# Working — control policy trace

## STATE.problem
- statement: a firm depends on one near-retirement person who holds tacit, hard-to-verbalize know-how about a critical operation; management can change roles/incentives/schedules/documentation/assignment but cannot compel cooperation beyond the job, nor manufacture experience.
- success: critical capability survives departure AND is genuinely held by others.
- failure: capability degrades on exit, OR "transfer" is paperwork nobody can actually act on.

## Verbs run (verb — why)
1. **match** — anchored the meta-model ("tacit know-how in one agent, cannot be compelled, externalize into a redundant substrate before irreversible departure"). search_prime + search_by_facets. [enc calls 1–2]
2. **salience-rank** — over retrieved primes/archetypes. Load-bearing: `implicit_knowledge`, `observational_learning`, `scaffolding`, `transfer_of_learning`, `feedback` (the apprenticeship spine). Context: `redundancy/fault_tolerance` (continuity framing), `moral_hazard/agency_problem` (incentive facet), `irreversibility` (deadline).
3. **match (archetype)** — pulled the three leading archetypes. [enc calls 3–4: tacit_knowledge_elicitation, cognitive_apprenticeship_modeling; call 5: redundant_backup_provisioning; call 6: moral_hazard prime]
4. **prune** — cut to operative subset. Dropped pure `redundant_backup_provisioning` as PRIMARY (a "deputy" without internalized judgment is exactly the nominal-backup failure); kept its independence/maintenance idea as context. Dropped standalone elicitation as primary (its own anti-signature: produces inspectable material, not held capability — the paperwork trap).
5. **compose** — model nodes {expert E, successor pool S, critical operation O, judgment J, incentive lever I, time horizon T}; edges E–holds→J, J–enables→O, S–lacks→J, I–realigns→E, T–bounds→transfer. Every operative prime annotates an edge (implicit_knowledge on J; observational_learning+scaffolding on S–acquires→J; feedback on coaching; moral_hazard on I; irreversibility on T). Referential integrity: OK.
6. **lift L1** — skeleton: ROLES {master, apprentice(s), task-environment, coach-channel}; RELATIONS {make-cognition-visible, supervised-practice, graduate-responsibility, verify-on-novel-case}; INVARIANTS {reasoning inspectable; learner articulates; fading tied to evidence not time; transfer on new cases}. Every role has a witness in the model; no domain terms. OK.
7. **lift L2 (SCOPED COVERAGE)** — single operative pattern = **Cognitive Apprenticeship Modeling**. Map below.
8. **evaluate-fit (gate)** — anti-signatures walked below; none disqualifies.

## SCOPED COVERAGE MAP — operative pattern: Cognitive Apprenticeship Modeling
Component → status → witness/reason
- **Expert Model** → [instantiated] → the incumbent is designated source-of-truth; recorded/narrated on live cases, not just present.
- **Authentic Practice Task** → [instantiated] → successors work the real operation (live, then with stakes), incl. the things that break it, not a sandbox abstraction.
- **Visible Reasoning** → [instantiated] → think-aloud on live and replayed incidents: what was noticed, what was ruled out, why a rule was bent. This is the signature move and the antidote to "paperwork."
- **Guided Observation Frame** → [instantiated] → before each session, named cues/decision-points the successor must watch for; shadowing is structured, not passive.
- **Learner Articulation** → [instantiated] → successor states their read before acting; incumbent inspects/repairs the mental model — the test that distinguishes held capability from mimicry.
- **Coaching Feedback** → [instantiated] → incumbent corrects reasoning+action on each attempt (witness: `feedback`).
- **Progressive Practice Responsibility** → [instantiated] → graduated handoff: observe → co-run → run-with-incumbent-on-call → run-solo.
- **Fading Rule** → [instantiated] → support withdrawn only on evidence (successor handles routine + 2–3 hard/edge cases unaided), not on the calendar.
- **Transfer Check** → [instantiated] → final gate = successor handles a NOVEL incident/edge case the incumbent did not coach, judged by the incumbent.
- **Error Modeling** → [instantiated] → deliberately walk near-misses/failures; capture the early warning signs (folded into critical-incident sessions).
- **Case Repertoire** → [instantiated] → a living library of worked cases + counterexamples; doubles as the durable substrate so capability isn't re-lost on the next exit.
- **Apprenticeship Record** → [homolog] → discharged by the case repertoire + annotated decision notes; declined as a separate bureaucratic artifact to avoid the documentation-theater failure.

No component [missing] → finalize permitted.

### Incentive facet (would-be second pattern) — handled as homolog, NOT bolted on
The "cannot compel" constraint is real (moral_hazard / agency_problem: the incumbent is insulated from the cost of staying irreplaceable). Rather than instantiate a full principal-agent contract pattern (over-build), it is discharged as a **homolog** of the Expert Model component: realign the incumbent's incentive so being the *visible teacher* becomes their job and reward (recognition, retention/consulting bonus tied to successor transfer-check pass, role redefined around mentoring), making the apprenticeship's source credible and willing.

### Continuity facet — declined as primary
Redundant Backup Provisioning's "≥2 independent holders / no common-mode" idea is honored lightly (train at least two successors so the firm doesn't recreate a single point of failure), but its full apparatus (activation rules, switchover playbook) is [correctly_declined]: the firm's problem is acquiring the judgment, not switching between already-capable holders.

## evaluate-fit — anti-signatures of Cognitive Apprenticeship Modeling
- "ordinary support withdrawal, no hidden reasoning" → NOT tripped (the whole problem is hidden judgment).
- "active learner meaning-making, not expert-guided" → NOT tripped (expert exists and is central).
- "endpoint readiness judgment only" → NOT tripped (we need transfer, certification is downstream).
- "mechanism is only a lecture/shadow day with no articulation/practice/feedback/fading" → NOT tripped (full chain present).
- "no credible expert model or representative task available" → NOT tripped (incumbent + live operation). Verdict: keep.

COST: ~8 operations, ~10k tokens.

===RECOMMENDATION_BEGIN===
Treat this as a teaching problem, not a documentation problem. Writing things down will not save you, because what is at risk is judgment — what to notice, what it means, and when to break the usual rule — and that lives in practice. So build the transfer around the incumbent actively coaching real successors on real work, and make the firm's test of success "can someone else actually do it," never "is it written down."

Start by naming the critical operation precisely and picking at least two successors (two, so you do not simply rebuild a single point of failure). Then redefine the incumbent's job for their remaining time: their primary deliverable is no longer running the operation alone but making a successor able to run it. Tie real reward to that — recognition, a retention or post-retirement consulting arrangement, and a bonus that pays out only when a successor passes the final check below. This is the one lever you control that turns "no reason to make myself replaceable" into "my job and my bonus depend on it."

Run the transfer in four widening stages. First, structured shadowing: before each session, the incumbent names the specific cues and decision points the successor should watch for, so observation is directed, not passive. Second, think-aloud on live and replayed cases — the incumbent narrates what they noticed, what they ruled out, what they were comparing against, and why they did or did not follow the standard procedure. Deliberately walk through past near-misses and failures, because the early warning signs are where the real know-how hides. Third, the successor takes the controls on meaningful parts of the work while the incumbent coaches: critically, before acting, the successor must say out loud how they read the situation and what they will do; the incumbent then corrects the reasoning, not just the outcome. This articulate-then-act step is what separates genuine capability from someone who can mimic the steps. Fourth, the successor runs the operation with the incumbent only on call, then fully solo.

Capture as you go, but as a living case library, not a manual: worked examples, the cues that drove each call, counterexamples and look-alikes that mean something different, and the conditions under which a cue is reliable. This library is both a teaching aid and the durable backstop so the capability is not lost again at the next departure. Keep it tied to cases; do not let it harden into a brittle checklist that pretends every judgment is a rule.

Two rules govern progression. Move a successor forward only on evidence, never on the calendar: they advance when they handle routine cases and at least two or three genuinely hard or edge cases unaided, with sound reasoning, not after a fixed number of weeks. And gate the whole thing on a final transfer check the incumbent does not coach: present the successor a novel incident or edge case the incumbent has never walked them through, and have the incumbent judge whether the read and the response hold up. Passing that — on new material, with reasoning the incumbent endorses — is the only acceptable proof that the capability now lives in someone else. Begin while the incumbent still has ample runway; back-load the calendar and you will run out of time on exactly the hard cases that matter.

Final operating rule: the capability is transferred only when a successor independently handles a case the incumbent never taught and the incumbent agrees with how they did it — until then, nothing is done.
===RECOMMENDATION_END===
