Transition Tree

Purpose

Convert the earliest prerequisite objectives into actions with observable effects. This view is inferred because the supplied source set explicitly stops before a Transition Tree.

Transition 1 — Validate the shared model

Transition ID: ACT-1 / TR-1
Current reality: The authored CRT is provisional; no lived evidence or group disposition is attached to its UDEs and arrows.
Need: A model with enough standing to guide experiments without treating authorship as confirmation.
Action: Facilitate one bounded stewarded review of G-1, the priority UDEs, and the RC-1 conversion-constraint hypothesis. Use a versioned change proposal and objection log.
Expected immediate effect: TR-1 — A dated model records confirmations, disputes, evidence gaps, a named steward, decision rules, and the next review.
Expected contribution: Achieves IO-1 and makes a throughput review legitimate.
Prerequisites: Invite affected participants; circulate the model; define “provisional use”; preserve minority reports.
Verification: Every reviewed entity has a disposition; objections have owners or explicit deferral; steward and review date are recorded.
Likely scope: ltp/ltp-model.yaml, review notes, decision log.
Risk: Discussion expands indefinitely or false consensus hides disagreement.
Rollback/containment: Time-box the review; retain disputed status; do not promote unreviewed claims to confirmed.
Traceability: OBS-1 → IO-1 → INJ-0 → CSF-2 → G-1.
Confidence: High.

Transition 2 — Make throughput testable

Transition ID: ACT-2 / TR-2
Current reality: Durable adoption is defined rhetorically but not accepted operationally.
Need: A way to judge one experiment without equating activity with transformation.
Action: Draft and review one mixed-method definition of a durable adoption event, including minimum duration, quantitative trace, qualitative evidence, protected floors, and revision conditions.
Expected immediate effect: TR-2 — One candidate metric can be tested without being treated as complete truth.
Expected contribution: Achieves IO-2 and addresses RC-2.
Prerequisites: IO-1; named decision owner; access to representative adoption examples.
Verification: Example events can be classified consistently; non-events and edge cases are documented; qualitative evidence is mandatory.
Likely scope: measurement protocol and review template.
Risk: Goodhart effects and marginalization of subtle change.
Rollback/containment: Pilot-only status; wisdom review; prohibit incentive linkage during the first cycle.
Traceability: OBS-2 → IO-2 → INJ-2 → DE-1 → CSF-2.
Confidence: Medium.

Transition 3 — Test one entry path

Transition ID: ACT-3 / TR-3
Current reality: The proposed staged pathway has no participant-flow evidence.
Need: Distinguish pathway-design failure from other causes of low practice entry.
Action: Prototype one transparent next step from one real public contact into one first practice; state commitments, rights, and exit options.
Expected immediate effect: TR-3 — The group observes where participants accept, decline, pause, or exit.
Expected contribution: Tests IO-3, RC-1, ASM-11, and ASM-12.
Prerequisites: IO-2; safeguarding; facilitator; consent language; event source.
Verification: Invitations, choices, attendance, exits, and qualitative feedback are recorded without pressure.
Likely scope: one event/content artifact, orientation, first-practice session, observation log.
Risk: Manipulative funnel behavior.
Rollback/containment: Explicit no-pressure opt-out; independent feedback channel; stop condition for trust concerns.
Traceability: OBS-3 → IO-3 → INJ-3 → DE-2 → CSF-1.
Confidence: Medium.

Transition 4 — Test recurring practice

Transition ID: ACT-4 / TR-4
Current reality: First contact is not evidence of sustained embodiment.
Need: Learn whether repeated practice creates durable change safely.
Action: Run one short recurring-practice cohort as a documented hypothesis-action-result-learning cycle.
Expected immediate effect: TR-4 — Retention, qualitative practice, safety, and learning evidence exists.
Expected contribution: Tests IO-4 and informs later stewardship and pocket design.
Prerequisites: IO-3; facilitation and safeguarding standards; defined duration; consented observation.
Verification: Attendance alone is insufficient; collect participant-reported and peer-discerned change, adverse effects, exits, and facilitator learning.
Likely scope: cohort curriculum, facilitator guide, evidence log.
Risk: Psychological harm, selection bias, or overclaiming.
Rollback/containment: Referral boundaries, stop conditions, limited claims, and documented adverse events.
Traceability: OBS-4 → IO-4 → NC-3 → CSF-1.
Confidence: Medium.

Logical connections

flowchart TB
  A1["ACT-1 Stewarded model review"] --> T1["TR-1 Dispositions and governance recorded"] --> I1["IO-1 Provisional model"]
  A2["ACT-2 Draft throughput protocol"] --> T2["TR-2 Testable candidate measure"] --> I2["IO-2 Throughput accepted"]
  A3["ACT-3 Prototype entry path"] --> T3["TR-3 Participant-flow evidence"] --> I3["IO-3 Entry pathway"]
  A4["ACT-4 Run practice cohort"] --> T4["TR-4 Practice and safety evidence"] --> I4["IO-4 Recurring practice"]

Text: each action produces an observable effect that achieves or tests one intermediate objective. ACT-1 is first; later actions depend on what it confirms.

Open reservations

• Owners, dates, participants, and resources require group decisions.
• ACT-2–ACT-4 should be revised if ACT-1 disputes the goal, UDEs, or constraint.

Cross-tree references

The transitions advance NC-6, NC-1, NC-2, and NC-3 respectively, and test the first half of the Future Reality chain.