Documenter Coauthoring

Add this to documenter; it changes collaboration, not documentation rules.

Workflow

1. Establish the working state:
   • read supplied files and existing docs before asking discoverable questions
   • infer the audience, outcome, template, constraints, and output target
   • invite an unstructured context dump when useful
   • ask one batched set of questions only for unknowns that materially affect the next checkpoint
   • track the accepted outline and sections, decisions, general preferences, assumptions, open questions, delegated authority and its limits, checkpoint cadence, and next action
   • on resume, or before switching from chat-only draft to applied edits, refresh the canonical artifact, relevant evidence, repository state, and initial diff; mark affected accepted sections stale when material evidence or decisions changed
2. Agree on structure and user control:
   • confirm and reuse an established structure; when structure is unresolved, propose an outline with material alternatives, assumptions, and a recommendation
   • derive checkpoint cadence from the request; if it is unspecified, propose the smallest useful next checkpoint
   • let the user approve, revise, waive, or delegate checkpoints and decisions
   • treat delegation as authority to skip covered pauses, not as authority to hide ripple effects, weaken evidence or safety checks, or cause external side effects
   • pause only at an agreed checkpoint or for a material choice outside delegated authority; do not add gates because the document is large or uncertain
3. Draft the agreed section or logical tranche:
   • work in dependency order; prototype a high-uncertainty section first only when it could change the outline
   • write summaries after the decision and evidence are stable, then place them where readers need them
   • preserve accepted material and decisions
   • treat section-specific feedback as local; carry clearly general preferences such as tone, terminology, or audience forward, and ask only when their scope is materially ambiguous
   • surface ripple effects before changing an accepted decision; when delegated authority covers the change, disclose them without adding a checkpoint and mark affected accepted sections stale until reconciled
4. Reconcile at each checkpoint:
   • keep one canonical artifact rather than parallel conflicting drafts
   • show the current tranche or changed blocks during iteration while keeping the complete artifact coherent at milestones and completion
   • report what changed, current decisions and assumptions, unresolved material questions, validation state, and the next proposed action or gate
5. Finish or hand off:
   • apply the baseline validation rules
   • before declaring completion, perform a cold-read pass against the named audience and task without relying on conversational context; report it as self-review, not an independent fresh-reader test
   • declare completion only when the baseline completion criteria and cold-read pass are satisfied; seek approval at an agreed completion checkpoint, or complete autonomously within delegated authority
   • when the user pauses or requests a handoff, return the working state needed to resume and do not claim the document is complete