{ "contract_version": "qe-architecture-0.5", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "purpose": "provisional_catalogue_with_three_card_pilot", "taxonomy_version": "qe-ontology-0.1.4", "families": [ { "family_id": "QEF-O-SYS", "label": "Systems", "stack": "Ontological", "level": "super_root", "parent_ref": null, "definition": "Structures and interactions among components.", "includes": [ "Interactions within and between systems." ], "excludes": [ "Recommendations justified only by a goal." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-O-DYN", "label": "System Dynamics", "stack": "Ontological", "level": "root_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-O-SYS", "definition": "How system states change through their interactions.", "includes": [ "Adaptive responses and propagation." ], "excludes": [ "Methods for estimating those changes." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-O-RESP", "label": "Adaptive Responses", "stack": "Ontological", "level": "parent_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-O-DYN", "definition": "Behavior changes in response to consequential conditions.", "includes": [ "Responses to rewards and constraints." ], "excludes": [ "A prescription to select a particular reward." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-O-TGT", "label": "Target-Driven Adaptation", "stack": "Ontological", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-O-RESP", "definition": "Behavior responding to consequential targets.", "includes": [ "Effort reallocation toward rewarded activities." ], "excludes": [ "A guarantee that any measurement changes behavior." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-O-PROP", "label": "Consequence Propagation", "stack": "Ontological", "level": "parent_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-O-DYN", "definition": "Changes transmitted through system dependencies.", "includes": [ "Indirect effects and delayed responses." ], "excludes": [ "A universal claim that every effect grows." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-O-REL", "label": "Relational Dynamics", "stack": "Ontological", "level": "root_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-O-SYS", "definition": "Patterns arising in relationships among actors.", "includes": [ "Trust and cooperation in exchange." ], "excludes": [ "Rules prescribing whom to trust." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-O-TRUST", "label": "Trust-Based Cooperation", "stack": "Ontological", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-O-REL", "definition": "Cooperation affected by expectations of another party.", "includes": [ "Cooperation under credible commitments." ], "excludes": [ "Trust as a substitute for all controls." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-HD-SUMMARY" ], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-O-LIM", "label": "Reality & Limits", "stack": "Ontological", "level": "super_root", "parent_ref": null, "definition": "Conditions constraining feasible system states.", "includes": [ "Capacity and load variation." ], "excludes": [ "An observer's confidence in an estimate." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-O-VAR", "label": "Variability", "stack": "Ontological", "level": "root_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-O-LIM", "definition": "Differences among relevant states or outcomes.", "includes": [ "Variation in loads and demands." ], "excludes": [ "Uncertainty caused only by not knowing a fixed value." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-O-LOAD", "label": "Load Variation", "stack": "Ontological", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-O-VAR", "definition": "Variation in demands placed on a system.", "includes": [ "Different realized demands." ], "excludes": [ "Optimal buffer-sizing rules." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-O-COG", "label": "Cognitive Processes", "stack": "Ontological", "level": "root_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-O-SYS", "definition": "Explanatory patterns in the interacting information-processing functions of agents.", "includes": [ "Attention, recall, and interpretation." ], "excludes": [ "Normative evidence standards." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-O-SEL", "label": "Belief-Congruent Processing", "stack": "Ontological", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-O-COG", "definition": "Selection or interpretation of information favoring an existing belief.", "includes": [ "Selective evidence processing." ], "excludes": [ "Every instance of agreeing with a prior belief." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-O-FIN", "label": "Finite Resources", "aliases": [], "stack": "Ontological", "level": "root_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-O-LIM", "definition": "Limits arising from the availability of resources over a stated interval.", "includes": [ "Time, material, and attention budgets." ], "excludes": [ "Uncertainty about an otherwise unconstrained quantity." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-O-SCAR", "label": "Scarcity", "aliases": [], "stack": "Ontological", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-O-FIN", "definition": "Situations in which feasible demands compete for a limited resource.", "includes": [ "Two mutually exclusive uses of an available hour." ], "excludes": [ "A recommendation about which demand should win." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-O-CAP", "label": "Capacity Constraints", "aliases": [], "stack": "Ontological", "level": "root_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-O-LIM", "definition": "Limits on the rates or quantities a system can accommodate.", "includes": [ "Service, storage, and throughput limits." ], "excludes": [ "A decision to deliberately add redundancy." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-O-BOT", "label": "Bottleneck Dependence", "aliases": [], "stack": "Ontological", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-O-CAP", "definition": "System output constrained by a limiting component or stage under specified conditions.", "includes": [ "Throughput limited by a constrained processing stage." ], "excludes": [ "Assuming every local improvement raises system output." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-O-CHAIN", "label": "Consequence Chains", "aliases": [], "stack": "Ontological", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-O-PROP", "definition": "Transmission of change described along a chain without a return path in the selected model.", "includes": [ "An action affects a dependent activity and then another." ], "excludes": [ "Feedback returning to influence an earlier part of the chain." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-O-FEEDBACK", "label": "Feedback Loops", "aliases": [], "stack": "Ontological", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-O-PROP", "definition": "Transmission in which effects return to influence the process that produced them.", "includes": [ "Reinforcing or balancing return paths." ], "excludes": [ "One-way propagation without a return influence." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-O-TIME", "label": "Time and Change", "aliases": [], "stack": "Ontological", "level": "super_root", "parent_ref": null, "definition": "Patterns of persistence, accumulation, and replacement over time.", "includes": [ "Retained changes and selection across repeated periods." ], "excludes": [ "Choosing a personal goal merely because time passes." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-O-ACC", "label": "Accumulation", "aliases": [], "stack": "Ontological", "level": "root_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-O-TIME", "definition": "Processes whose present state includes retained contributions from earlier periods.", "includes": [ "Stock changes retained across successive periods." ], "excludes": [ "A sequence in which no contribution persists." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-O-ADD", "label": "Additive Accumulation", "aliases": [], "stack": "Ontological", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-O-ACC", "definition": "Accumulation over a stated interval with retained net increments whose value is independent of the current base when time and other stated process inputs are held fixed.", "includes": [ "Fixed additions to a retained stock.", "Time-varying scheduled net contributions determined independently of the current stock." ], "excludes": [ "Any net increment depending on the current base, even when it decreases as the base increases.", "A constant deposit combined with a base-dependent loss when the resulting net increment still depends on the base.", "Inferring base independence merely because observed increments are constant along one realized path." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-O-COMPOUND", "label": "Base-Dependent Growth", "aliases": [], "stack": "Ontological", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-O-ACC", "definition": "Accumulation over a stated interval in which a positive retained base increases, and its positive net increment depends on the current base under the stated process conditions.", "includes": [ "Reinvested gains with a positive net proportional rate over the stated interval.", "Positive net increments proportional to the square root of a positive base: base-dependent but not exponential growth." ], "excludes": [ "Base-dependent decay, including retaining 90 percent of the base each period.", "Zero net change, or gross gains outweighed by withdrawals or other losses.", "Fixed positive additions whose net increment does not depend on the accumulated base.", "An inference that every positive base-dependent process grows exponentially." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-O-SELECT", "label": "Selection Processes", "aliases": [], "stack": "Ontological", "level": "root_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-O-TIME", "definition": "Changes in a population through differential persistence or reproduction of variants.", "includes": [ "Composition changes through unequal survival or persistence.", "Composition changes through unequal reproduction even when persistence is equal." ], "excludes": [ "Change caused only by adding equal numbers of every variant.", "A claim that selection necessarily improves human-defined outcomes." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-O-DIFF", "label": "Differential Retention", "aliases": [], "stack": "Ontological", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-O-SELECT", "definition": "Changes in variant proportions caused by differences in persistence or survival, rather than differences in producing new instances.", "includes": [ "Variants retained for different durations when replacement or reproduction rates are equal or absent." ], "excludes": [ "Frequency change caused only by unequal reproduction with equal survival.", "Retention as a guarantee of progress toward a human goal." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-O-MOT", "label": "Motivational Dynamics", "aliases": [], "stack": "Ontological", "level": "root_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-O-SYS", "definition": "Interactions between perceived needs, social responses, and the actions people pursue.", "includes": [ "Responses to recognition and participation." ], "excludes": [ "A guarantee about how every person responds." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-MK-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-O-RECOG", "label": "Recognition Sensitivity", "aliases": [], "stack": "Ontological", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-O-MOT", "definition": "Patterns in which perceived acknowledgment or status affects motivation and behavior.", "includes": [ "Response to meaningful acknowledgment." ], "excludes": [ "The rule that praise always improves performance." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-MK-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-O-PART", "label": "Participation and Ownership", "aliases": [], "stack": "Ontological", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-O-MOT", "definition": "Patterns connecting meaningful participation with perceived ownership or commitment.", "includes": [ "Commitment influenced by contributing to a design." ], "excludes": [ "Assuming token consultation gives genuine control." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-MK-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-O-EMOTION", "label": "Emotional Influence", "aliases": [], "stack": "Ontological", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-O-MOT", "definition": "Patterns in which expressed affect influences attention, expectations, or behavior of others.", "includes": [ "Responses to a leader's displayed enthusiasm." ], "excludes": [ "Treating enthusiasm as sufficient evidence of feasibility." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-MK-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-O-IDENTITY", "label": "Identity Reinforcement", "aliases": [], "stack": "Ontological", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-O-MOT", "definition": "Interactions through which practices and social responses reinforce self-conceptions or group identity.", "includes": [ "Repeated rituals supporting a sense of belonging." ], "excludes": [ "A normative claim that loyalty should override evidence." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-MK-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-O-EXPECT", "label": "Expectation Effects", "aliases": [], "stack": "Ontological", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-O-MOT", "definition": "Patterns in which expectations influence effort, treatment, or interpretation.", "includes": [ "Support and stated confidence changing opportunities to practice." ], "excludes": [ "Belief being sufficient for competence." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-MK-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-O-STAKE", "label": "Stakeholder Interdependence", "aliases": [], "stack": "Ontological", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-O-REL", "definition": "Relationships in which actors' outcomes depend on contributions or responses of other parties.", "includes": [ "Customer, employee, supplier, and owner dependencies." ], "excludes": [ "Calling all parties' objectives identical." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-MK-TABLE", "SRC-HD-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-E-MOD", "label": "Representation & Models", "stack": "Epistemic", "level": "super_root", "parent_ref": null, "definition": "How representations support and limit knowing.", "includes": [ "Model structure and interpretation." ], "excludes": [ "The represented phenomenon itself." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-E-EVAL", "label": "Model Evaluation", "stack": "Epistemic", "level": "root_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-E-MOD", "definition": "Assessing a representation against its intended use.", "includes": [ "Checking an existing proxy or model against evidence and its intended use." ], "excludes": [ "Constructing a consequence map as the main task.", "Choosing goals for the user." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-E-PROXY", "label": "Proxy Validation", "stack": "Epistemic", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-E-EVAL", "definition": "Checking what a proxy establishes about its underlying objective.", "includes": [ "Independent outcome comparisons." ], "excludes": [ "Assuming all proxies are invalid." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-E-CAUSE", "label": "Consequence Mapping", "stack": "Epistemic", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-E-BUILD", "definition": "Methods for constructing and revising maps of plausible consequence chains, with explicit tests of proposed links.", "includes": [ "Competing downstream hypotheses." ], "excludes": [ "Treating longer stories as better predictions." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-E-INF", "label": "Inference & Updating", "stack": "Epistemic", "level": "super_root", "parent_ref": null, "definition": "Formation and revision of beliefs under evidence and uncertainty.", "includes": [ "Uncertainty assessment and alternative explanations." ], "excludes": [ "Unconditional action recommendations." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-E-UNC", "label": "Uncertainty Assessment", "stack": "Epistemic", "level": "root_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-E-INF", "definition": "Assessing limits of information and estimates.", "includes": [ "Sensitivity to assumptions." ], "excludes": [ "Actual variability without a knowing claim." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-E-EST", "label": "Estimate Uncertainty", "stack": "Epistemic", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-E-MOD", "definition": "Limits in estimates used to characterize a situation.", "includes": [ "Model omission and estimation error." ], "excludes": [ "The real variation in loads, without a claim about estimating it." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-E-BIAS", "label": "Distortion & Bias", "stack": "Epistemic", "level": "super_root", "parent_ref": null, "definition": "Systematic risks in acquiring or assessing knowledge.", "includes": [ "Selective evaluation of evidence." ], "excludes": [ "A moral diagnosis of a person." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-E-EVID", "label": "Evidence Evaluation", "stack": "Epistemic", "level": "root_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-E-INF", "definition": "Assessment of evidence for and against a belief.", "includes": [ "Assessment of evidence quality.", "Comparison of support for competing explanations." ], "excludes": [ "A biased evaluation tendency itself.", "Choice of a non-epistemic objective." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-E-CONF", "label": "Confirmation Bias", "stack": "Epistemic", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-E-BIASED-EVAL", "definition": "Possible bias toward confirming an existing belief.", "includes": [ "Asymmetric examination of alternatives." ], "excludes": [ "Disagreement by itself." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-E-SOC", "label": "Perspective & Social Knowing", "stack": "Epistemic", "level": "super_root", "parent_ref": null, "definition": "Knowledge about or obtained through other people.", "includes": [ "Assessing credibility and testimony." ], "excludes": [ "The social mechanism independent of its assessment." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-E-CRED", "label": "Credibility Assessment", "stack": "Epistemic", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-E-SOC", "definition": "Assessing support for confidence in another party.", "includes": [ "Evidence of reliability and relevant competence." ], "excludes": [ "Personal liking as sufficient evidence." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-HD-SUMMARY" ], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-E-BIASED-EVAL", "label": "Biased Evidence Evaluation", "stack": "Epistemic", "level": "root_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-E-BIAS", "definition": "Distortions in evaluating evidence that privilege an interpretation without adequate justification.", "includes": [ "Belief-driven unequal scrutiny.", "Unjustified substitution of a proxy for an outcome." ], "excludes": [ "General evidence evaluation.", "Methods for correcting an evaluation error." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-E-COMP", "label": "Consistent Evidence Comparison", "stack": "Epistemic", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-E-EVID", "definition": "Methods for applying justified evidence standards consistently to competing explanations.", "includes": [ "Symmetric scrutiny of competing hypotheses." ], "excludes": [ "Confirmation bias itself.", "Contrarianism without evidence." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-E-SUB", "label": "Proxy Substitution", "stack": "Epistemic", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-E-BIASED-EVAL", "definition": "An inference error that treats a proxy as sufficient evidence for the underlying objective without justification.", "includes": [ "Proxy-only conclusions." ], "excludes": [ "A method for validating a proxy." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-E-BUILD", "label": "Model Construction", "stack": "Epistemic", "level": "root_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-E-MOD", "definition": "Methods for constructing and revising representations of a situation, including checks used during construction.", "includes": [ "Building causal hypotheses and revising their proposed links." ], "excludes": [ "Evaluating an existing representation without constructing or revising it.", "The represented physical process itself." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-E-ASSUME", "label": "Assumption Testing", "aliases": [], "stack": "Epistemic", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-E-EVAL", "definition": "Methods for examining whether an explicit model assumption fits its intended setting.", "includes": [ "Testing an assumption whose failure would change a conclusion." ], "excludes": [ "Treating an untested premise as a verified fact." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-E-RIVAL", "label": "Disconfirming Evidence Search", "aliases": [], "stack": "Epistemic", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-E-ACCESS", "definition": "Methods for seeking information that could challenge a favored explanation.", "includes": [ "Looking for observations predicted by a serious rival account." ], "excludes": [ "Mechanical contrarianism regardless of evidence quality." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-HD-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-E-PERSPECT", "label": "Perspective Taking", "aliases": [], "stack": "Epistemic", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-E-SOC", "definition": "Methods for representing another actor's information, constraints, and goals.", "includes": [ "Explaining a counterparty's choice from its stated constraints." ], "excludes": [ "Assuming empathy alone proves an explanation correct." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-MK-TABLE", "SRC-HD-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-E-ACCESS", "label": "Information Acquisition", "aliases": [], "stack": "Epistemic", "level": "root_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-E-INF", "definition": "Methods for obtaining observations relevant to forming or revising beliefs.", "includes": [ "Listening, direct observation, and asking informed local participants." ], "excludes": [ "Evaluating evidence without acquiring additional information." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-MK-TABLE", "SRC-HD-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-E-LISTEN", "label": "Active Listening", "aliases": [], "stack": "Epistemic", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-E-ACCESS", "definition": "Methods for eliciting and checking what another person reports or intends.", "includes": [ "Clarifying questions and checking one's interpretation." ], "excludes": [ "Agreeing with every claim to make someone feel valued." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-MK-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-E-LOCAL", "label": "Local Reality Contact", "aliases": [], "stack": "Epistemic", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-E-ACCESS", "definition": "Methods for obtaining situated observations from people or activity near the relevant work.", "includes": [ "Observing front-line interactions and asking operators about constraints." ], "excludes": [ "Treating proximity as immunity from bias." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-HD-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-E-JUDGE", "label": "Judgment Calibration", "aliases": [], "stack": "Epistemic", "level": "root_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-E-INF", "definition": "Methods for assessing how well a judgment's confidence and basis fit the task.", "includes": [ "Reviewing when experience-based estimates deserve reliance." ], "excludes": [ "Assuming confidence establishes competence." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-HD-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-E-EXP", "label": "Experience-Based Judgment", "aliases": [], "stack": "Epistemic", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-E-JUDGE", "definition": "Methods for assessing and using pattern judgments grounded in relevant experience and feedback.", "includes": [ "Checking that the present situation resembles a learned environment." ], "excludes": [ "Using a feeling as proof in an unfamiliar regime." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-HD-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-E-FRAME", "label": "Problem Framing", "aliases": [], "stack": "Epistemic", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-E-BUILD", "definition": "Methods for specifying the problem, stakeholders, and constraints to be modeled.", "includes": [ "Distinguishing a reported symptom from alternative problem definitions." ], "excludes": [ "Assuming a favored solution defines the problem." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-MK-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-GOV", "label": "Optimization & Control", "stack": "Decision", "level": "super_root", "parent_ref": null, "definition": "Goal-dependent choices about intervention and governance.", "includes": [ "Reward and review design." ], "excludes": [ "Mechanisms without recommendations." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-DES", "label": "Governance", "stack": "Decision", "level": "root_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-GOV", "definition": "Designing responsibilities, incentives, and review arrangements.", "includes": [ "Decision and performance review." ], "excludes": [ "Individual perceptions without a choice." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-MET", "label": "Metric Governance", "stack": "Decision", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-DES", "definition": "Choices about use and review of consequential measures.", "includes": [ "Outcome checks before assigning rewards." ], "excludes": [ "A claim that multiple metrics guarantee alignment." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-INC", "label": "Incentive Design", "stack": "Decision", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-DES", "definition": "Choices about consequences attached to behavior.", "includes": [ "Aligning rewards with intended contributions." ], "excludes": [ "A claim that external rewards explain all behavior." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-BIAS", "label": "Bias-Aware Review", "stack": "Decision", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-DES", "definition": "Review procedures addressing identified judgment risks.", "includes": [ "Evidence and challenge checkpoints." ], "excludes": [ "Diagnosing bias from disagreement alone." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-REL", "label": "Relationship Design", "stack": "Decision", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-GOV", "definition": "Choices supporting trustworthy cooperation.", "includes": [ "Reliable commitments with safeguards." ], "excludes": [ "Replacing capability assessment with warmth." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-HD-SUMMARY" ], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-RISK", "label": "Risk & Survival", "stack": "Decision", "level": "super_root", "parent_ref": null, "definition": "Choices about exposure, protection, and recovery.", "includes": [ "Buffer and downside choices." ], "excludes": [ "Every choice presented as survival optimization." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-BUF", "label": "Protective Buffers", "stack": "Decision", "level": "root_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-RISK", "definition": "Allocating resources to tolerate adverse deviation.", "includes": [ "Slack and its opportunity costs." ], "excludes": [ "Unlimited redundancy as a universal recommendation." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-SAFE", "label": "Safety Margin", "stack": "Decision", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-BUF", "definition": "Choosing a gap between expected demand and a relevant limit.", "includes": [ "Proportionate protective slack." ], "excludes": [ "A guarantee against unknown failure modes." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-ALLOC", "label": "Tradeoffs & Allocation", "stack": "Decision", "level": "super_root", "parent_ref": null, "definition": "Choices among competing uses and consequences.", "includes": [ "Comparing outcomes under constraints." ], "excludes": [ "A fixed objective assumed for everyone." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-OUT", "label": "Outcome Evaluation", "stack": "Decision", "level": "root_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-ALLOC", "definition": "Comparing options by their relevant consequences.", "includes": [ "Immediate and downstream effects." ], "excludes": [ "Inference without a selection objective." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-DOWN", "label": "Downstream Evaluation", "stack": "Decision", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-OUT", "definition": "Including material later effects in option comparison.", "includes": [ "Scenario-aware choice." ], "excludes": [ "Automatically preferring the longest horizon." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-RESOURCE", "label": "Resource Allocation", "stack": "Decision", "level": "root_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-ALLOC", "definition": "Choices about allocating constrained resources among feasible alternatives.", "includes": [ "Time allocation choices." ], "excludes": [ "Descriptive statements of physical finiteness." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-TIME", "label": "Time Allocation", "stack": "Decision", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-RESOURCE", "definition": "Comparisons of alternative uses of time under explicit objectives and constraints.", "includes": [ "Time allocated for earnings.", "Time allocated for relationships or learning." ], "excludes": [ "A claim that time must always be monetized." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [], "aliases": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-COMMIT", "label": "Commitment Design", "aliases": [], "stack": "Decision", "level": "parent_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-DES", "definition": "Choices about making, maintaining, and reviewing obligations.", "includes": [ "Commitment tracking and consistency of obligations." ], "excludes": [ "An explanatory claim about trust without a choice." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-MK-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-FOLLOW", "label": "Follow-Through", "aliases": [], "stack": "Decision", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-COMMIT", "definition": "Policies and methods for completing or explicitly renegotiating commitments.", "includes": [ "Returning calls, closing a loop, and communicating a revised commitment." ], "excludes": [ "Treating each communication action as a sibling family." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-MK-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-VALUES", "label": "Value Consistency", "aliases": [], "stack": "Decision", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-COMMIT", "definition": "Choices that apply stated values consistently across situations while making conflicts explicit.", "includes": [ "Applying the same ethical constraint in business and personal conduct." ], "excludes": [ "Persisting in a harmful rule merely to appear consistent." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-MK-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-PEOPLE", "label": "People Development", "aliases": [], "stack": "Decision", "level": "parent_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-GOV", "definition": "Choices about building people's capability and participation in an organization.", "includes": [ "Practice, training, or recognition aimed at building relevant capability.", "Meaningful involvement that develops participation in organizational decisions." ], "excludes": [ "Acknowledgment without a capability-development or participation purpose.", "An empirical law that every intervention motivates everyone." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-MK-TABLE", "SRC-HD-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-CAPABILITY", "label": "Capability Development", "aliases": [], "stack": "Decision", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-PEOPLE", "definition": "Choices about improving people's relevant competence within an organization through practice, training, and support.", "includes": [ "Internal leadership development with demonstrated readiness.", "Practice and training for an organizational role, including individual study serving that role." ], "excludes": [ "Promoting internally regardless of capability.", "Competence improvement pursued only for a personal hobby outside an organizational role." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-MK-TABLE", "SRC-HD-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-RECOG", "label": "Recognition Design", "aliases": [], "stack": "Decision", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-GOV", "definition": "Choices about what contribution to recognize and how acknowledgment is delivered.", "includes": [ "Meaningful, credible, and proportionate recognition." ], "excludes": [ "Status rewards that undermine fairness or conceal poor outcomes." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-MK-TABLE", "SRC-HD-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-PART", "label": "Participatory Design", "aliases": [], "stack": "Decision", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-PEOPLE", "definition": "Choices about involving affected participants in developing a plan or system within an organization, with meaningful influence on decisions.", "includes": [ "Consultants helping refine the organization's training.", "Team members shaping the workflow used in their organizational roles." ], "excludes": [ "Token participation with no effect on decisions.", "Planning a personal project with friends outside an organizational role." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-MK-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-MODEL", "label": "Behavioral Modeling", "aliases": [], "stack": "Decision", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-GOV", "definition": "Choices about making desired conduct visible through one's own example.", "includes": [ "Demonstrating listening or follow-through as a leader." ], "excludes": [ "Copying a leader's pace despite incompatible conditions." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-MK-TABLE", "SRC-HD-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-COUNTER", "label": "Counterparty Alignment", "aliases": [], "stack": "Decision", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-GOV", "definition": "Choices about partners whose goals, control rights, and constraints are compatible with the proposed cooperation.", "includes": [ "Partner selection based on compatible interests, decision control, or constraints.", "Rejecting capital whose control conditions conflict with the proposed cooperation." ], "excludes": [ "Complementary skills alone, without a claim about compatible interests or control.", "Assuming aligned interests guarantee capability or reliability." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-HD-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-COMPLEMENT", "label": "Capability Complementarity", "aliases": [], "stack": "Decision", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-GOV", "definition": "Choices combining different capabilities so that one participant covers tasks or limitations another cannot adequately address.", "includes": [ "Selecting engineering and sales partners for different required contributions.", "Combining operating discipline with merchandising expertise." ], "excludes": [ "Agreement on goals or control rights without complementary capabilities.", "Training one person to improve an existing capability.", "A guarantee that a complementary team will cooperate successfully." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-HD-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-RIGHTS", "label": "Decision Rights Design", "aliases": [], "stack": "Decision", "level": "parent_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-DES", "definition": "Choices about who may decide, challenge, and escalate within an organization.", "includes": [ "Authority boundaries and review routes." ], "excludes": [ "Delegation without any accountability." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-HD-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-DELEGATE", "label": "Front-Line Delegation", "aliases": [], "stack": "Decision", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-RIGHTS", "definition": "Choices assigning bounded authority to people close to the operational problem.", "includes": [ "Allowing staff to resolve a customer issue within safeguards." ], "excludes": [ "Treating decentralization as always superior." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-HD-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-CHALLENGE", "label": "Challenge and Escalation", "aliases": [], "stack": "Decision", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-RIGHTS", "definition": "Choices enabling concerns, disagreement, or exceptions to reach a responsible decision-maker.", "includes": [ "Open-door access paired with a clear response route." ], "excludes": [ "Unbounded interruption or punishment of dissent." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-MK-TABLE", "SRC-HD-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-SIMPLIFY", "label": "Bureaucratic Simplification", "aliases": [], "stack": "Decision", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-DES", "definition": "Choices removing process steps whose burden exceeds their demonstrated protective or coordinating value.", "includes": [ "Retaining a necessary control while eliminating duplicate approvals." ], "excludes": [ "Removing safeguards solely because they are inconvenient." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-MK-TABLE", "SRC-HD-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-LEARN", "label": "Organizational Learning", "aliases": [], "stack": "Decision", "level": "parent_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-GOV", "definition": "Choices about testing, reviewing, and transferring working methods.", "includes": [ "Trials, revision, and replication with feedback." ], "excludes": [ "A claim that every repeated activity improves itself." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-MK-TABLE", "SRC-HD-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-EXPERIMENT", "label": "Bounded Experimentation", "aliases": [], "stack": "Decision", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-LEARN", "definition": "Choices using limited tests to learn while controlling exposure.", "includes": [ "Testing a change with explicit limits and review criteria." ], "excludes": [ "Calling uncontrolled all-in commitment an experiment." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-MK-TABLE", "SRC-HD-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-ITERATE", "label": "Iterative Improvement", "aliases": [], "stack": "Decision", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-LEARN", "definition": "Choices revising an existing approach from observed performance and feedback.", "includes": [ "Continuing improvement with a check on the actual objective." ], "excludes": [ "Repeating the same intervention despite contrary results." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-MK-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-REPLICATE", "label": "Method Replication", "aliases": [], "stack": "Decision", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-LEARN", "definition": "Choices making a tested method reproducible across people or settings while preserving necessary adaptation.", "includes": [ "Training, examples, and checks on whether a method transfers." ], "excludes": [ "Assuming one successful demonstration scales unchanged everywhere." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-MK-TABLE", "SRC-HD-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-ENV", "label": "Environment Design", "aliases": [], "stack": "Decision", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-GOV", "definition": "Choices modifying conditions that make a desired behavior easier or an unwanted behavior harder.", "includes": [ "Removing avoidable friction and stress from work arrangements." ], "excludes": [ "Assuming a pleasant setting guarantees good performance." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-MK-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-EXPOSURE", "label": "Exposure Management", "aliases": [], "stack": "Decision", "level": "root_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-RISK", "definition": "Choices about taking, limiting, or exiting exposure to consequential loss.", "includes": [ "Feasibility of commitment and alternative protections." ], "excludes": [ "A claim that avoiding every risk is the objective." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-HD-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-LIMIT", "label": "Downside Limitation", "aliases": [], "stack": "Decision", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-EXPOSURE", "definition": "Choices bounding losses or reducing exposure to unacceptable outcomes.", "includes": [ "Reducing activity when additional protection is unaffordable." ], "excludes": [ "Treating a fixed buffer as the only form of protection." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-HD-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-REVERSIBLE", "label": "Reversible Commitment", "aliases": [], "stack": "Decision", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-EXPOSURE", "definition": "Choices preserving the ability to revise or exit when material uncertainty remains.", "includes": [ "Staging a commitment with explicit exit conditions." ], "excludes": [ "Paying unlimited costs to keep every option open." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-CUSTOMER", "label": "Customer Value Alignment", "aliases": [], "stack": "Decision", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-OUT", "definition": "Choices evaluating offerings and activities against the outcomes customers actually value.", "includes": [ "Reallocating effort from retail appearance to useful assistance." ], "excludes": [ "Assuming customer service alone guarantees business survival." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-HD-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-VIABILITY", "label": "Commercial Viability Evaluation", "aliases": [], "stack": "Decision", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-OUT", "definition": "Choices assessing whether an offering can sustain the resources needed to deliver it.", "includes": [ "Checking revenue, costs, and retention rather than enthusiasm alone." ], "excludes": [ "Treating sales volume alone as profit or value creation." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-MK-TABLE", "SRC-HD-TABLE" ] }, { "family_id": "QEF-D-PRIORITY", "label": "Priority Externalization", "aliases": [], "stack": "Decision", "level": "principle_family", "parent_ref": "QEF-D-RESOURCE", "definition": "Choices making intended priorities explicit and inspectable before allocating effort.", "includes": [ "Writing a short priority list and reviewing its relevance." ], "excludes": [ "Confusing a written list with completed work." ], "status": "candidate", "provenance_refs": [ "SRC-MK-TABLE" ] } ], "sources": [ { "source_id": "SRC-HD-SUMMARY", "kind": "supplied_summary", "title": "Home Depot / Bernie Marcus table, row 6", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "content": "Bernie tells banker Rip Fleming everything transparently; Rip later risks his own career to get them financed because he trusts the people, not just the numbers.", "reported_locations": [ "12:34–13:26", "28:44–30:21" ], "original_source_inspected": false, "limitations": [ "Only the supplied table was inspected.", "The underlying video was not provided as a verified source." ] }, { "source_id": "SRC-HD-TABLE", "kind": "supplied_table_projection", "title": "Home Depot: supplied 22 principles", "content": "HD-P01: Turn setbacks into openings | A major loss can become the doorway to the real opportunity.\nHD-P02: Build, don’t sue | Put energy into creating the future instead of fighting the past.\nHD-P03: Bad money is worse than no money | The wrong investor can destroy the company’s culture and freedom.\nHD-P04: Choose partners by values, not just cash | Who you build with matters more than the money they bring.\nHD-P05: Complementary partners beat lone geniuses | Great companies are built by people whose strengths cover each other’s weaknesses.\nHD-P06: Businesses are built on relationships and trust | Long-term success comes from openness, credibility, and real relationships.\nHD-P07: Serve the customer or the business dies | The moment a company starts serving itself instead of the customer, decline begins.\nHD-P08: Customer service is a philosophy, not a department | Everyone should do whatever it takes to solve the customer’s problem.\nHD-P09: Every customer is “on loan” | You never permanently own customer loyalty; you must re-earn it every day.\nHD-P10: Give customers what they value, not retail theater | Cut costs on appearances that customers do not care about; invest in price, assortment, and knowledgeable help.\nHD-P11: Low prices should be structural, not promotional theater | Stable, trusted value beats short-lived sales spikes.\nHD-P12: Authenticity beats polished branding | Real people who believe in the company are more convincing than mascots or celebrities.\nHD-P13: Treat associates as the company | Employees are not overhead; they are the core asset and the brand.\nHD-P14: Scale culture by showing up | Culture is transmitted through repeated personal presence, not memos.\nHD-P15: Hire people better than you | Great leaders surround themselves with stronger people and let them carry real responsibility.\nHD-P16: Encourage truth and disagreement | Agreement culture is dangerous; challenge improves decisions.\nHD-P17: Decentralize and empower the front line | The people closest to customers should have freedom to act.\nHD-P18: Fight bureaucracy relentlessly | Bureaucracy slowly destroys entrepreneurial energy and customer responsiveness.\nHD-P19: Think bigger than the current market | Build for category leadership, not just a local chain.\nHD-P20: Sometimes you must go all in | Big asymmetric opportunities sometimes require committing before conditions feel safe.\nHD-P21: Follow informed instinct | Pattern recognition and judgment about people often matter more than formal analysis.\nHD-P22: Generosity compounds | Giving creates trust, goodwill, loyalty, and long-run return.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "original_source_inspected": false, "limitations": [ "Preserves the supplied title and core-meaning columns only, not all transcript evidence or timestamps.", "Attribution, empirical truth, and source independence are unverified. These claims are inputs to review, not endorsed universal rules." ] }, { "source_id": "SRC-MK-SUPPLIED", "kind": "supplied_summary", "title": "User-supplied Mary Kay ideas table, I04", "content": "Treat customers as relationships, not transactions. Long-term trust matters more than one-off selling.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "original_source_inspected": false, "limitations": [ "Only the user-supplied table was inspected.", "Authorship, transcript, and evidence independence were not checked." ] }, { "source_id": "SRC-MK-TABLE", "kind": "supplied_table_projection", "title": "Mary Kay: supplied 23 principles and 13 ideas", "content": "MK-P01: Golden rule leadership | Treat people the way you want to be treated.\nMK-P02: You build with people | People are the real asset; they matter more than the plan.\nMK-P03: The invisible sign: “Make me feel important” | Every person wants significance and dignity.\nMK-P04: Praise people to success | Recognition drives performance better than criticism alone.\nMK-P05: The art of listening | Listen more than you speak; listening gives information and makes people feel valued.\nMK-P06: Criticism should be sandwiched between praise | Correct behavior without crushing morale.\nMK-P07: Be a follow-through person | Reliability and doing what you say matter enormously.\nMK-P08: Enthusiasm moves mountains | Energy and belief are contagious.\nMK-P09: The speed of the leader is the speed of the gang | Leaders set the pace by example.\nMK-P10: People support what they help create | Involvement creates ownership.\nMK-P11: Open door philosophy | Reduce hierarchy; keep people accessible to one another.\nMK-P12: Help other people get what they want and you’ll get what you want | Build success through helping others succeed.\nMK-P13: Stick to your principles | Never compromise core values.\nMK-P14: A matter of pride | People should feel proud of their work and their company.\nMK-P15: Don’t rest on your laurels | Continuous self-improvement is required.\nMK-P16: Be a risk taker | Encourage action and tolerate failure.\nMK-P17: Work and enjoy it | Fun and enjoyment improve performance.\nMK-P18: Nothing happens until somebody sells | Sales is the engine of the business.\nMK-P19: Never hide behind policy | Policies should serve people and be explainable.\nMK-P20: Be a problem solver | Distinguish real problems from imaginary ones and act.\nMK-P21: Less stress | Stress reduces productivity; leaders should reduce it.\nMK-P22: People develop from within | Grow your own leaders instead of relying on outsiders.\nMK-P23: Live by the golden rule on and off the job | Integrity must be consistent in business and life.\nMK-I01: Belief before ability | People often perform up to the level of belief placed in them.\nMK-I02: Ordinary people can achieve extraordinary things | Great results are possible when people are believed in and supported.\nMK-I03: Design incentives carefully | Systems produce behavior; wrong incentives destroy performance.\nMK-I04: Treat customers as relationships, not transactions | Long-term trust matters more than one-off selling.\nMK-I05: Write it down | Written priorities create commitment and execution.\nMK-I06: Recognition should be meaningful and visible | Status-linked rewards can motivate more than cash alone.\nMK-I07: Meritocracy beats politics | Advancement should come from clear performance, not status or connections.\nMK-I08: Geographic flexibility matters | People should not lose what they built just because they move.\nMK-I09: Cooperation beats zero-sum competition | Let multiple people win so peers help one another.\nMK-I10: Focus on what actually works | Cut distractions fast; double down on the productive core.\nMK-I11: Sell complete solutions, not fragmented pieces | Partial use can reduce customer results and damage trust.\nMK-I12: Train for replication | A business scales when a good method can be copied consistently.\nMK-I13: Culture is what you systematically reward | Values only matter if embedded in systems and incentives.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "original_source_inspected": false, "limitations": [ "Preserves the supplied title and core-meaning columns only, not all transcript evidence or timestamps.", "Attribution, empirical truth, and source independence are unverified. These claims are inputs to review, not endorsed universal rules." ] }, { "source_id": "SRC-ROW-MK-P03", "kind": "supplied_table_row", "title": "MK-P03: The invisible sign: “Make me feel important”", "content": "#: 3\nPrinciple: The invisible sign: “Make me feel important”\nCore meaning: Every person wants significance and dignity.\nHow it shows up in the transcript: Recognition and respect became central to her culture and leadership style.", "locator": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section MK-P line 11", "reported_locations": [], "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "original_source_inspected": false, "limitations": [ "This record preserves supplied table cells, not independently inspected media or a verified author quotation.", "Reported times belong to the whole row; no particular contribution is assigned a finer media location.", "Multiple expressions from this row and earlier retellings are not independent corroboration." ] }, { "source_id": "SRC-ROW-MK-P04", "kind": "supplied_table_row", "title": "MK-P04: Praise people to success", "content": "#: 4\nPrinciple: Praise people to success\nCore meaning: Recognition drives performance better than criticism alone.\nHow it shows up in the transcript: Public praise, pins, rings, prizes, and pink Cadillacs were used to reinforce achievement.", "locator": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section MK-P line 12", "reported_locations": [], "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "original_source_inspected": false, "limitations": [ "This record preserves supplied table cells, not independently inspected media or a verified author quotation.", "Reported times belong to the whole row; no particular contribution is assigned a finer media location.", "Multiple expressions from this row and earlier retellings are not independent corroboration." ] }, { "source_id": "SRC-ROW-MK-P07", "kind": "supplied_table_row", "title": "MK-P07: Be a follow-through person", "content": "#: 7\nPrinciple: Be a follow-through person\nCore meaning: Reliability and doing what you say matter enormously.\nHow it shows up in the transcript: She emphasized returning calls, answering letters, follow-up lists, and customer follow-through.", "locator": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section MK-P line 15", "reported_locations": [], "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "original_source_inspected": false, "limitations": [ "This record preserves supplied table cells, not independently inspected media or a verified author quotation.", "Reported times belong to the whole row; no particular contribution is assigned a finer media location.", "Multiple expressions from this row and earlier retellings are not independent corroboration." ] }, { "source_id": "SRC-ROW-MK-P20", "kind": "supplied_table_row", "title": "MK-P20: Be a problem solver", "content": "#: 20\nPrinciple: Be a problem solver\nCore meaning: Distinguish real problems from imaginary ones and act.\nHow it shows up in the transcript: She repeatedly identified broken incentives and redesigned the system around them.", "locator": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section MK-P line 28", "reported_locations": [], "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "original_source_inspected": false, "limitations": [ "This record preserves supplied table cells, not independently inspected media or a verified author quotation.", "Reported times belong to the whole row; no particular contribution is assigned a finer media location.", "Multiple expressions from this row and earlier retellings are not independent corroboration." ] }, { "source_id": "SRC-ROW-MK-I03", "kind": "supplied_table_row", "title": "MK-I03: Design incentives carefully", "content": "Idea: Design incentives carefully\nMeaning: Systems produce behavior; wrong incentives destroy performance.\nEvidence from transcript: She inverted broken incentive structures from prior employers.", "locator": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section MK-I line 39", "reported_locations": [], "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "original_source_inspected": false, "limitations": [ "This record preserves supplied table cells, not independently inspected media or a verified author quotation.", "Reported times belong to the whole row; no particular contribution is assigned a finer media location.", "Multiple expressions from this row and earlier retellings are not independent corroboration." ] }, { "source_id": "SRC-ROW-MK-I04", "kind": "supplied_table_row", "title": "MK-I04: Treat customers as relationships, not transactions", "content": "Idea: Treat customers as relationships, not transactions\nMeaning: Long-term trust matters more than one-off selling.\nEvidence from transcript: Her regular follow-up calls and service mindset drove repeat business.", "locator": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section MK-I line 40", "reported_locations": [], "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "original_source_inspected": false, "limitations": [ "This record preserves supplied table cells, not independently inspected media or a verified author quotation.", "Reported times belong to the whole row; no particular contribution is assigned a finer media location.", "Multiple expressions from this row and earlier retellings are not independent corroboration." ] }, { "source_id": "SRC-ROW-MK-I06", "kind": "supplied_table_row", "title": "MK-I06: Recognition should be meaningful and visible", "content": "Idea: Recognition should be meaningful and visible\nMeaning: Status-linked rewards can motivate more than cash alone.\nEvidence from transcript: Rings, prizes, conventions, and pink Cadillacs were intentionally symbolic.", "locator": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section MK-I line 42", "reported_locations": [], "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "original_source_inspected": false, "limitations": [ "This record preserves supplied table cells, not independently inspected media or a verified author quotation.", "Reported times belong to the whole row; no particular contribution is assigned a finer media location.", "Multiple expressions from this row and earlier retellings are not independent corroboration." ] }, { "source_id": "SRC-ROW-MK-I07", "kind": "supplied_table_row", "title": "MK-I07: Meritocracy beats politics", "content": "Idea: Meritocracy beats politics\nMeaning: Advancement should come from clear performance, not status or connections.\nEvidence from transcript: Promotions and advancement were based on sales results, not gender or background.", "locator": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section MK-I line 43", "reported_locations": [], "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "original_source_inspected": false, "limitations": [ "This record preserves supplied table cells, not independently inspected media or a verified author quotation.", "Reported times belong to the whole row; no particular contribution is assigned a finer media location.", "Multiple expressions from this row and earlier retellings are not independent corroboration." ] }, { "source_id": "SRC-ROW-MK-I09", "kind": "supplied_table_row", "title": "MK-I09: Cooperation beats zero-sum competition", "content": "Idea: Cooperation beats zero-sum competition\nMeaning: Let multiple people win so peers help one another.\nEvidence from transcript: Her competitions allowed all who hit targets to win, not just one person.", "locator": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section MK-I line 45", "reported_locations": [], "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "original_source_inspected": false, "limitations": [ "This record preserves supplied table cells, not independently inspected media or a verified author quotation.", "Reported times belong to the whole row; no particular contribution is assigned a finer media location.", "Multiple expressions from this row and earlier retellings are not independent corroboration." ] }, { "source_id": "SRC-ROW-MK-I11", "kind": "supplied_table_row", "title": "MK-I11: Sell complete solutions, not fragmented pieces", "content": "Idea: Sell complete solutions, not fragmented pieces\nMeaning: Partial use can reduce customer results and damage trust.\nEvidence from transcript: She stopped breaking up the skincare set because it hurt outcomes and referrals.", "locator": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section MK-I line 47", "reported_locations": [], "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "original_source_inspected": false, "limitations": [ "This record preserves supplied table cells, not independently inspected media or a verified author quotation.", "Reported times belong to the whole row; no particular contribution is assigned a finer media location.", "Multiple expressions from this row and earlier retellings are not independent corroboration." ] }, { "source_id": "SRC-ROW-MK-I13", "kind": "supplied_table_row", "title": "MK-I13: Culture is what you systematically reward", "content": "Idea: Culture is what you systematically reward\nMeaning: Values only matter if embedded in systems and incentives.\nEvidence from transcript: The company’s policies, ceremonies, and compensation structure reinforced desired behaviors.", "locator": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section MK-I line 49", "reported_locations": [], "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "original_source_inspected": false, "limitations": [ "This record preserves supplied table cells, not independently inspected media or a verified author quotation.", "Reported times belong to the whole row; no particular contribution is assigned a finer media location.", "Multiple expressions from this row and earlier retellings are not independent corroboration." ] }, { "source_id": "SRC-ROW-HD-P06", "kind": "supplied_table_row", "title": "HD-P06: Businesses are built on relationships and trust", "content": "#: 6\nPrinciple: Businesses are built on relationships and trust\nCore meaning: Long-term success comes from openness, credibility, and real relationships.\nHow it shows up in the transcript: Bernie tells banker Rip Fleming everything transparently; Rip later risks his own career to get them financed because he trusts the people, not just the numbers.\nVideo time: 12:34–13:26, 28:44–30:21", "locator": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section HD-P line 60", "reported_locations": [ "12:34–13:26", "28:44–30:21" ], "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "original_source_inspected": false, "limitations": [ "This record preserves supplied table cells, not independently inspected media or a verified author quotation.", "Reported times belong to the whole row; no particular contribution is assigned a finer media location.", "Multiple expressions from this row and earlier retellings are not independent corroboration." ] }, { "source_id": "SRC-ROW-HD-P07", "kind": "supplied_table_row", "title": "HD-P07: Serve the customer or the business dies", "content": "#: 7\nPrinciple: Serve the customer or the business dies\nCore meaning: The moment a company starts serving itself instead of the customer, decline begins.\nHow it shows up in the transcript: Bernie’s lesson from Two Guys: when leaders focus on careers over customers, customers vanish and the company collapses.\nVideo time: 07:44–08:08, 55:03–55:20", "locator": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section HD-P line 61", "reported_locations": [ "07:44–08:08", "55:03–55:20" ], "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "original_source_inspected": false, "limitations": [ "This record preserves supplied table cells, not independently inspected media or a verified author quotation.", "Reported times belong to the whole row; no particular contribution is assigned a finer media location.", "Multiple expressions from this row and earlier retellings are not independent corroboration." ] }, { "source_id": "SRC-ROW-HD-P08", "kind": "supplied_table_row", "title": "HD-P08: Customer service is a philosophy, not a department", "content": "#: 8\nPrinciple: Customer service is a philosophy, not a department\nCore meaning: Everyone should do whatever it takes to solve the customer’s problem.\nHow it shows up in the transcript: Bernie chases customers into the parking lot, buys missing products from competitors, and personally delivers them; associates do similarly extraordinary things.\nVideo time: 35:30–38:24, 53:07–53:23", "locator": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section HD-P line 62", "reported_locations": [ "35:30–38:24", "53:07–53:23" ], "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "original_source_inspected": false, "limitations": [ "This record preserves supplied table cells, not independently inspected media or a verified author quotation.", "Reported times belong to the whole row; no particular contribution is assigned a finer media location.", "Multiple expressions from this row and earlier retellings are not independent corroboration." ] }, { "source_id": "SRC-ROW-HD-P09", "kind": "supplied_table_row", "title": "HD-P09: Every customer is “on loan”", "content": "#: 9\nPrinciple: Every customer is “on loan”\nCore meaning: You never permanently own customer loyalty; you must re-earn it every day.\nHow it shows up in the transcript: Bernie says customers choose you today and can choose someone else tomorrow, so trust must be earned in every interaction.\nVideo time: 52:59–53:23", "locator": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section HD-P line 63", "reported_locations": [ "52:59–53:23" ], "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "original_source_inspected": false, "limitations": [ "This record preserves supplied table cells, not independently inspected media or a verified author quotation.", "Reported times belong to the whole row; no particular contribution is assigned a finer media location.", "Multiple expressions from this row and earlier retellings are not independent corroboration." ] }, { "source_id": "SRC-ROW-HD-P10", "kind": "supplied_table_row", "title": "HD-P10: Give customers what they value, not retail theater", "content": "#: 10\nPrinciple: Give customers what they value, not retail theater\nCore meaning: Cut costs on appearances that customers do not care about; invest in price, assortment, and knowledgeable help.\nHow it shows up in the transcript: The warehouse look is deliberate: scuffed floors, visible action, no over-facing, no decorative polish; customer “bill of rights” centers on assortment, price, availability, and trained associates.\nVideo time: 33:13–35:23, 37:54–38:43", "locator": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section HD-P line 64", "reported_locations": [ "33:13–35:23", "37:54–38:43" ], "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "original_source_inspected": false, "limitations": [ "This record preserves supplied table cells, not independently inspected media or a verified author quotation.", "Reported times belong to the whole row; no particular contribution is assigned a finer media location.", "Multiple expressions from this row and earlier retellings are not independent corroboration." ] }, { "source_id": "SRC-ROW-HD-P11", "kind": "supplied_table_row", "title": "HD-P11: Low prices should be structural, not promotional theater", "content": "#: 11\nPrinciple: Low prices should be structural, not promotional theater\nCore meaning: Stable, trusted value beats short-lived sales spikes.\nHow it shows up in the transcript: Home Depot abandons promotion-driven spikes for everyday low pricing after learning from Sam Walton and Saul Price.\nVideo time: 42:22–45:18", "locator": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section HD-P line 65", "reported_locations": [ "42:22–45:18" ], "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "original_source_inspected": false, "limitations": [ "This record preserves supplied table cells, not independently inspected media or a verified author quotation.", "Reported times belong to the whole row; no particular contribution is assigned a finer media location.", "Multiple expressions from this row and earlier retellings are not independent corroboration." ] }, { "source_id": "SRC-ROW-HD-P13", "kind": "supplied_table_row", "title": "HD-P13: Treat associates as the company", "content": "#: 13\nPrinciple: Treat associates as the company\nCore meaning: Employees are not overhead; they are the core asset and the brand.\nHow it shows up in the transcript: Stock options make thousands of regular employees wealthy; Olympic rewards go heavily to hourly associates; the message is that orange aprons are the company.\nVideo time: 01:23–01:39, 46:34–47:49, 52:35–52:42", "locator": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section HD-P line 67", "reported_locations": [ "01:23–01:39", "46:34–47:49", "52:35–52:42" ], "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "original_source_inspected": false, "limitations": [ "This record preserves supplied table cells, not independently inspected media or a verified author quotation.", "Reported times belong to the whole row; no particular contribution is assigned a finer media location.", "Multiple expressions from this row and earlier retellings are not independent corroboration." ] }, { "source_id": "SRC-PILOT-OPENSTAX", "kind": "published_text", "title": "OpenStax, Principles of Economics 2e, section 2.1", "content": "opportunity cost is the value of the next best alternative", "locator": "https://openstax.org/books/principles-economics-2e/pages/2-1-how-individuals-make-choices-based-on-their-budget-constraint", "reported_locations": [ "Section 2.1, The Concept of Opportunity Cost and Marginal Decision-Making and Diminishing Marginal Utility" ], "inspected_material": "original_source", "original_source_inspected": true, "limitations": [ "Inspected the specified text passage on 2026-10-10; the embedded text is a short excerpt, not a full archival copy.", "Inspection establishes what the passage states, not independent empirical validation of the Card or its procedures." ] }, { "source_id": "SRC-PILOT-MIT", "kind": "published_text", "title": "Jamie W. Flinchbaugh, Implementing Lean Manufacturing Through Factory Design, MIT thesis, 1998", "content": "system’s realized capacity, or system throughput", "locator": "https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/15-763j-manufacturing-system-and-supply-chain-design-spring-2005/8b9f9d940167edf60165ac7a82a3fa84_flinchbaugh_thes.pdf", "reported_locations": [ "Printed page 59, Relating the design parameters to throughput (PDF page index 59)" ], "inspected_material": "original_source", "original_source_inspected": true, "limitations": [ "Inspected the specified text passage on 2026-10-10; the embedded text is a short excerpt, not a full archival copy.", "Inspection establishes what the passage states, not independent empirical validation of the Card or its procedures." ] }, { "source_id": "SRC-PILOT-BOX", "kind": "published_text", "title": "George E. P. Box, Science and Statistics, JASA 71(356), 1976", "content": "Since all models are wrong the scientist must be alert to what is importantly wrong.", "locator": "https://gwern.net/doc/statistics/decision/1976-box.pdf", "reported_locations": [ "Printed page 792, sections 2.3–2.5 (PDF page index 1); DOI 10.1080/01621459.1976.10480949" ], "inspected_material": "original_source", "original_source_inspected": true, "limitations": [ "Inspected the specified text passage on 2026-10-10; the embedded text is a short excerpt, not a full archival copy.", "Inspection establishes what the passage states, not independent empirical validation of the Card or its procedures." ] }, { "source_id": "SRC-PILOT-P48-01", "kind": "supplied_title", "title": "P48-01 original intake", "content": "Opportunity cost", "locator": "data/recovery/qe48-inventory.json#P48-01", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "original_source_inspected": false, "limitations": [ "Only the user-supplied title is preserved; its original author context and O/E/D mapping were not recovered." ] }, { "source_id": "SRC-PILOT-P48-12", "kind": "supplied_title", "title": "P48-12 original intake", "content": "High-leverage first", "locator": "data/recovery/qe48-inventory.json#P48-12", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "original_source_inspected": false, "limitations": [ "Only the user-supplied title is preserved; its original author context and O/E/D mapping were not recovered." ] }, { "source_id": "SRC-PILOT-P48-03", "kind": "supplied_title", "title": "P48-03 original intake", "content": "Bottleneck determines throughput", "locator": "data/recovery/qe48-inventory.json#P48-03", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "original_source_inspected": false, "limitations": [ "Only the user-supplied title is preserved; its original author context and O/E/D mapping were not recovered." ] }, { "source_id": "SRC-PILOT-P48-30", "kind": "supplied_title", "title": "P48-30 original intake", "content": "Map is not territory", "locator": "data/recovery/qe48-inventory.json#P48-30", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "original_source_inspected": false, "limitations": [ "Only the user-supplied title is preserved; its original author context and O/E/D mapping were not recovered." ] } ], "cards": [ { "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST", "title": "Trust and Business Relationships", "card_kind": "principle", "canonical_principle": "Evidence-backed trust can support business cooperation, while capability, incentives, safeguards, and feasibility still matter.", "primary_role_ref": "O1", "status": "Provisional", "version": "qe-canonical-batch-001-0.1.0", "evidence_status": "not_externally_validated", "shared_scope": { "conditions": [ { "condition_id": "S1", "kind": "applicability", "statement": "Parties consider a cooperative business relationship and can assess relevant conduct." } ], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Reviewed as a reusable definition. Historical examples do not establish empirical validity or case applicability." }, "stack_roles": [ { "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "role_type": "world_mechanic", "principle_type": "Structural", "classification": { "status": "classified", "family_ref": "QEF-O-TRUST", "reason": "Describes how credible expectations affect cooperation, not whom to trust as a prescription.", "taxonomy_version": "qe-ontology-0.1.4" }, "role_summary": "Credible expectations about another party can support willingness to cooperate.", "compressed_role_insight": "Credible trust can support cooperation.", "mechanism_or_logic": "Expectations of reliable behavior can affect willingness to accept relational exposure.", "scope": { "shared_condition_refs": [ "S1" ], "additional_conditions": [], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Definition compatibility reviewed independently of source support and application facts." }, "evidence_refs": [ "EV-HD-P06-C1" ] }, { "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "role_type": "reasoning_method", "principle_type": "Procedural", "classification": { "status": "classified", "family_ref": "QEF-E-CRED", "reason": "Provides a method for assessing support for confidence in another party, matching Credibility Assessment. It is not presented as a corrective of a diagnosed error.", "taxonomy_version": "qe-ontology-0.1.4" }, "role_summary": "Evaluate conduct and competence alongside formal information; familiarity alone is insufficient.", "compressed_role_insight": "Assess conduct as well as the numbers.", "mechanism_or_logic": "Behavioral evidence and formal information answer different parts of a trust assessment.", "scope": { "shared_condition_refs": [ "S1" ], "additional_conditions": [], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Definition compatibility reviewed independently of source support and application facts." }, "evidence_refs": [], "method": { "representation": "A claim-to-evidence comparison: the proposed commitment, relevant conduct, demonstrated capability, formal information, and unresolved questions.", "steps": [ "Specify the commitment or capability on which cooperation would depend.", "Compare relevant conduct and demonstrated competence with formal information.", "Record gaps, conflicting signals, and what remains unknown before expressing a level of confidence." ], "limitations": [ "Familiarity alone is not sufficient evidence of reliability or competence.", "Past conduct and formal information may be incomplete or context-specific; this method does not guarantee future behavior.", "This is a general assessment method, not a diagnosis or treatment of a particular bias." ] } }, { "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "role_type": "design_implication", "principle_type": "Strategic", "classification": { "status": "classified", "family_ref": "QEF-D-REL", "reason": "Designs reliable commitments and safeguards in a cooperative relationship.", "taxonomy_version": "qe-ontology-0.1.4" }, "role_summary": "Develop reliable commitments while preserving proportionate verification and safeguards.", "compressed_role_insight": "Build trust without abandoning verification.", "mechanism_or_logic": "Given the cooperation objective, reliability and safeguards can complement rather than replace one another. This authored arrangement-review procedure requires E1's credibility assessment, not mere personal familiarity.", "scope": { "shared_condition_refs": [ "S1" ], "additional_conditions": [ { "condition_id": "D-AUTH", "kind": "applicability", "statement": "The actor may review the relationship and communicate through an authorized, confidentiality-preserving channel." }, { "condition_id": "D-OPTION", "kind": "applicability", "statement": "At least one proposed arrangement, including pausing or declining cooperation, can be compared against both parties' constraints." } ], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Definition compatibility reviewed independently of source support and application facts." }, "evidence_refs": [ "EV-MK-I04-C1", "EV-MK-I04-C2", "EV-HD-P06-C2", "EV-HD-P09-C1" ], "objective": { "beneficiary": "Both parties to the relationship", "desired_outcome": "Enable durable, feasible cooperation", "constraints": [ "Respect confidentiality.", "Do not substitute personal loyalty for due diligence." ] }, "failure_mode_if_misapplied": "Uncritical trust can conceal exploitation or lack of competence.", "action_protocol": { "trigger_conditions": [ "A cooperative business arrangement is being proposed, renewed or materially reconsidered." ], "steps": [ "Use E1 to state the relevant commitment and compare conduct, competence, formal information and unresolved questions.", "Name the feasible cooperation sought by both parties and the information that can legitimately be shared.", "Compare proposed commitments, verification and safeguards; pause or decline when material concerns cannot be made acceptable.", "Agree responsibilities and communication rather than promise unconditional loyalty. Voluntary customer contact does not itself create a delivery obligation.", "Review conduct, unresolved concerns and safeguard burden when conditions change; renegotiate the arrangement instead of silently ignoring a breach." ], "review_signals": [ { "signal": "Differences between agreed commitments and reported conduct.", "interpretation": "A discrepancy may reflect unclear terms, changed conditions or unreliability.", "decision_use": "Clarify the discrepancy and reconsider the arrangement; do not diagnose bad intent from one event." }, { "signal": "Verification burden relative to the exposure and confidentiality constraints.", "interpretation": "More checking is not automatically better cooperation.", "decision_use": "Adjust safeguards proportionately without removing required controls." } ], "limitations": [ "This arrangement-level procedure uses E1; it does not reproduce the separate Follow-Through completion procedure.", "The procedure neither grants credit nor guarantees truthful conduct, trust or business survival." ] } } ], "bridge_relations": [ { "relation_id": "R1", "from_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST", "role_id": "O1" }, "relation_type": "grounds", "to_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST", "role_id": "E1" }, "rationale": "If expectations matter, their credibility should be assessed rather than inferred from personal liking.", "scope": { "shared_condition_refs": [ "S1" ], "additional_conditions": [], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Reviewed for this illustrative case; no general applicability claim." }, "evidence_refs": [] }, { "relation_id": "R2", "from_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST", "role_id": "E1" }, "relation_type": "grounds", "to_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST", "role_id": "D1" }, "rationale": "Given the cooperation objective and safeguard constraints, assessed trust can inform relationship design.", "scope": { "shared_condition_refs": [ "S1" ], "additional_conditions": [], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Reviewed for this illustrative case; no general applicability claim." }, "evidence_refs": [] }, { "relation_id": "R3", "from_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST", "role_id": "D1" }, "relation_type": "requires", "to_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST", "role_id": "E1" }, "rationale": "D1 explicitly consumes E1's claim-to-evidence assessment when reviewing an arrangement. The earlier grounds edge remains support; this new edge declares the actual procedural prerequisite.", "scope": { "shared_condition_refs": [ "S1" ], "additional_conditions": [], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Reviewed as a reusable definition; case satisfaction and empirical support are not established." }, "evidence_refs": [] } ], "bridges": [], "concept_relations": [], "source_references": [ "SRC-ROW-MK-I04", "SRC-ROW-HD-P06", "SRC-ROW-HD-P09" ], "evidence_assessments": [ { "assessment_id": "EV-MK-I04-C1", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I04", "source_location": "QE contribution MK-I04/C1 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:252; selected columns: Idea, Meaning. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "relation": "inspired_by", "support_status": "inspiration_only", "rationale": "Extract a bounded shared criterion or claim, not equivalence of complete passages. Map only the continuing trustworthy-cooperation criterion. Preference for repeated transactions remains contextual, not a universal superiority claim.", "limitations": [ "Repeat relationships are not always the right commercial objective.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Relevant competence, incentives, safeguards and feasible cooperation remain necessary considerations; trust is not a guarantee.", "The credibility-assessment method and arrangement-review procedure are QE authoring, not attributed to these rows." ] }, { "assessment_id": "EV-MK-I04-C2", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I04", "source_location": "QE contribution MK-I04/C2 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:253; selected columns: Evidence from transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "relation": "illustrates", "support_status": "illustration_only", "rationale": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Use voluntary customer follow-up as a relationship practice. Do not equate it with Follow-Through's acknowledged obligation without additional context.", "limitations": [ "The claimed repeat-business effect is not independently established; no frequency is prescribed.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Relevant competence, incentives, safeguards and feasible cooperation remain necessary considerations; trust is not a guarantee.", "The credibility-assessment method and arrangement-review procedure are QE authoring, not attributed to these rows." ] }, { "assessment_id": "EV-HD-P06-C1", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P06", "source_location": "QE contribution HD-P06/C1 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:388; selected columns: Principle, Core meaning. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST", "role_id": "O1", "field": "role_summary" }, "relation": "inspired_by", "support_status": "inspiration_only", "rationale": "Extract a bounded shared criterion or claim, not equivalence of complete passages. Use the scoped trust-to-cooperation claim; preserve limits on the broader business-success claim and dependency on the prior fixture retelling.", "limitations": [ "The broad success claim is narrowed; trust is not the only cause of business outcomes.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Relevant competence, incentives, safeguards and feasible cooperation remain necessary considerations; trust is not a guarantee.", "The credibility-assessment method and arrangement-review procedure are QE authoring, not attributed to these rows." ] }, { "assessment_id": "EV-HD-P06-C2", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P06", "source_location": "QE contribution HD-P06/C2 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:389; selected columns: How it shows up in the transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "relation": "illustrates", "support_status": "illustration_only", "rationale": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Keep candor with a lender as one relationship-design practice, not a sufficient condition for credit approval or a duplicate trust mechanism.", "limitations": [ "This generalization comes from the account; candor neither guarantees credit nor replaces controls.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Relevant competence, incentives, safeguards and feasible cooperation remain necessary considerations; trust is not a guarantee.", "The credibility-assessment method and arrangement-review procedure are QE authoring, not attributed to these rows." ] }, { "assessment_id": "EV-CASE-HD-P06-C3", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P06", "source_location": "QE contribution HD-P06/C3 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:390; selected columns: How it shows up in the transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "target_ref": { "kind": "observation", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST", "observation_id": "OBS-HD-P06-C3", "field": "statement" }, "relation": "supports", "support_status": "source_assertion_only", "rationale": "The supplied row reports this case assertion. This establishes attribution to that supplied account, not historical truth or a general law.", "limitations": [ "The banker's motive and counterfactual financing outcome were not independently verified.", "Case report only; no general causal or motivational conclusion is verified." ] }, { "assessment_id": "EV-HD-P09-C1", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P09", "source_location": "QE contribution HD-P09/C1 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:416; selected columns: Principle, Core meaning. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "relation": "inspired_by", "support_status": "inspiration_only", "rationale": "Extract a bounded shared criterion or claim, not equivalence of complete passages. Use continuing reliable interaction as the shared relationship-design subset with MK-I04/C1; loyalty remains the customer's choice.", "limitations": [ "The source does not supply a service frequency or a guarantee of retention.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Relevant competence, incentives, safeguards and feasible cooperation remain necessary considerations; trust is not a guarantee.", "The credibility-assessment method and arrangement-review procedure are QE authoring, not attributed to these rows." ] } ], "narrative_anchors": [ { "anchor_id": "N-MK-I04-C2", "kind": "supplied_case", "summary": "Make regular customer follow-up calls as part of continuing service.", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I04", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "anchor_role": "illustration", "correspondence": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Use voluntary customer follow-up as a relationship practice. Do not equate it with Follow-Through's acknowledged obligation without additional context.", "limitations": [ "The claimed repeat-business effect is not independently established; no frequency is prescribed.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Relevant competence, incentives, safeguards and feasible cooperation remain necessary considerations; trust is not a guarantee.", "The credibility-assessment method and arrangement-review procedure are QE authoring, not attributed to these rows." ] }, { "anchor_id": "N-HD-P06-C2", "kind": "supplied_case", "summary": "The supplied account reports that Bernie spoke transparently with banker Rip Fleming, who later took personal career risk to help obtain financing because he trusted the founders.", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P06", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "anchor_role": "illustration", "correspondence": "QE-derived recommendation (not the reported event): Communicate candidly with a financing counterparty to support trustworthy cooperation. Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Keep candor with a lender as one relationship-design practice, not a sufficient condition for credit approval or a duplicate trust mechanism.", "limitations": [ "This generalization comes from the account; candor neither guarantees credit nor replaces controls.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Relevant competence, incentives, safeguards and feasible cooperation remain necessary considerations; trust is not a guarantee.", "The credibility-assessment method and arrangement-review procedure are QE authoring, not attributed to these rows." ] }, { "anchor_id": "N-HD-P06-C3", "kind": "supplied_case", "summary": "Rip Fleming is reported to have taken personal career risk to help obtain financing because he trusted the founders.", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P06", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST", "role_id": "O1", "field": "role_summary" }, "anchor_role": "illustration", "correspondence": "Preserve the reported career-risk/financing account with uncertain motive and outcome attribution; no independent causal evidence is created.", "limitations": [ "The banker's motive and counterfactual financing outcome were not independently verified.", "Case report only; no general causal or motivational conclusion is verified." ] } ], "interpretation_cautions": [ "Trust does not replace capability checks or make every transaction feasible.", "Supplied accounts are source material, not independently verified support for this reusable definition or procedure." ], "notes": "Maintained successor of the pinned architecture example under the same concept ID. The frozen fixture is historical, not a second writable current definition. See data/canonical/manifest.json for lineage and additions.", "case_observations": [ { "observation_id": "OBS-HD-P06-C3", "kind": "reported_case", "context": "HD-P06: Businesses are built on relationships and trust", "statement": "Rip Fleming is reported to have taken personal career risk to help obtain financing because he trusted the founders.", "evidence_refs": [ "EV-CASE-HD-P06-C3" ], "limitations": [ "The banker's motive and counterfactual financing outcome were not independently verified.", "Case report only; no general causal or motivational conclusion is verified." ] } ] }, { "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "title": "Customer Value as a Decision Criterion", "card_kind": "principle", "canonical_principle": "For a specified customer task, compare offerings and operating choices by the useful result delivered, subject to safety, obligations and commercial feasibility.", "primary_role_ref": "D1", "status": "Provisional", "version": "qe-canonical-batch-001-0.1.0", "evidence_status": "not_externally_validated", "shared_scope": { "conditions": [ { "condition_id": "S1", "kind": "applicability", "statement": "An identified customer group and task are connected to a business offering or operating choice." } ], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Scope separates the reusable concept from particular organizations and case outcomes." }, "stack_roles": [ { "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "role_type": "decision_implication", "principle_type": "Procedural", "classification": { "status": "classified", "family_ref": "QEF-D-CUSTOMER", "taxonomy_version": "qe-ontology-0.1.4", "reason": "Compare alternatives against a named customer task and feasible outcomes. This contribution meets the stated membership definition, not merely the topic label." }, "role_summary": "Compare feasible offerings and operating choices by the useful result for a specified customer task, subject to safety, obligations and commercial feasibility.", "compressed_role_insight": "Choose by customer results, within real constraints.", "mechanism_or_logic": "A named customer task makes alternatives comparable; distinguishing useful results from appearance or sales proxies avoids silently replacing the customer objective. The comparison still requires a judgment about uncertain observations.", "scope": { "shared_condition_refs": [ "S1" ], "additional_conditions": [ { "condition_id": "D-INPUT", "kind": "applicability", "statement": "At least two feasible alternatives, including a permitted status quo or no change, and a way to examine customer-task results can be specified." }, { "condition_id": "D-AUTH", "kind": "applicability", "statement": "The decision-maker can assess relevant safety, obligations and commercial constraints and has authority for the proposed choice." }, { "condition_id": "D-EXCLUDE", "kind": "boundary", "statement": "The comparison requires ignoring a mandatory safeguard or treating an unavailable essential input as verified." } ], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Reviewed as a reusable definition; case satisfaction and empirical support are not established." }, "evidence_refs": [ "EV-MK-I11-C1", "EV-MK-I11-C3", "EV-HD-P07-C1", "EV-HD-P08-C1", "EV-HD-P08-C2", "EV-HD-P10-C1", "EV-HD-P10-C2", "EV-HD-P11-C1", "EV-HD-P11-C2" ], "interpretation_cautions": [], "retrieval_cues": [ "A popular offering leaves the customer task unfinished.", "Presentation spending competes with useful assistance." ], "objective": { "beneficiary": "The specified customer group and the organization delivering the offering", "desired_outcome": "Select a feasible option that delivers a useful result for the named customer task", "constraints": [ "Respect safety and applicable obligations.", "Stay within the resources and authority available to deliver the option.", "Do not equate sales volume, satisfaction or low price alone with useful customer results." ] }, "failure_mode_if_misapplied": "Customer-first rhetoric can justify unaffordable exceptions, coercive bundling or ignoring obligations without improving the customer's result.", "action_protocol": { "trigger_conditions": [ "A choice between offerings or operating alternatives could materially change the specified customer task." ], "steps": [ "Specify the customer, task, desired result and non-negotiable delivery constraints.", "Compare at least two feasible options using available observations or clearly labeled assumptions about the task result, cost and possible harms.", "Separate outcome evidence from price, sales and presentation proxies. Keep a material unknown explicit; gather needed information or defer the choice.", "Select a permitted option only when its proposed customer result and delivery constraints justify it; record the assumptions that could reverse the decision.", "Review task completion, avoidable rework or complaints and delivery cost. Revise the choice when the result or feasibility differs from the assumptions." ], "review_signals": [ { "signal": "Reported task success and rework compared with sales or satisfaction counts.", "interpretation": "A positive proxy may coexist with an incomplete customer task.", "decision_use": "Check the specific outcome before expanding the offering." }, { "signal": "Cost or safety exceptions needed to maintain the service promise.", "interpretation": "The chosen service may not be sustainably deliverable.", "decision_use": "Redesign, narrow or stop the promise rather than silently waive constraints." } ], "limitations": [ "No particular data source is assumed independently verified.", "The procedure compares choices; it does not predict survival or prescribe a particular price/bundle policy." ] } }, { "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "role_type": "hidden_structure", "principle_type": "Structural", "classification": { "status": "classified", "family_ref": "QEF-O-STAKE", "taxonomy_version": "qe-ontology-0.1.4", "reason": "Explains dependence of business outcomes on another actor's responses and contributions, satisfying Stakeholder Interdependence without claiming identical interests." }, "role_summary": "A business depends partly on customer responses to its offering; customers may leave or withhold exchange when the result does not meet their needs.", "compressed_role_insight": "Customer responses shape business outcomes; they do not determine them alone.", "mechanism_or_logic": "Customer choices affect exchanges and continuing relationships. Switching costs, alternatives, regulation and other stakeholders can constrain that response, so customer neglect is not a complete causal account of decline.", "scope": { "shared_condition_refs": [ "S1" ], "additional_conditions": [], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Reviewed as a reusable definition; case satisfaction and empirical support are not established." }, "evidence_refs": [ "EV-HD-P07-C2", "EV-HD-P09-C2" ], "interpretation_cautions": [ "Customer choice need not be free of switching costs.", "A historical collapse account does not isolate a sufficient cause." ], "retrieval_cues": [] } ], "bridge_relations": [ { "relation_id": "R1", "from_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "O1" }, "relation_type": "grounds", "to_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "D1" }, "rationale": "Dependence on customer responses makes customer outcomes relevant when pursuing D1's stated goal. The dependency alone does not determine which option is safe, feasible or preferable.", "scope": { "shared_condition_refs": [ "S1" ], "additional_conditions": [], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Reviewed as a reusable definition; case satisfaction and empirical support are not established." }, "evidence_refs": [] } ], "bridges": [], "concept_relations": [], "source_references": [ "SRC-ROW-MK-I11", "SRC-ROW-HD-P07", "SRC-ROW-HD-P08", "SRC-ROW-HD-P09", "SRC-ROW-HD-P10", "SRC-ROW-HD-P11" ], "evidence_assessments": [ { "assessment_id": "EV-MK-I11-C1", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I11", "source_location": "QE contribution MK-I11/C1 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:315; selected columns: Idea, Meaning. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "relation": "illustrates", "support_status": "illustration_only", "rationale": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Retain the conditional complete-solution policy as an application of customer-result comparison; do not merge all bundling advice into the central statement.", "limitations": [ "This does not justify bundling products that customers do not need.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Apply the criterion to a named customer task, feasible alternatives, authority, safety and delivery constraints.", "Customer dependence is not a sufficient condition for business survival; price, presentation and bundling remain conditional choices." ] }, { "assessment_id": "EV-MK-I11-C3", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I11", "source_location": "QE contribution MK-I11/C3 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:317; selected columns: Evidence from transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "relation": "illustrates", "support_status": "illustration_only", "rationale": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Preserve skincare-set configuration as a conditional practice; the reported referral effect is not validated or generalized to all products.", "limitations": [ "The reported outcome/referral link does not prove all partial purchases are ineffective.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Apply the criterion to a named customer task, feasible alternatives, authority, safety and delivery constraints.", "Customer dependence is not a sufficient condition for business survival; price, presentation and bundling remain conditional choices." ] }, { "assessment_id": "EV-HD-P07-C1", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P07", "source_location": "QE contribution HD-P07/C1 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:398; selected columns: Principle, Core meaning. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "relation": "inspired_by", "support_status": "inspiration_only", "rationale": "Extract a bounded shared criterion or claim, not equivalence of complete passages. Use the customer-needs criterion shared with HD-P08/C1 and HD-P10/C1; retain survival qualifications rather than reproduce the slogan as a law.", "limitations": [ "The instruction is QE synthesis of the decline claim; customer service alone does not assure survival.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Apply the criterion to a named customer task, feasible alternatives, authority, safety and delivery constraints.", "Customer dependence is not a sufficient condition for business survival; price, presentation and bundling remain conditional choices." ] }, { "assessment_id": "EV-HD-P07-C2", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P07", "source_location": "QE contribution HD-P07/C2 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:399; selected columns: How it shows up in the transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "O1", "field": "role_summary" }, "relation": "inspired_by", "support_status": "inspiration_only", "rationale": "Map this separate explanatory contribution to the card containing that reasoning role, not to an equivalent recommendation. Retain the customer-response mechanism separately from the decision rule; the Two Guys collapse account does not establish a sufficient causal explanation.", "limitations": [ "The Two Guys causal attribution and collapse sequence are reported, not a verified sufficient explanation.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Apply the criterion to a named customer task, feasible alternatives, authority, safety and delivery constraints.", "Customer dependence is not a sufficient condition for business survival; price, presentation and bundling remain conditional choices." ] }, { "assessment_id": "EV-HD-P08-C1", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P08", "source_location": "QE contribution HD-P08/C1 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:407; selected columns: Principle, Core meaning. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "relation": "inspired_by", "support_status": "inspiration_only", "rationale": "Extract a bounded shared criterion or claim, not equivalence of complete passages. Use company-wide customer-problem resolution as the common criterion, with explicitly QE-added safety/feasibility limits on whatever it takes.", "limitations": [ "Whatever it takes remains subject to safety, obligations, cost and feasibility.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Apply the criterion to a named customer task, feasible alternatives, authority, safety and delivery constraints.", "Customer dependence is not a sufficient condition for business survival; price, presentation and bundling remain conditional choices." ] }, { "assessment_id": "EV-HD-P08-C2", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P08", "source_location": "QE contribution HD-P08/C2 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:408; selected columns: How it shows up in the transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "relation": "illustrates", "support_status": "illustration_only", "rationale": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Keep external sourcing and delivery as one context-specific solution; no formal delegation authority, affordability or repeatability is inferred.", "limitations": [ "The report supplies no authority limits, repeatability or economics for this practice.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Apply the criterion to a named customer task, feasible alternatives, authority, safety and delivery constraints.", "Customer dependence is not a sufficient condition for business survival; price, presentation and bundling remain conditional choices." ] }, { "assessment_id": "EV-HD-P09-C2", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P09", "source_location": "QE contribution HD-P09/C2 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:417; selected columns: How it shows up in the transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "O1", "field": "role_summary" }, "relation": "inspired_by", "support_status": "inspiration_only", "rationale": "Map this separate explanatory contribution to the card containing that reasoning role, not to an equivalent recommendation. Retain dependence on customers' continuing choices as a distinct explanation, not a claim that switching is costless or service guarantees retention.", "limitations": [ "Choice can be constrained; no claim that switching is always costless is made.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Apply the criterion to a named customer task, feasible alternatives, authority, safety and delivery constraints.", "Customer dependence is not a sufficient condition for business survival; price, presentation and bundling remain conditional choices." ] }, { "assessment_id": "EV-HD-P10-C1", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P10", "source_location": "QE contribution HD-P10/C1 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:425; selected columns: Principle, Core meaning. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "relation": "inspired_by", "support_status": "inspiration_only", "rationale": "Extract a bounded shared criterion or claim, not equivalence of complete passages. Use comparison by customer-valued results as the shared criterion; the particular ranking of price, help and appearance stays context-dependent.", "limitations": [ "Appearances may matter in other settings; the criterion requires actual customer understanding.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Apply the criterion to a named customer task, feasible alternatives, authority, safety and delivery constraints.", "Customer dependence is not a sufficient condition for business survival; price, presentation and bundling remain conditional choices." ] }, { "assessment_id": "EV-HD-P10-C2", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P10", "source_location": "QE contribution HD-P10/C2 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:426; selected columns: How it shows up in the transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "relation": "illustrates", "support_status": "illustration_only", "rationale": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Preserve warehouse presentation and service attributes as a specific configuration, not compulsory features of all customer-oriented offerings.", "limitations": [ "Scuffed floors and limited decorative polish are context, not requirements for every retailer.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Apply the criterion to a named customer task, feasible alternatives, authority, safety and delivery constraints.", "Customer dependence is not a sufficient condition for business survival; price, presentation and bundling remain conditional choices." ] }, { "assessment_id": "EV-HD-P11-C1", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P11", "source_location": "QE contribution HD-P11/C1 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:434; selected columns: Principle, Core meaning. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "relation": "illustrates", "support_status": "illustration_only", "rationale": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Retain stable-value pricing as a conditional policy to evaluate, not equivalence between customer value and everyday low pricing.", "limitations": [ "The comparative advantage is context-dependent, not a universally established result.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Apply the criterion to a named customer task, feasible alternatives, authority, safety and delivery constraints.", "Customer dependence is not a sufficient condition for business survival; price, presentation and bundling remain conditional choices." ] }, { "assessment_id": "EV-HD-P11-C2", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P11", "source_location": "QE contribution HD-P11/C2 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:435; selected columns: How it shows up in the transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "relation": "illustrates", "support_status": "illustration_only", "rationale": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Keep everyday low pricing as a reported implementation; no structural cost advantage or unit economics are supplied.", "limitations": [ "Learning from other retailers is reported; no unit economics or structural cost advantage is supplied.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Apply the criterion to a named customer task, feasible alternatives, authority, safety and delivery constraints.", "Customer dependence is not a sufficient condition for business survival; price, presentation and bundling remain conditional choices." ] } ], "case_observations": [], "narrative_anchors": [ { "anchor_id": "N-MK-I11-C1", "kind": "supplied_case", "summary": "Choose complete offerings when fragmented use would undermine the customer's intended result.", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I11", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "anchor_role": "illustration", "correspondence": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Retain the conditional complete-solution policy as an application of customer-result comparison; do not merge all bundling advice into the central statement.", "limitations": [ "This does not justify bundling products that customers do not need.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Apply the criterion to a named customer task, feasible alternatives, authority, safety and delivery constraints.", "Customer dependence is not a sufficient condition for business survival; price, presentation and bundling remain conditional choices." ] }, { "anchor_id": "N-MK-I11-C3", "kind": "supplied_case", "summary": "In the described skincare offering, stop breaking up the set when outcomes and referrals suffer.", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I11", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "anchor_role": "illustration", "correspondence": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Preserve skincare-set configuration as a conditional practice; the reported referral effect is not validated or generalized to all products.", "limitations": [ "The reported outcome/referral link does not prove all partial purchases are ineffective.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Apply the criterion to a named customer task, feasible alternatives, authority, safety and delivery constraints.", "Customer dependence is not a sufficient condition for business survival; price, presentation and bundling remain conditional choices." ] }, { "anchor_id": "N-HD-P08-C2", "kind": "supplied_case", "summary": "When a needed product is missing, the described practice obtains it elsewhere and delivers it to the customer.", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P08", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "anchor_role": "illustration", "correspondence": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Keep external sourcing and delivery as one context-specific solution; no formal delegation authority, affordability or repeatability is inferred.", "limitations": [ "The report supplies no authority limits, repeatability or economics for this practice.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Apply the criterion to a named customer task, feasible alternatives, authority, safety and delivery constraints.", "Customer dependence is not a sufficient condition for business survival; price, presentation and bundling remain conditional choices." ] }, { "anchor_id": "N-HD-P10-C2", "kind": "supplied_case", "summary": "Use a basic warehouse presentation while emphasizing assortment, price, availability and knowledgeable help.", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P10", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "anchor_role": "illustration", "correspondence": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Preserve warehouse presentation and service attributes as a specific configuration, not compulsory features of all customer-oriented offerings.", "limitations": [ "Scuffed floors and limited decorative polish are context, not requirements for every retailer.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Apply the criterion to a named customer task, feasible alternatives, authority, safety and delivery constraints.", "Customer dependence is not a sufficient condition for business survival; price, presentation and bundling remain conditional choices." ] }, { "anchor_id": "N-HD-P11-C1", "kind": "supplied_case", "summary": "Prefer stable, trusted customer value over short-lived promotional sales spikes.", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P11", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "anchor_role": "illustration", "correspondence": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Retain stable-value pricing as a conditional policy to evaluate, not equivalence between customer value and everyday low pricing.", "limitations": [ "The comparative advantage is context-dependent, not a universally established result.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Apply the criterion to a named customer task, feasible alternatives, authority, safety and delivery constraints.", "Customer dependence is not a sufficient condition for business survival; price, presentation and bundling remain conditional choices." ] }, { "anchor_id": "N-HD-P11-C2", "kind": "supplied_case", "summary": "Replace promotion-driven spikes with everyday low pricing in the described retail model.", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P11", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "anchor_role": "illustration", "correspondence": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Keep everyday low pricing as a reported implementation; no structural cost advantage or unit economics are supplied.", "limitations": [ "Learning from other retailers is reported; no unit economics or structural cost advantage is supplied.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Apply the criterion to a named customer task, feasible alternatives, authority, safety and delivery constraints.", "Customer dependence is not a sufficient condition for business survival; price, presentation and bundling remain conditional choices." ] } ], "interpretation_cautions": [ "Customer response is one dependency, not a sufficient explanation of business failure or success.", "A particular warehouse format, price policy or bundled product is not universally required by this criterion.", "Supplied accounts are source material, not independently verified support for this reusable definition or procedure." ], "notes": "Candidate maintained definition for batch 001. Source paraphrases, authoring additions and case reports have separate lineage; no external validation is asserted." }, { "card_id": "QE-FOLLOW-THROUGH", "title": "Complete or Explicitly Renegotiate Commitments", "card_kind": "principle", "canonical_principle": "For an acknowledged commitment, track it to completion or explicitly communicate and agree a feasible revision rather than leave it silently unresolved.", "primary_role_ref": "D1", "status": "Provisional", "version": "qe-canonical-batch-001-0.1.1", "evidence_status": "not_externally_validated", "shared_scope": { "conditions": [ { "condition_id": "S1", "kind": "applicability", "statement": "An identifiable commitment has been acknowledged by a responsible actor, with a completion condition that is agreed or can be clarified." } ], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Scope separates the reusable concept from particular organizations and case outcomes." }, "stack_roles": [ { "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "role_type": "decision_implication", "principle_type": "Procedural", "classification": { "status": "classified", "family_ref": "QEF-D-FOLLOW", "taxonomy_version": "qe-ontology-0.1.4", "reason": "Describes a policy and procedure for completing or explicitly renegotiating commitments, the membership criterion of Follow-Through, not a family for each communication action." }, "role_summary": "Track an acknowledged commitment through verified completion or legitimate cancellation. An accepted revision updates the still-active obligation; closing an old version must preserve a linked active successor for any remaining work.", "compressed_role_insight": "Agree revised terms, keep remaining work active; silence is not closure.", "mechanism_or_logic": "Recording responsibility, completion criteria and current terms makes outstanding work visible. Keep delivery, revision agreement and release from the obligation distinct: accepting new terms changes what remains due; it does not by itself complete the work.", "scope": { "shared_condition_refs": [ "S1" ], "additional_conditions": [ { "condition_id": "D-CONTACT", "kind": "applicability", "statement": "A legitimate channel exists to clarify the obligation with the affected party or escalate it to a responsible authority." }, { "condition_id": "D-EXCLUDE", "kind": "boundary", "statement": "The procedure would require performing an unsafe or prohibited act merely to honor the original promise." } ], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Reviewed as a reusable definition; case satisfaction and empirical support are not established." }, "evidence_refs": [ "EV-MK-P07-C1", "EV-MK-P07-C2" ], "interpretation_cautions": [], "retrieval_cues": [ "A promised response or delivery has no recorded resolution.", "A task is marked done although the recipient never accepted its revision." ], "objective": { "beneficiary": "The responsible actor and people relying on the commitment", "desired_outcome": "Avoid silently abandoned obligations by completing them, keeping revised work actively tracked, or recording a legitimate release from the remaining obligation", "constraints": [ "Respect higher-priority duties, safety and applicable obligations.", "Do not declare a unilateral revision accepted.", "Use the agreed timing or clarify timing; no universal response deadline is prescribed." ] }, "failure_mode_if_misapplied": "Blind persistence can honor an obsolete or harmful promise. Closing an accepted postponement without active tracking of remaining work can conceal abandonment; silence or unilateral changes do not establish agreement.", "action_protocol": { "trigger_conditions": [ "An acknowledged commitment is due for action or its completion is threatened." ], "steps": [ "Record the commitment, responsible actor, affected party, completion test and agreed timing; clarify missing terms.", "Check feasible delivery against conflicting duties and constraints. Perform and verify the agreed action when it remains appropriate.", "When delivery is threatened, notify the affected party promptly through a legitimate channel and state the obstacle and feasible proposed revision.", "Record acceptance, rejection or no response separately. Rejection or no response leaves the obligation open and unresolved under its existing terms unless a legitimate release applies; clarify or escalate rather than claim agreement. A proposed deadline does not establish acceptance; silence is not consent.", "When a revision is accepted, update the terms, responsible actor, completion test and timing on the active obligation. Alternatively, mark the old version superseded only after creating and linking an active successor that carries all remaining work. Acceptance of a postponed deadline is not delivery, and closing the negotiation does not close the obligation.", "Mark completed only after verifying the applicable completion test. Record legitimate cancellation or discharge separately, including who or what authorized the release and which remaining duties it covers; any unreleased work stays active. Superseded is a record-version status, not proof of completion or cancellation.", "Review due and revised commitments until their remaining work is completed or legitimately released. Check that every superseded record links to the continuing record and that revised dates stay in the active follow-up process; investigate repeated misses rather than hide them in a checklist." ], "review_signals": [ { "signal": "Commitments remain open after the stated completion time.", "interpretation": "There may be missed work, unclear criteria or an unresolved revision.", "decision_use": "Confirm the status with the affected party instead of marking the item done." }, { "signal": "Revisions are repeatedly proposed without acknowledgment.", "interpretation": "The tracking system may be recording intent rather than agreement.", "decision_use": "Escalate or clarify through the legitimate channel; do not fabricate acceptance." }, { "signal": "A revision is accepted or an old record is closed, but remaining work has no active record with current terms.", "interpretation": "Agreement or record supersession may have been mistaken for delivery.", "decision_use": "Restore active tracking of all remaining work, on the current record or a linked successor; do not report it as completed." } ], "limitations": [ "A written record cannot prove delivery or acceptance by itself.", "This method does not resolve the substantive priority of conflicting legal, ethical or organizational duties.", "Closing a revision discussion or superseding an old record does not discharge remaining work. This procedure records legitimate releases but does not decide who has legal or organizational authority to grant one." ] } } ], "bridge_relations": [], "bridges": [], "concept_relations": [], "source_references": [ "SRC-ROW-MK-P07" ], "evidence_assessments": [ { "assessment_id": "EV-MK-P07-C1", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-P07", "source_location": "QE contribution MK-P07/C1 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:69; selected columns: Principle, Core meaning. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-FOLLOW-THROUGH", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "relation": "inspired_by", "support_status": "inspiration_only", "rationale": "Extract a bounded shared criterion or claim, not equivalence of complete passages. Use the commitment-completion rule as the seed. Explicit renegotiation and a completion test are QE authoring additions, not source paraphrases.", "limitations": [ "Unfulfillable commitments may require explicit renegotiation; this is not a rule of unlimited persistence.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Apply the procedure only to an acknowledged commitment with a clarifiable completion test.", "Explicit agreement to revision, recording acceptance separately from silence and conflict handling are QE-added requirements." ] }, { "assessment_id": "EV-MK-P07-C2", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-P07", "source_location": "QE contribution MK-P07/C2 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:70; selected columns: How it shows up in the transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-FOLLOW-THROUGH", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "relation": "illustrates", "support_status": "illustration_only", "rationale": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Returning calls and closing follow-up obligations instantiate the completion rule when a commitment exists; do not mint sibling identities for each action.", "limitations": [ "The account does not specify service deadlines or a complete follow-up system.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Apply the procedure only to an acknowledged commitment with a clarifiable completion test.", "Explicit agreement to revision, recording acceptance separately from silence and conflict handling are QE-added requirements." ] } ], "case_observations": [], "narrative_anchors": [ { "anchor_id": "N-MK-P07-C2", "kind": "supplied_case", "summary": "Return calls, answer letters and track customer follow-up.", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-P07", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-FOLLOW-THROUGH", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "anchor_role": "illustration", "correspondence": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Returning calls and closing follow-up obligations instantiate the completion rule when a commitment exists; do not mint sibling identities for each action.", "limitations": [ "The account does not specify service deadlines or a complete follow-up system.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Apply the procedure only to an acknowledged commitment with a clarifiable completion test.", "Explicit agreement to revision, recording acceptance separately from silence and conflict handling are QE-added requirements." ] } ], "interpretation_cautions": [ "A voluntary follow-up contact is not automatically an acknowledged obligation.", "Explicit renegotiation, the completion check and exception handling are QE additions, not literal Mary Kay instructions.", "Supplied accounts are source material, not independently verified support for this reusable definition or procedure." ], "notes": "Candidate maintained definition for batch 001. Source paraphrases, authoring additions and case reports have separate lineage; no external validation is asserted. Acceptance repair V02 distinguishes a revised active obligation, a superseded record, verified completion and legitimate cancellation; the source does not supply this record-handling procedure. See docs/QE-CANONICAL-ACCEPTANCE-REPAIRS.md." }, { "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN", "title": "Design Meaningful Recognition", "card_kind": "principle", "canonical_principle": "When acknowledging a contribution, choose credible, proportionate recognition that fits the recipient and context, without assuming a universal performance effect.", "primary_role_ref": "D1", "status": "Provisional", "version": "qe-canonical-batch-001-0.1.0", "evidence_status": "not_externally_validated", "shared_scope": { "conditions": [ { "condition_id": "S1", "kind": "applicability", "statement": "An organizational contribution, recipient and context for acknowledgment can be identified." } ], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Scope separates the reusable concept from particular organizations and case outcomes." }, "stack_roles": [ { "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "role_type": "design_implication", "principle_type": "Procedural", "classification": { "status": "classified", "family_ref": "QEF-D-RECOG", "taxonomy_version": "qe-ontology-0.1.4", "reason": "Selects what contribution to acknowledge and how acknowledgment is delivered, the Recognition Design criterion, rather than specifying compensation eligibility." }, "role_summary": "Choose credible, proportionate acknowledgment of an identifiable contribution that fits the recipient and setting; review its effects rather than assume it improves performance.", "compressed_role_insight": "Recognize the contribution in a form that fits the person.", "mechanism_or_logic": "Specific acknowledgment can make a contribution visible, but its meaning depends on the recipient and social context. Credibility, fairness and privacy constrain the choice independently of any hoped-for motivational effect.", "scope": { "shared_condition_refs": [ "S1" ], "additional_conditions": [ { "condition_id": "D-BASIS", "kind": "applicability", "statement": "A credible basis for attributing the contribution and a permitted way to assess recipient and context fit are available." }, { "condition_id": "D-AUTH", "kind": "applicability", "statement": "The actor can choose acknowledgment within available resources, privacy requirements and any compensation or award obligations." }, { "condition_id": "D-EXCLUDE", "kind": "boundary", "statement": "Recognition would disclose protected information, humiliate a recipient or replace an owed payment or required corrective action." } ], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Reviewed as a reusable definition; case satisfaction and empirical support are not established." }, "evidence_refs": [ "EV-MK-P03-C2", "EV-MK-P04-C2", "EV-MK-I06-C1", "EV-HD-P13-C3" ], "interpretation_cautions": [], "retrieval_cues": [], "objective": { "beneficiary": "The contributor and affected organizational participants", "desired_outcome": "Acknowledge useful contribution in a credible and context-appropriate way", "constraints": [ "Preserve fairness, proportional cost and privacy.", "Respect the recipient's preferences about public exposure where they can be established.", "Do not substitute praise or symbolic prizes for owed compensation or necessary feedback." ] }, "failure_mode_if_misapplied": "Public or status-linked praise can embarrass recipients, reward misleading proxies or create perceptions of favoritism.", "action_protocol": { "trigger_conditions": [ "There is an occasion to acknowledge an identifiable organizational contribution." ], "steps": [ "Identify the actual contribution and check attribution before deciding whom or what to recognize.", "Consider private versus public acknowledgment, recipient preferences, cultural context and fair treatment of similar contributors.", "Choose a specific, proportionate form within the available authority and resources; do not promise a universal motivational effect.", "Deliver acknowledgment without disclosing protected information or implying that dignity or payment must be earned through praise.", "Review recipient response, perceived fairness and subsequent conduct. Change the form or pause it when it produces embarrassment, rivalry or misleading incentives." ], "review_signals": [ { "signal": "Recipient response differs from the intended acknowledgment.", "interpretation": "Visibility or symbolism may not fit the person or context.", "decision_use": "Ask through a permitted channel and adjust the form." }, { "signal": "Recognized behavior improves while other useful work is neglected.", "interpretation": "Recognition may have become a consequential target or omit important contributions.", "decision_use": "Review the selected contribution and reward criteria separately; praise is not a complete incentive system." } ], "limitations": [ "Recipient response is not a controlled estimate of motivational effectiveness.", "The procedure is QE authoring; the supplied rows do not contain this full fairness/privacy review." ] } }, { "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "role_type": "world_mechanic", "principle_type": "Dynamic", "classification": { "status": "classified", "family_ref": "QEF-O-RECOG", "taxonomy_version": "qe-ontology-0.1.4", "reason": "Explains perceived acknowledgment or status influencing motivation or behavior, matching Recognition Sensitivity without prescribing an intervention." }, "role_summary": "Perceived acknowledgment or status can influence motivation and conduct, with direction and strength depending on the recipient and setting.", "compressed_role_insight": "Recognition can change behavior; its effects vary.", "mechanism_or_logic": "Acknowledgment can change perceived significance, expectations or status. Those changes may affect effort, but the available accounts do not isolate the mechanism or establish superiority over other forms of feedback.", "scope": { "shared_condition_refs": [ "S1" ], "additional_conditions": [], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Reviewed as a reusable definition; case satisfaction and empirical support are not established." }, "evidence_refs": [ "EV-MK-P04-C1", "EV-MK-I06-C2" ], "interpretation_cautions": [ "A reported comparison with criticism or cash is not independently established.", "A response in one recipient does not prove universal effect." ], "retrieval_cues": [] } ], "bridge_relations": [ { "relation_id": "R1", "from_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN", "role_id": "O1" }, "relation_type": "grounds", "to_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN", "role_id": "D1" }, "rationale": "Potential and variable responses justify examining the fit and effects of acknowledgment under D1's explicit goal and constraints. The explanatory possibility does not entail a duty to maximize performance through praise.", "scope": { "shared_condition_refs": [ "S1" ], "additional_conditions": [], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Reviewed as a reusable definition; case satisfaction and empirical support are not established." }, "evidence_refs": [] } ], "bridges": [], "concept_relations": [], "source_references": [ "SRC-ROW-MK-P03", "SRC-ROW-MK-P04", "SRC-ROW-MK-I06", "SRC-ROW-HD-P13" ], "evidence_assessments": [ { "assessment_id": "EV-MK-P03-C2", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-P03", "source_location": "QE contribution MK-P03/C2 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:34; selected columns: How it shows up in the transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "relation": "inspired_by", "support_status": "inspiration_only", "rationale": "Extract a bounded shared criterion or claim, not equivalence of complete passages. Use only the explicit acknowledgment-design component. General respectful treatment remains broader and is not declared equivalent.", "limitations": [ "Respect is a related treatment standard, not exhausted by recognition; no universal performance effect is inferred.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.", "No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring." ] }, { "assessment_id": "EV-MK-P04-C1", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-P04", "source_location": "QE contribution MK-P04/C1 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:42; selected columns: Core meaning. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN", "role_id": "O1", "field": "role_summary" }, "relation": "inspired_by", "support_status": "inspiration_only", "rationale": "Map this separate explanatory contribution to the card containing that reasoning role, not to an equivalent recommendation. Retain the acknowledgment-response claim as a distinct explanation. The claimed advantage over criticism remains visible and unverified, not a D1 rule.", "limitations": [ "Comparative superiority over criticism is a source assertion, not an established effect.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.", "No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring." ] }, { "assessment_id": "EV-MK-P04-C2", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-P04", "source_location": "QE contribution MK-P04/C2 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:43; selected columns: Principle, How it shows up in the transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "relation": "illustrates", "support_status": "illustration_only", "rationale": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Preserve public praise and symbolic rewards as contextual ways of recognizing achievement, not separate cards or required reward forms.", "limitations": [ "Pins, rings, prizes and cars are examples, not separate families or a universal reward prescription.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.", "No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring." ] }, { "assessment_id": "EV-MK-I06-C1", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I06", "source_location": "QE contribution MK-I06/C1 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:270; selected columns: Idea, Evidence from transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "relation": "inspired_by", "support_status": "inspiration_only", "rationale": "Extract a bounded shared criterion or claim, not equivalence of complete passages. Use the choice of meaningful acknowledgment as a shared subset with MK-P03/C2; visibility is recipient/context dependent rather than mandatory public praise.", "limitations": [ "Rings, cars and ceremonies are illustrative choices, not necessary components.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.", "No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring." ] }, { "assessment_id": "EV-MK-I06-C2", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I06", "source_location": "QE contribution MK-I06/C2 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:271; selected columns: Meaning. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN", "role_id": "O1", "field": "role_summary" }, "relation": "inspired_by", "support_status": "inspiration_only", "rationale": "Map this separate explanatory contribution to the card containing that reasoning role, not to an equivalent recommendation. Keep the motivation claim distinct from D1; differing response to status and cash is not established superiority of symbolic rewards.", "limitations": [ "The claimed advantage over cash is not established for every person or context.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.", "No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring." ] }, { "assessment_id": "EV-HD-P13-C3", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P13", "source_location": "QE contribution HD-P13/C3 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:454; selected columns: How it shows up in the transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "relation": "illustrates", "support_status": "illustration_only", "rationale": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Retain inclusion of hourly associates as a recognition-recipient policy; it does not prescribe eligibility criteria or demonstrate motivation effects.", "limitations": [ "Recognition is inferred from the reward example; eligibility rules and effects on motivation are unknown.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.", "No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring." ] } ], "case_observations": [], "narrative_anchors": [ { "anchor_id": "N-MK-P04-C2", "kind": "supplied_case", "summary": "Use public praise and visible achievement rewards to recognize contribution.", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-P04", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "anchor_role": "illustration", "correspondence": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Preserve public praise and symbolic rewards as contextual ways of recognizing achievement, not separate cards or required reward forms.", "limitations": [ "Pins, rings, prizes and cars are examples, not separate families or a universal reward prescription.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.", "No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring." ] }, { "anchor_id": "N-HD-P13-C3", "kind": "supplied_case", "summary": "The supplied account reports that Olympic rewards went heavily to hourly associates.", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P13", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "anchor_role": "illustration", "correspondence": "QE-derived recommendation (not the reported event): Include hourly associates when choosing whom to recognize and reward publicly. Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Retain inclusion of hourly associates as a recognition-recipient policy; it does not prescribe eligibility criteria or demonstrate motivation effects.", "limitations": [ "Recognition is inferred from the reward example; eligibility rules and effects on motivation are unknown.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.", "No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring." ] } ], "interpretation_cautions": [ "General dignity is owed independently of achievement; recognition is not a substitute for respectful treatment.", "Symbolic rewards are not known here to outperform cash or criticism, and public praise is not suitable for every recipient.", "Supplied accounts are source material, not independently verified support for this reusable definition or procedure." ], "notes": "Candidate maintained definition for batch 001. Source paraphrases, authoring additions and case reports have separate lineage; no external validation is asserted." }, { "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES", "title": "Outcome-Aligned Rewards", "card_kind": "principle", "canonical_principle": "Reward design should be checked against the behavior and outcomes it is intended to encourage.", "primary_role_ref": "D1", "status": "Provisional", "version": "qe-canonical-batch-001-0.1.0", "evidence_status": "not_externally_validated", "shared_scope": { "conditions": [ { "condition_id": "S1", "kind": "applicability", "statement": "An organization can change consequential rewards and observe relevant behavior." } ], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Reviewed as a reusable definition. Historical examples do not establish empirical validity or case applicability." }, "stack_roles": [ { "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "role_type": "world_mechanic", "principle_type": "Dynamic", "classification": { "status": "classified", "family_ref": "QEF-O-TGT", "reason": "Describes changed action priorities in response to rewarded targets.", "taxonomy_version": "qe-ontology-0.1.4" }, "role_summary": "Rewarded targets may change which actions people prioritize.", "compressed_role_insight": "Rewards can redirect priorities.", "mechanism_or_logic": "Apply the shared target-adaptation explanation to the proposed reward rule.", "scope": { "shared_condition_refs": [ "S1" ], "additional_conditions": [], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Definition compatibility reviewed independently of source support and application facts." }, "evidence_refs": [ "EV-MK-I03-C2", "EV-MK-I09-C1" ] }, { "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "role_type": "design_implication", "principle_type": "Strategic", "classification": { "status": "classified", "family_ref": "QEF-D-INC", "reason": "Selects and tests consequences attached to behavior, fitting Incentive Design.", "taxonomy_version": "qe-ontology-0.1.4" }, "role_summary": "Test whether the reward rule favors the intended contribution rather than a convenient proxy.", "compressed_role_insight": "Reward the contribution, not only its proxy.", "mechanism_or_logic": "Given the intended outcome, compare likely responses before committing to the reward rule.", "scope": { "shared_condition_refs": [ "S1" ], "additional_conditions": [ { "condition_id": "D-RULE", "kind": "applicability", "statement": "The proposed reward, its eligibility rule and the intended contribution can be stated separately." }, { "condition_id": "D-REVIEW", "kind": "applicability", "statement": "The actor has authority to review the reward rule and a feasible way to examine desired outcomes and harmful shortcuts beyond the rewarded count alone." } ], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Definition compatibility reviewed independently of source support and application facts." }, "evidence_refs": [ "EV-MK-P20-C2", "EV-MK-I03-C1", "EV-MK-I07-C1", "EV-MK-I07-C2", "EV-MK-I09-C2", "EV-MK-I13-C1" ], "objective": { "beneficiary": "The organization and participants", "desired_outcome": "Encourage useful contribution without harmful shortcuts", "constraints": [ "Preserve fairness and proportional review costs." ] }, "failure_mode_if_misapplied": "Trying to control every behavior through rewards can displace judgment and intrinsic motives.", "action_protocol": { "trigger_conditions": [ "A consequential reward rule is being designed or reviewed." ], "steps": [ "State the intended contribution, beneficiaries, eligibility rule and reward separately.", "List plausible helpful responses and shortcuts, including displacement of unmeasured work; label these as hypotheses, not established predictions.", "Compare the rule with feasible alternatives, including no new reward, against fairness, review cost and the intended outcomes.", "Choose only a permitted, feasible rule with a review point; withhold commitment when material harm or fairness concerns are unresolved.", "Examine outcome quality and distribution as well as the rewarded count. Revise or discontinue the rule when observed conduct undermines the stated objective." ], "review_signals": [ { "signal": "Rewarded counts rise while independently examined outcome quality does not.", "interpretation": "The criterion may reward a proxy or omit relevant work; other explanations remain possible.", "decision_use": "Investigate the divergence before increasing the reward." }, { "signal": "Some participants win by reducing others' ability to contribute.", "interpretation": "Eligibility may introduce avoidable rivalry or exclusion.", "decision_use": "Compare alternatives without assuming multiple-winner rules solve every conflict." } ], "limitations": [ "Performance advancement, sales criteria and nonexclusive thresholds are contextual alternatives, not one equivalent reward formula.", "This is a QE-authored review procedure; the supplied rows do not provide controlled trials or all implementation details." ] } } ], "bridge_relations": [ { "relation_id": "R1", "from_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES", "role_id": "O1" }, "relation_type": "grounds", "to_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES", "role_id": "D1" }, "rationale": "Given the named objective, possible behavioral adaptation warrants examining reward alignment.", "scope": { "shared_condition_refs": [ "S1" ], "additional_conditions": [], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Reviewed for this illustrative case; no general applicability claim." }, "evidence_refs": [] } ], "bridges": [], "concept_relations": [ { "relation_id": "U1", "from_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES", "role_id": "O1" }, "relation_type": "uses", "to_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-TARGETS", "role_id": "O1" }, "rationale": "Reuse the same target-adaptation explanation for reward design; this link is not independent evidence.", "scope": { "shared_condition_refs": [ "S1" ], "additional_conditions": [], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Reviewed for this illustrative case; no general applicability claim." }, "evidence_refs": [] } ], "source_references": [ "SRC-ROW-MK-P20", "SRC-ROW-MK-I03", "SRC-ROW-MK-I07", "SRC-ROW-MK-I09", "SRC-ROW-MK-I13" ], "evidence_assessments": [ { "assessment_id": "EV-MK-P20-C2", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-P20", "source_location": "QE contribution MK-P20/C2 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:188; selected columns: How it shows up in the transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "relation": "inspired_by", "support_status": "inspiration_only", "rationale": "Extract a bounded shared criterion or claim, not equivalence of complete passages. Use the choice to revise consequences that undermine an intended outcome. Preserve the source's underspecified reward mechanics and QE conditional wording.", "limitations": [ "The conditional intervention is inferred from the example; the actual reward rules are unspecified.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Restrict the reused adaptation explanation to actors able to influence consequential targets; broader system claims are not equated with it.", "Specify the intended contribution, reward eligibility, authority, fairness and feasible outcome review; no particular reward policy is universally superior." ] }, { "assessment_id": "EV-MK-I03-C1", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I03", "source_location": "QE contribution MK-I03/C1 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:242; selected columns: Idea. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "relation": "inspired_by", "support_status": "inspiration_only", "rationale": "Extract a bounded shared criterion or claim, not equivalence of complete passages. Use the intended-conduct criterion shared with the reward-design card; it is a recommendation, not proof of its effectiveness.", "limitations": [ "The title supplies no specific reward formula or implementation.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Restrict the reused adaptation explanation to actors able to influence consequential targets; broader system claims are not equated with it.", "Specify the intended contribution, reward eligibility, authority, fairness and feasible outcome review; no particular reward policy is universally superior." ] }, { "assessment_id": "EV-MK-I03-C2", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I03", "source_location": "QE contribution MK-I03/C2 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:243; selected columns: Meaning. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES", "role_id": "O1", "field": "role_summary" }, "relation": "inspired_by", "support_status": "inspiration_only", "rationale": "Map this separate explanatory contribution to the card containing that reasoning role, not to an equivalent recommendation. Retain the consequence-sensitive behavior explanation as a distinct contribution; use the existing target-adaptation provider only for its scoped subset, not all system effects.", "limitations": [ "Incentives do not explain every motive; destruction is not treated as inevitable.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Restrict the reused adaptation explanation to actors able to influence consequential targets; broader system claims are not equated with it.", "Specify the intended contribution, reward eligibility, authority, fairness and feasible outcome review; no particular reward policy is universally superior." ] }, { "assessment_id": "EV-CASE-MK-I03-C3", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I03", "source_location": "QE contribution MK-I03/C3 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:244; selected columns: Evidence from transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "target_ref": { "kind": "observation", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES", "observation_id": "OBS-MK-I03-C3", "field": "statement" }, "relation": "supports", "support_status": "source_assertion_only", "rationale": "The supplied row reports this case assertion. This establishes attribution to that supplied account, not historical truth or a general law.", "limitations": [ "The prior and replacement incentive rules are not given.", "Case report only; no general causal or motivational conclusion is verified." ] }, { "assessment_id": "EV-MK-I07-C1", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I07", "source_location": "QE contribution MK-I07/C1 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:279; selected columns: Idea, Meaning. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "relation": "illustrates", "support_status": "illustration_only", "rationale": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Retain performance-linked advancement as one reward-design policy. Its fairness and anti-political objective are not equivalent to all outcome-aligned rewards.", "limitations": [ "Clear performance criteria may still be incomplete or biased.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Restrict the reused adaptation explanation to actors able to influence consequential targets; broader system claims are not equated with it.", "Specify the intended contribution, reward eligibility, authority, fairness and feasible outcome review; no particular reward policy is universally superior." ] }, { "assessment_id": "EV-MK-I07-C2", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I07", "source_location": "QE contribution MK-I07/C2 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:280; selected columns: Evidence from transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "relation": "illustrates", "support_status": "illustration_only", "rationale": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Preserve sales-based advancement as a contextual implementation; do not equate the sales metric with merit or verified fair treatment.", "limitations": [ "Sales are not a complete measure of merit; fairness and the claimed historical practice remain unverified.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Restrict the reused adaptation explanation to actors able to influence consequential targets; broader system claims are not equated with it.", "Specify the intended contribution, reward eligibility, authority, fairness and feasible outcome review; no particular reward policy is universally superior." ] }, { "assessment_id": "EV-MK-I09-C1", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I09", "source_location": "QE contribution MK-I09/C1 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:297; selected columns: Idea, Meaning. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES", "role_id": "O1", "field": "role_summary" }, "relation": "inspired_by", "support_status": "inspiration_only", "rationale": "Map this separate explanatory contribution to the card containing that reasoning role, not to an equivalent recommendation. Preserve the cooperation-response hypothesis separately from the award rule. Nonexclusive eligibility need not cause cooperation in every setting.", "limitations": [ "Cooperation is a proposed response, not guaranteed by nonexclusive awards.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Restrict the reused adaptation explanation to actors able to influence consequential targets; broader system claims are not equated with it.", "Specify the intended contribution, reward eligibility, authority, fairness and feasible outcome review; no particular reward policy is universally superior." ] }, { "assessment_id": "EV-MK-I09-C2", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I09", "source_location": "QE contribution MK-I09/C2 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:298; selected columns: Evidence from transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "relation": "illustrates", "support_status": "illustration_only", "rationale": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Keep multiple-winner threshold eligibility as one practice, not identical to merit advancement or proof of aligned outcomes.", "limitations": [ "Target quality and possible gaming still need review; this is not equal rewards regardless of contribution.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Restrict the reused adaptation explanation to actors able to influence consequential targets; broader system claims are not equated with it.", "Specify the intended contribution, reward eligibility, authority, fairness and feasible outcome review; no particular reward policy is universally superior." ] }, { "assessment_id": "EV-MK-I13-C1", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I13", "source_location": "QE contribution MK-I13/C1 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:334; selected columns: Idea, Meaning. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "inspected_material": "supplied_text", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "relation": "inspired_by", "support_status": "inspiration_only", "rationale": "Extract a bounded shared criterion or claim, not equivalence of complete passages. Use the bounded reward/value alignment recommendation; preserve its QE synthesis label and do not assert that all culture reduces to incentives.", "limitations": [ "The normative alignment instruction is QE synthesis; values can matter through channels other than incentives.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Restrict the reused adaptation explanation to actors able to influence consequential targets; broader system claims are not equated with it.", "Specify the intended contribution, reward eligibility, authority, fairness and feasible outcome review; no particular reward policy is universally superior." ] } ], "narrative_anchors": [ { "anchor_id": "N-MK-I03-C3", "kind": "supplied_case", "summary": "The supplied account describes reversing incentive arrangements experienced at prior employers.", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I03", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES", "role_id": "O1", "field": "role_summary" }, "anchor_role": "illustration", "correspondence": "Retain the prior-employer redesign account as a reported illustration; absent before/after rules prevent treating it as a validated causal comparison.", "limitations": [ "The prior and replacement incentive rules are not given.", "Case report only; no general causal or motivational conclusion is verified." ] }, { "anchor_id": "N-MK-I07-C1", "kind": "supplied_case", "summary": "Base advancement on relevant performance rather than connections or inherited status.", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I07", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "anchor_role": "illustration", "correspondence": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Retain performance-linked advancement as one reward-design policy. Its fairness and anti-political objective are not equivalent to all outcome-aligned rewards.", "limitations": [ "Clear performance criteria may still be incomplete or biased.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Restrict the reused adaptation explanation to actors able to influence consequential targets; broader system claims are not equated with it.", "Specify the intended contribution, reward eligibility, authority, fairness and feasible outcome review; no particular reward policy is universally superior." ] }, { "anchor_id": "N-MK-I07-C2", "kind": "supplied_case", "summary": "Use sales results as an advancement criterion rather than gender or background.", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I07", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "anchor_role": "illustration", "correspondence": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Preserve sales-based advancement as a contextual implementation; do not equate the sales metric with merit or verified fair treatment.", "limitations": [ "Sales are not a complete measure of merit; fairness and the claimed historical practice remain unverified.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Restrict the reused adaptation explanation to actors able to influence consequential targets; broader system claims are not equated with it.", "Specify the intended contribution, reward eligibility, authority, fairness and feasible outcome review; no particular reward policy is universally superior." ] }, { "anchor_id": "N-MK-I09-C2", "kind": "supplied_case", "summary": "Allow every participant who reaches the target to qualify for the award.", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I09", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES", "role_id": "D1", "field": "role_summary" }, "anchor_role": "illustration", "correspondence": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Keep multiple-winner threshold eligibility as one practice, not identical to merit advancement or proof of aligned outcomes.", "limitations": [ "Target quality and possible gaming still need review; this is not equal rewards regardless of contribution.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.", "Restrict the reused adaptation explanation to actors able to influence consequential targets; broader system claims are not equated with it.", "Specify the intended contribution, reward eligibility, authority, fairness and feasible outcome review; no particular reward policy is universally superior." ] } ], "interpretation_cautions": [ "Rewards are not assumed to dominate all motives or guarantee the desired response.", "Supplied accounts are source material, not independently verified support for this reusable definition or procedure." ], "notes": "Maintained successor of the pinned architecture example under the same concept ID. The frozen fixture is historical, not a second writable current definition. See data/canonical/manifest.json for lineage and additions.", "case_observations": [ { "observation_id": "OBS-MK-I03-C3", "kind": "reported_case", "context": "MK-I03: Design incentives carefully", "statement": "The supplied account describes reversing incentive arrangements experienced at prior employers.", "evidence_refs": [ "EV-CASE-MK-I03-C3" ], "limitations": [ "The prior and replacement incentive rules are not given.", "Case report only; no general causal or motivational conclusion is verified." ] } ] }, { "card_id": "QE-EX-SECOND", "title": "Second-Order Thinking", "card_kind": "mental_model", "canonical_principle": "A reasoning method for mapping and checking material consequences beyond an action's immediate effect.", "primary_role_ref": "E1", "status": "Provisional", "version": "qe-canonical-batch-001-0.1.1", "evidence_status": "not_externally_validated", "shared_scope": { "conditions": [ { "condition_id": "S1", "kind": "applicability", "statement": "Dependencies or adaptive responses could materially change the outcome of an action." } ], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Reviewed as a reusable definition. Historical examples do not establish empirical validity or case applicability." }, "stack_roles": [ { "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "role_type": "world_mechanic", "principle_type": "Dynamic", "classification": { "status": "partial", "family_ref": "QEF-O-PROP", "reason": "Describes transmission of effects through dependencies, not the method for tracing them. Migration: propagation is now an intermediate grouping; no narrower subtype is inferred.", "taxonomy_version": "qe-ontology-0.1.4" }, "role_summary": "An initial change can affect dependent parts or prompt later responses.", "compressed_role_insight": "Consequences can extend beyond the first effect.", "mechanism_or_logic": "Dependencies transmit change; response strength and timing vary by situation.", "scope": { "shared_condition_refs": [ "S1" ], "additional_conditions": [], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Definition compatibility reviewed independently of source support and application facts." }, "evidence_refs": [] }, { "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "role_type": "reasoning_method", "principle_type": "Procedural", "classification": { "status": "classified", "family_ref": "QEF-E-CAUSE", "reason": "Constructs and revises causal maps; evaluation of links supports that construction rather than defining the whole task.", "taxonomy_version": "qe-ontology-0.1.4" }, "role_summary": "Map plausible downstream consequences and challenge the uncertain links.", "compressed_role_insight": "Ask what follows, then check the links.", "mechanism_or_logic": "Separate a proposed causal link from the observations used to assess it. Compare material links with plausible alternatives, revise the map when observations conflict with a link, and carry missing or inconclusive checks forward as explicit uncertainty rather than a verified forecast.", "scope": { "shared_condition_refs": [ "S1" ], "additional_conditions": [ { "condition_id": "E-INPUT", "kind": "applicability", "statement": "A candidate action, an initial outcome hypothesis and a decision time budget can be specified; uncertain links can be kept explicit." } ], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Definition compatibility reviewed independently of source support and application facts." }, "evidence_refs": [], "method": { "representation": "Nodes are actions or consequences; links are conditional causal hypotheses. Each material link has a check record: proposed mechanism, serious alternative, distinguishing observation, available information and its limits, result (supported in the examined context, contradicted in that context, unresolved after checking, or not checked), and the resulting map revision or retained uncertainty.", "steps": [ "Specify the action and immediate outcome.", "Ask which dependency or actor response follows.", "Name a rival consequence and uncertainty at each material link.", "For each link that could change the choice, state the mechanism and a serious alternative, then name an observation, prediction or counterexample that could distinguish them. Prioritize checks by decision relevance and the available time; do not investigate every conceivable link.", "Inspect relevant available observations, records or comparisons against both accounts. Record what was examined, its context and limitations, and whether it supports the link in that context, contradicts it, or leaves it unresolved. When no usable information is available or the check cannot be made within the time budget, mark the link not checked and record why; merely naming an alternative is not a completed check.", "Revise, qualify or remove a contradicted link and reconsider its downstream consequences. Retain only the support warranted by the examined context; an observation consistent with a link need not establish causation. Carry unresolved and not-checked links as conditional assumptions, and compare whether plausible alternatives would change the decision.", "Stop when additional detail is unlikely to change the decision within its time budget. Return the conditional map with check records, revisions and outstanding uncertainties; do not label unchecked links as checked conclusions." ], "limitations": [ "Later effects can be highly uncertain.", "The method does not prove policy or business outcomes.", "Available observations may be selective, confounded or from a different setting. Contextual support is not proof that the proposed mechanism caused the observation.", "Unresolved after checking and not checked are different outcomes. A deadline ends the review, not the uncertainty; neither outcome may be silently promoted to support." ] } }, { "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "role_type": "decision_implication", "principle_type": "Strategic", "classification": { "status": "classified", "family_ref": "QEF-D-DOWN", "reason": "Compares options using later consequences under an explicit selection objective.", "taxonomy_version": "qe-ontology-0.1.4" }, "role_summary": "Compare options using material downstream effects, then choose within the decision deadline.", "compressed_role_insight": "Consider downstream effects without endless analysis.", "mechanism_or_logic": "This procedure compares conditional maps and explicit check records produced by E1, including any unresolved or not-checked links. It requires E1; independently supplied scenarios would need a separately justified procedure. Performing E1 does not imply that every link was testable or supported.", "scope": { "shared_condition_refs": [ "S1" ], "additional_conditions": [ { "condition_id": "D-OPTIONS", "kind": "applicability", "statement": "Feasible options, the affected parties' objective and a decision deadline can be stated for comparison." } ], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Definition compatibility reviewed independently of source support and application facts." }, "evidence_refs": [], "objective": { "beneficiary": "The decision-maker and affected parties", "desired_outcome": "Choose an option with acceptable immediate and downstream consequences", "constraints": [ "Respect the decision deadline.", "Do not assume that the longest horizon always dominates." ] }, "failure_mode_if_misapplied": "Speculative consequence chains can create analysis paralysis.", "action_protocol": { "trigger_conditions": [ "Before a consequential decision with material dependencies." ], "steps": [ "Use E1 to construct at least two plausible outcome chains and retain the check record for each material link, including unresolved or not-checked results.", "Compare feasible options against the stated objective and deadline. For unresolved or not-checked links, compare plausible alternatives and identify whether the choice would change; do not treat the favored story as established.", "Choose within the deadline and record the material assumptions, outstanding checks and observations that should prompt reconsideration. When the available scenarios do not justify a preferred option, record that limit rather than invent certainty." ], "review_signals": [ { "signal": "Observed effects versus the recorded conditional scenarios.", "interpretation": "A mismatch may challenge a link or an assumption rather than the entire method.", "decision_use": "Update the relevant model before repeating the decision." } ], "limitations": [ "A single outcome cannot establish general predictive accuracy.", "A conditionally applicable entry only establishes that recorded prerequisites are met; it does not establish that E1 was executed or any causal link was supported." ] } } ], "bridge_relations": [ { "relation_id": "R1", "from_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-SECOND", "role_id": "O1" }, "relation_type": "grounds", "to_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-SECOND", "role_id": "E1" }, "rationale": "Dependencies justify examining later effects, not assuming every speculative chain occurs.", "scope": { "shared_condition_refs": [ "S1" ], "additional_conditions": [], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Reviewed for this illustrative case; no general applicability claim." }, "evidence_refs": [] }, { "relation_id": "R2", "from_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-SECOND", "role_id": "E1" }, "relation_type": "grounds", "to_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-SECOND", "role_id": "D1" }, "rationale": "Given D1's objective and deadline, scoped scenario comparison can inform the choice.", "scope": { "shared_condition_refs": [ "S1" ], "additional_conditions": [], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Reviewed for this illustrative case; no general applicability claim." }, "evidence_refs": [] }, { "relation_id": "R3", "from_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-SECOND", "role_id": "D1" }, "relation_type": "requires", "to_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-SECOND", "role_id": "E1" }, "rationale": "D1 explicitly uses E1's conditional maps and check records, including unresolved or not-checked links. E1 is therefore a prerequisite of this procedure, not merely an optional supporting argument. This does not make every grounds relation a dependency or turn a check into causal proof.", "scope": { "shared_condition_refs": [ "S1" ], "additional_conditions": [], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "The dependency is part of the specified procedure; its review is distinct from whether a particular case meets the conditions." }, "evidence_refs": [] } ], "bridges": [], "concept_relations": [], "source_references": [], "evidence_assessments": [], "narrative_anchors": [], "interpretation_cautions": [ "A longer causal story is not automatically more accurate; analysis must respect available time.", "Supplied accounts are source material, not independently verified support for this reusable definition or procedure." ], "notes": "Maintained successor of the pinned architecture example under the same concept ID. The frozen fixture is historical, not a second writable current definition. See data/canonical/manifest.json for lineage and additions. Acceptance repair V01 explicitly refines E1 link checking and D1 use of the check records; the earlier fixture and batch revision remain historical. See docs/QE-CANONICAL-ACCEPTANCE-REPAIRS.md.", "case_observations": [] }, { "card_id": "QE-EX-TARGETS", "title": "Consequential Targets and Behavior", "card_kind": "principle", "canonical_principle": "When people can influence a measure attached to meaningful consequences, they may adapt behavior toward that measure.", "primary_role_ref": "O1", "status": "Provisional", "version": "qe-release-fixture-0.1.4", "evidence_status": "not_externally_validated", "shared_scope": { "conditions": [ { "condition_id": "S1", "kind": "applicability", "statement": "Adaptive actors can influence a measure tied to consequences they care about." } ], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Illustrative shared context reviewed; this is not empirical validation." }, "stack_roles": [ { "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "role_type": "world_mechanic", "principle_type": "Dynamic", "classification": { "status": "classified", "family_ref": "QEF-O-TGT", "reason": "Describes behavioral response to a consequential target, satisfying Target-Driven Adaptation rather than prescribing reward design.", "taxonomy_version": "qe-ontology-0.1.4" }, "role_summary": "Consequential targets can redirect effort toward rewarded measures, whether or not the wider goal improves.", "compressed_role_insight": "Consequential targets can redirect behavior.", "mechanism_or_logic": "Consequences change the perceived value of available actions; actors may change effort allocation.", "scope": { "shared_condition_refs": [ "S1" ], "additional_conditions": [], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Reviewed for this illustrative case; no general applicability claim." }, "evidence_refs": [], "retrieval_cues": [ "Targets changed and behavior shifted." ] } ], "bridge_relations": [], "bridges": [], "concept_relations": [], "source_references": [], "evidence_assessments": [], "narrative_anchors": [], "interpretation_cautions": [ "Not a claim about all passive measurement or about inevitable gaming." ] }, { "card_id": "QE48-C01", "title": "Opportunity Cost", "card_kind": "principle", "canonical_principle": "A scarce-resource commitment has a counterfactual cost: the value of the best feasible alternative it displaces under a specified objective and horizon.", "primary_role_ref": "D1", "status": "Provisional", "version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "evidence_status": "source_reviewed", "shared_scope": { "conditions": [ { "condition_id": "S1", "kind": "applicability", "statement": "A choice commits a limited resource among competing feasible uses within a stated horizon." } ], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Bounded authoring review; does not establish editorial acceptance or actual applicability." }, "stack_roles": [ { "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "role_type": "world_mechanic", "principle_type": "Structural", "classification": { "status": "classified", "family_ref": "QEF-O-SCAR", "taxonomy_version": "qe-ontology-0.1.4", "reason": "The contribution describes competing feasible demands for a limited resource, rather than recommending a winner." }, "role_summary": "Committing scarce resources to a feasible choice displaces alternatives; its opportunity cost is the value of the best feasible displaced alternative under the same objective and horizon.", "compressed_role_insight": "Count the best feasible alternative displaced, not every alternative added together.", "mechanism_or_logic": "Mutually exclusive uses cannot receive the same committed resource at the same time. Comparing the best displaced use identifies a counterfactual value; it is neither an additional invoice nor a sum of incompatible alternatives.", "scope": { "shared_condition_refs": [ "S1" ], "additional_conditions": [], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Internal definition compatibility review only; editorial acceptance, case facts and empirical validation remain separate." }, "evidence_refs": [ "EV1" ] }, { "role_id": "D1", "stack": "Decision", "role_type": "decision_implication", "principle_type": "Procedural", "classification": { "status": "partial", "family_ref": "QEF-D-RESOURCE", "taxonomy_version": "qe-ontology-0.1.4", "reason": "Allocating constrained resources among feasible alternatives fits Resource Allocation; no terminal family is justified for the general comparison." }, "role_summary": "Before committing scarce resources, compare feasible alternatives and their displaced value under a stated objective, horizon and constraints; retain material uncertainty and avoid double-counting resource costs.", "compressed_role_insight": "Compare what the choice delivers with what the best feasible alternative could deliver.", "mechanism_or_logic": "An explicit counterfactual makes the cost of exclusion visible. A common objective allows comparison, while scenario ranges prevent uncertain values from masquerading as observed facts.", "scope": { "shared_condition_refs": [ "S1" ], "additional_conditions": [ { "condition_id": "D-OPTIONS", "kind": "applicability", "statement": "Feasible alternatives can be specified with their shared resource requirements; include no change when feasible and permitted." }, { "condition_id": "D-VALUES", "kind": "applicability", "statement": "Decision-relevant values or defensible ranges under the same objective and horizon are available for comparing alternatives." }, { "condition_id": "D-AUTH", "kind": "applicability", "statement": "The decision-maker can assess obligations and resource constraints and has authority for the contemplated allocation." } ], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Internal definition compatibility review only; editorial acceptance, case facts and empirical validation remain separate." }, "evidence_refs": [], "objective": { "beneficiary": "The responsible resource owner and affected stakeholders", "desired_outcome": "Select a feasible use justified against its best displaced alternative", "constraints": [ "Respect obligations, safety and the available resource budget.", "Keep the objective and horizon consistent across options.", "Retain uncertainty and avoid counting a forgone resource value twice." ] }, "failure_mode_if_misapplied": "An infeasible alternative, a changed objective or double-counted expense can make a beneficial choice appear wasteful; a numeric score can conceal unassessed obligations.", "action_protocol": { "trigger_conditions": [ "A commitment would exclude another feasible use of a scarce resource." ], "steps": [ "Name the resource owner, objective, horizon, constraints and actual decision authority.", "List feasible alternatives or bundles, including no change when feasible and permitted, and identify which uses each commitment displaces.", "Estimate comparable net outcomes or ranges; state whether resource costs are already included so they are not subtracted again.", "Compare the best displaced feasible alternative with the proposed choice. If missing values or conflicting objectives prevent a defensible comparison, keep the result unresolved.", "Record the selected option, assumptions and reconsideration threshold; revisit when feasibility, values or objectives change." ], "review_signals": [ { "signal": "A new feasible option, material value revision or changed constraint.", "interpretation": "The recorded comparison may no longer describe the relevant choice.", "decision_use": "Reassess feasibility and the stated objective before relying on the result." } ], "limitations": [ "This is a comparison procedure, not a universal optimizer or a financial recommendation.", "A reported preference does not prove that the selected objective is appropriate." ] } }, { "role_id": "D2", "stack": "Decision", "role_type": "decision_implication", "principle_type": "Procedural", "classification": { "status": "partial", "family_ref": "QEF-D-RESOURCE", "taxonomy_version": "qe-ontology-0.1.4", "reason": "A scoped incremental allocation choice remains in Resource Allocation, not a new family or a universal leverage mechanism." }, "role_summary": "For feasible divisible increments sharing one binding resource and a common objective, compare incremental value per unit and recompute after each increment. Stop using this local ranking when indivisibility, complementarities, increasing-return thresholds or interacting constraints require bundle comparison, even when already modeled.", "compressed_role_insight": "Compare feasible next increments; use bundles when increments cannot stand alone.", "mechanism_or_logic": "Marginal values describe the next change, not an option’s average historic return. Updating them avoids fixed rankings after diminishing returns. Without the recorded assumptions, a locally attractive increment can block a better feasible bundle.", "scope": { "shared_condition_refs": [ "S1" ], "additional_conditions": [ { "condition_id": "D2-INPUT", "kind": "applicability", "statement": "Feasible increments and their estimated incremental values and resource use are available under a common objective and horizon." }, { "condition_id": "D2-RESOURCE", "kind": "applicability", "statement": "One shared binding resource has a known remaining budget, and useful increments are divisible." }, { "condition_id": "D2-INTERACTION", "kind": "applicability", "statement": "Values have no relevant complementarities or increasing-return thresholds, whether modeled or unmodeled, and there are no other interacting binding constraints." }, { "condition_id": "D2-AUTH", "kind": "applicability", "statement": "The resource owner can assess relevant obligations and has authority for the incremental allocation." } ], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Internal definition compatibility review only; editorial acceptance, case facts and empirical validation remain separate." }, "evidence_refs": [], "objective": { "beneficiary": "The resource owner and affected stakeholders", "desired_outcome": "Choose a useful feasible next increment while retaining the ability to reassess", "constraints": [ "Stay within the resource budget and applicable obligations.", "Use a common objective and horizon.", "Do not infer global optimality beyond the stated assumptions." ] }, "failure_mode_if_misapplied": "A ratio ranking can fund attractive fragments of an indivisible project, miss complementary bundles or known increasing-return thresholds, or exhaust a resource needed by a better overall choice.", "action_protocol": { "trigger_conditions": [ "An incremental resource-allocation choice is being considered within the recorded conditions." ], "steps": [ "Check divisibility, one-resource comparability and obligations. Exclude relevant complementarities, increasing-return thresholds and interacting binding constraints even when already modeled; otherwise compare complete feasible bundles using D1 or another suitable method.", "Estimate each feasible next increment’s additional value and resource use, retaining uncertainty in the estimates.", "Compare incremental ratios only among currently feasible increments. Stop if no positive-value increment is justified.", "After an increment, update remaining budget and marginal values. If conditions cease to hold, stop this procedure and compare complete feasible bundles using D1 or another suitable method.", "Record assumptions and compare realized results with expectations before repeating." ], "review_signals": [ { "signal": "Any relevant complementarity, increasing-return threshold, or second interacting binding resource, including one already modeled; or changed marginal values.", "interpretation": "The recorded comparison may no longer describe the relevant choice.", "decision_use": "Stop local ranking when an excluded interaction is present and compare feasible bundles; otherwise reassess the recorded conditions and marginal values." } ], "limitations": [ "This bounded heuristic is QE synthesis, not recovered wording of High-leverage first.", "D1 is an alternative comparison when D2 is inapplicable, not an implicitly mandatory prerequisite." ] } } ], "bridge_relations": [ { "relation_id": "R1", "from_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "O1" }, "relation_type": "grounds", "to_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D1" }, "rationale": "When D1’s objective is accepted, resource displacement makes the best forgone feasible use relevant. The description alone supplies neither the objective nor the values.", "scope": { "shared_condition_refs": [ "S1" ], "additional_conditions": [], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Internal definition compatibility review only; editorial acceptance, case facts and empirical validation remain separate." }, "evidence_refs": [] } ], "bridges": [], "concept_relations": [], "source_references": [ "SRC-PILOT-OPENSTAX", "SRC-PILOT-P48-01", "SRC-PILOT-P48-12" ], "evidence_assessments": [ { "assessment_id": "EV1", "source_ref": "SRC-PILOT-OPENSTAX", "source_location": "Section 2.1, The Concept of Opportunity Cost and Marginal Decision-Making and Diminishing Marginal Utility", "inspected_material": "original_source", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "O1", "field": "role_summary" }, "relation": "supports", "support_status": "source_assertion_only", "rationale": "A choice sacrifices its next best alternative; marginal analysis compares the changes in benefits and costs. The assessment addresses this role summary only; formalization and procedure remain QE synthesis.", "limitations": [ "One inspected conceptual passage is not an empirical validation or an independent replication.", "The source does not support all other roles or hypothetical cases on this Card." ] } ], "case_observations": [], "narrative_anchors": [], "interpretation_cautions": [ "Value can be nonmonetary; this Card does not choose the objective for the user.", "The broader trade-off idea includes non-resource incompatibility and is not identical to opportunity cost.", "High-leverage first is represented by a proposed scoped D2 contribution; QE48-C12 is not merged or deleted." ], "notes": "Pilot authoring under a reserved QE48 identity. Definitions, procedures and examples are QE synthesis, with explicitly limited source assessments. No accepted identity merge or role reuse is inferred." }, { "card_id": "QE48-C03", "title": "Bottleneck Throughput", "card_kind": "principle", "canonical_principle": "For a specified flow model, a binding required stage limits sustainable system output; identifying that stage requires evidence about the actual flow and its operating conditions.", "primary_role_ref": "O1", "status": "Provisional", "version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "evidence_status": "source_reviewed", "shared_scope": { "conditions": [ { "condition_id": "S1", "kind": "applicability", "statement": "A process has a specified output measure and operating horizon for evaluating flow constraints." } ], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Bounded authoring review; does not establish editorial acceptance or actual applicability." }, "stack_roles": [ { "role_id": "O1", "stack": "Ontological", "role_type": "hidden_structure", "principle_type": "Structural", "classification": { "status": "classified", "family_ref": "QEF-O-BOT", "taxonomy_version": "qe-ontology-0.1.4", "reason": "A required limiting component bounds system output, meeting Bottleneck Dependence rather than asserting that every local improvement raises output." }, "role_summary": "In a specified serial flow where each completed unit must pass every required stage, sustained throughput cannot exceed the lowest effective stage capacity for the same product mix and horizon; demand, outages and coordination can make actual output lower.", "compressed_role_insight": "The limiting required stage bounds sustained flow; it does not guarantee that output.", "mechanism_or_logic": "Every completed unit consumes capacity at each mandatory stage. Over a sustained interval, a stage cannot process more than its effective capacity without depleting previously accumulated inventory or changing the model. Finite buffers and variability can reduce realized throughput further.", "scope": { "shared_condition_refs": [ "S1" ], "additional_conditions": [ { "condition_id": "O-FLOW", "kind": "applicability", "statement": "The specified serial route requires each output unit to pass every modeled stage in comparable flow units." }, { "condition_id": "O-HORIZON", "kind": "applicability", "statement": "Capacity and output are compared over the same sustained horizon with product mix, yield and opening inventory effects accounted for." } ], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Internal definition compatibility review only; editorial acceptance, case facts and empirical validation remain separate." }, "evidence_refs": [ "EV1" ] }, { "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "role_type": "reasoning_method", "principle_type": "Procedural", "classification": { "status": "partial", "family_ref": "QEF-E-EVAL", "taxonomy_version": "qe-ontology-0.1.4", "reason": "The main task tests a supplied process representation and its constraint hypothesis, so Model Evaluation is justified without inventing a bottleneck-specific method family." }, "role_summary": "Evaluate a proposed bottleneck against comparable flow, capacity, queue and idle-time observations, testing demand, starvation, blocking and product-mix alternatives; revise the diagnosis when conditions or constraints shift.", "compressed_role_insight": "Test the limiting-stage hypothesis against flow evidence and alternatives.", "mechanism_or_logic": "High utilization or a queue alone does not establish a system bottleneck. Comparing capacity with demand and explaining blocked or starved time distinguishes competing accounts; a diagnosis can remain conditional when relevant observations are missing.", "scope": { "shared_condition_refs": [ "S1" ], "additional_conditions": [ { "condition_id": "E-MODEL", "kind": "applicability", "statement": "A candidate flow model specifies routes, units, horizon, product mix and the proposed constraint." }, { "condition_id": "E-DATA", "kind": "applicability", "statement": "Relevant flow, demand, capacity and queue or idle-time observations are available with stated uncertainty to compare competing explanations." }, { "condition_id": "E-ACCOUNTING", "kind": "applicability", "statement": "Material opening and closing inventory changes, yield losses and rework are accounted for or bounded sufficiently to compare capacity and output over the same horizon." } ], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Internal definition compatibility review only; editorial acceptance, case facts and empirical validation remain separate." }, "evidence_refs": [], "method": { "representation": "A supplied process-flow model with mandatory routes, comparable stage capacities, demand, throughput, queues and starved/blocked intervals; annotate uncertainty and the candidate limiting stage.", "steps": [ "Fix the flow boundary, product mix, units and horizon in the supplied model. Account for or bound material opening and closing inventory changes, yield losses and rework before comparing capacity and output; missing accounting leaves the diagnosis unresolved.", "Compare effective stage capacity, demand and measured output; separate processing time from starvation, blocking, downtime and rework.", "Test the candidate against alternatives: low demand, upstream supply loss, downstream blocking, hidden shared resources and a different product mix.", "Compare predictions with observations or an authorized bounded test; missing discriminating observations leave the diagnosis unresolved.", "Record which capacity bound is supported, what would falsify it and when to recheck; constraints can move after changes." ], "limitations": [ "A queue or a high utilization percentage alone is insufficient.", "The method diagnoses a flow constraint; it does not choose an intervention, authorize a test or guarantee an improvement.", "Parallel routes, reentrant flows and shared resources require an appropriate richer model.", "Unassessed inventory drawdown, yield or rework can invalidate an apparent capacity comparison; the O1 role is not a prerequisite for this method." ] } } ], "bridge_relations": [], "bridges": [], "concept_relations": [], "source_references": [ "SRC-PILOT-MIT", "SRC-PILOT-P48-03" ], "evidence_assessments": [ { "assessment_id": "EV1", "source_ref": "SRC-PILOT-MIT", "source_location": "Printed page 59, Relating the design parameters to throughput (PDF page index 59)", "inspected_material": "original_source", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C03", "role_id": "O1", "field": "role_summary" }, "relation": "qualifies", "support_status": "source_assertion_only", "rationale": "Variability and finite buffering can make realized serial-system output lower than nominal stage capacity. The assessment addresses this role summary only; formalization and procedure remain QE synthesis.", "limitations": [ "One inspected conceptual passage is not an empirical validation or an independent replication.", "The source does not support all other roles or hypothetical cases on this Card." ] } ], "case_observations": [], "narrative_anchors": [], "interpretation_cautions": [ "Do not read the original slogan as equality between output and nameplate capacity.", "A temporary output burst can consume opening inventory and need not violate a sustained capacity bound.", "Constraint-first prioritization is a separate, broader intervention proposal; no Decision role is manufactured for symmetry." ], "notes": "Pilot authoring under a reserved QE48 identity. Definitions, procedures and examples are QE synthesis, with explicitly limited source assessments. No accepted identity merge or role reuse is inferred." }, { "card_id": "QE48-C30", "title": "Map Is Not the Territory", "card_kind": "principle", "canonical_principle": "Representations are selective and purpose-relative: their usefulness for one inference does not establish adequacy for every property of the represented situation.", "primary_role_ref": "E1", "status": "Provisional", "version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "evidence_status": "source_reviewed", "shared_scope": { "conditions": [ { "condition_id": "S1", "kind": "applicability", "statement": "An inference about a situation is being drawn from a representation of that situation." } ], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Bounded authoring review; does not establish editorial acceptance or actual applicability." }, "stack_roles": [ { "role_id": "E1", "stack": "Epistemic", "role_type": "boundary", "principle_type": "Boundary", "classification": { "status": "partial", "family_ref": "QEF-E-MOD", "taxonomy_version": "qe-ontology-0.1.4", "reason": "This descriptive limit concerns how representations support knowing; it does not claim a particular model-evaluation procedure or a corrective target." }, "role_summary": "A representation supports inferences only within the aspects and conditions it adequately represents for the intended purpose; omissions or mismatches can defeat a particular inference without making every simplification useless.", "compressed_role_insight": "A useful representation is selective; test the inference against what it leaves out.", "mechanism_or_logic": "Different underlying states can have the same representation when relevant features are omitted. An inference that needs those features is not licensed by the representation alone. A simplified model may still preserve the relationships needed for a narrower task.", "scope": { "shared_condition_refs": [ "S1" ], "additional_conditions": [ { "condition_id": "E-PURPOSE", "kind": "applicability", "statement": "The proposed inference, intended use and relevant represented or omitted aspects can be specified." } ], "review": "reviewed", "review_note": "Internal definition compatibility review only; editorial acceptance, case facts and empirical validation remain separate." }, "evidence_refs": [ "EV1" ] } ], "bridge_relations": [], "bridges": [], "concept_relations": [], "source_references": [ "SRC-PILOT-BOX", "SRC-PILOT-P48-30" ], "evidence_assessments": [ { "assessment_id": "EV1", "source_ref": "SRC-PILOT-BOX", "source_location": "Printed page 792, sections 2.3–2.5 (PDF page index 1); DOI 10.1080/01621459.1976.10480949", "inspected_material": "original_source", "target_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C30", "role_id": "E1", "field": "role_summary" }, "relation": "supports", "support_status": "source_assertion_only", "rationale": "Scientific model simplification is compatible with usefulness; consequential inadequacies deserve attention. The assessment addresses this role summary only; formalization and procedure remain QE synthesis.", "limitations": [ "One inspected conceptual passage is not an empirical validation or an independent replication.", "The source does not support all other roles or hypothetical cases on this Card." ] } ], "case_observations": [], "narrative_anchors": [], "interpretation_cautions": [ "This is a boundary principle, not a complete model-building method.", "The title is retained from the supplied intake; no inspected Korzybski passage or historical quotation is claimed.", "Box’s discussion of scientific models provides related source context, not proof of identity with every map-territory formulation." ], "notes": "Pilot authoring under a reserved QE48 identity. Definitions, procedures and examples are QE synthesis, with explicitly limited source assessments. No accepted identity merge or role reuse is inferred." } ], "source_expressions": [ { "expression_id": "RAW-MK-P03", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-P03", "wording_kind": "supplied_expression", "text": "#: 3\nPrinciple: The invisible sign: “Make me feel important”\nCore meaning: Every person wants significance and dignity.\nHow it shows up in the transcript: Recognition and respect became central to her culture and leadership style.", "location": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section MK-P line 11", "claim_status": "supplied_row_not_independently_verified" }, { "expression_id": "RAW-MK-P04", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-P04", "wording_kind": "supplied_expression", "text": "#: 4\nPrinciple: Praise people to success\nCore meaning: Recognition drives performance better than criticism alone.\nHow it shows up in the transcript: Public praise, pins, rings, prizes, and pink Cadillacs were used to reinforce achievement.", "location": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section MK-P line 12", "claim_status": "supplied_row_not_independently_verified" }, { "expression_id": "RAW-MK-P07", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-P07", "wording_kind": "supplied_expression", "text": "#: 7\nPrinciple: Be a follow-through person\nCore meaning: Reliability and doing what you say matter enormously.\nHow it shows up in the transcript: She emphasized returning calls, answering letters, follow-up lists, and customer follow-through.", "location": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section MK-P line 15", "claim_status": "supplied_row_not_independently_verified" }, { "expression_id": "RAW-MK-P20", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-P20", "wording_kind": "supplied_expression", "text": "#: 20\nPrinciple: Be a problem solver\nCore meaning: Distinguish real problems from imaginary ones and act.\nHow it shows up in the transcript: She repeatedly identified broken incentives and redesigned the system around them.", "location": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section MK-P line 28", "claim_status": "supplied_row_not_independently_verified" }, { "expression_id": "RAW-MK-I03", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I03", "wording_kind": "supplied_expression", "text": "Idea: Design incentives carefully\nMeaning: Systems produce behavior; wrong incentives destroy performance.\nEvidence from transcript: She inverted broken incentive structures from prior employers.", "location": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section MK-I line 39", "claim_status": "supplied_row_not_independently_verified" }, { "expression_id": "RAW-MK-I04", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I04", "wording_kind": "supplied_expression", "text": "Idea: Treat customers as relationships, not transactions\nMeaning: Long-term trust matters more than one-off selling.\nEvidence from transcript: Her regular follow-up calls and service mindset drove repeat business.", "location": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section MK-I line 40", "claim_status": "supplied_row_not_independently_verified" }, { "expression_id": "RAW-MK-I06", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I06", "wording_kind": "supplied_expression", "text": "Idea: Recognition should be meaningful and visible\nMeaning: Status-linked rewards can motivate more than cash alone.\nEvidence from transcript: Rings, prizes, conventions, and pink Cadillacs were intentionally symbolic.", "location": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section MK-I line 42", "claim_status": "supplied_row_not_independently_verified" }, { "expression_id": "RAW-MK-I07", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I07", "wording_kind": "supplied_expression", "text": "Idea: Meritocracy beats politics\nMeaning: Advancement should come from clear performance, not status or connections.\nEvidence from transcript: Promotions and advancement were based on sales results, not gender or background.", "location": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section MK-I line 43", "claim_status": "supplied_row_not_independently_verified" }, { "expression_id": "RAW-MK-I09", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I09", "wording_kind": "supplied_expression", "text": "Idea: Cooperation beats zero-sum competition\nMeaning: Let multiple people win so peers help one another.\nEvidence from transcript: Her competitions allowed all who hit targets to win, not just one person.", "location": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section MK-I line 45", "claim_status": "supplied_row_not_independently_verified" }, { "expression_id": "RAW-MK-I11", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I11", "wording_kind": "supplied_expression", "text": "Idea: Sell complete solutions, not fragmented pieces\nMeaning: Partial use can reduce customer results and damage trust.\nEvidence from transcript: She stopped breaking up the skincare set because it hurt outcomes and referrals.", "location": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section MK-I line 47", "claim_status": "supplied_row_not_independently_verified" }, { "expression_id": "RAW-MK-I13", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I13", "wording_kind": "supplied_expression", "text": "Idea: Culture is what you systematically reward\nMeaning: Values only matter if embedded in systems and incentives.\nEvidence from transcript: The company’s policies, ceremonies, and compensation structure reinforced desired behaviors.", "location": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section MK-I line 49", "claim_status": "supplied_row_not_independently_verified" }, { "expression_id": "RAW-HD-P06", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P06", "wording_kind": "supplied_expression", "text": "#: 6\nPrinciple: Businesses are built on relationships and trust\nCore meaning: Long-term success comes from openness, credibility, and real relationships.\nHow it shows up in the transcript: Bernie tells banker Rip Fleming everything transparently; Rip later risks his own career to get them financed because he trusts the people, not just the numbers.\nVideo time: 12:34–13:26, 28:44–30:21", "location": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section HD-P line 60", "claim_status": "supplied_row_not_independently_verified" }, { "expression_id": "RAW-HD-P07", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P07", "wording_kind": "supplied_expression", "text": "#: 7\nPrinciple: Serve the customer or the business dies\nCore meaning: The moment a company starts serving itself instead of the customer, decline begins.\nHow it shows up in the transcript: Bernie’s lesson from Two Guys: when leaders focus on careers over customers, customers vanish and the company collapses.\nVideo time: 07:44–08:08, 55:03–55:20", "location": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section HD-P line 61", "claim_status": "supplied_row_not_independently_verified" }, { "expression_id": "RAW-HD-P08", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P08", "wording_kind": "supplied_expression", "text": "#: 8\nPrinciple: Customer service is a philosophy, not a department\nCore meaning: Everyone should do whatever it takes to solve the customer’s problem.\nHow it shows up in the transcript: Bernie chases customers into the parking lot, buys missing products from competitors, and personally delivers them; associates do similarly extraordinary things.\nVideo time: 35:30–38:24, 53:07–53:23", "location": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section HD-P line 62", "claim_status": "supplied_row_not_independently_verified" }, { "expression_id": "RAW-HD-P09", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P09", "wording_kind": "supplied_expression", "text": "#: 9\nPrinciple: Every customer is “on loan”\nCore meaning: You never permanently own customer loyalty; you must re-earn it every day.\nHow it shows up in the transcript: Bernie says customers choose you today and can choose someone else tomorrow, so trust must be earned in every interaction.\nVideo time: 52:59–53:23", "location": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section HD-P line 63", "claim_status": "supplied_row_not_independently_verified" }, { "expression_id": "RAW-HD-P10", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P10", "wording_kind": "supplied_expression", "text": "#: 10\nPrinciple: Give customers what they value, not retail theater\nCore meaning: Cut costs on appearances that customers do not care about; invest in price, assortment, and knowledgeable help.\nHow it shows up in the transcript: The warehouse look is deliberate: scuffed floors, visible action, no over-facing, no decorative polish; customer “bill of rights” centers on assortment, price, availability, and trained associates.\nVideo time: 33:13–35:23, 37:54–38:43", "location": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section HD-P line 64", "claim_status": "supplied_row_not_independently_verified" }, { "expression_id": "RAW-HD-P11", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P11", "wording_kind": "supplied_expression", "text": "#: 11\nPrinciple: Low prices should be structural, not promotional theater\nCore meaning: Stable, trusted value beats short-lived sales spikes.\nHow it shows up in the transcript: Home Depot abandons promotion-driven spikes for everyday low pricing after learning from Sam Walton and Saul Price.\nVideo time: 42:22–45:18", "location": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section HD-P line 65", "claim_status": "supplied_row_not_independently_verified" }, { "expression_id": "RAW-HD-P13", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P13", "wording_kind": "supplied_expression", "text": "#: 13\nPrinciple: Treat associates as the company\nCore meaning: Employees are not overhead; they are the core asset and the brand.\nHow it shows up in the transcript: Stock options make thousands of regular employees wealthy; Olympic rewards go heavily to hourly associates; the message is that orange aprons are the company.\nVideo time: 01:23–01:39, 46:34–47:49, 52:35–52:42", "location": "data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section HD-P line 67", "claim_status": "supplied_row_not_independently_verified" }, { "expression_id": "X-MK-P03-C2", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-P03", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "Make recognition and respectful acknowledgment an explicit part of leadership practice.", "location": "QE contribution MK-P03/C2 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:34; selected columns: How it shows up in the transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "claim_status": "qe_synthesis_not_independently_verified", "derived_from_expression_ref": "RAW-MK-P03" }, { "expression_id": "X-MK-P04-C1", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-P04", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "Recognition can influence performance; the supplied meaning claims an advantage over criticism alone.", "location": "QE contribution MK-P04/C1 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:42; selected columns: Core meaning. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "claim_status": "source_paraphrase_not_independently_verified", "derived_from_expression_ref": "RAW-MK-P04" }, { "expression_id": "X-MK-P04-C2", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-P04", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "Use public praise and visible achievement rewards to recognize contribution.", "location": "QE contribution MK-P04/C2 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:43; selected columns: Principle, How it shows up in the transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "claim_status": "source_paraphrase_not_independently_verified", "derived_from_expression_ref": "RAW-MK-P04" }, { "expression_id": "X-MK-P07-C1", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-P07", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "Complete the commitments you make to other people.", "location": "QE contribution MK-P07/C1 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:69; selected columns: Principle, Core meaning. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "claim_status": "source_paraphrase_not_independently_verified", "derived_from_expression_ref": "RAW-MK-P07" }, { "expression_id": "X-MK-P07-C2", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-P07", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "Return calls, answer letters and track customer follow-up.", "location": "QE contribution MK-P07/C2 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:70; selected columns: How it shows up in the transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "claim_status": "source_paraphrase_not_independently_verified", "derived_from_expression_ref": "RAW-MK-P07" }, { "expression_id": "X-MK-P20-C2", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-P20", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "Redesign incentives when the behaviors they encourage undermine the intended outcome.", "location": "QE contribution MK-P20/C2 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:188; selected columns: How it shows up in the transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "claim_status": "qe_synthesis_not_independently_verified", "derived_from_expression_ref": "RAW-MK-P20" }, { "expression_id": "X-MK-I03-C1", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I03", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "Design incentives with attention to the conduct they encourage.", "location": "QE contribution MK-I03/C1 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:242; selected columns: Idea. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "claim_status": "source_paraphrase_not_independently_verified", "derived_from_expression_ref": "RAW-MK-I03" }, { "expression_id": "X-MK-I03-C2", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I03", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "Consequential incentives can redirect behavior and undermine intended performance.", "location": "QE contribution MK-I03/C2 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:243; selected columns: Meaning. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "claim_status": "source_paraphrase_not_independently_verified", "derived_from_expression_ref": "RAW-MK-I03" }, { "expression_id": "X-MK-I03-C3", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I03", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "The supplied account describes reversing incentive arrangements experienced at prior employers.", "location": "QE contribution MK-I03/C3 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:244; selected columns: Evidence from transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "claim_status": "source_paraphrase_not_independently_verified", "derived_from_expression_ref": "RAW-MK-I03" }, { "expression_id": "X-MK-I04-C1", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I04", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "Develop continuing customer trust rather than optimize only for a single transaction.", "location": "QE contribution MK-I04/C1 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:252; selected columns: Idea, Meaning. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "claim_status": "source_paraphrase_not_independently_verified", "derived_from_expression_ref": "RAW-MK-I04" }, { "expression_id": "X-MK-I04-C2", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I04", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "Make regular customer follow-up calls as part of continuing service.", "location": "QE contribution MK-I04/C2 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:253; selected columns: Evidence from transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "claim_status": "source_paraphrase_not_independently_verified", "derived_from_expression_ref": "RAW-MK-I04" }, { "expression_id": "X-MK-I06-C1", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I06", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "Choose meaningful and visible recognition, including symbols that recipients understand.", "location": "QE contribution MK-I06/C1 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:270; selected columns: Idea, Evidence from transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "claim_status": "source_paraphrase_not_independently_verified", "derived_from_expression_ref": "RAW-MK-I06" }, { "expression_id": "X-MK-I06-C2", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I06", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "Status-linked rewards can affect motivation differently from cash alone.", "location": "QE contribution MK-I06/C2 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:271; selected columns: Meaning. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "claim_status": "source_paraphrase_not_independently_verified", "derived_from_expression_ref": "RAW-MK-I06" }, { "expression_id": "X-MK-I07-C1", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I07", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "Base advancement on relevant performance rather than connections or inherited status.", "location": "QE contribution MK-I07/C1 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:279; selected columns: Idea, Meaning. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "claim_status": "source_paraphrase_not_independently_verified", "derived_from_expression_ref": "RAW-MK-I07" }, { "expression_id": "X-MK-I07-C2", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I07", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "Use sales results as an advancement criterion rather than gender or background.", "location": "QE contribution MK-I07/C2 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:280; selected columns: Evidence from transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "claim_status": "source_paraphrase_not_independently_verified", "derived_from_expression_ref": "RAW-MK-I07" }, { "expression_id": "X-MK-I09-C1", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I09", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "Allowing multiple winners can reduce competitive barriers to peer cooperation.", "location": "QE contribution MK-I09/C1 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:297; selected columns: Idea, Meaning. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "claim_status": "source_paraphrase_not_independently_verified", "derived_from_expression_ref": "RAW-MK-I09" }, { "expression_id": "X-MK-I09-C2", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I09", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "Allow every participant who reaches the target to qualify for the award.", "location": "QE contribution MK-I09/C2 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:298; selected columns: Evidence from transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "claim_status": "source_paraphrase_not_independently_verified", "derived_from_expression_ref": "RAW-MK-I09" }, { "expression_id": "X-MK-I11-C1", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I11", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "Choose complete offerings when fragmented use would undermine the customer's intended result.", "location": "QE contribution MK-I11/C1 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:315; selected columns: Idea, Meaning. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "claim_status": "source_paraphrase_not_independently_verified", "derived_from_expression_ref": "RAW-MK-I11" }, { "expression_id": "X-MK-I11-C3", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I11", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "In the described skincare offering, stop breaking up the set when outcomes and referrals suffer.", "location": "QE contribution MK-I11/C3 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:317; selected columns: Evidence from transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "claim_status": "source_paraphrase_not_independently_verified", "derived_from_expression_ref": "RAW-MK-I11" }, { "expression_id": "X-MK-I13-C1", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-MK-I13", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "Align the behavior rewarded by a system with its declared values.", "location": "QE contribution MK-I13/C1 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:334; selected columns: Idea, Meaning. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "claim_status": "qe_synthesis_not_independently_verified", "derived_from_expression_ref": "RAW-MK-I13" }, { "expression_id": "X-HD-P06-C1", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P06", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "Credible relationships and trust can support business cooperation.", "location": "QE contribution HD-P06/C1 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:388; selected columns: Principle, Core meaning. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "claim_status": "source_paraphrase_not_independently_verified", "derived_from_expression_ref": "RAW-HD-P06" }, { "expression_id": "X-HD-P06-C2", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P06", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "Communicate candidly with a financing counterparty to support trustworthy cooperation.", "location": "QE contribution HD-P06/C2 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:389; selected columns: How it shows up in the transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "claim_status": "qe_synthesis_not_independently_verified", "derived_from_expression_ref": "RAW-HD-P06" }, { "expression_id": "X-HD-P06-C3", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P06", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "Rip Fleming is reported to have taken personal career risk to help obtain financing because he trusted the founders.", "location": "QE contribution HD-P06/C3 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:390; selected columns: How it shows up in the transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "claim_status": "source_paraphrase_not_independently_verified", "derived_from_expression_ref": "RAW-HD-P06" }, { "expression_id": "X-HD-P07-C1", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P07", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "Evaluate company activity by whether it continues to serve customer needs rather than only internal ambitions.", "location": "QE contribution HD-P07/C1 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:398; selected columns: Principle, Core meaning. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "claim_status": "qe_synthesis_not_independently_verified", "derived_from_expression_ref": "RAW-HD-P07" }, { "expression_id": "X-HD-P07-C2", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P07", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "Internal career priorities can displace customer attention and lead customers to leave.", "location": "QE contribution HD-P07/C2 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:399; selected columns: How it shows up in the transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "claim_status": "source_paraphrase_not_independently_verified", "derived_from_expression_ref": "RAW-HD-P07" }, { "expression_id": "X-HD-P08-C1", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P08", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "Orient work across the company toward resolving the customer's problem.", "location": "QE contribution HD-P08/C1 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:407; selected columns: Principle, Core meaning. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "claim_status": "source_paraphrase_not_independently_verified", "derived_from_expression_ref": "RAW-HD-P08" }, { "expression_id": "X-HD-P08-C2", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P08", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "When a needed product is missing, the described practice obtains it elsewhere and delivers it to the customer.", "location": "QE contribution HD-P08/C2 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:408; selected columns: How it shows up in the transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "claim_status": "source_paraphrase_not_independently_verified", "derived_from_expression_ref": "RAW-HD-P08" }, { "expression_id": "X-HD-P09-C1", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P09", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "Re-earn customer loyalty through continuing reliable interactions.", "location": "QE contribution HD-P09/C1 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:416; selected columns: Principle, Core meaning. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "claim_status": "source_paraphrase_not_independently_verified", "derived_from_expression_ref": "RAW-HD-P09" }, { "expression_id": "X-HD-P09-C2", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P09", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "Customers can choose another provider after choosing this one today.", "location": "QE contribution HD-P09/C2 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:417; selected columns: How it shows up in the transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "claim_status": "source_paraphrase_not_independently_verified", "derived_from_expression_ref": "RAW-HD-P09" }, { "expression_id": "X-HD-P10-C1", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P10", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "Allocate offering costs to attributes customers value rather than appearances they do not value.", "location": "QE contribution HD-P10/C1 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:425; selected columns: Principle, Core meaning. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "claim_status": "source_paraphrase_not_independently_verified", "derived_from_expression_ref": "RAW-HD-P10" }, { "expression_id": "X-HD-P10-C2", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P10", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "Use a basic warehouse presentation while emphasizing assortment, price, availability and knowledgeable help.", "location": "QE contribution HD-P10/C2 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:426; selected columns: How it shows up in the transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "claim_status": "source_paraphrase_not_independently_verified", "derived_from_expression_ref": "RAW-HD-P10" }, { "expression_id": "X-HD-P11-C1", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P11", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "Prefer stable, trusted customer value over short-lived promotional sales spikes.", "location": "QE contribution HD-P11/C1 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:434; selected columns: Principle, Core meaning. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "claim_status": "source_paraphrase_not_independently_verified", "derived_from_expression_ref": "RAW-HD-P11" }, { "expression_id": "X-HD-P11-C2", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P11", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "Replace promotion-driven spikes with everyday low pricing in the described retail model.", "location": "QE contribution HD-P11/C2 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:435; selected columns: How it shows up in the transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "claim_status": "source_paraphrase_not_independently_verified", "derived_from_expression_ref": "RAW-HD-P11" }, { "expression_id": "X-HD-P13-C3", "source_ref": "SRC-ROW-HD-P13", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "Include hourly associates when choosing whom to recognize and reward publicly.", "location": "QE contribution HD-P13/C3 at data/interpretation/supplied-contributions.md:454; selected columns: How it shows up in the transcript. Reported media locations remain at source-row level.", "claim_status": "qe_synthesis_not_independently_verified", "derived_from_expression_ref": "RAW-HD-P13" }, { "expression_id": "X-PILOT-OPENSTAX", "source_ref": "SRC-PILOT-OPENSTAX", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "A choice sacrifices its next best alternative; marginal analysis compares the changes in benefits and costs.", "location": "Section 2.1, The Concept of Opportunity Cost and Marginal Decision-Making and Diminishing Marginal Utility", "claim_status": "QE paraphrase of inspected published passage; not a direct quotation or whole-Card endorsement." }, { "expression_id": "X-PILOT-MIT", "source_ref": "SRC-PILOT-MIT", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "Variability and finite buffering can make realized serial-system output lower than nominal stage capacity.", "location": "Printed page 59, Relating the design parameters to throughput (PDF page index 59)", "claim_status": "QE paraphrase of inspected published passage; not a direct quotation or whole-Card endorsement." }, { "expression_id": "X-PILOT-BOX", "source_ref": "SRC-PILOT-BOX", "wording_kind": "qe_paraphrase", "text": "Scientific model simplification is compatible with usefulness; consequential inadequacies deserve attention.", "location": "Printed page 792, sections 2.3–2.5 (PDF page index 1); DOI 10.1080/01621459.1976.10480949", "claim_status": "QE paraphrase of inspected published passage; not a direct quotation or whole-Card endorsement." }, { "expression_id": "X-PILOT-P48-01", "source_ref": "SRC-PILOT-P48-01", "wording_kind": "supplied_expression", "text": "Opportunity cost", "location": "P48-01", "claim_status": "Supplied title, not verified historical source wording." }, { "expression_id": "X-PILOT-P48-12", "source_ref": "SRC-PILOT-P48-12", "wording_kind": "supplied_expression", "text": "High-leverage first", "location": "P48-12", "claim_status": "Supplied title, not verified historical source wording." }, { "expression_id": "X-PILOT-P48-03", "source_ref": "SRC-PILOT-P48-03", "wording_kind": "supplied_expression", "text": "Bottleneck determines throughput", "location": "P48-03", "claim_status": "Supplied title, not verified historical source wording." }, { "expression_id": "X-PILOT-P48-30", "source_ref": "SRC-PILOT-P48-30", "wording_kind": "supplied_expression", "text": "Map is not territory", "location": "P48-30", "claim_status": "Supplied title, not verified historical source wording." } ], "normalization_mappings": [ { "mapping_id": "MAP-MK-P03-C2", "expression_ref": "X-MK-P03-C2", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN" }, "mapping_type": "shared_claim_extraction", "rationale": "Extract a bounded shared criterion or claim, not equivalence of complete passages. Use only the explicit acknowledgment-design component. General respectful treatment remains broader and is not declared equivalent.", "qualifications_added": [ "Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.", "No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring." ], "limitations": [ "Respect is a related treatment standard, not exhausted by recognition; no universal performance effect is inferred.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-MK-P04-C1", "expression_ref": "X-MK-P04-C1", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN" }, "mapping_type": "scoped_interpretation", "rationale": "Map this separate explanatory contribution to the card containing that reasoning role, not to an equivalent recommendation. Retain the acknowledgment-response claim as a distinct explanation. The claimed advantage over criticism remains visible and unverified, not a D1 rule.", "qualifications_added": [ "Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.", "No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring." ], "limitations": [ "Comparative superiority over criticism is a source assertion, not an established effect.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-MK-P04-C2", "expression_ref": "X-MK-P04-C2", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN" }, "mapping_type": "scoped_interpretation", "rationale": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Preserve public praise and symbolic rewards as contextual ways of recognizing achievement, not separate cards or required reward forms.", "qualifications_added": [ "Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.", "No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring." ], "limitations": [ "Pins, rings, prizes and cars are examples, not separate families or a universal reward prescription.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-MK-P07-C1", "expression_ref": "X-MK-P07-C1", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-FOLLOW-THROUGH" }, "mapping_type": "shared_claim_extraction", "rationale": "Extract a bounded shared criterion or claim, not equivalence of complete passages. Use the commitment-completion rule as the seed. Explicit renegotiation and a completion test are QE authoring additions, not source paraphrases.", "qualifications_added": [ "Apply the procedure only to an acknowledged commitment with a clarifiable completion test.", "Explicit agreement to revision, recording acceptance separately from silence and conflict handling are QE-added requirements." ], "limitations": [ "Unfulfillable commitments may require explicit renegotiation; this is not a rule of unlimited persistence.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-MK-P07-C2", "expression_ref": "X-MK-P07-C2", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-FOLLOW-THROUGH" }, "mapping_type": "scoped_interpretation", "rationale": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Returning calls and closing follow-up obligations instantiate the completion rule when a commitment exists; do not mint sibling identities for each action.", "qualifications_added": [ "Apply the procedure only to an acknowledged commitment with a clarifiable completion test.", "Explicit agreement to revision, recording acceptance separately from silence and conflict handling are QE-added requirements." ], "limitations": [ "The account does not specify service deadlines or a complete follow-up system.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-MK-P20-C2", "expression_ref": "X-MK-P20-C2", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES" }, "mapping_type": "shared_claim_extraction", "rationale": "Extract a bounded shared criterion or claim, not equivalence of complete passages. Use the choice to revise consequences that undermine an intended outcome. Preserve the source's underspecified reward mechanics and QE conditional wording.", "qualifications_added": [ "Restrict the reused adaptation explanation to actors able to influence consequential targets; broader system claims are not equated with it.", "Specify the intended contribution, reward eligibility, authority, fairness and feasible outcome review; no particular reward policy is universally superior." ], "limitations": [ "The conditional intervention is inferred from the example; the actual reward rules are unspecified.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-MK-I03-C1", "expression_ref": "X-MK-I03-C1", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES" }, "mapping_type": "shared_claim_extraction", "rationale": "Extract a bounded shared criterion or claim, not equivalence of complete passages. Use the intended-conduct criterion shared with the reward-design card; it is a recommendation, not proof of its effectiveness.", "qualifications_added": [ "Restrict the reused adaptation explanation to actors able to influence consequential targets; broader system claims are not equated with it.", "Specify the intended contribution, reward eligibility, authority, fairness and feasible outcome review; no particular reward policy is universally superior." ], "limitations": [ "The title supplies no specific reward formula or implementation.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-MK-I03-C2", "expression_ref": "X-MK-I03-C2", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES" }, "mapping_type": "scoped_interpretation", "rationale": "Map this separate explanatory contribution to the card containing that reasoning role, not to an equivalent recommendation. Retain the consequence-sensitive behavior explanation as a distinct contribution; use the existing target-adaptation provider only for its scoped subset, not all system effects.", "qualifications_added": [ "Restrict the reused adaptation explanation to actors able to influence consequential targets; broader system claims are not equated with it.", "Specify the intended contribution, reward eligibility, authority, fairness and feasible outcome review; no particular reward policy is universally superior." ], "limitations": [ "Incentives do not explain every motive; destruction is not treated as inevitable.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-MK-I04-C1", "expression_ref": "X-MK-I04-C1", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST" }, "mapping_type": "shared_claim_extraction", "rationale": "Extract a bounded shared criterion or claim, not equivalence of complete passages. Map only the continuing trustworthy-cooperation criterion. Preference for repeated transactions remains contextual, not a universal superiority claim.", "qualifications_added": [ "Relevant competence, incentives, safeguards and feasible cooperation remain necessary considerations; trust is not a guarantee.", "The credibility-assessment method and arrangement-review procedure are QE authoring, not attributed to these rows." ], "limitations": [ "Repeat relationships are not always the right commercial objective.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-MK-I04-C2", "expression_ref": "X-MK-I04-C2", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST" }, "mapping_type": "scoped_interpretation", "rationale": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Use voluntary customer follow-up as a relationship practice. Do not equate it with Follow-Through's acknowledged obligation without additional context.", "qualifications_added": [ "Relevant competence, incentives, safeguards and feasible cooperation remain necessary considerations; trust is not a guarantee.", "The credibility-assessment method and arrangement-review procedure are QE authoring, not attributed to these rows." ], "limitations": [ "The claimed repeat-business effect is not independently established; no frequency is prescribed.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-MK-I06-C1", "expression_ref": "X-MK-I06-C1", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN" }, "mapping_type": "shared_claim_extraction", "rationale": "Extract a bounded shared criterion or claim, not equivalence of complete passages. Use the choice of meaningful acknowledgment as a shared subset with MK-P03/C2; visibility is recipient/context dependent rather than mandatory public praise.", "qualifications_added": [ "Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.", "No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring." ], "limitations": [ "Rings, cars and ceremonies are illustrative choices, not necessary components.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-MK-I06-C2", "expression_ref": "X-MK-I06-C2", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN" }, "mapping_type": "scoped_interpretation", "rationale": "Map this separate explanatory contribution to the card containing that reasoning role, not to an equivalent recommendation. Keep the motivation claim distinct from D1; differing response to status and cash is not established superiority of symbolic rewards.", "qualifications_added": [ "Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.", "No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring." ], "limitations": [ "The claimed advantage over cash is not established for every person or context.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-MK-I07-C1", "expression_ref": "X-MK-I07-C1", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES" }, "mapping_type": "scoped_interpretation", "rationale": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Retain performance-linked advancement as one reward-design policy. Its fairness and anti-political objective are not equivalent to all outcome-aligned rewards.", "qualifications_added": [ "Restrict the reused adaptation explanation to actors able to influence consequential targets; broader system claims are not equated with it.", "Specify the intended contribution, reward eligibility, authority, fairness and feasible outcome review; no particular reward policy is universally superior." ], "limitations": [ "Clear performance criteria may still be incomplete or biased.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-MK-I07-C2", "expression_ref": "X-MK-I07-C2", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES" }, "mapping_type": "scoped_interpretation", "rationale": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Preserve sales-based advancement as a contextual implementation; do not equate the sales metric with merit or verified fair treatment.", "qualifications_added": [ "Restrict the reused adaptation explanation to actors able to influence consequential targets; broader system claims are not equated with it.", "Specify the intended contribution, reward eligibility, authority, fairness and feasible outcome review; no particular reward policy is universally superior." ], "limitations": [ "Sales are not a complete measure of merit; fairness and the claimed historical practice remain unverified.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-MK-I09-C1", "expression_ref": "X-MK-I09-C1", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES" }, "mapping_type": "scoped_interpretation", "rationale": "Map this separate explanatory contribution to the card containing that reasoning role, not to an equivalent recommendation. Preserve the cooperation-response hypothesis separately from the award rule. Nonexclusive eligibility need not cause cooperation in every setting.", "qualifications_added": [ "Restrict the reused adaptation explanation to actors able to influence consequential targets; broader system claims are not equated with it.", "Specify the intended contribution, reward eligibility, authority, fairness and feasible outcome review; no particular reward policy is universally superior." ], "limitations": [ "Cooperation is a proposed response, not guaranteed by nonexclusive awards.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-MK-I09-C2", "expression_ref": "X-MK-I09-C2", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES" }, "mapping_type": "scoped_interpretation", "rationale": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Keep multiple-winner threshold eligibility as one practice, not identical to merit advancement or proof of aligned outcomes.", "qualifications_added": [ "Restrict the reused adaptation explanation to actors able to influence consequential targets; broader system claims are not equated with it.", "Specify the intended contribution, reward eligibility, authority, fairness and feasible outcome review; no particular reward policy is universally superior." ], "limitations": [ "Target quality and possible gaming still need review; this is not equal rewards regardless of contribution.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-MK-I11-C1", "expression_ref": "X-MK-I11-C1", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE" }, "mapping_type": "scoped_interpretation", "rationale": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Retain the conditional complete-solution policy as an application of customer-result comparison; do not merge all bundling advice into the central statement.", "qualifications_added": [ "Apply the criterion to a named customer task, feasible alternatives, authority, safety and delivery constraints.", "Customer dependence is not a sufficient condition for business survival; price, presentation and bundling remain conditional choices." ], "limitations": [ "This does not justify bundling products that customers do not need.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-MK-I11-C3", "expression_ref": "X-MK-I11-C3", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE" }, "mapping_type": "scoped_interpretation", "rationale": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Preserve skincare-set configuration as a conditional practice; the reported referral effect is not validated or generalized to all products.", "qualifications_added": [ "Apply the criterion to a named customer task, feasible alternatives, authority, safety and delivery constraints.", "Customer dependence is not a sufficient condition for business survival; price, presentation and bundling remain conditional choices." ], "limitations": [ "The reported outcome/referral link does not prove all partial purchases are ineffective.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-MK-I13-C1", "expression_ref": "X-MK-I13-C1", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES" }, "mapping_type": "shared_claim_extraction", "rationale": "Extract a bounded shared criterion or claim, not equivalence of complete passages. Use the bounded reward/value alignment recommendation; preserve its QE synthesis label and do not assert that all culture reduces to incentives.", "qualifications_added": [ "Restrict the reused adaptation explanation to actors able to influence consequential targets; broader system claims are not equated with it.", "Specify the intended contribution, reward eligibility, authority, fairness and feasible outcome review; no particular reward policy is universally superior." ], "limitations": [ "The normative alignment instruction is QE synthesis; values can matter through channels other than incentives.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-HD-P06-C1", "expression_ref": "X-HD-P06-C1", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST" }, "mapping_type": "shared_claim_extraction", "rationale": "Extract a bounded shared criterion or claim, not equivalence of complete passages. Use the scoped trust-to-cooperation claim; preserve limits on the broader business-success claim and dependency on the prior fixture retelling.", "qualifications_added": [ "Relevant competence, incentives, safeguards and feasible cooperation remain necessary considerations; trust is not a guarantee.", "The credibility-assessment method and arrangement-review procedure are QE authoring, not attributed to these rows." ], "limitations": [ "The broad success claim is narrowed; trust is not the only cause of business outcomes.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-HD-P06-C2", "expression_ref": "X-HD-P06-C2", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST" }, "mapping_type": "scoped_interpretation", "rationale": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Keep candor with a lender as one relationship-design practice, not a sufficient condition for credit approval or a duplicate trust mechanism.", "qualifications_added": [ "Relevant competence, incentives, safeguards and feasible cooperation remain necessary considerations; trust is not a guarantee.", "The credibility-assessment method and arrangement-review procedure are QE authoring, not attributed to these rows." ], "limitations": [ "This generalization comes from the account; candor neither guarantees credit nor replaces controls.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-HD-P07-C1", "expression_ref": "X-HD-P07-C1", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE" }, "mapping_type": "shared_claim_extraction", "rationale": "Extract a bounded shared criterion or claim, not equivalence of complete passages. Use the customer-needs criterion shared with HD-P08/C1 and HD-P10/C1; retain survival qualifications rather than reproduce the slogan as a law.", "qualifications_added": [ "Apply the criterion to a named customer task, feasible alternatives, authority, safety and delivery constraints.", "Customer dependence is not a sufficient condition for business survival; price, presentation and bundling remain conditional choices." ], "limitations": [ "The instruction is QE synthesis of the decline claim; customer service alone does not assure survival.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-HD-P07-C2", "expression_ref": "X-HD-P07-C2", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE" }, "mapping_type": "scoped_interpretation", "rationale": "Map this separate explanatory contribution to the card containing that reasoning role, not to an equivalent recommendation. Retain the customer-response mechanism separately from the decision rule; the Two Guys collapse account does not establish a sufficient causal explanation.", "qualifications_added": [ "Apply the criterion to a named customer task, feasible alternatives, authority, safety and delivery constraints.", "Customer dependence is not a sufficient condition for business survival; price, presentation and bundling remain conditional choices." ], "limitations": [ "The Two Guys causal attribution and collapse sequence are reported, not a verified sufficient explanation.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-HD-P08-C1", "expression_ref": "X-HD-P08-C1", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE" }, "mapping_type": "shared_claim_extraction", "rationale": "Extract a bounded shared criterion or claim, not equivalence of complete passages. Use company-wide customer-problem resolution as the common criterion, with explicitly QE-added safety/feasibility limits on whatever it takes.", "qualifications_added": [ "Apply the criterion to a named customer task, feasible alternatives, authority, safety and delivery constraints.", "Customer dependence is not a sufficient condition for business survival; price, presentation and bundling remain conditional choices." ], "limitations": [ "Whatever it takes remains subject to safety, obligations, cost and feasibility.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-HD-P08-C2", "expression_ref": "X-HD-P08-C2", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE" }, "mapping_type": "scoped_interpretation", "rationale": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Keep external sourcing and delivery as one context-specific solution; no formal delegation authority, affordability or repeatability is inferred.", "qualifications_added": [ "Apply the criterion to a named customer task, feasible alternatives, authority, safety and delivery constraints.", "Customer dependence is not a sufficient condition for business survival; price, presentation and bundling remain conditional choices." ], "limitations": [ "The report supplies no authority limits, repeatability or economics for this practice.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-HD-P09-C1", "expression_ref": "X-HD-P09-C1", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST" }, "mapping_type": "shared_claim_extraction", "rationale": "Extract a bounded shared criterion or claim, not equivalence of complete passages. Use continuing reliable interaction as the shared relationship-design subset with MK-I04/C1; loyalty remains the customer's choice.", "qualifications_added": [ "Relevant competence, incentives, safeguards and feasible cooperation remain necessary considerations; trust is not a guarantee.", "The credibility-assessment method and arrangement-review procedure are QE authoring, not attributed to these rows." ], "limitations": [ "The source does not supply a service frequency or a guarantee of retention.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-HD-P09-C2", "expression_ref": "X-HD-P09-C2", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE" }, "mapping_type": "scoped_interpretation", "rationale": "Map this separate explanatory contribution to the card containing that reasoning role, not to an equivalent recommendation. Retain dependence on customers' continuing choices as a distinct explanation, not a claim that switching is costless or service guarantees retention.", "qualifications_added": [ "Apply the criterion to a named customer task, feasible alternatives, authority, safety and delivery constraints.", "Customer dependence is not a sufficient condition for business survival; price, presentation and bundling remain conditional choices." ], "limitations": [ "Choice can be constrained; no claim that switching is always costless is made.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-HD-P10-C1", "expression_ref": "X-HD-P10-C1", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE" }, "mapping_type": "shared_claim_extraction", "rationale": "Extract a bounded shared criterion or claim, not equivalence of complete passages. Use comparison by customer-valued results as the shared criterion; the particular ranking of price, help and appearance stays context-dependent.", "qualifications_added": [ "Apply the criterion to a named customer task, feasible alternatives, authority, safety and delivery constraints.", "Customer dependence is not a sufficient condition for business survival; price, presentation and bundling remain conditional choices." ], "limitations": [ "Appearances may matter in other settings; the criterion requires actual customer understanding.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-HD-P10-C2", "expression_ref": "X-HD-P10-C2", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE" }, "mapping_type": "scoped_interpretation", "rationale": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Preserve warehouse presentation and service attributes as a specific configuration, not compulsory features of all customer-oriented offerings.", "qualifications_added": [ "Apply the criterion to a named customer task, feasible alternatives, authority, safety and delivery constraints.", "Customer dependence is not a sufficient condition for business survival; price, presentation and bundling remain conditional choices." ], "limitations": [ "Scuffed floors and limited decorative polish are context, not requirements for every retailer.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-HD-P11-C1", "expression_ref": "X-HD-P11-C1", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE" }, "mapping_type": "scoped_interpretation", "rationale": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Retain stable-value pricing as a conditional policy to evaluate, not equivalence between customer value and everyday low pricing.", "qualifications_added": [ "Apply the criterion to a named customer task, feasible alternatives, authority, safety and delivery constraints.", "Customer dependence is not a sufficient condition for business survival; price, presentation and bundling remain conditional choices." ], "limitations": [ "The comparative advantage is context-dependent, not a universally established result.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-HD-P11-C2", "expression_ref": "X-HD-P11-C2", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE" }, "mapping_type": "scoped_interpretation", "rationale": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Keep everyday low pricing as a reported implementation; no structural cost advantage or unit economics are supplied.", "qualifications_added": [ "Apply the criterion to a named customer task, feasible alternatives, authority, safety and delivery constraints.", "Customer dependence is not a sufficient condition for business survival; price, presentation and bundling remain conditional choices." ], "limitations": [ "Learning from other retailers is reported; no unit economics or structural cost advantage is supplied.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-HD-P13-C3", "expression_ref": "X-HD-P13-C3", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN" }, "mapping_type": "scoped_interpretation", "rationale": "Retain this contextual practice as an illustration of the card's decision criterion, not its universal prescription. Retain inclusion of hourly associates as a recognition-recipient policy; it does not prescribe eligibility criteria or demonstrate motivation effects.", "qualifications_added": [ "Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.", "No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring." ], "limitations": [ "Recognition is inferred from the reward example; eligibility rules and effects on motivation are unknown.", "The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-PILOT-OPENSTAX", "expression_ref": "X-PILOT-OPENSTAX", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE48-C01" }, "mapping_type": "scoped_interpretation", "rationale": "The passage informs the scoped contribution; the Card adds explicit applicability and interpretation limits. Related source context is not a claim of whole-passage equivalence.", "qualifications_added": [ "The Card’s exact scope, role separation, procedures and hypothetical cases are QE authoring." ], "limitations": [ "The source does not establish the complete Card, empirical reliability of its procedure or the historical intent of the supplied title." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-PILOT-MIT", "expression_ref": "X-PILOT-MIT", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE48-C03" }, "mapping_type": "scoped_interpretation", "rationale": "The passage informs the scoped contribution; the Card adds explicit applicability and interpretation limits. Related source context is not a claim of whole-passage equivalence.", "qualifications_added": [ "The Card’s exact scope, role separation, procedures and hypothetical cases are QE authoring." ], "limitations": [ "The source does not establish the complete Card, empirical reliability of its procedure or the historical intent of the supplied title." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-PILOT-BOX", "expression_ref": "X-PILOT-BOX", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE48-C30" }, "mapping_type": "scoped_interpretation", "rationale": "The passage informs the scoped contribution; the Card adds explicit applicability and interpretation limits. Related source context is not a claim of whole-passage equivalence.", "qualifications_added": [ "The Card’s exact scope, role separation, procedures and hypothetical cases are QE authoring." ], "limitations": [ "The source does not establish the complete Card, empirical reliability of its procedure or the historical intent of the supplied title." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-PILOT-P48-01", "expression_ref": "X-PILOT-P48-01", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE48-C01" }, "mapping_type": "scoped_interpretation", "rationale": "Pilot interpretation under the reserved identity.", "qualifications_added": [ "Role-specific conditions, qualified meaning and any procedure are QE synthesis." ], "limitations": [ "Not a recovered original definition or accepted identity mapping." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-PILOT-P48-12", "expression_ref": "X-PILOT-P48-12", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE48-C01" }, "mapping_type": "scoped_interpretation", "rationale": "Propose a bounded marginal-allocation contribution within Opportunity Cost; preserve the original candidate identity and do not treat this prototype route as an accepted merge.", "qualifications_added": [ "Role-specific conditions, qualified meaning and any procedure are QE synthesis." ], "limitations": [ "Not a recovered original definition or accepted identity mapping." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-PILOT-P48-03", "expression_ref": "X-PILOT-P48-03", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE48-C03" }, "mapping_type": "scoped_interpretation", "rationale": "Pilot interpretation under the reserved identity.", "qualifications_added": [ "Role-specific conditions, qualified meaning and any procedure are QE synthesis." ], "limitations": [ "Not a recovered original definition or accepted identity mapping." ] }, { "mapping_id": "MAP-PILOT-P48-30", "expression_ref": "X-PILOT-P48-30", "target_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE48-C30" }, "mapping_type": "scoped_interpretation", "rationale": "Pilot interpretation under the reserved identity.", "qualifications_added": [ "Role-specific conditions, qualified meaning and any procedure are QE synthesis." ], "limitations": [ "Not a recovered original definition or accepted identity mapping." ] } ], "normalization_cases": [ { "normalization_id": "N-TRUST-D1", "decision": "same_scoped_concept", "family_ref": "QEF-D-REL", "mapping_refs": [ "MAP-MK-I04-C1", "MAP-HD-P09-C1" ], "mechanism": "Continuing trustworthy cooperation", "resource": "Customer relationships", "objective_comparison": "Only the ongoing reliability criterion is shared; preferences for repeated transactions and ownership metaphors are not universal rules.", "scope_comparison": "Only the ongoing reliability criterion is shared; preferences for repeated transactions and ownership metaphors are not universal rules.", "rationale": "These explicit transformations retain this shared subset: Only the ongoing reliability criterion is shared; preferences for repeated transactions and ownership metaphors are not universal rules.", "source_independence": "User-supplied summaries; rows from one account and retellings do not establish independent evidence.", "limitations": [ "Shared subset only, not whole-passage equivalence or empirical validation." ] }, { "normalization_id": "N-CUSTOMER-D1", "decision": "same_scoped_concept", "family_ref": "QEF-D-CUSTOMER", "mapping_refs": [ "MAP-HD-P07-C1", "MAP-HD-P08-C1", "MAP-HD-P10-C1" ], "mechanism": "Evaluate choices by customer task results", "resource": "Delivery resources", "objective_comparison": "Customer outcomes are a decision criterion subject to safety and feasibility, not a sufficient cause of survival.", "scope_comparison": "Customer outcomes are a decision criterion subject to safety and feasibility, not a sufficient cause of survival.", "rationale": "These explicit transformations retain this shared subset: Customer outcomes are a decision criterion subject to safety and feasibility, not a sufficient cause of survival.", "source_independence": "User-supplied summaries; rows from one account and retellings do not establish independent evidence.", "limitations": [ "Shared subset only, not whole-passage equivalence or empirical validation." ] }, { "normalization_id": "N-RECOGNITION-D1", "decision": "same_scoped_concept", "family_ref": "QEF-D-RECOG", "mapping_refs": [ "MAP-MK-P03-C2", "MAP-MK-I06-C1" ], "mechanism": "Choose meaningful acknowledgment", "resource": "Organizational recognition", "objective_comparison": "Share the acknowledgment-choice component; general dignity and compulsory public praise are not equated with it.", "scope_comparison": "Share the acknowledgment-choice component; general dignity and compulsory public praise are not equated with it.", "rationale": "These explicit transformations retain this shared subset: Share the acknowledgment-choice component; general dignity and compulsory public praise are not equated with it.", "source_independence": "User-supplied summaries; rows from one account and retellings do not establish independent evidence.", "limitations": [ "Shared subset only, not whole-passage equivalence or empirical validation." ] }, { "normalization_id": "N-REWARDS-D1", "decision": "same_scoped_concept", "family_ref": "QEF-D-INC", "mapping_refs": [ "MAP-MK-P20-C2", "MAP-MK-I03-C1", "MAP-MK-I13-C1" ], "mechanism": "Check behavioral consequences against intended contributions", "resource": "Consequential rewards", "objective_comparison": "A bounded reward-review criterion is shared; cultural values and all system effects do not reduce to incentives.", "scope_comparison": "A bounded reward-review criterion is shared; cultural values and all system effects do not reduce to incentives.", "rationale": "These explicit transformations retain this shared subset: A bounded reward-review criterion is shared; cultural values and all system effects do not reduce to incentives.", "source_independence": "User-supplied summaries; rows from one account and retellings do not establish independent evidence.", "limitations": [ "Shared subset only, not whole-passage equivalence or empirical validation." ] } ], "systems": [], "tensions": [], "application_examples": [ { "application_id": "APP-TRUST-READY", "title": "Review a small design collaboration", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST", "role_id": "D1" }, "context_summary": "A fictional studio is considering a limited design collaboration. The coordinator has relevant delivery records and a skills demonstration, an approved information-sharing channel, and pilot or decline options. Unknowns may be recorded instead of concealed.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The studio and supplier can assess relevant conduct for a named cooperative business commitment." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-AUTH" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The coordinator may review the arrangement using the stipulated approved channel without sharing confidential customer details." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-OPTION" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "A limited pilot and declining the engagement can both be compared against the two parties' stated constraints." } ], "objective_assessments": [ { "objective_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST", "role_id": "D1", "field": "objective" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Both parties seek feasible continuing cooperation; the coordinator keeps confidential information within the approved channel and compares conduct, demonstrated competence and formal terms rather than replacing due diligence with loyalty." } ], "activation_assessments": [ { "trigger_ref": { "role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST", "role_id": "D1" }, "trigger_index": 0 }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The parties are proposing a new cooperative business arrangement." } ], "limitations": [ "Stipulated fictional case, not an observation about the supplied authors or companies.", "The result checks declared prerequisites only; it does not establish evidence quality, completed steps, an outcome or authorization." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-CUSTOMER-READY", "title": "Compare two package-preparation services", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "D1" }, "context_summary": "A fictional supplier compares its current package-preparation service with a revised checklist for small sellers. The customer task is sending an intact, correctly labeled parcel. Staff can observe task completion and rework, and assess cost, capacity and the required seal check.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Small sellers and the intact, correctly labeled parcel task are identified for this service choice." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-INPUT" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The status quo and checklist alternative are feasible; direct inspection of task completion and rework is available." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-AUTH" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The service owner has stipulated authority and can review the seal requirement, capacity, costs and service obligations." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-EXCLUDE" }, "state": "not_satisfied", "basis": "Neither comparison option ignores the required seal check, and absent observations will not be recorded as verified." } ], "objective_assessments": [ { "objective_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "D1", "field": "objective" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The customers and supplier seek useful parcel preparation within the stated staffing, cost and authority limits. Both options retain safety and service obligations. Parcel integrity and labeling, not sales volume, satisfaction or price alone, determine the task result." } ], "activation_assessments": [ { "trigger_ref": { "role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "D1" }, "trigger_index": 0 }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The proposed checklist could materially change how the specified parcel task is completed." } ], "limitations": [ "Stipulated fictional case, not an observation about the supplied authors or companies.", "The result checks declared prerequisites only; it does not establish evidence quality, completed steps, an outcome or authorization." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-FOLLOW-READY", "title": "Review a threatened draft-delivery commitment", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-FOLLOW-THROUGH", "role_id": "D1" }, "context_summary": "A fictional analyst has acknowledged a draft-delivery commitment with an agreed completion test and timing. A delay is possible. The affected colleague can be contacted through the approved tracker, and a responsible manager can receive an escalation. No revision has yet been accepted.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-FOLLOW-THROUGH" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The analyst acknowledged the draft, the completion test and timing; the responsible and affected people are named." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-FOLLOW-THROUGH", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-CONTACT" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The approved tracker reaches the colleague and provides a legitimate escalation route to the responsible manager." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-FOLLOW-THROUGH", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-EXCLUDE" }, "state": "not_satisfied", "basis": "Reviewing, delivering or seeking revision of this draft does not require an unsafe or prohibited act." } ], "objective_assessments": [ { "objective_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-FOLLOW-THROUGH", "role_id": "D1", "field": "objective" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The analyst and relying colleague choose to avoid abandoned obligations by keeping remaining work actively tracked, including after an accepted revision, until verified completion or a legitimate release. They respect conflicting duties and safety, never treat a proposal or silence as acceptance, and use agreed timing rather than an invented universal deadline." } ], "activation_assessments": [ { "trigger_ref": { "role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-FOLLOW-THROUGH", "role_id": "D1" }, "trigger_index": 0 }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The acknowledged draft delivery is threatened by a possible delay." } ], "limitations": [ "Stipulated fictional case, not an observation about the supplied authors or companies.", "The result checks declared prerequisites only; it does not establish evidence quality, completed steps, an outcome or authorization." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-RECOGNITION-READY", "title": "Choose private acknowledgment of a documented contribution", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN", "role_id": "D1" }, "context_summary": "In a fictional team, two peers confirm a contributor's work on an internal guide. The recipient has indicated a preference for private acknowledgment through a permitted channel. The manager may send a specific thank-you within a small agreed resource budget. Owed pay and necessary feedback are handled separately.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The internal guide contribution, recipient and organizational acknowledgment context are identified." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-BASIS" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The peer records support attribution, and the recipient's preference was obtained through a permitted channel." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-AUTH" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The manager has authority and resources for private acknowledgment and can respect privacy, pay and award obligations." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-EXCLUDE" }, "state": "not_satisfied", "basis": "The private message discloses no protected material, is not intended to humiliate, and replaces neither pay nor required correction." } ], "objective_assessments": [ { "objective_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN", "role_id": "D1", "field": "objective" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The contributor and team seek credible acknowledgment with fair treatment of comparable work, proportionate cost and privacy. The private format fits the recorded preference, and praise is not substituted for compensation or feedback." } ], "activation_assessments": [ { "trigger_ref": { "role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN", "role_id": "D1" }, "trigger_index": 0 }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Completion of the guide creates an occasion to acknowledge the identified organizational contribution." } ], "limitations": [ "Stipulated fictional case, not an observation about the supplied authors or companies.", "The result checks declared prerequisites only; it does not establish evidence quality, completed steps, an outcome or authorization." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-REWARDS-READY", "title": "Review a support-team reward rule", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES", "role_id": "D1" }, "context_summary": "A fictional support team is reviewing recognition for resolved requests. The manager can change the consequential reward rule, observe work, distinguish eligibility from the intended helpful contribution, and sample resolution quality beyond the closed-ticket count.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The manager can change consequential rewards and observe the team's relevant behavior." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-RULE" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The intended contribution is useful resolution; the proposed reward and closed-request eligibility rule are documented separately." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-REVIEW" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The manager is authorized to review the rule and can sample actual resolution quality, neglected work and shortcuts beyond the count." } ], "objective_assessments": [ { "objective_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES", "role_id": "D1", "field": "objective" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The team and organization seek useful resolution without shortcuts. The comparison considers fair access to eligible work and a review sample whose burden is proportionate to the stipulated resources." } ], "activation_assessments": [ { "trigger_ref": { "role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES", "role_id": "D1" }, "trigger_index": 0 }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "A consequential reward rule is currently being reviewed." } ], "limitations": [ "Stipulated fictional case, not an observation about the supplied authors or companies.", "The result checks declared prerequisites only; it does not establish evidence quality, completed steps, an outcome or authorization." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-SECOND-READY", "title": "Compare a retry-policy change before a deadline", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-SECOND", "role_id": "D1" }, "context_summary": "A fictional service team must compare its current retry setting with a reduced setting. Either can affect downstream load and request completion. An initial effect hypothesis and rival consequence are available, and a thirty-minute decision budget is agreed.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-EX-SECOND" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Retry behavior can change downstream load and completion outcomes through dependencies and responses." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-SECOND", "role_id": "E1" }, "condition_id": "E-INPUT" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The candidate retry change, an initial load hypothesis and a thirty-minute budget are specified; uncertain links remain explicitly labeled." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-SECOND", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-OPTIONS" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The status quo and reduced setting are feasible, affected parties' objective is stated, and the decision has a thirty-minute deadline." } ], "objective_assessments": [ { "objective_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-SECOND", "role_id": "D1", "field": "objective" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The team and affected service users seek acceptable immediate completion and downstream load. Comparison stays within the agreed deadline and does not automatically favor the longest horizon over immediate consequences." } ], "activation_assessments": [ { "trigger_ref": { "role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-SECOND", "role_id": "D1" }, "trigger_index": 0 }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The retry choice is a pending consequential decision with material dependencies." } ], "limitations": [ "Stipulated fictional case, not an observation about the supplied authors or companies.", "The result checks declared prerequisites only; it does not establish evidence quality, completed steps, an outcome or authorization." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-PROVIDER-READY", "title": "Check reuse of the shared target explanation", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES", "role_id": "O1" }, "context_summary": "A fictional team is examining, not executing, the Rewards O1 explanation. The organization can change rewards and observe behavior; participants can influence a closure measure attached to consequences they care about.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The organization can alter consequential rewards and observe relevant behavior." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-EX-TARGETS" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Participants can influence the closure measure and care about its consequences." } ], "objective_assessments": [], "activation_assessments": [], "limitations": [ "Stipulated fictional case, not an observation about the supplied authors or companies.", "The result checks declared prerequisites only; it does not establish evidence quality, completed steps, an outcome or authorization." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-TRUST-UNKNOWN", "title": "Trust: unknown", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST", "role_id": "D1" }, "context_summary": "Baseline scenario: A fictional studio is considering a limited design collaboration. The coordinator has relevant delivery records and a skills demonstration, an approved information-sharing channel, and pilot or decline options. Unknowns may be recorded instead of concealed.\nVariant override: The approved information-sharing channel has not yet been established. The proposed objective still requires confidentiality, and no disclosure is authorized by this test.\nAll other baseline stipulations remain unchanged.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The studio and supplier can assess relevant conduct for a named cooperative business commitment." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-AUTH" }, "state": "unknown", "basis": "Authority and a confidentiality-preserving communication channel have not been assessed." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-OPTION" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "A limited pilot and declining the engagement can both be compared against the two parties' stated constraints." } ], "objective_assessments": [ { "objective_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST", "role_id": "D1", "field": "objective" }, "state": "unknown", "basis": "The cooperation objective retains confidentiality and due diligence, but feasibility of confidentiality-preserving communication has not been assessed; no actual disclosure is stipulated." } ], "activation_assessments": [ { "trigger_ref": { "role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST", "role_id": "D1" }, "trigger_index": 0 }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The parties are proposing a new cooperative business arrangement." } ], "limitations": [ "Stipulated fictional case, not an observation about the supplied authors or companies.", "The result checks declared prerequisites only; it does not establish evidence quality, completed steps, an outcome or authorization." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-TRUST-OUTSIDE", "title": "Trust: outside", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST", "role_id": "D1" }, "context_summary": "Baseline scenario: A fictional studio is considering a limited design collaboration. The coordinator has relevant delivery records and a skills demonstration, an approved information-sharing channel, and pilot or decline options. Unknowns may be recorded instead of concealed.\nVariant override: The proposed review objective is replaced by a demand for personal loyalty instead of due diligence. Other abilities and options remain as in the baseline.\nAll other baseline stipulations remain unchanged.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The studio and supplier can assess relevant conduct for a named cooperative business commitment." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-AUTH" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The coordinator may review the arrangement using the stipulated approved channel without sharing confidential customer details." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-OPTION" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "A limited pilot and declining the engagement can both be compared against the two parties' stated constraints." } ], "objective_assessments": [ { "objective_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST", "role_id": "D1", "field": "objective" }, "state": "not_satisfied", "basis": "The proposed loyalty-only objective abandons the required due-diligence constraint, even though relevant information is available." } ], "activation_assessments": [ { "trigger_ref": { "role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-TRUST", "role_id": "D1" }, "trigger_index": 0 }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The parties are proposing a new cooperative business arrangement." } ], "limitations": [ "Stipulated fictional case, not an observation about the supplied authors or companies.", "The result checks declared prerequisites only; it does not establish evidence quality, completed steps, an outcome or authorization." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-CUSTOMER-UNKNOWN", "title": "Customer: unknown", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "D1" }, "context_summary": "Baseline scenario: A fictional supplier compares its current package-preparation service with a revised checklist for small sellers. The customer task is sending an intact, correctly labeled parcel. Staff can observe task completion and rework, and assess cost, capacity and the required seal check.\nVariant override: Feasibility of a way to examine the customer-task result is still unresolved. Missing observations remain labeled unknown rather than treated as verified.\nAll other baseline stipulations remain unchanged.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Small sellers and the intact, correctly labeled parcel task are identified for this service choice." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-INPUT" }, "state": "unknown", "basis": "The options can be named, but a feasible way to assess parcel-task results is not yet established." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-AUTH" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The service owner has stipulated authority and can review the seal requirement, capacity, costs and service obligations." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-EXCLUDE" }, "state": "not_satisfied", "basis": "Neither comparison option ignores the required seal check, and absent observations will not be recorded as verified." } ], "objective_assessments": [ { "objective_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "D1", "field": "objective" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The customers and supplier seek useful parcel preparation within the stated staffing, cost and authority limits. Both options retain safety and service obligations. Parcel integrity and labeling, not sales volume, satisfaction or price alone, determine the task result." } ], "activation_assessments": [ { "trigger_ref": { "role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "D1" }, "trigger_index": 0 }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The proposed checklist could materially change how the specified parcel task is completed." } ], "limitations": [ "Stipulated fictional case, not an observation about the supplied authors or companies.", "The result checks declared prerequisites only; it does not establish evidence quality, completed steps, an outcome or authorization." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-CUSTOMER-OUTSIDE", "title": "Customer: outside", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "D1" }, "context_summary": "Baseline scenario: A fictional supplier compares its current package-preparation service with a revised checklist for small sellers. The customer task is sending an intact, correctly labeled parcel. Staff can observe task completion and rework, and assess cost, capacity and the required seal check.\nVariant override: The proposed comparison now requires waiving the mandatory seal check. That conflicts with the stated objective as well as activating the exclusion; the owner remains capable of assessing the constraint.\nAll other baseline stipulations remain unchanged.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Small sellers and the intact, correctly labeled parcel task are identified for this service choice." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-INPUT" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The status quo and checklist alternative are feasible; direct inspection of task completion and rework is available." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-AUTH" }, "state": "not_satisfied", "basis": "The owner can review the requirement but has no authority to waive this mandatory seal safeguard for the proposed comparison." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-EXCLUDE" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The comparison depends on ignoring the mandatory seal safeguard." } ], "objective_assessments": [ { "objective_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "D1", "field": "objective" }, "state": "not_satisfied", "basis": "The proposed choice violates the objective's safety and service-obligation constraints; price or speed cannot waive the seal requirement." } ], "activation_assessments": [ { "trigger_ref": { "role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-CUSTOMER-VALUE", "role_id": "D1" }, "trigger_index": 0 }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The proposed checklist could materially change how the specified parcel task is completed." } ], "limitations": [ "Stipulated fictional case, not an observation about the supplied authors or companies.", "The result checks declared prerequisites only; it does not establish evidence quality, completed steps, an outcome or authorization." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-FOLLOW-UNKNOWN", "title": "Follow: unknown", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-FOLLOW-THROUGH", "role_id": "D1" }, "context_summary": "Baseline scenario: A fictional analyst has acknowledged a draft-delivery commitment with an agreed completion test and timing. A delay is possible. The affected colleague can be contacted through the approved tracker, and a responsible manager can receive an escalation. No revision has yet been accepted.\nVariant override: The colleague's tracker access is uncertain and no authorized escalation contact has been confirmed. There is still an acknowledged threatened obligation.\nAll other baseline stipulations remain unchanged.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-FOLLOW-THROUGH" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The analyst acknowledged the draft, the completion test and timing; the responsible and affected people are named." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-FOLLOW-THROUGH", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-CONTACT" }, "state": "unknown", "basis": "A legitimate channel to the affected party or responsible authority has not been confirmed." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-FOLLOW-THROUGH", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-EXCLUDE" }, "state": "not_satisfied", "basis": "Reviewing, delivering or seeking revision of this draft does not require an unsafe or prohibited act." } ], "objective_assessments": [ { "objective_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-FOLLOW-THROUGH", "role_id": "D1", "field": "objective" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The analyst and relying colleague choose to avoid abandoned obligations by keeping remaining work actively tracked, including after an accepted revision, until verified completion or a legitimate release. They respect conflicting duties and safety, never treat a proposal or silence as acceptance, and use agreed timing rather than an invented universal deadline." } ], "activation_assessments": [ { "trigger_ref": { "role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-FOLLOW-THROUGH", "role_id": "D1" }, "trigger_index": 0 }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The acknowledged draft delivery is threatened by a possible delay." } ], "limitations": [ "Stipulated fictional case, not an observation about the supplied authors or companies.", "The result checks declared prerequisites only; it does not establish evidence quality, completed steps, an outcome or authorization." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-FOLLOW-OUTSIDE", "title": "Follow: outside", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-FOLLOW-THROUGH", "role_id": "D1" }, "context_summary": "Baseline scenario: A fictional analyst has acknowledged a draft-delivery commitment with an agreed completion test and timing. A delay is possible. The affected colleague can be contacted through the approved tracker, and a responsible manager can receive an escalation. No revision has yet been accepted.\nVariant override: The draft is no longer threatened and is not due for action. Its acknowledged terms and legitimate contact channel remain valid.\nAll other baseline stipulations remain unchanged.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-FOLLOW-THROUGH" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The analyst acknowledged the draft, the completion test and timing; the responsible and affected people are named." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-FOLLOW-THROUGH", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-CONTACT" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The approved tracker reaches the colleague and provides a legitimate escalation route to the responsible manager." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-FOLLOW-THROUGH", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-EXCLUDE" }, "state": "not_satisfied", "basis": "Reviewing, delivering or seeking revision of this draft does not require an unsafe or prohibited act." } ], "objective_assessments": [ { "objective_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-FOLLOW-THROUGH", "role_id": "D1", "field": "objective" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The analyst and relying colleague choose to avoid abandoned obligations by keeping remaining work actively tracked, including after an accepted revision, until verified completion or a legitimate release. They respect conflicting duties and safety, never treat a proposal or silence as acceptance, and use agreed timing rather than an invented universal deadline." } ], "activation_assessments": [ { "trigger_ref": { "role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-FOLLOW-THROUGH", "role_id": "D1" }, "trigger_index": 0 }, "state": "not_satisfied", "basis": "No current due action or threatened completion activates this particular procedure." } ], "limitations": [ "Stipulated fictional case, not an observation about the supplied authors or companies.", "The result checks declared prerequisites only; it does not establish evidence quality, completed steps, an outcome or authorization." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-RECOGNITION-UNKNOWN", "title": "Recognition: unknown", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN", "role_id": "D1" }, "context_summary": "Baseline scenario: In a fictional team, two peers confirm a contributor's work on an internal guide. The recipient has indicated a preference for private acknowledgment through a permitted channel. The manager may send a specific thank-you within a small agreed resource budget. Owed pay and necessary feedback are handled separately.\nVariant override: Attribution of the guide contribution is disputed and has not been resolved. Recipient preferences and the permitted acknowledgment channel remain known.\nAll other baseline stipulations remain unchanged.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The internal guide contribution, recipient and organizational acknowledgment context are identified." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-BASIS" }, "state": "unknown", "basis": "Conflicting attribution reports leave a credible contribution basis unresolved." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-AUTH" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The manager has authority and resources for private acknowledgment and can respect privacy, pay and award obligations." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-EXCLUDE" }, "state": "not_satisfied", "basis": "The private message discloses no protected material, is not intended to humiliate, and replaces neither pay nor required correction." } ], "objective_assessments": [ { "objective_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN", "role_id": "D1", "field": "objective" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The contributor and team seek credible acknowledgment with fair treatment of comparable work, proportionate cost and privacy. The private format fits the recorded preference, and praise is not substituted for compensation or feedback." } ], "activation_assessments": [ { "trigger_ref": { "role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN", "role_id": "D1" }, "trigger_index": 0 }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Completion of the guide creates an occasion to acknowledge the identified organizational contribution." } ], "limitations": [ "Stipulated fictional case, not an observation about the supplied authors or companies.", "The result checks declared prerequisites only; it does not establish evidence quality, completed steps, an outcome or authorization." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-RECOGNITION-OUTSIDE", "title": "Recognition: outside", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN", "role_id": "D1" }, "context_summary": "Baseline scenario: In a fictional team, two peers confirm a contributor's work on an internal guide. The recipient has indicated a preference for private acknowledgment through a permitted channel. The manager may send a specific thank-you within a small agreed resource budget. Owed pay and necessary feedback are handled separately.\nVariant override: The proposed acknowledgment is changed to a public disclosure of protected project details contrary to the recipient's private preference. Both the exclusion and the objective review therefore change.\nAll other baseline stipulations remain unchanged.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The internal guide contribution, recipient and organizational acknowledgment context are identified." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-BASIS" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The peer records support attribution, and the recipient's preference was obtained through a permitted channel." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-AUTH" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The manager has authority and resources for private acknowledgment and can respect privacy, pay and award obligations." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-EXCLUDE" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The proposed public recognition would disclose protected project information." } ], "objective_assessments": [ { "objective_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN", "role_id": "D1", "field": "objective" }, "state": "not_satisfied", "basis": "The proposed public format violates privacy and the recorded preference, notwithstanding available authority for a different private format." } ], "activation_assessments": [ { "trigger_ref": { "role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN", "role_id": "D1" }, "trigger_index": 0 }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Completion of the guide creates an occasion to acknowledge the identified organizational contribution." } ], "limitations": [ "Stipulated fictional case, not an observation about the supplied authors or companies.", "The result checks declared prerequisites only; it does not establish evidence quality, completed steps, an outcome or authorization." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-REWARDS-UNKNOWN", "title": "Rewards: unknown", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES", "role_id": "D1" }, "context_summary": "Baseline scenario: A fictional support team is reviewing recognition for resolved requests. The manager can change the consequential reward rule, observe work, distinguish eligibility from the intended helpful contribution, and sample resolution quality beyond the closed-ticket count.\nVariant override: Only the rewarded closed-ticket count is currently available; a feasible check on actual resolution and shortcuts has not been established.\nAll other baseline stipulations remain unchanged.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The manager can change consequential rewards and observe the team's relevant behavior." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-RULE" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The intended contribution is useful resolution; the proposed reward and closed-request eligibility rule are documented separately." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-REVIEW" }, "state": "unknown", "basis": "The manager has review authority, but checking useful outcomes beyond the rewarded count remains unresolved." } ], "objective_assessments": [ { "objective_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES", "role_id": "D1", "field": "objective" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The team and organization seek useful resolution without shortcuts. The comparison considers fair access to eligible work and a review sample whose burden is proportionate to the stipulated resources." } ], "activation_assessments": [ { "trigger_ref": { "role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES", "role_id": "D1" }, "trigger_index": 0 }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "A consequential reward rule is currently being reviewed." } ], "limitations": [ "Stipulated fictional case, not an observation about the supplied authors or companies.", "The result checks declared prerequisites only; it does not establish evidence quality, completed steps, an outcome or authorization." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-REWARDS-OUTSIDE", "title": "Rewards: outside", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES", "role_id": "D1" }, "context_summary": "Baseline scenario: A fictional support team is reviewing recognition for resolved requests. The manager can change the consequential reward rule, observe work, distinguish eligibility from the intended helpful contribution, and sample resolution quality beyond the closed-ticket count.\nVariant override: The proposed goal now rewards favored participants regardless of contribution and imposes disproportionate review burden. The rule remains describable and reviewable.\nAll other baseline stipulations remain unchanged.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The manager can change consequential rewards and observe the team's relevant behavior." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-RULE" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The intended contribution is useful resolution; the proposed reward and closed-request eligibility rule are documented separately." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-REVIEW" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The manager is authorized to review the rule and can sample actual resolution quality, neglected work and shortcuts beyond the count." } ], "objective_assessments": [ { "objective_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES", "role_id": "D1", "field": "objective" }, "state": "not_satisfied", "basis": "The proposed objective violates fair treatment and proportional review cost rather than encouraging useful contribution without harmful shortcuts." } ], "activation_assessments": [ { "trigger_ref": { "role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES", "role_id": "D1" }, "trigger_index": 0 }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "A consequential reward rule is currently being reviewed." } ], "limitations": [ "Stipulated fictional case, not an observation about the supplied authors or companies.", "The result checks declared prerequisites only; it does not establish evidence quality, completed steps, an outcome or authorization." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-SECOND-UNKNOWN", "title": "Second: unknown", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-SECOND", "role_id": "D1" }, "context_summary": "Baseline scenario: A fictional service team must compare its current retry setting with a reduced setting. Either can affect downstream load and request completion. An initial effect hypothesis and rival consequence are available, and a thirty-minute decision budget is agreed.\nVariant override: The team has not assessed whether its candidate action and initial hypotheses are sufficiently specified for E1. The options and decision deadline remain stated.\nAll other baseline stipulations remain unchanged.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-EX-SECOND" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Retry behavior can change downstream load and completion outcomes through dependencies and responses." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-SECOND", "role_id": "E1" }, "condition_id": "E-INPUT" }, "state": "unknown", "basis": "E1's initial action/hypothesis input is unassessed, although the decision budget is known." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-SECOND", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-OPTIONS" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The status quo and reduced setting are feasible, affected parties' objective is stated, and the decision has a thirty-minute deadline." } ], "objective_assessments": [ { "objective_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-SECOND", "role_id": "D1", "field": "objective" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The team and affected service users seek acceptable immediate completion and downstream load. Comparison stays within the agreed deadline and does not automatically favor the longest horizon over immediate consequences." } ], "activation_assessments": [ { "trigger_ref": { "role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-SECOND", "role_id": "D1" }, "trigger_index": 0 }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The retry choice is a pending consequential decision with material dependencies." } ], "limitations": [ "Stipulated fictional case, not an observation about the supplied authors or companies.", "The result checks declared prerequisites only; it does not establish evidence quality, completed steps, an outcome or authorization." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-SECOND-OUTSIDE", "title": "Second: outside", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-SECOND", "role_id": "D1" }, "context_summary": "Baseline scenario: A fictional service team must compare its current retry setting with a reduced setting. Either can affect downstream load and request completion. An initial effect hypothesis and rival consequence are available, and a thirty-minute decision budget is agreed.\nVariant override: The proposed selection objective now ranks the longest horizon above every immediate consequence regardless of the stated deadline. The options and causal inputs remain available.\nAll other baseline stipulations remain unchanged.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-EX-SECOND" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Retry behavior can change downstream load and completion outcomes through dependencies and responses." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-SECOND", "role_id": "E1" }, "condition_id": "E-INPUT" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The candidate retry change, an initial load hypothesis and a thirty-minute budget are specified; uncertain links remain explicitly labeled." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-SECOND", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-OPTIONS" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The status quo and reduced setting are feasible, affected parties' objective is stated, and the decision has a thirty-minute deadline." } ], "objective_assessments": [ { "objective_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-SECOND", "role_id": "D1", "field": "objective" }, "state": "not_satisfied", "basis": "The proposed objective conflicts with both deadline discipline and the instruction not to automatically privilege the longest horizon." } ], "activation_assessments": [ { "trigger_ref": { "role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-SECOND", "role_id": "D1" }, "trigger_index": 0 }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The retry choice is a pending consequential decision with material dependencies." } ], "limitations": [ "Stipulated fictional case, not an observation about the supplied authors or companies.", "The result checks declared prerequisites only; it does not establish evidence quality, completed steps, an outcome or authorization." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-PROVIDER-UNKNOWN", "title": "Provider: unknown", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES", "role_id": "O1" }, "context_summary": "Baseline scenario: A fictional team is examining, not executing, the Rewards O1 explanation. The organization can change rewards and observe behavior; participants can influence a closure measure attached to consequences they care about.\nVariant override: The organization can still change rewards, but whether participants can influence the provider's measure and care about its consequences is unassessed.\nAll other baseline stipulations remain unchanged.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-EX-INCENTIVES" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The organization can alter consequential rewards and observe relevant behavior." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE-EX-TARGETS" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "unknown", "basis": "The imported provider's actor-influence and meaningful-consequence condition is unknown." } ], "objective_assessments": [], "activation_assessments": [], "limitations": [ "Stipulated fictional case, not an observation about the supplied authors or companies.", "The result checks declared prerequisites only; it does not establish evidence quality, completed steps, an outcome or authorization." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-PILOT-QE48-C01-D1-READY", "title": "Opportunity Cost: D1 bounded example: ready", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D1" }, "context_summary": "A fictional team can allocate one day either to reduce a backlog by eight cases or to prevent an expected five equivalent cases next week. Both use the same service objective and horizon; the team has authority and obligations are satisfied.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE48-C01" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The fictional case specifies: A choice commits a limited resource among competing feasible uses within a stated horizon." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-OPTIONS" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Stipulated for this fictional case: Feasible alternatives can be specified with their shared resource requirements; include no change when feasible and permitted." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-VALUES" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Stipulated for this fictional case: Decision-relevant values or defensible ranges under the same objective and horizon are available for comparing alternatives." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-AUTH" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Stipulated for this fictional case: The decision-maker can assess obligations and resource constraints and has authority for the contemplated allocation." } ], "objective_assessments": [ { "objective_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D1", "field": "objective" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The resource owner seeks the recorded service outcome within the stated budget, authority and obligations; comparisons share an objective and horizon and do not double-count costs or infer global optimality." } ], "activation_assessments": [ { "trigger_ref": { "role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D1" }, "trigger_index": 0 }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The fictional allocation decision is currently being considered." } ], "limitations": [ "QE-authored hypothetical case, not observed behavior or empirical support.", "Assessment checks declared conditions only; it does not prove procedure execution, truth or permission." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-PILOT-QE48-C01-D1-UNKNOWN", "title": "Opportunity Cost: D1 bounded example: unknown", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D1" }, "context_summary": "Baseline scenario: A fictional team can allocate one day either to reduce a backlog by eight cases or to prevent an expected five equivalent cases next week. Both use the same service objective and horizon; the team has authority and obligations are satisfied. Variant override: The preventive outcome range is unavailable; the comparison cannot be completed. Other stipulations are unchanged.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE48-C01" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The fictional case specifies: A choice commits a limited resource among competing feasible uses within a stated horizon." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-OPTIONS" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Stipulated for this fictional case: Feasible alternatives can be specified with their shared resource requirements; include no change when feasible and permitted." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-VALUES" }, "state": "unknown", "basis": "The preventive outcome range is unavailable; the comparison cannot be completed." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-AUTH" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Stipulated for this fictional case: The decision-maker can assess obligations and resource constraints and has authority for the contemplated allocation." } ], "objective_assessments": [ { "objective_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D1", "field": "objective" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The resource owner seeks the recorded service outcome within the stated budget, authority and obligations; comparisons share an objective and horizon and do not double-count costs or infer global optimality." } ], "activation_assessments": [ { "trigger_ref": { "role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D1" }, "trigger_index": 0 }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The fictional allocation decision is currently being considered." } ], "limitations": [ "QE-authored hypothetical case, not observed behavior or empirical support.", "Assessment checks declared conditions only; it does not prove procedure execution, truth or permission." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-PILOT-QE48-C01-D1-OUTSIDE", "title": "Opportunity Cost: D1 bounded example: outside", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D1" }, "context_summary": "Baseline scenario: A fictional team can allocate one day either to reduce a backlog by eight cases or to prevent an expected five equivalent cases next week. Both use the same service objective and horizon; the team has authority and obligations are satisfied. Variant override: The team lacks authority to reassign the day. Other stipulations are unchanged.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE48-C01" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The fictional case specifies: A choice commits a limited resource among competing feasible uses within a stated horizon." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-OPTIONS" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Stipulated for this fictional case: Feasible alternatives can be specified with their shared resource requirements; include no change when feasible and permitted." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-VALUES" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Stipulated for this fictional case: Decision-relevant values or defensible ranges under the same objective and horizon are available for comparing alternatives." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-AUTH" }, "state": "not_satisfied", "basis": "The team lacks authority to reassign the day." } ], "objective_assessments": [ { "objective_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D1", "field": "objective" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The resource owner seeks the recorded service outcome within the stated budget, authority and obligations; comparisons share an objective and horizon and do not double-count costs or infer global optimality." } ], "activation_assessments": [ { "trigger_ref": { "role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D1" }, "trigger_index": 0 }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The fictional allocation decision is currently being considered." } ], "limitations": [ "QE-authored hypothetical case, not observed behavior or empirical support.", "Assessment checks declared conditions only; it does not prove procedure execution, truth or permission." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-PILOT-QE48-C01-D2-READY", "title": "Opportunity Cost: D2 bounded example: ready", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "context_summary": "A fictional team allocates two hours among independent divisible activities. Next-hour benefits are A: 6 then 2, B: 5 then 1 under one agreed service objective. A then B yields 11; all obligations and authority are stipulated.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE48-C01" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The fictional case specifies: A choice commits a limited resource among competing feasible uses within a stated horizon." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "condition_id": "D2-INPUT" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Stipulated for this fictional case: Feasible increments and their estimated incremental values and resource use are available under a common objective and horizon." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "condition_id": "D2-RESOURCE" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Stipulated for this fictional case: One shared binding resource has a known remaining budget, and useful increments are divisible." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "condition_id": "D2-INTERACTION" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Stipulated for this fictional case: Values have no relevant complementarities or increasing-return thresholds, whether modeled or unmodeled, and there are no other interacting binding constraints." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "condition_id": "D2-AUTH" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Stipulated for this fictional case: The resource owner can assess relevant obligations and has authority for the incremental allocation." } ], "objective_assessments": [ { "objective_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2", "field": "objective" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The resource owner seeks the recorded service outcome within the stated budget, authority and obligations; comparisons share an objective and horizon and do not double-count costs or infer global optimality." } ], "activation_assessments": [ { "trigger_ref": { "role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "trigger_index": 0 }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The fictional allocation decision is currently being considered." } ], "limitations": [ "QE-authored hypothetical case, not observed behavior or empirical support.", "Assessment checks declared conditions only; it does not prove procedure execution, truth or permission." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-PILOT-QE48-C01-D2-UNKNOWN", "title": "Opportunity Cost: D2 bounded example: unknown", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "context_summary": "Baseline scenario: A fictional team allocates two hours among independent divisible activities. Next-hour benefits are A: 6 then 2, B: 5 then 1 under one agreed service objective. A then B yields 11; all obligations and authority are stipulated. Variant override: The next-increment value of B is unknown. Other stipulations are unchanged.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE48-C01" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The fictional case specifies: A choice commits a limited resource among competing feasible uses within a stated horizon." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "condition_id": "D2-INPUT" }, "state": "unknown", "basis": "The next-increment value of B is unknown." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "condition_id": "D2-RESOURCE" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Stipulated for this fictional case: One shared binding resource has a known remaining budget, and useful increments are divisible." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "condition_id": "D2-INTERACTION" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Stipulated for this fictional case: Values have no relevant complementarities or increasing-return thresholds, whether modeled or unmodeled, and there are no other interacting binding constraints." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "condition_id": "D2-AUTH" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Stipulated for this fictional case: The resource owner can assess relevant obligations and has authority for the incremental allocation." } ], "objective_assessments": [ { "objective_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2", "field": "objective" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The resource owner seeks the recorded service outcome within the stated budget, authority and obligations; comparisons share an objective and horizon and do not double-count costs or infer global optimality." } ], "activation_assessments": [ { "trigger_ref": { "role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "trigger_index": 0 }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The fictional allocation decision is currently being considered." } ], "limitations": [ "QE-authored hypothetical case, not observed behavior or empirical support.", "Assessment checks declared conditions only; it does not prove procedure execution, truth or permission." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-PILOT-QE48-C01-D2-OUTSIDE", "title": "Opportunity Cost: D2 bounded example: outside", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "context_summary": "Baseline scenario: A fictional team allocates two hours among independent divisible activities. Next-hour benefits are A: 6 then 2, B: 5 then 1 under one agreed service objective. A then B yields 11; all obligations and authority are stipulated. Variant override: Project A requires an indivisible two-hour block before any benefit appears. Other stipulations are unchanged.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE48-C01" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The fictional case specifies: A choice commits a limited resource among competing feasible uses within a stated horizon." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "condition_id": "D2-INPUT" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Stipulated for this fictional case: Feasible increments and their estimated incremental values and resource use are available under a common objective and horizon." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "condition_id": "D2-RESOURCE" }, "state": "not_satisfied", "basis": "Project A requires an indivisible two-hour block before any benefit appears." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "condition_id": "D2-INTERACTION" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Stipulated for this fictional case: Values have no relevant complementarities or increasing-return thresholds, whether modeled or unmodeled, and there are no other interacting binding constraints." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "condition_id": "D2-AUTH" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Stipulated for this fictional case: The resource owner can assess relevant obligations and has authority for the incremental allocation." } ], "objective_assessments": [ { "objective_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2", "field": "objective" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The resource owner seeks the recorded service outcome within the stated budget, authority and obligations; comparisons share an objective and horizon and do not double-count costs or infer global optimality." } ], "activation_assessments": [ { "trigger_ref": { "role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "trigger_index": 0 }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The fictional allocation decision is currently being considered." } ], "limitations": [ "QE-authored hypothetical case, not observed behavior or empirical support.", "Assessment checks declared conditions only; it does not prove procedure execution, truth or permission." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-PILOT-QE48-C03-E1-READY", "title": "Bottleneck Throughput: E1 bounded example: ready", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C03", "role_id": "E1" }, "context_summary": "A fictional serial line has effective stage capacities of 12, 8 and 10 units per hour, demand of 11, and observed sustained output of 8. Comparable flow records show work waiting before stage B without material starvation or blocking; the model is supplied for evaluation.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE48-C03" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The fictional case specifies: A process has a specified output measure and operating horizon for evaluating flow constraints." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C03", "role_id": "E1" }, "condition_id": "E-MODEL" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Stipulated for this fictional case: A candidate flow model specifies routes, units, horizon, product mix and the proposed constraint." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C03", "role_id": "E1" }, "condition_id": "E-DATA" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Stipulated for this fictional case: Relevant flow, demand, capacity and queue or idle-time observations are available with stated uncertainty to compare competing explanations." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C03", "role_id": "E1" }, "condition_id": "E-ACCOUNTING" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The fictional case stipulates no material net inventory drawdown; capacity and output units account for yield losses and rework over the same horizon." } ], "objective_assessments": [], "activation_assessments": [], "limitations": [ "QE-authored hypothetical case, not observed behavior or empirical support.", "Assessment checks declared conditions only; it does not prove procedure execution, truth or permission." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-PILOT-QE48-C03-E1-UNKNOWN", "title": "Bottleneck Throughput: E1 bounded example: unknown", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C03", "role_id": "E1" }, "context_summary": "Baseline scenario: A fictional serial line has effective stage capacities of 12, 8 and 10 units per hour, demand of 11, and observed sustained output of 8. Comparable flow records show work waiting before stage B without material starvation or blocking; the model is supplied for evaluation. Variant override: Demand and blocked-time observations are missing, so a queue alone cannot identify the limiting stage. Other stipulations are unchanged.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE48-C03" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The fictional case specifies: A process has a specified output measure and operating horizon for evaluating flow constraints." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C03", "role_id": "E1" }, "condition_id": "E-MODEL" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Stipulated for this fictional case: A candidate flow model specifies routes, units, horizon, product mix and the proposed constraint." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C03", "role_id": "E1" }, "condition_id": "E-DATA" }, "state": "unknown", "basis": "Demand and blocked-time observations are missing, so a queue alone cannot identify the limiting stage." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C03", "role_id": "E1" }, "condition_id": "E-ACCOUNTING" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The fictional case stipulates no material net inventory drawdown; capacity and output units account for yield losses and rework over the same horizon." } ], "objective_assessments": [], "activation_assessments": [], "limitations": [ "QE-authored hypothetical case, not observed behavior or empirical support.", "Assessment checks declared conditions only; it does not prove procedure execution, truth or permission." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-PILOT-QE48-C03-E1-OUTSIDE", "title": "Bottleneck Throughput: E1 bounded example: outside", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C03", "role_id": "E1" }, "context_summary": "Baseline scenario: A fictional serial line has effective stage capacities of 12, 8 and 10 units per hour, demand of 11, and observed sustained output of 8. Comparable flow records show work waiting before stage B without material starvation or blocking; the model is supplied for evaluation. Variant override: Only an isolated utilization percentage is provided; no route or common horizon is specified. Other stipulations are unchanged.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE48-C03" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The fictional case specifies: A process has a specified output measure and operating horizon for evaluating flow constraints." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C03", "role_id": "E1" }, "condition_id": "E-MODEL" }, "state": "not_satisfied", "basis": "Only an isolated utilization percentage is provided; no route or common horizon is specified." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C03", "role_id": "E1" }, "condition_id": "E-DATA" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Stipulated for this fictional case: Relevant flow, demand, capacity and queue or idle-time observations are available with stated uncertainty to compare competing explanations." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C03", "role_id": "E1" }, "condition_id": "E-ACCOUNTING" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The fictional case stipulates no material net inventory drawdown; capacity and output units account for yield losses and rework over the same horizon." } ], "objective_assessments": [], "activation_assessments": [], "limitations": [ "QE-authored hypothetical case, not observed behavior or empirical support.", "Assessment checks declared conditions only; it does not prove procedure execution, truth or permission." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-PILOT-QE48-C30-E1-READY", "title": "Map Is Not the Territory: E1 bounded example: ready", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C30", "role_id": "E1" }, "context_summary": "A fictional transit diagram preserves station order and connections but not geographic distances. It answers transfer-order questions; those represented relations do not determine the shortest walking route.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE48-C30" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The fictional case specifies: An inference about a situation is being drawn from a representation of that situation." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C30", "role_id": "E1" }, "condition_id": "E-PURPOSE" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Stipulated for this fictional case: The proposed inference, intended use and relevant represented or omitted aspects can be specified." } ], "objective_assessments": [], "activation_assessments": [], "limitations": [ "QE-authored hypothetical case, not observed behavior or empirical support.", "Assessment checks declared conditions only; it does not prove procedure execution, truth or permission." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-PILOT-QE48-C30-E1-UNKNOWN", "title": "Map Is Not the Territory: E1 bounded example: unknown", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C30", "role_id": "E1" }, "context_summary": "Baseline scenario: A fictional transit diagram preserves station order and connections but not geographic distances. It answers transfer-order questions; those represented relations do not determine the shortest walking route. Variant override: The intended inference is unspecified, so the relevant omissions cannot yet be assessed. Other stipulations are unchanged.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE48-C30" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The fictional case specifies: An inference about a situation is being drawn from a representation of that situation." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C30", "role_id": "E1" }, "condition_id": "E-PURPOSE" }, "state": "unknown", "basis": "The intended inference is unspecified, so the relevant omissions cannot yet be assessed." } ], "objective_assessments": [], "activation_assessments": [], "limitations": [ "QE-authored hypothetical case, not observed behavior or empirical support.", "Assessment checks declared conditions only; it does not prove procedure execution, truth or permission." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-PILOT-QE48-C30-E1-OUTSIDE", "title": "Map Is Not the Territory: E1 bounded example: outside", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C30", "role_id": "E1" }, "context_summary": "Baseline scenario: A fictional transit diagram preserves station order and connections but not geographic distances. It answers transfer-order questions; those represented relations do not determine the shortest walking route. Variant override: No inference or intended use can be specified for the representation. Other stipulations are unchanged.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE48-C30" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The fictional case specifies: An inference about a situation is being drawn from a representation of that situation." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C30", "role_id": "E1" }, "condition_id": "E-PURPOSE" }, "state": "not_satisfied", "basis": "No inference or intended use can be specified for the representation." } ], "objective_assessments": [], "activation_assessments": [], "limitations": [ "QE-authored hypothetical case, not observed behavior or empirical support.", "Assessment checks declared conditions only; it does not prove procedure execution, truth or permission." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-PILOT-QE48-C01-D1-FORCED-CHOICE", "title": "Forced Choice", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D1" }, "context_summary": "A fictional team must choose one of two permitted maintenance options by a deadline. Inaction is forbidden. Both feasible options have comparable resource use and values under the same objective and horizon; authority and obligations are assessed.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE48-C01" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The fictional case specifies: A choice commits a limited resource among competing feasible uses within a stated horizon." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-OPTIONS" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "A fictional team must choose one of two permitted maintenance options by a deadline. Inaction is forbidden. Both feasible options have comparable resource use and values under the same objective and horizon; authority and obligations are assessed." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-VALUES" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Stipulated for this fictional case: Decision-relevant values or defensible ranges under the same objective and horizon are available for comparing alternatives." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D1" }, "condition_id": "D-AUTH" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Stipulated for this fictional case: The decision-maker can assess obligations and resource constraints and has authority for the contemplated allocation." } ], "objective_assessments": [ { "objective_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D1", "field": "objective" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The resource owner seeks the recorded service outcome within the stated budget, authority and obligations; comparisons share an objective and horizon and do not double-count costs or infer global optimality." } ], "activation_assessments": [ { "trigger_ref": { "role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D1" }, "trigger_index": 0 }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The fictional allocation decision is currently being considered." } ], "limitations": [ "QE-authored hypothetical case, not observed behavior or empirical support.", "Assessment checks declared conditions only; it does not prove procedure execution, truth or permission." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-PILOT-QE48-C01-D2-KNOWN-THRESHOLD", "title": "Known Threshold", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "context_summary": "Two hours are available. Option A yields zero during its first hour then 100 during its second; B yields one per hour. This known threshold makes local ranking choose B for a total of two instead of the feasible A bundle worth 100. All other baseline stipulations hold.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE48-C01" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The fictional case specifies: A choice commits a limited resource among competing feasible uses within a stated horizon." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "condition_id": "D2-INPUT" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Stipulated for this fictional case: Feasible increments and their estimated incremental values and resource use are available under a common objective and horizon." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "condition_id": "D2-RESOURCE" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Stipulated for this fictional case: One shared binding resource has a known remaining budget, and useful increments are divisible." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "condition_id": "D2-INTERACTION" }, "state": "not_satisfied", "basis": "Two hours are available. Option A yields zero during its first hour then 100 during its second; B yields one per hour. This known threshold makes local ranking choose B for a total of two instead of the feasible A bundle worth 100. All other baseline stipulations hold." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "condition_id": "D2-AUTH" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Stipulated for this fictional case: The resource owner can assess relevant obligations and has authority for the incremental allocation." } ], "objective_assessments": [ { "objective_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2", "field": "objective" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The resource owner seeks the recorded service outcome within the stated budget, authority and obligations; comparisons share an objective and horizon and do not double-count costs or infer global optimality." } ], "activation_assessments": [ { "trigger_ref": { "role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "trigger_index": 0 }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The fictional allocation decision is currently being considered." } ], "limitations": [ "QE-authored hypothetical case, not observed behavior or empirical support.", "Assessment checks declared conditions only; it does not prove procedure execution, truth or permission." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-PILOT-QE48-C01-D2-KNOWN-COMPLEMENTARITY", "title": "Known Complementarity", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "context_summary": "Two feasible work increments have value only when combined. Their complementarity is fully modeled, but ranking each next increment independently still misses the valuable bundle. All other baseline stipulations hold.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE48-C01" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The fictional case specifies: A choice commits a limited resource among competing feasible uses within a stated horizon." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "condition_id": "D2-INPUT" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Stipulated for this fictional case: Feasible increments and their estimated incremental values and resource use are available under a common objective and horizon." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "condition_id": "D2-RESOURCE" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Stipulated for this fictional case: One shared binding resource has a known remaining budget, and useful increments are divisible." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "condition_id": "D2-INTERACTION" }, "state": "not_satisfied", "basis": "Two feasible work increments have value only when combined. Their complementarity is fully modeled, but ranking each next increment independently still misses the valuable bundle. All other baseline stipulations hold." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "condition_id": "D2-AUTH" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Stipulated for this fictional case: The resource owner can assess relevant obligations and has authority for the incremental allocation." } ], "objective_assessments": [ { "objective_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2", "field": "objective" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The resource owner seeks the recorded service outcome within the stated budget, authority and obligations; comparisons share an objective and horizon and do not double-count costs or infer global optimality." } ], "activation_assessments": [ { "trigger_ref": { "role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C01", "role_id": "D2" }, "trigger_index": 0 }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The fictional allocation decision is currently being considered." } ], "limitations": [ "QE-authored hypothetical case, not observed behavior or empirical support.", "Assessment checks declared conditions only; it does not prove procedure execution, truth or permission." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-PILOT-QE48-C03-E1-INVENTORY-UNKNOWN", "title": "Inventory Unknown", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C03", "role_id": "E1" }, "context_summary": "Opening and closing inventory records are missing; output could reflect inventory drawdown. All other baseline conditions are stipulated satisfied.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE48-C03" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The fictional case specifies: A process has a specified output measure and operating horizon for evaluating flow constraints." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C03", "role_id": "E1" }, "condition_id": "E-MODEL" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Stipulated for this fictional case: A candidate flow model specifies routes, units, horizon, product mix and the proposed constraint." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C03", "role_id": "E1" }, "condition_id": "E-DATA" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Stipulated for this fictional case: Relevant flow, demand, capacity and queue or idle-time observations are available with stated uncertainty to compare competing explanations." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C03", "role_id": "E1" }, "condition_id": "E-ACCOUNTING" }, "state": "unknown", "basis": "Opening and closing inventory records are missing; output could reflect inventory drawdown. All other baseline conditions are stipulated satisfied." } ], "objective_assessments": [], "activation_assessments": [], "limitations": [ "QE-authored hypothetical case, not observed behavior or empirical support.", "Assessment checks declared conditions only; it does not prove procedure execution, truth or permission." ] }, { "application_id": "APP-PILOT-QE48-C03-E1-YIELD-OUTSIDE", "title": "Yield Outside", "kind": "hypothetical", "fixture_version": "qe-card-pilot-0.1.0", "entry_role_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C03", "role_id": "E1" }, "context_summary": "Material yield losses and rework are known to be excluded from the capacity/output comparison, so the compared flow units are incompatible. All other baseline conditions are stipulated satisfied.", "condition_assessments": [ { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "card", "card_id": "QE48-C03" }, "condition_id": "S1" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "The fictional case specifies: A process has a specified output measure and operating horizon for evaluating flow constraints." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C03", "role_id": "E1" }, "condition_id": "E-MODEL" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Stipulated for this fictional case: A candidate flow model specifies routes, units, horizon, product mix and the proposed constraint." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C03", "role_id": "E1" }, "condition_id": "E-DATA" }, "state": "satisfied", "basis": "Stipulated for this fictional case: Relevant flow, demand, capacity and queue or idle-time observations are available with stated uncertainty to compare competing explanations." }, { "condition_ref": { "owner_ref": { "kind": "role", "card_id": "QE48-C03", "role_id": "E1" }, "condition_id": "E-ACCOUNTING" }, "state": "not_satisfied", "basis": "Material yield losses and rework are known to be excluded from the capacity/output comparison, so the compared flow units are incompatible. All other baseline conditions are stipulated satisfied." } ], "objective_assessments": [], "activation_assessments": [], "limitations": [ "QE-authored hypothetical case, not observed behavior or empirical support.", "Assessment checks declared conditions only; it does not prove procedure execution, truth or permission." ] } ] }