Inertia Harnessing

batch: First Iteration/Batch 17/Wave 2

slug: conditioning

slug: flow

essence_one_line: Use existing momentum, habits, defaults, or routines to carry a desired behavior forward with less repeated effort.

compression_statement: When change or maintenance can ride existing continuation forces, harness inertia by aligning the desired path with current routines, defaults, trajectories, cues, or workflows while preserving review and override safeguards.

core_intuition: Inertia is not only an obstacle. A body already in motion can carry useful work if the target path is aligned with it. Instead of asking people or systems to repeatedly decide, remember, restart, or push, the designer makes the beneficial path the easy continuation of what is already happening. The danger is that helpful continuation can become hidden lock-in, stale routine, or manipulation unless the path remains visible, reviewable, and correctable.

canonical_formula: existing continuation force + desired path alignment + low-friction default/routine + reinforcement + consent/override guard + drift monitoring -> sustained action with lower repeated effort

structural_problem: A desired behavior, process, maintenance action, or state requires repeated effort to sustain, while existing habits, defaults, workflows, or trajectories already carry other behavior forward.

trigger_conditions: A desirable action is not being sustained because it depends on repeated initiative, memory, persuasion, or managerial pressure.

trigger_conditions: The system already has stable routines, defaults, workflows, rhythms, cues, or momentum that could carry the desired action if aligned correctly.

trigger_conditions: Directly breaking inertia would be costly, resisted, unnecessary, or more disruptive than redirecting existing continuation forces.

trigger_conditions: The desired path can be made easier without hiding important choices or removing legitimate alternatives.

trigger_conditions: The intervention can be monitored for drift, misuse, complacency, and unintended lock-in.

trigger_conditions: The current trajectory is not so harmful that immediate interruption, containment, or reversal is required.

symptoms: People agree with the desired behavior but fail to repeat it because it is outside their routine.

symptoms: A new policy, checklist, practice, or tool succeeds during launch but fades after active attention ends.

symptoms: Users or operators repeatedly choose the path that is easiest, not the path that was verbally recommended.

symptoms: Maintenance, follow-up, review, or renewal tasks are skipped because they require fresh effort each time.

symptoms: A beneficial behavior happens reliably when attached to another stable cue, meeting, process, or environmental prompt.

symptoms: Resistance decreases when the intervention preserves familiar workflows or default paths.

symptoms: Existing momentum is strong enough that a small alignment change produces more durable effects than a large one-time push.

root_tension: The system needs sustained change or maintenance, but repeated active effort is scarce. Existing inertia can reduce that burden, yet the same continuation forces can also preserve obsolete, harmful, or manipulative paths if they are not made visible and reviewable.

anti_signatures: The current trajectory is harmful enough that it must be stopped, isolated, or reversed; diffusion_containment, amplification_containment, or inertia_breaking may fit better.

anti_signatures: There is no stable routine, default, cue, workflow, or momentum to harness; the problem may require activation, seeding, or capacity building first.

anti_signatures: The desired action requires conscious deliberation every time because stakes, context, or preferences vary substantially.

anti_signatures: The intervention would hide costs, suppress choice, exploit inattention, or create unfair lock-in.

anti_signatures: The primary problem is path-dependent lock-in that must be escaped; path_dependence_escape or hysteresis_management may be more central.

anti_signatures: The design only uses a one-off reminder, campaign, or reward without creating a durable continuation path.

anti_signatures: The existing routine is unstable, overloaded, or disliked; embedding more work into it would increase failure rather than harnessing momentum.

structural_intervention: Map existing continuation forces, align the desired path with them, reduce friction for beneficial continuation, preserve meaningful override, and monitor whether the resulting momentum remains valid.

action_logic: Identify the behavior, process, state, or maintenance action that should continue with less repeated effort.

action_logic: Map current momentum: defaults, routines, workflows, cues, commitments, social expectations, technical configurations, or physical flows that already persist.

action_logic: Select a continuation force that is legitimate, stable, and near the desired action in time, context, or decision path.

action_logic: Align the desired path with the continuation force by embedding it into the default, routine, workflow, cue, template, or trajectory.

action_logic: Create friction asymmetry so the desired path is easier to continue than to omit, while alternatives remain understandable and accessible.

action_logic: Add reinforcement so the path gains its own momentum through usefulness, feedback, convenience, identity support, or visible progress.

action_logic: Preserve consent, opt-out, exception handling, rollback, and accountability where autonomy, rights, money, privacy, or risk are affected.

action_logic: Monitor drift, stale defaults, hidden burden, routine overload, and lock-in, then periodically refresh or retire the design.

decision_rules: Harness inertia when an existing continuation force can carry the desired outcome more safely and durably than a one-time push.

decision_rules: Use inertia_breaking instead when the current state must be dislodged before any beneficial continuation path exists.

decision_rules: Do not make a path default unless the default is transparent, justified, reversible, and proportionate to the stakes.

decision_rules: Embed only actions that fit the capacity and meaning of the routine; routine overload destroys the carrier.

decision_rules: Prefer alignment with already-legitimate workflows over artificial prompts that create alert fatigue or resentment.

decision_rules: Use review cadences for any passive continuation path that could become stale, costly, coercive, or harmful.

decision_rules: Treat easy continuation as a design power that requires ethical scrutiny, not as a neutral convenience.

target_invariants: The beneficial path remains visible, understandable, and correctable.

target_invariants: The design reduces repeated effort without eliminating meaningful agency where agency matters.

target_invariants: The existing routine, workflow, or default carrier is not overloaded beyond its capacity.

target_invariants: The desired continuation remains aligned with current context rather than persisting after it becomes obsolete.

target_invariants: Opt-out, exception, rollback, or review paths are proportional to the stakes.

target_invariants: The intervention uses inertia to sustain value, not to trap users, extract rents, hide costs, or avoid accountability.

target_invariants: Monitoring can detect drift, nonuse, misuse, lock-in, and unintended inequity.

expected_outcomes: Higher sustained adoption or maintenance after launch energy fades.

expected_outcomes: Lower reliance on repeated reminders, willpower, managerial pressure, or manual follow-up.

expected_outcomes: Reduced drop-off in beneficial services, practices, routines, or configurations.

expected_outcomes: Smoother transitions because new behavior fits existing motion instead of fighting it directly.

expected_outcomes: More reliable continuation of preventive, supportive, or quality-preserving actions.

expected_outcomes: Clearer governance of defaults and passive continuation paths.

expected_outcomes: Less resistance when change is experienced as a natural extension of what already happens.

prose_essence:
Inertia Harnessing uses what already continues to make a beneficial behavior, state, or process continue more easily. It is the counterpart to forcing a stuck system to move: instead of breaking inertia, it asks what motion already exists and how the desired path can ride it.

The pattern is useful when repeated effort is the scarce resource. People forget, managers stop pushing, launch energy fades, and users drift back to the easiest path. If a routine, default, cue, workflow, or trajectory already carries behavior forward, the intervention can align the desired action with that carrier so continuation becomes normal rather than exceptional.

prose_when_to_use:
Use this archetype when the desired action should persist over time and the system already has a stable continuation path that can carry it. The clearest cases involve repeated beneficial behaviors, maintenance routines, service renewals, secure configurations, operational checks, or learning practices that fail when they require fresh initiative each time.

It is especially appropriate when people agree with the goal but do not repeat the behavior, when a new practice fades after launch, or when direct change campaigns produce temporary activation but no durable maintenance. It is weaker when the current path must be stopped, when a default would suppress meaningful agency, or when the desired action requires full deliberation every time.

prose_structural_problem:
The structural problem is a mismatch between the need for sustained continuation and the scarcity of repeated active effort. A beneficial action exists, but it sits outside the ordinary path of work, choice, or habit. Meanwhile, other paths continue automatically because they are defaulted, routinized, embedded, familiar, socially reinforced, or technically preconfigured.

The result is predictable drop-off. The system does not necessarily reject the desired behavior; it simply does not carry it. Inertia continues to carry the old path because that path has lower friction, stronger cues, or more established ownership.

prose_intervention_logic:
The intervention begins by mapping current momentum. What continues without much effort? Which defaults are already selected? Which routines recur? Which workflows are hard to avoid? Which cues reliably appear before action?

The designer then chooses a legitimate carrier and aligns the desired path with it. That may mean making a beneficial option the transparent default, embedding a quality check into an existing workflow, pairing a new habit with a stable cue, or redirecting a legacy process through a compatible transition wrapper. The intervention must also preserve review and override, because easy continuation is powerful enough to become lock-in.

prose_key_components:
### Current Momentum Map

Identifies the habits, defaults, routines, trajectories, sunk workflows, or social expectations that already carry behavior forward without repeated deliberation. This component prevents the archetype from becoming generic persuasion. The intervention begins by asking what motion already exists and what keeps it going.
### Desired Path Alignment

Connects the desired behavior, state, or maintenance practice to an existing trajectory rather than asking the system to stop and restart from scratch. The core design move is not to defeat inertia but to attach the target outcome to it. Misalignment turns harnessing into mere coercion or wishful framing.
### Default Path Design

Defines the path that occurs when no extra decision, override, or exceptional effort is made. Defaults are powerful because they shape continuation. They need consent, visibility, and reversibility safeguards when they affect people, money, privacy, health, or public obligations.
### Routine Embedding

Places the desired action inside an existing routine, workflow, cadence, or handoff so it is carried by already-stable repetition. Embedding reduces the need for repeated initiative. It works best when the routine is already legitimate and resilient rather than fragile or resented.
### Cue and Trigger Alignment

Uses existing cues, events, transitions, or reminders to trigger the desired behavior at the moment when action is easiest. Cue alignment is a structural component, while particular reminders, prompts, calendars, or checklists are mechanisms.
### Friction Asymmetry

Makes the desired continuation easier than the undesired deviation while preserving meaningful opt-out or correction paths. The asymmetry should reduce needless effort, not hide choices. Ethical use depends on whether friction clarifies or manipulates.
### Reinforcement Loop

Gives the desired path enough feedback, reward, convenience, identity support, or operational benefit to become self-maintaining over time. Inertia harnessing often fails when the first pass rides momentum but does not create new maintenance momentum.
### Consent and Override Guard

Preserves informed opt-out, exception handling, rollback, and accountable review where the default path affects autonomy, rights, cost, risk, or trust. This guard distinguishes legitimate use of inertia from dark-pattern default capture or lock-in.
### Drift Monitoring

Tracks whether the harnessed momentum continues to serve the intended outcome or drifts into complacency, lock-in, stale behavior, or hidden harm. A path that is easy to continue can become hard to question. Drift monitoring keeps the archetype from turning into unreviewed path dependence.
### Habit Stack Link

Attaches a new action to a stable preceding action so the older routine becomes the cue for the newer one. Useful for personal, educational, operational, and clinical routines, but it remains one form of routine embedding rather than the whole archetype.
### Trajectory-Preserving Transition

Moves a system toward the desired state by bending the existing path rather than imposing a sharp discontinuity. This is valuable when abrupt change would trigger resistance, confusion, or coordination failure.
### Passive Continuation Path

Defines what continues automatically after initial setup, enrollment, configuration, or commitment. Passive continuation should be bounded by review cadence and renewal/exit clarity.
### Social Momentum Anchor

Uses visible group routines, shared norms, or peer continuity to make the desired path feel normal and easy to sustain. This can support coordination but can also create conformity pressure if not balanced with explicit choice.

prose_common_mechanisms:
The mechanisms below are implementations of the archetype. They should not be confused with the archetype itself: each works only when it maps to an existing continuation force and preserves the relevant safeguards.

### Default Enrollment

This is a governance or choice architecture mechanism. It implements inertia harnessing by enrolls participants, users, resources, or processes into a beneficial default unless they choose another path.
### Habit Stacking

This is a behavioral routine mechanism. It implements inertia harnessing by pairs a desired action with an existing habit or cue so the established routine carries the new action.
### Workflow Embedding

This is a operational design mechanism. It implements inertia harnessing by places a desired behavior inside an existing workflow step, template, checklist, handoff, or review cadence.
### Autopay or Autorenewal With Review

This is a continuation mechanism. It implements inertia harnessing by allows a desired maintenance action to continue with little repeated effort while preserving review, notice, and cancellation.
### Precommitment Setup

This is a setup and commitment mechanism. It implements inertia harnessing by creates an initial configuration, plan, or commitment that makes future continuation easier than repeated fresh choice.
### Calendar Cadence Lock-In

This is a temporal routine mechanism. It implements inertia harnessing by uses recurring meetings, reminders, maintenance windows, review cycles, or ritualized timing to make continuation normal.
### Template Defaulting

This is a artifact mechanism. It implements inertia harnessing by uses forms, templates, configuration presets, starter kits, or standard operating procedures to make the preferred path the path of least resistance.
### Environmental Cue Design

This is a context design mechanism. It implements inertia harnessing by arranges signs, placement, affordances, or visible objects so the environment naturally triggers the intended behavior.
### Progress Streak or Continuity Feedback

This is a feedback mechanism. It implements inertia harnessing by makes continuation visible so people or systems have a reason to keep the beneficial trajectory going.
### Migration Wrapper

This is a transition support mechanism. It implements inertia harnessing by surrounds a desired new process with compatibility aids so it fits into old routines long enough to gain its own momentum.

prose_failure_modes: The most serious failure mode is dark-pattern lock-in, where defaults or passive continuation are used to extract value or suppress exit. Another common failure is stale default drift: what once made sense keeps running after conditions change. Routine overload occurs when too many desired behaviors are crammed into the same meeting, checklist, or workflow. False continuation appears when the behavior is technically embedded but performed as a checkbox. Legacy momentum capture occurs when the design preserves too much of the old path and avoids needed transformation.

prose_neighbor_distinctions:
Inertia Harnessing is distinct from Inertia Breaking. Inertia Breaking applies activation force to overcome state persistence; Inertia Harnessing uses existing continuation forces to carry a desired path.

It is distinct from Hysteresis Management, which handles path-dependent entry and exit thresholds. It is distinct from Path-Dependence Escape, which constructs an exit from a history-created lock-in. It is narrower than Nudge Design because not every nudge harnesses inertia; this archetype requires an existing default, cue, routine, trajectory, or workflow that can carry behavior forward.

prose_cross_domain_examples: In retirement savings, automatic enrollment with clear opt-out uses default continuation to reduce enrollment drop-off. In clinical care, follow-up can be scheduled as part of discharge rather than left to a later patient decision. In software security, secure settings can be preselected and maintained unless changed deliberately. In team operations, risk review can be added to an existing planning meeting rather than created as a separate meeting. In infrastructure maintenance, inspection can be bundled with routes that already visit relevant sites.

prose_non_examples: A manipulative subscription that silently renews and makes cancellation difficult is not valid Inertia Harnessing; it is exploitative lock-in. A motivational kickoff without a routine, default, or workflow change is activation, not harnessing. A mandatory rule enforced by punishment is not this archetype unless the central design is continuation through defaults or routines. A one-time reminder is only a prompt, not a durable continuation path. A legacy process that continues because nobody questions it is unexamined inertia, not intentional harnessing.

prose_tradeoffs: The central tradeoff is effort reduction versus agency. Making continuation easy can help people and systems sustain value, but it can also reduce deliberation if choices become hidden. Stability trades off with adaptability: good defaults preserve value, while stale defaults preserve yesterday's assumptions. Routine embedding trades efficiency against overload. Momentum preservation lowers resistance, but it may also limit the depth of transformation.

prose_invariants_to_preserve:
The beneficial path must remain visible, understandable, and correctable. The intervention should reduce repeated effort without erasing meaningful agency. The routine or workflow carrying the behavior must not be overloaded. Passive continuation must remain aligned with current context rather than persisting after it becomes obsolete.

A valid design also preserves opt-out, rollback, exception handling, and monitoring in proportion to the stakes. The archetype is not permission to trap people in a path simply because continuation is convenient for the designer.

prose_target_outcomes: A successful intervention produces durable adoption or maintenance after initial attention fades. It reduces reliance on reminders, willpower, managerial pressure, or manual follow-up. It lowers drop-off for beneficial services, practices, settings, and routines. It can also make transitions smoother because the desired behavior feels like an extension of what already happens rather than a foreign burden.

prose_parameter_dimensions:
Important tuning dimensions include the strength of the existing momentum, the closeness between carrier and desired behavior, the amount of friction asymmetry, the visibility of the default path, the ease of opt-out or exception handling, the review cadence, the reversibility of continuation, and the risk level of passive persistence.

A low-stakes workflow habit may only need a lightweight cue and periodic cleanup. A high-stakes financial, clinical, legal, or public-benefit default needs stronger notice, consent, auditability, and correction paths. The higher the stakes and the less visible the continuation, the stronger the review and override safeguards must be.

prose_variants_and_near_names:
Default Path Alignment uses a transparent default path to make beneficial continuation the no-extra-action outcome. Routine Embedding places the desired action inside an existing cadence or workflow. Momentum Redirection bends an existing trajectory toward a better destination without stopping it first.

Near names include momentum harnessing, inertia riding, routine alignment, process embedding, default enrollment, and autopilot design. Mechanism names such as habit stacking, autorenewal, and nudge should usually collapse into the relevant variant unless they become part of a broader distinct archetype in a later reconciliation pass.

raw_bundle_path: solution_archetypes/_Batches/First Iteration/Batch 17/Wave 2/inertia_harnessing_solution_archetype_output_bundle.zip

Default Path Alignment

short_definition: Use the no-extra-action path to carry a beneficial or required outcome forward.

distinctive_feature: Continuation is produced primarily by default status rather than by repeated persuasion or force.

distinct_from_parent: The parent includes defaults, routines, momentum, workflow embedding, and cue alignment; this variant is specifically default-centered.

still_same_parent_because: It still uses existing continuation forces instead of breaking inertia directly.

use_when: The desired action can ethically be made the default path.

use_when: Users, participants, or operators can still understand and override the default.

use_when: Repeated active choice would produce avoidable drop-off, delay, or omission.

domain: Retirement savings

example: Employees are enrolled by default with clear opt-out and periodic review.

domain: Software

example: Secure settings are preselected so safe operation continues unless changed deliberately.

failure_modes:
hidden choice suppression
stale defaults
dark-pattern lock-in

Routine Embedding

short_definition: Place the desired action inside an existing routine or cadence so repetition carries it.

distinctive_feature: The main carrier is recurrence: the desired action rides an established cadence.

distinct_from_parent: The parent includes any form of useful continuation; this variant focuses on recurring routines and temporal cadence.

still_same_parent_because: It harnesses existing inertia instead of creating a new forceful transition.

source_primes: inertia conditioning

use_when: A stable routine already exists and has room for a small addition or redirection.

use_when: The desired behavior is low to moderate effort when triggered at the right moment.

use_when: The routine owner accepts the modification.

domain: Team operations

example: A risk review is embedded into an existing weekly planning meeting.

domain: Education

example: Retrieval practice begins each class because class opening is already a reliable cue.

failure_modes:
routine overload
cue decay
checkbox compliance

Momentum Redirection

variant_type: subtype

short_definition: Bend an existing trajectory toward a better destination instead of trying to stop it first.

distinctive_feature: The intervention preserves some direction and energy while changing where it leads.

distinct_from_parent: The parent covers harnessing broadly; this variant is specifically trajectory-bending.

still_same_parent_because: The useful force is existing momentum, not a newly imposed activation force.

source_primes: inertia flow

use_when: Existing motion is strong enough that direct reversal would trigger resistance or failure.

use_when: The desired path can be reached by gradual redirection, compatibility, or staged steering.

use_when: The current trajectory is not so harmful that immediate interruption is required.

domain: Legacy systems

example: A compatibility wrapper lets old workflows keep moving while users are gradually routed into the new system.

domain: Operations

example: A shipping process is redirected through a new quality checkpoint without stopping the existing throughput.

failure_modes:
insufficient redirection
legacy lock-in
unnoticed drift

near_names:
Momentum Harnessing
Inertia Riding
Routine Alignment
Process Embedding
Habit Stacking
Default Enrollment
Nudge Design
Autopilot Design


type: archetype

source: generated

name: Inflation, Currency, and Real versus Nominal Adjustment

batch: Second Iteration/Pilot

aliases:
real vs nominal value decomposition
real nominal value normalization
purchasing power adjustment
constant-dollar analysis
constant-currency analysis
inflation-adjusted valuation
nominal-to-real conversion
monetary basis normalization

Discounting (Present Value)

role: Motivates converting future or cross-period monetary amounts into a comparable value basis rather than comparing raw future amounts.

Time Value of Money

role: Supplies the core tension that money at different times is not automatically equivalent in value or purchasing power.

Uncertainty

slug: uncertainty

Calibration

slug: calibration

name: Measurement Uncertainty and Observational Noise

Invariance

slug: invariance

Aggregation

slug: aggregation

Approximation

slug: approximation

Optionality

slug: optionality

essence_one_line: Compare money across time or currencies only after declaring and aligning its real/nominal, price-level, currency, and discounting basis.

compression_statement: When monetary amounts span time periods, price regimes, or currencies, raw face values can hide changes in purchasing power, exchange translation, inflation, and opportunity cost. This archetype converts values to an explicit reference basis, aligns cash-flow basis with discount-rate basis, records assumptions, and tests sensitivity before drawing conclusions.

core_intuition: A number printed as money is not self-explanatory. It carries a date, a currency, a price level, and an implicit value basis. The archetype makes those hidden coordinates explicit so the analysis compares like with like.

canonical_formula: raw monetary amount + hidden basis differences -> declared reference basis + real/nominal labeling + currency/price adjustment + basis-matched discounting + sensitivity record

structural_problem: Decision makers compare monetary amounts that are nominally similar but structurally incomparable because they arise in different years, currencies, inflation regimes, or discounting bases. The apparent difference may be caused by purchasing-power erosion, exchange translation, rate-basis mismatch, or reporting conventions rather than substantive economic change.

trigger_conditions: The analysis compares costs, wages, revenue, benefits, or returns across multiple years.

trigger_conditions: A project, contract, pension, salary, or public budget spans periods where price levels may change materially.

trigger_conditions: Values are reported in different currencies, or a home-currency view and local-currency view lead to different conclusions.

trigger_conditions: A discounted cash-flow model mixes real cash flows with nominal discount rates or nominal cash flows with real discount rates.

trigger_conditions: Historical comparisons use face values without explaining purchasing power, cost basket, or reference period.

trigger_conditions: Stakeholders may benefit from presenting nominal gains as real gains, or currency translation effects as operational performance.

symptoms: A nominal raise, budget increase, or revenue increase is treated as an improvement even though purchasing power may have fallen.

symptoms: A long-term project appears over budget because estimates were not rebased to the same price level.

symptoms: International performance appears to improve or decline mainly because exchange rates moved.

symptoms: Valuation outputs change dramatically when a real discount rate is accidentally paired with nominal cash flows.

symptoms: Historical amounts are used rhetorically without reference to inflation, purchasing power, or comparable baskets.

symptoms: Reports show totals across jurisdictions or years without stating the base currency, base year, or adjustment method.

root_tension: Monetary values look commensurable because they share a numeric format, but their substantive value depends on hidden temporal, price-level, currency, and opportunity-cost coordinates.

anti_signatures: All monetary values are already in the same currency, period, and explicit basis, and the analysis does not cross time or price regimes.

anti_signatures: The question is primarily about behavioral present bias rather than monetary comparability.

anti_signatures: The main task is estimating a project’s physical quantities or causal effects before monetary valuation.

anti_signatures: Currency and inflation exposure are being transferred or hedged as risks rather than normalized for comparison.

anti_signatures: The problem concerns non-monetary values that require ethical or qualitative commensuration rather than monetary-basis adjustment.

structural_intervention: Install a monetary-basis normalization layer before comparison, aggregation, or valuation: inventory each amount’s currency, time, and price-level basis; choose a reference basis; translate or rebase amounts; align real/nominal cash flows with real/nominal discount rates; label assumptions; and test sensitivity to inflation, exchange, and rate scenarios.

action_logic: Inventory every monetary quantity with its amount, date, currency, quoted basis, index assumptions, and intended interpretation.

action_logic: Declare the reference basis for the decision: base year, currency, price index or cost basket, real or nominal basis, and valuation date.

action_logic: Separate substantive change from basis change by decomposing face-value movement into price-level, currency, time-value, and operational components where possible.

action_logic: Convert or rebase values onto the reference basis using a documented price index, exchange-rate convention, or contractual adjustment rule.

action_logic: Match cash-flow basis and discount-rate basis before present-value calculation.

action_logic: Run sensitivity checks for uncertain inflation, exchange rates, discount rates, and index choices.

action_logic: Present outputs with basis labels so readers can see whether a claim is nominal, real, local-currency, home-currency, current-dollar, constant-dollar, discounted, or undiscounted.

decision_rules: Use nominal cash flows with nominal discount rates, and real cash flows with real discount rates; flag mixed-basis models as invalid until corrected.

decision_rules: Choose the price index or cost basket that best matches the goods, labor, services, or obligations being compared; do not default to a broad index when a specialized basket drives the decision.

decision_rules: Separate local-currency performance from reporting-currency translation when both interpretations matter.

decision_rules: Use a stable base period and disclose why it was chosen; avoid shifting base years to favor a conclusion.

decision_rules: Treat uncertain future inflation and exchange rates as scenario inputs rather than hidden constants.

decision_rules: Do not aggregate monetary amounts across currencies or years until their basis is explicit or normalized.

target_invariants: Like-with-like comparability across time, currency, and price-level basis.

target_invariants: Traceability from raw values to adjusted values.

target_invariants: Separation between real substantive change and nominal reporting change.

target_invariants: Consistency between cash-flow basis and discount-rate basis.

target_invariants: Visibility of assumptions, reference period, currency, and index choice.

target_invariants: Robustness of conclusions under plausible inflation, exchange, and rate scenarios.

expected_outcomes: Fewer false claims of gain, loss, affordability, or performance caused by nominal-value illusion.

expected_outcomes: More reliable long-term valuation and capital-allocation decisions.

expected_outcomes: Cleaner historical, salary, pension, contract, and budget comparisons.

expected_outcomes: Reduced model error from real/nominal discount-rate mismatch.

expected_outcomes: Clearer stakeholder debate because value claims are labeled by basis and assumptions.

expected_outcomes: Earlier detection of exposure to inflation and currency translation effects.

prose_essence:
Money-like numbers are not automatically comparable just because they are expressed as amounts. Each amount carries a hidden basis: date, currency, price level, real or nominal interpretation, and sometimes a discounting convention. This archetype makes that basis explicit, converts values to a declared reference basis, aligns real or nominal cash flows with compatible rates, and preserves assumption traceability.

The pattern is not “do finance math.” It is a structural comparability intervention: prevent false conclusions caused by comparing values whose units look the same but whose basis differs.

prose_when_to_use:
Use this archetype when monetary values cross years, currencies, price regimes, or valuation dates; when an increase may be nominal rather than real; when a project cost, wage, pension, benefit, rent, or budget must preserve purchasing-power meaning; or when a present-value model could mix real and nominal bases.

It is especially useful for historical comparisons, long-term budgets, infrastructure estimates, retirement planning, salary analysis, cross-border investment, and global reporting. It is less useful for same-day same-currency comparisons, behavioral present-bias interventions, or hedging/risk-transfer problems where comparability has already been established.

prose_structural_problem: The structural problem is hidden basis mismatch. Monetary values appear to be commensurable, but a nominal amount in one year is not automatically equivalent to the same nominal amount in another year; a local-currency gain is not automatically a home-currency gain; and a real cash-flow projection cannot be validly discounted with a nominal rate. Without an explicit reference basis, stakeholders may mistake inflation, exchange movement, or reporting convention for substantive gain, loss, affordability, or performance.

prose_intervention_logic: The intervention installs a normalization layer before comparison or valuation. First, inventory each monetary value with its date, currency, source, and interpretation. Second, choose a reference basis: base year, valuation date, currency, price or cost index, and real or nominal status. Third, convert values onto that basis using documented price-level or currency assumptions. Fourth, align cash-flow and discount-rate basis. Fifth, test sensitivity to uncertain inflation, exchange, and rate assumptions. Finally, label every output so the basis cannot be lost downstream.

prose_key_components: The core components are the monetary value inventory, reference basis specification, price-level adjustment model, currency translation model, discounting-basis alignment check, real/nominal labeling rule, sensitivity and assumption record, and cross-basis validation check. Optional components include an adjustment trigger calendar for recurring obligations, a materiality threshold for deciding when adjustment is required, and an exposure boundary note distinguishing comparability work from risk management.

prose_common_mechanisms: Common mechanisms include nominal-to-real conversion tables, constant-currency bridges, nominal/real rate pairing rules, base-year rebasing protocols, inflation and exchange-rate scenario tables, basis-labeled financial charts, and translation-effect decompositions. These mechanisms instantiate the archetype, but none alone is the archetype unless it is embedded in the larger normalization logic.

prose_failure_modes: Common failure modes include real/nominal basis mismatch, index mismatch, currency translation mistaken for performance, base-year manipulation, false precision, and confusion between normalization and risk elimination. The mitigation pattern is consistent: label basis, justify assumptions, decompose effects, and test sensitivity.

prose_neighbor_distinctions: This archetype is distinct from `present_bias_countermeasure`, which changes behavior around delayed gratification. It is distinct from `technical_debt_containment`, which manages deferred maintenance and compounding organizational cost. It is distinct from `constrained_resource_allocation`, which optimizes allocation after inputs are prepared. It is distinct from `opportunity_cost_surfacing`, which makes forgone alternatives visible. It is distinct from `counterfactual_comparison`, which builds alternative-world baselines rather than monetary reference bases.

prose_cross_domain_examples: In historical comparison, wages from two eras are converted into comparable purchasing-power terms, with the cost basket stated. In infrastructure cost estimation, an old project estimate is rebased to a construction-cost index before overruns are attributed to mismanagement. In international investment, local-currency and home-currency returns are shown separately. In retirement planning, nominal benefit projections are paired with constant purchasing-power projections. In salary negotiation, a nominal raise is compared with cost-of-living change before real compensation is assessed.

prose_non_examples: A same-day same-currency vendor quote comparison is not this archetype unless future cash flows or price-level basis matter. A savings app that fights present bias is not this archetype. A currency hedge is not this archetype because it transfers risk rather than normalizing comparison. A statement that something is “inflation adjusted” without index, base year, basket, or purpose is an incomplete mechanism, not the archetype.

prose_tradeoffs: The main tradeoff is between analytical fidelity and complexity. A specialized price index may better match the decision but be harder to explain. Constant-currency reporting may clarify operating performance but understate actual home-currency consequences. Scenario ranges are honest but less rhetorically simple than single numbers. Indexation can preserve real value while shifting inflation risk to another party.

prose_invariants_to_preserve: Preserve like-with-like comparability, traceability from raw to adjusted values, separation between substantive change and basis change, consistency between cash-flow and discount-rate basis, visibility of reference assumptions, and robustness checks under plausible scenarios.

prose_target_outcomes: The target outcomes are fewer nominal-value illusions, cleaner historical and cross-period comparisons, more reliable present-value models, better salary/pension/contract/budget interpretation, clearer separation of local performance from currency translation, and more transparent stakeholder debate over affordability, returns, and real value.

prose_parameter_dimensions: Important tuning dimensions include the base year, valuation date, reference currency, price index or cost basket, exchange-rate convention, real versus nominal cash-flow basis, discount-rate basis, scenario range, materiality threshold, and output labeling convention. Each parameter can shift conclusions, so the draft emphasizes assumption records and sensitivity rather than hidden defaults.

prose_variants_and_near_names: Recognized variants include real cash-flow discounting basis alignment, constant-currency comparison, purchasing-power index rebasing, and indexed obligation adjustment. Near names include real vs. nominal value decomposition, constant-dollar analysis, constant-currency analysis, purchasing-power adjustment, nominal-to-real conversion, inflation-adjusted valuation, and monetary basis normalization.

name: Real Cash-Flow Discounting Basis Alignment

short_definition: A variant that keeps cash flows and discount rates on the same real or nominal basis before valuation.

distinctive_feature: Its central guardrail is basis matching: real cash flows with real rates, nominal cash flows with nominal rates.

distinct_from_parent: This variant narrows the parent pattern to the discounting basis inside present-value analysis.

still_same_parent_because: It still performs monetary basis normalization before intertemporal comparison.

use_when: Future cash flows include expected inflation or are already inflation-adjusted.

use_when: A discount rate may be stated as nominal, real, or ambiguous.

use_when: The valuation result must separate purchasing-power change from time and risk compensation.

example_domains:
long-term valuation
infrastructure finance
retirement planning

domain: long-term valuation

example: A project model converts nominal revenue forecasts and nominal discount rates consistently rather than mixing real costs with nominal revenues.

failure_modes: A model uses real cash flows with a nominal discount rate, understating value.

Constant-Currency Comparison

short_definition: A variant that rebases multi-currency values into a common currency basis before comparing periods, units, or investments.

distinctive_feature: It separates substance from reporting-currency translation effects.

distinct_from_parent: This variant emphasizes currency-basis normalization more than inflation adjustment within one monetary unit.

still_same_parent_because: It uses the same intervention logic: choose a reference basis, translate values, label assumptions, and test sensitivity.

use_when: Values are reported in different currencies or across periods with changing exchange rates.

use_when: Performance or cost comparisons would be distorted by translation movement.

use_when: The analysis must distinguish operational change from currency-basis change.

example_domains:
international investment
global operations reporting
cross-border procurement

domain: international investment

example: A portfolio review compares local-currency performance and home-currency performance separately before attributing gains.

failure_modes: Currency translation is mistaken for operational performance.

Purchasing-Power Index Rebasing

short_definition: A variant that uses a chosen price index or cost index to rebase historical or projected values to a reference period.

distinctive_feature: The decisive design choice is the index and base period used to preserve purchasing-power meaning.

distinct_from_parent: This variant is narrower and more measurement-focused than the full archetype.

still_same_parent_because: It is one way to perform real-versus-nominal normalization.

use_when: Values span periods with materially different price levels.

use_when: The question concerns purchasing power, affordability, or real resource burden.

use_when: The analyst can justify an index that matches the goods, labor, or costs being compared.

example_domains:
historical comparison
salary negotiation
infrastructure cost estimation

domain: salary negotiation

example: A raise is evaluated against a relevant cost-of-living index to determine whether purchasing power rose or fell.

failure_modes: A broad consumer index is used for a specialized construction-cost question where it does not represent the cost basket.

Indexed Obligation Adjustment

short_definition: A subtype for wages, rents, pensions, contracts, or benefits whose nominal amounts are adjusted by agreed price or currency clauses.

distinctive_feature: The normalization rule is embedded into the obligation itself.

distinct_from_parent: This subtype is operational and contractual, whereas the parent is a broader analytical archetype.

still_same_parent_because: It still prevents nominal amounts from masquerading as stable real value.

use_when: A recurring obligation must preserve real value over time.

use_when: Parties need a pre-specified adjustment rule rather than repeated renegotiation.

use_when: The rule must balance purchasing-power preservation with predictability and affordability.

example_domains:
pensions
leases
labor agreements

domain: pension planning

example: A benefit formula includes cost-of-living adjustments so a fixed nominal payment does not silently lose purchasing power.

failure_modes: Indexation preserves one party’s value but transfers unbounded inflation risk to another party.

near_names:
Real vs. Nominal Value Decomposition
Constant-Dollar Analysis
Constant-Currency Analysis
Purchasing-Power Adjustment
Nominal-to-Real Conversion


Informal Fallacy Diagnosis and Repair

batch: Batch 07

aliases: Argument Relevance and Acceptability Review

alias_records: Argument Relevance and Acceptability Review

related_primes: inductive_reasoning abductive_reasoning proof_by_contradiction paradox fallacy_of_misplaced_concreteness planning_fallacy texas_sharpshooter_fallacy confirmation_bias bias framing polysemy context validation causality confounding epistemic_humility traceability accountability transparency boundary classification relation falsifiability counterfactuals counterfactual_reasoning unverified_precondition completeness consistency constraint quantifier interpretation

slug: dialectic

slug: normativity

slug: evidence

slug: equivocation

slug: paradox

slug: bias

slug: framing

slug: polysemy

slug: context

slug: validation

slug: causality

slug: confounding

slug: traceability

slug: accountability

slug: transparency

slug: boundary

slug: classification

slug: relation

slug: falsifiability

slug: counterfactuals

slug: completeness

slug: consistency

slug: constraint

slug: quantifier

slug: interpretation

essence_one_line: Repair arguments that can look formally valid but fail because their premises, context, relevance, or category moves are defective.

compression_statement: Informal Fallacy Diagnosis and Repair is an argument-quality archetype for cases where a conclusion may follow from the apparent surface form, yet the reasoning fails because the content, premise acceptability, relevance relation, context, comparison class, definition shift, burden allocation, or background norm is broken. It reconstructs the argument charitably, separates formal validity from material soundness, identifies the recurring defect pattern, tests the defect against counterexamples and context, and either repairs the argument, narrows the claim, redirects the burden, or rejects the inference.

core_intuition: Not every bad argument is invalid in the formal sense. Many arguments fail because a premise is unacceptable, a term changes meaning, the comparison is impossible or idealized, the relevant alternative is suppressed, the category boundary moves, or the conclusion relies on a norm that has not been defended. Naming the fallacy is useful only after the argument has been reconstructed and the actual defect is shown.

canonical_formula: argument_unit + charitable_reconstruction + formal_validity_check + premise_acceptability_screen + relevance_context_test + fallacy_pattern_match + defeater_probe + repair_or_rejection_path -> improved_argument_quality

structural_problem: Actors accept, reject, or attack arguments using surface plausibility or named-fallacy labels without showing whether the inference actually fails in form, premise acceptability, relevance, context, category stability, comparison class, burden of proof, or normative warrant.

condition: A conclusion is persuasive but the support relation feels content-dependent or context-sensitive.

notes: The argument may be valid-looking while relying on hidden material defects.

condition: A debate turns into trading fallacy names rather than testing the argument.

notes: Fallacy labels become rhetoric unless tied to a specific defective inference move.

condition: A universal, categorical, causal, normative, or comparative claim faces exceptions or rival framings.

notes: No True Scotsman, false dilemma, nirvana fallacy, misplaced concreteness, and Texas sharpshooter-like errors often appear here.

condition: A premise may be unacceptable even if the conclusion follows from it.

notes: Formal validity does not rescue unsupported, equivocal, irrelevant, idealized, or question-begging premises.

condition: Legal, policy, scientific, or public arguments carry action stakes.

notes: The review must distinguish harmless rhetorical shortcut from decision-relevant reasoning failure.

condition: A model, metric, category, or abstraction is treated as if it licenses concrete interventions by itself.

notes: This often signals a material or contextual defect rather than a formal inference error.

symptoms: A conclusion is treated as refuted merely because someone names a fallacy, without reconstructing the actual inference.

symptoms: A formally valid argument depends on a premise that is unsupported, irrelevant, ambiguous, normatively loaded, or contextually false.

symptoms: Definitions or membership criteria shift when counterexamples appear.

symptoms: A real option is rejected because it fails against an idealized alternative rather than the best feasible alternative.

symptoms: A rich option space is collapsed into a binary choice.

symptoms: An abstraction, model, statistic, or legal category is treated as a concrete object with more authority than it can bear.

symptoms: The burden of proof quietly moves from the claimant to the critic.

symptoms: Evidence is relevant to a weaker claim but presented as support for a stronger one.

symptoms: The audience debates tone, identity, or rhetorical force while the premise-relevance structure remains unexamined.

root_tension: Reasoning in real domains depends on content, context, language, and norms, but reusable argument review needs enough structure to show when those material features defeat an inference without reducing every case to free-form rhetoric.

anti_signatures: If the only problem is whether the conclusion follows from already accepted premises under formal rules, use deductive_chain_validation.

anti_signatures: If the task is only to classify evidential support or confidence for a belief, use knowledge_warrant_audit or evidentiary_trace_warranting.

anti_signatures: If the problem is a hidden assumption rather than a recurring fallacy pattern, use implicit_assumption_surfacing or the enthymeme reconstruction mechanism.

anti_signatures: If the task is only to generate alternative explanations, use alternative_hypothesis_generation.

anti_signatures: If the issue is a specific queued fallacy with a rich standalone intervention pattern, consider a future direct archetype rather than collapsing it here.

anti_signatures: If the label is being used as a debate weapon without a reconstructable inference defect, pause and require charitable reconstruction first.

structural_intervention: Create a structured fallacy-diagnosis layer that reconstructs the argument, separates formal validity from material soundness, tests premise acceptability and relevance, locates context/category/comparison defects, maps the defect to a recognized fallacy family, and routes the argument to repair, narrowing, rebuttal, or rejection.

action_logic: State the argument in its strongest fair form before assigning any fallacy label.

action_logic: Separate conclusion, explicit premises, implicit premises, definitions, comparison class, background norms, and evidence links.

action_logic: Run a formal validity or inference-shape check to avoid calling formal invalidity an informal fallacy.

action_logic: Test whether each premise is acceptable, relevant, contextually licensed, and stable in meaning.

action_logic: Identify whether the defect is content, context, relevance, category shift, option-space suppression, idealized comparison, burden shift, or defective evidence transfer.

action_logic: Match the defect to the narrowest useful fallacy family, while recording why that label applies.

action_logic: Probe counterexamples, rival framings, feasible alternatives, and defeaters.

action_logic: Choose a repair path: clarify a term, narrow the claim, add warrant, change the comparison class, restore suppressed alternatives, relocate the burden, or reject the inference.

action_logic: Communicate the diagnosis as a reasoning correction, not merely as a stigmatizing label.

action_logic: Track recurrent patterns so future arguments can be designed to avoid the same defect.

decision_rules: Do not assign a fallacy label until the argument has been reconstructed charitably enough that the author could recognize it.

decision_rules: Treat a named fallacy as a diagnosis only when it identifies a specific defective inference move, not as a substitute for analysis.

decision_rules: If the argument fails solely because of formal invalidity, route it to deductive-chain review rather than informal-fallacy diagnosis.

decision_rules: If a weaker conclusion would be supported, repair by narrowing before rejecting the whole argument.

decision_rules: If the defect depends on unstated values or ought-claims, route through normative assumption explicitness before evaluating acceptability.

decision_rules: If a fallacy label targets a person, motive, identity, or style rather than the support relation, require relevance justification.

decision_rules: If the same trace or evidence supports several hypotheses, require rival explanation handling before accepting the argument.

decision_rules: If the diagnosis is uncertain, record the candidate fallacy family and the discriminating question that would decide it.

target_invariants: Charitable reconstruction precedes accusation.

target_invariants: Formal validity and material soundness remain separate checks.

target_invariants: Every fallacy label is tied to a visible defect in premise, relevance, context, category, comparison, or burden.

target_invariants: A repairable argument is repaired or narrowed before it is discarded.

target_invariants: Specific fallacy variants do not collapse the whole archetype into one named error.

target_invariants: The diagnosis preserves enough traceability for later review.

expected_outcomes: Arguments become easier to challenge without mislabeling or straw-manning them.

expected_outcomes: Decision makers distinguish unsupported rhetoric from repairable reasoning.

expected_outcomes: Premise quality, relevance, and context become explicit review objects.

expected_outcomes: Fallacy education shifts from memorized labels to argument repair practice.

expected_outcomes: Public, legal, policy, and scientific debate become less vulnerable to persuasive but defective reasoning.

Nirvana Fallacy Repair

short_definition: Diagnose and repair arguments that reject feasible options because they fall short of an idealized counterfactual.

distinctive_feature: The defect is an irrelevant idealized comparison standard.

distinct_from_parent: This is one named comparison-class failure inside the broader informal-fallacy diagnosis archetype.

still_same_parent_because: It uses the same reconstruction, relevance, comparison-class, and repair logic.

use_when: A real option is compared to an impossible ideal.

use_when: The operative comparison should be best feasible alternative rather than perfection.

domain: policy

example: Rejecting a vaccination program because it is not 100% effective.

No True Scotsman Boundary Repair

short_definition: Diagnose and repair arguments that preserve universal claims by redefining category membership after counterexamples appear.

distinctive_feature: The defect is moving category boundaries after exposure to a defeater.

distinct_from_parent: It is a category-stability subtype rather than the whole fallacy diagnosis pattern.

still_same_parent_because: It still requires reconstruction, counterexample handling, category checking, and repair routing.

use_when: A universal claim is challenged by a counterexample.

use_when: The speaker changes the membership rule to exclude the counterexample.

domain: debate

example: After an exception appears, redefining the group so the exception no longer counts.

False Dilemma Option-Space Repair

short_definition: Repair arguments that present a non-exhaustive partition as if it were the full option space.

distinctive_feature: The defect is option-space suppression.

distinct_from_parent: It focuses on partition and framing errors.

still_same_parent_because: It uses the same relevance, context, and repair route as the parent.

use_when: A decision is framed as only two choices.

use_when: Suppressed alternatives would materially change the conclusion.

example_domains: policy negotiation strategy

domain: strategy

example: “Either cut quality or miss the deadline,” despite phased release options.

Equivocation Meaning-Stability Repair

short_definition: Repair arguments whose apparent inference depends on a token changing meaning across premises or conclusion.

distinctive_feature: The defect is semantic drift inside the inference chain.

distinct_from_parent: It is a language/meaning subtype of informal fallacy diagnosis.

still_same_parent_because: It still follows the parent process of reconstruction, defect location, and repair.

source_primes: equivocation polysemy

use_when: The argument relies on meaning fixity that is not actually present.

example_domains: law philosophy product_requirements

domain: requirements

example: Using “secure” to mean encrypted in one premise and risk-free in the conclusion.

near_names:
Informal Logical Fallacy
Material Fallacy
Argument Defect Triage
Fallacy Detection Checklist
Premise Relevance Audit


Informal Structure Mapping

batch: First Iteration/Batch 33

Actual Operating Model Mapping

notes: Often used when the mapped reality includes roles, routines, systems, and decision paths at operating-model scale.

Shadow Process Mapping

notes: Narrower variant focused on undocumented process paths and bypasses.

Informal Network Mapping

notes: Narrower variant focused on unofficial relationship, advice, trust, and coordination networks.

Formal / Informal Gap Mapping

notes: Names the diagnostic comparison at the heart of the archetype.

slug: observability

slug: feedback

components:
Formal Structure Map
Actual Practice Trace
Informal Network Map
Workaround Inventory
Influence Path
Formal / Informal Gap Diagnosis
Formalization or Repair Decision
Confidentiality Safeguard
Informal Leader Profile
Broker or Bottleneck Node
Evidence Confidence Rating
Map Update Cadence

mechanisms:
Organizational Network Analysis
Shadow Process Audit
Workflow Ethnography
Informal Leader Mapping
Workaround Review
Actual-vs-Documented Process Map
Communication Pattern Review
Process Mining Review

essence_one_line: Reveal the unofficial relationships, workarounds, and influence paths that determine how work actually gets done.

compression_statement: When formal charts and procedures misrepresent reality, map informal structures so actual coordination, power, knowledge flow, exceptions, and bottlenecks become visible enough to redesign.

core_intuition: Formal structure says how the system is supposed to operate; informal structure shows how people keep it operating under real constraints. The goal is not to punish deviation or glorify improvisation. The goal is to understand what the informal structure is doing, why it exists, and how the formal system should respond.

canonical_formula: formal structure + actual practice trace + informal network + workaround inventory + influence paths -> gap diagnosis -> formalize / support / repair / retire decision

structural_problem: The official structure says one thing, but real decisions, work, trust, information flow, exceptions, and practical authority move through informal networks and workarounds that are invisible to formal governance.

condition: Formal documents do not match lived practice

description: Org charts, SOPs, approval workflows, or role descriptions fail to explain how work actually moves.

condition: Repeated workarounds are normal

description: People routinely bypass or supplement the official process because it is slow, incomplete, obsolete, unsafe, or mismatched to local conditions.

condition: Hidden brokers or informal leaders carry coordination

description: A small number of trusted people route information, solve exceptions, translate across groups, or grant practical legitimacy without formal authority.

condition: Official escalation channels are underused

description: People avoid formal reporting or escalation because they expect delay, blame, exposure, or no useful response.

condition: Change efforts fail despite formal approval

description: A redesign or policy appears accepted in the formal hierarchy but stalls because the actual operating network was not engaged or understood.

symptom: The org chart cannot explain who actually solves problems

interpretation: Practical expertise and trust are located outside formal roles or are concentrated in informal brokers.

symptom: Teams maintain unofficial spreadsheets, chats, access paths, or approval shortcuts

interpretation: Formal tools or procedures may not support real timing, information, exception, or coordination needs.

symptom: New hires struggle despite complete documentation

interpretation: Critical tacit knowledge and relationship routes are not captured in formal materials.

symptom: Managers are surprised by bottlenecks or resistance

interpretation: The formal control model is missing actual dependencies, informal vetoes, and local interpretations.

symptom: Compliance appears high on paper but exceptions are handled off-record

interpretation: The system may be preserving formal appearance while practical work happens through a shadow process.

root_tension: Organizations need formal structures for accountability and coordination, but people adapt around those structures when formal design fails to match real constraints, trust, knowledge, incentives, or timing.

case: The official process is accurate and the main problem is unclear authority

why_not: Decision Rights Clarification is more central when the structure is visible but authority boundaries are ambiguous.

case: The issue is generic relationship mapping without a formal/informal gap

why_not: Relation Mapping or stakeholder mapping may be more appropriate when there is no official structure to compare with actual practice.

case: The real intervention is creating cross-silo exchange

why_not: Silo Bridge Integration is primary when the system needs new interfaces or cross-boundary roles, not just discovery of hidden operating paths.

case: The target is changing norms rather than revealing operating structure

why_not: Norm Shaping is primary when the main work is altering reinforcement loops and behavioral defaults.

structural_intervention: Compare official structure with actual practice, identify informal roles, workarounds, influence paths, and hidden coordination networks, then decide whether each informal element should be formalized, supported, repaired, constrained, or retired.

Define the formal reference frame

logic: Identify the official chart, process, authority model, role definition, policy, or workflow that claims to describe how the system should operate.

Trace actual practice

logic: Observe or reconstruct real work, information flow, decision routing, exceptions, and escalation behavior rather than relying only on declared process.

name: Map informal relationships and influence

logic: Identify advice ties, trust ties, unofficial escalation paths, brokers, bottlenecks, informal leaders, and practical veto points.

Inventory workarounds

logic: Collect recurring deviations from formal process and document the constraint, need, risk, or benefit each workaround addresses.

Diagnose the formal/informal gap

logic: Classify why the gap exists: obsolete process, missing exception route, mistrust, overload, incentive mismatch, tacit expertise, or useful local adaptation.

Choose reconciliation action

logic: For each informal structure, decide whether to formalize it, support it, repair the formal structure that caused it, reduce dependence on it, or remove it safely.

Update formal design and monitor drift

logic: Adjust roles, processes, tools, safeguards, or training, then revisit the map as the operating reality changes.

rule: Do not eliminate a workaround before diagnosing its function

use: A deviation may be compensating for a formal system failure; removing it can reduce resilience or safety.

rule: Do not formalize every informal practice

use: Some tacit relationships work because they remain flexible, local, or trust-based; formalizing them can add bureaucracy or destroy value.

rule: Protect evidence sources when power asymmetry is high

use: People may reveal bypasses, unsafe work, hidden conflict, or political realities only if disclosure will not be punished.

rule: Triangulate before acting on sensitive maps

use: Informal structure can be politically charged; use multiple evidence sources before naming bottlenecks, power paths, or failure causes.

rule: Convert mapping into a disposition decision

use: The archetype is incomplete if it only draws a map; the output must inform what to formalize, repair, support, or stop.

invariant: Descriptive mapping is separated from normative judgment

why_it_matters: A map of what people do is not automatically a claim that they should or should not do it.

invariant: Useful adaptations are protected until their function is understood

why_it_matters: Many workarounds keep systems functioning under constraints that formal designers did not anticipate.

invariant: People exposing informal structure are not punished for diagnostic honesty

why_it_matters: Fear of blame drives hidden practices deeper and corrupts the evidence base.

invariant: Formal accountability is not abandoned

why_it_matters: Informal structure can reveal reality, but accountability, safety, equity, and auditability may still require formal repair.

invariant: The map leads to a reconciliation decision

why_it_matters: Mapping without action becomes surveillance, gossip, or another unused diagnostic artifact.

outcome: Operating reality becomes visible

description: Decision makers see how work, knowledge, exceptions, and influence actually move rather than relying on formal diagrams.

outcome: Better formal design

description: Roles, processes, escalation paths, tools, and policies can be updated to match real needs and remove avoidable bypasses.

outcome: Reduced hidden fragility

description: Overloaded brokers, tacit single points of failure, unsupported informal leaders, and risky shadow processes become visible.

outcome: Safer handling of workarounds

description: Repeated deviations are categorized and managed rather than ignored, punished blindly, or normalized without review.

outcome: Improved change adoption

description: Change plans can account for actual trust networks, influence paths, and operating dependencies before rollout.

prose_essence:
Informal Structure Mapping is the intervention pattern for situations where the official model of an organization no longer explains how work actually happens. It reveals the unofficial relationships, workarounds, influence paths, exception routes, and trust networks that carry coordination beneath formal charts and procedures.

The point is not to expose people for disobeying the formal model. The point is to learn what the informal system is doing. Sometimes it is compensating for an obsolete process. Sometimes it is hiding risk. Sometimes it is carrying essential expertise. Sometimes it is an inequitable access path that only insiders know. The archetype becomes useful when mapping leads to a decision: formalize, support, repair, constrain, retire, or leave informal with safeguards.

prose_when_to_use:
Use this archetype when documented structure and lived structure diverge. Strong signals include repeated bypasses, unofficial spreadsheets or chat channels, hidden escalation routes, new hires who cannot operate from documentation alone, and change programs that receive formal approval but fail in practice.

It is especially useful when formal roles are accurate on paper but practical authority sits elsewhere. A person with no formal title may be the trusted translator, exception handler, or broker between units. A documented workflow may be less important than the informal sequence people actually follow under deadline pressure.

Do not use the archetype as a disguised disciplinary investigation. If the goal is only to catch rule-breaking, it will destroy the trust required to reveal the real structure.

prose_structural_problem:
The structural problem is a mismatch between the official operating model and the actual operating model. The formal model gives accountability, visibility, and planned coordination. The informal model carries adaptation, tacit knowledge, trust, and practical exception handling. When the gap is invisible, leaders redesign the wrong system.

The gap often appears because formal structure is too slow, incomplete, obsolete, politically unsafe, or blind to real constraints. People then create shadow processes that keep work moving. These shadow processes may be helpful, but they can also create fragility, inequity, compliance risk, and single points of failure.

prose_intervention_logic:
The intervention begins with the formal reference: org chart, procedure, workflow, decision path, role description, or policy. It then traces actual practice through observation, examples, process data, interviews, field notes, or artifacts. The comparison reveals where reality departs from the formal model.

Next, the draft maps informal relationships and workarounds. Who do people really ask for help? Which unofficial path gets exceptions resolved? Which person translates across units? Which channel carries urgent decisions? Which bypass exists because the official process cannot handle a common case?

The final step is a disposition decision. Each informal practice should be interpreted before action. A useful workaround may need formal support. A risky workaround may need a safer replacement. An overloaded broker may need role redesign. A hidden influence path may require decision-rights clarification. A tacit practice may need to become onboarding material.

prose_key_components:
### Formal Structure Map

The formal structure map records the official version of the system: chart, SOP, approval ladder, decision right, policy, system diagram, or documented workflow. It provides the baseline for comparison. Without it, the intervention becomes generic relationship mapping rather than formal/informal diagnosis.

### Actual Practice Trace

The actual practice trace shows what people really do. It captures observed work, case histories, handoffs, informal escalation, exception handling, and local adaptations. This component is the reality check against formal documentation.

### Informal Network Map

The informal network map represents unofficial advice, trust, help, translation, and influence ties. It shows who people rely on, not merely who reports to whom. It should be handled carefully because relationship maps can expose sensitive social and political realities.

### Workaround Inventory

The workaround inventory catalogs repeated deviations from official process. It records why the workaround exists, who depends on it, what value it creates, and what risks it introduces. A workaround is not automatically good or bad; its function must be diagnosed.

### Influence Path

Influence paths show how decisions, approvals, exceptions, priorities, or legitimacy actually move. They reveal informal vetoes, trusted brokers, hidden approvals, and practical authority that may not appear in formal decision-rights documents.

### Formal / Informal Gap Diagnosis

The gap diagnosis explains the mismatch. The cause may be obsolete policy, missing exception handling, mistrust, overload, incentives, tacit expertise, unsafe reporting channels, or practical time pressure. Diagnosis prevents simplistic fixes.

### Formalization or Repair Decision

This is the action component. It decides whether to formalize, support, repair, constrain, retire, automate, or leave an informal practice alone. Mapping without this decision becomes surveillance or unused analysis.

prose_common_mechanisms:
Organizational network analysis is a mechanism for collecting and visualizing advice, trust, collaboration, and information relationships. It can reveal brokers and isolates, but it should not be confused with the archetype itself. Network data needs interpretation, confidentiality, and a repair decision.

Shadow process audits compare documented processes with actual paths. They are useful when people routinely bypass procedures or add undocumented steps. The audit is a mechanism; the archetype includes the broader logic of diagnosing why the shadow process exists and what should happen next.

Workflow ethnography observes work in context. It is especially useful when tacit knowledge, local meanings, and practical constraints do not appear in documentation or logs.

Informal leader mapping identifies people who carry practical authority, trust, advice, or translation without formal rank. It should be used to support or relieve those people, not merely to co-opt them.

Workaround reviews classify repeated deviations. They ask whether a workaround is adaptive, necessary, unsafe, obsolete, inequitable, or evidence of a broken formal process.

Actual-vs-documented process maps provide a concrete artifact: official process on one side, observed process on the other. They make the gap discussable.

Communication pattern reviews and process mining reviews can supply evidence, especially in digital or high-volume contexts. These mechanisms must be used carefully because communication frequency does not automatically equal trust, authority, or misconduct.

prose_failure_modes:
**Surveillance capture** occurs when the map is used to punish deviations rather than diagnose structural mismatch. Mitigate it with learning safeguards and clear disposition criteria.

**Formalization damage** occurs when a useful informal practice is made rigid or political. Mitigate it by asking why the practice works before formalizing it.

**Workaround romanticization** occurs when every deviation is treated as clever resilience. Mitigate it by reviewing safety, equity, compliance, and reliability risks.

**Rumor mapping** occurs when informal influence claims are accepted from too few sources. Mitigate it with triangulation and confidence ratings.

**Map staleness** occurs when a map is treated as permanent after people, tools, or incentives change. Mitigate it with update triggers.

**Diagnosis without repair** occurs when the exercise produces insight but no action. Mitigate it by requiring a disposition decision for major gaps.

prose_neighbor_distinctions:
Informal Structure Mapping differs from Stakeholder Mapping and Engagement. Stakeholder mapping asks who is affected or influential around a decision and how they should be engaged. Informal structure mapping asks how the organization already works beneath the formal model.

It differs from Observability Instrumentation. Observability adds signals and traces. Informal structure mapping interprets formal/actual mismatch, including social and operational structure.

It differs from Emergent Formalization. Emergent formalization is one possible downstream action when a repeated informal practice should become official. Informal structure mapping may also choose support, repair, constraint, or retirement.

It differs from Decision Rights Clarification. Decision rights clarification assigns authority. Informal structure mapping reveals whether authority already behaves differently from the formal model.

It differs from Norm Shaping. Norm shaping changes reinforcement loops and behavior defaults. Informal structure mapping may reveal norms but does not primarily redesign cultural reinforcement.

It differs from Silo Bridge Integration. Silo bridge integration creates cross-boundary exchange. Informal structure mapping may discover hidden bridges that already exist or reveal why formal bridges fail.

prose_cross_domain_examples:
In healthcare, a discharge process may formally require a standard checklist, but nurses may actually use an unofficial pharmacy contact route to prevent medication errors. Mapping the informal route shows what the formal process must repair or support.

In software incident response, official roles may exist, but incidents may be resolved through undocumented chat channels and personal contacts. Mapping the actual response structure reveals single-person dependencies and missing runbook knowledge.

In public administration, caseworkers may resolve eligibility edge cases through informal senior-staff advice because policy documents do not cover common situations. Mapping the practice can lead to better guidance and safer escalation.

In manufacturing, operators may use unofficial adjustments to keep production moving. Mapping the workaround can reveal outdated SOPs, hidden equipment problems, or unsafe normalization of deviation.

In education, new teachers may learn practical classroom procedures from informal mentors rather than formal onboarding. Mapping the structure can help the school support mentors and reduce inequitable access to tacit knowledge.

prose_non_examples:
Updating an org chart after a leadership change is not Informal Structure Mapping unless it compares formal structure with actual operating paths.

Running a culture survey is not this archetype unless survey evidence is used to map formal/actual operating mismatch and make repair decisions.

Creating a RACI matrix is not this archetype. A RACI documents intended responsibility; informal structure mapping asks whether responsibility and influence actually operate that way.

Investigating one employee for a policy violation is not this archetype. The archetype is structural and learning-oriented, not an individual disciplinary process.

prose_tradeoffs:
The largest tradeoff is truth versus safety. A detailed map can reveal sensitive information about people and politics. The more sensitive the map, the stronger the need for confidentiality and careful use.

Another tradeoff is formalization versus flexibility. Formalizing a useful informal practice may increase accountability but reduce speed, trust, or adaptability.

Completeness also competes with actionability. A whole operating-model map may be accurate but too large to act on. A narrower map may be easier to repair but miss cross-boundary dependencies.

prose_invariants_to_preserve:
Preserve the distinction between description and judgment. A map of what people do is not automatically a claim that they should keep doing it or should be punished for doing it.

Preserve useful adaptations until their function is understood. Removing a workaround can break the hidden repair that kept the formal system functioning.

Preserve safety for people who disclose reality. If participants are punished for explaining informal structure, future maps will be false.

Preserve formal accountability. Informal structure can reveal reality, but some work still needs explicit responsibility, auditability, equity, and safety controls.

Preserve action linkage. Every major gap should lead to a disposition decision, owner, or review path.

prose_target_outcomes:
A successful application makes operating reality visible. Decision makers can see where work, knowledge, exceptions, and influence actually flow.

It improves formal design by updating roles, escalation paths, procedures, tools, training, and accountability structures to match real needs.

It reduces hidden fragility by exposing overloaded brokers, tacit single points of failure, unsupported informal leaders, and risky shadow processes.

It handles workarounds more safely by distinguishing adaptive repairs from unsafe shortcuts.

It improves change adoption because change plans can account for actual trust networks and influence paths before rollout.

prose_parameter_dimensions:
**Map granularity** determines whether the map is role-level, person-level, or interaction-level. More granularity reveals more truth but increases sensitivity.

**Evidence source mix** determines whether the map relies on interviews, observation, logs, surveys, artifacts, or process traces. More source diversity improves confidence.

**Confidentiality level** determines how much of the map can be shared. Sensitive contexts may require anonymized aggregation or protected diagnostic notes.

**Formalization threshold** determines when an informal practice should become official. Some practices need strong formalization; others should be lightly supported or left informal.

**Scope width** determines whether the intervention maps one workflow, one team, a cross-unit process, or the whole operating model.

**Update cadence** determines whether the map is a one-time diagnostic or a living representation refreshed after incidents, reorganizations, or tool changes.

prose_variants_and_near_names:
**Shadow Process Mapping** focuses on undocumented process paths and bypasses. It is useful when official workflows hide the actual sequence people follow.

**Informal Network Mapping** focuses on advice, trust, help, collaboration, and escalation networks. It remains a variant unless the network map becomes a broader intervention with its own design logic.

**Informal Power Path Mapping** focuses on hidden authority, practical vetoes, and unofficial decision routing. It should be kept distinct from formal decision-rights clarification.

**Workaround Triage** focuses on classifying repeated deviations and choosing what to do with them. It may become a future promotion candidate if workaround governance emerges as a stable cross-domain pattern.

**Actual Operating Model Mapping** is a near name for applying the archetype at broader operating-model scale.

Collapsed candidates include org charts, informal network maps, workaround inventories, organizational network analysis, and shadow process audits. These are components or mechanisms, not standalone archetypes.

Shadow Process Mapping

short_definition: Maps the undocumented process that people actually follow when the official process does not describe operational reality.

distinctive_feature: The emphasis is on process flow and undocumented steps rather than social network structure broadly.

distinct_from_parent: The parent maps informal structure generally; this variant narrows attention to unofficial process paths and exception routes.

still_same_parent_because: The intervention still compares formal and actual structure, diagnoses the gap, and decides how to reconcile it.

use_when: Documented SOPs, approval workflows, or operating procedures are routinely bypassed or supplemented.

use_when: The organization needs to understand whether deviations are adaptive repairs, unsafe shortcuts, or symptoms of obsolete formal design.

Formal Structure Map

role: Provides the documented process reference.

Actual Practice Trace

role: Shows the observed process path.

Workaround Inventory

role: Captures repeated deviations.

Shadow Process Audit

mechanism_type: procedure

role: Finds undocumented steps and bypasses.

Actual-vs-Documented Process Map

mechanism_type: artifact

role: Compares official and observed process flows.

example_domains:
operations management
healthcare workflow
software delivery
public administration

domain: healthcare

example: A discharge process map shows that nurses rely on an unofficial text-message route to get pharmacy clarification.

domain: software delivery

example: A deployment process map reveals that engineers bypass an approval workflow during urgent incidents because the official path is too slow.

failure_modes: Treating every deviation as misconduct instead of first diagnosing why the formal process failed.

failure_modes: Documenting shadow processes without redesigning the formal system or protecting participants.

Informal Network Mapping

short_definition: Maps unofficial relationship networks through which advice, trust, information, help, and escalation actually flow.

distinctive_feature: The emphasis is on relational structure: brokers, central nodes, isolates, trust ties, and advice paths.

distinct_from_parent: The parent includes workarounds, influence, and formalization decisions; this variant centers the network representation itself.

still_same_parent_because: The network map remains a diagnostic component unless it leads to a formal/informal gap diagnosis and reconciliation decision.

use_when: Formal reporting lines do not explain who people actually ask, trust, follow, or depend on.

use_when: Knowledge, coordination, or influence appears to move through recurring relationships rather than formal channels.

Informal Network Map

role: Primary relationship representation.

Broker or Bottleneck Node

role: Highlights critical connectors and overload points.

Evidence Confidence Rating

role: Marks uncertainty in relationship claims.

Organizational Network Analysis

mechanism_type: method

role: Collects and visualizes network data.

Communication Pattern Review

role: Uses communication traces as one evidence source.

example_domains:
organizational design
education
research collaboration
incident response

domain: education

example: A school finds that new teachers learn practical classroom procedures from two veteran teachers who hold no formal training role.

domain: incident response

example: A response team discovers that incident command depends on an unofficial cross-shift coordinator.

failure_modes: Mistaking measured communication frequency for trust or useful influence.

failure_modes: Exposing informal ties in ways that create political risk or retaliation.

Informal Power Path Mapping

short_definition: Reveals unofficial vetoes, approvals, persuasion routes, and legitimacy channels that shape decisions outside formal authority.

distinctive_feature: The emphasis is on hidden authority and practical power rather than workflow or relationship ties alone.

distinct_from_parent: The parent maps all informal structure; this variant isolates influence and decision-shaping paths.

still_same_parent_because: The central move is still revealing the informal structure and deciding how it should be reconciled with formal governance.

use_when: Formal decision rights do not explain who can block, accelerate, reinterpret, or legitimate decisions.

use_when: People route requests through trusted or powerful informal actors before using official channels.

Influence Path

role: Represents unofficial decision routes.

Formal Structure Map

role: Defines official authority for comparison.

Confidentiality Safeguard

role: Protects sensitive disclosures.

Informal Leader Mapping

role: Identifies practical influencers.

Workflow Ethnography

role: Observes decision routing in context.

example_domains:
governance
enterprise change
public administration
community organizations

domain: public administration

example: A permitting office finds that unofficial reviewer relationships determine how exceptions are resolved.

domain: enterprise change

example: A transformation team finds that a respected operations lead has more practical adoption power than the official sponsor.

failure_modes: Reducing informal power to gossip rather than evidence.

failure_modes: Publishing sensitive influence maps without protective review.

Workaround Triage

short_definition: Classifies repeated deviations from official process as adaptive repairs, necessary exceptions, unsafe shortcuts, or obsolete habits.

distinctive_feature: The emphasis is the decision about how to handle a workaround, not merely discovering that informal practice exists.

distinct_from_parent: The parent covers the full formal/informal structure gap; this variant focuses on repeated deviations and their disposition.

still_same_parent_because: Workaround triage depends on comparing official process with actual practice and making a formalization or repair decision.

use_when: Workarounds are common enough to affect safety, reliability, service quality, equity, or compliance.

use_when: Leaders need to decide whether to formalize, support, redesign, eliminate, or leave informal practices alone.

Formal / Informal Gap Diagnosis

role: Explains why deviations occur.

Formalization or Repair Decision

role: Chooses the disposition.

Workaround Review

mechanism_type: ritual

role: Evaluates and classifies workarounds.

Shadow Process Audit

role: Finds undocumented deviations.

example_domains:
healthcare safety
customer support
cybersecurity operations
manufacturing

domain: customer support

example: A support team triages unofficial macros that save time but sometimes create inconsistent customer commitments.

domain: cybersecurity

example: Security teams review emergency access bypasses and decide which require formal break-glass controls.

failure_modes: Eliminating useful workarounds before fixing the formal process they compensate for.

failure_modes: Normalizing unsafe shortcuts because they are locally convenient.

Actual Operating Model Mapping

short_definition: Maps how roles, routines, systems, information, decisions, and exceptions actually combine into the working operating model.

distinctive_feature: The emphasis is broad operating-system reconstruction across roles, routines, tools, and decision paths.

distinct_from_parent: The parent is the general intervention; this subtype applies it at operating-model scale.

still_same_parent_because: It still maps formal versus actual structure and makes reconciliation choices.

use_when: The organization needs a whole operating-model view rather than a single process or network map.

use_when: Formal documentation is fragmented across org charts, systems, process docs, and role descriptions.

Formal Structure Map

role: Reference model.

Actual Practice Trace

role: Real operating behavior.

Formalization or Repair Decision

role: Converts mapping into redesign.

Actual-vs-Documented Process Map

role: Contrasts documented and real paths.

Workflow Ethnography

role: Surfaces local operating reality.

example_domains:
organizational transformation
platform operations
service delivery
public-sector reform

domain: service delivery

example: A service organization reconstructs the real operating model after discovering that documented roles no longer match actual customer handoffs.

failure_modes: Producing a large operating-model diagram without making any repair or formalization decision.

near_names:
Actual Operating Model Mapping
Shadow Process Mapping
Informal Network Mapping
Informal Leader Mapping
Organizational Network Analysis
Actual-vs-Documented Process Mapping