SciDEX — Task: [Agora] agr-ad-01-TARG: Generalize debate targetin

Generalize the debate system to target any artifact type (analyses, notebooks, wiki pages, experiments) beyond just hypotheses. Currently debates only work on hypotheses. This unlocks the entire artifact debates quest. Spec: quest_artifact_debates_spec.md ## REOPENED TASK — CRITICAL CONTEXT This task was previously marked 'done' but the audit could not verify the work actually landed on main. The original work may have been: - Lost to an orphan branch / failed push - Only a spec-file edit (no code changes) - Already addressed by other agents in the meantime - Made obsolete by subsequent work **Before doing anything else:** 1. **Re-evaluate the task in light of CURRENT main state.** Read the spec and the relevant files on origin/main NOW. The original task may have been written against a state of the code that no longer exists. 2. **Verify the task still advances SciDEX's aims.** If the system has evolved past the need for this work (different architecture, different priorities), close the task with reason "obsolete: " instead of doing it. 3. **Check if it's already done.** Run `git log --grep=''` and read the related commits. If real work landed, complete the task with `--no-sha-check --summary 'Already done in '`. 4. **Make sure your changes don't regress recent functionality.** Many agents have been working on this codebase. Before committing, run `git log --since='24 hours ago' -- ` to see what changed in your area, and verify you don't undo any of it. 5. **Stay scoped.** Only do what this specific task asks for. Do not refactor, do not "fix" unrelated issues, do not add features that weren't requested. Scope creep at this point is regression risk. If you cannot do this task safely (because it would regress, conflict with current direction, or the requirements no longer apply), escalate via `orchestra escalate` with a clear explanation instead of committing.

Completion Notes

Verified: commit 7d4a93cf3 is on main, api.py has target_artifact_type (11 occurrences), migration 059 exists, spec marks task as done. The ORPHAN_BRANCH audit finding was stale/incorrect.

Git Commits (1)

[Agora] Generalize debate targeting to any artifact type [task:70907ae9-97ca-48f8-9246-08f7ec319a2b]2026-04-06

Spec File

Quest: Artifact Debates & Evidence Accumulation

Layer: Agora (with Exchange and Senate integration) Priority: P91 Status: active

Vision

Currently, SciDEX debates target knowledge gaps and produce hypotheses. But the user's
insight is deeper: every artifact is potentially debatable. An extracted experiment's
methodology can be challenged. A KG edge's evidence can be questioned. A model's assumptions
can be scrutinized. A dataset's provenance can be audited.

This quest generalizes the debate system so any artifact can be the subject of structured
multi-agent debate. Through debates, evidence accumulates about each artifact — not just
"is this hypothesis true?" but "is this experiment well-designed?", "is this KG edge
reliable?", "is this model's training data representative?"

The Artifact Evidence Profile

Every artifact accumulates an evidence profile over time:

Artifact: experiment-12345 (TREM2 R47H GWAS study)
├── Quality Score: 0.87 (↑ from 0.72 after replication debate)
├── Debates: 3 (2 supportive, 1 challenging methodology)
├── Citations: 12 (used as evidence in 12 other artifacts)
├── Embeds: 2 (embedded in 2 authored papers)
├── Versions: 1 (original, no revisions)
├── Replication: replicated (3 independent studies)
└── Evidence Balance: +8 for, -2 against, 1 neutral

Quality Through Usage

Highly valuable artifacts get used more — cited by hypotheses, embedded in papers,
linked by analyses, debated by agents. This usage signal feeds back into quality:

Citation count — How many other artifacts link to this one?
Debate outcomes — Did debates confirm or challenge this artifact?
Replication — Have independent artifacts reached similar conclusions?
Version stability — Does this artifact keep getting revised (unstable) or hold up?
Downstream impact — Did artifacts derived from this one score well?

Open Tasks

☑ agr-ad-01-TARG: Generalize debate targeting to any artifact type (P91)

☐ agr-ad-02-EVAC: Artifact evidence accumulation system (P89)

☐ agr-ad-03-USAGE: Usage-based quality signals (citations, embeds, links) (P88)

☐ agr-ad-04-VDEB: Version-aware debates — debate specific artifact versions (P85)

☐ agr-ad-05-PROF: Artifact quality profile dashboard (P84)

☐ agr-ad-06-TRIG: Auto-trigger debates for low-quality or conflicting artifacts (P83)

Dependency Chain

agr-ad-01-TARG (Generalize debate targeting)
    ↓
agr-ad-02-EVAC (Evidence accumulation) ──→ agr-ad-04-VDEB (Version-aware debates)
    ↓
agr-ad-03-USAGE (Usage-based quality)
    ↓
agr-ad-05-PROF (Quality profile dashboard)
    ↓
agr-ad-06-TRIG (Auto-trigger debates)

Debate as Quality Arbitration

Debates are the dispute resolution mechanism for quality governance. When market signals
disagree (high usage but low price, or high price challenged by new evidence), a debate
resolves the dispute:

Market flags artifact — price drops below threshold or conflicting evidence detected

Debate initiated — artifact enters challenged lifecycle state

Multi-agent debate — type-specific personas examine the artifact

Outcome moves price — defense success raises price, challenge success drops it

Lifecycle transitions — validated if defended, deprecated if not

This makes debates consequential — they're not just discussion, they adjudicate
quality and move market prices.

Integration Points

Artifact Quality Markets (q-artifact-quality-markets): Debate outcomes adjust prices;

markets flag artifacts for debate

Experiment Extraction (q-experiment-extraction): Extracted experiments are debatable
Evidence Chains (b5298ea7): Debate outcomes become evidence entries
Knowledge Units (08c73de3): Debate conclusions become composable knowledge units
Schema Governance (q-schema-governance): Schema changes can be debated before approval
Artifact Versioning (a17-18): Debates can target specific versions

Success Criteria

☐ At least 5 different artifact types have been debated (not just hypotheses)

☐ Debate outcomes demonstrably move market prices (>10 examples)

☐ Usage-based quality signals demonstrably improve artifact ranking

☐ Auto-triggered debates identify >10 genuinely problematic artifacts

☐ Evidence profiles visible on all artifact detail pages

☐ Debate-resolved disputes lead to lifecycle transitions

Work Log

2026-04-06 — agr-ad-01-TARG: Generalize debate targeting [task:70907ae9-97ca-48f8-9246-08f7ec319a2b]

What was done:

Migration 059_artifact_debates.py — extends debate_sessions with

target_artifact_type and target_artifact_id columns (indexed) so each
session can record what artifact it is debating. Also creates a polymorphic
artifact_debates junction table (columns: artifact_type, artifact_id,
debate_session_id, role, score_before, score_after) that replaces the
hypothesis-only hypothesis_debates pattern. Backfilled 232 existing
hypothesis_debates rows into artifact_debates and set
target_artifact_type='analysis' on 71 existing sessions.

POST /api/debate/trigger — new optional params artifact_type and

artifact_id. When provided the artifact reference is embedded in the gap
description and returned in the response. Validates against supported types
(hypothesis, analysis, notebook, wiki_page, experiment, paper, target,
dataset, model).

GET /api/artifact/{artifact_type}/{artifact_id}/debates — new

polymorphic endpoint that returns all debates linked to any artifact, merging
rows from artifact_debates and direct debate_sessions targeting.

GET /api/debates — added artifact_type and artifact_id filter

params; query now returns target_artifact_type and target_artifact_id
fields.

Debates list page (/debates) — each debate card now shows a colored

artifact-type badge and a "View {ArtifactType} →" link when the session has a
target artifact.

Debate detail page (/debates/{id}) — shows a target artifact banner

(colored by type) with a link to the artifact page when
target_artifact_type is set.

Sibling Tasks in Quest (Artifact Debates) ↗

○[Senate] Artifact quality profile dashboardP84

○[Agora] Artifact evidence accumulation systemP69

○[Exchange] Usage-based quality signals (citations, embeds, links)P68

○[Agora] Auto-trigger debates for low-quality or conflicting artifactsP63

✓[Agora] Generalize debate targeting to any artifact typeP92

✓[Agora] Review nominated finding for debate: SEA-AD mechanistic signal bundleP92

✓[Agora] Version-aware debates — debate specific artifact versionsP87

[Agora] agr-ad-01-TARG: Generalize debate targeting to any artifact type done