feat: complete Level 1 Evidence Mapper materials (Week 1)

Week 1 deliverables for Wayfinder proof-of-concept:

1. Level 1 README (materials/level-1/README.adoc):
   - Complete learning pathway (5 steps, 4-8 hours)
   - PROMPT framework explanation with examples
   - Good vs. bad claim selection criteria
   - Common mistakes and how to avoid them
   - Completion checklist
   - Pathways to Level 2A/2B

2. PROMPT Worksheet (materials/level-1/PROMPT-Worksheet.adoc):
   - Structured template for evaluating evidence
   - 6 dimensions with detailed prompts
   - Space for multiple evidence pieces
   - Summary analysis section
   - Reflection prompts for meta-cognition
   - Epistemic honesty emphasis

3. Evidence Map Template (materials/level-1/Evidence-Map-Template.adoc):
   - Visual and textual mapping options
   - Convergence/divergence analysis
   - Evidence quality matrix
   - Gap identification
   - Multi-stakeholder navigation guide (boundary objects)
   - Synthesis sections (what we know/don't know/are uncertain about)

Project Status Update:
- Overall completion: 15% → 30%
- Level 1 materials: COMPLETE ✅
- Test infrastructure: COMPLETE ✅
- Bot directives: COMPLETE ✅

Next: Create example investigation, begin beta testing

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Author: Jonathan D.A. Jewell

.machine_readable/STATE.scm

@@ -19,17 +19,23 @@
 
   (current-position
     (phase "proof-of-concept")
-    (overall-completion 15)
+    (overall-completion 30)
     (components
       ("PROMPT framework" . "complete")
       ("Level 1-4 pathway design" . "complete")
       ("Cognitive science integration" . "complete")
       ("SWOT analysis" . "complete")
-      ("Technical architecture planning" . "complete"))
+      ("Technical architecture planning" . "complete")
+      ("Test infrastructure" . "complete")
+      ("Bot directives" . "complete")
+      ("Level 1 materials" . "complete"))
     (working-features
       ("Conceptual framework"
        "Boundary objects theory application"
-       "Heutagogic design")))
+       "Heutagogic design"
+       "Evidence mapping templates"
+       "PROMPT worksheets"
+       "Validation testing")))
 
   (route-to-mvp
     (milestones
@@ -48,13 +54,17 @@
 
   (critical-next-actions
     (immediate
-      ("Develop Level 1 materials and evidence mapping templates"))
+      ("Create first example investigation using Level 1 materials"
+       "Test Level 1 materials with 1-2 beta testers"))
     (this-week
-      ("Create first example investigation"
-       "Document capability pathway"))
+      ("Complete Week 1 deliverables"
+       "Share Level 1 materials with 3 journalist friends"))
     (this-month
-      ("Share with initial journalist beta testers"
-       "Build GitLab Pages website")))
+      ("Recruit 5-10 beta testers"
+       "Build GitLab Pages website"
+       "Begin Week 2-4 plan execution")))
 
   (session-history
-    (("2026-02-07" . "RSR compliance: added .machine_readable structure, fixed workflows, removed duplicates"))))
+    (("2026-02-07" . "RSR compliance: added .machine_readable structure, fixed workflows, removed duplicates")
+     ("2026-02-07" . "Infrastructure: test suite, bot directives, Hypatia/gitbot-fleet integration verified")
+     ("2026-02-07" . "Week 1 started: Level 1 materials complete (README, PROMPT worksheet, evidence map template)"))))

materials/level-1/Evidence-Map-Template.adoc

@@ -0,0 +1,203 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: PMPL-1.0-or-later
+= Evidence Map Template
+:toc:
+
+**Claim:** _[Your specific claim]_
+
+**Mapper:** _[Your name]_
+
+**Date:** _[Today's date]_
+
+---
+
+== Visual Map
+
+_[You can draw this by hand, use tools like Obsidian, TiddlyWiki, or just describe it textually below]_
+
+=== Textual Representation
+
+[source,text]
+----
+CLAIM: [Your claim here]
+    ├── Evidence 1 (Score: 0.X) [Supports/Contradicts]
+    │   └── Connected to: Evidence 3
+    ├── Evidence 2 (Score: 0.X) [Supports/Contradicts]
+    │   └── Contradicts: Evidence 4
+    ├── Evidence 3 (Score: 0.X) [Supports/Contradicts]
+    │   ├── Connected to: Evidence 1
+    │   └── Connected to: Evidence 5
+    ├── Evidence 4 (Score: 0.X) [Supports/Contradicts]
+    │   └── Contradicts: Evidence 2
+    └── Evidence 5 (Score: 0.X) [Supports/Contradicts]
+        └── Connected to: Evidence 3
+----
+
+---
+
+== Evidence Relationships
+
+=== Convergence (Agreement)
+
+**Cluster 1: _[Theme/Aspect]_**
+- Evidence: _[List evidence pieces that agree]_
+- What they say: _[Common finding]_
+- Combined PROMPT score: _[Average or range]_
+- Confidence: _[How confident can we be in this convergence?]_
+
+**Cluster 2: _[Theme/Aspect]_**
+- Evidence: _[List evidence pieces]_
+- What they say: _[Common finding]_
+- Combined PROMPT score: _[Average or range]_
+- Confidence: _[Assessment]_
+
+=== Divergence (Disagreement)
+
+**Contradiction 1: _[Specific point of disagreement]_**
+- Evidence A says: _[Position A]_
+- Evidence B says: _[Position B]_
+- Possible reasons for divergence:
+  * _[Different methodologies?]_
+  * _[Different time periods?]_
+  * _[Different populations studied?]_
+  * _[Conflicting interests?]_
+- Which is more reliable? _[Based on PROMPT scores]_
+
+**Contradiction 2: _[Specific point of disagreement]_**
+- Evidence C says: _[Position C]_
+- Evidence D says: _[Position D]_
+- Possible reasons: _[Analysis]_
+
+=== Gaps in Evidence
+
+**Missing Perspective 1:** _[What viewpoint is absent?]_
+- Why it matters: _[Importance]_
+- How to fill: _[Potential sources]_
+
+**Missing Perspective 2:** _[What aspect is unexplored?]_
+- Why it matters: _[Importance]_
+- How to fill: _[Potential sources]_
+
+**Methodological Gaps:**
+- What kind of research hasn't been done yet?
+- What would be needed to strengthen confidence?
+
+---
+
+== Evidence Quality Matrix
+
+[cols="2,1,1,1,1"]
+|===
+|Evidence |PROMPT Avg |Supports Claim |Contradicts Claim |Notes
+
+|Evidence 1
+|_[0.0-1.0]_
+|_[Yes/No/Partial]_
+|_[Yes/No/Partial]_
+|_[Key point]_
+
+|Evidence 2
+|_[0.0-1.0]_
+|_[Yes/No/Partial]_
+|_[Yes/No/Partial]_
+|_[Key point]_
+
+|Evidence 3
+|_[0.0-1.0]_
+|_[Yes/No/Partial]_
+|_[Yes/No/Partial]_
+|_[Key point]_
+
+|Evidence 4
+|_[0.0-1.0]_
+|_[Yes/No/Partial]_
+|_[Yes/No/Partial]_
+|_[Key point]_
+
+|Evidence 5
+|_[0.0-1.0]_
+|_[Yes/No/Partial]_
+|_[Yes/No/Partial]_
+|_[Key point]_
+|===
+
+---
+
+== Synthesis
+
+=== What We Know (High Confidence)
+
+_[Evidence with high PROMPT scores that converges]_
+
+**Claims we can make confidently:**
+1. _[Specific finding]_
+2. _[Specific finding]_
+3. _[Specific finding]_
+
+=== What's Uncertain (Low-Medium Confidence)
+
+_[Areas where evidence is weak, contradictory, or missing]_
+
+**Claims that need caveats:**
+1. _[Tentative finding with caveat]_
+2. _[Tentative finding with caveat]_
+
+=== What We Don't Know (Gaps)
+
+**Unanswered questions:**
+1. _[Question]_
+2. _[Question]_
+3. _[Question]_
+
+**What would help answer them:**
+- _[Type of research/evidence needed]_
+
+---
+
+== Epistemic Navigation Guide
+
+If you're reading this as a journalist, policymaker, activist, or citizen, here's how to navigate this evidence ecosystem:
+
+=== For Activists
+**Action-relevant findings:**
+- _[What does the evidence support for action?]_
+- _[What caveats matter for strategy?]_
+
+=== For Policymakers
+**Decision-relevant findings:**
+- _[What trade-offs does evidence reveal?]_
+- _[What unknowns affect policy choices?]_
+
+=== For Skeptics
+**Challenge points:**
+- _[Where is evidence weakest?]_
+- _[What would falsify the claim?]_
+
+=== For Academics
+**Research gaps:**
+- _[What studies are needed?]_
+- _[What methodological improvements would help?]_
+
+=== For Affected Communities
+**Relevance to lived experience:**
+- _[Does evidence reflect your reality?]_
+- _[What perspectives are missing?]_
+
+---
+
+== Meta-Reflection
+
+**How did mapping change your understanding?**
+
+_[Before mapping, you thought... After mapping, you realize...]_
+
+**What did you learn about evidence ecosystems?**
+
+_[Insights about how evidence works in the real world]_
+
+**What would you do differently next time?**
+
+_[Learning from this experience]_
+
+---
+
+*This map is a boundary object - different communities can use it for their needs while working with the same evidence. That's coordination without consensus.*