Conciseness

The body is dense, assumes competence, and teaches no concepts Claude already knows; nearly every sentence is a rule or decision. Anchor 4 (efficient, minor trimmable instances) fits because of mild redundancy: the ce-docs-root block restates the preceding Artifact Root paragraph, and the bash block repeats 'umask 077; mkdir -p' checks across lines. Not 5 since those repetitions and some doubled root-resolution prose could be tightened.

Actionability

One fully executable, copy-paste-ready bash block for scratch/run-dir setup, plus concrete artifacts and paths ('$RUN_DIR/explainer.html', 'references/agents/work-recap-scout.md', explicit file names to write). Per the instruction-only note, absent code is not penalized, but a few directives remain abstract ('Preserve material constraints and uncertainty', 'Keep attribution accurate'), matching anchor 4's minor gaps rather than anchor 5's fully covered common cases.

Workflow Clarity

Four explicitly sequenced phases with named edge-case and failure handling: 'Empty window: report the absence of activity and finish', dispatch-failure fallback routing, symlink/ownership validation of the scratch root, and pre-delivery claim checking. Anchor 4 fits because a few checkpoints (e.g., what 'check every factual claim against its source' operationally involves) are named but not specified, and some validation detail lives in references rather than inline.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a genuine overview: all seven referenced files (orchestration.md, intake.md, explainer-html.md, explainer-markdown.md, check-in.md, destinations.md, agents/work-recap-scout.md) exist, are real one-level-deep content, and each read is signposted with its timing ('Read references/intake.md now', 'before grounding', 'at compose time'). This matches the anchor for a clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references and easy navigation.

Specificity

Names two concrete capabilities — 'Explain how and why something has its current shape, or what happened over a window of work, grounded in evidence' — matching the anchor listing several specific actions with minor coverage gaps. Not 5 because the action set is smaller and less enumerable than the comprehensive anchor; not 3 because it covers two distinct modes plus evidence grounding rather than only 1-2 generic actions.

Completeness

Both what ('Explain how and why something has its current shape, or what happened over a window of work, grounded in evidence') and when ('Use when the user asks for an explanation') are explicit. Anchor 4 fits because the when clause is a single fairly generic condition, whereas anchor 5 requires multiple concrete trigger phrases like 'PDFs, forms, or document extraction'.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage: 'Explain', 'explanation', 'how and why', 'what happened over a window of work'. A few natural variations users would say are missing (e.g., 'recap', 'walk me through', 'why did X', 'history'), which matches the good-coverage-with-gaps anchor 4 rather than the comprehensive synonym coverage of anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Explicit de-confliction ('Use ce-pov for a judgment or recommendation') establishes a clear niche and routing, matching the mostly-distinct anchor 4. Not 5 because 'asks for an explanation' is a broad trigger with residual overlap risk against sibling skills (e.g., ce-debug, ce-ideate) whose boundaries are only drawn in the body, not the description.