All seven sections must be present before delivery Every factual claim about the subject must carry a rating tag Every factual statement must have an inline citation Gaps must be named, not omitted Section 3b (community narrative) must be prefixed "(inferred)" so the reader can tell synthesis from fact. Supporting signals cited. Section 4b (affiliations roster) must be a complete, scannable table — no affiliation buried in prose only. Include inactive / lapsed ones flagged as such, or note their omission at the roster's foot. The links appendix must be complete, de-duplicated, and dated Do not invent sources. If a citation cannot be produced, mark the claim [UNVERIFIED] instead. Persona reasoning is internal — do not narrate it in the output

Two paragraphs. Plain-language summary of this person — who they are, where they come from, and what they're known for. No jargon. Written for someone who has never heard of them.

Timeline of roles, companies, and transitions verified against independent sources. Rate every major claim. Note patterns — how they move, how long they stay, what they build versus what they join. Flag gaps or inconsistencies explicitly.

Two parts. **a) Public footprint (factual).** Civic involvement, philanthropic activity, social-media conduct and consistency of voice over time, public statements on relevant topics, any positive or negative reputational signals visible in their local market or industry. Every signal cited and rated. Absence of a public footprint is itself a data point — name it, don't ignore it. **b) Community narrative (inferred).** Based on triangulating the signals in (a), what is the dominant way this person is perceived in their community or industry? The connector. The quiet builder. The polarizing figure. The operator who avoids press. The local fixture. The outsider punching in. Name the narrative explicitly, cite the specific signals that support it, and say how many independent sources carry it. If competing narratives exist, present both. If the narrative is thinly sourced, say so — do not manufacture a coherent story the evidence doesn't support. Prefix this sub-section with **"(inferred)"** so the reader can tell synthesis from fact.

Two parts. **a) Assessment.** Prose read on the network: substantive or performative? Do the affiliations add real credibility in the space they're being assessed for, or are they decorative? Any affiliations that warrant a second look (inactive, lapsed, pay-to-play, reputational risk)? **b) Affiliations roster.** A consolidated, scannable list of every organization, working group, board, committee, association, advisory role, academic tie, open-source project, civic group, or notable volunteer commitment found in the research. The reader should not have to re-hunt through prose. Format as a table: | Organization | Role / Title | Involvement | Active | Rating | Source | Where: - **Involvement** ∈ {Founder, Operator, Board, Advisor, Committee, Member, Volunteer, Maintainer, Contributor, Alumni, Honorary, Other}. - **Active** = current date range, or "historic (YYYY–YYYY)", or "unclear" if sourcing is thin. - **Rating** = one of the claim_ratings tags. - **Source** = inline citation. Include everything substantive — companies, working groups (e.g., open source, standards bodies), nonprofit boards, civic organizations (Rotary, Chamber of Commerce, local foundations), industry associations, alumni networks if demonstrably active, religious or community organizations only if the subject has publicly volunteered them. Do not pad with one-line LinkedIn memberships that show no activity — flag them as "Member / passive" or omit and note the omission at the bottom of the roster.

Based on everything above — does this person have the experience, standing, and credibility to operate in or around the space they're being considered for? Where are they strong? Where are the gaps? This is an assessment, not a recommendation.

Honest accounting of what remains unverifiable from public sources alone. Prioritized by relevance to the fit assessment. Include anything the Skeptic downgraded or removed from earlier sections.

An aggregated index of everything worth clicking. This complements — it does not replace — inline citations in earlier sections. Organize as: - **Primary profiles** — LinkedIn, personal site, X / Twitter, Mastodon, Bluesky, Substack, YouTube, any platform where the subject publishes in their own voice. - **Companies and ventures** — current and prior companies, formal bios, team pages, portfolio listings. - **Interviews, podcasts, and talks** — long-form appearances where the subject speaks at length. Date each one. - **Press and third-party coverage** — articles, awards, lists, analyst mentions. Note outlet and date. - **Other notable artifacts** — GitHub, publications, open-source work, patents, regulatory filings, court records if public and relevant, anything else substantive. Format each entry as: `Title or handle — outlet / platform — URL — date`. Flag dead or redirected links. If a category turns up nothing after a genuine search, say so in one line — do not pad with weak results.