FACTUAL ACTIVITY RECORD · An activity record based on work that took place
Establishing a current master for the brand narrative
Combining CEO decisions, publication boundaries, and review state in one current input while separating prior snapshots
Purpose
Templates and prior review snapshots existed for creating the brand and site Narrative, but there was no single current version for CEO confirmation, downstream design input, and publication-boundary decisions. Treating a previously reviewed version as current could reintroduce decisions that had changed or expressions that had never been approved.
The work therefore separated the Narrative in current use from historical review evidence and created a current master where the brand description, AI employee profiles, actual organizational relationships, product and publication boundaries, and CEO decision state could be checked on the same revision.
Implementation
brand-narrative source of truth was updated as the entry point for the full Narrative area, with target components defined as the sole current version for CEO review, the Narrative gate, and downstream design input. target components, which preserved earlier review points, became an immutable snapshot area that could not be restored as current copy or design input.
current/project guide documented the current master's scope, exclusions, review order, and remaining gates. review list presented one CEO decision at a time, while decision log recorded each decision, its affected scope, anything still undecided, and the conditions requiring another review. This separated pre-decision candidates from confirmed state.
The current content was divided across brand, message, site Narrative, AI employee profiles, actual organizational relationships, product boundaries, and publication boundaries. Narrative Director remained one role that owned not only structure and messaging but also writing, site copy, calls to action, articles, scripts, deck storylines, and continuity; the role title and writing responsibility were not split into separate roles.
- The Japanese core description and Hero, five operating principles, global navigation, Home-section order, and initial calls to action were incorporated as CEO decisions.
- A missing call-to-action destination could not be replaced with an invented URL; the interface used a coming-soon state instead.
- Japanese became the source language confirmed first, while English copy remained unapproved until it was created and passed locale review.
- No single product was allowed to stand for the entire company, and feature, status, user, outcome, and URL claims could not exceed the smallest verified product description.
Each of the nine AI employee profiles included a display name, role, responsibility, and one statement of what that role values. The final field described the working approach of a role-based persona rather than an AI's inner life, feelings, or actual words. The current master also fixed a shared disclosure that the photos were AI-generated images representing AI employee personas, not real people or human employees.
current/organization relationship map recorded only the actual authority and handoff relationships among the CEO, top-level routing, domain ownership, specialists, and independent review. Future-story proposals between roles were prohibited from the current master, site input, design input, and internal memos, with any later restart requiring a new explicit decision.
Review found that the current master did not contain the photo asset's format and dimensions or distinguish its storage path from its public URL. The contract was extended with WebP, 1536×1024, portrait asset, and /images/ai-employees/<nickname>.webp. Asset preparation, screen integration, disclosure, and public display remained separate gates.
A later review found that CEO-confirmed profile copy could still appear pending in some live documents and that another review of the changed revision was missing from part of the residual-gate list. The point-in-time decision history was preserved, while current confirmed and pending states and remaining gates were synchronized across four live documents before the same corrected revision was reviewed again.
Verification cross-checked the required fields for all nine profiles, the mapping between current copy and the decision log, separation of the current master from immutable snapshots, product, public, and private boundaries, and review state on the changed revision. English, legal and UI review, design, implementation, and publication remained separate gates from confirmation of the current Narrative.
The primary diff was checked line by line to confirm that the behavior described above matched the change at the cutoff.
name = "narrative-director"
description = "WirohのNarrative Directorとして、narrative architecture、messaging、writing / 執筆、site copy、CTA、article、YouTube script、episode treatment、deck storyline、資料文面、continuity、shared content inputを一体で担うroleです。"Rendering diagram…
What was confirmed
Verification results
CEO decisions, an explicit independent-review pass, and alignment with organization governance and publication boundaries were present on the same revision, allowing the current master to serve as downstream content and Narrative input.
The current master contained the current brand and site Narrative, nine AI employee profiles and the shared disclosure, actual authority and handoffs, product boundaries, public and private boundaries, and records of CEO review and decisions. Historical snapshots and future-story proposals were separated from current input.
The missing asset contract, inconsistent confirmed and pending states, and omitted re-review gate found during review were corrected. The final check had no unresolved finding, and the result was incorporated as the current Narrative input.
Completion at this cutoff reached the Narrative input gate only. Legal and UI review of the photo disclosure, creation and locale review of English copy, downstream design, site implementation, and public display were not verified.
Basis for completion
The current-master scope was complete when the Narrative in current use, CEO decisions, publication boundaries, and review evidence were integrated on the same revision; historical snapshots and unapproved material were separated from current input; and the corrected result passed independent review and governance alignment.