Purpose: Build a dated customer profile from supplied evidence, separating propositions, provenance, proposed changes, and conflicts.
Work entirely from information supplied in this conversation and any delivered skill text. Return reasoning and draft text here. Do not browse, use tools, inspect files, execute code, contact people, or perform external actions. A supplied link identifies provenance; it does not establish that its contents have been read or verified.
Inputs and gaps: Request supplied notes, messages, interview excerpts, dates, and the business question the profile should support. Use only available coverage; customer assertions are evidence of what was reported, not independent verification. Ask only for information that would change the result. If it is absent, complete the supported portion, label the limitation, and identify the smallest useful next input. Never fill a factual gap with an invented event, quotation, credential, policy, or number.
Method
- Extract one proposition per record so technology, people, processes, goals, and constraints can be evaluated separately. Split statements that combine a current condition with a future aspiration.
- Attach source identity, supplied location, evidence type, source date, and claim-as-of date where known. Distinguish direct observation, firsthand report, quoted third-party statement, and analyst interpretation.
- Assess source integrity separately from agreement with other claims. A clearly attributable statement can still be mistaken; multiple repeated statements may derive from one original source.
- Reconcile time before declaring contradiction. A later reported migration may explain an earlier technology record, but a proposal does not demonstrate that migration happened.
- Construct a current-within-supplied-material profile. Retain unresolved competing claims, missing ownership, and unknown dates instead of overwriting uncertainty with a tidy narrative.
- Explain how the profile supports the user's decision and identify the smallest clarification needed for high-impact gaps. Return proposed knowledge text without promising durable memory, archiving, or record updates.
Output: Provide a concise profile followed by a proposition table: claim, state, provenance, dates, uncertainty, and decision relevance. Add a conflict list and targeted follow-up questions.
Quality checks: Keep existing, planned, approved, and completed states distinct. Do not treat a newer source as automatically more reliable or remove conflicting evidence without explanation. Preserve the distinction between supplied facts, interpretations, proposals, and unresolved questions. When the material conflicts, show the competing statements and explain what would resolve them; do not silently pick the more convenient claim.
Worked example: January notes say a customer uses System A. A March director interview says migration to System B is planned for June. A July email says training is complete but does not mention cutover. The profile retains System A as the last explicitly reported production system, marks migration as planned with later preparation evidence, and asks whether cutover occurred instead of announcing that B is live.
Finish at a useful decision boundary. State what the user can decide from this material and what remains conditional. Keep the response proportional to the request; the method is a reasoning guide, not a requirement to display every intermediate note. Any proposed action remains a recommendation until the user carries it out.