name: Information Set Specification and Completeness Verification

batch: Second Iteration/Batch 05

aliases: Market Information Incorporation Verification

aliases: Price Discovery Completeness Verification

alias_records: Market Information Incorporation Verification

alias_records: Price Discovery Completeness Verification

slug: validation

slug: uncertainty

slug: probability

slug: stationarity

slug: signaling

slug: liquidity

components: Excluded Information and Access Register

essence_one_line: Do not ask whether a price or signal is simply “efficient”; specify the information set it should reflect, then test whether available information and residual opportunities show complete incorporation.

compression_statement: Efficient-market claims become ambiguous when the information set is undefined. This archetype makes the claim explicit: identify which information is in scope, who could access it, when it became available, how it should enter prices or market-like signals, and how quickly the signal should adjust. Then test for incomplete incorporation by comparing signal response, residual opportunities, lagged predictability, cross-market leakage, stale quotes, or arbitrage gaps against the declared information set. The result is a scoped completeness judgment rather than a vague assertion that the market already knows everything.

core_intuition: A price can only be judged informationally complete relative to a defined information set and time horizon. Unincorporated information is often visible not as missing data in a database, but as predictable opportunity, delayed response, stale valuation, or inconsistent related prices.

canonical_formula: information_incorporation_claim = (signal, information_set, access_population, availability_time, incorporation_pathway, latency_window); completeness_gap = available_in_scope_information - information_reflected_in_signal

structural_problem: A price, quote, index, forecast, ranking, or market-like signal is treated as though it reflects all relevant information, but the relevant information set is vague, shifting, or untested. Decision-makers may overtrust the signal, overlook stale or excluded information, misunderstand the form of market efficiency being claimed, or miss exploitable residual opportunities.

trigger_conditions: A claim is made that prices, quotes, rankings, valuations, or market signals already reflect available information.

trigger_conditions: Different actors disagree about whether public, semi-public, private, costly, local, alternative, or order-flow information is in scope.

trigger_conditions: A disclosure, event, or signal should have changed prices, but observed response is delayed, partial, noisy, or inconsistent.

trigger_conditions: Related markets, instruments, neighborhoods, platforms, or channels appear to reflect information at different speeds.

trigger_conditions: There may be predictable excess return, arbitrage, stale valuation, or underreaction after information release.

trigger_conditions: A decision relies on an EMH-like assumption that no available information can improve the signal.

trigger_conditions: The market structure changes through new data feeds, regulations, disclosure regimes, trading venues, or participant access.

symptoms: People invoke “the market has priced it in” without naming the information set or time window.

symptoms: Backtests or event studies show post-announcement drift, stale quotes, delayed real estate repricing, or cross-market leakage.

symptoms: Public information appears incorporated in some instruments but not related ones.

symptoms: Private, local, or costly-to-process information produces repeated advantages for better-informed actors.

symptoms: Risk, valuation, or index models assume completeness while omitting known available signals.

symptoms: An apparent arbitrage or pricing anomaly persists longer than the declared efficiency claim allows.

symptoms: The same price is treated as fully informed for some decisions and only partially informed for others.

root_tension: Market signals compress dispersed information, but that compression is never absolute. The signal can be efficient relative to one information boundary and incomplete relative to another.

anti_signatures: The question is only whether a dataset has all required fields; use completeness_audit instead.

anti_signatures: The goal is to design a price to change behavior; use price_signal_design instead.

anti_signatures: The signal is not market-like and there is no information-incorporation claim or residual opportunity structure.

anti_signatures: The relevant information is unknowable, illegal to use, or entirely outside the declared information-set boundary.

anti_signatures: Observed price movement is driven by preference or liquidity shocks rather than information incorporation.

structural_intervention: Convert an implicit efficiency claim into a scoped verification exercise: define the information set, inventory actual availability and access, model incorporation pathways and latency, test signal response, search for residual opportunities, and revise the completeness claim when evidence shows gaps.

action_logic: Name the signal whose information completeness is being evaluated.

action_logic: Declare the information set in scope and separate public, semi-public, private, costly, delayed, local, and excluded information.

action_logic: Inventory what information was actually available to relevant actors at relevant times.

action_logic: Specify how the information should be incorporated through trading, quoting, analysis, disclosure, arbitrage, market making, ranking updates, or valuation processes.

action_logic: Set the latency window within which incorporation should occur.

action_logic: Test observed response against the expected direction, magnitude, timing, and cross-signal consistency.

action_logic: Probe for residual opportunities such as lagged predictability, arbitrage, stale quotes, underpriced risk, or exploitable decision gaps.

action_logic: Revise the information-set boundary, latency assumption, or market-efficiency claim when tests show incomplete incorporation.

decision_rules: Never evaluate market efficiency without stating the information set and time horizon.

decision_rules: Treat persistent predictable opportunity after the latency window as evidence of incomplete incorporation or an incorrectly specified boundary.

decision_rules: Distinguish unavailable information from available-but-unincorporated information.

decision_rules: Distinguish noisy incorporation from no incorporation; uncertainty does not automatically imply inefficiency.

decision_rules: Test related signals when information may leak through one market, instrument, or geography before another.

decision_rules: Revise the claim when market structure, participant access, disclosure rules, data feeds, or trading frictions change.

target_invariants: The information set remains explicit and auditable.

target_invariants: Availability timing and actor access are separated from later hindsight knowledge.

target_invariants: Completeness is judged relative to the declared boundary, not assumed globally.

target_invariants: Residual opportunities are investigated rather than dismissed by definition.

target_invariants: Private or illegal information is not silently included in public-information claims.

target_invariants: Latency assumptions are calibrated to the market, signal, or platform being tested.

expected_outcomes: Clearer EMH or market-efficiency claims.

expected_outcomes: Better detection of underreaction, stale pricing, leakage, and arbitrage gaps.

expected_outcomes: Less overreliance on price signals whose information boundary is undefined.

expected_outcomes: More disciplined distinction between public, semi-public, private, and costly information.

expected_outcomes: Improved model, index, valuation, or market-design validation.

prose_essence:
Information Set Specification and Completeness Verification turns vague market-efficiency language into a scoped test. Instead of asking whether a price is simply efficient, it asks: efficient relative to which information, available to whom, through which pathway, and within what time window?

The archetype is most visible in finance, but the structure also applies to prediction markets, marketplace rankings, dynamic pricing systems, indices, benchmarks, and other market-like signals. A signal can be informationally complete relative to public information and incomplete relative to local, costly, private, delayed, or cross-market information.

Public Information Incorporation Check

short_definition: Tests whether public disclosures, news, filings, or announcements are reflected in prices within a declared window.

distinctive_feature: Focuses on public-information boundaries and event timing.

distinct_from_parent: The parent also covers semi-public, private, costly, or cross-market information boundaries.

still_same_parent_because: The same boundary, availability, latency, and residual-opportunity logic applies.

use_when: Public information events have clear release times.

use_when: The claim is that public information is already priced in.

example_domains:
earnings announcements
policy announcements
macroeconomic releases

Private Information Boundary Audit

short_definition: Separates public-efficiency claims from claims that would require private, privileged, or costly access information.

distinctive_feature: Makes access boundaries and fairness/legal constraints central.

distinct_from_parent: The parent can audit any declared information set; this variant focuses on private or asymmetric access.

still_same_parent_because: The key question remains whether the declared information set is correctly specified and reflected.

use_when: A price appears informed but it is unclear whether the information was public, private, or unevenly accessible.

use_when: Legal, ethical, or fairness concerns depend on information access asymmetry.

example_domains:
insider trading review
market surveillance
procurement markets

Event-Driven Price Incorporation Test

short_definition: Uses a discrete event to test direction, magnitude, and speed of price response.

distinctive_feature: The event provides a clean temporal anchor for the test.

distinct_from_parent: The parent also covers continuous, diffuse, and cross-market information.

still_same_parent_because: It still evaluates completeness relative to an information set and latency window.

use_when: A timestamped event should alter valuation or probability.

use_when: The main issue is underreaction, overreaction, or delayed incorporation.

example_domains:
earnings releases
regulatory announcements
clinical trial results

Cross-Market Information Leakage Probe

short_definition: Compares related markets, assets, regions, or instruments to detect uneven information incorporation.

distinctive_feature: Completeness is tested through divergence among linked signals.

distinct_from_parent: The parent can test one signal; this variant relies on cross-signal comparison.

still_same_parent_because: Differences indicate possible information-set or latency mismatch.

use_when: Related signals should reflect the same information but move at different times or magnitudes.

use_when: One market may be more liquid, informed, or accessible than another.

example_domains:
dual-listed securities
credit and equity markets
real estate submarkets

near_names:
Priced-In Claim Audit
Market Efficiency Information-Set Test
Information Incorporation Gap Audit


Informed Consent Governance

type: archetype

source: generated

batch: First Iteration/Batch 48

Consent Governance

notes: Shorter near name emphasizing governance of agreement rather than a document or checkbox.

Permission Governance

notes: Plain-language version for settings where consent vocabulary sounds too legal or medical.

Informed Agreement Design

notes: Emphasizes that agreement should be structured, informed, and scope-specific.

Consent Architecture

notes: Architecture-oriented name for the same structural intervention pattern.

slug: consent

slug: legitimacy

slug: normativity

slug: accountability

slug: transparency

components:
Consenting Party
Material Information
Comprehension Check
Voluntariness Check
Authority to Consent
Consent Scope
Withdrawal Path
Coercion Safeguard
Consent Record
Refusal or Alternative Path
Renewal or Change Trigger
Proxy or Assent Protocol
Plain-Language Support
Revocation Effect Rule

mechanisms:
Consent Form
Opt-In Flow
Informed Consent Conversation
Data Consent Settings
Research Consent Protocol
Withdrawal Procedure
Assent / Consent Distinction
Plain-Language Disclosure
Granular Permission Dashboard
Consent Renewal Prompt

essence_one_line: Ensure agreement is informed, voluntary, specific, revocable where appropriate, and granted by someone with authority to consent.

compression_statement: When action depends on permission, informed consent governance designs the information, comprehension, voluntariness, authority, scope, record, withdrawal, and coercion safeguards that make agreement meaningful rather than merely captured.

core_intuition: Consent is not the moment a person clicks, signs, or says yes. It is a governed permission relationship: the person must know what matters, understand enough to choose, be able to refuse without illegitimate pressure, agree only to a bounded scope, and retain a path to withdraw or challenge when the relationship changes.

canonical_formula: consenting_party + material_information + comprehension_check + voluntariness_check + authority_to_consent + consent_scope + withdrawal_path + coercion_safeguard -> valid bounded permission

structural_problem: A system treats assent, participation, silence, continued use, a signature, or a checkbox as consent even though the person lacked adequate information, understanding, freedom to refuse, authority to grant permission, scope clarity, or a workable withdrawal path.

condition: Permission-dependent action

explanation: The action, data use, participation, treatment, relationship, or disclosure should not proceed without agreement from an affected or authorized party.

condition: Information asymmetry

explanation: The requesting actor knows more than the consenting party about risks, uses, consequences, alternatives, technical details, or downstream effects.

condition: Power or dependency imbalance

explanation: Employment, care, institutional authority, platform access, economic need, or social pressure may make refusal costly or unrealistic.

condition: Scope or purpose complexity

explanation: The requested agreement covers multiple purposes, actors, durations, data flows, or future uses that need to be separated or bounded.

condition: Consent over time

explanation: The relationship changes after initial agreement, making one-time consent stale or misleading.

condition: Representative or proxy permission

explanation: Someone may be agreeing on behalf of another person, group, team, patient, student, participant, or organization.

symptom: Checkbox consent theater

diagnostic_meaning: A consent record exists, but it does not show material information, comprehension, voluntariness, scope, or withdrawal.

symptom: Bundled all-or-nothing terms

diagnostic_meaning: Permission for unrelated uses is tied to access, employment, care, or participation, making refusal practically unavailable.

symptom: Hidden or overloaded disclosure

diagnostic_meaning: Important risks or uses are buried in dense language, vague categories, or late-stage notices.

symptom: Scope creep after agreement

diagnostic_meaning: The requesting actor later uses the original consent for purposes, actors, data, or durations not reasonably covered by the original scope.

symptom: Wrong actor consented

diagnostic_meaning: The person who agreed did not have authority, capacity, mandate, or representative standing for the permission requested.

symptom: Withdrawal dead end

diagnostic_meaning: People can agree easily but cannot revoke, narrow, pause, delete, stop participation, or confirm downstream effects.

symptom: Consent by silence or fatigue

diagnostic_meaning: The system interprets non-response, continued use, repeated prompts, or exhaustion as permission.

root_tension: Organizations and systems need permission to act, but affected parties need control over what they are agreeing to without being deceived, overwhelmed, coerced, or locked into stale permissions.

case: Nonwaivable protection or mandatory rule

why_not: Some protections should not be waived through consent; mandatory_default_rule_design may decide what cannot be opted out of.

case: Purely informational notice

why_not: If no choice or permission is being requested, this may be transparency, notification, or procedural fairness rather than consent governance.

case: Post-harm dispute resolution

why_not: If the core issue is resolving a dispute after harm or disagreement, adjudication_process_design or procedural_fairness_design may be primary.

case: Low-risk preference choice

why_not: A trivial reversible setting may need usable interface design, not the full consent governance architecture.

case: Emergency action without feasible prior agreement

why_not: Emergency authority or necessity protocols may govern action when valid prior consent cannot be obtained, though retrospective explanation and review may still be needed.

structural_intervention: Define who must consent, disclose material information in usable form, check understanding, test voluntariness and authority, specify scope and duration, record permission, provide refusal and withdrawal paths, and renew or review consent when material conditions change.

step: Identify the consent-requiring action

logic: Name the action, data use, relationship, disclosure, treatment, participation, or decision that requires permission before it proceeds.

step: Identify the proper consenting party

logic: Determine who holds the relevant interest and who has authority to agree, including proxy, delegated, or collective cases.

step: Disclose material information

logic: Provide decision-relevant facts about purpose, benefits, risks, burdens, alternatives, limits, future uses, and consequences of refusal.

step: Support and check understanding

logic: Use plain language, translation, accessibility support, examples, timing, Q&A, teach-back, or other checks suited to risk and complexity.

step: Test voluntariness

logic: Assess whether refusal is practically available and whether incentives, pressure, dependency, dark patterns, or threat of loss invalidate agreement.

step: Define scope and duration

logic: Specify what is permitted, by whom, for what purpose, for how long, with what exclusions, and under what change triggers.

step: Create refusal and withdrawal paths

logic: Make declining, revoking, narrowing, pausing, or reviewing consent usable and non-retaliatory where appropriate.

step: Record consent state and changes

logic: Document disclosure version, scope, actor, date, authority basis, limitations, renewals, and withdrawals for accountability.

step: Renew or review after material change

logic: Revisit consent when the purpose, risk, actor, technology, data flow, duration, or dependency context changes materially.

rule: Consent is valid only within its disclosed scope.

rationale: Permission for one purpose, actor, or duration should not silently authorize broader future use.

rule: Material change requires renewed or revised permission.

rationale: A new risk, purpose, data recipient, role, or dependency context can invalidate the old consent state.

rule: Voluntariness requires a meaningful refusal path.

rationale: Agreement is weak when refusal carries unrelated penalty, loss of essential access, retaliation, or manipulated choice architecture.

rule: The consenting actor must have authority for the interest at stake.

rationale: A person or representative cannot grant permission outside their capacity, mandate, or legitimate authority.

rule: Nonwaivable protections cannot be bypassed by consent.

rationale: Some rules protect interests or power imbalances that individual agreement should not erase.

rule: Withdrawal should be as operational as granting consent.

rationale: A visible opt-out with no downstream effect is not a real withdrawal path.

rule: Recordkeeping supports but never substitutes for understanding and voluntariness.

rationale: A timestamp or signature can prove that an interaction occurred without proving that meaningful consent existed.

invariant: Informedness

preservation_logic: The consenting party receives and can use the information that would reasonably affect the decision.

invariant: Voluntariness

invariant: Specificity

invariant: Authority

invariant: Revocability where appropriate

invariant: Traceable consent state

outcome: Meaningful permission

description: Agreement reflects an informed and voluntary choice rather than passive compliance or interface friction.

outcome: Reduced consent disputes

description: Clear scope, information, and records make later disagreements about permission easier to diagnose and resolve.

outcome: Improved legitimacy and trust

outcome: Lower scope-creep risk

description: Change triggers and renewal rules prevent old consent from being stretched to cover new practices.

outcome: Better refusal and withdrawal handling

description: The system can honor no, not now, not this use, or stop without improvised exceptions.

prose_essence:
Informed Consent Governance treats consent as a designed permission relationship rather than a signature, checkbox, or vague statement of agreement. The core move is to make agreement informed, voluntary, specific, authorized, recorded, and withdrawable where appropriate. A system using this archetype does not ask “did someone click yes?” first; it asks whether the person or representative had enough information, enough understanding, enough freedom to refuse, clear scope, and a workable path to change their mind.

This archetype generalizes beyond law and medicine. It applies anywhere action depends on permission: data use, research participation, platform features, workplace programs, community agreements, organizational pilots, and delegated or representative decisions. It should be adapted to domain rules, but it is not itself legal, medical, or compliance advice.

prose_when_to_use:
Use this archetype when an action should depend on permission and there is a real risk that apparent agreement could be uninformed, coerced, overly broad, stale, or granted by the wrong actor.

- The action is permission-dependent and can be delayed or structured long enough to seek meaningful agreement.
- The requesting actor can disclose material information without overwhelming or misleading the consenting party.
- The consenting party can refuse, narrow, or withdraw without illegitimate retaliation or unrelated loss.
- The system can operationally honor scope and withdrawal rather than merely record preferences.
- There is enough clarity about who holds the relevant interest and who has authority to consent.

It is especially useful where the requesting party has more information or more power than the consenting party. It is weaker when consent is being used to waive protections that should be mandatory, or when the person cannot realistically refuse.

prose_structural_problem:
The structural failure is consent theater: a system collects evidence of assent but does not create meaningful permission. The consent record may look clean while the underlying relationship is defective. The person may not understand the action, may face hidden pressure, may be agreeing to many unrelated uses at once, may lack authority to agree, or may be unable to revoke consent later.

The root tension is that institutions and systems need permission to act, while affected people need real control over what they authorize. Without governance, consent becomes a transfer of burden from the powerful actor to the less powerful one.

prose_intervention_logic:
The intervention builds a validity chain. First, identify the permission-dependent action and the proper consenting party. Then disclose material information in a usable form, support comprehension, check voluntariness, confirm authority, define scope and duration, and provide refusal and withdrawal paths. Finally, record the consent state and renew or review it when material conditions change.

A weak link can invalidate the whole chain. A signature without understanding is not enough. A clear disclosure without a refusal path may still be coercive. A precise scope without downstream operational controls may be unenforceable. The archetype works by keeping these controls connected rather than treating consent as a single event.

prose_key_components:
- **Consenting Party (`consenting_party`):** Identifies the person, group, role, or authorized representative whose permission is required before the action proceeds. The consenting party is not always the same as the user, customer, participant, data subject, employee, patient, or affected community. The draft should specify whose consent matters and whether consent is individual, collective, delegated, or proxy-based.
- **Material Information (`material_information`):** Specifies the information that must be disclosed for consent to be meaningfully informed. Material information includes the action, purpose, expected benefits, risks, burdens, alternatives, limits, future uses, and consequences of refusal. More information is not automatically better; it must be understandable and decision-relevant.
- **Comprehension Check (`comprehension_check`):** Tests whether the consenting party has actually understood the material information well enough to make a decision. This component prevents disclosure from becoming mere information dumping. It may be lightweight for low-risk settings and stronger for high-risk, technical, or asymmetric situations.
- **Voluntariness Check (`voluntariness_check`):** Assesses whether agreement is free from coercion, manipulation, hidden penalty, dependency pressure, or misleading choice architecture. Consent is weak when refusal is punished, essential access is conditioned on unrelated permissions, incentives become coercive, or the design nudges people into agreement without meaningful deliberation.
- **Authority to Consent (`authority_to_consent`):** Confirms that the consenting party has the standing, capacity, mandate, or delegated authority to grant the permission being requested. Authority can fail because the wrong person agreed, the representative exceeded scope, a minor or dependent party only assented, or the permission concerns interests that cannot be waived by that actor.
- **Consent Scope (`consent_scope`):** Defines what is permitted, for whom, for what purpose, for what duration, under what conditions, and with what exclusions. Scope prevents permission creep. It should distinguish the specific action, data use, treatment, disclosure, participation, relationship, or organizational decision covered by the consent.
- **Withdrawal Path (`withdrawal_path`):** Provides a practical way to refuse, revoke, narrow, pause, or review consent when withdrawal is appropriate. Withdrawal is not always absolute after irreversible action, but the system should specify what can be stopped, what remains valid, what consequences follow, and how withdrawal is recorded.
- **Coercion Safeguard (`coercion_safeguard`):** Protects against pressure, retaliation, dark patterns, bundled permissions, dependency exploitation, and other conditions that invalidate consent. This component is especially important when power, need, employment, care, platform access, or institutional dependency makes refusal costly.
- **Consent Record (`consent_record`):** Creates an auditable record of what was disclosed, who consented, what scope was granted, and when consent was changed or withdrawn. The record supports accountability, but it does not by itself prove that consent was informed or voluntary. It should preserve scope and version context, not just a timestamp.
- **Refusal or Alternative Path (`refusal_or_alternative_path`):** Defines what happens if the person declines, chooses a narrower scope, or asks for a different pathway. A real alternative helps distinguish consent from compliance under pressure. In some domains, a fair refusal path may be the strongest evidence that agreement was voluntary.
- **Renewal or Change Trigger (`renewal_or_change_trigger`):** Identifies when consent must be renewed, refreshed, narrowed, or revisited because the context, risk, use, actor, or duration has changed. Stale consent is a common failure mode in data, research, employment, and platform systems. Renewal triggers keep permission aligned with current facts.
- **Proxy or Assent Protocol (`proxy_or_assent_protocol`):** Handles cases where another actor consents on behalf of a person or where assent should be sought alongside authorized proxy consent. Use when minors, dependent persons, groups, incapacitated parties, delegated representatives, or organizational agents are involved.
- **Plain-Language Support (`plain_language_support`):** Converts material information into language, format, timing, and accessibility supports the consenting party can actually use. This includes translation, accessibility, examples, layered summaries, teach-back prompts, risk visuals, and pacing for high-cognitive-load decisions.
- **Revocation Effect Rule (`revocation_effect_rule`):** Explains what withdrawal changes, what cannot be undone, and how downstream users or linked systems must respond. Withdrawal is undermined when revocation is ignored downstream. This rule connects the withdrawal path to operational consequences.

prose_common_mechanisms:
The mechanisms below implement the archetype, but none of them is the archetype by itself. A consent form, opt-in flow, or dashboard only counts as informed-consent governance when it also supports material information, understanding, voluntariness, authority, scope, withdrawal, and coercion safeguards.

- **Consent Form (`consent_form`):** Captures disclosure, agreement, scope, signature or acknowledgement, and often the record of authorization. A form is an artifact, not the archetype. It implements informed consent only when paired with comprehension, voluntariness, authority, scope, and withdrawal controls.
- **Opt-In Flow (`opt_in_flow`):** Presents a permission request before a user enters a feature, data use, program, or relationship that requires affirmative agreement. Opt-in flows are common in platforms and products; they must avoid dark patterns, bundled permissions, and misleading default choices.
- **Informed Consent Conversation (`informed_consent_conversation`):** Uses dialogue, question-and-answer, teach-back, and deliberation to establish understanding before agreement. This mechanism is especially important when risks are technical, personal, medical, relational, or emotionally significant.
- **Data Consent Settings (`data_consent_settings`):** Lets users grant, narrow, revoke, or inspect data permissions at different levels of granularity. Data settings instantiate the archetype only when the permission categories are understandable, current, and connected to operational data handling.
- **Research Consent Protocol (`research_consent_protocol`):** Structures participant disclosure, voluntary enrollment, scope, withdrawal, recordkeeping, and continuing review for research participation. This is a domain-specific mechanism family; the archetype generalizes beyond research while preserving the same structural controls.
- **Withdrawal Procedure (`withdrawal_procedure`):** Operationalizes refusal, revocation, narrowing, opt-out, deletion, stopping participation, or review of existing permission. Withdrawal procedure implements revocability and should define timelines, confirmations, downstream effects, and any limits.
- **Assent / Consent Distinction (`assent_consent_distinction`):** Differentiates affirmative participation by a person from legally or institutionally authorized consent by a guardian, representative, or accountable actor. This mechanism is useful when a person should be respected even if they cannot independently authorize the full decision.
- **Plain-Language Disclosure (`plain_language_disclosure`):** Provides layered, accessible, and decision-relevant explanation of material information. Plain language supports informedness but should not be confused with consent itself; the person must still have choice and scope control.
- **Granular Permission Dashboard (`granular_permission_dashboard`):** Shows separate permissions, purposes, actors, and revocation controls in a single reviewable place. Dashboards can support ongoing consent when categories remain understandable and changes propagate to real system behavior.
- **Consent Renewal Prompt (`consent_renewal_prompt`):** Requests renewed agreement when purpose, risk, duration, actor, or context changes materially. Renewal prompts prevent stale permission but can become fatigue-inducing if overused or poorly timed.

prose_failure_modes:
- **Checkbox consent theater:** The system treats a click, signature, or default setting as sufficient proof of consent. Mitigation: Pair records with material disclosure, comprehension support, scope, voluntariness checks, and withdrawal paths.
- **Dark-pattern permission capture:** Interface design nudges, confuses, shames, or exhausts people into agreeing. Mitigation: Audit choice architecture, make refusal equally visible, prohibit manipulative defaults, and test user understanding.
- **Bundled coercive consent:** Unrelated permissions are required for access, employment, care, or participation. Mitigation: Separate essential and optional permissions, define refusal alternatives, and identify nonwaivable protections.
- **Information overload:** Disclosure is too dense, vague, technical, late, or broad to support actual choice. Mitigation: Use layered disclosure, plain language, examples, accessibility support, and comprehension checks.
- **Scope creep:** Old consent is stretched to cover new purposes, actors, data flows, or risks. Mitigation: Define scope explicitly, log versions, and require renewal after material change.
- **Stale consent:** The relationship or risk changes, but the original permission remains treated as current. Mitigation: Set renewal or change triggers and expose current consent state for review.
- **Invalid representative consent:** A proxy, delegate, or organizational actor consents beyond authority or against the affected party’s interest. Mitigation: Validate mandate, conflicts, capacity, assent/dissent signals, and review paths.
- **Withdrawal without effect:** The opt-out exists but downstream systems, partners, or records do not change behavior. Mitigation: Link withdrawal to operational propagation, confirmation, audit, and revocation-effect rules.

prose_neighbor_distinctions:
- **Speech-Act Clarification (`speech_act_clarification`):** Speech-act clarification asks what an utterance or signal does; informed consent governance asks whether a permission-granting act is valid, scoped, voluntary, and operationally honored.
- **Autonomy-Supportive Constraint Design (`autonomy_supportive_constraint_design`):** Autonomy-supportive constraints preserve choice while guiding action; informed consent governance validates agreement for a specific permission-dependent action.
- **Procedural Fairness Design (`procedural_fairness_design`):** Procedural fairness gives affected parties notice, voice, reasons, impartiality, and review; informed consent governs whether someone may authorize action before or during participation.
- **Rights / Freedoms Obligation Mapping (`rights_freedoms_obligation_mapping`):** Rights/freedoms mapping clarifies claims, liberties, duties, and limits; consent governance determines whether a particular permission can alter or authorize action within those mapped constraints.
- **Mandatory / Default Rule Design (`mandatory_default_rule_design`):** Mandatory/default rule design decides which protections are waivable or opt-out; informed consent governs whether a particular opt-in, opt-out, or waiver is valid.
- **Accountability Chain Design (`accountability_chain_design`):** Accountability chain design traces responsibility, forum, and repair; consent records support accountability but do not replace the validity conditions for permission.
- **Legitimacy Building (`legitimacy_building`):** Legitimacy building concerns accepted authority; consent may support legitimacy but does not by itself create competent, fair, or accountable governance.

prose_cross_domain_examples:
- **healthcare**: A clinic explains a procedure, alternatives, material risks, and likely outcomes; the patient asks questions, confirms understanding, signs the scoped consent, and can withdraw before the procedure begins.
- **data_governance**: A data platform separates consent for analytics, personalization, research, and third-party sharing, then lets users later revoke each category with visible downstream effects.
- **research**: A study distinguishes current participation from future sample use and prompts participants again when a new secondary-use plan is introduced.
- **workplace**: An employer offers a voluntary monitoring pilot with a clear nonparticipation path, explains data access limits, and forbids managers from using participation status in evaluation.
- **platform_policy**: A creator opts into a monetization program after seeing clear terms, data uses, review rights, withdrawal limits, and consequences for existing content.

prose_non_examples:
- **A prechecked box for broad data sharing hidden under a “continue” button**: The interface captures assent but undermines voluntariness and scope clarity.
- **A consent form signed after the decision is already irreversible**: The record cannot authorize a choice the person no longer has.
- **A mandatory rule that says users “consent” to all safety monitoring**: This is likely mandatory/default rule design or transparency, not consent if refusal is not available.
- **A proxy signature with no authority check and no attention to the affected person’s dissent**: Representative consent without mandate or assent safeguards is structurally invalid.

prose_tradeoffs:
- **Comprehensiveness vs cognitive load:** More disclosure can improve informedness but also overwhelm decision-makers; layered and decision-relevant information helps.
- **Granularity vs usability:** Fine-grained choices increase control but can create fatigue, confusion, or inconsistent downstream implementation.
- **Revocability vs operational reliance:** Withdrawal supports control, but some actions are irreversible or create dependencies that need explicit revocation-effect rules.
- **Friction vs protection:** Consent steps can slow participation or product flow, but skipping them externalizes risk to affected parties.
- **Recordability vs meaningful understanding:** Records are necessary for accountability but can incentivize signature capture over genuine comprehension.
- **Standardization vs context sensitivity:** Templates promote consistency, but consent validity depends heavily on context, risk, relationship, and power imbalance.

prose_invariants_to_preserve:
- **Informedness:** The consenting party receives and can use the information that would reasonably affect the decision.
- **Voluntariness:** The person can refuse or narrow permission without illegitimate penalty, coercion, manipulation, or dependency exploitation.
- **Specificity:** Consent attaches to a defined action, purpose, actor, duration, and context rather than an open-ended blank check.
- **Authority:** The actor granting permission has capacity, standing, delegation, or representative authority for the interest at stake.
- **Revocability where appropriate:** The system preserves a practical way to withdraw, pause, narrow, or review consent unless irreversibility or legitimate limits are explicit.
- **Traceable consent state:** Records connect the granted permission to the disclosure version, scope, authority basis, renewals, and withdrawal history.

prose_target_outcomes:
- **Meaningful permission:** Agreement reflects an informed and voluntary choice rather than passive compliance or interface friction.
- **Reduced consent disputes:** Clear scope, information, and records make later disagreements about permission easier to diagnose and resolve.
- **Improved legitimacy and trust:** People are more likely to accept authority or participation when consent is handled respectfully and transparently.
- **Lower scope-creep risk:** Change triggers and renewal rules prevent old consent from being stretched to cover new practices.
- **Better refusal and withdrawal handling:** The system can honor no, not now, not this use, or stop without improvised exceptions.

prose_parameter_dimensions:
- **Risk and irreversibility:** high-risk or irreversible actions require stronger disclosure, comprehension checks, and review before action.
- **Granularity:** tune how many separate permissions are offered so people gain control without being buried in categories.
- **Duration:** decide whether consent is one-time, episodic, time-limited, or ongoing with renewal triggers.
- **Power imbalance:** increase safeguards when employment, care, monopoly access, dependency, or institutional pressure can compromise voluntariness.
- **Withdrawal effect:** specify whether revocation stops future action, triggers deletion, narrows downstream use, or only prevents renewed participation.
- **Representative authority:** tune mandate, proxy authority, assent, and conflict checks when one actor consents for another.

prose_variants_and_near_names:
- **Granular Consent Governance (`granular_consent_governance`):** A consent-governance variant that breaks permission into separable purposes, actors, durations, or data/action categories instead of asking for one blanket approval.
- **Dynamic or Ongoing Consent (`dynamic_or_ongoing_consent`):** A consent-governance variant that treats permission as a maintained relationship requiring updates, reminders, renewal, and revocation over time.
- **Proxy or Representative Consent (`proxy_or_representative_consent`):** A consent-governance variant for cases where permission is granted by an authorized representative, guardian, delegate, or collective decision process.
- **Assent Plus Authorized Consent (`assent_plus_authorized_consent`):** A narrower variant in which an affected party’s affirmative participation is sought alongside formal consent from an authorized actor.

Near names include **Consent Governance**, **Permission Governance**, **Informed Agreement Design**, and **Consent Architecture**. Mechanism names such as **Consent Form**, **Opt-In Flow**, and **Data Consent Settings** should point back to the parent archetype or a variant rather than becoming standalone archetypes.

Granular Consent Governance

distinctive_feature: Its key design move is separability: consent can be granted for one purpose while withheld for another.

distinct_from_parent: The parent governs all validity conditions for consent; this variant emphasizes scope granularity as the main safeguard.

still_same_parent_because: Granularity does not replace informedness, voluntariness, authority, and withdrawal; it is one way to implement scoped consent.

use_when: The requested permission covers multiple uses, risks, or actors that a person may reasonably want to accept separately.

use_when: A blanket yes/no choice would hide meaningful differences in consequence or control.

Consent Scope

role: Defines separable permission categories.

Material Information

role: Explains consequences of each category.

Withdrawal Path

role: Allows category-level revocation or narrowing.

Granular Permission Dashboard

role: Interface for reviewing and adjusting separate permissions.

Data Consent Settings

role: Implements granular data-use permissions.

example: A user may allow service delivery data use while declining data sharing for unrelated marketing.

domain: research

example: A participant can consent to the main study while declining future secondary use of stored samples.

failure_modes: Granularity becomes fake when all categories are preselected or required for unrelated access.

failure_modes: Too many categories create cognitive overload and reduce meaningful choice.

Dynamic or Ongoing Consent

distinctive_feature: Its main dimension is time: consent is monitored and refreshed rather than captured once.

distinct_from_parent: The parent includes withdrawal and renewal; this variant makes ongoing maintenance the central architecture.

still_same_parent_because: It remains a consent pattern because all updates still depend on informed, voluntary, scoped permission.

source_primes: consent transparency accountability

use_when: The action, risk, data use, relationship, or participant preference may change after initial agreement.

use_when: One-time consent would become stale before the governed activity ends.

Renewal or Change Trigger

role: Defines when consent must be refreshed.

Consent Record

role: Tracks versions and changes over time.

Withdrawal Path

role: Keeps revocation available during the relationship.

Consent Renewal Prompt

role: Requests renewed agreement after material change.

Granular Permission Dashboard

role: Supports ongoing review and adjustment.

example: Participants receive periodic updates and can revise permission as study uses evolve.

example: A platform asks for renewed permission before using data in a materially new feature.

failure_modes: Consent fatigue leads people to approve prompts without attention.

failure_modes: Renewal is requested after the new use has already occurred.

Proxy or Representative Consent

distinctive_feature: The central issue is authority-to-consent: who may speak for whom, on what basis, and within what limits.

distinct_from_parent: The parent validates consent generally; this variant adds representation, mandate, assent, and conflict checks.

still_same_parent_because: Representative consent still depends on material information, scope, voluntariness, and withdrawal or review where possible.

use_when: The affected person cannot independently authorize the action, or the decision concerns a group or organization.

use_when: The representative’s authority, mandate, conflicts, and duty to the affected party need explicit control.

Authority to Consent

role: Validates representative standing and limits.

Proxy or Assent Protocol

role: Distinguishes assent, proxy authorization, and direct consent.

Coercion Safeguard

role: Protects dependent parties from proxy misuse.

Assent / Consent Distinction

role: Separates participation affirmation from full authorization.

Informed Consent Conversation

role: Supports explanation to both representative and affected party where appropriate.

domain: education

example: A parent authorizes a child’s participation while the child’s assent and objections are still considered.

example: A team lead consents to a pilot only within the mandate granted by the affected team.

failure_modes: The representative consents beyond their mandate or against the affected party’s known interests.

failure_modes: A dependent person’s dissent is ignored because a proxy signature exists.

Assent Plus Authorized Consent

distinctive_feature: It separates assent from formal consent while requiring both to be handled transparently.

distinct_from_parent: The parent covers consent validity generally; this variant emphasizes dual recognition of participation and authorization.

still_same_parent_because: The same informedness, voluntariness, scope, and withdrawal principles apply to the interaction.

use_when: An affected person should be respected but cannot alone grant full institutional or legal authorization.

use_when: Proceeding on proxy consent alone would ignore voice, dignity, or refusal signals.

Proxy or Assent Protocol

role: Defines the relation between assent and authorization.

Plain-Language Support

role: Makes explanation accessible to the affected party.

Assent / Consent Distinction

role: Names the two decision layers.

Plain-Language Disclosure

role: Provides accessible explanation.

example: A student receives an age-appropriate explanation and may decline participation even when a guardian has permission authority.

failure_modes: Assent is treated as theater because refusal has no operational effect.

near_names:
Consent Governance
Permission Governance
Informed Agreement Design
Consent Architecture
Opt-In Design
Consent Form


Initiative Seizure and Tempo Control

batch: Batch 02

slug: kairos

slug: competition

slug: feedforward

slug: maneuver

slug: deterrence

slug: sequencing

components:
Contested Field Map
Initiative Window
First-Move Commitment
Response Constraint Design
Tempo Channel
Terrain or Venue Choice
Agenda Frame
Follow-Through Capacity
Escalation Boundary
Sensing and Feedback Loop
Decoy or Probe Move
Coalition Anchor
Public Rationale
Reversible Commitment Path
Off-Ramp or De-escalation Path

mechanisms:
Opening Gambit
Agenda-Setting Motion
Anchor Offer
First Public Statement
Rapid Reference Implementation
Forward Positioning
Time-Boxed Challenge
Narrative Frame Release
Preemptive Patch or Takedown
Decision-Cycle Monitor

essence_one_line: Move first in a contested setting so others must answer your tempo, venue, framing, and choice architecture rather than imposing their own.

compression_statement: When advantage depends on who defines the next interaction, use a timed unilateral move to create an agenda-setting fact on the ground: the initiator chooses the moment and surface, compresses opponents' options into response modes, and converts latent competition into a contest on chosen terms.

core_intuition: Waiting keeps the field jointly undefined. The first consequential move can collapse many possible games into one game whose clock, framing, and terrain favor the initiator, provided the initiator can sustain the burden created by acting first.

canonical_formula: initiative = timely_first_move + chosen_arena + response_constraint + agenda_carryover

structural_problem: A contested situation remains ambiguous enough that multiple actors could define the next move; delay lets an opponent choose the tempo, venue, premise, or constraint before the focal actor can shape the field.

trigger_conditions: The environment rewards early commitment, early framing, or early occupation of a scarce position.

trigger_conditions: Opponents are slower, more constrained, more legitimacy-bound, or forced to respond publicly once a move is made.

trigger_conditions: The next interaction will be structured by whoever first supplies a concrete proposal, position, boundary, or fact on the ground.

trigger_conditions: The actor has enough information to choose a favorable arena without requiring perfect certainty.

trigger_conditions: A temporary kairotic window exists: the move matters now but will lose leverage if delayed.

symptoms: Teams repeatedly find themselves responding to others' agendas rather than setting their own.

symptoms: Opponents exploit slower deliberation cycles to define what counts as the issue, the venue, or the acceptable option set.

symptoms: By the time decisions are made, the relevant terrain has shifted and correct responses arrive late.

symptoms: Communication, negotiation, or operations become framed around an opponent's initial claim or action.

symptoms: The actor has capability but no initiative because it waits for complete consensus before moving.

root_tension: Acting first can create agenda control, but it also creates exposure: the first mover must commit before the field fully reveals itself and must be able to absorb counter-moves, escalation, and legitimacy scrutiny.

anti_signatures: The context is primarily cooperative and unilateral first movement would destroy trust or procedural fairness.

anti_signatures: The initiator cannot sustain follow-through after the first move, making the action an empty provocation.

anti_signatures: The decisive advantage comes from listening, consent-building, or joint problem definition rather than from setting terms.

anti_signatures: The move relies on deception, rights violations, unlawful force, or suppression of legitimate participation.

anti_signatures: The opponent benefits from being given a clear object to attack, making reactive posture a gift rather than a burden.

structural_intervention: Design and execute a first move that is meaningful enough to change the field, bounded enough to be supportable, timed to exploit a real opening, and shaped so others must respond through selected channels rather than through their preferred terms.

action: Identify the contested arena, current actors, response constraints, and which dimensions are still undefined.

reason: Initiative only matters when the field has movable degrees of freedom that a first move can collapse.

action: Choose a moment when acting first changes available options more than it increases exposure.

reason: The same action can be decisive inside a kairotic window and irrelevant or reckless outside it.

action: Shape the first move so opponents must respond on chosen issues, venues, timelines, or standards of evidence.

reason: The point is not mere speed; it is converting the opponent from co-designer of the game into responder within a game already partially defined.

action: Make the move large enough to create agenda gravity but bounded enough to avoid uncontrollable escalation or irreversible overreach.

reason: Unbounded offensive action can become escalation, waste, or illegitimate coercion.

action: Use sensing and feedback to maintain tempo, reinforce the frame, adapt to counters, and exit when initiative no longer creates net value.

reason: A first move that is not sustained becomes a one-off gesture rather than a durable agenda-setting intervention.

rule: Use only when the first move changes the opponent's feasible response set, not merely when it happens earlier in time.

implication: Speed without response constraint is acceleration, not initiative seizure.

rule: Prefer bounded, reversible, or staged commitments when uncertainty is high.

implication: Preserve room to adapt if the first move reveals different resistance than expected.

rule: Do not use if procedural legitimacy is part of the outcome being protected.

implication: A unilateral agenda-setting move can win tempo while losing authority.

rule: Check whether the opponent is prepared to absorb the first move and redirect it.

implication: Initiative can flip into self-exposure if the opponent has stronger counter-tempo mechanisms.

rule: Exit or de-escalate when the cost of maintaining tempo exceeds the agenda value created by the move.

implication: Offensive posture is a means of shaping interaction, not a permanent operating mode.

target_invariants: Legitimate authority for making the first move is preserved.

target_invariants: The selected arena remains connected to the real objective rather than becoming a symbolic distraction.

target_invariants: Follow-through capacity is sufficient for the response burden created by the move.

target_invariants: Escalation boundaries and off-ramps remain visible.

target_invariants: The move does not depend on deception, unlawful coercion, or suppression of valid stakeholders.

expected_outcomes: Opponents allocate attention, time, or resources to answering the initiator's move.

expected_outcomes: The interaction becomes structured around the initiator's chosen issue, venue, tempo, or evidentiary frame.

expected_outcomes: The initiator gains option value by acting before alternatives close or before opponents coordinate.

expected_outcomes: Decision-cycle lag shifts from the initiator to the responder.

expected_outcomes: The initiator can convert a transient opportunity into a durable position, commitment, or narrative anchor.

prose_tradeoffs: Initiative trades information completeness for field-shaping leverage. It trades procedural openness for agenda clarity. It trades the safety of waiting for the exposure of commitment. It can convert ambiguity into action, but it can also harden opposition if the first move is perceived as coercive, deceptive, or illegitimate.

Preemptive Initiative Move

short_definition: A first move made before an opponent can occupy, frame, or close the relevant option space.

distinctive_feature: The emphasis is on denying the opponent first occupancy of the response-defining space.

distinct_from_parent: The parent includes all agenda-setting first moves; this variant specifically targets the opponent's opportunity to move first.

still_same_parent_because: It uses the same components of timing, commitment, response constraint, and follow-through.

use_when: A delay would allow the opponent to choose the arena or establish a hard-to-reverse position.

use_when: The initiator can act within lawful and legitimate bounds before the opponent coordinates.

concise_examples: Closing a known vulnerability before an adversary campaign can use it.

concise_examples: Launching a bounded pilot before a long debate ossifies into opposition camps.

failure_modes:
Premature action
legitimacy backlash
counter-preemption

Agenda-Setting Opening Move

short_definition: A first communication or proposal that causes later discussion to answer a chosen frame, premise, or issue order.

distinctive_feature: The decisive move is semiotic and procedural rather than physical or operational.

distinct_from_parent: The parent can operate through physical terrain, technical interfaces, or market artifacts; this variant works through communicative framing.

still_same_parent_because: It still forces a reactive posture by making others accept, reject, amend, or reframe the initial agenda.

use_when: The first named question or draft will shape what later participants treat as relevant.

use_when: The initiator can make the frame transparent enough to survive legitimacy review.

concise_examples: Releasing a verified incident timeline before rumor-driven accounts settle.

concise_examples: Submitting a draft agenda whose order becomes the basis for later amendments.

failure_modes:
Presupposition backlash
perceived manipulation
frame capture by opponents

Terrain Selection Move

short_definition: A first move that chooses the physical, legal, market, technical, or procedural venue where the contest will occur.

distinctive_feature: The decisive variable is where the interaction takes place rather than only when it begins.

distinct_from_parent: The parent also includes timing and frame variants; this variant centers on positional advantage in a value-graded space.

still_same_parent_because: Venue choice functions as the first move that structures response options.

use_when: Different venues or positions change which actor has advantage.

use_when: Moving first can make the chosen venue sticky enough that others must respond there.

concise_examples: Choosing the forum in which a dispute will be heard.

concise_examples: Releasing an interface that makes later integration happen around a chosen architecture.

failure_modes:
Wrong venue choice
overextension
venue legitimacy challenge

Tempo Acceleration Pressure

short_definition: A first move that forces a slower actor to respond on a cadence where its normal decision process degrades.

distinctive_feature: The imposed response tempo is the main source of advantage.

distinct_from_parent: The parent can use any response constraint; this variant specifically exploits a tempo mismatch.

still_same_parent_because: The structure remains first movement that creates responder subordination.

use_when: The responder's deliberation or coordination cycle is slower than the initiator's operating cycle.

use_when: The initiator can maintain the faster cadence without sacrificing quality or legitimacy.

concise_examples: Publishing update windows that force questions into a chosen cadence.

concise_examples: Using rapid release cycles to make slower competitors respond to the initiator's schedule.

failure_modes:
Quality collapse from over-speed
burnout
responder refuses the imposed cadence

near_names:
Initiative Seizure
Offensive Action Design
Proactive Agenda Control
First-Move Agenda Setting
Tempo-Setting Move
Terms-of-Engagement Control


Inline vs. Offline Inspection Trade-Off

aliases: In-Process vs. Final Inspection Trade-Off

aliases: Inline Inspection vs. Acceptance Sampling

aliases: 100 Percent Inspection vs. Batch Sampling

aliases: In-Line Quality Check vs. Offline Release Test

aliases: Continuous Inspection vs. Lot Acceptance Sampling

aliases: Quality-Control Inspection Mode Selection

alias_records: In-Process vs. Final Inspection Trade-Off

alias_records: Inline Inspection vs. Acceptance Sampling

alias_records: 100 Percent Inspection vs. Batch Sampling

alias_records: In-Line Quality Check vs. Offline Release Test

alias_records: Continuous Inspection vs. Lot Acceptance Sampling

alias_records: Quality-Control Inspection Mode Selection

slug: observability

slug: threshold

slug: feedback

slug: intermittency

slug: validation

slug: screening

slug: robustness

slug: constraint

slug: monitoring

slug: optimization

slug: randomness

slug: variability

slug: periodicity

slug: queueing

slug: tolerance

slug: controllability

components: Defect Criticality and Escape-Cost Profile

components: Detectability and Test-Latency Assessment

essence_one_line: Choose whether quality should be checked continuously during production or sampled after completion by matching inspection placement to defect severity, detectability, cost, throughput, and escape risk.

compression_statement: Inline vs. Offline Inspection Trade-Off is the pattern of designing a quality-control inspection system around the coupled choice of when, where, and how much to inspect. Inline inspection catches defects close to their source, enables immediate containment, and can prevent bad work from flowing downstream, but it may slow production, increase false rejects, require automation, or be impossible for slow or destructive tests. Offline inspection samples finished output or completed batches with lower process disruption, but it delays discovery and can allow defects to escape or require expensive rework. The archetype turns the inspection decision into a structured trade-off among defect criticality, detectability, inspection cost, process stability, sampling confidence, rework reversibility, and regulatory or customer risk.

core_intuition: A defect is cheapest to fix near its source, but not every defect can or should be inspected at every moment. The right inspection strategy is not always “inspect more”; it is to place the inspection where the information arrives early enough to matter and cheaply enough to sustain.

canonical_formula: inspection_policy = f(defect_severity, escape_cost, detection_latency, inspection_cost, false_alarm_cost, process_stability, sampling_confidence, rework_reversibility); choose inline when containment_value > throughput_disruption + inspection_burden; choose offline when sampling_confidence × reversibility is sufficient for the residual escape risk

structural_problem: A process needs quality control, but inspection can be placed either during production or after output is complete. If inspection is too late, defects flow downstream, contaminate batches, reach customers, or require expensive rework. If inspection is too early, too frequent, or too intrusive, it creates bottlenecks, false rejects, operator overload, equipment cost, destructive-test waste, or needless delay. Without an explicit placement trade-off, quality systems drift toward either overinspection or undercontained defect escape.

trigger_conditions: Defects can be detected at multiple points in a process, but each point has different cost, latency, and containment value.

trigger_conditions: Some tests are fast enough for inline use while others require laboratory analysis, destructive testing, or batch-level review.

trigger_conditions: A process must decide between 100% inspection, continuous monitoring, risk-stratified checks, or sampling from finished lots.

trigger_conditions: Defect escape consequences differ by defect class: cosmetic, functional, safety-critical, regulatory, or customer-trust related.

trigger_conditions: Production flow, cycle time, yield, and inspection resources are constrained.

trigger_conditions: Historical defect rates, process capability, supplier quality, or customer complaints have changed enough to require a new inspection mix.

trigger_conditions: A regulatory, contractual, or safety case requires evidence that the chosen inspection strategy can support release decisions.

trigger_conditions: Inline automation, sensors, machine vision, or software telemetry have become feasible, changing the cost-benefit balance.

symptoms: Finished batches fail late and require expensive sorting, scrapping, recall, or rework.

symptoms: Inline checks stop the line frequently without preventing meaningful defect escape.

symptoms: Quality teams argue over whether to inspect every item or sample lots without explicitly separating defect classes and risk levels.

symptoms: Sampling plans exist but do not match the actual defect severity, defect rate, or confidence claim.

symptoms: Inspection catches defects but no containment or root-cause trigger follows.

symptoms: Operators bypass checks because they slow production or generate too many false alarms.

symptoms: Regulators, customers, or downstream users ask why final inspection is trusted when defects could have emerged earlier.

symptoms: A stable process continues to receive heavy inspection long after risk has fallen, or an unstable process continues to rely on light sampling.

root_tension: Inline inspection gives earlier information and stronger containment but consumes production capacity; offline inspection preserves flow and enables efficient sampling but shifts discovery later and depends on statistical confidence and reversibility.

anti_signatures: The core issue is only whether a sample represents a population; use representative_sampling_design first.

anti_signatures: The core issue is intermittent observation of a system over time rather than the placement of quality-control inspection; use intermittent_sampling first.

anti_signatures: The control is a built-in invariant or physical poka-yoke that prevents the error rather than inspecting for it; use self_checking_operation or error_proofing patterns first.

anti_signatures: The problem is independent authority to validate evidence rather than where the inspection occurs; use independent_verification_oversight first.

anti_signatures: The issue is adjusting pass/fail thresholds after observed drift rather than selecting inspection mode and timing; use adaptive_threshold_recalibration first.

anti_signatures: No meaningful inspection is possible before actual use; field monitoring, warranty analytics, or post-market surveillance may be the relevant pattern.

structural_intervention: Create an inspection policy that assigns defect classes to inline, offline, hybrid, reduced, or escalated inspection modes based on criticality, detectability, inspection burden, process stability, sampling confidence, and containment response. The policy links inspection placement to explicit release, rework, quarantine, and feedback triggers.

action_logic: Classify defect types by severity, probability, detectability, escape cost, and reversibility.

action_logic: Map where each defect can be observed: raw input, setup, in-process step, end of line, finished lot, laboratory test, shipment gate, or field use.

action_logic: Estimate inspection burden at each point, including equipment, labor, cycle time, false rejects, destructive-test loss, and operator attention.

action_logic: Determine whether inline detection can act soon enough to prevent downstream waste or harm.

action_logic: Define when offline sampling provides adequate confidence for release, and when it leaves unacceptable residual risk.

action_logic: Choose inspection coverage for each defect class: 100% inline, continuous telemetry, first-article check, triggered inline escalation, batch sampling, destructive sampling, skip-lot/reduced inspection, or no routine inspection.

action_logic: Attach response rules: halt, quarantine, sort, rework, release with conditions, investigate root cause, or adjust process controls.

action_logic: Review the policy as defect rates, process capability, automation cost, customer risk, or regulatory obligations change.

decision_rules: Use inline or 100% inspection when defects are safety-critical, irreversible, high-escape-cost, rapidly propagating, or cheaply detectable at the source.

decision_rules: Use offline sampling when the process is stable, defects are low-frequency or low-severity, tests are slow or destructive, and statistical confidence is sufficient for the release decision.

decision_rules: Use hybrid inspection when early sentinel checks can prevent large escapes but final batch evidence is still needed.

decision_rules: Escalate from offline sampling to inline inspection when drift, complaints, supplier changes, new failure modes, or process instability appear.

decision_rules: De-escalate from heavy inline inspection only after sustained process capability, low defect rates, and adequate feedback show that residual risk is acceptable.

decision_rules: Do not rely on offline sampling for defects whose consequences are catastrophic and whose occurrence can affect individual units outside the sampled subset.

decision_rules: Treat false positives and false negatives as design costs, not incidental nuisances.

decision_rules: Tie every inspection mode to a containment and learning response; inspection without action is not quality control.

target_invariants: Defect escape risk remains explicit by defect class.

target_invariants: Inspection placement is justified by evidence, not habit.

target_invariants: Sampling claims match sample design, defect rate assumptions, and confidence requirements.

target_invariants: Inline checks do not overload production beyond the stated throughput budget.

target_invariants: Offline inspection does not hide delayed discovery costs.

target_invariants: Detection triggers containment, rework, release decision, or process feedback.

target_invariants: The inspection policy can adapt when process stability or risk changes.

expected_outcomes: Fewer late-discovered defects and lower external failure costs.

expected_outcomes: Better balance between inspection burden and defect containment.

expected_outcomes: Clearer justification for 100% inspection, sampling, hybrid inspection, or reduced inspection.

expected_outcomes: Improved release confidence for finished batches or lots.

expected_outcomes: Less overinspection of stable low-risk processes and less underinspection of high-risk steps.

expected_outcomes: More actionable quality feedback into process improvement.

Continuous Inline Inspection

short_definition: Inspects every unit, event, or operation during production using embedded sensors, software checks, machine vision, or operator confirmation.

distinctive_feature: Maximizes early detection and containment at the cost of throughput, equipment, and false-alarm burden.

distinct_from_parent: The parent compares inline and offline options; this variant is the inline-heavy endpoint.

still_same_parent_because: It remains an inspection-placement strategy within the same quality-control trade-off.

use_when: The inspection is fast, nondestructive, and technically feasible at the production step.

use_when: Immediate containment or line stop is valuable.

example_domains:
safety-critical assembly
semiconductor inspection
software CI checks

Offline Acceptance Sampling

short_definition: Tests a sample from a completed lot or batch to decide release, rejection, or additional sorting.

distinctive_feature: Uses statistical confidence rather than full inspection to support release decisions.

distinct_from_parent: The parent includes inline and hybrid modes; this variant is the offline-sampling endpoint.

still_same_parent_because: It is one side of the inspection placement trade-off.

use_when: The process is stable enough for sampled inference.

use_when: Inspection is expensive, slow, or destructive.

use_when: Residual escape risk is acceptable at the specified confidence level.

example_domains:
finished-lot testing
incoming supplier inspection
batch release QA

Hybrid Sentinel Plus Batch Inspection

short_definition: Combines early in-process sentinel checks with offline batch or release testing to balance containment and evidence cost.

distinctive_feature: Uses limited early signals to prevent large escapes while preserving offline confidence checks.

distinct_from_parent: The parent is the whole design choice; this variant names a common middle solution.

still_same_parent_because: It resolves the same inline/offline trade-off with a mixed policy.

use_when: Some defects can be caught early but full inline inspection is too costly.

use_when: Final release evidence is still required for properties not visible inline.

use_when: Defect patterns change with setup, supplier, or batch context.

example_domains:
food processing
pharmaceuticals
automotive assembly

Destructive Test Sampling Trade-Off

short_definition: Chooses offline sampled inspection when testing destroys or consumes the product, forcing confidence to be gained from subset evidence.

distinctive_feature: Inspection coverage is constrained by the test itself.

distinct_from_parent: The parent covers all inspection placement choices; this variant highlights the destructive-test constraint.

still_same_parent_because: It remains a trade-off between inspection confidence, cost, and residual escape risk.

use_when: The most reliable quality test is destructive or consumptive.

use_when: 100% inspection would make production impossible.

use_when: The release decision must rely on sampling and process controls together.

example_domains:
materials testing
pharmaceutical potency testing
battery and device testing

Risk-Based Inspection Escalation

short_definition: Moves from reduced or offline inspection to inline or 100% inspection when risk signals exceed predefined triggers.

distinctive_feature: Inspection mode changes dynamically with risk signals.

distinct_from_parent: The parent may select a static policy; this variant emphasizes escalation and de-escalation over time.

still_same_parent_because: It still manages the same inspection placement and coverage trade-off.

source_primes: quality_control threshold feedback

use_when: Supplier, process, complaint, drift, or failure signals indicate rising risk.

use_when: Normal sampling is acceptable only while process capability remains stable.

use_when: Inspection burden must expand temporarily during instability.

example_domains:
supplier quality
medical device production
software release gating

near_names: In-Process vs. Final Inspection Decision