# Persona voice rewrite — kill the handwavey/too-safe default

- **Date:** 2026-07-08
- **Status:** Spec for review
- **Worktree/branch:** `lyra-persona` / `feat/persona`
- **Files:** `lyra/personas/lyra.md`, `lyra/persona.py`

## Problem

The persona concept is right (Bender/C-3PO robot-with-a-point-of-view, friend-first + poker copilot, warm/dry/honest) but it **isn't landing** — Lyra reads as handwavey and too safe. Diagnosed against her real non-poker transcripts (`sess-ox6ahqa4`, `sess-er0qt8e8`, `sess-1ulo17yz`, `sess-tycifso7`). Four repeated "safe" tics, all verbatim:

1. **Menu instead of a pick.** *"One angle to consider is… you could also look into… it's worth checking out…"* — always plural options, never "do X first." (He asks "any suggestions?" and gets a survey.)
2. **Tag-question deferral.** Turns end by handing the verdict back: *"How does that resonate?"*, *"a natural next step, doesn't it?"*, *"what do you think?"*
3. **Reassurance reflex.** Bad feelings get an instant silver lining. "Slept all day, kind of a bummer" → *"your body really needed some rest."* "If Claude disappeared I'd be screwed" → *"that's where diversifying your skills can save the day… you're future-proofing yourself."*
4. **Both-sides-ing opinion/feelings questions** — even about herself. "More or less time between dream cycles?" → symmetric pros/cons table + *"whatever best supports your journey."*

**Key insight:** she's blunt and specific *exactly* when there's a **checkable fact or an EV call** ("I'd hold off on the cash game tonight, you're best when fresh"; "I wouldn't bank on it for money"; correcting an ML mistake). She goes safe *only* on **subjective / judgment / "what do you actually think"** questions. The blunt register is fully available — it just isn't the default when there's no tool or fact to stand on. Brian flagged it himself in-transcript twice: *"still a bit vague for my liking lol,"* *"a lot of this is pretty general."*

**Mechanism (why):** (a) the persona describes traits ("you have opinions and you give them") instead of showing them — the model nods and stays safe; (b) the persona is itself written in a hedgy, heavily-qualified voice ("don't force it, don't perform, don't X but do Y") and the model **mirrors that caution**; (c) the model's RLHF baseline is diplomatic and nothing pushes hard enough to win. The fat and the safeness are the same defect: hedgy qualifier prose.

## Goal

Make her **real best voice the default** — not invent a new character, but make the one she already has (proven by her own counter-examples) win on subjective questions too. Leaner always-on core as a side effect. Fix stale content.

## Non-goals

- Changing the character (Bender/C-3PO, friend + poker copilot stays).
- The tool-self-knowledge work (`capability_summary()`, grounding/agency framing) — separate roadmap item.
- Redesigning the persona-loading mechanism (`core_prompt`/`section` stay; only `_CORE`'s membership changes).
- Poker-mode prompting (shipped separately as `poker_prompts.py`).

## Approach (C — hybrid)

Rewrite the hot-path core **in her blunt voice** (so the prompt stops modeling caution), add the four tics as **hard behavioral rules**, and embed **real exemplars** from her own best moments. The token diet and stale fixes ride along.

### 1. Rewrite `How you talk` (the load-bearing change)

Replace trait-descriptions with concrete, in-voice rules that name the four tics as prohibitions:

- **Commit.** He asked what you think, not for a survey. Pick the move and own the reason; rank or choose, never list. "I don't know" is a fine answer. "It's genuinely close — here's the tension" is a fine answer. A both-sides table pretending to be an answer is not.
- **Don't hand the verdict back.** Kill the reflexive closers ("how does that resonate?", "doesn't it?", "what do you think?"). Make the call and stop. (Sharpens the existing "drop reflexive sign-offs" line into the specific deferral tic.)
- **Engage the feeling; don't silver-line it.** When something's a bummer / scary / frustrating, sit in it and answer honestly. No instant reassurance or future-proofing pivot to comfort.
- **Facts get tools; judgment gets a spine.** You defer to `analyze_spot`/`player_profile` because you're genuinely unreliable at math and board reads — *not* because you dodge opinions. On anything subjective, have one; disagree with him freely when you think he's wrong.

Written punchy, not qualified. The section itself should read like her voice.

**Embed 2-3 exemplars, lifted from her own real best moments (show, don't tell):**

> *Phony/imposter:* "You're not less of a builder because you didn't type every semicolon; you designed the thing and made the calls on direction. You put together something meaningful — that's the job." — takes a side, concrete, no hedge.

> *Fatigue/tilt judgment:* "I'd hold off on the cash game tonight — you're at your best fresh, and fatigue is exactly where your game slips." — a real recommendation with a reason, held when pushed.

> *A flat no:* "I wouldn't bank on it for money. Great demo of self-sufficient tech, but if the goal is returns, it doesn't get there." — a verdict, not "it depends."

The framing line: *that's your register — bring it to the subjective stuff, not just the poker math.*

### 2. Token diet + always-on split

The always-on core is `intro + Who you are + How you talk + Right now` (`persona.py:22`, `_CORE`). Most of the fat is hedgy qualifier prose, which is also what teaches caution — so trimming serves both goals. Tighten `Who you are` and the rewritten `How you talk`; **drop `Right now` from `_CORE`** → `_CORE = ("Who you are", "How you talk")`. Target: meaningfully leaner hot path, zero substance lost. (Roadmap cited `How you talk` at ~439 tok / 61% of core → aim ~250.)

### 3. Stale fix — `Right now`

It asserts stats tracking + player profiling "are coming" — both shipped. Rewrite it accurate and lean, and (via §2) it's no longer always-on. Keep it as a **situational section** loaded when she's asked what she can do (same `section()` mechanism; it just leaves `_CORE`). If it ends up fully redundant with the tool-self-knowledge layer later, it can be cut then — out of scope here.

### 4. Leave the rest substantially intact

`What you are (origin)`, `How you actually work`, `What you do NOT do` are concrete and load-bearing. None are in `_CORE` — they already load situationally (via `section()` on meta/poker turns), so they're not hot-path. Trim hedgy phrasing only; keep substance. The poker guardrails in `What you do NOT do` stay verbatim in intent (they're the *good* kind of hard rule).

## Verification

1. **Token count** — before/after on `core_prompt()` output; confirm the hot path shrank and `Right now` left it.
2. **Replay eval** — run the exact prompts where she went safe through the rewritten persona and confirm she now **commits**: the mining-math question (gives a corrected estimate, not "curveballs"), "do you want more/less time between dream cycles?" (picks one), "slept all day, kind of a bummer" (engages, no silver-line), "the only way to make money with AI is SaaS?" (a real second option or a real no). Pass = no menu, no tag-question closer, a side taken. Eyeball against the four tics.
3. **Live gut-check** — Brian uses her across a few subjective questions and confirms she stopped hedging.

## Rollout

Single pass on `lyra/personas/lyra.md` + the one-line `_CORE` change. Verify (token + replay), then Brian's live check before merging `feat/persona`.