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-referee.md

@@ -0,0 +1,400 @@
+# Community Referee Dispute Resolution
+
+*A streamlined process where a single trained referee facilitates and decides on 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:
+1. **Efficiency** - Streamlining resolution to minimize time and resources
+2. **Fairness** - Equal treatment and impartial review
+3. **Expertise** - Trained referees understand community standards
+4. **Practicality** - Focus on workable solutions
+5. **Consistency** - Applying standards uniformly
+6. **Respect** - Dignity for all parties throughout process
+
+**The Referee Approach**
+Single-referee model provides:
+- Quick response to disputes
+- Expert application of standards
+- Efficient use of community resources
+- Consistency in decision-making
+- Clear accountability
+
+**Documentation**
+- Comprehensive digital handbook on community website
+- Searchable by topic and keyword
+- Periodic workshops on process
+- Updates communicated regularly
+- Bot maintains current materials
+
+### Section 2: Scope and Jurisdiction
+
+**What Referees Handle**
+Referee process covers:
+- Community agreement disputes
+- Resource allocation conflicts
+- Interpersonal conflicts between members
+- Minor property disputes
+- Policy compliance matters
+- Procedure interpretation questions
+
+**Appropriate Cases**
+Best suited for:
+- Routine disputes with clear standards
+- Situations needing quick resolution
+- Disagreements about facts or application
+- Cases without complex emotional dynamics
+- Matters where fair decision can be reached efficiently
+
+**Escalation to Other Processes**
+Some disputes better handled elsewhere:
+- Complex emotional conflicts → mediation or circles
+- Serious harm → restorative/transformative justice
+- Major policy questions → governance body
+- Legal violations → authorities as needed
+
+### Section 3: The Referee Pool
+
+**Referee Qualifications**
+Referees must have:
+- Deep knowledge of community standards
+- Dispute resolution training
+- Demonstrated fairness and impartiality
+- Strong analytical skills
+- Communication abilities
+- Community trust
+
+**Referee Training**
+Training includes:
+- Community values and constitution
+- Conflict resolution techniques
+- Evidence evaluation
+- Decision-making frameworks
+- Cultural competency
+- Managing difficult dynamics
+- Bot systems and documentation
+
+**Maintaining the Pool**
+- Community maintains roster of trained referees
+- Regular refresher training
+- Performance review and feedback
+- Addition of new referees as needed
+- Bot tracks availability and assignments
+
+### Section 4: Initiating the Process
+
+**Dispute Submission**
+Party submits request via @govbot including:
+- Parties involved
+- Nature of dispute
+- Relevant facts and timeline
+- Evidence or documentation
+- What outcome is sought
+- Urgency level
+
+**Initial Review**
+Within 2 business days:
+- Coordinator reviews submission
+- Confirms eligibility for referee process
+- Determines complexity level
+- Assigns referee
+- Notifies all parties
+
+**Referee Assignment**
+Target within 5 days:
+- Referee assigned based on availability and expertise
+- Parties notified of referee identity
+- Can object if conflict of interest
+- New referee assigned if valid objection
+- Bot tracks assignments and prevents conflicts
+
+### Section 5: Referee Process
+
+**Intake Phase**
+Referee conducts initial work:
+- Interviews with each party separately (30-60 min)
+- Reviews documentation and evidence
+- Identifies key issues and questions
+- Determines if joint session needed
+- Develops process plan
+
+**Joint Session (if needed)**
+When parties meet together:
+- Referee maintains control of process
+- Structured speaking protocols
+- Time limits ensure efficiency
+- Focus on facts and resolution
+- Typically 60-90 minutes
+
+**Additional Information Gathering**
+Referee may:
+- Request additional documentation
+- Interview witnesses
+- Consult community standards
+- Review precedents
+- Seek expert input if needed
+
+### Section 6: Ground Rules and Structure
+
+**Process Rules**
+All participants agree to:
+- Equal opportunity to present perspectives
+- No interruption during presentations
+- Respectful language and tone
+- Truthful statements
+- Time limits respected
+- Referee's process authority
+
+**Structured Speaking**
+- Each party presents uninterrupted
+- Specific time allocated (typically 10-15 min)
+- Questions asked through referee
+- Rebuttals brief and focused
+- Closing statements (5 min)
+
+**Confidentiality Protocols**
+- Case information shared only with referee and parties
+- Witnesses get only relevant information
+- Decision may be published (anonymized)
+- Sensitive details protected
+- Exceptions for safety concerns
+
+### Section 7: Dispute Assessment
+
+**Referee Analysis**
+Referee evaluates:
+- Agreed facts and disputed facts
+- Applicable community standards
+- Credibility of evidence
+- Context and history
+- Whether new issue or ongoing pattern
+- Impact on parties and community
+
+**Standards Application**
+Referee consults:
+- Community constitution
+- Relevant policies
+- Code of conduct
+- Past referee decisions (precedents)
+- Community values
+- Bot provides searchable access
+
+**Fact-Finding**
+Through evidence evaluation:
+- Review of submissions
+- Witness statements
+- Documentary evidence
+- Community standards
+- Contextual factors
+- Precedent review
+
+### Section 8: Handling Non-Participation
+
+**When Party Doesn't Engage**
+Members expected to participate but:
+- Process may proceed without active participation
+- Decisions made based on available information
+- Non-participating party still bound by decision
+- Noted in decision rationale
+
+**For Non-Members**
+- Process is voluntary
+- Cannot compel participation
+- Limited decisions possible without full participation
+- May recommend separation or boundaries
+
+**Good Faith Requirement**
+Parties expected to:
+- Participate honestly
+- Provide requested information
+- Respect process
+- Accept referee authority
+- Implement decision
+
+### Section 9: Deliberation and Decision
+
+**Referee Deliberation**
+Referee considers:
+- All evidence and testimony
+- Applicable standards
+- Precedents
+- Practical implications
+- Community values
+- Fair and workable outcomes
+
+**Structured Discussion**
+Before final decision:
+- Referee summarizes points of agreement and disagreement
+- Identifies key questions
+- Discusses potential outcomes with parties
+- Reality-tests proposed solutions
+- Allows final statements
+
+**Participants**
+Throughout process:
+- **Primary parties** - Present case and participate
+- **Referee** - Facilitates and decides
+- **Support persons** - May attend for emotional support
+- **Witnesses** - Provide information if called
+- **Coordinator** - Handles administrative logistics
+
+### Section 10: The Decision
+
+**Written Determination**
+Referee provides written decision within one week including:
+- Clear finding or determination
+- Summary of relevant facts
+- Application of community standards
+- Reasoning for decision
+- Specific requirements or remedies
+- Implementation timeline
+- Follow-up if needed
+
+**Types of Decisions**
+Referee may:
+- Determine facts
+- Interpret policy application
+- Assign responsibility
+- Order specific actions
+- Require apologies or acknowledgment
+- Mandate restitution or repair
+- Set boundaries or separation
+- Recommend policy changes
+
+**Decision Communication**
+- Decision sent to all parties
+- Submitted to @govbot for records
+- Anonymized summary published to community
+- Implementation coordinator notified
+- Bot tracks and monitors compliance
+
+### Section 11: Implementation
+
+**Carrying Out Decisions**
+- Bot executes authorized actions where possible
+- Parties responsible for their requirements
+- Coordinator monitors compliance
+- Regular check-ins scheduled
+- Support provided as needed
+
+**Compliance Tracking**
+- Deadlines tracked by bot
+- Parties report completion
+- Coordinator verifies
+- Community notified if non-compliance
+- May escalate if requirements not met
+
+**When Implementation Fails**
+If party doesn't comply:
+- Coordinator contacts party
+- Understands barriers
+- Referee may modify if circumstances changed
+- Escalate to governance body if willful non-compliance
+- May result in further consequences
+
+### Section 12: Escalation Options
+
+**When Referee Process Insufficient**
+Some cases need escalation:
+- **Three-referee panel** - For complex cases needing multiple perspectives
+- **Mediation** - For cases needing facilitated dialogue
+- **Governance body** - For policy questions or major decisions
+- **Professional services** - For specialized expertise
+- **Legal processes** - When outside community jurisdiction
+
+**Requesting Escalation**
+Either party or referee can request:
+- Submit escalation request to coordinator
+- Explain why current process insufficient
+- Coordinator determines appropriate path
+- New process initiated
+- Original referee decision may be suspended
+
+### Section 13: Appeals Process
+
+**Grounds for Appeal**
+Appeals accepted only for:
+- Significant new information not previously available
+- Misapplication of community standards
+- Procedural errors affecting fairness
+- Evidence of referee bias
+- Decision implementation proving impossible
+
+**Filing an Appeal**
+Within 14 days of decision:
+- Submit appeal to Appeals Committee via @govbot
+- Explain specific grounds
+- Provide supporting information
+- Pay fee if applicable (refunded if appeal successful)
+
+**Appeals Committee**
+Three-referee panel reviews:
+- Committee evaluates appeal grounds
+- Decides if criteria met
+- Reviews within 10 days
+- Can request additional information
+- Determines: dismiss, modify, or overturn
+
+**Senior Referee Review**
+If appeals committee accepts:
+- Senior referee assigned for review
+- Reviews all materials
+- May conduct limited hearing
+- Issues final determination
+- Decision is binding
+
+### Section 14: Information and Records
+
+**Record Keeping**
+Bot maintains:
+- All dispute submissions
+- Evidence and documentation
+- Referee determinations
+- Implementation status
+- Appeals and outcomes
+- Anonymized statistics
+
+**Community Access**
+Members can access:
+- Anonymized decision summaries
+- Precedent database
+- Process statistics
+- Training materials
+- FAQ and guidance
+
+**Privacy Protection**
+Confidential information:
+- Party identities (in published decisions)
+- Sensitive personal details
+- Private communications
+- Referee deliberation notes
+
+---
+
+## Implementation Notes for Bot
+
+When supporting community referee process:
+
+1. **Efficient coordination** - Move process quickly through stages
+2. **Referee support** - Provide information access and documentation tools
+3. **Track precedents** - Build searchable database of decisions
+4. **Monitor implementation** - Automated tracking and reminders
+5. **Escalation pathways** - Clear routing to appropriate alternatives
+6. **Maintain consistency** - Flag conflicts with past decisions
+7. **Statistics and learning** - Track patterns and outcomes
+
+This process works best when:
+- Community values efficiency
+- Trained referees available and trusted
+- Cases generally straightforward
+- Quick resolution important
+- Standards clearly documented
+- Community respects referee authority
+- Appeal paths available for errors