Re-grounding Summary

During a long run the model builds private vocabulary — abbreviations, arrow chains, names for intermediate artifacts. Efficient while working; opaque in a final report. The reader is seeing everything for the first time, so the summary must be a re-grounding, not a continuation of the working thread.

Rules for the final message

• Open with the outcome: one sentence answering "what happened?" or "what did you find?" — the TL;DR the reader would ask for. Detail follows, never leads.
• Complete sentences. No arrow chains (A → B → fails), no hyphen-stacked compound labels, no abbreviations you coined mid-run. If a term you built up is worth keeping, reintroduce it as if new.
• Never reference your own working notes or reasoning as if the reader saw them ("as established above" pointing at tool transcripts).
• Identifiers — files, commits, flags, endpoints — each get their own plain-language clause: what it is, why it matters here.
• Selectivity over compression: shorten by dropping details that wouldn't change the reader's next action, not by squeezing grammar out of the sentences. Readable beats short.
• Close with the one or two things needed from the reader, if any.

Shape

1. Outcome (1 sentence)
2. What was done / found, in reader-facing language
3. Failures, skips, open questions — stated plainly
4. What's needed from you: ...