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 seven questions — 35 min

Goal: get clear answers to as many of the 7 questions in questions.md as possible. Order is chosen so the research-relevant questions come first (their answer has the largest downstream effect on the roadmap):

1. Q1 — research-track alignment (which of 9d.2 / 9f / 10c / 10c′ would unblock concrete experiments?). ~8 min. Most likely to make them feel the project is genuinely for their work, not just adjacent to it.
2. Q2 — decorated-DCE API surface (A/B/C named parameter vs new solver vs property-map auto-detect). ~7 min. Sets a concrete shape we can sketch in code right after the meeting.
3. Q3 — Phase 9b-analytic (Schläfli Hessian — implement now?). ~8 min. May trigger longer math discussion; cap at 10 min and offer to continue async via the derivation note.
4. Q5 — GC-1 cross-validation co-authorship. ~4 min. Read the room: if they're warm, push; if cool, leave as "let me follow up in writing".
5. Q4 — Phase 9c port-literal vs re-derive (algorithm choice). ~4 min. Less critical than Q1–Q3 because we have a viable default either way.
6. Q6 — CGAL submission packaging (one package vs several). ~4 min. Project-management question; their answer is advisory even if it's confident.

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. Keep Q4/Q6 short — they are project management; Q1–Q3 are the research-flavoured ones their time is best spent on.

§3 Q7 — the "no" question — 5 min

questions.md §Q7: "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–Q7 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 (research-track alignment):  ____
  Q2 answer (decorated-DCE API):         ____
  Q3 answer (Phase 9b-analytic):         ____
  Q4 answer (Phase 9c port choice):      ____
  Q5 answer (GC-1 co-authorship):        ____
  Q6 answer (CGAL packaging):            ____
  Q7 "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).