Assumptions, contradictions, and questions
Assumptions, contradictions, and questions
Important assumptions
| ID | Assumption | Status | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| ASM-1 | The documents represent an intended operating model | Provisional | Otherwise G-1 is only an illustrative goal |
| ASM-2 | Candidate causes describe present practice | Provisional | Otherwise the CRT is a risk map, not current reality |
| ASM-3 | Awareness is not the current constraint | Provisional | Could reverse the next experimental focus |
| ASM-4 | Conversion failures materially limit adoption | Provisional | Central to RC-1 |
| ASM-8 | Model trust must precede accepted throughput | Inferred | Orders IO-1 before IO-2 |
| ASM-11 | Missing architecture causes missing next steps | Provisional | Connects RC-1 to UDE-4 |
| ASM-12 | Missing next steps cause practice drop-off | Provisional | Connects UDE-4 to UDE-1 |
| ASM-19 | Scale and depth cannot be integrated | Provisional | The cloud dissolves if false |
| ASM-21 | Mixed methods improve decisions without becoming the goal | Provisional | Controls metric risk |
| ASM-22 | Consent-based staging improves entry without reducing trust | Provisional | Controls funnel risk |
| ASM-24 | Apprenticeship distributes leadership while preserving quality | Provisional | Supports INJ-5 |
| ASM-25 | Dense supported interaction stabilizes new culture | Provisional | Supports INJ-6 |
| ASM-26 | Mature documentation enables founder-independent adoption | Provisional | Supports INJ-7 |
The full assumption registry is in ltp-model.yaml.
Contradictions
- The CRT names a likely constraint but also says its UDEs and arrows need lived validation.
- The documents already articulate throughput, yet describe lack of an accepted operational definition as a root cause.
- The CRT conclusion foregrounds throughput and conversion, while the PRT orders governance and model validation first.
- The PRT says a Transition Tree is next, but no source Transition Tree was supplied.
These are productive distinctions when expressed as authored hypothesis versus group-accepted operational reality.
Questions most capable of changing the model
- Do actual participants accept G-1 and the system boundary?
- Which UDEs are observed now, and what traces support them?
- Is RC-1 tighter than governance, facilitator capacity, trust, funding, or demand?
- What duration and evidence makes an adoption event durable?
- Who has standing and authority to revise the trees?
- What protected floorsâsafety, consent, pluralism, non-extractionâmust throughput never override?
- What has the group already tried, and what happened?
Categories of Legitimate Reservation
- Clarity: define âwiser,â âweller,â âdurable,â âpocket,â and âadoption.â
- Entity existence: verify every UDE against lived evidence.
- Causality existence: test whether missing next steps cause drop-off.
- Cause insufficiency: represent facilitator, trust, resource, and external causes.
- Additional cause: search for participant constraints outside program design.
- Cause-effect reversal: test whether strong pockets create conversion rather than only result from it.
- Predicted effect: pre-register what should change after each transition.
- Tautology: avoid defining âsuccessful transformationâ as whatever the program produces.
- Boundary: distinguish one groupâs throughput from civilization-level change.
Coverage gaps
- No interviews, decisions, logs, cohorts, adoption traces, or institutional cases.
- No external whitepapers referenced by the source documents.
- No owners, calendar, resources, or safeguarding specification.
- No real throughput periods.
- No authored Transition Tree.
