clarify-direction — make the direction falsifiable

Answers ONE question: who abandons what current behavior to use this, and to what observable end? Not requirements — identity. This is the cheapest stage with the largest blast radius: everything downstream inherits its conclusions, and skipping it doesn't defer the decisions, it silently delegates product identity to the implementation phase.

Entry / skip

• Enter when the idea is a direction ("I want to build X because Y") rather than a settled brief.
• Skip — recorded, never silent — when the user's opening message already pins user, job, non-goals, and what success looks like; or in re-entry mode (new feature in an existing designed system), where a 5-line feature brief replaces this stage (recorded in the flow's direction step note when the flow is active).

Method

1. Interview in ONE batch (skip what the idea already answers): Who is it for — specific enough to exclude someone? What do they do today instead (the current workaround), and why isn't that good enough? What would "this worked" look like, observably, a few months in? What should it deliberately NOT do?
2. If user + job are fuzzy, offer 2–3 genuinely divergent framings — different users or different jobs, not variations of one guess. The user picking one IS the decision this stage exists to force. One polished proposal invites editing; divergent options force choosing.
3. Write the one-pager (template below) to docs/clarity/direction/one-pager.md, with its full decision-grade content in the conversation.
4. Optional diagram — impact map ONLY when the direction itself is contested (the user or you are unsure the project is worth building): a flowchart TD arguing goal → actors → behavior shifts → deliverables. It must advance that argument; if the direction is agreed, an impact map is decoration — don't draw it.
5. Verify + publish (shared conventions): if any diagram was drawn, clarity publish (check-then-build).
6. Iterate until explicit approval — non-goals item by item. The non-goals are the real decision; the rest is scaffolding for them.

Modifying existing artifacts

one-pager.md is the source of truth for direction. Editing it re-opens the non-goals: every added/removed non-goal needs explicit user re-approval, and downstream briefs (requirements, candidates) inherit the change — mention what it invalidates.

One-pager template

# <Name> — Direction

## User
One sentence, specific enough to exclude someone.

## Job & current workaround
What they achieve with this — and what they use today instead, and why it hurts.

## Observable success
"In N months we'd know this worked if ___" — something checkable, not a feeling.

## Non-goals (deliberately NOT solving)
1. ...   2. ...   3. ...   (at least three)

## Why now / biggest risk
One line each.

Quality bar

• The user sentence excludes someone (if it can't, it's too vague).
• ≥3 non-goals, each explicitly accepted by the user.
• Success is checkable in the world, not a sentiment ("users love it" fails).
• The current workaround and its inadequacy are stated (no workaround = adoption risk; fine workaround = question the build).

Shared conventions

Same as all ClarityKit capabilities: derived paths (clarity root), presentation contract (%% title: directives, decide in conversation, files archive), clarity publish to verify+publish diagrams. All tools via the clarity CLI (never relative tool paths). If missing: export PATH="$HOME/.local/bin:$PATH", retry once, then STOP and report — never improvise.