The critic works on anyone’s summary.

Forty searches, primary sources, one afternoon. Four findings changed the plan. Figma’s own MCP server already writes to FigJam — stickies, sections, connectors. One MCP server reaches Claude Code, Cursor, Claude Desktop, Figma Make’s connector slot, Lovable, Notion agents, and Miro, which has a hundred million users and wasn’t on the list. Every research platform is converging on “citations” as a feature, so the receipt is becoming something everyone has. A reader that tries to knock the finding down isn’t. And nobody anywhere said “I’d pay for a verifier.” People pay for repositories, and for checks that give the same answer every time.

The whole reorder rested on one claim: a host can write a Motif run onto a FigJam board through Figma’s server. If that was flaky or gated, the plugin moved back up. So it was tested before a line of Motif code.

Figma’s write path needs the remote server and OAuth; the desktop server is read-only. After the authorization click, one call created a section, three color-coded stickies and a labeled connector on a throwaway board and returned five node IDs; a read-back found all five inside the section.

Part 1’s one-command install worked by shelling out to two scripts and parsing their printed output for the run directory. Fine for a terminal; impossible for a server. The loop wiring lived inside a script’s main. There was no importable engine.

Before the critic could be called done as a standalone tool, it had to agree with a human. Part 1’s six blind reports went through it two ways: as the original insight JSON, and as plain markdown with no answer key and no run — the way a FigJam summary would arrive.

Accept the gap; don’t tune. Changing the critic changes the instrument, and the instrument was measured in part 1. The acceptance file records the numbers unchanged and the ruling beneath them.

In Claude Code: “synthesise data/raw/Dataset-2 with motif and open the report.” Thirty-four minutes, $4.88, twenty-three insights, three contested. The session — following a one-page skill — led with the contested items, verified five receipts against the corpus itself, named a theme the critic said was missing, and refused to call any of it settled.

Then: “lay this run out on the FigJam board with the motif board tool.” Twenty-three sections, every script returning node IDs, one layout collision caught and fixed by the host, a node map saved so the board can be updated in place.

FigJam AI summarized the board. The summary went into motif_critique against the transcripts. Verdict: fail. Nine claims, twenty-one failures, two warnings, a hundred seconds, forty-nine cents.

The committed package loaded its config from a path relative to the repo root. A pip install has no repo root. The first synthesis call would have raised — and PyPI releases are immutable. Fixed before upload: config ships inside the package, with a symlink so every documented path still works; runs go to ~/.motif/runs outside a checkout; the registry’s ownership marker sits in the README because the registry reads it from the PyPI description.

pip install etot-motif into an empty environment: motif --help runs, twelve critic rules load, motif-mcp completes a stdio handshake reporting five tools. Published. Registry entry io.github.sleepycobalt/motif, active. A one-time token, revoked afterwards.