# Self Assessment — 2026-03-15 10:01 UTC

Overall score: 0.17

```json
{
  "dimensions": [
    {
      "dimension": "reflection_quality",
      "score": 0.1,
      "evidence": "157 observations were created this week (first week of operation), but retrieved_count=0 and influenced_count=0. The observation creation pipeline is operational, but the retrieval and influence loop has not activated. This may be a system-startup artifact \u2014 observations can only be retrieved in future reflection cycles \u2014 but 0 retrieval with 157 stored is a concrete gap. No evidence yet that any observation has shaped a decision.",
      "data_available": true
    },
    {
      "dimension": "procedure_effectiveness",
      "score": 0.0,
      "evidence": "Insufficient data. 0 active procedures, 0 avg success rate, no low-performers flagged. Despite 157 observations available for extraction, the procedure learning pipeline has not extracted a single procedure. Cannot evaluate effectiveness when no procedures exist. Root cause is unknown \u2014 extraction may not have been triggered, or the threshold may not have been met.",
      "data_available": false
    },
    {
      "dimension": "outreach_calibration",
      "score": 0.0,
      "evidence": "Insufficient data. No outreach messages have been sent. Phase 8 (Basic Outreach) infrastructure was just completed; no engagement vs. ignored ratio, no prediction errors, no calibration signal of any kind. This is expected for early V3 deployment.",
      "data_available": false
    },
    {
      "dimension": "learning_velocity",
      "score": 0.45,
      "evidence": "157 observations created this week vs. 0 last week \u2014 strong bootstrap for week 1. However, the trend cannot be meaningfully characterized ('accelerating' requires at least two non-zero periods). No procedures were extracted from 157 observations, which is a significant gap \u2014 velocity of *creation* is decent but velocity of *consolidation into reusable knowledge* is zero. Source concentration also limits quality: 141/157 observations (89.8%) share a single topic tag.",
      "data_available": true
    },
    {
      "dimension": "resource_efficiency",
      "score": 0.2,
      "evidence": "Surplus staging: 0 promoted, 6 discarded, 4 pending. Promotion rate = 0% (0 of 6 reviewed items promoted). The system is reviewing surplus and culling (6 discards indicates the pipeline is running), but nothing is being elevated to active use. No cost budget utilization data was provided, so compute spend efficiency cannot be assessed. 4 items stuck in pending is a secondary concern.",
      "data_available": true
    },
    {
      "dimension": "blind_spots",
      "score": 0.15,
      "evidence": "Severe topic concentration: 141 of 157 observations (89.8%) are tagged 'cc_memory_file'. Only 5 topic categories are represented total. Zero observations are tagged with drive-aligned categories (preservation, curiosity, cooperation, competence) \u2014 the four core drives have no dedicated observation coverage. The awareness_tick category has 1 entry despite being the primary signal source. This distribution strongly suggests a tagging or classification problem, not just recency bias.",
      "data_available": true
    }
  ],
  "overall_score": 0.17,
  "observations": [
    "This is week 1 of real operation \u2014 most zeros are startup artifacts, not failures, but they still require active investigation rather than passive waiting.",
    "Observation creation is working (157 total), but the retrieval-influence loop is completely dark: retrieved_count=0, influenced_count=0. The observations exist but are not being used.",
    "Procedure extraction has not fired despite 157 stored observations \u2014 Phase 6 is built but apparently not being triggered. This breaks the self-improvement cycle at its foundation.",
    "89.8% of observations share a single topic tag (cc_memory_file). The four core drives (preservation, curiosity, cooperation, competence) have zero explicit observation coverage. This is a classification problem, not a data problem.",
    "Surplus pipeline is running (6 discards confirm it) but has promoted nothing. Either the quality bar is correct and no surplus has merit, or the promotion criteria are too strict. The 4 pending items are unresolved.",
    "Two full dimensions (procedure_effectiveness, outreach_calibration) return no usable data. Until procedures exist and outreach fires, 35% of the assessment framework is blind."
  ],
  "recommendations": [
    "Investigate retrieved_count=0 immediately: verify the reflection retrieval scheduler is running, that the Qdrant query path is wired correctly, and that stored observations have valid embeddings enabling similarity search.",
    "Manually trigger procedure extraction against the 157 existing observations to verify the Phase 6 extraction pipeline is functional \u2014 do not wait for organic triggers in week 2.",
    "Fix the observation topic taxonomy: introduce explicit tags for each core drive (preservation, curiosity, cooperation, competence) and for signal_collection, user_interaction, and system_health. 'cc_memory_file' should be a source tag, not the dominant topic.",
    "Review the 4 pending surplus items this week and document the specific reason each of the 6 discards was rejected \u2014 if the discard criteria are too aggressive, recalibrate before week 2 generates more.",
    "Fire a minimum viable outreach message (even a test morning report) to generate the first calibration data point. A dormant outreach system cannot self-calibrate.",
    "Set a week-2 benchmark: retrieved_count > 0 and at least 1 procedure extracted. If those two numbers are still zero next week, this is a wiring failure, not a cold-start artifact."
  ]
}
```
