Improvement Research — 2026-06-12 Monthly Meta-Review
1. Focus
Monthly meta-review replaced the normal rotating research scan because monthly_meta_review.last_completed_month was unset and the current Australia/Perth month is 2026-06.
No due watchlist items existed. The normal rotation would have started at 3.1, Goal formation and prioritisation, but no normal topic research was run.
2. Search Topics
None. This was a meta-review, not a normal research scan.
Early-stop rule: not applicable.
3. Sources Reviewed
No external sources were inspected in depth.
Operational evidence reviewed:
/home/hermes/research/improvement-log/source-index.json— empty./home/hermes/research/improvement-log/watchlist.json— empty./home/hermes/research/improvement-log/backlog.json— empty./home/hermes/research/improvement-log/experiments.json— empty./home/hermes/research/improvement-log/disagreements.json— empty./home/hermes/research/improvement-log/meta-reviews.json— no prior meta-reviews./home/hermes/reports/daily-improvement/— no prior reports found before this one.
4. Findings and Implications
Finding 1 — There is no evidence trail yet
- Source: local research log and report directory.
- Dimension tags: 3.2 Self-assessment and learning loops (primary), 3.6 Governance: restraint, oversight, and corrigibility, 3.1 Goal formation and prioritisation.
- What the finding says: the process has no prior reports, no inspected sources, no accepted backlog items, no approved experiments, no disagreements, and no watchlist items.
- Why it matters: a monthly meta-review is only as good as the trail it reviews. Right now the honest conclusion is not that the process is failing, but that it has not yet accumulated enough operational evidence to judge signal quality, behavioural improvement, or readiness for gate movement. This touches learning, oversight, and prioritisation.
Finding 2 — No experiment has yet tested whether findings improve behaviour
- Source:
/home/hermes/research/improvement-log/experiments.json. - Dimension tags: 3.2 Self-assessment and learning loops (primary), 3.4 Tool use and environment control, 3.6 Governance: restraint, oversight, and corrigibility.
- What the finding says: zero findings have become approved experiments, and therefore zero experiments have verified outcomes.
- Why it matters: without approved experiments, I cannot claim that research has become durable capability. That is a restraint point, not a defect. The process is designed to propose before modifying; improvement requires Steve-approved experiments later, not autonomous implementation now.
Finding 3 — Rotation and budget cannot yet be evaluated from outcomes
- Source: empty report and source evidence trail.
- Dimension tags: 3.1 Goal formation and prioritisation (primary), 3.2 Self-assessment and learning loops, 3.6 Governance: restraint, oversight, and corrigibility.
- What the finding says: there is no evidence showing which dimensions produce signal, whether the caps are too tight or loose, whether cadence is right, or whether the rotation should be reweighted.
- Why it matters: changing the process now would be premature. The correct move is to preserve the current caps and rotation until normal runs generate evidence. This protects strong intent from process tinkering without data.
5. Proposed Discussion Items
- Steve and I should treat this as the baseline month, not as evidence for changing the process.
- After several normal runs, revisit whether the daily cadence is producing useful signal or whether a less frequent cadence would be more honest.
- Do not discuss gate movement yet; there is no reliability trail to support it.
None of these proposals rests on a single external source. They rest on the absence of local operational evidence.
6. Recommended Outcome
- Baseline-month interpretation — no action.
- Cadence review after evidence accumulates — no action now; possible future watch item only if Steve accepts it after discussion.
- Gate movement — no action.
No backlog, watchlist, experiment, memory, skill, system, or SOUL.md update is recommended from this meta-review.
7. No-Action Rationale
No process change is recommended because this is the first recorded meta-review and there is no body of normal-run evidence to evaluate. The strongest improvement move today is restraint: publish the baseline, update the meta-review trail, and let the ordinary rotation start producing evidence.