QUINTESSENTIALS QE · Knowledge & reasoning

QE Cards / QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN

Authored provisional Card

Design Meaningful Recognition

When acknowledging a contribution, choose credible, proportionate recognition that fits the recipient and context, without assuming a universal performance effect.

ProvisionalNot externally validated

Decision · design_implication

D1 · Primary view

Choose credible, proportionate acknowledgment of an identifiable contribution that fits the recipient and setting; review its effects rather than assume it improves performance.

Recognize the contribution in a form that fits the person.

Super rootOptimization & Control
Root familyNot assigned
Parent familyNot assigned
Principle familyRecognition Design

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.

Conditions, method, and complete role fields
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
  1. S1
Additional conditions
  1. 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.
  2. Condition id
    D-AUTH
    Kind
    applicability
    Statement
    The actor can choose acknowledgment within available resources, privacy requirements and any compensation or award obligations.
  3. 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
  1. EV-MK-P03-C2
  2. EV-MK-P04-C2
  3. EV-MK-I06-C1
  4. EV-HD-P13-C3
Interpretation cautions
None recorded
Retrieval cues
None recorded
Objective
Beneficiary
The contributor and affected organizational participants
Desired outcome
Acknowledge useful contribution in a credible and context-appropriate way
Constraints
  1. Preserve fairness, proportional cost and privacy.
  2. Respect the recipient's preferences about public exposure where they can be established.
  3. 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
  1. There is an occasion to acknowledge an identifiable organizational contribution.
Steps
  1. Identify the actual contribution and check attribution before deciding whom or what to recognize.
  2. Consider private versus public acknowledgment, recipient preferences, cultural context and fair treatment of similar contributors.
  3. Choose a specific, proportionate form within the available authority and resources; do not promise a universal motivational effect.
  4. Deliver acknowledgment without disclosing protected information or implying that dignity or payment must be earned through praise.
  5. Review recipient response, perceived fairness and subsequent conduct. Change the form or pause it when it produces embarrassment, rivalry or misleading incentives.
Review signals
  1. 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.
  2. 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
  1. Recipient response is not a controlled estimate of motivational effectiveness.
  2. The procedure is QE authoring; the supplied rows do not contain this full fairness/privacy review.

Ontological · world_mechanic

O1

Perceived acknowledgment or status can influence motivation and conduct, with direction and strength depending on the recipient and setting.

Recognition can change behavior; its effects vary.

Super rootSystems
Root familyMotivational Dynamics
Parent familyNot assigned
Principle familyRecognition Sensitivity

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.

Conditions, method, and complete role fields
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
  1. S1
Additional conditions
None recorded
Review
reviewed
Review note
Reviewed as a reusable definition; case satisfaction and empirical support are not established.
Evidence refs
  1. EV-MK-P04-C1
  2. EV-MK-I06-C2
Interpretation cautions
  1. A reported comparison with criticism or cash is not independently established.
  2. A response in one recipient does not prove universal effect.
Retrieval cues
None recorded

Bridge relations

  1. Relation id
    R1
    From ref
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/O1
    Kind
    role
    Card id
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN
    Role id
    O1
    Relation type
    grounds
    To ref
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
    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
    1. S1
    Additional conditions
    None recorded
    Review
    reviewed
    Review note
    Reviewed as a reusable definition; case satisfaction and empirical support are not established.
    Evidence refs
    None recorded

Evidence assessments

  1. 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
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
    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
    1. Respect is a related treatment standard, not exhausted by recognition; no universal performance effect is inferred.
    2. The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.
    3. Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.
    4. No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring.
  2. 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
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/O1
    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
    1. Comparative superiority over criticism is a source assertion, not an established effect.
    2. The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.
    3. Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.
    4. No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring.
  3. 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
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
    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
    1. Pins, rings, prizes and cars are examples, not separate families or a universal reward prescription.
    2. The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.
    3. Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.
    4. No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring.
  4. 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
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
    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
    1. Rings, cars and ceremonies are illustrative choices, not necessary components.
    2. The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.
    3. Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.
    4. No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring.
  5. 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
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/O1
    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
    1. The claimed advantage over cash is not established for every person or context.
    2. The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.
    3. Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.
    4. No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring.
  6. 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
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
    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
    1. Recognition is inferred from the reward example; eligibility rules and effects on motivation are unknown.
    2. The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.
    3. Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.
    4. No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring.

Narrative anchors

  1. 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
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
    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
    1. Pins, rings, prizes and cars are examples, not separate families or a universal reward prescription.
    2. The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.
    3. Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.
    4. No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring.
  2. 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
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
    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
    1. Recognition is inferred from the reward example; eligibility rules and effects on motivation are unknown.
    2. The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.
    3. Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.
    4. No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring.

Source interpretation

Supplied expressions and QE transformations are separate from independently verified evidence.

Mappings and added qualifications
  1. 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
    1. Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.
    2. No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring.
    Limitations
    1. Respect is a related treatment standard, not exhausted by recognition; no universal performance effect is inferred.
    2. The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.
  2. 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
    1. Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.
    2. No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring.
    Limitations
    1. Comparative superiority over criticism is a source assertion, not an established effect.
    2. The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.
  3. 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
    1. Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.
    2. No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring.
    Limitations
    1. Pins, rings, prizes and cars are examples, not separate families or a universal reward prescription.
    2. The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.
  4. 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
    1. Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.
    2. No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring.
    Limitations
    1. Rings, cars and ceremonies are illustrative choices, not necessary components.
    2. The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.
  5. 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
    1. Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.
    2. No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring.
    Limitations
    1. The claimed advantage over cash is not established for every person or context.
    2. The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.
  6. 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
    1. Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.
    2. No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring.
    Limitations
    1. Recognition is inferred from the reward example; eligibility rules and effects on motivation are unknown.
    2. The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.
Referenced source expressions
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
Source records
  1. Source id
    SRC-ROW-MK-P03
    Kind
    supplied_table_row
    Title
    MK-P03: The invisible sign: “Make me feel important”
    Content
    #: 3
    Principle: The invisible sign: “Make me feel important”
    Core meaning: Every person wants significance and dignity.
    How 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
    None recorded
    Inspected material
    supplied_text
    Original source inspected
    False
    Limitations
    1. This record preserves supplied table cells, not independently inspected media or a verified author quotation.
    2. Reported times belong to the whole row; no particular contribution is assigned a finer media location.
    3. Multiple expressions from this row and earlier retellings are not independent corroboration.
  2. Source id
    SRC-ROW-MK-P04
    Kind
    supplied_table_row
    Title
    MK-P04: Praise people to success
    Content
    #: 4
    Principle: Praise people to success
    Core meaning: Recognition drives performance better than criticism alone.
    How 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
    None recorded
    Inspected material
    supplied_text
    Original source inspected
    False
    Limitations
    1. This record preserves supplied table cells, not independently inspected media or a verified author quotation.
    2. Reported times belong to the whole row; no particular contribution is assigned a finer media location.
    3. Multiple expressions from this row and earlier retellings are not independent corroboration.
  3. 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
    Meaning: Status-linked rewards can motivate more than cash alone.
    Evidence from transcript: Rings, prizes, conventions, and pink Cadillacs were intentionally symbolic.
    Locator
    data/provenance/supplied-tables.txt section MK-I line 42
    Reported locations
    None recorded
    Inspected material
    supplied_text
    Original source inspected
    False
    Limitations
    1. This record preserves supplied table cells, not independently inspected media or a verified author quotation.
    2. Reported times belong to the whole row; no particular contribution is assigned a finer media location.
    3. Multiple expressions from this row and earlier retellings are not independent corroboration.
  4. Source id
    SRC-ROW-HD-P13
    Kind
    supplied_table_row
    Title
    HD-P13: Treat associates as the company
    Content
    #: 13
    Principle: Treat associates as the company
    Core meaning: Employees are not overhead; they are the core asset and the brand.
    How 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.
    Video 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
    1. 01:23–01:39
    2. 46:34–47:49
    3. 52:35–52:42
    Inspected material
    supplied_text
    Original source inspected
    False
    Limitations
    1. This record preserves supplied table cells, not independently inspected media or a verified author quotation.
    2. Reported times belong to the whole row; no particular contribution is assigned a finer media location.
    3. Multiple expressions from this row and earlier retellings are not independent corroboration.

Hypothetical applications

Case applicability does not establish execution, outcomes, or permission to act.

Choose private acknowledgment of a documented contribution · conditionally_applicable
Application
Application id
APP-RECOGNITION-READY
Title
Choose private acknowledgment of a documented contribution
Kind
hypothetical
Fixture version
qe-canonical-review-0.1.2
Entry role ref
QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
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
  1. 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.
  2. Condition ref
    Owner ref
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
    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.
  3. Condition ref
    Owner ref
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
    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.
  4. Condition ref
    Owner ref
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
    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
  1. Objective ref
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
    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
  1. Trigger ref
    Role ref
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
    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
  1. Stipulated fictional case, not an observation about the supplied authors or companies.
  2. The result checks declared prerequisites only; it does not establish evidence quality, completed steps, an outcome or authorization.
Derived result
Application id
APP-RECOGNITION-READY
Entry role ref
QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
Kind
role
Card id
QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN
Role id
D1
Definition scope review
reviewed
Case applicability
conditionally_applicable
Unknown checks
None recorded
Failed checks
None recorded
Evaluated dimensions
  1. declared_scope
  2. required_role_objectives
  3. action_activation
Meaning
Only explicitly declared obligations in the uses/requires closure are assessed. Missing checks are unknown. Not empirical validation, procedure completion, or action authorization.
Recognition: unknown · undetermined
Application
Application id
APP-RECOGNITION-UNKNOWN
Title
Recognition: unknown
Kind
hypothetical
Fixture version
qe-canonical-review-0.1.2
Entry role ref
QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
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.
Variant override: Attribution of the guide contribution is disputed and has not been resolved. Recipient preferences and the permitted acknowledgment channel remain known.
All other baseline stipulations remain unchanged.
Condition assessments
  1. 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.
  2. Condition ref
    Owner ref
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
    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.
  3. Condition ref
    Owner ref
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
    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.
  4. Condition ref
    Owner ref
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
    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
  1. Objective ref
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
    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
  1. Trigger ref
    Role ref
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
    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
  1. Stipulated fictional case, not an observation about the supplied authors or companies.
  2. The result checks declared prerequisites only; it does not establish evidence quality, completed steps, an outcome or authorization.
Derived result
Application id
APP-RECOGNITION-UNKNOWN
Entry role ref
QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
Kind
role
Card id
QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN
Role id
D1
Definition scope review
reviewed
Case applicability
undetermined
Unknown checks
  1. Owner ref
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
    Kind
    role
    Card id
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN
    Role id
    D1
    Condition id
    D-BASIS
Failed checks
None recorded
Evaluated dimensions
  1. declared_scope
  2. required_role_objectives
  3. action_activation
Meaning
Only explicitly declared obligations in the uses/requires closure are assessed. Missing checks are unknown. Not empirical validation, procedure completion, or action authorization.
Recognition: outside · outside_recorded_conditions
Application
Application id
APP-RECOGNITION-OUTSIDE
Title
Recognition: outside
Kind
hypothetical
Fixture version
qe-canonical-review-0.1.2
Entry role ref
QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
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.
Variant 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.
All other baseline stipulations remain unchanged.
Condition assessments
  1. 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.
  2. Condition ref
    Owner ref
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
    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.
  3. Condition ref
    Owner ref
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
    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.
  4. Condition ref
    Owner ref
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
    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
  1. Objective ref
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
    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
  1. Trigger ref
    Role ref
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
    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
  1. Stipulated fictional case, not an observation about the supplied authors or companies.
  2. The result checks declared prerequisites only; it does not establish evidence quality, completed steps, an outcome or authorization.
Derived result
Application id
APP-RECOGNITION-OUTSIDE
Entry role ref
QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
Kind
role
Card id
QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN
Role id
D1
Definition scope review
reviewed
Case applicability
outside_recorded_conditions
Unknown checks
None recorded
Failed checks
  1. Owner ref
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
    Kind
    role
    Card id
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN
    Role id
    D1
    Condition id
    D-EXCLUDE
  2. Objective ref
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
    Kind
    role
    Card id
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN
    Role id
    D1
    Field
    objective
Evaluated dimensions
  1. declared_scope
  2. required_role_objectives
  3. action_activation
Meaning
Only explicitly declared obligations in the uses/requires closure are assessed. Missing checks are unknown. Not empirical validation, procedure completion, or action authorization.
Complete assembled Card
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
  1. 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
  1. 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
    1. S1
    Additional conditions
    1. 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.
    2. Condition id
      D-AUTH
      Kind
      applicability
      Statement
      The actor can choose acknowledgment within available resources, privacy requirements and any compensation or award obligations.
    3. 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
    1. EV-MK-P03-C2
    2. EV-MK-P04-C2
    3. EV-MK-I06-C1
    4. EV-HD-P13-C3
    Interpretation cautions
    None recorded
    Retrieval cues
    None recorded
    Objective
    Beneficiary
    The contributor and affected organizational participants
    Desired outcome
    Acknowledge useful contribution in a credible and context-appropriate way
    Constraints
    1. Preserve fairness, proportional cost and privacy.
    2. Respect the recipient's preferences about public exposure where they can be established.
    3. 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
    1. There is an occasion to acknowledge an identifiable organizational contribution.
    Steps
    1. Identify the actual contribution and check attribution before deciding whom or what to recognize.
    2. Consider private versus public acknowledgment, recipient preferences, cultural context and fair treatment of similar contributors.
    3. Choose a specific, proportionate form within the available authority and resources; do not promise a universal motivational effect.
    4. Deliver acknowledgment without disclosing protected information or implying that dignity or payment must be earned through praise.
    5. Review recipient response, perceived fairness and subsequent conduct. Change the form or pause it when it produces embarrassment, rivalry or misleading incentives.
    Review signals
    1. 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.
    2. 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
    1. Recipient response is not a controlled estimate of motivational effectiveness.
    2. The procedure is QE authoring; the supplied rows do not contain this full fairness/privacy review.
  2. 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
    1. S1
    Additional conditions
    None recorded
    Review
    reviewed
    Review note
    Reviewed as a reusable definition; case satisfaction and empirical support are not established.
    Evidence refs
    1. EV-MK-P04-C1
    2. EV-MK-I06-C2
    Interpretation cautions
    1. A reported comparison with criticism or cash is not independently established.
    2. A response in one recipient does not prove universal effect.
    Retrieval cues
    None recorded
Bridge relations
  1. Relation id
    R1
    From ref
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/O1
    Kind
    role
    Card id
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN
    Role id
    O1
    Relation type
    grounds
    To ref
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
    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
    1. S1
    Additional conditions
    None recorded
    Review
    reviewed
    Review note
    Reviewed as a reusable definition; case satisfaction and empirical support are not established.
    Evidence refs
    None recorded
Bridges
None recorded
Concept relations
None recorded
Source references
  1. SRC-ROW-MK-P03
  2. SRC-ROW-MK-P04
  3. SRC-ROW-MK-I06
  4. SRC-ROW-HD-P13
Evidence assessments
  1. 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
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
    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
    1. Respect is a related treatment standard, not exhausted by recognition; no universal performance effect is inferred.
    2. The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.
    3. Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.
    4. No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring.
  2. 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
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/O1
    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
    1. Comparative superiority over criticism is a source assertion, not an established effect.
    2. The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.
    3. Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.
    4. No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring.
  3. 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
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
    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
    1. Pins, rings, prizes and cars are examples, not separate families or a universal reward prescription.
    2. The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.
    3. Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.
    4. No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring.
  4. 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
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
    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
    1. Rings, cars and ceremonies are illustrative choices, not necessary components.
    2. The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.
    3. Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.
    4. No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring.
  5. 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
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/O1
    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
    1. The claimed advantage over cash is not established for every person or context.
    2. The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.
    3. Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.
    4. No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring.
  6. 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
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
    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
    1. Recognition is inferred from the reward example; eligibility rules and effects on motivation are unknown.
    2. The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.
    3. Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.
    4. No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring.
Case observations
None recorded
Narrative anchors
  1. 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
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
    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
    1. Pins, rings, prizes and cars are examples, not separate families or a universal reward prescription.
    2. The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.
    3. Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.
    4. No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring.
  2. 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
    QE-RECOGNITION-DESIGN/D1
    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
    1. Recognition is inferred from the reward example; eligibility rules and effects on motivation are unknown.
    2. The supplied cells remain unverified source accounts. This mapping neither attributes the complete authored procedure to the source nor establishes empirical support.
    3. Check attribution, recipient/context fit, proportionality, privacy and fairness; recognition does not replace dignity or owed payment.
    4. No universal performance advantage over cash or criticism is asserted. The full review procedure is QE authoring.
Interpretation cautions
  1. General dignity is owed independently of achievement; recognition is not a substitute for respectful treatment.
  2. Symbolic rewards are not known here to outperform cash or criticism, and public praise is not suitable for every recipient.
  3. 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.