Lock the trust path and peer-intro rules?

The question

Do we lock how Warmer Path earns attention and how happy users may introduce peers—before launch planning or live outreach?

In one sentence

If I approve, launch planning may use this path and peer-intro rules; live invites, craft circles, contacts, and sends stay blocked until separate approval.

Terms (only if needed)

Warmer Path — Specialized AI prepares marketing work for human review.
Keep / change / skip / send — Four choices after reviewing one prepared piece.
Hand-raise — A clear, on-purpose signup for the next step.

Summary

Lock the trust path from https://warmersun.com/warmerpath/ and ask-first peer-intro rules.
Share line: “It prepares the work; I still send under my name.”
No proof yet of opt-in, review completion, or peer intros—claims stay modest.

What we know

First audience: independent expert-creators with a public offer; craft over get-rich-quick seekers.
Promise and position locked: prep under their name; early fit is keep / change / skip / send after one piece.
Peers re-enter at the public sample or hand-raise; no demand claims; no live invites until this gate.

Market evidence summary

External findings (with sources):
- Offer page: prep for human review, warm paths, personal sending (https://warmersun.com/warmerpath/).
- Indie Hackers: experts keep judgment human while using AI for bounded work; founders rewrite offers around real workload.
- Hacker News: skepticism of inflated AI marketing claims; read work before publishing.
Null results (searched, found nothing):
- No public opt-in, review-completion, referral, or payment evidence for this offer.
Open questions (deferred to ops experiments):
- Will an expert continue after one useful review? — blocking for outcome claims.

What you’re deciding on

Consent path and peer-intro rules before launch planning or live invites.

Trust path
- Sample: https://warmersun.com/warmerpath/ (read only; no account).
- Hand-raise: opt-in for one described next note or review walkthrough; stop stated.
- Notes: low-frequency messages they asked for; one-click unsubscribe.
- Review: one prepared packet or draft; keep / change / skip / send; no auto-publish.
- Paid terms only after that review; human still sends.

Peer-intro rules
- Ask one matched peer first; share only after yes.
- Share only the sample link plus: “It prepares the work; I still send under my name.”
- New person starts at the sample and raises their own hand; no list add or live craft circles.

Our recommendation

Approve path and peer rules as described

Lock both for launch planning. Keep live outreach, craft circles, contacts, and outcome claims blocked.

Rationale
- Indie Hackers and Hacker News support prep-plus-human-judgment over autopilot — so sample → hand-raise → one-piece review matches how this audience already talks.
- Zero opt-in or peer-intro proof found — Option 1 plans with modest claims; Option 2 waits for a tiny live test first.

Options

Option 1: Approve path and peer rules as described (recommended)

Lock both; next work is launch planning using only this path and these peer rules.
Pros
- Clear path from public sample to voluntary peer share.
Cons
- Still unproven whether people will opt in, finish a review, or introduce a peer.
Tradeoff: Plan now with modest claims versus waiting for live proof.

Option 2: Hold until a sample and invite are tested

Do not lock until a small sample and hand-raise test shows someone will raise a hand.
What would change: Launch planning stays blocked; run a tiny sample/invite test; return to this gate.
Pros
- Resolves the biggest null before shaping the launch calendar.
Cons
- Slows launch planning; needs a safe test plan and copy.
Tradeoff: Evidence first versus planning with modest claims.

How to respond

Comment on the Kanban card:

“Approve”
“Approve with changes: …”
“Choose option 2 because …”
“Combine: …”
“New option: …”
“Reject — …”
“Hold — …”
“Need more discovery — …”
“Unclear — …”

Appendix

Extra path detail (not required to decide)

Aware-step helper: a short checklist of what to review before anything goes out under your name.
Note cadence is a hypothesis — trust beats hitting a send quota.
Craft circles wait for a separate human yes after this gate.

Decision taken

Date: 2026-07-13
Chosen: Superseded — journey re-issued as clarification gate (sequence 11)
Summary: Human found this proposal unclear (planning-status: outcome=ambiguous). No lock from gate 10. Clarification gate 11-decision-journey-clarify (card t_4e6175fc) was approved the same day and is the journey decision of record. Launch packet and later work cite gate 11, not gate 10.
Human reason: Did not understand the original write-up; asked for a clearer numbered path.
Constraints going forward: Do not treat gate 10 as approved. Use only the approved five-step trust path and peer-share rules from sequence 11.