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/community-jury.md

@@ -0,0 +1,390 @@
+# Community Jury Dispute Resolution
+
+*A process where randomly selected community members evaluate evidence and resolve disputes through structured deliberation*
+
+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 upholds six principles:
+1. **Procedural fairness** - Transparent, consistent process
+2. **Collective wisdom** - Random selection accesses diverse perspectives
+3. **Community ownership** - Members resolve their own disputes
+4. **Balanced perspective** - Multiple jurors prevent bias
+5. **Reasoned judgment** - Evidence-based decisions
+6. **Restorative outcomes** - Focus on repair and community health
+
+**The Jury Approach**
+Rather than single decision-makers:
+- Random selection ensures fairness
+- Multiple perspectives considered
+- Community standards applied
+- Decisions made by peers
+- Accountability to community
+
+**Documentation**
+- Comprehensive online handbook with searchable content
+- Print copies available
+- Audio recordings for accessibility
+- Bot maintains current version
+- Regular updates and clarifications
+
+### Section 2: Scope and Jurisdiction
+
+**What Juries Decide**
+Community juries have authority over:
+- Inter-member disputes
+- Violations of community agreements
+- Conflicts affecting community function
+- Policy interpretation and clarification
+- Appeals from committee decisions
+
+**Eligibility for Jury Process**
+Cases must:
+- Involve community members or community matters
+- Fall within community jurisdiction
+- Not require emergency response
+- Be suitable for peer judgment
+- Bot validates eligibility
+
+**When Not Appropriate**
+Some matters require alternative processes:
+- Criminal violations (refer to authorities)
+- Immediate safety threats (emergency response first)
+- Professional disputes (specialized arbitration)
+- External party disputes (unless they opt in)
+
+### Section 3: Initiating Jury Process
+
+**Submitting a Case**
+Request submitted via @govbot including:
+- Parties involved
+- Nature of dispute
+- Relevant evidence
+- Specific questions for jury
+- What resolution is sought
+
+**Initial Review**
+Dispute coordinator reviews within 3 business days:
+- Confirms eligibility for jury process
+- Requests additional information if needed
+- Estimates timeline
+- Explains process to all parties
+- Begins jury selection
+
+**Non-Participation**
+- Members expected to participate
+- Voluntary for non-members
+- Proceedings may continue without respondent
+- Limited scope if party declines
+- Noted in decision
+
+### Section 4: Jury Selection
+
+**Random Selection (Sortition)**
+Jurors selected randomly from eligible pool:
+- All members eligible unless excluded
+- 5-7 jurors selected per case
+- Random selection ensures fairness
+- Bot conducts transparent lottery
+- Selection recorded for accountability
+
+**Jury Size**
+Determined by case complexity:
+- Routine disputes: 5 jurors
+- Moderate complexity: 6 jurors
+- Complex cases: 7 jurors
+- Constitutional matters: 7 jurors
+
+**Eligibility Requirements**
+Members eligible for jury service if:
+- Active community member (60+ days)
+- Not party to the dispute
+- No conflict of interest
+- Available for full process
+- Agreed to code of conduct
+
+**Declining Jury Service**
+Jurors may decline if:
+- Conflict of interest exists
+- Unable to be impartial
+- Personal relationship with parties
+- Unavailable for process timeline
+- Other legitimate reason
+
+### Section 5: Jury Process Structure
+
+**Process Timeline**
+Typical jury process:
+1. Jury selection (3-5 days)
+2. Materials distribution (immediate)
+3. Opening statements (Day 1)
+4. Evidence presentation (Day 1-2)
+5. Questions and clarification (Day 2)
+6. Deliberation (Day 3-4)
+7. Decision (Day 5)
+
+**Facilitation**
+Trained facilitator:
+- Guides proceedings
+- Ensures fair process
+- Manages time and order
+- Clarifies procedures
+- Does not influence decision
+- Bot assists with coordination
+
+**Ground Rules**
+All participants agree to:
+- Time-limited statements
+- Structured evidence presentation
+- Questions submitted through facilitator
+- Respectful engagement
+- Truthful participation
+- Confidentiality of deliberations
+
+### Section 6: Information and Evidence
+
+**Three-Tier Access**
+Information shared based on role:
+- **Parties:** Full access to all case documentation
+- **Jurors:** Redacted materials protecting sensitive information
+- **Community:** Anonymized summaries of decisions
+
+**Evidence Presentation**
+Structured process:
+- Opening statements by each party (10 minutes)
+- Presentation of evidence with explanation
+- Witness testimony if relevant
+- Documents and records
+- Community standards reference
+- Closing statements (5 minutes)
+
+**Juror Questions**
+Jurors may ask:
+- Clarifying questions about evidence
+- Questions about facts presented
+- Submitted through facilitator
+- Asked after presentations complete
+- Focused on understanding, not arguing
+
+### Section 7: Dispute Assessment Framework
+
+**Assessment Questions**
+Jury evaluates using framework:
+- What facts are agreed upon by parties?
+- What are the points of disagreement?
+- What community standards apply?
+- How credible is the evidence?
+- What context is relevant?
+- What are the impacts on community?
+- Who bears responsibility and to what degree?
+
+**Consulting Standards**
+Jury references:
+- Community constitution
+- Code of conduct
+- Established policies
+- Past jury precedents
+- Community values
+- Bot provides relevant documents
+
+**Identifying Information Gaps**
+Jury can:
+- Request additional evidence
+- Pose clarifying questions
+- Ask for witness testimony
+- Review relevant records
+- Pause for information gathering
+
+### Section 8: Deliberation Process
+
+**Private Deliberation**
+Jury deliberates privately:
+- Only jurors present
+- Facilitator available for procedural questions
+- No parties or observers
+- Candid discussion encouraged
+- Process typically 2-4 hours
+
+**Deliberation Structure**
+Structured dialogue:
+1. Initial impressions (each juror speaks)
+2. Clarify key questions needing decision
+3. Review evidence systematically
+4. Share perspectives and reasoning
+5. Identify points of agreement and disagreement
+6. Discuss implications of different outcomes
+7. Build toward consensus or vote
+
+**Participants**
+Only jurors deliberate:
+- Parties do not participate
+- Facilitator not present (unless requested for procedure)
+- Administrator available for documents
+- Community observers not permitted
+
+### Section 9: Decision-Making
+
+**Voting Process**
+Jury decides by vote:
+- 2/3 majority required for decisions (4 of 6, 5 of 7)
+- Up to three rounds of voting
+- Discussion between rounds
+- If no 2/3 majority after three rounds, 60% minimum applies
+- Encourages but doesn't require consensus
+
+**Written Decision**
+Jury provides:
+- Clear verdict or determination
+- Reasoning and rationale
+- Application of community standards
+- Consideration of evidence
+- Any dissenting opinions
+- Implementation guidance
+- Bot records and publishes decision
+
+**Types of Outcomes**
+Jury may decide:
+- Finding of fact
+- Interpretation of policy
+- Responsibility determination
+- Remedies or consequences
+- Behavioral requirements
+- Restitution or repair
+- Community actions needed
+
+### Section 10: Resolution Outcomes and Implementation
+
+**When Jury Resolves**
+Decision is implemented:
+- Binding on parties
+- Bot executes authorized actions
+- Parties notified immediately
+- Implementation timeline specified
+- Follow-up scheduled
+
+**Implementation Tracking**
+- Coordinator monitors compliance
+- Reports to community if needed
+- Support provided for implementation
+- Modifications if circumstances change
+
+**Resolution Failure Options**
+If jury cannot resolve:
+- Refer to mediation
+- Escalate to governance body
+- Refer to legal processes
+- Recommend policy revision
+- Provide support for separation
+- Suggest alternative approaches
+
+### Section 11: Appeals Process
+
+**Grounds for Appeal**
+Appeals accepted for:
+- New evidence not available during trial
+- Procedural errors affecting fairness
+- Misapplication of community standards
+- Juror bias or misconduct
+- Implementation proving impossible
+
+**Appeal Timeline**
+- Must file within 14 days of decision
+- Submit to Appeal Committee via @govbot
+- Committee determines merit quickly
+- New jury convened if accepted
+
+**Appeal Review**
+Appeal Committee:
+- 3 experienced members
+- Review appeal criteria
+- Decide if grounds sufficient
+- Can dismiss or accept appeal
+- Decision within 7 days
+
+**New Jury for Appeals**
+If appeal accepted:
+- Larger jury selected (7-9 members)
+- Reviews all original materials
+- Considers new evidence if any
+- Limited hearing held
+- Can confirm, modify, or overturn original decision
+- Appeal decision is final
+
+### Section 12: Participants and Observers
+
+**Who Participates**
+Full participants:
+- **Jurors:** Make decision
+- **Parties:** Present case and evidence
+- **Witnesses:** Provide testimony if called
+- **Facilitator:** Manages process
+- **Administrator:** Handles logistics
+
+**Community Observation**
+Process is transparent:
+- Community members may observe
+- Observers cannot participate
+- Must respect process rules
+- Leave before deliberation
+- No disruption permitted
+
+**Support Persons**
+Parties may have:
+- Support person present
+- For emotional support only
+- Cannot speak or participate
+- Must be approved by facilitator
+
+### Section 13: Information and Records
+
+**Record Keeping**
+Bot maintains complete records:
+- Case submissions and evidence
+- Jury selection process
+- Proceedings transcripts
+- Jury decisions and reasoning
+- Implementation status
+- Appeals and outcomes
+
+**Public Access**
+Community can access:
+- Anonymized decision summaries
+- Precedents and patterns
+- Process statistics
+- Redacted case outcomes
+- Policy clarifications
+
+**Confidentiality**
+Protected information:
+- Jury deliberations (never shared)
+- Sensitive personal information
+- Evidence marked confidential
+- Juror identities (may be disclosed or anonymous as community decides)
+
+---
+
+## Implementation Notes for Bot
+
+When facilitating community jury process:
+
+1. **Fair selection** - Conduct transparent, truly random selection
+2. **Process management** - Track timeline and ensure structure followed
+3. **Information access** - Provide appropriate materials to each role
+4. **Decision recording** - Accurately capture and publish decisions
+5. **Precedent tracking** - Build searchable database of past decisions
+6. **Implementation support** - Execute authorized actions and monitor compliance
+7. **Appeals coordination** - Manage appeal review efficiently
+
+This process works best when:
+- Community trusts random selection
+- Members willing to serve as jurors
+- Cases suited to peer judgment
+- Structured process followed consistently
+- Decisions create useful precedents
+- Community supports implementation