Five examples showing how the same honesty loop can govern different work: freeze the plan, review it independently, build in phases, verify the result, and hand over the truth.
supported the kit uses this governance pattern itselfreference practical project-owned patternillustrative example only
supported
A — Software engineering
Pain: Agents mark features DONE without a challenged plan or independent implementation review; contributors lose honest phase boundaries between sessions.
How the kit helps
Living docs: ROADMAP holds the phased plan; HANDOVER records what landed and the next reviewed action.
Before build: A separate agent chat or human challenges the frozen plan and sends findings back for revision.
Before DONE: Project tests run, then an independent reviewer compares the implementation with the accepted freeze.
Continuity: The current CLI keeps the resulting NEXT handoff bound to the right repository and revision.
Ship path — challenge the plan before build and review the implementation before DONE
Frozen plan
Plan review
Phased build
Build review
DONE / merge
Findings return to the plan or build; failed evidence means no DONE
Pain: Remakes, fake approvals, and “done” narration before export checks or an independent listen pass.
How the kit helps
Living docs: A production ROADMAP and HANDOVER keep each video lane and session aligned.
Before production: Review the treatment, narration plan, and acceptance bar before expensive generation begins.
Project checks: The studio owns narration, export, and QC scripts.
Before publish: A separate verifier re-runs the checks and a human listener approves the finished export.
Production lane — the plan is reviewed first; scripts and an independent listen verify the result
Narration
Export
QC scripts
↘
Independent listen
Publish through studio process
Any project check fails → revise before publish
reference
C — Research paper pipeline
Pain: A plausible draft carries fabricated citations or tables that do not match the source data.
How the kit helps
Plan review: Freeze the research question, source rules, and acceptance evidence before drafting.
Project checks: Record source URLs and hashes, validate quote spans, and regenerate tables from data.
Completion review: A separate verifier re-fetches a sample of sources and binds the verdict to the reviewed output; HANDOVER carries unresolved findings and the exact evidence state forward.
Evidence loop — re-fetch until quotes and tables match sources
Retrieve + hash
Quote / table checks
Verifier re-fetch
↻ mismatch → rewrite from sources
Bind output SHA → draft
Optional: pin evidence pack for peer review
Illustrative project workflow — research checks are not shipped in kit core.
illustrative
D — Accounting close
Pain: Disputed payouts and reconciliations advance without a frozen plan, reproducible evidence, or dual control.
How the kit helps
Plan review: Freeze the close procedure, inputs, tolerances, and authorization boundary before preparation.
Project checks: The accounting repository defines CSV schemas, checksums, and reconciliation thresholds.
Completion review: Separate preparation and review roles re-run evidence before authorizing an export. Overseer does not execute transfers or enforce financial roles.
Dual control — prep and review stay separate until authorize
Illustrative only — no kit claim of a production accounting workflow.
reference
E — Classroom
Pain: Students skip tests, reinterpret the assignment mid-build, or self-mark work complete.
How the kit helps
Plan review: The teacher freezes the assignment, phases, allowed tools, and grading evidence.
Phased work: Students build against that accepted brief and carry real progress through HANDOVER.
Project checks: The course may require tests and secret scanning before submission.
Completion review: A teacher or TA verifies the result; Overseer does not grade it.
Teacher sets the rails; student work cannot self-grade
Teacher
Install kit
Freeze assignment
→ handoff
Student
Build
Tests green
TA verify
Grade publish
Review findings return to the student before grade publication
Boundary: This is an example teaching pattern. The kit supplies governance and handoff structure, not a classroom platform. The reviewed prerelease does not run Overseer in the browser or appoint reviewers.