ConformalLabpp/doc/reviewer/agenda.md

Reviewer meeting — agenda (for me)

Audience. Myself, before the meeting. Not shared with the reviewer (they have briefing.md and 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 (active researcher in the exact line — decorated DCE, Penner coordinates, canonical tessellations, hyperideal polyhedra — that conformallab++ aspires to be infrastructure for; best-positioned audience for the material AND the most likely future power user).
• 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 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: "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, and 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).