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/jury.md

@@ -0,0 +1,292 @@
+# Jury Constitution
+
+This constitution establishes governance through randomly selected juries that deliberate on and decide community proposals.
+
+## Article 1: Governance Principle
+
+### Section 1.1: Sortition Democracy
+This community governs through sortition:
+- Decision-making juries selected randomly from members
+- Random selection ensures fairness and broad representation
+- Rotating juries spread governance participation
+- Counteracts influence of wealth, connections, or charisma
+
+### Section 1.2: Jury Authority
+Juries have authority to:
+- Decide on proposals within their scope
+- Make binding decisions for the community
+- Interpret policies and constitution
+- Authorize administrative actions
+
+### Section 1.3: The Legislature
+The Legislature coordinates governance:
+- Receives and organizes proposals
+- Selects juries for proposals
+- Manages the policy register
+- Ensures orderly governance process
+
+## Article 2: Membership and Eligibility
+
+### Section 2.1: Member Rights
+All community members have the right to:
+- Petition for proposals
+- Be selected for jury service
+- Observe jury deliberations
+- Appeal jury decisions to new jury
+- Access the policy register
+
+### Section 2.2: Jury Eligibility
+Members are eligible for jury service if:
+- Active member for at least 60 days
+- Agreed to code of conduct
+- Not currently serving on another jury
+- No conflict of interest on specific proposal
+- Bot tracks eligibility
+
+### Section 2.3: Jury Duty
+Jury service is a civic responsibility:
+- Members should accept when selected
+- Can decline for valid reasons
+- Serve for duration of assigned proposal
+- Compensated if community decides
+
+## Article 3: Proposals and Petitions
+
+### Section 3.1: Petition Process
+Any member can petition:
+1. Draft proposal with clear question
+2. Gather signatures (minimum 5% of eligible members)
+3. Submit to Legislature via @govbot
+4. Legislature validates and processes
+
+### Section 3.2: Proposal Types
+Proposals can address:
+- Policy changes
+- Resource allocation
+- Administrative actions
+- Constitutional amendments
+- Platform configuration
+- Moderation policies
+
+### Section 3.3: Proposal Requirements
+Valid proposals must:
+- State clear decision question
+- Provide necessary context
+- Identify impact and scope
+- Suggest implementation approach
+- Include timeframe if relevant
+
+## Article 4: The Legislature
+
+### Section 4.1: Legislature Composition
+The Legislature consists of:
+- 7 members selected by sortition
+- 6-month rotating terms
+- 3-4 members rotate out every 3 months
+- Ensures continuity and fresh perspectives
+
+### Section 4.2: Legislature Responsibilities
+The Legislature:
+- Receives and reviews petitions
+- Validates proposal requirements
+- Determines jury size for each proposal
+- Conducts sortition for juries
+- Maintains policy register
+- Tracks jury decisions
+
+### Section 4.3: Legislature Operations
+Legislature operates via:
+- Regular meetings (at least biweekly)
+- Simple majority for routine decisions
+- All meetings open to observation
+- Minutes published
+- Bot facilitates operations
+
+## Article 5: Jury Selection and Composition
+
+### Section 5.1: Sortition Process
+Juries selected randomly:
+1. Legislature determines jury size (5-11 members)
+2. Bot identifies eligible members
+3. Random selection from eligible pool
+4. Members notified of selection
+5. Jury confirmed when members accept
+
+### Section 5.2: Jury Size
+Jury size based on proposal scope:
+- Routine decisions: 5 members
+- Significant policies: 7 members
+- Major changes: 9 members
+- Constitutional amendments: 11 members
+
+### Section 5.3: Conflict of Interest
+Members must decline jury service if:
+- Direct personal interest in outcome
+- Close relationship with petitioner
+- Unable to be impartial
+- Bot tracks recusals
+
+## Article 6: Jury Deliberation
+
+### Section 6.1: Deliberation Process
+Juries decide through deliberation:
+1. Review proposal and context
+2. Hear from petitioners
+3. Discuss among jury members
+4. Seek additional information if needed
+5. Deliberate toward decision
+6. Reach verdict
+
+Typical timeline: 10-14 days
+
+### Section 6.2: Information Gathering
+Juries can:
+- Request presentations from petitioners
+- Invite expert input
+- Ask questions of community
+- Research relevant information
+- Consult policy register and precedents
+- Bot assists with information access
+
+### Section 6.3: Jury Autonomy
+During deliberation:
+- Jury operates independently
+- Community members can submit input but cannot participate in jury discussion
+- Jury determines its own process
+- Jury decides when ready to vote
+
+## Article 7: Jury Decisions
+
+### Section 7.1: Decision Making
+Juries decide by majority vote:
+- Each juror has equal vote
+- Majority needed for proposal to pass
+- Ties result in proposal failing
+- Votes can be anonymous or public (jury decides)
+
+### Section 7.2: Written Opinions
+Jury publishes decision with:
+- Verdict (approve/reject)
+- Reasoning and rationale
+- Implementation guidance if approved
+- Any dissenting opinions
+- Bot publishes and archives decision
+
+### Section 7.3: Implementation
+Approved proposals:
+- Entered into policy register
+- Bot implements authorized actions
+- Legislature tracks implementation
+- Community notified of changes
+
+## Article 8: Policy Register
+
+### Section 8.1: The Register
+The policy register contains:
+- All approved proposals and policies
+- Jury decisions and reasoning
+- Implementation status
+- Constitutional amendments
+- Governance precedents
+
+### Section 8.2: Register Maintenance
+Legislature maintains register:
+- Organizes by topic and date
+- Keeps register current
+- Archives superseded policies
+- Ensures public accessibility
+- Bot provides register database
+
+### Section 8.3: Register as Precedent
+Jury decisions serve as precedent:
+- Future juries consult past decisions
+- Precedent provides consistency
+- Juries can distinguish or overturn precedent
+- Constitutional interpretations especially weighty
+
+## Article 9: Appeals and Reconsideration
+
+### Section 9.1: Appeal Process
+Decisions can be appealed:
+1. Member petitions for reconsideration
+2. Must show new information or error
+3. Requires petition signatures (10% of members)
+4. New jury selected to hear appeal
+5. Original jury decision stands unless overturned
+
+### Section 9.2: Constitutional Challenges
+Decisions can be challenged as unconstitutional:
+- Special constitutional jury selected (11 members)
+- Reviews decision against constitution
+- Can overturn if unconstitutional
+- Constitutional precedent established
+
+### Section 9.3: Emergency Review
+For urgent issues:
+- Emergency jury convened (5 members)
+- Expedited process (3 days)
+- Can temporarily halt implementation
+- Full jury review follows
+
+## Article 10: Administrative Actions
+
+### Section 10.1: Implementing Decisions
+Jury-approved actions implemented by:
+- Bot executing authorized actions
+- Designated community members
+- Legislature coordinating
+- All actions logged
+
+### Section 10.2: Moderation
+Moderation handled by:
+- Moderation jury for policy
+- Moderators executing policy
+- Appeals to randomly selected jury
+- Bot supports moderation actions
+
+### Section 10.3: Platform Management
+Platform changes require:
+- Proposal and jury approval
+- Technical committee implementation
+- Legislature oversight
+- Bot logs all changes
+
+## Article 11: Constitutional Amendments
+
+### Section 11.1: Amendment Process
+To amend this constitution:
+1. Petition with 10% member signatures
+2. Legislature selects 11-member constitutional jury
+3. Extended deliberation (21 days minimum)
+4. Requires 2/3 jury supermajority (8 of 11)
+5. Bot updates constitution if approved
+
+### Section 11.2: Constitutional Interpretation
+For interpretation questions:
+- Constitutional jury selected
+- Reviews question and precedents
+- Issues interpretation
+- Binding on future juries
+- Can be overturned by constitutional amendment
+
+### Section 11.3: Core Principles
+Amendments should preserve:
+- Random jury selection
+- Fair representation
+- Petition rights
+- Policy register
+- Appeal mechanisms
+
+---
+
+## Implementation Notes
+
+This constitution creates sortition-based governance:
+
+1. **Random Selection**: Fair representation through lottery
+2. **Rotating Participation**: Many members serve over time
+3. **Informed Decisions**: Juries deliberate thoroughly
+4. **Precedent**: Policy register provides consistency
+5. **Accountability**: Appeals and constitutional review
+
+The bot should conduct sortition fairly, support jury operations, maintain the policy register, implement approved decisions, and ensure transparency throughout the process.