Plan combat scene validation

docs/roadmap/future.md

@@ -14,47 +14,8 @@ eligibility, and the separation of actionable process warnings from quality
 diagnostics. The remaining near-term work applies those completed foundations
 to domain review and empirical evaluation.
 
-### D&D Combat Scene Semantic Validation
-
-- Add an optional production LLM-backed D&D validator that determines whether
-  proposed scene boundaries and classifications represent substantive active
-  combat correctly. Its central quality goal is that active combat is kept in
-  coherent scenes classified as `combat`, rather than split incorrectly or
-  hidden inside scenes classified as `narrative`, `recap`, or `meta`.
-- Resolve the validator's exact target before implementation. The current
-  `dnd/scenes` chunker owns only complete, gap-free source ranges, while the
-  per-chunk `dnd/scene-descriptions` extractor owns the `combat`, `narrative`,
-  `recap`, and `meta` classification. The preferred initial placement is
-  therefore an extract-stage validator for `dnd/scene-descriptions`, where it
-  can compare one proposed kind with the corresponding transcript chunk.
-- Consider a chunk-stage LLM validator only for a distinct boundary-coherence
-  question that can be answered from the complete transcript and proposed
-  range map, such as whether one continuous combat was fragmented across
-  inappropriate scene boundaries. Do not duplicate the same classification
-  judgment at both stages. Moving classification into chunk-plan annotations
-  would change the deliberately minimal, annotation-free chunk contract and
-  requires an explicit architecture review before it is selected.
-- Validate both false negatives and false positives: a non-combat kind must not
-  omit substantive active combat, and a combat kind must be supported by such
-  combat. Keep the existing deterministic downstream rule that combat-turn
-  extraction runs only for an exact `combat` scene classification; semantic
-  review improves the upstream classification but does not replace that gate.
-- Run the semantic validator through PromptKit, use a minimal required-field
-  structured response schema, and let PromptKit repair structural validator
-  output within its bounded budget. A contract-invalid final validator response
-  is a validator execution failure, not a semantic rejection and not a reason
-  to recursively validate the validator.
-- Evaluate the prompt and decision policy against a small human-reviewed set
-  containing combat setup, active turns, interruptions, multi-phase encounters,
-  brief rules discussion, aftermath, recalled combat, and false-positive
-  hostile dialogue. Measure false acceptance, false rejection, retry success,
-  added calls, latency, and token cost before placing it in the production
-  default chain.
-- An ADR is not required if classification remains owned by
-  `dnd/scene-descriptions` and the validator follows the generic validation ADR.
-  Create or supersede an ADR if the work transfers scene classification into
-  the chunker or otherwise changes stage ownership or the durable chunk-plan
-  contract.
+The active first production application is defined by
+[D&D Combat Scene Semantic Validation](combat-scene-validation.md).
 
 ## Near-Term D&D Pipeline