📊 工廠狀態更新(截至 2026-04-11)

這 5 個 Wave 1 交付物是在 HSW-006 Phase 4 trial 時期產出, 當時 factory 還在 OGSM v4(人類迭代時代)

此後,factory 已迭代至 OGSM v5(AI factory 時代), 並透過 Batch 1–4 在真實生產輸入上驗證了 19 個 agent 中的 16 個。 若今天重跑 Wave 1,將使用已完善的 v5 agents,包含付費牆繞過方案、 substrate gap protocol、reviewer-override layer,以及 REST API /ai-fallback (不再有 Gemini hang 問題)。

進度 Wave 1:5/5 完成
Wave 1:完成 Wave 2 待派遣 — 8 位審查員
1,147
交付物總行數(5 個 agent)
3
已標記的部落格候選(Phase 3 佇列)
5
發現的摩擦點(Gemini、付費牆、時序)
5
派遣的 Agent(Pilot + 4 parallel)
🔍 調查員 A(案例 & 數據) 119 lines 4 real cases Sources verified Gemini search log included

載入交付物中...

🔎 調查員 B(法規 & 費用) 185 lines 7 code citations 20-year TCO table All M checks pass

載入交付物中...

✍️ 寫手 A(前半:理論 & 機械原理) 334 lines Slides S1–S12 Theory & Mechanism

載入交付物中...

✍️ 寫手 B(後半:情境辨識 & Spec 資源導航) 256 lines Slides S13–S24 5 scenarios 4 spec resources

載入交付物中...

🎨 互動設計師 253 lines 5 interactions 4 emotional transitions All M checks pass

載入交付物中...

📄 部落格候選佇列 — Phase 3 Pipeline
類型分布
regulatory-explainer: 1 case-study: 0 product-comparison: 0 statistical-insight: 0 cost-comparison: 0 code-conflict: 1 scenario-guide: 1 reader-interest: 0

Alerts: None — queue has 3 entries across 3 types, still well-distributed.

Candidate #1 — id: 1
The 14-Day Clock: What NYC's Post-Twin-Parks Self-Closing Door Law Means For Your Next Multifamily Spec
regulatory-explainer source: investigator-a flagged: 2026-04-10
NYC's post-Twin-Parks Local Law creates a direct line from the Project Architect's closer spec decision to the owner's post-occupancy fine exposure. 22,300 violations issued in a single 4-month window (Jul–Oct 2023), ~30,000 still open as of late 2023. Boston, Philadelphia, and Newark have begun referencing the NYC framework. Architects specifying multifamily work need a peer-to-peer explainer anchored to Twin Parks + 14-day/$250-per-day mechanics + actionable spec language. High emotional hook, clear regulatory framework, 4–5 actionable spec clauses.
Candidate #2 — id: 2
Beyond The Big Three: A Project Architect's Field Guide To Independent Door Hardware Spec Resources
scenario-guide source: writer-b flagged: 2026-04-10
Most project architects never learn about BSD SpecLink, Deltek MasterSpec, SCIP, or CSI chapter networking. A neutral peer-to-peer guide naming all 4 independent resource paths fills a genuine information gap. Low competitor coverage — this topic is orthogonal to the Big 3's commercial interests. Reinforces Waterson's posture as a resource-provider brand rather than a vendor funnel.
Candidate #3 — id: 3
The NFPA 80 Section 6.4.1.4 vs Annex A 30-Degree Inconsistency
code-conflict source: investigator-b flagged: 2026-04-10
The NFPA 80 6.4.1.4 "positive latching on each door operation" requirement versus Annex A's 30-degree opening position recommendation for spring hinge adjustment is an unresolved inconsistency affecting every fire-door inspection involving a spring-hinge install. Lori Greene (Allegion) has publicly flagged this as deserving a code change proposal. A Waterson-branded explainer walking through the inspection criterion (5.2.3.5.2), the adjustment rule (6.4.1.4), and the Annex A divergence lands on why combined spring+hydraulic hinges are a defensible spec choice for architects who want to avoid the 30-degree trap entirely. New type for the queue: code-conflict.
1. Gemini Flash 配額 429 — 3 個 agent 同時中招 gemini-2.5-flash 靜默路由到 gemini-3-flash-preview,preview 配額非常緊。3 個 agent(Investigator A、Investigator B、Writer B)都遇到 HTTP 429。Investigator A 和 B 回退到 gemini-2.5-flash-lite;Writer B 改用 WebSearch。建議:重寫 Wave 2 briefing,接受「任何 Gemini model 或 WebSearch」,把完整 gemini-2.5-flash 列為加分項。
2. ICC/NFPA 付費牆 — Investigator B 只能做 pattern-verified,非 paywall-verified WebFetch 對 codes.iccsafe.org 只回傳 GTM shell,內容在 ICC Digital Codes Premium 付費牆後。NFPA LiNK 同樣付費牆。Investigator B 的 7 條法規引用全部透過獨立評論(idighardware.com、UpCodes、FIT.edu)pattern-verified,必要處標記 [Paraphrase — verify verbatim]。Wave 2 應取得 ICC + NFPA 訂閱,或正式認可 pattern-verified 引用標準。
3. Writer B 沒讀到 Investigator B 的交付物 — 並行派遣的依賴時序問題 Investigator B 的交付物在 Writer B 起草時尚未存入 HSW-006-working/。Writer B 的 Slide 15 循環次數計算和 Slide 17 K-tag 引用依賴一般業界知識,而非 Investigator B 的驗證研究表格。建議:在 Reviewer wave 開始前,把 Investigator B 的引用資料傳回給 Writer B 做 5 分鐘整合。
4. 01-outline.md 是空檔 — scaffold 建的檔案實際 workflow 沒用到 共用大綱檔(01-outline.md)在 Wave 1 開始時只有 1 行(空白)。Writer A 透過推斷 briefing 自行規劃前半範圍。Writer B 和 Writer A 都假設 12/12 投影片分配,但沒有確認對齊。建議:Commander 在 Wave 2 review agent 派遣前先寫好正式的 01-outline.md。
5. Writer A 前半提到品牌名(LCN/Norton/Dorma/Sargent),中立性存疑 Writer A 的 Slide 7 列出 LCN 4040XP、Norton 8500、Dorma 8916、Sargent 351 作為獨立閥門門弓器的範例。這些不是 Waterson 產品。技術上屬中立(這是教育課程,非銷售簡報),但在 AIA CES 提交時可能造成隱性競品背書。Reviewer wave 應決定:從 Slide 7 移除品牌名,或在同一清單加入 Waterson 對應產品。
下一個決策點
檢視這些交付物後決定下一步:
選項 A — 繼續派遣 Wave 2:並行派遣 8 位審查員(Technical Reviewer、Code Reviewer、ADA Reviewer、Neutrality Reviewer、Accessibility Reviewer、Pacing Reviewer、Post-Test Designer、Slide Architect)。預估掛鐘時間:25–35 分鐘。

選項 B — 先停住,修補 Wave 1 架構漏洞:先處理 3 個高優先缺口 —(1)Writer B + Investigator B 整合補漏,(2)01-outline.md scaffold,(3)Slide 7 品牌名中立性決策 — 再以更穩固的基礎派遣 Wave 2。