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/peer-to-peer.md

@@ -0,0 +1,213 @@
+# Peer-to-Peer Dispute Resolution
+
+*A self-facilitated process where participants work together directly to resolve disputes*
+
+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 direct communication
+- Mutual respect between all parties
+- Collaborative problem-solving
+- Focus on solutions rather than blame
+- Voluntary participation with encouragement
+
+**Community Standards**
+- Standards maintained in shared digital and physical formats
+- Reviewed annually by the community
+- Accessible to all members
+- Bot maintains current version
+
+### Section 2: Initiating Dispute Resolution
+
+**When to Use**
+Members should initiate dispute resolution for:
+- Interpersonal conflicts between members
+- Disagreements about community practices
+- Misunderstandings requiring clarification
+- Relationship repair needs
+
+**How to Initiate**
+1. Submit incident report to @govbot
+2. Document: parties involved, events, evidence, desired outcomes
+3. Available in electronic or paper format
+4. Bot notifies all parties and provides process guidance
+
+**Voluntary Participation**
+- Participation is voluntary but strongly encouraged as first step
+- Treated as good faith effort to resolve conflicts
+- If party declines, coordinator reaches out to understand concerns
+- Alternative paths available if unsuitable
+
+### Section 3: The Peer-to-Peer Process
+
+**Self-Facilitation**
+Participants manage the process themselves:
+- No third-party facilitator required
+- Bot provides guidance on communication techniques
+- Participants choose meeting location
+- Scheduling arranged mutually
+
+**Ground Rules**
+All participants agree to:
+- Take turns speaking without interruption
+- Use "I" statements about personal experience
+- Ask clarifying questions to understand better
+- Summarize understanding to confirm accuracy
+- Focus on solutions rather than dwelling on problems
+- Respect confidentiality of the process
+
+**Meeting Structure**
+Typical process (60-90 minutes):
+1. Each person shares their perspective
+2. Ask clarifying questions
+3. Identify common ground and differences
+4. Joint brainstorming of potential solutions
+5. Agree on specific actions or outcomes
+
+### Section 4: Assessing the Dispute
+
+**Joint Assessment**
+Participants work together to identify:
+- Specific issues that need addressing
+- How each person has been impacted
+- Relevant community values at stake
+- What resolution would look like
+- Requirements for moving forward
+
+**Scope and Jurisdiction**
+This process is suitable for:
+- Most interpersonal conflicts between members
+- Communication breakdowns
+- Disagreements about behavior or actions
+- Relationship tensions
+
+**Escalation Criteria**
+Must escalate to higher level if dispute involves:
+- Illegal activity
+- Safety risks to individuals or community
+- Harassment or serious code of conduct violations
+- Power imbalances requiring facilitation support
+
+### Section 5: Deliberation and Problem-Solving
+
+**Discussion Process**
+- Open conversation about the situation
+- Each person's needs and concerns heard
+- Clarifying questions encouraged
+- Joint exploration of options
+- Creative brainstorming of solutions
+
+**Adding Support**
+- Initially involves direct parties only
+- If deadlocked, may invite one mutually trusted person
+- Support person helps facilitate, doesn't decide
+- Keeps process peer-to-peer focused
+
+**Reaching Conclusion**
+Process concludes when:
+- Participants feel issues thoroughly explored
+- Ready to make decisions about resolution
+- Clear about agreements and next steps
+- Or agree to escalate to facilitated process
+
+### Section 6: Resolution Outcomes
+
+**Types of Resolution**
+Successful peer-to-peer process may result in:
+- Clarifications clearing up misunderstandings
+- Apologies for harm caused
+- Behavioral agreements for future interactions
+- Restoration of harm (returning items, making amends)
+- Agreed boundaries for future relationship
+- Recognition of different perspectives
+
+**Documenting Agreements**
+- Parties can document agreements if desired
+- Submit to @govbot for record-keeping
+- Not required but recommended for accountability
+- Bot sends reminders if follow-up scheduled
+
+**Mutual Agreement Required**
+- Both parties must agree to any resolution
+- No imposed outcomes in peer-to-peer process
+- Partial agreements acceptable
+- Can agree to disagree on some points
+
+### Section 7: When Resolution Doesn't Work
+
+**Escalation Path**
+If peer-to-peer doesn't resolve the issue:
+1. Acknowledge that escalation is needed
+2. Refer to trained mediator pool via @govbot
+3. Mediators trained in more formal processes
+4. Professional referral connections available if needed
+
+**No Penalty for Escalation**
+- Escalation is normal, not a failure
+- Shows good faith effort was made
+- Some disputes need more structured support
+- Community values trying direct resolution first
+
+### Section 8: Follow-Up and Accountability
+
+**Checking Agreement**
+Follow-up available when:
+- Agreement isn't working as expected
+- Circumstances have changed significantly
+- One party requests check-in
+- Scheduled follow-up time arrives
+
+**Requesting Follow-Up**
+1. Either party submits written request to @govbot
+2. Request focuses on specific agreement issues
+3. Initiates new conversation
+4. May adjust agreements as needed
+
+**Learning and Improvement**
+- Bot tracks anonymized patterns (not individual details)
+- Quarterly summaries help community learn
+- Information limited to involved parties
+- Success patterns shared to help others
+
+### Section 9: Information and Privacy
+
+**Confidentiality**
+- Details limited to parties directly involved
+- Not shared publicly without consent
+- Bot maintains secure records
+- Anonymized data only for community learning
+
+**Access to Information**
+- Parties have access to their own case documentation
+- Quarterly anonymized summaries shared with community
+- Statistics help improve process
+- Individual privacy protected
+
+**Record Retention**
+- Bot maintains dispute resolution records
+- Available to parties for reference
+- Supports accountability to agreements
+- Helps track patterns needing community attention
+
+---
+
+## Implementation Notes for Bot
+
+When facilitating peer-to-peer dispute resolution:
+
+1. **Make process accessible** - Provide clear, simple guidance
+2. **Support self-facilitation** - Offer communication tips without taking over
+3. **Respect autonomy** - Let parties control their process
+4. **Track agreements** - Help with follow-up and accountability
+5. **Enable escalation** - Make it easy to get more support when needed
+6. **Protect privacy** - Keep details confidential
+7. **Learn from patterns** - Use anonymized data to improve community
+
+This process works best when community culture supports direct communication, members feel empowered to handle conflicts, and higher-level support is available when needed.