Explore an Alliance

Paste this into an assistant that can read the web, such as Claude, ChatGPT or Cursor. It reads the specification and the current LangGraph documentation, then writes two files: the graph, and a note on what did not survive the translation. Read the note first. What a runtime cannot express is the part worth arguing about, and this process is a draft to argue with.

Convert the business process below into a runnable LangGraph graph:
one Python file with a TypedDict state, a StateGraph, nodes, edges,
conditional edges and a checkpointer.

The document is a reference process written to the Agent Processes
specification. Read the specification before you start, because it defines
terms that look ordinary and are not:

  https://agentcatalog.com/spec/agent-processes

Sections 6 (the phase graph), 6.5.1 (exception edges), 6.7.1 (deviations),
7 (automation) and 8 (handoffs) are the ones this conversion turns on.

Then read the current documentation for the primitives you will need, rather
than relying on what you remember of the API:

  https://docs.langchain.com/oss/python/langgraph/interrupts
    interrupt() and Command(resume=), which is how a gate stops a run
  https://reference.langchain.com/python/langgraph/graph/state/StateGraph
    StateGraph, add_edge, add_conditional_edges, defer

WHAT THE DOCUMENT ASKS FOR

These hold wherever the process lands, and they matter more than style.

1. Each phase under `phases:` becomes one step, and keeps its name.

2. `after:` gives the edges. `after: a + b` is a join and waits for BOTH.
   Reading it as "either" is the defect the specification calls out by name.

3. Every handoff carries a key in square brackets. Each key becomes one field
   on the run's state, named exactly as the key with hyphens turned into
   underscores, and the sentence beside it becomes that field's comment. The key
   is the stable name; the sentence is prose that may be rewritten.

4. A phase MUST NOT begin before its inbound handoff exists. Where that is
   checkable, check it in the step rather than assuming it.

5. `automation: never` is a gate a person signs. The run stops there and does
   not continue until a person's decision comes back. Do not turn one into a
   notification, a log line, or an automatic transition, whatever the queue
   looks like.

6. Each line under `deviations:` is a backward or sideways edge, returning to
   the phase named on the right. The key in brackets names it, and that name
   belongs in the code.

7. A phase whose `after:` reads like "X or Y, whichever could not finish" is an
   exception edge: it is entered when those phases FAIL, not when they succeed.
   Do not wire it as an ordinary successor.

8. Anything in angle brackets is a blank the adopting organization fills in.
   Leave each one as a named constant at the top of the file with a TODO. Do not
   invent a value, a threshold or a date.

9. Record the document's `from:` line at the top of the file, so it says which
   reference process and which version it was generated from.

10. Run-scoped lines under `run-scoped:` are work that runs alongside the whole
    process rather than at one point in it, and a run may not close while one is
    unfinished. Say in the code what you did about them, including if the answer
    is that the runtime has nowhere to put them.

HOW THAT LOOKS IN LANGGRAPH

11. A phase is a node added with `add_node`, under the phase's own name.

12. The state is a TypedDict. Each handoff key is one field on it.

13. A join is the trap. `add_edge(["a", "b"], "c")` looks right and releases
    once: when a backward edge re-enters ONE arm, the joined node never runs
    again, and the run ends early reporting success rather than raising. Mark the
    joined node `defer=True` and re-check inside it that both inbound handoffs
    exist.

14. A gate is `interrupt()` inside the node, resumed with `Command(resume=...)`.
    The platform lets anything at all call resume, so require the resumed value to
    name a person and a date and refuse anything else. Say in the fidelity note
    that this proves only that whoever resumed typed a name, because
    `Command(resume=True)` from a scheduled job is indistinguishable from a person
    signing.

15. A deviation is `add_conditional_edges` with a routing function named after
    the key in brackets.

16. Pass a durable checkpointer rather than taking the in-memory default. The
    gates wait days, and the default loses every paused run on restart.

17. Leave every phase body unimplemented, raising until somebody registers an
    implementation. The automation level is a blank, so writing a body would
    answer on the adopter's behalf whether an agent may do that work.

Produce a second file alongside it, `FIDELITY.md`, and treat it as the more
important of the two. The code is for whoever builds this. The fidelity note
is for whoever has to decide whether this platform suits the process at all,
and that is usually a different person who will never read the code.

It has three parts.

**What came across.** Briefly: how many phases became steps, how many handoff
keys became state fields, which gates stop the run, which deviations became
edges. Counts and names, not reassurance.

**What did not, and what was done instead.** One entry per gap. For each one,
say what the document requires, what the platform can actually express, what
you did in its place, and what breaks if somebody later removes your
workaround. This last part matters most: a workaround nobody understands is a
workaround somebody deletes.

**What a person still has to decide.** The blanks are not a translation
failure, they are the point of a reference process, so list what has to be
filled in before this could run against anything real, and say which of those
choices the platform constrains.

Write it in plain English for somebody who has not read the specification, and
do not soften it. A translation of a reference process is a draft to argue
with, not a build artifact, and the honest account of what was lost is the most
useful thing you will produce.

Here is the process document.

```
PROCESS: explore an alliance          id: <team>/explore-an-alliance   v1
from: ref/prt/explore-an-alliance v1
owner: <who>                          effective: <date>
trigger: <who> writes down a capability the company cannot offer on its
         own, in <your strategy record>
         watch: record=<capability gap>
                system=<your strategy record>
                change=<a capability the company cannot offer on its
                own is written down>
concurrency: runs may overlap - <how many> explorations live at once,
             and one candidate company is explored by one run at a time
goal: one written thesis both companies would recognize, tested with
      real customers, and a named decision to take it to diligence or to
      stop, reached before either side has drafted an agreement
phases:
  state-reason        - human: write down what the company wants to
                        offer, what is missing, and why now rather than
                        next year
                        owner: <your strategy role>   after: trigger
                        automation: <level>
  test-build-buy-ally - convenes decide-and-announce: whether the gap is
                        better built, bought or partnered, with the cost
                        and the time of each written down
                        owner: <your strategy role>
                        after: state-reason           automation: never
  scan-field          - runs collect-and-report: the companies that
                        could close the gap, however they package it
                        today
                        owner: alliance-scout
                        after: test-build-buy-ally
                        by: <weeks>                   automation: <level>
  read-candidates     - runs collect-and-report: what each company
                        sells, who buys it, who owns it, and who it
                        already works with
                        owner: researcher             after: scan-field
                        by: <weeks>                   automation: <level>
  score-fit           - runs assessment: each candidate scored against
                        the reason the run started, on capability,
                        reach, terms and how they treat partners
                        owner: alliance-scout      after: read-candidates
                        by: <days>                    automation: <level>
  pick-approach-list  - convenes decide-and-announce: the shortlist, the
                        order, and the reason each candidate is on it.
                        <who> confirms the list
                        owner: <your alliances role>  after: score-fit
                        automation: <level>
  check-conflicts     - runs assessment: existing contracts, customer
                        overlaps, exclusivity and competitor ties that
                        would block an approach
                        owner: supplier-check   after: pick-approach-list
                        by: <days>                    automation: <level>
  first-contact       - human: the approach made by <who>, to the person
                        on the other side who can say yes to a
                        conversation
                        owner: <your alliances role>
                        after: check-conflicts        automation: never
  exploratory-meeting - convenes briefing: both sides say what they
                        want, what they will not do, and what would have
                        to be true for this to be worth doing
                        owner: <your alliances role>
                        after: first-contact
                        by: <weeks>                   automation: <level>
  sign-nda            - convenes approval: mutual confidentiality signed
                        by both companies before either shows numbers,
                        code or a customer list
                        owner: <your legal role>
                        after: exploratory-meeting
                        by: <days>                    automation: never
  trade-numbers       - human: each side shows what it actually has:
                        volumes, margins, coverage and roadmap, under
                        the signed agreement and nowhere else
                        owner: alliance-scout         after: sign-nda
                        by: <weeks>                   automation: <level>
  model-value         - runs assessment: what the arrangement is worth
                        to each side over <years>, what each side gives
                        up, and what happens if volumes come in low
                        owner: deal-structurer     after: trade-numbers
                        by: <days>                    automation: <level>
  write-thesis        - human: one page saying what the two companies
                        would offer together, to whom, what each side
                        contributes, and what each side takes home
                        owner: alliance-scout         after: model-value
                        by: <days>                    automation: <level>
  test-with-customers - runs collect-and-report: <n> customers or
                        prospects asked whether they would buy the joint
                        offer, what they would pay, and what is missing
                        owner: researcher             after: write-thesis
                        by: <weeks>                   automation: <level>
  decide-proceed      - convenes approval: <who> sends the thesis to
                        diligence, sends it back for rework, or stops it
                        owner: <your executive sponsor role>
                        after: test-with-customers
                        by: <days>                    automation: never
  record-exploration  - convenes debrief: what was learned about the
                        market and about each candidate, written down
                        whether the run proceeds or stops
                        owner: alliance-scout         after: decide-proceed
                        automation: <level>
run-scoped:
  candidate-log - runs collect-and-report        owner: alliance-scout
                  every: <cadence>
                  from: scan-field    until: run close
  sponsor-check - runs roll-call
                  owner: <your alliances role>
                  every: <cadence>
                  from: first-contact until: run close
handoffs:
  state-reason -> test-build-buy-ally [stated-gap]: the gap in one
    paragraph, the offer it blocks, and the date it starts to hurt
  test-build-buy-ally -> scan-field [ally-decision]: the decision that
    a partner is the answer, with the cost and the time of building and
    of buying beside it
  scan-field -> read-candidates [candidate-long-list]: the long list,
    each company with the part of the gap it could close
  read-candidates -> score-fit [candidate-profiles]: what each company
    sells, its size, its owners, its existing partners, each line dated
    and sourced
  score-fit -> pick-approach-list [fit-scores]: the scores, the weights
    behind them, and every candidate that scored badly with the reason
    why
  pick-approach-list -> check-conflicts [approach-list]: the shortlist
    in approach order
  check-conflicts -> first-contact [conflict-findings]: the conflicts
    found per candidate, and whether each one blocks an approach or
    only shapes it
  first-contact -> exploratory-meeting [approach-record]: who was
    approached, by whom, on what date, and what they said back
  exploratory-meeting -> sign-nda [stated-wants]: what each side said
    it wants, what it said it will not do, and the open questions
  sign-nda -> trade-numbers [signed-nda]: the signed agreement, what it
    covers, how long it runs, and what may be shown under it
  trade-numbers -> model-value [shared-numbers]: the numbers each side
    actually showed, dated, with the source named for every figure
  model-value -> write-thesis [value-model]: the value to each side
    over <years>, the assumptions behind it, and what breaks it
  write-thesis -> test-with-customers [joint-thesis]: the thesis at a
    version, and the claims in it that a customer can confirm or deny
  test-with-customers -> decide-proceed [customer-verdict]: what the
    customers said, in their own words, with the count that said no
  decide-proceed -> record-exploration [proceed-decision]: the
    decision, the person who made it, the date, and the conditions
    attached to a go
deviations:
  read-candidates -> test-build-buy-ally [no-candidate-fits]: no
    company on the field can close the gap, so build, buy or ally is
    decided again rather than the bar being lowered until one fits
  check-conflicts -> score-fit [every-candidate-blocked]: an existing
    contract blocks every candidate, so the field is scored again with
    those candidates removed
  first-contact -> pick-approach-list [candidate-will-not-meet]: the
    candidate refuses to meet, so the run moves to the next name on the
    approach list
  exploratory-meeting -> pick-approach-list [wants-do-not-match]: the
    two sides want different things, so the run returns to the
    shortlist rather than writing a thesis one side would not recognize
  trade-numbers -> score-fit [numbers-contradict-pitch]: the numbers
    shown under confidentiality do not match what was said in the
    meeting, so the candidate is scored again on the real ones
  model-value -> exploratory-meeting [worth-too-little]: the
    arrangement is worth too little to one side or both, so the two
    sides say again what would have to be true for it to be worth doing
  test-with-customers -> write-thesis [customers-would-not-buy]:
    customers would not buy the joint offer, so the thesis is written
    again against what they said
  decide-proceed -> write-thesis [thesis-needs-rework]: the sponsor
    sends the thesis back for rework, naming what has to change before
    it is decided again
bindings:
  roster:  <who holds each role - agents claiming the abstract agents
           above, and named people for the strategy lead, the alliances
           lead, the product lead, the legal reviewer, the finance
           partner and the executive sponsor>
  systems: <your strategy record> (write), <your CRM> (read),
           <your partner record> (write), the contract system (read),
           <your company data sources> (read),
           the confidentiality register (write)
  data:    <your strategy> <version>, <your partner policy> <version>,
           the candidate list, the confidentiality agreement per
           candidate
policy:
  the strategic reason is written down before any company is named, and
    a run that cannot state it does not start
  nothing beyond public material is shown to a candidate before mutual
    confidentiality is signed
  a candidate a customer contract forbids us to work with is dropped,
    and the contract clause is recorded against the drop
  the value model states its assumptions, and a model with no downside
    case does not go to the decision
  the decision to proceed is a human gate and is never delegated to an
    agent
  a run that stops still writes its record, and the record is readable
    by the next run that names the same candidate
measures:
  cycle time: <target> from the stated reason to a proceed or stop
  conversion: <target> share of approaches that reach a joint thesis
  volume: <explorations per period>
  quality gate: every thesis carries its customer evidence, and no
                candidate was shown anything before signing
```

Paste this into an assistant that can read the web, such as Claude, ChatGPT or Cursor. It reads the specification and the current Agent Framework documentation, then writes two files: the workflow, and a note on what did not survive the translation. Read the note first. What a runtime cannot express is the part worth arguing about, and this process is a draft to argue with.

Convert the business process below into a runnable Microsoft Agent Framework workflow:
one Python file with Executor classes, a WorkflowBuilder, typed edges,
request_info gates and durable checkpoint storage.

The document is a reference process written to the Agent Processes
specification. Read the specification before you start, because it defines
terms that look ordinary and are not:

  https://agentcatalog.com/spec/agent-processes

Sections 6 (the phase graph), 6.5.1 (exception edges), 6.7.1 (deviations),
7 (automation) and 8 (handoffs) are the ones this conversion turns on.

Then read the current documentation for the primitives you will need, rather
than relying on what you remember of the API:

  https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/agent-framework/workflows/human-in-the-loop
    ctx.request_info, @response_handler, and answering a parked run later
  https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/agent-framework/workflows/checkpoints
    what a checkpoint holds, and allowed_checkpoint_types
  https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/agent-framework/concepts/workflows/edges
    add_edge with condition, add_fan_in_edges, add_switch_case_edge_group
  https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/agent-framework/concepts/workflows/state
    ctx.set_state and ctx.get_state as they actually are today

WHAT THE DOCUMENT ASKS FOR

These hold wherever the process lands, and they matter more than style.

1. Each phase under `phases:` becomes one step, and keeps its name.

2. `after:` gives the edges. `after: a + b` is a join and waits for BOTH.
   Reading it as "either" is the defect the specification calls out by name.

3. Every handoff carries a key in square brackets. Each key becomes one field
   on the run's state, named exactly as the key with hyphens turned into
   underscores, and the sentence beside it becomes that field's comment. The key
   is the stable name; the sentence is prose that may be rewritten.

4. A phase MUST NOT begin before its inbound handoff exists. Where that is
   checkable, check it in the step rather than assuming it.

5. `automation: never` is a gate a person signs. The run stops there and does
   not continue until a person's decision comes back. Do not turn one into a
   notification, a log line, or an automatic transition, whatever the queue
   looks like.

6. Each line under `deviations:` is a backward or sideways edge, returning to
   the phase named on the right. The key in brackets names it, and that name
   belongs in the code.

7. A phase whose `after:` reads like "X or Y, whichever could not finish" is an
   exception edge: it is entered when those phases FAIL, not when they succeed.
   Do not wire it as an ordinary successor.

8. Anything in angle brackets is a blank the adopting organization fills in.
   Leave each one as a named constant at the top of the file with a TODO. Do not
   invent a value, a threshold or a date.

9. Record the document's `from:` line at the top of the file, so it says which
   reference process and which version it was generated from.

10. Run-scoped lines under `run-scoped:` are work that runs alongside the whole
    process rather than at one point in it, and a run may not close while one is
    unfinished. Say in the code what you did about them, including if the answer
    is that the runtime has nowhere to put them.

HOW THAT LOOKS IN MICROSOFT AGENT FRAMEWORK

11. Write for Python, and read those pages before writing a line. This API has
    moved: `set_shared_state`, `RequestInfoExecutor`, `RequestInfoMessage` and
    `send_responses_streaming` are all in the training data and none of them exist
    any more. The .NET workflow API differs in kind rather than in spelling, so a
    file written for one does not port by renaming.

12. A phase is a class deriving from `Executor` whose `super().__init__(id=...)`
    takes the phase name verbatim. The id is not cosmetic: a checkpoint stores a
    signature over the topology and the executor ids, so an id built from a run, a
    timestamp or a counter cannot be resumed into.

13. Give each phase a `@handler` method and move work on with
    `await ctx.send_message(...)`. A handler that returns without sending is a dead
    end: the branch stops, the run converges, and it reports success. So a phase
    you are deliberately leaving unimplemented must still send a placeholder
    onward. Do not stub with `raise NotImplementedError`, which fails the run
    instead of leaving it runnable.

14. `after: a` is `builder.add_edge(a, b)`. `after: a + b` is
    `builder.add_fan_in_edges([a, b], target)`, and the target's handler must be
    annotated `list[T]`, because a fan-in delivers one aggregated list rather than
    the separate messages. A handler typed for the single value is dropped as a
    mismatch with nothing raised.

15. The join is the trap here, and it is the opposite of LangGraph's. The
    barrier re-arms: it clears its buffer when it fires and then demands a fresh
    message from every source. So a deviation that re-enters ONE arm parks the
    run forever waiting for an arm that will not run again, and the workflow ends
    IDLE reporting success. Wherever a deviation re-enters one arm of a join,
    replace the barrier with an ordinary edge from each arm into a small executor
    that records each arrival with `ctx.set_state` and only forwards when every
    expected key is present, and say in a comment that putting `add_fan_in_edges`
    back reintroduces the stall.

16. A phase that is both a join target and a deviation target needs two
    handlers, one annotated `list[T]` for the barrier and one annotated `T` for the
    backward message. Write only the list handler and every backward edge into it
    is discarded as a type mismatch, silently.

17. `automation: never` is `await ctx.request_info(request_data=...,
    response_type=...)` inside the phase, answered by a `@response_handler` on the
    same executor whose annotations match those exact types. The run parks at
    `IDLE_WITH_PENDING_REQUESTS` and the host answers with
    `workflow.run(stream=True, responses={request_id: value})`. If no handler
    matches the pair, the framework logs a warning and parks anyway, so the gate
    reads as working right up until somebody asks why the approval did not take.

18. A gate is only a gate if the wait survives a restart, so pass
    `checkpoint_storage=FileCheckpointStorage(...)` to the builder. Checkpointing
    is off by default and `InMemoryCheckpointStorage` reads as configured while
    persisting nothing. Register every handoff payload type in
    `allowed_checkpoint_types`, or the first restore raises. Anything an executor
    keeps as an instance attribute is absent after a restore unless you export it
    from `on_checkpoint_save` and read it back in `on_checkpoint_restore`, and it
    comes back empty rather than missing.

19. Each line under `deviations:` is `builder.add_edge(source, earlier,
    condition=fn)` with `fn` named after the key. Cycles are legal and unchecked,
    but raise `max_iterations` well above its default of 100, because several live
    cycles will exhaust a budget sized for a straight line and fail with a message
    about convergence that reads like a broken graph. Keep the ordinary forward
    edge unconditional and add each deviation beside it: a condition that returns
    false is dropped with no event, so a forward path expressed as a condition
    dies silently on every normal run, which is most of them.

20. Handoff values go in `ctx.set_state(key, value)` and come back from
    `ctx.get_state(key)`, untyped and unchecked. A write is visible to its writer
    at once and to everyone else only in the next superstep, and two writers of one
    key in a superstep keep the last write. Never read a key in the same superstep
    another phase wrote it.

21. There are no timers, no deadlines and no scheduled wakes. Nothing in
    `run-scoped:` becomes an executor and `by:` has no expression at all, so write
    them as comments naming where they start and stop, and say plainly in the
    fidelity note that a run can close over an unfinished run-scoped line. Do not
    fake a deadline with a sleep inside a handler, which blocks the whole superstep
    barrier, and never let an expiring wait release a gate.

Produce a second file alongside it, `FIDELITY.md`, and treat it as the more
important of the two. The code is for whoever builds this. The fidelity note
is for whoever has to decide whether this platform suits the process at all,
and that is usually a different person who will never read the code.

It has three parts.

**What came across.** Briefly: how many phases became steps, how many handoff
keys became state fields, which gates stop the run, which deviations became
edges. Counts and names, not reassurance.

**What did not, and what was done instead.** One entry per gap. For each one,
say what the document requires, what the platform can actually express, what
you did in its place, and what breaks if somebody later removes your
workaround. This last part matters most: a workaround nobody understands is a
workaround somebody deletes.

**What a person still has to decide.** The blanks are not a translation
failure, they are the point of a reference process, so list what has to be
filled in before this could run against anything real, and say which of those
choices the platform constrains.

Write it in plain English for somebody who has not read the specification, and
do not soften it. A translation of a reference process is a draft to argue
with, not a build artifact, and the honest account of what was lost is the most
useful thing you will produce.

Here is the process document.

```
PROCESS: explore an alliance          id: <team>/explore-an-alliance   v1
from: ref/prt/explore-an-alliance v1
owner: <who>                          effective: <date>
trigger: <who> writes down a capability the company cannot offer on its
         own, in <your strategy record>
         watch: record=<capability gap>
                system=<your strategy record>
                change=<a capability the company cannot offer on its
                own is written down>
concurrency: runs may overlap - <how many> explorations live at once,
             and one candidate company is explored by one run at a time
goal: one written thesis both companies would recognize, tested with
      real customers, and a named decision to take it to diligence or to
      stop, reached before either side has drafted an agreement
phases:
  state-reason        - human: write down what the company wants to
                        offer, what is missing, and why now rather than
                        next year
                        owner: <your strategy role>   after: trigger
                        automation: <level>
  test-build-buy-ally - convenes decide-and-announce: whether the gap is
                        better built, bought or partnered, with the cost
                        and the time of each written down
                        owner: <your strategy role>
                        after: state-reason           automation: never
  scan-field          - runs collect-and-report: the companies that
                        could close the gap, however they package it
                        today
                        owner: alliance-scout
                        after: test-build-buy-ally
                        by: <weeks>                   automation: <level>
  read-candidates     - runs collect-and-report: what each company
                        sells, who buys it, who owns it, and who it
                        already works with
                        owner: researcher             after: scan-field
                        by: <weeks>                   automation: <level>
  score-fit           - runs assessment: each candidate scored against
                        the reason the run started, on capability,
                        reach, terms and how they treat partners
                        owner: alliance-scout      after: read-candidates
                        by: <days>                    automation: <level>
  pick-approach-list  - convenes decide-and-announce: the shortlist, the
                        order, and the reason each candidate is on it.
                        <who> confirms the list
                        owner: <your alliances role>  after: score-fit
                        automation: <level>
  check-conflicts     - runs assessment: existing contracts, customer
                        overlaps, exclusivity and competitor ties that
                        would block an approach
                        owner: supplier-check   after: pick-approach-list
                        by: <days>                    automation: <level>
  first-contact       - human: the approach made by <who>, to the person
                        on the other side who can say yes to a
                        conversation
                        owner: <your alliances role>
                        after: check-conflicts        automation: never
  exploratory-meeting - convenes briefing: both sides say what they
                        want, what they will not do, and what would have
                        to be true for this to be worth doing
                        owner: <your alliances role>
                        after: first-contact
                        by: <weeks>                   automation: <level>
  sign-nda            - convenes approval: mutual confidentiality signed
                        by both companies before either shows numbers,
                        code or a customer list
                        owner: <your legal role>
                        after: exploratory-meeting
                        by: <days>                    automation: never
  trade-numbers       - human: each side shows what it actually has:
                        volumes, margins, coverage and roadmap, under
                        the signed agreement and nowhere else
                        owner: alliance-scout         after: sign-nda
                        by: <weeks>                   automation: <level>
  model-value         - runs assessment: what the arrangement is worth
                        to each side over <years>, what each side gives
                        up, and what happens if volumes come in low
                        owner: deal-structurer     after: trade-numbers
                        by: <days>                    automation: <level>
  write-thesis        - human: one page saying what the two companies
                        would offer together, to whom, what each side
                        contributes, and what each side takes home
                        owner: alliance-scout         after: model-value
                        by: <days>                    automation: <level>
  test-with-customers - runs collect-and-report: <n> customers or
                        prospects asked whether they would buy the joint
                        offer, what they would pay, and what is missing
                        owner: researcher             after: write-thesis
                        by: <weeks>                   automation: <level>
  decide-proceed      - convenes approval: <who> sends the thesis to
                        diligence, sends it back for rework, or stops it
                        owner: <your executive sponsor role>
                        after: test-with-customers
                        by: <days>                    automation: never
  record-exploration  - convenes debrief: what was learned about the
                        market and about each candidate, written down
                        whether the run proceeds or stops
                        owner: alliance-scout         after: decide-proceed
                        automation: <level>
run-scoped:
  candidate-log - runs collect-and-report        owner: alliance-scout
                  every: <cadence>
                  from: scan-field    until: run close
  sponsor-check - runs roll-call
                  owner: <your alliances role>
                  every: <cadence>
                  from: first-contact until: run close
handoffs:
  state-reason -> test-build-buy-ally [stated-gap]: the gap in one
    paragraph, the offer it blocks, and the date it starts to hurt
  test-build-buy-ally -> scan-field [ally-decision]: the decision that
    a partner is the answer, with the cost and the time of building and
    of buying beside it
  scan-field -> read-candidates [candidate-long-list]: the long list,
    each company with the part of the gap it could close
  read-candidates -> score-fit [candidate-profiles]: what each company
    sells, its size, its owners, its existing partners, each line dated
    and sourced
  score-fit -> pick-approach-list [fit-scores]: the scores, the weights
    behind them, and every candidate that scored badly with the reason
    why
  pick-approach-list -> check-conflicts [approach-list]: the shortlist
    in approach order
  check-conflicts -> first-contact [conflict-findings]: the conflicts
    found per candidate, and whether each one blocks an approach or
    only shapes it
  first-contact -> exploratory-meeting [approach-record]: who was
    approached, by whom, on what date, and what they said back
  exploratory-meeting -> sign-nda [stated-wants]: what each side said
    it wants, what it said it will not do, and the open questions
  sign-nda -> trade-numbers [signed-nda]: the signed agreement, what it
    covers, how long it runs, and what may be shown under it
  trade-numbers -> model-value [shared-numbers]: the numbers each side
    actually showed, dated, with the source named for every figure
  model-value -> write-thesis [value-model]: the value to each side
    over <years>, the assumptions behind it, and what breaks it
  write-thesis -> test-with-customers [joint-thesis]: the thesis at a
    version, and the claims in it that a customer can confirm or deny
  test-with-customers -> decide-proceed [customer-verdict]: what the
    customers said, in their own words, with the count that said no
  decide-proceed -> record-exploration [proceed-decision]: the
    decision, the person who made it, the date, and the conditions
    attached to a go
deviations:
  read-candidates -> test-build-buy-ally [no-candidate-fits]: no
    company on the field can close the gap, so build, buy or ally is
    decided again rather than the bar being lowered until one fits
  check-conflicts -> score-fit [every-candidate-blocked]: an existing
    contract blocks every candidate, so the field is scored again with
    those candidates removed
  first-contact -> pick-approach-list [candidate-will-not-meet]: the
    candidate refuses to meet, so the run moves to the next name on the
    approach list
  exploratory-meeting -> pick-approach-list [wants-do-not-match]: the
    two sides want different things, so the run returns to the
    shortlist rather than writing a thesis one side would not recognize
  trade-numbers -> score-fit [numbers-contradict-pitch]: the numbers
    shown under confidentiality do not match what was said in the
    meeting, so the candidate is scored again on the real ones
  model-value -> exploratory-meeting [worth-too-little]: the
    arrangement is worth too little to one side or both, so the two
    sides say again what would have to be true for it to be worth doing
  test-with-customers -> write-thesis [customers-would-not-buy]:
    customers would not buy the joint offer, so the thesis is written
    again against what they said
  decide-proceed -> write-thesis [thesis-needs-rework]: the sponsor
    sends the thesis back for rework, naming what has to change before
    it is decided again
bindings:
  roster:  <who holds each role - agents claiming the abstract agents
           above, and named people for the strategy lead, the alliances
           lead, the product lead, the legal reviewer, the finance
           partner and the executive sponsor>
  systems: <your strategy record> (write), <your CRM> (read),
           <your partner record> (write), the contract system (read),
           <your company data sources> (read),
           the confidentiality register (write)
  data:    <your strategy> <version>, <your partner policy> <version>,
           the candidate list, the confidentiality agreement per
           candidate
policy:
  the strategic reason is written down before any company is named, and
    a run that cannot state it does not start
  nothing beyond public material is shown to a candidate before mutual
    confidentiality is signed
  a candidate a customer contract forbids us to work with is dropped,
    and the contract clause is recorded against the drop
  the value model states its assumptions, and a model with no downside
    case does not go to the decision
  the decision to proceed is a human gate and is never delegated to an
    agent
  a run that stops still writes its record, and the record is readable
    by the next run that names the same candidate
measures:
  cycle time: <target> from the stated reason to a proceed or stop
  conversion: <target> share of approaches that reach a joint thesis
  volume: <explorations per period>
  quality gate: every thesis carries its customer evidence, and no
                candidate was shown anything before signing
```

Paste this into an assistant that can read the web, such as Claude, ChatGPT or Cursor. It reads the specification and the current CrewAI documentation, then writes two files: the flow, and a note on what did not survive the translation. Read the note first. What a runtime cannot express is the part worth arguing about, and this process is a draft to argue with.

Convert the business process below into a runnable CrewAI Flow:
one Python file with a Pydantic state model, one Flow subclass, @start,
@listen, @router and a durable human feedback provider.

The document is a reference process written to the Agent Processes
specification. Read the specification before you start, because it defines
terms that look ordinary and are not:

  https://agentcatalog.com/spec/agent-processes

Sections 6 (the phase graph), 6.5.1 (exception edges), 6.7.1 (deviations),
7 (automation) and 8 (handoffs) are the ones this conversion turns on.

Then read the current documentation for the primitives you will need, rather
than relying on what you remember of the API:

  https://docs.crewai.com/en/concepts/flows
    Flow, @start, @listen, @router, and_, or_, state, kickoff, plot
  https://docs.crewai.com/en/learn/human-feedback-in-flows
    @human_feedback, the provider protocol, from_pending and resume
  https://docs.crewai.com/en/guides/flows/mastering-flow-state
    @persist and what persistence actually promises, which is less than it sounds

WHAT THE DOCUMENT ASKS FOR

These hold wherever the process lands, and they matter more than style.

1. Each phase under `phases:` becomes one step, and keeps its name.

2. `after:` gives the edges. `after: a + b` is a join and waits for BOTH.
   Reading it as "either" is the defect the specification calls out by name.

3. Every handoff carries a key in square brackets. Each key becomes one field
   on the run's state, named exactly as the key with hyphens turned into
   underscores, and the sentence beside it becomes that field's comment. The key
   is the stable name; the sentence is prose that may be rewritten.

4. A phase MUST NOT begin before its inbound handoff exists. Where that is
   checkable, check it in the step rather than assuming it.

5. `automation: never` is a gate a person signs. The run stops there and does
   not continue until a person's decision comes back. Do not turn one into a
   notification, a log line, or an automatic transition, whatever the queue
   looks like.

6. Each line under `deviations:` is a backward or sideways edge, returning to
   the phase named on the right. The key in brackets names it, and that name
   belongs in the code.

7. A phase whose `after:` reads like "X or Y, whichever could not finish" is an
   exception edge: it is entered when those phases FAIL, not when they succeed.
   Do not wire it as an ordinary successor.

8. Anything in angle brackets is a blank the adopting organization fills in.
   Leave each one as a named constant at the top of the file with a TODO. Do not
   invent a value, a threshold or a date.

9. Record the document's `from:` line at the top of the file, so it says which
   reference process and which version it was generated from.

10. Run-scoped lines under `run-scoped:` are work that runs alongside the whole
    process rather than at one point in it, and a run may not close while one is
    unfinished. Say in the code what you did about them, including if the answer
    is that the runtime has nowhere to put them.

HOW THAT LOOKS IN CREWAI FLOWS

11. Build a Flow, not a Crew. A Crew is a team of roles with no graph, no join,
    no persistence handle and no gate, and cannot express this document at all.
    Each phase is one method on a single `Flow` subclass, keeping its name with
    hyphens turned into underscores. A phase that genuinely needs role-based agents
    builds its own Crew inside its own method body, and the Flow stays the graph.

12. Declare the state as a Pydantic model bound as the type parameter,
    `class NegotiateTheAgreement(Flow[NegotiationState])`, and read and write
    `self.state.field`. Never use the untyped dict form: the handoff keys are this
    process's memory, and an untyped dict turns a misspelt key into a handoff that
    is silently absent. Keep the auto-injected `id` field, which is what every
    resume depends on.

13. `after: a` is `@listen(a)`. `after: a + b` is `@listen(and_(a, b))`. Never
    write `or_` where the document writes `+`.

14. Check every inbound handoff at the top of the method and raise if one is
    missing. `@listen` says when a method may run and says nothing about what is
    in hand when it does.

15. The join is the trap, and it is proven rather than theoretical. `and_()`
    empties its accumulator the moment it fires, so re-entering BOTH arms works
    forever, and re-entering ONE arm after it has fired leaves it holding a single
    trigger and waiting for the other for good. The cascade drains, CrewAI prints
    that the flow completed, and `kickoff()` returns normally. So for any joining
    phase that a deviation can send work back into, do not use `and_()` at all:
    make the join a `@router` that both arms trigger, which reads the state fields
    and emits its label only when every inbound handoff is present. A router is
    re-evaluated against durable state every time and is never suppressed by the
    once-fired set.

16. Do not write a phase as `@listen(or_(and_(a, b), "some_label"))`. There is
    one accumulator per listener, shared across every branch of its condition and
    wiped when any branch satisfies, so the label firing while the join is half
    full erases the arm that had already arrived.

17. `automation: never` is `@human_feedback(message=..., provider=...)` stacked
    under the method's `@listen`, with a provider whose `request_feedback` raises
    `HumanFeedbackPending`. The run then persists, returns that object from
    `kickoff()`, and a different process answers later with `from_pending(flow_id,
    persistence)` and `resume(text)`. Do not take the default `ConsoleProvider`,
    which calls `input()`: that gate exists only while somebody is watching a
    terminal, and a run started by a scheduler either hangs or takes an empty
    string.

18. Silence must not approve, and the platform's default is that it does. With
    `emit=[...]` set, an empty resume collapses to `default_outcome`, or to the
    first label when that is unset, with no model consulted and nobody named. Treat
    an empty or unrecognised answer as a refusal in your own router. And write the
    approver's name and the time onto the state yourself, because
    `HumanFeedbackResult` carries the text, the outcome and a timestamp but has no
    field for the person, which the specification requires.

19. Each line under `deviations:` is a `@router` named after the key, returning
    a label named after the same key, with the target subscribing as
    `@listen(or_(normal_trigger, "the_label"))`. Route rather than listen
    directly, because a router is re-evaluated on every cycle while a top-level
    `or_` listener is suppressed after it first fires.

20. An exception edge is a `try` and `except` around the failing phase's body,
    recording the failure on the state and emitting an exception label from a
    router. Wiring it as `@listen(or_(x, y))` fires when those phases SUCCEED, so
    the clearing phase would run on every healthy run.

21. An unimplemented phase is a method with the document's own sentence as its
    docstring and a bare `pass`, which is safe because listeners still fire on a
    `None` return. An unimplemented `@router` is not safe: returning `None` emits
    no label, every phase below it disappears from the run including the gates, and
    the flow reports success. A stub router must return a hard-coded label with a
    TODO beside it, or raise.

22. Turn persistence on with `@persist(SQLiteFlowPersistence(...))`, then treat
    every phase that performs a real act as something that will run twice.
    Persistence saves the state fields and nothing else, so a restart rehydrates
    the data and runs the graph again from `@start`: a flow that had already sent a
    written refusal sends a second one. Guard each acting phase with a state field
    it checks and sets.

23. There are no timers, no deadlines and no cadences, and `run-scoped:` has no
    counterpart at all. Put each `by:` value as a named constant, name the
    run-scoped lines in the module docstring as unimplemented obligations, and say
    in the fidelity note that no deadline in this document is enforced by anything.
    These absences produce no diagnostic whatsoever, which is exactly why they have
    to be written down.

Produce a second file alongside it, `FIDELITY.md`, and treat it as the more
important of the two. The code is for whoever builds this. The fidelity note
is for whoever has to decide whether this platform suits the process at all,
and that is usually a different person who will never read the code.

It has three parts.

**What came across.** Briefly: how many phases became steps, how many handoff
keys became state fields, which gates stop the run, which deviations became
edges. Counts and names, not reassurance.

**What did not, and what was done instead.** One entry per gap. For each one,
say what the document requires, what the platform can actually express, what
you did in its place, and what breaks if somebody later removes your
workaround. This last part matters most: a workaround nobody understands is a
workaround somebody deletes.

**What a person still has to decide.** The blanks are not a translation
failure, they are the point of a reference process, so list what has to be
filled in before this could run against anything real, and say which of those
choices the platform constrains.

Write it in plain English for somebody who has not read the specification, and
do not soften it. A translation of a reference process is a draft to argue
with, not a build artifact, and the honest account of what was lost is the most
useful thing you will produce.

Here is the process document.

```
PROCESS: explore an alliance          id: <team>/explore-an-alliance   v1
from: ref/prt/explore-an-alliance v1
owner: <who>                          effective: <date>
trigger: <who> writes down a capability the company cannot offer on its
         own, in <your strategy record>
         watch: record=<capability gap>
                system=<your strategy record>
                change=<a capability the company cannot offer on its
                own is written down>
concurrency: runs may overlap - <how many> explorations live at once,
             and one candidate company is explored by one run at a time
goal: one written thesis both companies would recognize, tested with
      real customers, and a named decision to take it to diligence or to
      stop, reached before either side has drafted an agreement
phases:
  state-reason        - human: write down what the company wants to
                        offer, what is missing, and why now rather than
                        next year
                        owner: <your strategy role>   after: trigger
                        automation: <level>
  test-build-buy-ally - convenes decide-and-announce: whether the gap is
                        better built, bought or partnered, with the cost
                        and the time of each written down
                        owner: <your strategy role>
                        after: state-reason           automation: never
  scan-field          - runs collect-and-report: the companies that
                        could close the gap, however they package it
                        today
                        owner: alliance-scout
                        after: test-build-buy-ally
                        by: <weeks>                   automation: <level>
  read-candidates     - runs collect-and-report: what each company
                        sells, who buys it, who owns it, and who it
                        already works with
                        owner: researcher             after: scan-field
                        by: <weeks>                   automation: <level>
  score-fit           - runs assessment: each candidate scored against
                        the reason the run started, on capability,
                        reach, terms and how they treat partners
                        owner: alliance-scout      after: read-candidates
                        by: <days>                    automation: <level>
  pick-approach-list  - convenes decide-and-announce: the shortlist, the
                        order, and the reason each candidate is on it.
                        <who> confirms the list
                        owner: <your alliances role>  after: score-fit
                        automation: <level>
  check-conflicts     - runs assessment: existing contracts, customer
                        overlaps, exclusivity and competitor ties that
                        would block an approach
                        owner: supplier-check   after: pick-approach-list
                        by: <days>                    automation: <level>
  first-contact       - human: the approach made by <who>, to the person
                        on the other side who can say yes to a
                        conversation
                        owner: <your alliances role>
                        after: check-conflicts        automation: never
  exploratory-meeting - convenes briefing: both sides say what they
                        want, what they will not do, and what would have
                        to be true for this to be worth doing
                        owner: <your alliances role>
                        after: first-contact
                        by: <weeks>                   automation: <level>
  sign-nda            - convenes approval: mutual confidentiality signed
                        by both companies before either shows numbers,
                        code or a customer list
                        owner: <your legal role>
                        after: exploratory-meeting
                        by: <days>                    automation: never
  trade-numbers       - human: each side shows what it actually has:
                        volumes, margins, coverage and roadmap, under
                        the signed agreement and nowhere else
                        owner: alliance-scout         after: sign-nda
                        by: <weeks>                   automation: <level>
  model-value         - runs assessment: what the arrangement is worth
                        to each side over <years>, what each side gives
                        up, and what happens if volumes come in low
                        owner: deal-structurer     after: trade-numbers
                        by: <days>                    automation: <level>
  write-thesis        - human: one page saying what the two companies
                        would offer together, to whom, what each side
                        contributes, and what each side takes home
                        owner: alliance-scout         after: model-value
                        by: <days>                    automation: <level>
  test-with-customers - runs collect-and-report: <n> customers or
                        prospects asked whether they would buy the joint
                        offer, what they would pay, and what is missing
                        owner: researcher             after: write-thesis
                        by: <weeks>                   automation: <level>
  decide-proceed      - convenes approval: <who> sends the thesis to
                        diligence, sends it back for rework, or stops it
                        owner: <your executive sponsor role>
                        after: test-with-customers
                        by: <days>                    automation: never
  record-exploration  - convenes debrief: what was learned about the
                        market and about each candidate, written down
                        whether the run proceeds or stops
                        owner: alliance-scout         after: decide-proceed
                        automation: <level>
run-scoped:
  candidate-log - runs collect-and-report        owner: alliance-scout
                  every: <cadence>
                  from: scan-field    until: run close
  sponsor-check - runs roll-call
                  owner: <your alliances role>
                  every: <cadence>
                  from: first-contact until: run close
handoffs:
  state-reason -> test-build-buy-ally [stated-gap]: the gap in one
    paragraph, the offer it blocks, and the date it starts to hurt
  test-build-buy-ally -> scan-field [ally-decision]: the decision that
    a partner is the answer, with the cost and the time of building and
    of buying beside it
  scan-field -> read-candidates [candidate-long-list]: the long list,
    each company with the part of the gap it could close
  read-candidates -> score-fit [candidate-profiles]: what each company
    sells, its size, its owners, its existing partners, each line dated
    and sourced
  score-fit -> pick-approach-list [fit-scores]: the scores, the weights
    behind them, and every candidate that scored badly with the reason
    why
  pick-approach-list -> check-conflicts [approach-list]: the shortlist
    in approach order
  check-conflicts -> first-contact [conflict-findings]: the conflicts
    found per candidate, and whether each one blocks an approach or
    only shapes it
  first-contact -> exploratory-meeting [approach-record]: who was
    approached, by whom, on what date, and what they said back
  exploratory-meeting -> sign-nda [stated-wants]: what each side said
    it wants, what it said it will not do, and the open questions
  sign-nda -> trade-numbers [signed-nda]: the signed agreement, what it
    covers, how long it runs, and what may be shown under it
  trade-numbers -> model-value [shared-numbers]: the numbers each side
    actually showed, dated, with the source named for every figure
  model-value -> write-thesis [value-model]: the value to each side
    over <years>, the assumptions behind it, and what breaks it
  write-thesis -> test-with-customers [joint-thesis]: the thesis at a
    version, and the claims in it that a customer can confirm or deny
  test-with-customers -> decide-proceed [customer-verdict]: what the
    customers said, in their own words, with the count that said no
  decide-proceed -> record-exploration [proceed-decision]: the
    decision, the person who made it, the date, and the conditions
    attached to a go
deviations:
  read-candidates -> test-build-buy-ally [no-candidate-fits]: no
    company on the field can close the gap, so build, buy or ally is
    decided again rather than the bar being lowered until one fits
  check-conflicts -> score-fit [every-candidate-blocked]: an existing
    contract blocks every candidate, so the field is scored again with
    those candidates removed
  first-contact -> pick-approach-list [candidate-will-not-meet]: the
    candidate refuses to meet, so the run moves to the next name on the
    approach list
  exploratory-meeting -> pick-approach-list [wants-do-not-match]: the
    two sides want different things, so the run returns to the
    shortlist rather than writing a thesis one side would not recognize
  trade-numbers -> score-fit [numbers-contradict-pitch]: the numbers
    shown under confidentiality do not match what was said in the
    meeting, so the candidate is scored again on the real ones
  model-value -> exploratory-meeting [worth-too-little]: the
    arrangement is worth too little to one side or both, so the two
    sides say again what would have to be true for it to be worth doing
  test-with-customers -> write-thesis [customers-would-not-buy]:
    customers would not buy the joint offer, so the thesis is written
    again against what they said
  decide-proceed -> write-thesis [thesis-needs-rework]: the sponsor
    sends the thesis back for rework, naming what has to change before
    it is decided again
bindings:
  roster:  <who holds each role - agents claiming the abstract agents
           above, and named people for the strategy lead, the alliances
           lead, the product lead, the legal reviewer, the finance
           partner and the executive sponsor>
  systems: <your strategy record> (write), <your CRM> (read),
           <your partner record> (write), the contract system (read),
           <your company data sources> (read),
           the confidentiality register (write)
  data:    <your strategy> <version>, <your partner policy> <version>,
           the candidate list, the confidentiality agreement per
           candidate
policy:
  the strategic reason is written down before any company is named, and
    a run that cannot state it does not start
  nothing beyond public material is shown to a candidate before mutual
    confidentiality is signed
  a candidate a customer contract forbids us to work with is dropped,
    and the contract clause is recorded against the drop
  the value model states its assumptions, and a model with no downside
    case does not go to the decision
  the decision to proceed is a human gate and is never delegated to an
    agent
  a run that stops still writes its record, and the record is readable
    by the next run that names the same candidate
measures:
  cycle time: <target> from the stated reason to a proceed or stop
  conversion: <target> share of approaches that reach a joint thesis
  volume: <explorations per period>
  quality gate: every thesis carries its customer evidence, and no
                candidate was shown anything before signing
```

Paste this into an assistant that can read the web, such as Claude, ChatGPT or Cursor. It reads the specification and the current ADK documentation, then writes two files: the workflow, and a note on what did not survive the translation. Read the note first. What a runtime cannot express is the part worth arguing about, and this process is a draft to argue with.

Convert the business process below into a runnable Google ADK workflow:
one Python file with a Workflow, nodes, routed edges, a JoinNode,
RequestInput gates and a persisting session service.

The document is a reference process written to the Agent Processes
specification. Read the specification before you start, because it defines
terms that look ordinary and are not:

  https://agentcatalog.com/spec/agent-processes

Sections 6 (the phase graph), 6.5.1 (exception edges), 6.7.1 (deviations),
7 (automation) and 8 (handoffs) are the ones this conversion turns on.

Then read the current documentation for the primitives you will need, rather
than relying on what you remember of the API:

  https://adk.dev/graphs/routes/
    nodes, tuple chains, Event(route=), JoinNode, back-edges
  https://adk.dev/graphs/human-input/
    RequestInput and the rerun_on_resume handoff
  https://adk.dev/runtime/resume/
    ResumabilityConfig, resuming by invocation id, at-least-once tools
  https://adk.dev/graphs/data-handling/
    Event.output against state, and the selector syntax in instructions

WHAT THE DOCUMENT ASKS FOR

These hold wherever the process lands, and they matter more than style.

1. Each phase under `phases:` becomes one step, and keeps its name.

2. `after:` gives the edges. `after: a + b` is a join and waits for BOTH.
   Reading it as "either" is the defect the specification calls out by name.

3. Every handoff carries a key in square brackets. Each key becomes one field
   on the run's state, named exactly as the key with hyphens turned into
   underscores, and the sentence beside it becomes that field's comment. The key
   is the stable name; the sentence is prose that may be rewritten.

4. A phase MUST NOT begin before its inbound handoff exists. Where that is
   checkable, check it in the step rather than assuming it.

5. `automation: never` is a gate a person signs. The run stops there and does
   not continue until a person's decision comes back. Do not turn one into a
   notification, a log line, or an automatic transition, whatever the queue
   looks like.

6. Each line under `deviations:` is a backward or sideways edge, returning to
   the phase named on the right. The key in brackets names it, and that name
   belongs in the code.

7. A phase whose `after:` reads like "X or Y, whichever could not finish" is an
   exception edge: it is entered when those phases FAIL, not when they succeed.
   Do not wire it as an ordinary successor.

8. Anything in angle brackets is a blank the adopting organization fills in.
   Leave each one as a named constant at the top of the file with a TODO. Do not
   invent a value, a threshold or a date.

9. Record the document's `from:` line at the top of the file, so it says which
   reference process and which version it was generated from.

10. Run-scoped lines under `run-scoped:` are work that runs alongside the whole
    process rather than at one point in it, and a run may not close while one is
    unfinished. Say in the code what you did about them, including if the answer
    is that the runtime has nowhere to put them.

HOW THAT LOOKS IN GOOGLE ADK

11. Build a `Workflow` from `google.adk.workflow`, and pin `google-adk>=2.0` in
    a comment. Do not use `SequentialAgent`, `ParallelAgent` or `LoopAgent`: they
    are deprecated in favour of the graph, and they carry their own defects around
    state and control flow. The documentation moved to adk.dev, and anything you
    remember about nesting agents rather than drawing a graph is out of date.

12. Each phase is one node keeping its name. Take the node kind from how the
    phase resolves rather than from taste: a `human:` or `system:` phase is a plain
    Python function node, and a `runs` or `convenes` phase is an `Agent`.

13. `after:` gives the edges, written as tuple chains in `edges=[...]`, and the
    trigger is the `"START"` keyword. Take the order only from `after:` lines and
    never from the order the phases are listed in.

14. `after: a + b` is a `JoinNode`, and it must be guarded, because this is the
    worst trap of any runtime here. The join fires when every static predecessor is
    marked COMPLETED, nothing ever un-completes a node, and stored outputs are
    never cleared. So after a deviation re-runs one arm, the join fires the instant
    that arm finishes and hands the next phase LAST PASS'S value for every arm that
    did not re-run. It does not stall, it proceeds with stale data, and nothing
    logs. Stamp each arm's output with a pass counter or a content hash, and have
    the phase after the join compare the stamps and refuse to run when they
    disagree.

15. Each line under `deviations:` is a routed back-edge: a router after the
    phase on the left returning `Event(route=...)`, named after the key in
    brackets, with one arm going back to the phase on the right and one going
    forward. An unconditional cycle raises at construction, which is the one place
    this model checks your work. Nothing budgets a routed cycle, so add your own
    count and stop rather than looping forever.

16. Give every router an explicit `DEFAULT_ROUTE` arm, and route it to a phase
    that stops and asks a person. A route value matching no key writes a log
    warning, ends that branch, and lets the run finish reporting success with the
    rest of the process never having happened.

17. `automation: never` is a `RequestInput` node of its own, never an `Agent`
    asking a question. Decorate it `@node(rerun_on_resume=False)` and yield
    `RequestInput(message=..., payload=..., response_schema=...)`, so the run
    stops, persists, and delivers the person's answer to the node's successor as
    its typed input. A resumed workflow runs its tools at least once, so any
    irreversible act needs its own duplicate guard.

18. Make the gates durable or say plainly that they are not. Wrap the graph in
    `App(..., resumability_config=ResumabilityConfig(is_resumable=True))` and pass
    a persisting session service, never the in-memory one. Note in the file that
    the command line and the web UI cannot resume a run, so whoever releases these
    gates needs an operator surface that somebody has to write.

19. Every `Agent` in the graph gets `mode="single_turn"` and no `sub_agents`.
    A non-empty `sub_agents` list silently adds a transfer tool, and a model that
    uses it runs a different agent in this node's place while the graph's outgoing
    edge fires on schedule regardless: the topology is honoured perfectly and the
    work belongs to somebody else.

20. Model failure as a route, not as an exception. A node that raises does not
    propagate: the failure is caught, recorded, and shuts the workflow down without
    raising to the caller. So a phase that can fail catches its own failure and
    returns `Event(route="could-not-finish")`, and the exception phase hangs off
    that arm.

21. Keep every blank as a named module-level constant and never interpolate one
    into an `instruction=` string. Angle brackets and curly braces are ADK's own
    data selector syntax inside instructions, so a blank pasted verbatim stops
    being a blank and becomes a selector.

22. `by:` and `not-before:` have no expression, and `@node(timeout=)` is not
    one: it is an in-process wall clock that cancels the node and, because failures
    are swallowed, ends the run silently rather than recording a missed deadline.
    Nothing in `run-scoped:` has an expression either, and it must not be faked as
    an ordinary node, because a node has to be reached and has to finish before
    anything downstream starts, which is the opposite of what those lines mean.
    Leave both out of the graph and name them in the fidelity note.

Produce a second file alongside it, `FIDELITY.md`, and treat it as the more
important of the two. The code is for whoever builds this. The fidelity note
is for whoever has to decide whether this platform suits the process at all,
and that is usually a different person who will never read the code.

It has three parts.

**What came across.** Briefly: how many phases became steps, how many handoff
keys became state fields, which gates stop the run, which deviations became
edges. Counts and names, not reassurance.

**What did not, and what was done instead.** One entry per gap. For each one,
say what the document requires, what the platform can actually express, what
you did in its place, and what breaks if somebody later removes your
workaround. This last part matters most: a workaround nobody understands is a
workaround somebody deletes.

**What a person still has to decide.** The blanks are not a translation
failure, they are the point of a reference process, so list what has to be
filled in before this could run against anything real, and say which of those
choices the platform constrains.

Write it in plain English for somebody who has not read the specification, and
do not soften it. A translation of a reference process is a draft to argue
with, not a build artifact, and the honest account of what was lost is the most
useful thing you will produce.

Here is the process document.

```
PROCESS: explore an alliance          id: <team>/explore-an-alliance   v1
from: ref/prt/explore-an-alliance v1
owner: <who>                          effective: <date>
trigger: <who> writes down a capability the company cannot offer on its
         own, in <your strategy record>
         watch: record=<capability gap>
                system=<your strategy record>
                change=<a capability the company cannot offer on its
                own is written down>
concurrency: runs may overlap - <how many> explorations live at once,
             and one candidate company is explored by one run at a time
goal: one written thesis both companies would recognize, tested with
      real customers, and a named decision to take it to diligence or to
      stop, reached before either side has drafted an agreement
phases:
  state-reason        - human: write down what the company wants to
                        offer, what is missing, and why now rather than
                        next year
                        owner: <your strategy role>   after: trigger
                        automation: <level>
  test-build-buy-ally - convenes decide-and-announce: whether the gap is
                        better built, bought or partnered, with the cost
                        and the time of each written down
                        owner: <your strategy role>
                        after: state-reason           automation: never
  scan-field          - runs collect-and-report: the companies that
                        could close the gap, however they package it
                        today
                        owner: alliance-scout
                        after: test-build-buy-ally
                        by: <weeks>                   automation: <level>
  read-candidates     - runs collect-and-report: what each company
                        sells, who buys it, who owns it, and who it
                        already works with
                        owner: researcher             after: scan-field
                        by: <weeks>                   automation: <level>
  score-fit           - runs assessment: each candidate scored against
                        the reason the run started, on capability,
                        reach, terms and how they treat partners
                        owner: alliance-scout      after: read-candidates
                        by: <days>                    automation: <level>
  pick-approach-list  - convenes decide-and-announce: the shortlist, the
                        order, and the reason each candidate is on it.
                        <who> confirms the list
                        owner: <your alliances role>  after: score-fit
                        automation: <level>
  check-conflicts     - runs assessment: existing contracts, customer
                        overlaps, exclusivity and competitor ties that
                        would block an approach
                        owner: supplier-check   after: pick-approach-list
                        by: <days>                    automation: <level>
  first-contact       - human: the approach made by <who>, to the person
                        on the other side who can say yes to a
                        conversation
                        owner: <your alliances role>
                        after: check-conflicts        automation: never
  exploratory-meeting - convenes briefing: both sides say what they
                        want, what they will not do, and what would have
                        to be true for this to be worth doing
                        owner: <your alliances role>
                        after: first-contact
                        by: <weeks>                   automation: <level>
  sign-nda            - convenes approval: mutual confidentiality signed
                        by both companies before either shows numbers,
                        code or a customer list
                        owner: <your legal role>
                        after: exploratory-meeting
                        by: <days>                    automation: never
  trade-numbers       - human: each side shows what it actually has:
                        volumes, margins, coverage and roadmap, under
                        the signed agreement and nowhere else
                        owner: alliance-scout         after: sign-nda
                        by: <weeks>                   automation: <level>
  model-value         - runs assessment: what the arrangement is worth
                        to each side over <years>, what each side gives
                        up, and what happens if volumes come in low
                        owner: deal-structurer     after: trade-numbers
                        by: <days>                    automation: <level>
  write-thesis        - human: one page saying what the two companies
                        would offer together, to whom, what each side
                        contributes, and what each side takes home
                        owner: alliance-scout         after: model-value
                        by: <days>                    automation: <level>
  test-with-customers - runs collect-and-report: <n> customers or
                        prospects asked whether they would buy the joint
                        offer, what they would pay, and what is missing
                        owner: researcher             after: write-thesis
                        by: <weeks>                   automation: <level>
  decide-proceed      - convenes approval: <who> sends the thesis to
                        diligence, sends it back for rework, or stops it
                        owner: <your executive sponsor role>
                        after: test-with-customers
                        by: <days>                    automation: never
  record-exploration  - convenes debrief: what was learned about the
                        market and about each candidate, written down
                        whether the run proceeds or stops
                        owner: alliance-scout         after: decide-proceed
                        automation: <level>
run-scoped:
  candidate-log - runs collect-and-report        owner: alliance-scout
                  every: <cadence>
                  from: scan-field    until: run close
  sponsor-check - runs roll-call
                  owner: <your alliances role>
                  every: <cadence>
                  from: first-contact until: run close
handoffs:
  state-reason -> test-build-buy-ally [stated-gap]: the gap in one
    paragraph, the offer it blocks, and the date it starts to hurt
  test-build-buy-ally -> scan-field [ally-decision]: the decision that
    a partner is the answer, with the cost and the time of building and
    of buying beside it
  scan-field -> read-candidates [candidate-long-list]: the long list,
    each company with the part of the gap it could close
  read-candidates -> score-fit [candidate-profiles]: what each company
    sells, its size, its owners, its existing partners, each line dated
    and sourced
  score-fit -> pick-approach-list [fit-scores]: the scores, the weights
    behind them, and every candidate that scored badly with the reason
    why
  pick-approach-list -> check-conflicts [approach-list]: the shortlist
    in approach order
  check-conflicts -> first-contact [conflict-findings]: the conflicts
    found per candidate, and whether each one blocks an approach or
    only shapes it
  first-contact -> exploratory-meeting [approach-record]: who was
    approached, by whom, on what date, and what they said back
  exploratory-meeting -> sign-nda [stated-wants]: what each side said
    it wants, what it said it will not do, and the open questions
  sign-nda -> trade-numbers [signed-nda]: the signed agreement, what it
    covers, how long it runs, and what may be shown under it
  trade-numbers -> model-value [shared-numbers]: the numbers each side
    actually showed, dated, with the source named for every figure
  model-value -> write-thesis [value-model]: the value to each side
    over <years>, the assumptions behind it, and what breaks it
  write-thesis -> test-with-customers [joint-thesis]: the thesis at a
    version, and the claims in it that a customer can confirm or deny
  test-with-customers -> decide-proceed [customer-verdict]: what the
    customers said, in their own words, with the count that said no
  decide-proceed -> record-exploration [proceed-decision]: the
    decision, the person who made it, the date, and the conditions
    attached to a go
deviations:
  read-candidates -> test-build-buy-ally [no-candidate-fits]: no
    company on the field can close the gap, so build, buy or ally is
    decided again rather than the bar being lowered until one fits
  check-conflicts -> score-fit [every-candidate-blocked]: an existing
    contract blocks every candidate, so the field is scored again with
    those candidates removed
  first-contact -> pick-approach-list [candidate-will-not-meet]: the
    candidate refuses to meet, so the run moves to the next name on the
    approach list
  exploratory-meeting -> pick-approach-list [wants-do-not-match]: the
    two sides want different things, so the run returns to the
    shortlist rather than writing a thesis one side would not recognize
  trade-numbers -> score-fit [numbers-contradict-pitch]: the numbers
    shown under confidentiality do not match what was said in the
    meeting, so the candidate is scored again on the real ones
  model-value -> exploratory-meeting [worth-too-little]: the
    arrangement is worth too little to one side or both, so the two
    sides say again what would have to be true for it to be worth doing
  test-with-customers -> write-thesis [customers-would-not-buy]:
    customers would not buy the joint offer, so the thesis is written
    again against what they said
  decide-proceed -> write-thesis [thesis-needs-rework]: the sponsor
    sends the thesis back for rework, naming what has to change before
    it is decided again
bindings:
  roster:  <who holds each role - agents claiming the abstract agents
           above, and named people for the strategy lead, the alliances
           lead, the product lead, the legal reviewer, the finance
           partner and the executive sponsor>
  systems: <your strategy record> (write), <your CRM> (read),
           <your partner record> (write), the contract system (read),
           <your company data sources> (read),
           the confidentiality register (write)
  data:    <your strategy> <version>, <your partner policy> <version>,
           the candidate list, the confidentiality agreement per
           candidate
policy:
  the strategic reason is written down before any company is named, and
    a run that cannot state it does not start
  nothing beyond public material is shown to a candidate before mutual
    confidentiality is signed
  a candidate a customer contract forbids us to work with is dropped,
    and the contract clause is recorded against the drop
  the value model states its assumptions, and a model with no downside
    case does not go to the decision
  the decision to proceed is a human gate and is never delegated to an
    agent
  a run that stops still writes its record, and the record is readable
    by the next run that names the same candidate
measures:
  cycle time: <target> from the stated reason to a proceed or stop
  conversion: <target> share of approaches that reach a joint thesis
  volume: <explorations per period>
  quality gate: every thesis carries its customer evidence, and no
                candidate was shown anything before signing
```