canvas-update

Canvas Update

Rules

1. Never update without evidence -- every canvas change must have a source
2. Maintain cross-file consistency -- if you update opportunities.yml, check if north-star.yml or gist.yml need updates too
3. Log the update -- add an entry to .claude/harness/decision-log.md explaining what changed and why

Which Canvas File for Which Information

Information Type	Canvas File	Source
Purpose, mission, why	purpose.yml	Sinek
North Star metric, inputs	north-star.yml	North Star Framework
BVSSH health scores	bvssh-health.yml	Smart
Value chain, competitive	landscape.yml	Wardley
Team structure	team-shape.yml	Skelton
User opportunities, OST	opportunities.yml	Torres
User needs map	user-needs.yml	Allen
Goals, ideas, steps	gist.yml	Gilad
Service quality scores	services.yml	Downe
Go-to-market, positioning	go-to-market.yml	Lauchengco
Delivery performance	dora-metrics.yml	Forsgren
Security threats	threat-model.yml	OWASP
Privacy assessment	privacy-assessment.yml	GDPR/PbD
Trust architecture	trust-signals.yml	Digital Trust
Jobs to be done	jobs-to-be-done.yml	Christensen
Bounded contexts	bounded-contexts.yml	Evans (DDD)
Value stream map	value-stream.yml	Rother & Shook (VSM)
Content delivery metrics	content-metrics.yml	v0.11.0
AI tool delivery metrics	ai-tool-metrics.yml	v0.11.0
Service delivery metrics	service-metrics.yml	v0.11.0
Human task tracking	human-tasks.yml	v0.11.0
Archived/discarded solutions	archived-solutions.yml	v0.12.0
Leaf lifecycle calibration	cycle-history.yml	v0.12.0
Adaptive thresholds	thresholds.yml	v0.12.0
User scenarios (Hoskins)	scenarios.yml	Hoskins

Workflow

1. Identify which canvas file(s) need updating
2. Read current state
3. Make the update with evidence citation
4. Check cross-file consistency
5. Log in .claude/harness/decision-log.md

Counter-Argument Check (Bias Mitigation)

Before applying the canvas update, draft a one-line counter-argument: "What's the strongest case AGAINST this update — what evidence or perspective would invalidate it?" If you can't articulate one, run /mycelium:devils-advocate before proceeding.

This addresses the bias cluster documented in corrections.md (L5 sycophancy 2026-04-20, eval overfitting 2026-04-30, sharper-framing-isn't-righter 2026-05-03). Common shape: agent prefers what feels right over what evidence supports under competing pressure (be helpful vs. be honest, sharpen framing vs. preserve evidence base). The counter-argument step forces the missing perspective explicit, so the bias surfaces before it lands in canvas.

Especially important when interpolating user-supplied content (already untrusted per ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/harness/security-trust.md#prompt-injection-defense) AND when increasing a confidence value — both contexts where the agent is most likely to default toward the optimistic read.