ADR: Content Engagement motion — five founding decisions

Date: 2026-07-12 Status: Accepted

Context

The Content Engagement vision (see content-engagement-vision) was named 2026-07-10 but left five open questions: timeline, audience for the documentation itself, concrete success criteria, whether "Content Engagement" is an official name, and its relationship to the existing AC2 3-agent build. All five were answered directly by Arijit on 2026-07-12.

Decisions

1. Timeline. Full, demo-ready POC by Tuesday of that week (2026-07-14).
2. Audience for the documentation. Currently Arijit's own reference, but explicitly being written so it can become an Algolia exec/external-facing document without a rewrite. Consequence: documentation must present in layers — executive summary first, supporting detail underneath — not flat internal shorthand.
3. Success criteria. Not "broad market validation" as a vague sentiment — concretely: system ready to demo to the internal team and to external audiences (Algolia partners), and adopted as the starting point for POCs with Algolia.
4. Official name. "Content Engagement" is the official name of this motion, not a working label. Definition: Algolia powering engagement via content, using Algolia's core strengths — AI Retrieval, Configuration, and Scale.
5. Relationship to AC2. Not a separate or parallel initiative. Content Engagement is the AC2 work. The existing 3-agent Agent Studio architecture (General / Developer / Marketer-Merchandiser, app 0EXRPAXB56, built and verified session 7, 2026-07-01) is the substrate this motion builds on, not a separate track to reconcile later.

Rationale

Decision 5 in particular resolves what had been explicitly left open in the vision doc (previously: "not sure yet — that's part of what we're figuring out"). Answering it changes how the data-health findings should be read: see data-health-final-verdict — since AC2 is not a competing index but this motion's own substrate, the finding that its content quality currently trails the unenriched production baseline is a direct, load-bearing risk for this motion, not an abstract comparison.

Consequences

• The scope-vs-deadline tension (full 3-journey POC vs one journey done well, by Tuesday) is now the live open question — tracked as a P0 item, not resolved here.
• Documentation for this motion (this vault, plus a companion interactive site at bible.chowmes.com/ac2/) must be written assuming eventual external/exec readership from now on.