Implement LLM-driven governance architecture with structured memory

This commit completes the transition to a pure LLM-driven agentic
governance system with no hard-coded governance logic.

Core Architecture Changes:
- Add structured memory system (memory.py) for tracking governance processes
- Add LLM tools (tools.py) for deterministic operations (math, dates, random)
- Add audit trail system (audit.py) for human-readable decision explanations
- Add LLM-driven agent (agent_refactored.py) that interprets constitution

Documentation:
- Add ARCHITECTURE.md describing process-centric design
- Add ARCHITECTURE_EXAMPLE.md with complete workflow walkthrough
- Update README.md to reflect current LLM-driven architecture
- Simplify constitution.md to benevolent dictator model for testing

Templates:
- Add 8 governance templates (petition, consensus, do-ocracy, jury, etc.)
- Add 8 dispute resolution templates
- All templates work with generic process-based architecture

Key Design Principles:
- "Process" is central abstraction (not "proposal")
- No hard-coded process types or thresholds
- LLM interprets constitution to understand governance rules
- Tools ensure correctness for calculations
- Complete auditability with reasoning and citations

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

templates/dispute-resolution/chosen-facilitator.md

@@ -0,0 +1,289 @@
+# Chosen Facilitator Dispute Resolution
+
+*A process where participants mutually select a facilitator to help guide their dispute resolution*
+
+This dispute resolution protocol can be integrated into any governance constitution as an article on conflict resolution.
+
+---
+
+## Article: Dispute Resolution
+
+### Section 1: Principles and Values
+
+**Core Values**
+This community emphasizes:
+- Open dialogue and mutual respect
+- Collaborative problem-solving
+- Neutral facilitation chosen by parties
+- Participant empowerment
+- Confidential process
+
+**Community Standards**
+- Guidelines available on community website
+- Physical materials at community center
+- Regular updates and review
+- Bot maintains current documentation
+
+### Section 2: Community Relations Committee
+
+**Committee Structure**
+The Community Relations Committee:
+- Receives dispute forms
+- Coordinates facilitation process
+- Maintains facilitator pool
+- Tracks outcomes and patterns
+- Reports to governance body
+
+**Committee Responsibilities**
+- Acknowledge dispute forms within 24 hours
+- Contact all parties within 48 hours
+- Provide copies and process information
+- Support facilitator selection
+- Monitor case progress
+
+### Section 3: Initiating the Process
+
+**Submitting a Dispute**
+Members submit dispute forms including:
+- Parties involved
+- Nature of the dispute
+- What has been tried so far
+- Desired outcomes
+- Submit via @govbot or physical form
+
+**Committee Response**
+Within 48 hours, committee provides:
+- Acknowledgment of receipt
+- Process overview
+- Copy to all parties
+- Facilitator selection information
+- Timeline expectations
+
+**Voluntary But Encouraged**
+- Participation is voluntary
+- Community members commit to good faith engagement
+- Refusal may trigger individual outreach
+- Alternative options available if needed
+
+### Section 4: Selecting a Facilitator
+
+**The Facilitator Pool**
+Community maintains trained volunteers:
+- Completed facilitation training
+- Understand community values
+- Diverse backgrounds and perspectives
+- Committed to neutrality
+- Bot maintains current roster
+
+**Joint Selection Process**
+Parties work together to select facilitator:
+1. Committee provides list of available facilitators
+2. Parties review facilitator backgrounds
+3. Parties jointly agree on selection
+4. If no agreement, committee suggests options
+5. Ultimately parties must both accept facilitator
+
+**Facilitator Role**
+The facilitator:
+- Helps guide the conversation
+- Ensures all voices are heard
+- Maintains focus on resolution
+- Remains neutral throughout
+- Supports productive dialogue
+- Does not impose solutions
+
+### Section 5: Meeting Logistics
+
+**Neutral Spaces**
+Meetings occur in:
+- Community spaces accessible to all
+- Neutral locations (not either party's space)
+- Private settings ensuring confidentiality
+- Comfortable environments for difficult conversations
+- Virtual options available if needed
+
+**Meeting Schedule**
+Typical timeline:
+- First meeting within 1-2 weeks of facilitator selection
+- 90-120 minute sessions
+- Typically 1-3 sessions
+- Spaced weekly to allow reflection
+- Flexible based on participant needs
+
+**Support Persons**
+- Support persons may attend with permission
+- Must be agreed to by all parties
+- Observe only, do not participate
+- Provide emotional support
+- Maintain confidentiality
+
+### Section 6: Ground Rules and Process
+
+**Established Practices**
+All participants agree to:
+- One speaker at a time
+- Focus on issues, not personal attacks
+- Use respectful language
+- Practice active listening
+- Take breaks as needed
+- Maintain confidentiality
+
+**Process Flow**
+Typical session structure:
+1. Facilitator opens and reviews ground rules
+2. Each party shares their perspective
+3. Facilitator helps clarify and reframe
+4. Identify points of agreement and disagreement
+5. Explore possible resolutions
+6. Build toward agreements
+7. Document outcomes
+
+### Section 7: Dispute Assessment
+
+**Developing Shared Understanding**
+Facilitator helps parties:
+- Share perspectives without interruption
+- Identify areas of agreement and disagreement
+- Clarify facts versus interpretations
+- Understand each other's concerns
+- Define what resolution looks like
+- Identify obstacles to resolution
+
+**Scope and Jurisdiction**
+This process handles:
+- Interpersonal conflicts
+- Communication breakdowns
+- Disagreements about behavior
+- Community standard violations
+- Relationship repair
+
+**Escalation Determination**
+Facilitators recommend escalation for:
+- Serious safety concerns
+- Legal violations requiring reporting
+- Complex issues beyond scope
+- Situations requiring specialized expertise
+- Power imbalances preventing fair process
+
+### Section 8: Deliberation and Resolution
+
+**Building Understanding**
+Through facilitated discussions:
+- Each person's needs and concerns heard
+- Underlying interests explored
+- Creative options generated
+- Impacts and consequences considered
+- Common ground identified
+
+**Working Toward Resolution**
+Facilitator supports parties to:
+- Generate multiple options
+- Evaluate feasibility of solutions
+- Build on areas of agreement
+- Address remaining concerns
+- Find mutually acceptable outcomes
+
+**Decision-Making**
+Resolutions require participant consensus:
+- Both parties must agree
+- Facilitator cannot impose outcomes
+- Partial agreements acceptable
+- Revisiting and revising allowed
+- May need multiple sessions
+
+### Section 9: Resolution Outcomes
+
+**Types of Outcomes**
+Common resolutions include:
+- Mutual understanding of perspectives
+- Agreements about future behavior
+- Commitments to specific actions
+- Changes to procedures or policies
+- Plans for relationship-building
+- Agreed boundaries or separation
+
+**Documenting Agreements**
+- Facilitator documents agreed outcomes
+- All parties review and approve
+- Submitted to @govbot for records
+- Include follow-up mechanisms
+- Specify accountability measures
+
+**Implementation Support**
+- Committee tracks agreement implementation
+- Follow-up check-ins scheduled
+- Resources provided as needed
+- Modifications allowed if needed
+
+### Section 10: Appeals and Follow-Up
+
+**When to Appeal**
+Appeal available when:
+- New information emerges
+- Circumstances change significantly
+- Implementation fails or is problematic
+- Process fairness questioned
+- Agreements prove unworkable
+
+**Appeal Process**
+1. Party submits appeal to committee
+2. Committee reviews grounds for appeal
+3. New facilitator assigned (not original)
+4. Fresh review of situation
+5. New sessions held as needed
+6. Decision on modification or new resolution
+
+**Follow-Up Sessions**
+Available for:
+- Checking on agreement implementation
+- Addressing new concerns
+- Adjusting agreements as needed
+- Continued relationship building
+- Either party can request
+
+### Section 11: Information and Privacy
+
+**Need-to-Know Basis**
+Information sharing:
+- Full details only to direct parties
+- Facilitators have access to case documentation
+- Committee tracks process, not details
+- Community receives anonymized statistics
+- Annual reports on trends and patterns
+
+**Confidentiality Commitment**
+All participants agree:
+- Not to share details outside process
+- To protect each other's privacy
+- To allow anonymized learning
+- To respect sensitive information
+- Exceptions only for safety concerns
+
+**Record Keeping**
+Bot maintains:
+- Case timeline and status
+- Facilitator assignments
+- Agreements and outcomes
+- Follow-up schedules
+- Anonymized statistics
+
+---
+
+## Implementation Notes for Bot
+
+When facilitating chosen facilitator process:
+
+1. **Coordinate smoothly** - Handle logistics efficiently
+2. **Support selection** - Make choosing facilitator easy
+3. **Provide resources** - Share guidelines and templates
+4. **Track progress** - Monitor timeline and follow-ups
+5. **Respect roles** - Facilitator guides, parties decide
+6. **Ensure privacy** - Protect confidential information
+7. **Enable learning** - Collect anonymized data for improvement
+
+This process works well when:
+- Parties want structured support but maintain control
+- Mutual facilitator selection builds trust
+- Trained volunteers available
+- Community values facilitated dialogue
+- Clear escalation paths exist