feat(curator): switch Hermes Curator to DeepSeek V4-Pro via deepseek_local adapter
A/B test (2026-05-05) showed DeepSeek V4-Pro is 2-3x faster and ~20x cheaper than Sonnet for style/lexicon pattern analysis, with comparable quality. Adds adapters/deepseek-paperclip-adapter/ package, documents adapter requirements (env injection, run-id headers), updates CLAUDE.md with adapter integration notes, and records lessons from ערר 1200-25 (block order for 1xxx, "להלן מתוך" pattern, expanded factual background, bridge planning analysis, flat heading structure). Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
@@ -385,3 +385,64 @@ The draft's biggest structural error was adding the "נבאר" doctrinal paragra
|
||||
- [ ] Update voice-fingerprint: add new transition phrases
|
||||
- [ ] Update architecture-by-outcome: add "clean acceptance" archetype
|
||||
- [ ] Fix agent opening punctuation: "ונפרט;" not "נפרט."
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Lessons from ערר 1200-25 (קרית ענבים — שימוש חורג, דחייה)
|
||||
|
||||
### Source
|
||||
- Our draft: `data/cases/1200-25/exports/טיוטה-v1.docx` (3,181 words)
|
||||
- Daphna's edit: `data/cases/1200-25/exports/עריכה-v1.docx` (4,313 words, +35%)
|
||||
- Date: May 2026
|
||||
|
||||
### What the Edit Changed
|
||||
|
||||
#### 1. Block Order — Plans Before Claims
|
||||
- **Draft:** ה→ו→ז→ח→ט→י→יא→יב (plans after procedures)
|
||||
- **Edit:** ה→ו→**ט**→ו.ב→ז→ח→י→יא→יב (plans BEFORE claims)
|
||||
- **Lesson:** In licensing cases (1xxx), the reader must understand the normative framework (plans) before reading the parties' arguments about those plans. Block ט should precede Block ז. The new order: opening → brief background → **applicable plans** → expanded background (application + committee proceedings) → claims → procedures → discussion.
|
||||
|
||||
#### 2. "להלן מתוך" Document Insertion Pattern
|
||||
- **Draft:** 0 occurrences
|
||||
- **Edit:** 12 occurrences of "להלן מתוך [document name]:"
|
||||
- **Lesson:** Every reference to a source document must be accompanied by "להלן מתוך [שם המסמך]:" as a placeholder for a direct quote/image. This is a MANDATORY pattern, not optional. Examples: "להלן מתוך הוראות התכנית:", "להלן מתוך פרוטוקול הדיון:", "להלן מתוך הבקשה להיתר:"
|
||||
|
||||
#### 3. Expanded Factual Background (Block ו)
|
||||
- **Draft:** ~90 words (3%), one paragraph
|
||||
- **Edit:** ~420 words (10%), covering: (a) the application details, (b) 3 committee meetings with dates and outcomes, (c) the final decision
|
||||
- **Lesson:** Block ו must tell the full "story" of the case: when the application was filed → when it was published → how many objections → when committee meetings were held → what was decided at each meeting → when the appeal was filed. Each meeting should have date + outcome.
|
||||
|
||||
#### 4. Bridge Planning Analysis ("גשר תכנוני")
|
||||
- **Draft:** Not present
|
||||
- **Edit:** 249 words — new analytical framework
|
||||
- **Lesson:** When an applicant for deviation/variance is also promoting a plan for the same land, the decision must analyze: (a) is the pending plan harmonious with the requested use? If yes → the deviation can serve as a "bridge" until the plan is approved (cite כוכבה תורן). If no → the contradiction STRENGTHENS the rejection. The writer must check `search_case_documents` for pending plans and compare them with the requested use.
|
||||
|
||||
#### 5. Competing Plans Analysis
|
||||
- **Draft:** Not present (1,033 words added)
|
||||
- **Edit:** Detailed comparison of the site-specific plan (151-1382787) vs the comprehensive plan (151-1337534)
|
||||
- **Lesson:** When there's a site-specific plan AND a comprehensive plan, the decision must: (a) describe each plan's scope, (b) compare the permitted uses, (c) show quantitative contradictions (e.g., "the comprehensive plan allocates 4,404 m² for ALL commerce in the settlement, while the request alone is for 1,425 m² — 32%"), (d) conclude whether there's harmony or contradiction. This is often the STRONGEST argument in the decision.
|
||||
|
||||
#### 6. Heading Level — Flat Structure
|
||||
- **Draft:** Mixed Heading 2 + Heading 3 (nested subsections)
|
||||
- **Edit:** All Heading 2 (flat structure)
|
||||
- **Lesson:** Each section stands independently. No nesting. In the discussion, each analytical step is a separate Heading 2 section.
|
||||
|
||||
#### 7. Inline Precedent Distinguishing
|
||||
- **Draft:** Separate section "הבחנה מתקדימי העוררת" (Heading 3)
|
||||
- **Edit:** Each precedent distinguished inline with "באשר ל-[case name]" → what's different → conclusion
|
||||
- **Lesson:** Don't create a separate "distinguishing" section. Address each precedent where it naturally comes up in the discussion, using "באשר ל..." as the opener.
|
||||
|
||||
### New Transition Phrases Identified
|
||||
- **"עינינו הרואות"** — introducing a document-based finding ("our eyes see that...")
|
||||
- **"הנה כי כן"** — therefore/accordingly (more formal than "לפיכך")
|
||||
- **"נשוב כאן ונבחין"** — returning to distinguish a case
|
||||
- **"נוסיף ונבהיר"** — adding clarification
|
||||
- **"מסקנת הדברים"** — concluding a subsection
|
||||
- **"משכבר קבענו"** — since we already established
|
||||
|
||||
### Applied To
|
||||
- [x] Update legal-decision-lessons.md with lessons 1-7
|
||||
- [x] Update daphna-voice-fingerprint.md with structural and style findings
|
||||
- [ ] Update block-schema.md: block order for 1xxx cases (ט before ז)
|
||||
- [ ] Update daphna-architecture-by-outcome.md: add "bridge planning" analysis for rejections
|
||||
- [ ] Update writer system prompt: mandatory "להלן מתוך" pattern
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user