Always provide context that reframes prior assessments, then expect the assistant to revise its verdict accordingly

BYK consistently introduces new factual context (org structure, history of inaction, colleague corroboration, Cramer's alignment) in layers across a session, each time expecting the assistant to update its analysis rather than hold a fixed position. He does not simply accept an initial verdict — he treats the conversation as an iterative evidence-building process where each new data point should shift the assistant's diagnosis. When the assistant revises its position (e.g., from 'mostly inaccurate' to 'credible read'), BYK continues adding more evidence. The assistant should treat each new piece of context as potentially material, explicitly acknowledge when it changes the prior assessment, and explain why the update is warranted rather than restating the original conclusion.