experiment: facilitator view from reasoning graph

docs/design-evolution-log.md

@@ -502,6 +502,25 @@ The current "Investigation in progress" panel exposes developer-oriented statist
 
 ---
 
+## Emerging Direction — Graph as Source of Truth
+
+The reasoning graph is becoming the shared source of truth for multiple UI views.
+
+Different interfaces may project the same graph for different audiences:
+
+- Version A — compact technical progress;
+- Version B — detailed graph inspection;
+- Version C — user-facing facilitator view;
+- Developer Details — complete diagnostics;
+- Investigation Map — future spatial projection;
+- Current Question — active uncertainty projection.
+
+The UI should not maintain separate invented summaries where the graph already contains the underlying information.
+
+This is an emerging direction, not a final architecture decision.
+
+---
+
 ## Emerging Direction — Facilitator Translation Layer
 
 > The UI should progressively become a translation layer over the reasoning graph rather than maintaining separate duplicated summaries. Internal graph concepts should remain available for developers, while end users see a facilitator-style explanation of what is currently understood and what remains uncertain.
@@ -531,14 +550,59 @@ A facilitator-style panel should communicate:
 - Is a quiet reasoning summary sufficient, or does it need more context?
 - Does the translation-layer principle hold — presenting the graph as a notebook rather than raw data?
 
+#### Result
+
+Partially confirmed.
+
+#### What did we learn?
+
+- Version B proved that the reasoning graph contains substantially more useful information than Version A exposes.
+- The graph already contains observations, unknowns, assumptions, metrics, relationships and state.
+- The graph is rich enough to support multiple UI projections.
+- Exposing the graph almost verbatim overwhelms the user.
+- Technical categories are useful for development but do not directly communicate investigation progress.
+- The user needs a translation of the graph rather than a graph browser.
+- Developer Details should remain the place for complete technical inspection.
+- A user-facing view needs filtering, prioritisation, deduplication and clear epistemic labels.
+
+#### Decision
+
+Keep Version A and Version B available for comparison.
+
+Proceed with a Version C facilitator view built from the same graph.
+
+---
+
+### Experiment 12 — Facilitator View (Version C)
+
+#### Hypothesis
+
+The existing reasoning graph can be deterministically translated into a concise facilitator view that helps the user understand:
+
+- what is currently known;
+- what remains uncertain;
+- what may explain the situation;
+- why the investigation is continuing.
+
+#### Questions
+
+- Can the graph produce a useful human-facing summary without another LLM call?
+- Can observations, unknowns and assumptions be clearly distinguished?
+- Can duplicate or low-value graph content be filtered reliably?
+- Does a concise projection improve understanding without exposing implementation detail?
+- Does the panel remain useful across mocks and live Ollama output?
+- Can the same view work during early, middle and terminal investigation states?
+
 #### Evaluation
 
-Pending visual review.
+Pending visual and live-data review.
 
 #### Status
 
 Experimental.
 
+Do not record a conclusion yet.
+
 ---
 
 ## Emerging Direction