{ "schema": "intelligence-desk-design-district-scrutiny-room/v1", "id": "SR-NDD-001", "title": "Design District Scrutiny Room", "subtitle": "One public evidence spine, four reviewer-specific tests, one challenge log, and no borrowed certainty.", "evidenceCut": "2026-08-05", "publicationState": "release_6_candidate", "scope": "Naples Design District public-record review system", "boundary": "The Scrutiny Room publishes review structure, public claims, public source gaps, and pack manifests. It does not publish controlled Gibbs material, private correspondence, bidder strategy, client information, investment recommendations, or an implied endorsement.", "reviewPacks": [ { "id": "PACK-GIBBS", "slug": "/scrutiny/gibbs", "label": "Gibbs methodology pack", "audience": "Bob Gibbs / Gibbs Planning Group", "purpose": "Test the retail baseline, geography, methodology, date, permissions, and which conclusions can be reproduced from the authoritative package.", "state": "READY_WITH_CONTROLLED_SOURCE_GAP", "tests": [ "Does every market conclusion resolve to the exact Gibbs report version, geography, methodology, date, and permission state?", "Can the report distinguish the association geography, master-plan study area, project limits, parcel set, and any retail-market trade area?", "Are reported conditions separated from current verified conditions and later public implementation records?", "Can Gibbs challenge, correct, or withdraw an attributed conclusion without rewriting adjacent public facts?" ], "requiredSections": [ "Method statement", "Geography crosswalk", "Claim lineage", "Limitations", "Challenge response", "Correction disposition" ], "controlledItems": [ "Gibbs report bytes", "Market model and methodology", "Permission to reproduce", "Any private conclusion or figure" ], "publicClaimIds": [ "CLM-027", "CLM-033", "CLM-034", "CLM-037", "CLM-040" ], "sourceIds": [ "SRC-042", "SRC-046", "SRC-047", "SRC-053", "SRC-054", "SRC-058" ] }, { "id": "PACK-DISTRICT", "slug": "/scrutiny/design-district", "label": "Design District stakeholder pack", "audience": "Naples Design District association and district stakeholders", "purpose": "Test stakeholder descriptions, governance claims, geography, priorities, implementation status, and the distinction between association context and public authority.", "state": "READY_WITH_BOUNDARY_GAP", "tests": [ "Is association-defined geography labeled as stakeholder context rather than a statutory or parcel-complete boundary?", "Are current leaders and priorities attributed to the association source and dated?", "Are BID recommendations separated from proof that a statutory BID exists?", "Can a stakeholder correction enter the challenge log without overriding contrary public records?" ], "requiredSections": [ "Stakeholder context", "Geography limits", "Governance roles", "Delivery ledger", "Open decisions", "Challenge response" ], "controlledItems": [], "publicClaimIds": [ "CLM-027", "CLM-029", "CLM-034", "CLM-039", "CLM-040" ], "sourceIds": [ "SRC-042", "SRC-044", "SRC-047", "SRC-057", "SRC-058" ] }, { "id": "PACK-COUNCIL", "slug": "/scrutiny/council", "label": "City Council public-record pack", "audience": "Naples City Council, CRA, staff, and the public", "purpose": "Test authority, procurement, money class, decision clock, limitations, independence, conflicts, accessibility, and the exact record supporting each public statement.", "state": "READY_FOR_PUBLIC_RECORD_REVIEW", "tests": [ "Does each material statement identify the exact public record, evidence grade, limitation, and correction path?", "Are Council, CRA, CRAAB, staff, association, consultant, and bidder roles kept separate?", "Are awards, agreements, amendments, purchase authorizations, GMPs, invoices, payments, and construction costs kept in distinct classes?", "Does every agenda or index explicitly stop short of claiming a later outcome?" ], "requiredSections": [ "Authority map", "Claim-and-source audit", "Capital classifications", "Decision clocks", "Conflict and independence statement", "Accessibility and correction controls" ], "controlledItems": [], "publicClaimIds": [ "CLM-027", "CLM-028", "CLM-029", "CLM-030", "CLM-031", "CLM-032", "CLM-033", "CLM-034", "CLM-035", "CLM-036", "CLM-037", "CLM-038" ], "sourceIds": [ "SRC-042", "SRC-043", "SRC-044", "SRC-046", "SRC-047", "SRC-048", "SRC-049", "SRC-050", "SRC-053", "SRC-055", "SRC-056" ] }, { "id": "PACK-BIDDERS", "slug": "/scrutiny/bidders", "label": "Procurement and bidder pack", "audience": "Current and prospective public-procurement participants", "purpose": "Test procurement neutrality, document-chain completeness, role separation, money classification, and whether the Desk avoids nonpublic competitive information.", "state": "READY_WITH_CONTRACT_CHAIN_GAP", "tests": [ "Does the public record identify the solicitation, addenda, scoring, award, agreement, amendments, scope, term, and any unresolved chain links?", "Does the Desk avoid ranking bidders or inferring performance from award status alone?", "Are compensation, invoices, payments, delivered scope, and construction outcomes kept separate?", "Can any participant submit a documented correction through the same public challenge process?" ], "requiredSections": [ "Procurement chain", "Named roles", "Money classes", "Unresolved artifacts", "Neutrality statement", "Challenge response" ], "controlledItems": [ "Nonpublic proposals", "Confidential bidder information", "Private performance claims" ], "publicClaimIds": [ "CLM-028", "CLM-030", "CLM-033", "CLM-038" ], "sourceIds": [ "SRC-043", "SRC-046", "SRC-055", "SRC-056" ] } ], "challengeLog": [ { "id": "CHL-001", "reviewer": "SYSTEM", "question": "Are the controlling 2022 master-plan bytes preserved and hashed?", "state": "OPEN_SOURCE_ACQUISITION", "severity": "CRITICAL", "disposition": "The locator is preserved; plan language, page references, legal boundary, and methodology remain unusable until the exact artifact is frozen.", "claimIds": [ "CLM-037" ], "sourceIds": [ "SRC-053" ] }, { "id": "CHL-002", "reviewer": "SYSTEM", "question": "Is the third amendment fully executed, preserved, and reconciled to compensation and scope?", "state": "OPEN_SOURCE_ACQUISITION", "severity": "CRITICAL", "disposition": "The official index and service term are visible. Signed bytes, compensation, complete scope, invoices, and payments remain open.", "claimIds": [ "CLM-033", "CLM-038" ], "sourceIds": [ "SRC-046", "SRC-056" ] }, { "id": "CHL-003", "reviewer": "GIBBS", "question": "Can the market baseline be reproduced from an authoritative source package?", "state": "CONTROLLED_NOT_SOURCE_FROZEN", "severity": "CRITICAL", "disposition": "No market figure or conclusion is published. The graph exposes only the controlled gap.", "claimIds": [], "sourceIds": [ "SRC-054" ] }, { "id": "CHL-004", "reviewer": "DISTRICT", "question": "Is the displayed district geography statutory, parcel-complete, or association-defined?", "state": "OPEN_BOUNDARY_CROSSWALK", "severity": "HIGH", "disposition": "The current orientation is schematic stakeholder context; it is not a legal, assessment, entitlement, ownership, or project-limit boundary.", "claimIds": [ "CLM-039" ], "sourceIds": [ "SRC-057" ] }, { "id": "CHL-005", "reviewer": "COUNCIL", "question": "Does the $4.9 million record prove completed acquisition and current title?", "state": "RESOLVED_WORDING_CORRECTED", "severity": "HIGH", "disposition": "Public wording is limited to Council authorization; closing, deed, title, carrying cost, use, disposition, and performance terms remain open.", "claimIds": [ "CLM-031" ], "sourceIds": [ "SRC-049" ] }, { "id": "CHL-006", "reviewer": "COUNCIL", "question": "Can the five visible capital figures be summed into district investment?", "state": "RESOLVED_FORBIDDEN_AGGREGATION", "severity": "CRITICAL", "disposition": "No. Each amount remains in its distinct economic class and separate claim lineage.", "claimIds": [ "CLM-028", "CLM-029", "CLM-030", "CLM-031", "CLM-032" ], "sourceIds": [ "SRC-043", "SRC-044", "SRC-049", "SRC-055" ] }, { "id": "CHL-007", "reviewer": "BIDDERS", "question": "Does an award or amendment prove delivered scope, invoice approval, payment, or performance?", "state": "RESOLVED_LIMITATION_VISIBLE", "severity": "HIGH", "disposition": "No. The Source Room and Decision Graph preserve those as separate missing records.", "claimIds": [ "CLM-028", "CLM-030", "CLM-038" ], "sourceIds": [ "SRC-043", "SRC-055", "SRC-056" ] }, { "id": "CHL-008", "reviewer": "SYSTEM", "question": "Is there a current approved delivery baseline for Design Walk and the streetscape chain?", "state": "OPEN_OUTCOME_AND_SCHEDULE", "severity": "CRITICAL", "disposition": "The graph keeps the current critical path open until a dated authoritative baseline resolves scope, schedule, cost chain, and completion proof.", "claimIds": [ "CLM-034" ], "sourceIds": [ "SRC-047" ] } ], "sourceGaps": [ { "id": "GAP-MASTER-PLAN", "label": "Controlling 2022 master-plan bytes", "state": "OPEN", "owner": "Evidence acquisition", "closesWith": "Exact PDF, appendices, version metadata, page index, SHA-256, and reviewed geography crosswalk" }, { "id": "GAP-THIRD-AMENDMENT", "label": "Executed RFP 23-019 third amendment", "state": "OPEN", "owner": "Evidence acquisition", "closesWith": "Signed document, exhibits, scope, compensation, approval, clerk metadata, and SHA-256" }, { "id": "GAP-GIBBS", "label": "Authoritative Gibbs source package", "state": "CONTROLLED_OPEN", "owner": "Gibbs review", "closesWith": "Exact report, model, geography, date, methodology, permissions, and reviewer disposition" }, { "id": "GAP-BOUNDARY", "label": "Parcel-complete geography and ownership crosswalk", "state": "OPEN", "owner": "Evidence acquisition", "closesWith": "Versioned parcel universe, title/ownership cut, exceptions, study areas, project limits, and association geography" }, { "id": "GAP-ACQUISITION", "label": "160–190 closing and current title chain", "state": "OPEN", "owner": "Evidence acquisition", "closesWith": "Executed closing statement, deed, current title, carrying cost, use decision, and disposition authority" }, { "id": "GAP-COST-CHAIN", "label": "Current contract, invoice, payment, and delivery reconciliation", "state": "OPEN", "owner": "Evidence acquisition", "closesWith": "Base agreement and amendments reconciled to invoices, approvals, payments, encumbrances, balances, scope, schedule, and completion proof" } ] }