# Reviewer meeting — agenda (for me)

> **Audience.** Myself, before the meeting. Not shared with the
> reviewer (they have [`briefing.md`](briefing.md) and
> [`questions.md`](questions.md) instead).
>
> **Purpose.** Keep the conversation on the high-stakes items
> without slipping into detail-tour mode.

**Length:** ~60 min (default; willing to extend if conversation is
productive).

## Opening — 5 min

- **Thank-you** + ~30 s on why I value their time specifically
  (Springborn/Bobenko background = best-positioned audience for
  this material).
- **Confirm format**: they've read `briefing.md`? Yes → skip ahead.
  No → take 3 min to walk through it together via the reviewer-hub
  URL.

## §1 Architectural tour — 10 min

Goal: they leave §1 with a mental map of what's where.

1. Open <https://tmoussa.codeberg.page/ConformalLabpp/>.
2. Click through:
   - Doxygen → `discrete_conformal_map_euclidean` (the canonical entry,
     shows the named-parameter pattern + traits).
   - `locked-vs-flexible.md` § Summary table.
   - `dependencies.md` § TL;DR.
3. **Don't** demo running the test suite live unless they ask —
   they can verify the green badges later.

**Cue to move on**: when they have no more "where is X?" questions.

## §2 The five questions — 30 min

Goal: get clear answers to as many of the 5 questions in
[`questions.md`](questions.md) as possible.  Order matters:

1. **Q4 first** (CGAL submission strategy — single package vs five).
   This sets the framing for the rest.  ~5 min.
2. **Q1** (Phase 9c port-literal vs re-derive).  ~5 min.
3. **Q2** (Phase 9b-analytic — is the 6× speedup worth ~2 weeks?).
   May trigger longer math discussion; cap at 10 min and offer to
   continue async.
4. **Q5** (GC-1 cross-validation co-authorship).  ~5 min.
5. **Q3** (CP-Euclidean output_uv_map).  ~5 min.

**Trap to avoid**: don't relitigate any of the already-made decisions
(e.g. Surface_mesh as default, Eigen as backend) unless they bring it
up under "anything you'd say no to".  Move forward, not sideways.

## §3 The "no" question — 5 min

Last paragraph of [`questions.md`](questions.md): *"Is there one
architecture decision where you think 'no, that's the wrong call'?"*

Ask explicitly. Wait.  Don't fill silence.  Negative feedback at this
phase is the highest-value information of the entire meeting.

## §4 Wrap-up — 5 min

- **Summarise**: 1 sentence per Q1–Q5 answer.
- **Next steps**: 
  - Items they offered to help on (if any) → I'll send a follow-up
    email within 48 h.
  - Items they flagged as worth changing → I'll write a one-page
    plan + send for sign-off before starting work.
- **Cadence**: do they want a periodic update? Once-a-quarter? When
  hitting Phase 9c milestone?
- **Citation**: ask whether they want acknowledgement in the
  CGAL submission's `THANKS.md`.

## Material I have ready (in tabs)

1. <https://tmoussa.codeberg.page/ConformalLabpp/>
2. <https://codeberg.org/TMoussa/ConformalLabpp> (source)
3. Local terminal in the repo (for any "show me X" requests)
4. `doc/math/hyperideal-hessian-derivation.md` open in editor
   (for Q2)
5. `doc/architecture/locked-vs-flexible.md` open at "Summary table"
6. This file, [`questions.md`](questions.md), and
   [`briefing.md`](briefing.md) for backstop.

## After the meeting

- 30-min decompression — don't take notes during the meeting beyond
  bullet-tracking of Q1–Q5 answers; write up a full memo in the 30 min
  AFTER.
- Memo template:
  ```
  Date:  ____
  Reviewer:  ____
  Duration:  ____ min
  
  Q1 answer:  ____
  Q2 answer:  ____
  Q3 answer:  ____
  Q4 answer:  ____
  Q5 answer:  ____
  "No" pointer:  ____
  
  Action items:
    [ ] (within 48 h)  ____
    [ ] (within 2 wks) ____
    [ ] (longer term)  ____
  
  Cadence agreed:  ____
  ```

- Store the memo at `doc/reviewer/2026-XX-XX-meeting-notes.md`
  (gitignored if confidential, otherwise committed).