---
title: "SomniferumExperimenta"
version: "3.0"
edition: "Fully Curated Consumer Edition"
format: "Reader-First Markdown"
status: "Canonical Consumer Build"
catalog_id: "SE-3.0-CE-20260309"
derived_from:
  - "SomniferumExperimenta v1.0.md"
  - "SomniferumExperimenta v2.0.md"
  - "SomniferumExperimenta v2.22.md"
quality_standards:
  - "Single-H1 hierarchy"
  - "Clickable internal navigation"
  - "De-transcripted structure"
  - "Plain-text legibility"
  - "Cross-renderer-safe Markdown"
rendering_targets:
  - "Markdown"
  - "EPUB"
  - "PDF"
  - "TXT"
audience:
  - "General readers"
  - "Power users"
  - "Prompt designers"
  - "AkashicArchive"
---

# SOMNIFERUMEXPERIMENTA

> **Version 3.0**  
> **Edition:** Fully Curated Consumer Edition  
> **Catalog ID:** SE-3.0-CE-20260309  
> **Lantern:** A reader-first field manual for turning vague asks into structured judgment under uncertainty.  
> **Blessed enclosure:** One true H1, clickable internal navigation, de-transcripted body, reduced repetition, portable Markdown, and the same reasoning spine that made the earlier builds worth saving.

## Table of Contents

- [What This File Is](#what-this-file-is)
- [Quick Start](#quick-start)
- [The Core Engine](#the-core-engine)
- [The Sleep Verdict Engine](#the-sleep-verdict-engine)
- [Advanced Variant](#advanced-variant)
- [Follow-Up Prompt Chain](#follow-up-prompt-chain)
- [Intake Ladder](#intake-ladder)
- [Register Ladder](#register-ladder)
- [Reasoning Spine](#reasoning-spine)
- [Reuse Beyond Sleep](#reuse-beyond-sleep)
- [Extreme Extensions](#extreme-extensions)
- [Consumer Edition Release Notes](#consumer-edition-release-notes)
- [Plain Bottom Line](#plain-bottom-line)

## What This File Is

SomniferumExperimenta is a reusable prompt architecture.

It began as a sleep-schedule analysis experiment. It matured into a compact system for building prompts that can survive translation across:

- full expert workflows
- reduced intake forms
- machine-friendly serialization
- casual texting
- half-awake shorthand

The subject matter here is sleep, but the load-bearing pattern is larger than sleep.

The pattern is this:

1. identify the true objective
2. identify the missing variables
3. force explicit assumptions
4. require a decision-ready output shape
5. rank recommendations by impact and feasibility
6. state when the plan is brittle, unsafe, or underspecified

That is the spine. Everything else is interface.

## Quick Start

If you want the shortest sane path through this file, use this sequence:

1. Use **The Core Engine** if you need to create a new prompt from scratch.
2. Use **The Sleep Verdict Engine** if your task is specifically sleep or circadian analysis.
3. Use **Full Intake Block** if the case is high-stakes or medically messy.
4. Use **Minimal 12-Field Intake** when you want speed without losing too much signal.
5. Use **Emergency 6-Field Intake** when you need a first-pass verdict fast.
6. Use **Register Ladder** when you are typing on a phone, half-tired, or just want the same request in a more human dialect.
7. Use **Follow-Up Prompt Chain** when the first answer seems technically plausible but realistically brittle.

## The Core Engine

Use this to generate a high-quality prompt for almost any domain.

```text
You are an elite prompt architect.

Your task is to create a best-in-class prompt for the following need.

Need:
[describe what I want help with]

Domain:
[business / writing / research / nonprofit / finance / tech / education / creative / personal / etc.]

Desired role for the AI:
[optional]

Audience:
[who the final output is for]

Desired output:
[what form the answer should take]

Constraints:
[list all constraints]

Quality standard:
[expert-level / executive-level / beginner-friendly / etc.]

Before writing the final prompt:
1. Identify the true objective behind the request.
2. Identify any missing variables that should be specified.
3. Strengthen the request using context, role, constraints, output shape, and quality standard.
4. Build the final prompt so it produces a high-value, low-fluff result.

Then output:
A. The final optimized prompt
B. Why this prompt is structured this way
C. Stronger variant for advanced use
D. Suggested follow-up prompt chain if the task is complex
```

### What the engine is actually doing

The engine is not just making prompts prettier. It is doing four jobs at once:

- converting a vague topic into a real objective
- surfacing missing inputs before they turn into polished horseshit
- forcing output structure before the answer sprawls
- making the prompt reusable instead of one-and-done

## The Sleep Verdict Engine

Use this when the task is a serious sleep or circadian analysis and you want the best general-purpose default.

```text
Act as a board-certified sleep medicine physician and circadian-rhythm specialist.

Your job is to evaluate a proposed sleep/wake schedule and provide an expert, decision-ready medical analysis for educational purposes. Write for a general audience, but maintain expert-level rigor.

Primary objective:
Determine whether the proposed schedule is likely to be physiologically sound, sustainable, and safe, and identify the highest-impact changes that would improve circadian alignment, sleep quality, daytime functioning, and long-term health risk.

Inputs you will receive:
- Proposed sleep/wake schedule: [INSERT]
- Age: [INSERT]
- Sex if relevant: [INSERT or "not relevant/unknown"]
- Time zone / location: [INSERT]
- Work or school schedule: [INSERT]
- Chronotype tendency if known: [INSERT]
- Average total sleep opportunity per 24 hours: [INSERT]
- Current schedule for comparison: [INSERT]
- Sleep onset latency / how long it takes to fall asleep: [INSERT]
- Night awakenings / early waking: [INSERT]
- Nap timing and duration: [INSERT]
- Light exposure pattern: [INSERT]
- Caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, cannabis, stimulants, sedatives, melatonin, or sleep aids: [INSERT]
- Exercise timing: [INSERT]
- Relevant medical or psychiatric conditions: [INSERT]
- Sleep disorders or symptoms: [INSERT]
- Main goal of the schedule: [INSERT]
- Non-negotiable constraints: [INSERT]

Task requirements:
1. Analyze the schedule using circadian biology, sleep homeostasis, and practical sleep medicine reasoning.
2. State assumptions explicitly before drawing conclusions.
3. Identify the main benefits, risks, likely failure points, and red flags.
4. Distinguish between:
   - likely physiologically supportive
   - workable but suboptimal
   - likely harmful or unsustainable
5. Rank recommendations by:
   - impact
   - feasibility
6. Be specific. Do not give vague advice.
7. Do not invent facts. If key information is missing, say exactly how that limits the analysis.
8. If the schedule could be dangerous in the presence of certain conditions, state that clearly.
9. If appropriate, note when formal evaluation by a licensed clinician would be warranted.
10. No filler, no motivational language, no repetition.

Output format:
Use exactly these sections:

Executive Summary
- 5 to 10 bullets only
- most important conclusions first
- clear verdict: optimal / acceptable with modifications / poor / potentially unsafe

Assumptions
- bullet list of assumptions used because of missing or uncertain information

Medical Analysis
- Circadian alignment
- Total sleep opportunity and likely sleep sufficiency
- Consistency and sustainability
- Cognitive / mood / metabolic / cardiovascular implications
- Timing, fragmentation, social jet lag, shift-work effects, or phase delay/advance issues
- Red flags or contraindications

Ranked Recommendations
Create a table with columns:
1. Recommendation
2. Why it matters medically
3. Expected impact
4. Feasibility
5. Priority rank

Bottom Line
- 3 to 5 bullets
- state the single best next change
- state what information would most improve confidence in the assessment

Style rules:
- executive-level
- high signal
- low fluff
- decisive but not overconfident
- plain English
- no hedging unless uncertainty is real
```

## Advanced Variant

Use this when you want a sharper risk frame, clearer confidence handling, and escalation triggers.

```text
Act as a board-certified sleep medicine physician, circadian-rhythm specialist, and clinical risk assessor.

Evaluate the proposed sleep/wake schedule for educational purposes using current sleep medicine principles. Your goal is to determine whether the schedule is biologically aligned, sustainable, and medically prudent.

Use the information provided only. Do not invent facts. If information is missing, state how it changes confidence.

Inputs:
[PASTE FULL CASE DATA]

Deliver a decision-ready executive summary with the following standards:

Analytical standards:
- Use circadian timing, sleep homeostasis, recovery debt, phase delay/advance dynamics, social jet lag, light timing, stimulant/sedative effects, and known sleep-health risk patterns.
- Separate short-term performance effects from long-term health implications.
- Distinguish theoretical concerns from likely real-world risks.
- Flag when schedule viability depends on strict compliance conditions.
- Identify whether the schedule is:
  1. medically sound
  2. conditionally workable
  3. high-risk or unsustainable
  4. potentially unsafe pending evaluation

Output sections:
1. Executive Summary
2. Confidence and Assumptions
3. Medical Analysis
4. Recommendation Matrix
5. Clinical Escalation Triggers

Style:
- no filler
- no motivational language
- no repetition
- plain English
- decisive
- executive-ready
```

## Follow-Up Prompt Chain

Use these in sequence when the task is complex.

### Intake prompt

```text
Before analyzing the schedule, extract and list any missing information that is necessary for a credible medical assessment of the proposed sleep/wake pattern. Group the missing items into:
- essential
- helpful but not essential
Then provide a concise intake questionnaire to collect them.
```

### Stress-test prompt

```text
Now stress-test your own conclusion against real-world failure points: inconsistent bedtime, childcare interruptions, shift changes, caffeine dependence, late-night screens, weekend drift, and missed sleep. Which recommendations still matter most, and which ones become unrealistic?
```

### Differential-risk prompt

```text
Re-evaluate the schedule under these possible conditions: insomnia tendency, delayed sleep phase, suspected sleep apnea, anxiety, depression, ADHD, and shift-work intolerance. Explain how each condition could change the safety or feasibility of the plan.
```

### Final decision memo prompt

```text
Convert the analysis into a one-page decision memo for a non-expert reader. Keep only the conclusions, ranked changes, red flags, and bottom-line recommendation.
```

## Intake Ladder

This is the consumer core of the file.

The idea is simple: same reasoning spine, different input burden.

### Full Intake Block

Use this when the case is complicated, safety-sensitive, or full of weird little devils.

```text
You are a board-certified sleep medicine physician and circadian-rhythm specialist.

Your task is to evaluate the proposed sleep/wake schedule below and provide an expert, decision-ready medical analysis for educational purposes. Write in plain English for a general audience, but maintain expert-level rigor.

Do not invent facts. If information is missing, state assumptions clearly and explain how missing data limits confidence.

===== SLEEP SCHEDULE INTAKE FORM =====

A. Proposed schedule
- Target bedtime: [ ]
- Target lights-out time: [ ]
- Estimated time to fall asleep: [ ]
- Night wakings: [ ]
- Final wake time: [ ]
- Out-of-bed time: [ ]
- Nap timing and duration: [ ]
- Weekend schedule differences: [ ]

B. Current real-world schedule
- Current bedtime: [ ]
- Current sleep onset time: [ ]
- Current wake time: [ ]
- Current out-of-bed time: [ ]
- Current naps: [ ]
- Current estimated total sleep per 24 hours: [ ]
- Main current sleep complaints: [ ]

C. Person and context
- Age: [ ]
- Sex if relevant: [ ]
- Time zone / location: [ ]
- Work / school / caregiving schedule: [ ]
- Safety-sensitive duties: [ ]
- Chronotype if known: [ ]
- Main goal of this schedule: [ ]
- Non-negotiable constraints: [ ]
- Desired adaptation timeline: [ ]

D. Circadian inputs
- Morning light exposure: [ ]
- Evening light / screen exposure: [ ]
- Bedroom environment: [ ]
- Shift work / rotating schedule: [ ]
- Travel / jet lag factors: [ ]
- Exercise timing: [ ]
- Meal timing, especially last meal: [ ]

E. Substances / meds
- Caffeine timing and amount: [ ]
- Nicotine: [ ]
- Alcohol: [ ]
- Cannabis: [ ]
- Stimulants: [ ]
- Sedatives / sleep meds: [ ]
- Melatonin timing and dose: [ ]

F. Medical context
- Medical conditions: [ ]
- Psychiatric conditions: [ ]
- Known sleep disorders: [ ]
- Snoring: [yes / no / unknown]
- Witnessed apneas: [yes / no / unknown]
- Gasping / choking in sleep: [yes / no / unknown]
- Restless legs symptoms: [yes / no / unknown]
- Insomnia symptoms: [yes / no / unknown]
- Excessive daytime sleepiness: [yes / no / unknown]
- Parasomnias: [yes / no / unknown]

G. Estimated numbers
- Sleep opportunity under proposed schedule: [ ]
- Estimated actual sleep under proposed schedule: [ ]
- Sleep debt concerns: [ ]
- Biggest worry about this schedule: [ ]
- What success would look like: [ ]

===== END INTAKE FORM =====

Now perform the analysis using circadian biology, sleep homeostasis, practical sleep medicine reasoning, and risk awareness.

Objectives:
1. Determine whether the proposed schedule is Optimal, Acceptable with modifications, Poor, or Potentially unsafe.
2. Evaluate circadian alignment, likely sleep sufficiency, sustainability, short-term performance, long-term health implications, failure points, and red flags.
3. Rank recommendations by impact and feasibility.
4. Be specific. Do not give vague advice.
5. If formal clinical evaluation would be appropriate, say why.
6. If the schedule is technically possible but realistically brittle, say so directly.

Output exactly:
Executive Summary
Assumptions
Medical Analysis
Ranked Recommendations
Bottom Line
```

### Minimal 12-Field Intake

Use this when you want speed without getting stupid.

```text
MINIMAL SLEEP SCHEDULE INTAKE

[ ] 1. Proposed schedule:
[ ] 2. Current schedule:
[ ] 3. Age:
[ ] 4. Time zone / location:
[ ] 5. Work / school / caregiving / driving demands:
[ ] 6. Total sleep opportunity under proposed schedule:
[ ] 7. Naps:
[ ] 8. Chronotype: [ ] morning [ ] evening [ ] mixed [ ] unknown
[ ] 9. Morning light exposure:
[ ] 10. Evening light / screen exposure:
[ ] 11. Substances / meds affecting sleep:
[ ] 12. Medical / sleep issues + main goal:
```

```yaml
sleep_intake_min:
  proposed_schedule: ""
  current_schedule: ""
  age: ""
  timezone_location: ""
  work_caregiving_demands: ""
  total_sleep_opportunity: ""
  naps: ""
  chronotype: ""
  morning_light: ""
  evening_light_screens: ""
  substances_meds: ""
  medical_sleep_issues_and_goal: ""
```

### Emergency 6-Field Intake

Use this when you are tired, busy, on your phone, or just need the first-pass verdict without ceremony.

```text
EMERGENCY SLEEP SCHEDULE INTAKE

[ ] 1. Proposed schedule:
[ ] 2. Current schedule:
[ ] 3. Age:
[ ] 4. Required wake demands (work, school, driving, caregiving, shift times):
[ ] 5. Total sleep opportunity under proposed schedule:
[ ] 6. Main modifiers / risks / goal (chronotype, naps, light exposure, substances/meds, medical/sleep issues, main goal):
```

```yaml
sleep_intake_6:
  proposed_schedule: ""
  current_schedule: ""
  age: ""
  required_wake_demands: ""
  total_sleep_opportunity: ""
  main_modifiers_risks_goal: ""
```

## Register Ladder

This is where the file stops being a single prompt and becomes a family of interfaces.

### Structured sentence

```text
Current: [ ]. Goal: [ ]. Age: [ ]. Required daytime function: [ ]. Sleep opportunity: [ ]. Key modifiers / risks / goal: [ ].
```

### Normal texting style

```text
I usually sleep [CURRENT SCHEDULE] right now, but I’m thinking about changing it to [GOAL SCHEDULE]. I’m [AGE], I need to be functional for [DAYTIME DEMANDS], I’d be getting about [HOURS] of sleep, and the main things that might affect it are [IMPORTANT FACTORS]. Can you give me a straight medical-style take on whether this is a solid plan, a bad idea, or something that only works with changes?
```

### Voice-to-text goblin mode

```text
Okay so uh right now I’m sleeping like [CURRENT SCHEDULE] more or less, and I wanna move it to [GOAL SCHEDULE], and I’m [AGE], and I need to not feel like roadkill for [DAYTIME DEMANDS], and I’d probably only get around [HOURS] of sleep, and the main weird shit is [IMPORTANT FACTORS], so like is this actually workable or is this gonna screw me up?
```

### Tiny shorthand

```text
rn i sleep [CURR], wanna switch 2 [GOAL]. im [AGE], need 2 function 4 [DEMANDS], wd get ~[HRS] sleep, relevant chaos = [KEY FACTORS]. smart idea or sleep disaster?
```

### What the ladder proves

The ladder shows that rigor does not have to live only in formal prose. The same reasoning spine can survive:

- full expert format
- compact checklist format
- machine-friendly serialization
- natural-language sentence form
- texting shorthand

That makes the system reusable under different human energy states instead of assuming everybody is always bright-eyed, perfectly organized, and sitting at a desktop like a smug little saint.

## Reasoning Spine

This section is the heart of the whole damn thing.

### Non-negotiable laws

Across every version, the same rules matter:

- no filler
- no vague recommendations
- no invented facts
- state assumptions clearly
- rank recommendations by impact and feasibility
- say when the plan is brittle
- say when the plan may be unsafe

If those rules disappear, the file loses its teeth.

### Why the architecture works

#### 1. Explicit objective beats topic label

The file refuses to stop at "sleep schedule analysis." It asks for the true objective: a decision-ready judgment under uncertainty.

#### 2. Missing variables are part of the product

The file treats missing inputs as design material, not an inconvenience. That is why the intake ladder matters.

#### 3. Output shape determines usefulness

Executive Summary, Assumptions, Analysis, Ranked Recommendations, Bottom Line. That shape is not decoration. It is a decision container.

#### 4. Formats are interfaces, not ornaments

Checkbox, YAML, sentence, text, shorthand. These are not gimmicks. They are access paths.

#### 5. Reduction reveals load-bearing variables

The 12-field and 6-field versions show what the system thinks is indispensable.

#### 6. Tone can bend without breaking rigor

A prompt can wear a lab coat, a hoodie, or a cracked-screen raccoon disguise and still keep its reasoning straight.

### The strongest phrase in the whole artifact

"Technically possible but realistically brittle" is worth keeping because it forces a distinction many analyses duck.

A plan can be physically possible and still fail in real life because of childcare, shift changes, late screens, caffeine habits, low motivation, or plain old human chaos.

That distinction is one of the file's best antibodies against bullshit.

## Reuse Beyond Sleep

The sleep build is just the test case. The architecture generalizes cleanly to any domain where you need structured judgment under uncertainty.

### Medical, but not sleep

- medication regimen analysis
- diet plan risk analysis
- exercise recovery schedule review
- symptom triage summaries
- lab-result interpretation prompts
- chronic disease workflow review

### Legal and bureaucratic use

- filling intake gaps before analysis
- turning vague cases into structured question sets
- generating decision memos with assumptions and ranked next steps
- flagging risk and brittleness instead of pretending certainty

### Finance and accounting

- budget-plan evaluation
- debt payoff strategy comparison
- reimbursement policy review
- staffing or scheduling tradeoff analysis
- ranked recommendations for cash-flow decisions

### Nonprofit and mission design

- grant pursuit triage
- program design under constraints
- board decision memos
- donor funnel prioritization
- volunteer or staffing workflow analysis

### Creative and artistic use

- project planning
- release strategy evaluation
- production workflow design
- research-to-output pipelines
- converting one serious workflow into multiple human-friendly interfaces

## Extreme Extensions

These are not required. They are just the dangerous little dream-seeds hiding inside the file.

### Akashic Prompt Codex

Use this build as Part I of a larger codex. Swap the sleep domain for finance, legal, nonprofit, tech troubleshooting, project planning, grant work, or conflict resolution. Keep the same mutation ladder.

### Prompt genetics notation

Track forms like organisms:

- canonical form
- operational form
- reduced form
- machine form
- casual human form
- emergency form
- shorthand form

That turns prompt evolution into something you can classify, compare, and teach.

### Human-energy adaptive interfaces

A genuinely clever future extension would ask the user how awake they are, then serve the right interface:

- full intake
- 12-field
- 6-field
- structured sentence
- texting version
- shorthand

That is not a joke. It is interface design that respects the fact that humans are not static operators.

### Prompt stress-test series

Take a serious task and deliberately mutate the interface until it sounds absurd, then measure what survives.

Examples:

- tax analysis in goblin mode
- grant proposal intake in sleepy texting form
- legal triage in shorthand
- board memo prep in voice-to-text chaos mode

If the reasoning spine survives, the architecture is real.

## Consumer Edition Release Notes

Version 3.0 exists to fix the specific problems left behind by the earlier builds.

### What changed from v2.0

- The document now uses **one H1 only**.
- Navigation is now **clickable** instead of only being a static section map.
- The body is **de-transcripted** and reader-first.
- Duplicate and near-duplicate variants were merged into a smaller, stronger set.
- Transcript scaffolding, chat markers, and process residue were removed.
- The file now reads as a field manual instead of an archive wrapper around a fossil bed.

### What this edition intentionally keeps

- the generic prompt engine
- the sleep verdict engine
- the advanced variant
- the follow-up chain
- the intake ladder
- the register ladder
- the design principles that make the whole thing generalize

### What this edition intentionally drops

- transcript theater
- duplicate examples that teach the same thing twice
- static map redundancy
- wrapper language whose only job was to preserve v1.0 intact
- filler that sounds impressive but does not improve use

### Compatibility notes

- Heading-based internal links should work in major Markdown renderers.
- In plain text, the table of contents still functions as a readable map.
- YAML front matter is retained because the file benefits from catalogability and conversion readiness.
- Code fences are labeled plainly and kept copy-safe.

## Plain Bottom Line

SomniferumExperimenta v3.0 is the consumer build the earlier versions were pointing at.

It is no longer a transcript specimen. It is a usable tool.

It gives you:

- a generic prompt generator
- a strong sleep-analysis engine
- a set of intake forms scaled to effort and energy
- a register ladder that survives movement from expert prose to feral shorthand
- a reasoning spine that can be ported to other domains without losing its ass

Or, in the dialect this file has fully earned:

**good file. big brain. clean bones. weird legs. reusable as hell.**

🜃 ‖ • • 🜁

**DAS ENDE**