Build an audience from an owned list

Purpose

audience-generate-list is the build leaf anchored on an owned list — the user arrives with people they already hold (customers, leads, accounts, engagement data), not a plain-English description of who to reach. It resolves that list to Watt entity IDs and emits a roster: the matched set, ready for the audience-activate and audience-analyze steps.

The "list" can already be resolved: a roster from a prior pass (a workflow:// entity-IDs URI, or a pasted roster record) is the same anchor — people the user holds — just past the resolve step. It enters here to be re-transformed: overlay scores it, lookalike profiles it for its defining signals; the resolve is skipped, and the roster's classification columns ride along into the play (the play's output roster carries its own columns, per the procedure contract). (Re-expanding a roster needs raw identifiers, which entity IDs alone don't carry — that's the export-addresses-then-expand round-trip below; grouping/crossing a roster aren't available here.)

The leaf is split from its sibling audience-generate-search by input anchor — an owned list here, a description there. The structural consequence is that elicitation starts from what the list is, not from "describe who you want to reach"; there is no discovery, no scoring, no composing.

This leaf ships four plays. Two match the list — resolve-only and expand, both resolution-driven, differing only in how wide the match is. One learns from the list — lookalike. One scores the list — overlay:

• resolve-only ("matched / customer match") — resolve the list to a tight matched set (the resolver's default floor), the people who are genuinely on the list. Runs the resolution procedure inline (context/resolution.md); the roster classification is minimal (source_provenance).
• expand ("the widest match set") — resolve the list wide: every entity any identifier plausibly matches (Noisy-OR, 1:many), gated only by a floor that defaults to 0. For maximum addressable reach — the wide roster feeds identifier maximalism at audience-activate. Runs the expand-roster procedure inline (context/expand-roster.md); the roster carries each entity's match confidence and corroboration count.
• lookalike ("more like them") — don't match the list, learn what defines it. Resolve the seed, then profile it for the signals that set it apart — durable identity by lift (interests, affinity, demographics, life-stage) plus the top intents by reach within the seed — and hand that signal pool back for the operator to tune. Runs the resolution procedure then the profiling procedure inline (mode B); emits a curatable signal pool, not a roster. It builds no audience itself — the tuned pool carries into a compose.
• overlay ("score / rank my list") — resolve the list, then lay a pool of signals over the resolved set and score each person by how many of those signals they express (overlay_score = Σ weightᵢ × matchᵢ; weights default to 1, so the default score is a plain count). Returns the whole list ranked — lead-scoring, "who's hot", prioritize-the-pipeline — and can optionally be cut to the matched slice (keep people expressing ≥ N signals — the intersection, "my list who also do X"). Unlike the other plays, overlay needs a brief for the signal pool — the brief defines the layer to score by, never the population (the list stays the population). Runs the resolution procedure inline, then the parent's discovery + scoring inline to build the scored pool, then the overlay-score procedure inline (context/overlay-score.md) to score and rank.

Households fall out of expand, they aren't a separate play. Because an address resolves 1:many to everyone at it, an expand run whose match columns include addresses returns the co-residents — so household expansion is reachable today on an address-bearing list. From an email/phone-only list, the supported route is the round-trip: build the roster, export it with addresses via audience-activate, then feed those addresses back through expand. What's not built is a one-shot button that does the person→address enrichment inside this leaf (enrichment is the activator's lane), nor seed-vs-co-resident provenance tagging on the result.

The shared group / traverse strategies are not available in this leaf: name them honestly when asked, never build or run them.

This is a thin delta over audience-generate: the unique work is getting the owned list to something the operator can build from — a chainable entity-ID set (resolve-only via the inline resolution procedure, expand via the inline expand-roster procedure), the signals that define the list (lookalike via the inline profiling procedure), or the scored-and-ranked list (overlay via the inline overlay-score procedure). The parent's lane (build, not export; entity IDs only), language, and landing plumbing are composed with verbatim. The parent's full discover→score→compose spine still does not run here — a list isn't a brief, and no play composes a new set: lookalike profiles the resolved seed (the profiler's read of who's already on the list) and stops at the signal pool; overlay is the one play that runs inline discovery + scoring — but over a brief that defines the scoring layer, never the population, and it scores the resolved list rather than composing a set.

Works with

• Routed from: the audience-generate router, when the build starts from an owned list (the list anchor) rather than a description.
• Runs inline:
  • resolution (resolve-only play, and the lookalike seed-resolve, context/resolution.md) — run inline with the supplied identifiers (inline) or a csv_resource_uri, plus the entity_type and a workflow_id → a workflow:// entity-IDs URI and the counts (input_identifier_count, resolved_count, below_floor_count). The resolve is a format=csv export the script reduces to an entity-ID set, so the leaf handles only the URI and the counts — never a resolved contact record.
  • expand (expand play, context/expand-roster.md) — run inline with the supplied identifiers (inline) or a csv_resource_uri plus the lookup_columns mapping the leaf elicited (which columns to match on; required on the CSV path), the entity_type, an overridable quality_floor (default 0), and a workflow_id → a workflow:// roster URI (columns entity_id, match_confidence, match_criteria_count), a small ID-only sample, and the coverage counts (input_identifiers, resolved, below_floor, quality_floor). The procedure owns the wide entity_resolve 1:many pass (a format=csv export) and the dedupe/floor script, keeping the result IDs-only — so the leaf handles only the roster URI, the sample, and the counts, never a resolved contact record. The leaf chooses the columns and (when a transform is needed) builds the artifact; the procedure resolves against exactly the lookup_columns it's handed.
  • profiling (lookalike play, mode B, context/profiling.md) — run inline on the seed's entity_ids_uri (from the resolution procedure), the entity_type, and a workflow_id → a structured two-half read of the seed: the durable identity by lift (discovered) and the top intents by reach within the seed (the breakdown intent panel, tagged by size). It runs in mode B (entity_set) — an entity set, no signal stack — exactly as audience-analyze-list does; it groups the full seed (never a sample — sparse intents need the whole set) and returns aggregates only. This leaf renders them as the tunable signal pool and never sees a record.
  • inline discovery + scoring (overlay play) — the parent's discover-and-score procedure, run here to turn the overlay brief (the layer to score by — "in-market for X", "engaged with Y") into a resolved, scored signal pool. Discovery runs inline on the main thread (one angle per pass, context/discovery.md); scoring runs inline (context/scoring.md) by trait_hash, the brief as the grounding frame. The pool defines what to score the resolved list against — never who's on the list.
  • overlay (overlay play, context/overlay-score.md) — run inline with the resolved list (an entity_ids_uri from the resolution procedure), the scored signal pool (expressions over trait_hashes), an optional per-signal weights map (the operator's; default every signal 1), the entity_type, and a workflow_id → a workflow:// roster URI (columns entity_id, overlay_score, signals_matched, rank), a small ID-only sample, and coverage (source_size, scored, scored_zero). The procedure only scores and ranks — it returns the whole list, never cut; slicing to the intersection (keep signals_matched ≥ N) is this leaf's post-step. Weights flow operator → the procedure; never elicited by it.
• Hands off to: audience-activate (export the matched set — Meta, Google, Reddit, or TikTok) and audience-analyze (read who the matched set is) — offered at the landing, on the user's say-so. For the lookalike play the deliverable is the tuned signal pool, not a matched set: hand it to audience-generate-search to compose into an audience (the working set pre-seeded — discovery skipped for what's already there, a landing mode picked there), or to audience-analyze to read it.

Language

Inherits the parent's table; neither shipped play uses its boolean vocabulary. The terms this leaf owns:

• The list — what the user holds, in their words: my customers, my leads, my accounts, lapsed customers, this engagement list. The anchor is the list itself, never a description of who they want.
• Matched / matched set — the people from the list Watt could resolve to entities. Say matched and who carries forward; never "resolution rate", "co-residents", or a tool name at the surface.
• Tight vs. wide — the resolve-only play is the tight match (who's genuinely on the list); the expand play is the widest match (every entity an identifier could point to). Say the widest set of matches / every match for expand; never a tool name.
• Households — when the expand list carries addresses, the widest match includes the co-residents at those addresses; you may say so plainly ("everyone at those addresses", "the whole household"). Don't promise households for an email/phone-only list — there, name the round-trip (export addresses, then expand them).
• The headcount is a count of people in hand, not a market total: "N identifiers in, M people matched".
• The seed / more like them — for the lookalike play, the list is the seed: proven people the operator wants more of. Say the signals that describe your seed, what sets them apart, more people like them; never "lookalike model" or a tool name.
• The signal pool — lookalike's deliverable: the signals that define the seed, for the operator to tune. Durable identity (what stably sets them apart — interests, demographics, life-stage) vs. the intent layer (what they're in-market for, surfaced by how common it is in the seed). Say tune the pool — keep what generalizes, drop what's just "they're already my customer".
• Score / rank (overlay) — score my list, who's most in-market, rank by intent. Say score each person by how many of these signals they express and ranked highest to lowest; the pool is the signals to score against (a brief, not the list). The optional cut is the ones who also do X — keep the people matching enough of the pool. Never say "boolean", "overlay", or a tool name at the surface.

Both unavailable -list strategies (the shared group / traverse) stay internal — not surfaced as a live choice; name them honestly only if asked by name.

Entry

• An owned list arrives (a pasted set of emails/phones/names/addresses, or a CSV — uploaded or to upload) with a build/export intent. This leaf's lane — resolve it and emit the matched roster.
• A roster from a prior pass arrives ("score the people from my last run", "find more like the households we expanded", a workflow:// entity-IDs URI or a pasted roster record with a transform intent). Same anchor, already resolved — skip the resolve: pick the play (overlay or lookalike run directly; expand needs raw identifiers — offer the round-trip; group/traverse aren't available here) and the URI is the population. The classification columns ride through untouched. A roster with a read intent is audience-analyze-list; with an export intent, audience-activate.
• Routed here from audience-generate with the list anchor but no list in hand yet. Ask for it: "Share the list — paste the identifiers, or upload a CSV. What does it contain (emails, phones, names, addresses)?"
• A list with a READ intent ("who are these people", "what do they have in common", "profile my customer list"). That's audience-analyze-list, not this leaf — both run the same resolve, but analyze reads aggregates and this leaf builds toward export. Route there.
• A plain-English brief with no list ("people interested in solar", "build me an audience of weekend hikers"). That's the description anchor — route to audience-generate-search; don't resolve a list that wasn't given.
• A widen/maximize-reach intent on a list ("expand my list to every match", "the widest reach from my MAIDs and phones", "every entity these identifiers hit"). That's the expand play — settle the list, then run the expand-roster procedure inline (context/expand-roster.md, floor 0).
• A household / co-resident intent ("expand to their households", "everyone at these addresses"). Not a separate play: if the list has addresses, that's the expand play (the co-residents come back in the union); if it's email/phone only, offer the round-trip (export addresses via audience-activate, then expand them). Only a one-shot in-leaf household grow is unbuilt.
• A lookalike intent on a list ("find more like my customers", "more people like my best buyers", "what defines this list", "the signals that describe my seed"). That's the lookalike play — settle the seed, resolve it, then profile it inline (the profiling procedure, mode B) and hand back the tunable signal pool. It learns from the list; it doesn't match it, and it builds no audience itself.
• A score/rank intent on a list ("score my customers by who's most in-market for solar", "rank my list by intent", "who on my list is hottest for X", "my list who also do X", "score my pipeline"). That's the overlay play — settle and resolve the list, elicit the brief for the signal pool (what to score by), then run discovery + scoring inline to build the pool and the overlay-score procedure inline to score and rank. The brief defines the scoring layer, not the population.
• A suppression / do-not-target ask ("suppress my actives", "exclude these from the campaign"). The audience is just one of the plays above (often resolve-only); making it a platform exclusion list is audience-activate's call (target-vs-exclude polarity), not a generate play — say so and route the export there.

The flow

Four plays ship. Two match the list (resolve-only and expand), one learns from it (lookalike), one scores it (overlay). All share step 1 — settle the list and take it — then the play decides the rest: the matching plays pick how wide and emit a roster (steps 3–6); lookalike profiles the seed and hands back a signal pool (steps L1–L3); overlay resolves the list, scores it against a pool, and ranks (steps O1–O4). Each beat ends at the user's decision; nothing resolves, profiles, scores, or lands without a go-ahead.

1 — Settle what the list IS, and take it

Start from the list, not a brief. Confirm what the list is (customers / lapsed / accounts / leads — it frames the matched set and the downstream read) and how it arrives. For lookalike this list is the seed — proven people the operator wants more of — settled the same way (what it is, its identifier shape, addresses called out):

• A roster from a prior pass — a workflow:// entity-IDs URI, or a pasted roster record. Already resolved: confirm what the set is and which play they want, then skip the resolve entirely — the URI is the population, there are no lookup_columns to settle, and the roster's classification columns ride along untouched.
• Inline — a pasted set of identifiers.
• A CSV — uploaded already (a workflow://…/uploads/…csv resource), or one the user will upload now.

Name the identifier types present — email, phone, name, address. Addresses need explicit handling — call them out, because they resolve on a different call shape (the resolution procedure names their types explicitly; a default email-only resolve 500s on addresses). This input-shape handling mirrors audience-analyze-list's step 1 exactly; the only difference is the downstream intent (build/export here vs. read there).

For a CSV, settle which columns to match on — the resolution procedure resolves against exactly the columns you map (lookup_columns) and ignores the rest, so "match on these two of the twenty" needs no file surgery: just map the two. Two cases do need a prepared artifact, which the leaf builds in the sandbox before the resolve (the resolution procedure never reshapes a file):

• Split names — first-name + last-name columns must be concatenated into one full-name column first; mapped separately they match near-zero. (Split address columns don't need this — the resolver concatenates them street-first on its own.)
• Row filtering / deriving — "only the active rows", dropping test accounts, deriving a column the resolver can't express.

When neither applies, pass the user's csv_resource_uri straight through with the chosen lookup_columns. When one does, write the cleaned CSV in the sandbox, upload it (generate_upload_url), and carry that artifact's URI plus the lookup_columns for it into the resolution step — the column choice and any reshape are the leaf's, never the resolution procedure's. End the turn confirming the list, its shape, and the match columns before resolving.

2 — Pick the play

The user's words usually answer this — route silently when so ("customer match" → resolve-only, "the widest reach" → expand, "more like them" → lookalike); otherwise land the choice as the decision — native clickable options, with the tradeoff plain:

• Matched (resolve-only) — the tight set: who's genuinely on the list, at the resolver's default match floor. Fewer, higher-confidence. The customer-match shape.
• Expanded — the widest set: every entity an identifier plausibly points to (Noisy-OR, 1:many, floor 0). More entities, lower-confidence tail — chosen to maximize addressable reach, because the wide roster feeds identifier maximalism at export. The match confidence rides with every row, so the tail is never hidden.
• Lookalike — don't match the list at all: learn what defines it and get back the signals to build a fresh audience from — for more people like the seed, not the seed itself.
• Overlay — match the list, then score each person against a pool of signals you define and rank them (lead-scoring / who's hot), optionally keeping just the slice who match enough of the pool.

The matching plays (matched / expanded) continue through steps 3–6; lookalike branches to L1–L3 and overlay branches to O1–O4 below. A floor other than the default is the user's to ask for on the matching plays (a tighter expand, a looser match) — otherwise resolve-only takes the resolver default and expand takes 0.

3 — Resolve to entity IDs (matching plays — the play's procedure)

For resolve-only and expand: on the user's go, run the play's resolve with the identifiers (inline) or the csv_resource_uri (the user's, or the sandbox artifact from step 1) plus the chosen lookup_columns, the entity_type, and a workflow_id — resolve-only runs the resolution procedure inline (context/resolution.md), expand runs the expand-roster procedure inline (context/expand-roster.md). Either way the resolve stays IDs-only — the leaf handles only the URI(s), the sample, and the counts, never a resolved contact record.

• resolve-only → the resolution procedure inline (context/resolution.md) — returns the entity_ids_uri and the counts (input_identifier_count, resolved_count, below_floor_count). Narrate plainly ("5,000 identifiers in, 4,200 people matched").
• expand → the expand-roster procedure inline (context/expand-roster.md; pass quality_floor: 0 unless the user set one, and the lookup_columns for the CSV) — runs the wide entity_resolve 1:many pass and returns the roster URI, an ID-only sample, and coverage (input_identifiers, resolved, below_floor, quality_floor). Narrate plainly ("5,000 identifiers in, 6,300 entities matched wide at floor 0"). Because the match is 1:many, resolved can exceed the identifiers in — say so; it's a union, not a per-row rate. When the match columns include addresses, that union includes the co-residents at them.

4 — Confirm coverage honestly

Put the counts on screen — submitted vs. matched — and say plainly that the matched set is who carries forward. For resolve-only, the mapping is many-to-many: report the two counts as given, never a per-row matched/unmatched rate. For expand, name the floor and what it bought (floor 0 = widest net, every match kept; corroboration is global pooling — one entity matched two values — not two inputs confirmed as one person). Either way: if few or none matched (bad identifiers, wrong column mapping, an address list on the wrong call shape), surface the counts and the likely cause as the turn's finding — don't land an empty roster as a result.

5 — Emit the roster

Emit the matched set in the shared roster record frame — the same serialization the crossing roster from audience-generate-search uses, so audience-activate and audience-analyze consume it identically. The classification columns differ by play; show the matched set — the count, the classification, the coverage — and write the roster record per the record contract (context/record.md):

• resolve-only — columns entity_id, source_provenance (value seed); no rank, no groups, no score.

# Watt record · kind: roster · play: resolve-only · audience: matched from your customer list
# matched: 4,200 of 5,000 identifiers submitted (below floor: 350)
# roster_uri: workflow://…/roster.csv    entity_type: person
entity_id,source_provenance
e_8821,seed
e_4410,seed
…    (sample; full set behind roster_uri)

• expand — columns entity_id, match_confidence, match_criteria_count (the expand procedure's roster, verbatim); no rank, no groups. The confidence + corroboration columns are the audit trail for why each entity is in the set, and must survive downstream.

# Watt record · kind: roster · play: expand · audience: expanded from your list · widest match · floor 0
# match_confidence — Noisy-OR per entity (1.0 strong … low = weak single match)
# match_criteria_count — how many of your identifiers corroborated it
# matched: 6,300 entities from 5,000 identifiers submitted (below floor: 0)
# roster_uri: workflow://…/roster.csv    entity_type: person
entity_id,match_confidence,match_criteria_count
e_8821,0.95,3
e_4410,0.88,2
…    (sample; full set behind roster_uri)

The roster_uri carries the full entity-ID set (IDs only — never contact data) as a CSV of these same columns; the rows in the record are a sample, and the # matched: line stays honest about how the count relates to what was submitted. The roster record file is the canonical serialization — its column header row must survive downstream, the shape audience-activate and audience-analyze consume.

6 — Hand off

Offer the downstream in one line, in plain words: export the matched set (audience-activate — Meta, Google, Reddit, or TikTok) or read who they are (audience-analyze). Either runs on their say-so. For an expanded roster, the export is where the wide set pays off — each entity is enriched back out to all its identifier types so the platform can reach more of them on its side (the activator's lane, behind its confirmation).

L1 — Resolve the seed (lookalike)

On the user's go, run the resolution procedure inline (context/resolution.md) with the seed identifiers (inline) or the csv_resource_uri plus the chosen lookup_columns, the entity_type, and a workflow_id — the same resolve as resolve-only, here producing the seed to profile, not a deliverable roster. A roster input skips this step — its entity_ids_uri is the seed as-is (no namesake risk: the entities were already resolved upstream); go straight to L2. Confirm coverage honestly (submitted vs. matched; the matched seed is what gets profiled). Watch for name-match inflation — a name-heavy seed resolves wide to namesakes (a 10-person list can match thousands of same-name strangers), and because lookalike builds the whole profile on the seed, that noise washes out the real signature: far more damaging here than the count is for resolve-only. When the match is dominated by fuzzy name matching, flag it and offer to tighten to email/phone-confirmed identifiers for a sharper seed before profiling. End the turn at the go-ahead to profile: "4,200 of your 5,000 matched — profile these to find what defines them?" Never profile an empty or near-empty seed as if it were the list (surface the counts and the likely cause instead).

L2 — Profile the seed, present the signal pool (lookalike)

On the go, run the profiling procedure inline (context/profiling.md) in mode B (entity_set) with the seed's entity_ids_uri, entity_type, and workflow_id. It groups the full seed (never a sample — intent traits are sparse, and sampling thins them into noise) and returns two halves:

• Durable identity, by lift — the interests, affinities, demographics, and life-stage that stably set the seed apart from the world. Lift surfaces these reliably.
• Top intents by reach within the seed — the intent layer. Intent traits have tiny membership, so they never clear the lift floor; reach-rank (how common each intent is inside the seed) is how they surface. Say so plainly — these are the seed's common intents and may include generic ones; tuning prunes them.

Narrate the read plainly ("Your 4,200 customers over-index hardest on X and Y; their most common in-market intents are Z…"). Render the result as the tunable signal pool — each signal with its lift or reach, size, freshness, and which half it came from — and write the signal-pool record per the record contract (context/record.md); the keep/drop tuning is the decision the render lands. The user tunes: keep the portable signals, drop the self-referential ones (owning the product, the brand's own app) and the generic high-reach intents that describe everyone. This is the decision beat — the turn ends at the tuned pool.

# Watt record · kind: pool · play: lookalike · audience: lookalike from your customer seed · 4,200 people profiled
# tuned: kept N, dropped M    next: carry into a compose, or read · seed not suppressed from a later compose
# half — identity = by lift vs. the world · intent = by reach within the seed
# pool_uri: workflow://…
half,name,lift_or_reach,size,freshness,domain,trait_hash
identity,<signal name>,lift 7.2×,~410K,fresh,interest,…
intent,<intent name>,31% of seed,~1.2M,fresh,intent,…

L3 — Hand off the pool (lookalike)

The tuned signal pool is the deliverable; lookalike builds no audience itself. Offer the next move in one line: compose it into an audience — carry the pool into audience-generate-search with the working set pre-seeded (discovery skipped for what's already there; that leaf settles the roles with the user and re-scores the pool per role before any compose — the pool's lift-or-reach figures are profiling metrics, never compose scores) — or read it via audience-analyze. Lookalike does not suppress the seed from a later compose: a composed lookalike audience may re-include people already on the seed — out of scope here; say so if asked, don't fake an exclusion.

O1 — Resolve the list (overlay)

On the user's go, resolve the list to the matched set by running the resolution procedure inline (context/resolution.md) — the same resolve as resolve-only (overlay scores who's genuinely on the list, the tight match), with the identifiers/csv_resource_uri and chosen lookup_columns, the entity_type, and a workflow_id. Confirm coverage honestly (step 4). The resolved entity_ids_uri is the population to score. A roster input skips this step — its entity_ids_uri is already the population; go straight to O2.

O2 — Elicit the brief for the scoring pool, discover, and score it (overlay)

Overlay needs a brief — but it defines what to score by, never who's on the list. Ask: "What should I score your list by — in-market for what, engaged with what, interested in what?" Read it as angles and, one angle per beat, run discovery inline (narrow scope, the population's entity type — person for a list; a crossed business roster re-entering discovers business-side signals, entity_type: "business") for the candidate signals, then the inline scoring procedure to score them (by trait_hash, the brief as the grounding frame) — the parent's discover→score procedure, composed with verbatim. Show the scored pool — name · what it means · ~size · relevance · freshness · score — and write the pool record per the record contract (context/record.md). End the turn on the pick: which signals make up the pool, and — if the operator wants — a per-signal weight (default every signal 1, so the default score is a plain count of signals expressed). Nothing is scored until the user approves the pool.

O3 — Score and rank (the overlay procedure), then choose rank-or-cut (overlay)

On the user's go, run the overlay-score procedure inline (context/overlay-score.md) with the resolved entity_ids_uri, the approved pool (expressions by trait_hash), the weights map (the operator's, or omitted for uniform), the entity_type, and the workflow_id. Narrate plainly ("Scoring your 18,400 matched customers against the 6-signal pool…"). It returns the roster ranked by overlay_score, an ID-only sample, and coverage (source_size, scored, scored_zero). The procedure scores the whole list — nobody is cut. Land the closing decision as native clickable options:

• Ranked roster (the default) — the whole list, highest to lowest. For lead-scoring / "who's hot" / prioritize-the-pipeline; activate can take the top-N by rank.
• Intersection (the cut) — keep only the people expressing ≥ N of the pool's signals (default N = 1, "anyone who matches at all"; the operator can raise it to "the majority"). This is the leaf's own filter on the ranked roster — "my list who also do X". Say how many remain.

Show the ranked set — the top rows by overlay_score + signals_matched, scored_zero called out — and write the roster record per the record contract (context/record.md). Be honest: the scored_zero people express none of the pool — a real result, not a drop; with uniform weights overlay_score is just a count, not a precision verdict.

O4 — Emit the roster and hand off (overlay)

Emit the scored set in the shared roster record frame — columns entity_id, overlay_score, signals_matched, rank. When the intersection cut was applied, the emitted roster is the kept rows and the record says so: a # set: header line reads intersection (signals_matched ≥ N) — 4,100 of 18,400 kept, and a # full_set_uri: line retains the overlay procedure's full ranked roster_uri — so a downstream consumer is never handed the slice as if it were the whole list, and the full ranking stays reachable:

# Watt record · kind: roster · play: overlay · audience: your customer list, scored · pool: 6 signals (uniform weights)
# overlay_score — Σ (weight × match) over the pool; default weight 1
# signals_matched — how many of the 6 pool signals the person expresses
# rank — 1 = expresses the most
# matched: 18,400 of 20,000 identifiers submitted    scored_zero: 1,210
# (for a roster re-entry this reads `population: N people from your prior pass` — no identifiers were submitted)
# roster_uri: workflow://…/roster.csv    entity_type: person
entity_id,overlay_score,signals_matched,rank
e_2231,5,5,1
e_8890,4,4,2
…    (sample; full set behind roster_uri)

Then offer the downstream in one line — export the top of the list (audience-activate — top-N by rank) or read who the high scorers are (audience-analyze).

How to behave

• The list is the anchor — start from what it is, not who they want. Elicit the list and its shape first; no play composes a new set from a description. resolve-only and expand run no discovery or scoring at all; lookalike profiles the resolved seed; overlay runs the parent's discover→score procedures inline, but only to build a signal pool to score the resolved list by — the list stays the population.
• Stay IDs-only through the resolve. resolve-only, lookalike's seed-resolve, and overlay's list-resolve run the resolution procedure inline (context/resolution.md); expand runs its resolve inline via the expand-roster procedure (context/expand-roster.md) — a format=csv entity_resolve export the script reduces to an IDs-only roster. Either way the leaf handles only entity-ID URIs, samples, and counts — never a resolved contact record, and never resolve_and_enrich_rows (enrichment to PII is the activator's lane).
• Resolve-only, expand, lookalike, and overlay ship; the shared group / traverse don't. Group / traverse aren't available in this leaf — name them honestly when asked, never run them. expand runs the expand-roster procedure inline (context/expand-roster.md) and overlay runs the overlay-score procedure inline (context/overlay-score.md); lookalike runs the profiling procedure inline (context/profiling.md, mode B); overlay also runs the parent's discovery + scoring inline to build its pool; and resolve-only, lookalike's seed-resolve, and overlay's list-resolve all run the resolution procedure inline (context/resolution.md). Households are not a separate strategy: they fall out of expand on an address-bearing list, or via the export-addresses-then-expand round-trip; only a one-shot household-from-a-non-address-list (which would need enrichment, the activator's lane) is unbuilt.
• Lookalike learns from the list — it doesn't match it, and it stops at the signal pool. Resolve the seed, profile it (mode B) for its defining signals, hand the tunable pool back; never compose or measure an audience here — composing is the operator's next move down the audience-generate-search path. Profile the full seed, never a sample: intent traits are sparse, and sampling thins them into noise.
• Overlay scores; it never composes. The overlay brief defines the signals to score the resolved list against, never who's on the list. inline discovery + scoring build the pool; the overlay-score procedure (context/overlay-score.md) scores the resolved list against it and ranks the whole set — nobody cut. The intersection cut (keep signals_matched ≥ N) is this leaf's filter on the returned roster, applied only if the user asks. Suppression is not an overlay thing — target-vs-exclude is audience-activate's call.
• Honest about the match. Counts on screen — submitted vs. matched — and the matched set is who carries forward, said plainly. For resolve-only never imply a per-row matched/unmatched rate; for expand say the count is a 1:many union (it can exceed the identifiers in) and name the floor. Never present a near-empty match as the list (or, for lookalike, profile a near-empty seed as if it were the list).
• The record contract loads on demand. This leaf skips the parent's spine, so it inherits no record-contract cue — and a list build is often a session's first record write. The first time a play writes a record — a matched/expanded roster, a lookalike pool, or an overlay pool/roster — read the record contract first from the bundle: cat "<Bundle root>/context/record.md" (the path published at session start). It isn't injected at session start; read it once, then honor it for every record this session.
• A roster or a signal pool — never contact data. The matching plays end at a roster of ID-only entities + the roster record file; lookalike ends at the tunable signal pool (aggregates — signals with hashes, never people). Either way, no contact data — no row-level records, no enriched file of people; turning IDs back into people is audience-activate's lane, behind its own scale-and-identifiers confirmation. (The record file the leaf writes carries entity IDs and signals only, never PII.)
• End every turn at its question — the list and its shape, the play, the go-ahead to resolve, the coverage read, lookalike's go-ahead to profile and its tuned pool, the downstream pick. A roster or pool the user didn't steer is the failure, not the deliverable.
• US-only, adults-only, person audiences only. (A crossed business roster re-entering for overlay is the people-anchored B2B exception — its entity type rides through the inline scoring.)

Refuse cleanly

• "Who are these people / what do they have in common / profile my list." That's a read — audience-analyze-list. Same resolve step, different intent: it reads aggregates, this leaf builds toward export. Route there.
• "My list who also do X / score my pipeline / who's hottest." That's the overlay play — run it, don't refuse: resolve the list, build a scoring pool from the brief, rank (and optionally cut to the slice matching enough of the pool). ("Find more like my customers" is the lookalike play — run it too.)
• "Suppress my actives / exclude these from the campaign." Not a generate play — the audience is a normal play above (often resolve-only), and turning it into a platform exclusion list is audience-activate's call (target-vs-exclude polarity). Build the set here, route the exclude decision to activate.
• "Expand to their households / co-residents." Not a separate play — and reachable: if the list has addresses, expand already returns the co-residents at them (run it). If it's email/phone only, name the round-trip — export the matched set with addresses via audience-activate, then expand those addresses. Only a one-shot in-leaf household grow (which needs enrichment, the activator's lane) is unbuilt; don't promise that, offer the round-trip.
• A plain-English brief with no list ("people interested in solar"). That's the description anchor — audience-generate-search. Route there; don't resolve a list that wasn't given.
• "Enrich my list / give me their emails and phones." That's export — audience-activate's lane, behind its confirmation. This leaf emits a roster of entity IDs only.
• "Show me which of my people matched." The roster is the matched set as a whole; the counts say how many matched. No per-row matched/unmatched report — the leaf never echoes a resolved record.
• Non-US / minors. Decline / pivot to parents, as everywhere in the plugin.

Failure modes

• The resolver matches few or none (bad identifiers, wrong column mapping, an address list resolved on the wrong call shape) — surface the counts (how few of the submitted identifiers matched) and the likely cause as the turn's finding; never emit an empty or near-empty roster as if it were the audience.
• The resolver errors or halts mid-resolve. Relay its note plainly — which batch, how many unresolved — and stop; never hand back a partial matched set as if it were whole, and never fill the gap with an estimate.
• (lookalike) The seed is too small to profile. A handful of matched entities yields a noisy, unreliable pool — surface that the seed was too small to define a stable signature as the turn's finding; don't present a thin pool as the audience's defining signals.
• (lookalike) The seed resolved wide on names — namesake inflation. A name-heavy list matches many same-name strangers (a 10-person seed → thousands), and their noise drives the whole profile (the real signature washes out, the intent layer thins). Surface the name-driven inflation as the coverage finding and offer to tighten to email/phone-confirmed identifiers before profiling — never profile a namesake-inflated seed as if it were the list.
• (lookalike) The profiling read caps or halts on a very large seed. The profiling procedure groups the full seed; if the server caps the aggregation or a step halts, relay its note plainly (which step, what was returned) and stop — never silently profile a truncated slice as if it were the whole seed, and never pad the pool with guessed signals.
• (overlay) The pool barely matches the list. If almost nobody on the resolved list expresses any pool signal (scored_zero ≈ the whole set), that's a real finding, not a failure — surface it with the counts; don't re-score at a looser pool to inflate it, and don't present an all-zero ranking as a meaningful order.