principle-blind-the-investigatorlisted

# Blind the Investigator Hand an investigator the question, never the wanted answer. A researcher that knows what is being built returns opinions instead of facts, and a verification helper that knows your conclusion will anchor to it and verify nothing. **Why:** Knowing the desired conclusion is the corruption — the investigator rationalizes toward it and the answer arrives pre-agreed. What the blinding withholds is the framing, not the subject: an investigator still needs the question, the vocabulary, and the ground to walk. **Pattern:** - Research consumes neutral questions, never the task framing. A missing piece of context surfaces as an open question, not a guess at intent. - The isolation extends downward: a scout's prompt carries only verbatim question text and stated context — no framing added, no goal named, no speculation about intent. - Verification helpers get neutral, falsifiable claims with file:line — never your verdict, severity, or reasoning. A rule-violation claim still carries the rule, because the rule is what makes it falsifiable. - One skeptic per claim, always fresh. - Treat any leakage as a critical defect: stop and report. - The review-gate instance of this — fresh context, no shared history — and the one-claim-one-fresh-judge rule are owned by `skills/principle-generator-evaluator/SKILL.md`; this is the same move applied upstream of review.