Sense first, then narrate

The default order in most operations is backward. Pick the story, recruit the data, publish. The outputs are persuasive until anyone who cares checks the readings. The Perceptagon stance inverts it: instrument first, let the sensors read what's actually there, then narrate what the readings show. Story is a downstream artifact of sensing, not an upstream driver.

This isn't a preference; it's a discipline. It's what separates regulatory-grade observation from marketing collateral wearing data as decoration. A report that survives a hostile reading is almost always one where the narrative arrived after the instruments agreed.

What this lets stakeholders do: publish claims that hold up. Build reports that a skeptical reader can trace back to a reading. Make the epistemic act visible instead of papered over by confident prose.

What's still open: what's the minimum viable sensing stack for a given claim, and when does sensing become theater?