# Watchmaker Sample Flow

This proof bundle shows one complete Scriveno writing workflow using the shipped watchmaker demo. It is meant to answer a simple trust question:

**Can I inspect a real project from setup context through drafted outcome, review, and next step without guessing what Scriveno is supposed to do?**

## What This Proves

- Scriveno ships a real project identity and outline, not placeholder setup files.
- Scriveno ships a concrete Voice DNA profile that can be inspected directly.
- Scriveno ships drafted outcome evidence, not only command descriptions.
- Scriveno ships revision evidence and next-step continuity inside the same sample.
- The sample demonstrates a credible writing outcome. It does not claim a full publishing proof.

## Canonical Flow

### 1. Setup identity

- `data/demo/.manuscript/WORK.md`

This defines the work as a five-scene literary short story, establishes the premise, the central question, the tone, and the structural promise of the sample.

### 2. Project structure

- `data/demo/.manuscript/OUTLINE.md`
- `data/demo/.manuscript/STATE.md`

These show the planned five-scene arc and the live workflow position. The sample is intentionally paused at `4 of 5` scenes drafted so the next step is inspectable rather than implied.

### 3. Voice profile

- `data/demo/.manuscript/STYLE-GUIDE.md`

This is the Voice DNA artifact for the sample. It captures the watchmaker story's POV, sentence architecture, metaphor system, physical grounding, dialogue restraint, and explicit always/never rules.

### 4. Drafted outcome

- `data/demo/.manuscript/drafts/body/1-the-letter-DRAFT.md`
- `data/demo/.manuscript/drafts/body/2-the-workshop-DRAFT.md`
- `data/demo/.manuscript/drafts/body/3-the-pier-DRAFT.md`
- `data/demo/.manuscript/drafts/body/4-the-clock-DRAFT.md`

These four scenes are the drafted outcome evidence. Together they show Scriveno carrying the story from inciting incident through pre-climax while keeping the same voice, imagery, and object-world logic intact.

### 5. Review evidence

- `data/demo/.manuscript/reviews/2-the-workshop-REVIEW.md`

This file proves the workflow does not stop at draft generation. The sample includes a real editor-style review with structural, style, voice, and continuity notes.

### 6. Next-step continuity

- `data/demo/.manuscript/plans/5-the-reunion-PLAN.md`

This is the next step proof. The sample remains live at the point where a user can inspect what comes after the existing drafts instead of being handed a frozen artifact with no continuity.

## Reading Order

If you want the shortest inspection path:

1. Read `WORK.md` for the premise and promise.
2. Read `STYLE-GUIDE.md` for the voice contract.
3. Read `1-the-letter-DRAFT.md` and `4-the-clock-DRAFT.md` for drafted outcome.
4. Read `2-the-workshop-REVIEW.md` for revision evidence.
5. Read `5-the-reunion-PLAN.md` for the next step.

## Credible Writing Outcome

The shipped sample reaches a credible writing outcome because it includes:

- a concrete project identity
- a complete outline
- a populated style guide
- four finished draft scenes
- one review artifact
- one planned next scene

That is enough to inspect Scriveno's writing workflow end to end without inventing missing steps. It is a writing proof, not a publication-ready package proof.