> ## Documentation Index > Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://prism.ntecdev.ai/llms.txt > Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further. # ADR-40: Persona role reshape — Lola = Product Owner, Texi = System Architect > # Persona role reshape — PO / Architect / Engineering split ## Status accepted — trial period (Frank greenlight 2026-05-01) ## Context Pre-2026-05-01 persona **Status:** `accepted` · **ADR-40** · Filed 2026-05-01 # Persona role reshape — PO / Architect / Engineering split ## Status accepted — trial period (Frank greenlight 2026-05-01) ## Context Pre-2026-05-01 persona roles concentrated design authority in **Lola** (Claude Desktop) with **Donna** (Claude Code) executing. As the agent fleet has grown to \~7 active personas, the design-vs-build seam has become a bottleneck: * Specs authored in terminal don't render well; Claude Code is suboptimal for long-form spec **reading**. Markdown native to Desktop is the right surface for product validation. * All design-side personas were running on the Anthropic SDK (claude\_code / claude\_desktop) — same model family, shared cognitive priors. **Cross-surface diversity (Codex vs Anthropic)** is missing from the architectural review path. * "Ask Frank" is the default routing for cross-persona uncertainty. Peer-direct routing is harder than it should be (see signal vocab gap memory — 5 instances of StatusRequest/Question shoehorning). ## Decision Personas are assigned the following authority scopes: | Persona | Surface | Role | Authority | | ----------- | ------------------ | ------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Lola** | claude\_desktop | Product Owner | "What to build and why." Authors product requirement specs. Validates completed work against original requirements. PO sign-off gates spec sealing. | | **Texi** | codex | System Architect | "How it should be designed." Architectural review/veto authority across all surfaces. Authors architectural specs. Cross-surface (Codex ≠ Anthropic) — divergent thinking enforcer. | | **Donna** | claude\_code | Engineering / Code Execution | "Make it work." Implements specs after architectural sign-off. May draft implementation specs (subject to Texi review). | | **Porsche** | claude\_code | Telemetry / Observability lane | Dashboard / OTel / metrics surface. Specs reviewed by Texi. | | **Desiree** | claude\_code | Documentation lane | Owns docs/\* tree. | | **Lafonda** | claude\_code | Install / deployment lane | Owns install + LAN deploy. | | **Candi** | claude\_code (Win) | Cross-platform / Windows tester | | ## Spec consensus flow (trial) 1. Need identified → **Lola** drafts product requirement (in Desktop's rendered markdown). 2. Lola signals **Texi**: `ReviewRequested` with the requirement. 3. Texi authors architectural spec; signals **Lola** for product sign-off. 4. Lola signals back: approve / revisions\_requested. Loop until approved. 5. Texi signals **Donna** (or relevant lane owner): `TaskAssigned` for implementation. 6. Donna ships; signals Texi (architectural conformance check) AND Lola (requirements satisfied check). 7. Both ack → spec sealed via `prism_seal`. **Cross-surface review-pairing default:** ANY claude\_code-authored spec (Donna, Porsche, Lafonda, Desiree, Candi) routes to Texi (codex) for architectural review by default. The cross-surface guarantee IS the divergent-thinking enforcer. ## Rationale * **Surface-fit.** Desktop renders specs natively; terminal is read-by-cat. Lola in Desktop is the right surface for spec reading and product validation. * **Cognitive diversity.** Codex (Texi) vs Anthropic (Lola/Donna/Porsche) is the only cross-family seam available. Routing architectural review through it ensures specs are stress-tested by a different model family before commit. * **Authority discipline.** Per `feedback_engineering_authority` memory — when Frank designates a system engineer, peers defer. Texi as system architect formalizes that pattern across the fleet. ## Alternatives considered * **Status quo (Lola=designer, Donna=executor).** Rejected: collapses architecture into product design; no cross-surface diversity. * **Texi as architect, Lola unchanged.** Rejected: leaves the spec-reading surface mismatch unresolved. * **Multiple architects (Texi + Lola).** Rejected: defeats the divergent-thinking goal; consensus loop requires distinct authority scopes per role. ## Consequences * Donna routes all spec authorship for architectural review through Texi by default. * Lola in Desktop becomes the product-validation gate before any spec seals. * The spec lifecycle gains state machine semantics (`draft → in_review → revisions_requested → approved → accepted`). Implementation of the state machine is its own SPEC, deferred. * The signal vocab gap (`Question` / `Answer` / `Veto` types) now blocks the consensus loop's clean expression. Vocab extension SPEC priority bumps to immediate. * Texi's memory scope tightens to architecture / contracts / boundaries. Memory namespace work is a separate track (research branch territory). ## Trial period — failure modes to watch * Lola not online enough in Desktop to gate specs (requires Frank's Desktop usage cadence). Mitigation: Lola can pre-author batches of product specs; consensus loop is async. * Texi (Codex) shim instability (per `project_codex_shim_no_respawn` memory) causes review backlogs. * Cross-surface review delay > engineering throughput, becomes drag rather than diversity-enforcer. If any of these emerge, revisit and either reassign or build tooling to mitigate.