
• dialogue-label-name-policy
• prison-colony-imposed-labels

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Audit narrator and character labels without endorsing discriminatory categories

• Explain the specific decision: Audit narrator and character labels without endorsing discriminatory categories
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Illegitimacy label critique
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Audit narrator and character labels without endorsing discriminatory categories
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/illegitimacy-label-critique/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/illegitimacy-label-critique/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• relationship graph: establish actual kinship
• household timeline: distinguish cohabitation from descent
• inheritance policy: constrain shared components

Rules

• derive inherited fields from directed relationships
• record explicit exceptions rather than infer parentage from spelling

Structured outputs

• person keyed name table
• inheritance path and exceptions
• relative confusion warnings

Two capability proposals

• propagate a parent name change through eligible descendants
• preview household forms before and after a dated event

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Design a revealing form of address with a scene knowledge ledger. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• found-family-address-system
• identical-twin-scene-labels
• reconciliation-name-return

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Design a revealing form of address with a scene knowledge ledger

• Explain the specific decision: Design a revealing form of address with a scene knowledge ledger
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Family secret address slip
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Design a revealing form of address with a scene knowledge ledger
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/family-secret-address-slip/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/family-secret-address-slip/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• relationship graph: establish actual kinship
• household timeline: distinguish cohabitation from descent
• inheritance policy: constrain shared components

Rules

• derive inherited fields from directed relationships
• record explicit exceptions rather than infer parentage from spelling

Structured outputs

• person keyed name table
• inheritance path and exceptions
• relative confusion warnings

Two capability proposals

• propagate a parent name change through eligible descendants
• preview household forms before and after a dated event

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Check earlier name references against the planned reveal. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• anonymous-narrator-reveal
• family-generational-confusion-audit
• time-traveler-cover-names

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Check earlier name references against the planned reveal

• Explain the specific decision: Check earlier name references against the planned reveal
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Family adoption reveal audit
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Check earlier name references against the planned reveal
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/family-adoption-reveal-audit/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/family-adoption-reveal-audit/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• relationship graph: establish actual kinship
• household timeline: distinguish cohabitation from descent
• inheritance policy: constrain shared components

Rules

• derive inherited fields from directed relationships
• record explicit exceptions rather than infer parentage from spelling

Structured outputs

• person keyed name table
• inheritance path and exceptions
• relative confusion warnings

Two capability proposals

• propagate a parent name change through eligible descendants
• preview household forms before and after a dated event

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Export people, naming rules and exception decisions as one reference. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• setting-naming-bible
• diaspora-family-continuity
• npc-family-generation

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Export people, naming rules and exception decisions as one reference

• Explain the specific decision: Export people, naming rules and exception decisions as one reference
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Family naming bible
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Export people, naming rules and exception decisions as one reference
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/family-naming-bible/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/family-naming-bible/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• relationship graph: establish actual kinship
• household timeline: distinguish cohabitation from descent
• inheritance policy: constrain shared components

Rules

• derive inherited fields from directed relationships
• record explicit exceptions rather than infer parentage from spelling

Structured outputs

• person keyed name table
• inheritance path and exceptions
• relative confusion warnings

Two capability proposals

• propagate a parent name change through eligible descendants
• preview household forms before and after a dated event

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Detect repeated name references in dated scenes. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• family-adoption-reveal-audit
• name-arc-reverse-outline
• namesake-ancestor-chain

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Detect repeated name references in dated scenes

• Explain the specific decision: Detect repeated name references in dated scenes
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Family generational confusion audit
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Detect repeated name references in dated scenes
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/family-generational-confusion-audit/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/family-generational-confusion-audit/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• relationship graph: establish actual kinship
• household timeline: distinguish cohabitation from descent
• inheritance policy: constrain shared components

Rules

• derive inherited fields from directed relationships
• record explicit exceptions rather than infer parentage from spelling

Structured outputs

• person keyed name table
• inheritance path and exceptions
• relative confusion warnings

Two capability proposals

• propagate a parent name change through eligible descendants
• preview household forms before and after a dated event

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Negotiate a shared fictional surname across unrelated members. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• japanese-surname-address-map
• family-name-planner
• invented-collective-identity-names

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Negotiate a shared fictional surname across unrelated members

• Explain the specific decision: Negotiate a shared fictional surname across unrelated members
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Chosen household surname
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Negotiate a shared fictional surname across unrelated members
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/chosen-household-surname/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/chosen-household-surname/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• relationship graph: establish actual kinship
• household timeline: distinguish cohabitation from descent
• inheritance policy: constrain shared components

Rules

• derive inherited fields from directed relationships
• record explicit exceptions rather than infer parentage from spelling

Structured outputs

• person keyed name table
• inheritance path and exceptions
• relative confusion warnings

Two capability proposals

• propagate a parent name change through eligible descendants
• preview household forms before and after a dated event

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Preserve different names used by guardians in separate homes. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• household-servant-address
• grandparent-address-network
• child-adult-address-shift

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Preserve different names used by guardians in separate homes

• Explain the specific decision: Preserve different names used by guardians in separate homes
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Cross household child address
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Preserve different names used by guardians in separate homes
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/cross-household-child-address/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/cross-household-child-address/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• relationship graph: establish actual kinship
• household timeline: distinguish cohabitation from descent
• inheritance policy: constrain shared components

Rules

• derive inherited fields from directed relationships
• record explicit exceptions rather than infer parentage from spelling

Structured outputs

• person keyed name table
• inheritance path and exceptions
• relative confusion warnings

Two capability proposals

• propagate a parent name change through eligible descendants
• preview household forms before and after a dated event

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Document the story event that overrides the default surname rule. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• family-nickname-inheritance
• npc-inheritance-event-names
• naming-project-duplicate-exception

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Document the story event that overrides the default surname rule

• Explain the specific decision: Document the story event that overrides the default surname rule
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Family inheritance exception
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Document the story event that overrides the default surname rule
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/family-inheritance-exception/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/family-inheritance-exception/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• Stable IDs, full forms, dialogue short forms and explicitly confirmed readings.
• Weight pairs who appear together, rather than equally penalizing a distant cameo.
• Protect already published identities during repairs.
• Expose visual, spelling and confirmed-sound heuristic weights.

Rules

• Normalize comparison strings separately from original display.
• Compute spelling edit-distance ratio on grapheme clusters; do not call it perceptual certainty.
• Use pronunciation comparison only when both readings are confirmed; otherwise mark unavailable.
• Multiply pair risk by supplied cooccurrence and prominence weights.
• Offer repairs only for unlocked identities; retain intentional collisions with a reason.
• Compare initials separately from full names
• Compare dialogue short forms independently
• Never fabricate a reading for missing pronunciation
• Keep measured visual evidence separate from edit distance

Structured outputs

• pair IDs and compared forms
• component risk values and weight formula
• scene-specific risk order
• smallest proposed changes
• unmeasured sound and typography warnings
• Initial collision reasons
• Short-form pair risk
• Reading collision or unavailable
• Visual review item

Two capability proposals

• Rank conflicts by actual shared scenes.
• Simulate a single rename against every connected cast member before accepting it.

Why a separate page?

The task optimizes relationships between many established names rather than independently drawing plausible names.

implemented-task-scope; original-plan-and-limitations-retained · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• letters-versus-speech-address
• character-cue-name-system
• honor-name-pronunciation

Editorial brief · not a finished article

A name becomes confusing through its neighbors and scene use.

• Why a good individual name can fail in a cast
• Build the comparison from the names readers actually see
• A five-person harbor inquiry before and after one repair
• Read the heuristic formula and its blind spots
• Keep deliberate lookalikes without confusing everyone else

Fictional example synopsis: Fictional example: a harbor clerk hears two similar short names during a roll call and sends a repair order to the wrong boat. A revised scene uses a distinctive established surname for one worker while retaining both legal names.

The repair changes dialogue reference, not every identity. Compare with a full rename and explain why scene weighting makes the local repair sufficient.

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Increasing one scene edge weight raises that pair's risk with all strings held constant.
• A locked cast member is never renamed.
• Two different full names sharing a short form produce a short-form warning.
• Missing pronunciation never produces a fabricated phonetic score.
• Different names with identical initials are flagged
• Different full names with one shared nickname are flagged
• An absent reading yields unavailable, not zero risk
• Unmeasured font similarity remains unmeasured

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Executable task workflows and automated scenarios exist; autonomous checks proceed under the user’s authorization; no human signature is asserted.
• Original bilingual long-form manuscripts and AI-assisted story edits exist; autonomous editorial checks proceed; no independent human expert review is asserted.

English reserved path

/en/tools/ensemble-name-separation/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/ensemble-name-separation/

Evidence status

autonomous-content-and-behavior-checks-recorded; no human expert signature asserted

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Keep viewpoint names distinct in chapter transitions. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• military-unit-callsign-roster
• suspect-name-roster
• character-cue-name-system

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Keep viewpoint names distinct in chapter transitions

• Explain the specific decision: Keep viewpoint names distinct in chapter transitions
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Point of view roster
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Keep viewpoint names distinct in chapter transitions
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/point-of-view-roster/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/point-of-view-roster/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Prioritize collisions between characters who share scenes. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• name-in-confession-scene
• historical-address-scene-audit
• cast-confusion-severity-triage

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Prioritize collisions between characters who share scenes

• Explain the specific decision: Prioritize collisions between characters who share scenes
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Scene cooccurrence name audit
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Prioritize collisions between characters who share scenes
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/scene-cooccurrence-name-audit/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/scene-cooccurrence-name-audit/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Identify speakers using names without descriptive tags. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• audio-cast-recognition-test
• cast-delayed-recall-test
• cast-dialogue-address-permissions

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Identify speakers using names without descriptive tags

• Explain the specific decision: Identify speakers using names without descriptive tags
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Dialogue only cast test
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Identify speakers using names without descriptive tags
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/dialogue-only-cast-test/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/dialogue-only-cast-test/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• Stable ordered scenes, explicit new-identity/new-label budgets and allowed event types.
• Stable cast IDs and already-established identities at the start of the reviewed excerpt.
• Stable introduction events, identity/label form, earliest/latest scene, proposed scene and lock.
• Explicit prior events or identity-link prerequisites; no inferred reader knowledge.
• Audit the supplied placement or request a bounded alternative schedule.

Rules

• Count newly established identities separately from newly introduced forms of known identities.
• Treat budgets as author-selected editorial limits, not measured reader-memory capacity.
• Never move locked events or move an event outside its authored window.
• A missing identity/link prerequisite is a concrete unsatisfied dependency, not proof of reader confusion.
• Detect cycles and unknown references before search.
• Use bounded search; an exhausted bound is not proof that no valid schedule exists.
• Preserve original placement beside any proposed schedule for an explicit decision.

Structured outputs

• Per-scene new-identity/new-label inventory
• Dependency and over-budget diagnostics
• A proposed placement diff and locked-event proof
• Private scheduling handoff, without automatically rewriting a manuscript

Two capability proposals

• Separate five new labels from five newly encountered people.
• Find a valid alternative introduction order while preserving locked story beats, or show the specific unfilled constraints.

Why a separate page?

The main task is constrained placement of introduction events over narrative order. Similarity checking compares names already supplied, while an alias knowledge view checks what is known at one point; neither schedules a set of introductions under scene capacity and prerequisites.

implemented-task-scope; original-plan-and-limitations-retained · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• cast-introduction-comprehension
• vertical-comic-name-pacing
• identical-twin-scene-labels

Editorial brief · not a finished article

An introduction plan should track what the audience is asked to learn, while leaving story-event authority with the writer.

• The rehearsal with more labels than new people
• Define the excerpt’s starting knowledge
• Put an introduction inside a real scene window
• Compare an alternative without rewriting a protected reveal
• Read an editorial budget as a choice

Fictional example synopsis: A company prepares a public demonstration: several returning people use task labels, while a newcomer must be linked to a first action. The sequence is revised around a protected demonstration beat, not by renaming every participant.

Changing all labels does not move their exposure. A better schedule can reduce an authored burst while preserving a necessary reveal; actual reader comprehension still needs a separate observation.

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Changing a scene budget changes feasibility or the reported violations.
• A locked event never moves in the proposed schedule.
• A linked alias counts as a new label without inventing a new person.
• Cycles and missing prerequisite IDs fail explicitly.
• Search-limit and proven-infeasible states are distinct.
• No output claims a measured memory load or reader comprehension outcome.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Original bilingual long-form manuscripts and AI-assisted story edits exist; autonomous editorial checks proceed; no independent human expert review is asserted.
• Detailed contract is a design artifact, not executed behavior or independent-value approval.

English reserved path

/en/tools/large-cast-introduction-pacing/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/large-cast-introduction-pacing/

Evidence status

autonomous-content-and-behavior-checks-recorded; no human expert signature asserted

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Express opposition without making names indistinguishable. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• rival-respect-address-arc
• prophetic-name-restraint
• household-servant-address

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Express opposition without making names indistinguishable

• Explain the specific decision: Express opposition without making names indistinguishable
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Rival character name pairing
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Express opposition without making names indistinguishable
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/rival-character-name-pairing/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/rival-character-name-pairing/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Test paired references, initials and accidental rhyme. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• former-name-reference-policy
• anonymous-narrator-reveal
• rival-character-name-pairing

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Test paired references, initials and accidental rhyme

• Explain the specific decision: Test paired references, initials and accidental rhyme
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Romantic lead name pairing
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Test paired references, initials and accidental rhyme
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/romantic-lead-name-pairing/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/romantic-lead-name-pairing/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Distinguish three leads in rapidly alternating dialogue. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• rpg-companion-name-roster
• character-returns-to-family-name
• clan-branch-registry

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Distinguish three leads in rapidly alternating dialogue

• Explain the specific decision: Distinguish three leads in rapidly alternating dialogue
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Love triangle name clarity
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Distinguish three leads in rapidly alternating dialogue
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/love-triangle-name-clarity/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/love-triangle-name-clarity/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Control a deliberate echo without suggesting blood relation. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• character-stutter-name-policy
• found-family-address-system
• guild-apprentice-names

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Control a deliberate echo without suggesting blood relation

• Explain the specific decision: Control a deliberate echo without suggesting blood relation
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Mentor apprentice name echo
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Control a deliberate echo without suggesting blood relation
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/mentor-apprentice-name-echo/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/mentor-apprentice-name-echo/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Compare controlled parallels against conflicting traits. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• game-font-glyph-audit
• character-name-first-impression
• crowd-shouted-name-clarity

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Compare controlled parallels against conflicting traits

• Explain the specific decision: Compare controlled parallels against conflicting traits
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Foil character name balance
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Compare controlled parallels against conflicting traits
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/foil-character-name-balance/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/foil-character-name-balance/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Maintain intended likeness while preserving reader orientation. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• character-refuses-name-disclosure
• name-forgotten-by-everyone
• cold-open-unknown-speaker-names

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Maintain intended likeness while preserving reader orientation

• Explain the specific decision: Maintain intended likeness while preserving reader orientation
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Doppelganger cast labeling
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Maintain intended likeness while preserving reader orientation
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/doppelganger-cast-labeling/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/doppelganger-cast-labeling/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Track knowledge of identity across a mistaken identity scene. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• inherited-secret-name
• invented-diaspora-name-adaptation
• sentient-building-voice-name

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Track knowledge of identity across a mistaken identity scene

• Explain the specific decision: Track knowledge of identity across a mistaken identity scene
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Identical twin scene labels
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Track knowledge of identity across a mistaken identity scene
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/identical-twin-scene-labels/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/identical-twin-scene-labels/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Separate individual names, role labels and collective references. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• comic-title-versus-name-caption
• hive-member-identity
• npc-occupation-name-separation

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Separate individual names, role labels and collective references

• Explain the specific decision: Separate individual names, role labels and collective references
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Character team naming hierarchy
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Separate individual names, role labels and collective references
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/character-team-naming-hierarchy/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/character-team-naming-hierarchy/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Assign background and recurring names with classroom reference tests. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• comic-school-desk-labels
• campaign-faction-address-rules
• series-guest-character-names

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Assign background and recurring names with classroom reference tests

• Explain the specific decision: Assign background and recurring names with classroom reference tests
• Define the applicable contract and limits for School class roster design
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Assign background and recurring names with classroom reference tests
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/school-class-roster-design/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/school-class-roster-design/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Model surname, title and first name use by colleague relationship. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• japanese-surname-address-map
• character-name-consent-map
• court-ensemble-address-map

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Model surname, title and first name use by colleague relationship

• Explain the specific decision: Model surname, title and first name use by colleague relationship
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Workplace ensemble name map
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Model surname, title and first name use by colleague relationship
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/workplace-ensemble-name-map/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/workplace-ensemble-name-map/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Differentiate voice calls under noisy travel scenes. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• radio-call-name-differentiation
• party-list-name-disambiguation
• character-rejects-family-name

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Differentiate voice calls under noisy travel scenes

• Explain the specific decision: Differentiate voice calls under noisy travel scenes
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Expedition party names
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Differentiate voice calls under noisy travel scenes
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/expedition-party-names/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/expedition-party-names/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Align crew handles with public and private identities. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• character-identity-under-fame
• pen-name-identity-boundary
• nameless-rebellion-identity

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Align crew handles with public and private identities

• Explain the specific decision: Align crew handles with public and private identities
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Heist crew identity matrix
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Align crew handles with public and private identities
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/heist-crew-identity-matrix/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/heist-crew-identity-matrix/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Disambiguate personal names, offices and ranked titles. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• campaign-faction-address-rules
• localized-title-identity-map
• stepfamily-address-map

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Disambiguate personal names, offices and ranked titles

• Explain the specific decision: Disambiguate personal names, offices and ranked titles
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Court ensemble address map
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Disambiguate personal names, offices and ranked titles
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/court-ensemble-address-map/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/court-ensemble-address-map/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Avoid accidental leakage between cells in story dialogue. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• rebel-cell-codenames
• podcast-fiction-guest-names
• program-character-namespace

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Avoid accidental leakage between cells in story dialogue

• Explain the specific decision: Avoid accidental leakage between cells in story dialogue
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Rebel cell identity separation
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Avoid accidental leakage between cells in story dialogue
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/rebel-cell-identity-separation/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/rebel-cell-identity-separation/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Balance local patterns with individual distinction. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• village-surname-ecology
• npc-migration-between-towns
• ensemble-name-separation

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Balance local patterns with individual distinction

• Explain the specific decision: Balance local patterns with individual distinction
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Village ensemble name ecology
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Balance local patterns with individual distinction
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/village-ensemble-name-ecology/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/village-ensemble-name-ecology/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Match visible labels to residents and concealed occupants. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• comic-cast-silhouette-labels
• subtitle-romanization-continuity
• comic-script-cast-synchronization

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Match visible labels to residents and concealed occupants

• Explain the specific decision: Match visible labels to residents and concealed occupants
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Apartment cast door labels
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Match visible labels to residents and concealed occupants
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/apartment-cast-door-labels/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/apartment-cast-door-labels/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Prevent abbreviated names from colliding in bracket layouts. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• series-guest-character-names
• actor-character-credit-mapping
• campaign-cast-registry

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Prevent abbreviated names from colliding in bracket layouts

• Explain the specific decision: Prevent abbreviated names from colliding in bracket layouts
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Tournament bracket name clarity
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Prevent abbreviated names from colliding in bracket layouts
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/tournament-bracket-name-clarity/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/tournament-bracket-name-clarity/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Separate institutional labels from self and peer chosen names. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• artificial-intelligence-instance-names
• assigned-number-resistance
• character-rejects-imposed-title

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Separate institutional labels from self and peer chosen names

• Explain the specific decision: Separate institutional labels from self and peer chosen names
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Prison ensemble naming
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Separate institutional labels from self and peer chosen names
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/prison-ensemble-naming/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/prison-ensemble-naming/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Distinguish staff roles, surnames and patient address. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• traveling-caravan-member-references
• team-callsign-dialogue
• character-returns-to-family-name

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Distinguish staff roles, surnames and patient address

• Explain the specific decision: Distinguish staff roles, surnames and patient address
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Hospital drama staff references
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Distinguish staff roles, surnames and patient address
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/hospital-drama-staff-references/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/hospital-drama-staff-references/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Test names under watch rotations and role changes. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• name-arc-emotional-continuity
• sentient-ship-character-name
• manga-balloon-name-recognition

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Test names under watch rotations and role changes

• Explain the specific decision: Test names under watch rotations and role changes
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Ship crew watch names
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Test names under watch rotations and role changes
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/ship-crew-watch-names/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/ship-crew-watch-names/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Coordinate kinship cues and rival identities across scenes. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• nameless-rebellion-identity
• character-cue-name-system
• comic-school-desk-labels

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Coordinate kinship cues and rival identities across scenes

• Explain the specific decision: Coordinate kinship cues and rival identities across scenes
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Sibling rival ensemble
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Coordinate kinship cues and rival identities across scenes
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/sibling-rival-ensemble/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/sibling-rival-ensemble/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Distinguish contemporaries, ancestors and repeated identities. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• priesthood-succession-names
• multi-calendar-name-timeline
• player-facing-cast-handout

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Distinguish contemporaries, ancestors and repeated identities

• Explain the specific decision: Distinguish contemporaries, ancestors and repeated identities
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Multi timeline cast names
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Distinguish contemporaries, ancestors and repeated identities
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/multi-timeline-cast-names/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/multi-timeline-cast-names/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Link counterparts while preserving world specific forms. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• parallel-universe-true-name
• doppelganger-cast-labeling
• npc-migration-between-towns

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Link counterparts while preserving world specific forms

• Explain the specific decision: Link counterparts while preserving world specific forms
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Parallel world cast correspondence
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Link counterparts while preserving world specific forms
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/parallel-world-cast-correspondence/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/parallel-world-cast-correspondence/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Track identity continuity without revealing it in public references. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• immortal-order-alias-archive
• mystery-reveal-name-recap
• secret-title-inheritance

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Track identity continuity without revealing it in public references

• Explain the specific decision: Track identity continuity without revealing it in public references
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Reincarnation cast mapping
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Track identity continuity without revealing it in public references
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/reincarnation-cast-mapping/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/reincarnation-cast-mapping/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Detect accidental reuse across otherwise independent stories. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• campaign-cast-registry
• cast-naming-change-impact
• recurring-villain-title-chain

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Detect accidental reuse across otherwise independent stories

• Explain the specific decision: Detect accidental reuse across otherwise independent stories
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Anthology recurring cast names
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Detect accidental reuse across otherwise independent stories
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/anthology-recurring-cast-names/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/anthology-recurring-cast-names/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Prevent conflict with archived recurring characters. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• series-retired-name-blacklist
• series-character-registry
• podcast-fiction-guest-names

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Prevent conflict with archived recurring characters

• Explain the specific decision: Prevent conflict with archived recurring characters
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Series guest character names
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Prevent conflict with archived recurring characters
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/series-guest-character-names/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/series-guest-character-names/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Replace temporary draft labels without losing scene references. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• illegitimacy-label-critique
• manuscript-draft-label-cleanup
• reincarnation-cast-mapping

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Replace temporary draft labels without losing scene references

• Explain the specific decision: Replace temporary draft labels without losing scene references
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Cast role label transition
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Replace temporary draft labels without losing scene references
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/cast-role-label-transition/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/cast-role-label-transition/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Decide which background figures need a name at all. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• character-name-ambiguity-budget
• comic-background-name-density
• map-npc-label-priority

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Decide which background figures need a name at all

• Explain the specific decision: Decide which background figures need a name at all
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Anonymous crowd reference plan
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Decide which background figures need a name at all
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/anonymous-crowd-reference-plan/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/anonymous-crowd-reference-plan/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Combine scene proximity with similarity for targeted review. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• cousin-reunion-cast-names
• japanese-cast-kanji-resemblance
• cast-introduction-comprehension

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Combine scene proximity with similarity for targeted review

• Explain the specific decision: Combine scene proximity with similarity for targeted review
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Cast name relationship heatmap
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Combine scene proximity with similarity for targeted review
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/cast-name-relationship-heatmap/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/cast-name-relationship-heatmap/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Generate recall tasks after staged introductions. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• cast-delayed-recall-test
• character-name-beta-reader-test
• cast-departure-return-names

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Generate recall tasks after staged introductions

• Explain the specific decision: Generate recall tasks after staged introductions
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Cast onboarding reader test
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Generate recall tasks after staged introductions
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/cast-onboarding-reader-test/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/cast-onboarding-reader-test/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Reintroduce a returning character after a long narrative absence. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• comic-episodic-name-reintroduction
• cast-introduction-comprehension
• cast-onboarding-reader-test

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Reintroduce a returning character after a long narrative absence

• Explain the specific decision: Reintroduce a returning character after a long narrative absence
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Cast departure return names
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Reintroduce a returning character after a long narrative absence
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/cast-departure-return-names/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/cast-departure-return-names/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Keep allegiance changes from creating duplicate identities. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• npc-hostile-friendly-identity
• comic-school-uniform-name-patch
• nameless-rebellion-identity

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Keep allegiance changes from creating duplicate identities

• Explain the specific decision: Keep allegiance changes from creating duplicate identities
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Faction crossing character names
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Keep allegiance changes from creating duplicate identities
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/faction-crossing-character-names/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/faction-crossing-character-names/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Map permitted address forms across all speaker pairs. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• address-relationship-graph
• household-servant-address
• border-town-name-register

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Map permitted address forms across all speaker pairs

• Explain the specific decision: Map permitted address forms across all speaker pairs
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Cast dialogue address permissions
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Map permitted address forms across all speaker pairs
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/cast-dialogue-address-permissions/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/cast-dialogue-address-permissions/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Compare reader knowledge by chapter against glossary entries. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• comic-chapter-title-name-spoiler
• localized-spoiler-safe-glossary
• character-list-spoiler-test

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Compare reader knowledge by chapter against glossary entries

• Explain the specific decision: Compare reader knowledge by chapter against glossary entries
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Cast glossary spoiler audit
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Compare reader knowledge by chapter against glossary entries
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/cast-glossary-spoiler-audit/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/cast-glossary-spoiler-audit/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Allocate memorable naming signals to narratively important roles. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• school-club-cast-names
• one-shot-cast-memory-budget
• character-name-ambiguity-budget

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Allocate memorable naming signals to narratively important roles

• Explain the specific decision: Allocate memorable naming signals to narratively important roles
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Cast name budget
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Allocate memorable naming signals to narratively important roles
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/cast-name-budget/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/cast-name-budget/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• cast with stable IDs: keep people distinct
• scene cooccurrence: weight relevant collisions
• approved pronunciations: avoid guessed sound

Rules

• compare actual short forms as well as full names
• weight similarity by scene proximity and narrative importance

Structured outputs

• pairwise collision table
• minimal revision options
• reader test scene packet

Two capability proposals

• freeze accepted names while repairing nearby collisions
• compare both visual and approved spoken forms

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Trace a proposed rename across relationships and scenes. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• manuscript-rename-impact-map
• localized-name-change-impact
• rural-urban-name-adaptation

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Trace a proposed rename across relationships and scenes

• Explain the specific decision: Trace a proposed rename across relationships and scenes
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Cast naming change impact
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Trace a proposed rename across relationships and scenes
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/cast-naming-change-impact/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/cast-naming-change-impact/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• Anchor a hidden identity without automatically exposing it.
• Constrain the public persona's invented biography.
• Choose authored links such as initials, retained morpheme or no visible overlap.
• Declare observer and chapter knowledge flags.

Rules

• Store identities under one stable person ID.
• Generate only links explicitly allowed by bridgeRules.
• Evaluate clue visibility per observer and scene.
• A resemblance is a creative clue, never documentary proof of identity.
• No public export includes hidden forms without an explicit knowledge scope.
• Resolve true identity only at or after permitted reveal
• Evaluate each identity layer against observer state

Structured outputs

• true and public form with visibility flags
• authored linkage explanation
• clue placement timeline
• observer knowledge violations
• alternative less revealing bridges
• Observer-safe display form
• Visible layers and withheld count

Two capability proposals

• View the identity sheet as one character at one chapter.
• Adjust link strength while preserving the established cover name component.

Why a separate page?

The output is a controlled relationship between identity layers and a reveal ledger, rather than one standalone name.

implemented-task-scope; original-plan-and-limitations-retained · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• parallel-universe-true-name
• japanese-name-mistaken-reading-plot
• alias-reveal-scene-exercise

Editorial brief · not a finished article

A fair alias connection controls information rather than guaranteeing a surprise.

• Decide who must be fooled
• Build a cover biography before tuning the clue
• Compare three bridges with different costs
• A borrowed signature at a public auction
• Audit earlier scenes after changing the reveal

Fictional example synopsis: Fictional example: an auction restorer signs with the workshop name she inherited. A former apprentice recognizes a private abbreviation, while strangers see an ordinary credit. She later chooses to disclose the personal name behind it.

The clue depends on a taught abbreviation and relationship knowledge. Replacing it with a conspicuous anagram would change who can solve the identity and when.

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• A chapter-one export omits a true name revealed in chapter six.
• Disabling all visible bridges produces no shared-morpheme explanation.
• A locked cover surname persists across rerolls.
• A clue requiring unknown language knowledge is flagged for review.
• Chapter before reveal omits hidden true name
• One observer knowing an alias does not grant every observer access

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Executable task workflows and automated scenarios exist; autonomous checks proceed under the user’s authorization; no human signature is asserted.
• Original bilingual long-form manuscripts and AI-assisted story edits exist; autonomous editorial checks proceed; no independent human expert review is asserted.

English reserved path

/en/tools/true-name-alias-bridge/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/true-name-alias-bridge/

Evidence status

autonomous-content-and-behavior-checks-recorded; no human expert signature asserted

Inputs · proposed contract

• stable identity ID: link name layers
• scene knowledge states: prevent premature disclosure
• reveal timeline: gate public forms

Rules

• render only identities available to the selected observer
• separate writer known truth from character belief

Structured outputs

• public and private identity layers
• knowledge violation warnings
• before and after reveal references

Two capability proposals

• simulate one observer at one scene boundary
• audit earlier clues after a reveal revision

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Keep an alias consistent with a fictional biography and document set. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• android-cover-identity
• pen-name-identity-boundary
• time-traveler-cover-names

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Keep an alias consistent with a fictional biography and document set

• Explain the specific decision: Keep an alias consistent with a fictional biography and document set
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Cover identity dossier
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Keep an alias consistent with a fictional biography and document set
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/cover-identity-dossier/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/cover-identity-dossier/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• stable identity ID: link name layers
• scene knowledge states: prevent premature disclosure
• reveal timeline: gate public forms

Rules

• render only identities available to the selected observer
• separate writer known truth from character belief

Structured outputs

• public and private identity layers
• knowledge violation warnings
• before and after reveal references

Two capability proposals

• simulate one observer at one scene boundary
• audit earlier clues after a reveal revision

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Choose a name that fits what an observer can plausibly know. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• character-introduction-rewrite
• comic-name-gloss-placement
• name-recognition-trigger

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Choose a name that fits what an observer can plausibly know

• Explain the specific decision: Choose a name that fits what an observer can plausibly know
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Disguise introduction name
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Choose a name that fits what an observer can plausibly know
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/disguise-introduction-name/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/disguise-introduction-name/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• stable identity ID: link name layers
• scene knowledge states: prevent premature disclosure
• reveal timeline: gate public forms

Rules

• render only identities available to the selected observer
• separate writer known truth from character belief

Structured outputs

• public and private identity layers
• knowledge violation warnings
• before and after reveal references

Two capability proposals

• simulate one observer at one scene boundary
• audit earlier clues after a reveal revision

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Separate the impersonator, original holder and audience knowledge. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• stolen-family-name-motive
• historical-obsolete-glyph-handling
• identical-twin-scene-labels

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Separate the impersonator, original holder and audience knowledge

• Explain the specific decision: Separate the impersonator, original holder and audience knowledge
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Impostor stolen name
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Separate the impersonator, original holder and audience knowledge
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/impostor-stolen-name/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/impostor-stolen-name/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• stable identity ID: link name layers
• scene knowledge states: prevent premature disclosure
• reveal timeline: gate public forms

Rules

• render only identities available to the selected observer
• separate writer known truth from character belief

Structured outputs

• public and private identity layers
• knowledge violation warnings
• before and after reveal references

Two capability proposals

• simulate one observer at one scene boundary
• audit earlier clues after a reveal revision

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Transition from assigned label to recovered or chosen identity. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• playable-character-preset-names
• religious-office-name
• character-name-after-rescue

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Transition from assigned label to recovered or chosen identity

• Explain the specific decision: Transition from assigned label to recovered or chosen identity
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Amnesiac placeholder name
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Transition from assigned label to recovered or chosen identity
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/amnesiac-placeholder-name/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/amnesiac-placeholder-name/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• stable identity ID: link name layers
• scene knowledge states: prevent premature disclosure
• reveal timeline: gate public forms

Rules

• render only identities available to the selected observer
• separate writer known truth from character belief

Structured outputs

• public and private identity layers
• knowledge violation warnings
• before and after reveal references

Two capability proposals

• simulate one observer at one scene boundary
• audit earlier clues after a reveal revision

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Design fictional continuity without offering real evasion procedures. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• assassin-order-fictional-identities
• collaborative-fiction-name-proposal
• post-collapse-record-loss

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Design fictional continuity without offering real evasion procedures

• Explain the specific decision: Design fictional continuity without offering real evasion procedures
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Witness protection fiction names
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Design fictional continuity without offering real evasion procedures
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/witness-protection-fiction-names/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/witness-protection-fiction-names/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• stable identity ID: link name layers
• scene knowledge states: prevent premature disclosure
• reveal timeline: gate public forms

Rules

• render only identities available to the selected observer
• separate writer known truth from character belief

Structured outputs

• public and private identity layers
• knowledge violation warnings
• before and after reveal references

Two capability proposals

• simulate one observer at one scene boundary
• audit earlier clues after a reveal revision

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Keep intimate speech from contradicting a cover identity. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• address-relationship-graph
• comic-fake-document-name
• npc-relationship-address-lookup

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Keep intimate speech from contradicting a cover identity

• Explain the specific decision: Keep intimate speech from contradicting a cover identity
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Undercover relationship address
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Keep intimate speech from contradicting a cover identity
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/undercover-relationship-address/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/undercover-relationship-address/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• stable identity ID: link name layers
• scene knowledge states: prevent premature disclosure
• reveal timeline: gate public forms

Rules

• render only identities available to the selected observer
• separate writer known truth from character belief

Structured outputs

• public and private identity layers
• knowledge violation warnings
• before and after reveal references

Two capability proposals

• simulate one observer at one scene boundary
• audit earlier clues after a reveal revision

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Separate public moniker, civilian name and witness descriptions. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• character-identity-under-fame
• returning-emigrant-identity
• character-outgrows-stage-identity

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Separate public moniker, civilian name and witness descriptions

• Explain the specific decision: Separate public moniker, civilian name and witness descriptions
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Vigilante civilian identity
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Separate public moniker, civilian name and witness descriptions
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/vigilante-civilian-identity/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/vigilante-civilian-identity/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• stable identity ID: link name layers
• scene knowledge states: prevent premature disclosure
• reveal timeline: gate public forms

Rules

• render only identities available to the selected observer
• separate writer known truth from character belief

Structured outputs

• public and private identity layers
• knowledge violation warnings
• before and after reveal references

Two capability proposals

• simulate one observer at one scene boundary
• audit earlier clues after a reveal revision

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Coordinate clues, epithets and restricted narrator knowledge. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• name-based-reveal-fairness
• split-timeline-identity-map
• manuscript-rename-impact-map

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Coordinate clues, epithets and restricted narrator knowledge

• Explain the specific decision: Coordinate clues, epithets and restricted narrator knowledge
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Masked antagonist reference map
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Coordinate clues, epithets and restricted narrator knowledge
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/masked-antagonist-reference-map/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/masked-antagonist-reference-map/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• stable identity ID: link name layers
• scene knowledge states: prevent premature disclosure
• reveal timeline: gate public forms

Rules

• render only identities available to the selected observer
• separate writer known truth from character belief

Structured outputs

• public and private identity layers
• knowledge violation warnings
• before and after reveal references

Two capability proposals

• simulate one observer at one scene boundary
• audit earlier clues after a reveal revision

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Manage birth title, assumed name and recognition triggers. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• gm-secret-identity-sheet
• inherited-mantle-identity
• deity-mortal-avatar-identity

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Manage birth title, assumed name and recognition triggers

• Explain the specific decision: Manage birth title, assumed name and recognition triggers
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Secret royal identity
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Manage birth title, assumed name and recognition triggers
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/secret-royal-identity/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/secret-royal-identity/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• stable identity ID: link name layers
• scene knowledge states: prevent premature disclosure
• reveal timeline: gate public forms

Rules

• render only identities available to the selected observer
• separate writer known truth from character belief

Structured outputs

• public and private identity layers
• knowledge violation warnings
• before and after reveal references

Two capability proposals

• simulate one observer at one scene boundary
• audit earlier clues after a reveal revision

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Track titles claimed, rejected and recognized by different factions. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• localized-title-identity-map
• name-data-identity-ambiguity
• reincarnated-identity-names

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Track titles claimed, rejected and recognized by different factions

• Explain the specific decision: Track titles claimed, rejected and recognized by different factions
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Exiled ruler identity
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Track titles claimed, rejected and recognized by different factions
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.

Open issues

• No independent demand or search-volume evidence; research hypothesis only.
• Inputs, rules and capabilities inherit a category draft; task-specific algorithm, data and fixtures still need design.
• No completed original long-form article, story edit, or named human editorial signoff.

English reserved path

/en/tools/exiled-ruler-identity/

Japanese reserved path

/ja/tools/exiled-ruler-identity/

Evidence status

planned-not-written-or-reviewed

Inputs · proposed contract

• stable identity ID: link name layers
• scene knowledge states: prevent premature disclosure
• reveal timeline: gate public forms

Rules

• render only identities available to the selected observer
• separate writer known truth from character belief

Structured outputs

• public and private identity layers
• knowledge violation warnings
• before and after reveal references

Two capability proposals

• simulate one observer at one scene boundary
• audit earlier clues after a reveal revision

Why a separate page?

Hypothesis: Link past and present names with controlled narrative evidence. This scenario alone does not prove a separate main task.

category-proposal-not-demonstrated · Not approved

Closest tasks to review

• false-confession-identity
• reincarnation-recognition-clue
• name-based-identity-growth-outline

Editorial brief · not a finished article

Link past and present names with controlled narrative evidence

• Explain the specific decision: Link past and present names with controlled narrative evidence
• Define the applicable contract and limits for Reincarnated identity names
• Build a complete original worked example for this task
• Show failed input, correction and downstream story consequences

Acceptance to be demonstrated

• Provide input/output fixtures that demonstrate: Link past and present names with controlled narrative evidence
• Vary a meaningful task input while holding seed and corpus fixed; explain the changed result.
• Demonstrate two task-specific capabilities beyond the category defaults.
• Compare with nearest candidates and disposition same-task overlaps before implementation.