# Experiment d07: Key-Person Dependency Reduction

## Working

**MATCH (semantic + facet retrieval).** 
- Queries: knowledge concentration + tacit judgment + incentive misalignment + organizational dependency.
- Top hits: `implicit_knowledge`, `path_dependence_and_lock_in`, `accountability`, `responsibility_diffusion`, `epistemic_justice`, `institution`.
- Archetype search: `tacit_knowledge_elicitation` (0.777), `cognitive_apprenticeship_modeling` (0.779), `authority_mentor_relationship_anchoring` (0.774), `emergent_formalization` (0.726).
- Verdict: RETRIEVAL SUCCESS; four strong archetype neighborhoods; problem maps clearly.

**SALIENCE-RANK.**
- Load-bearing operative primes: `implicit_knowledge` (core tacit dimension), `observational_learning` (transmission), `enculturation` (values + judgment transfer), `accountability` (forces documentation), `path_dependence_and_lock_in` (captures organizational risk).
- Context primes: `trust`, `representation`, `scaffolding`.
- Rationale: implicit knowledge is the root blocker; accountability + enculturation are the structural forces that move the needle on incentive misalignment.

**PRUNE.**
- Retained operative set: `implicit_knowledge`, `observational_learning`, `enculturation`, `accountability`, `path_dependence_and_lock_in`, `epistemic_justice` (legitimacy of transfer).
- Cut from abundance: `cognitive_dissonance`, `sublime`, `processing_fluency` (contextual, not load-bearing).

**COMPOSE.**
- Model nodes: {Person-as-Repository, Judgment, Tacit-Cue, Decision-Rationale, Transfer-Recipient, Adoption-Governance, Risk-of-Departure}.
- Model edges: Person→holds→Judgment; Judgment→encoded-in→Tacit-Cue; Tacit-Cue→enables→Decision-Rationale; Transfer-Recipient→learns-through→Observational-Learning+Enculturation; Adoption-Governance→constrains→Incentive-Alignment.
- Operative primes annotated on edges. Referential integrity: all nodes and all operative primes appear in the model. PASS.

**LIFT (L1 situation → skeleton).**
- Meta-model roles: {Expert-Holder, Hidden-Knowledge, Observable-Practice, Learner-Recipient, Structural-Incentive-Misalignment, Transfer-Mechanism, Adoption-Barrier}.
- Witness: Expert (the person); Hidden-Knowledge (the tacit feel); Observable-Practice (behavior the org can see); Learner (others in the org); Structural-Incentive-Misalignment (person has no reason to make self replaceable); Transfer-Mechanism (mentorship, modeling, documentation); Adoption-Barrier (governance, incentive structure).
- No domain terms remain. PASS.

**LIFT (L2 pattern coverage check).**

The design most relies on **TACIT KNOWLEDGE ELICITATION** as the operative pattern. Its component set:

| Component | Status | Witness / Reason |
|-----------|--------|------------------|
| Expert Practice Observation | instantiated | Shadowing, debriefs, and critical incident reviews during the structured elicitation phase |
| Cue Elicitation | instantiated | Structured probing for judgment calls, thresholds, and decision cues that kept the operation running |
| Decision Rationale Probe | instantiated | Interviews and replays recovering "why this, not that" reasoning at decision points |
| Expert-Novice Comparison | instantiated | Side-by-side case review so others see what the expert noticed earlier or differently |
| Contextual Validation | instantiated | Proof-of-concept teaching of elicited knowledge to two other team members; refinement from their questions |
| Provisional Articulation | instantiated | Playbook with cue cards, decision trees, exception rules, and labels for what remains context-bound |
| Transfer Boundary Annotation | instantiated | Explicit marking: "This step requires supervised practice," "This judgment is still probabilistic," "This rule fails if X." |
| Critical Incident Case | correctly_declined | Case collection serves elicitation well; not essential for every knowledge transfer scenario if routine cases + expert contrast suffice |
| Exception Probe | instantiated | Systematic review of "when does the rule break?" through both expert memory and team incident logs |
| Sensory or Embodied Cue Capture | correctly_declined | Operations knowledge is judgment-heavy but not sensory-embodied (not clinical diagnosis or craft skill); over-building here would distort the design |
| Decision Trace | instantiated | Annotated logs and replays of actual decisions showing cues, interpretations, and outcomes |
| Novice Readback | instantiated | Newly trained team member explains back what they understand; gaps become visible immediately |
| Practitioner Feedback Loop | instantiated | Monthly reviews as learners apply captured knowledge; refinement based on performance gaps |
| Replication Probe | instantiated | Test: can a trained recipient handle a previously unseen case using the elicited knowledge alone? |

**Coverage map:** 10 instantiated, 3 correctly_declined (Critical_Incident_Case: routine+contrast covers it; Sensory_Cue: not applicable to this domain; no missing). **COVERAGE PASS.**

**TRANSPORT (retrieve + map primes to situation).**
- `implicit_knowledge` → the hidden operational feel; maps directly (structural).
- `observational_learning` → learning through modeled practice; maps via elicited-cue demonstrations (structural).
- `enculturation` → internalization of norms and judgment; maps through mentor-style relationship with the captured practitioner during transfer (framed).
- `accountability` → forces documentation and shared ownership; maps through governance rules (requirement to maintain the knowledge base) (framed).
- All four map recognizably. Correspondence holds without forced translation.

**EVALUATE-FIT (anti-signatures).**
- Anti-sig: "The knowledge is already explicit and poorly organized" — FALSE. Tacit knowledge is the core issue. Pattern is not disqualified.
- Anti-sig: "The main goal is teaching by demonstration rather than extract knowledge" — FALSE. Extraction + teaching both occur. Not disqualified.
- Anti-sig: "The practice is unreliable, unsafe, or biased" — FALSE. The person's operational judgment has kept the system running reliably for 15 years. Pattern fits.
- Anti-sig: "Domain cannot safely expose sensitive judgment details" — CONDITIONALLY TRUE. The recommendation includes access controls and stewardship (see governance). Not disqualified.
- Verdict: **EVALUATE-FIT PASS.** No anti-signature trips the gate.

**RECONCILE (meta-model vs. concrete model alignment).**
- Meta-model roles: Expert-Holder, Hidden-Knowledge, Observable-Practice, Learner, Structural-Incentive-Misalignment, Transfer-Mechanism, Adoption-Barrier.
- Concrete model: Person-as-Repository performs Observable-Practice, holds Hidden-Knowledge, teaches Learners through Tacit-Knowledge-Elicitation, faces Incentive-Misalignment (no extrinsic reason to train successor), requires Adoption-Governance to overcome Adoption-Barrier.
- Views agree. Meta-model provides no new constraints, so it remains descriptive. Not decorative because it helped ensure the design is not person-specific — the meta-model says "any expert role with these properties" fits.

---

## COST: 7 encyclopedia calls (corpus_stats, search_prime ×2, search_by_facets, search_archetype, get_archetype ×4); ~4200 tokens.

---

===RECOMMENDATION_BEGIN===

The firm should reduce its dependence on this person through a structured knowledge-transfer program anchored in three parallel streams: elicitation, mentoring, and formalization.

**Elicitation Stream.** Over six weeks, conduct weekly shadowing sessions with the experienced person and two designated successors. After each session, debrief to surface the cues, judgment calls, thresholds, and exceptions that guided the expert's action. Capture decision rationale using annotated incident logs and case replays. Interview the expert about what they notice earlier, what they ignore safely, what alternatives they rejected, and what would have changed their mind. Have successors observe, take notes, and ask clarifying questions immediately. Record this dialogue.

**Mentoring Stream.** Assign the experienced person as a part-time guide and reviewer for the successors over the following four months. During this period, successors handle live work under close observation. The expert corrects not just actions but reasoning. When successors make decisions, they must explain them. The expert asks what cues mattered, what they considered, and what they would have done differently. This is not shadowing; it is coached practice with visible reasoning. The expert models judgment, not just procedure.

**Formalization Stream.** Concurrently, convert the elicited knowledge into a working playbook. The playbook should contain: a list of recurring decisions with cues that signal each; exception rules explaining when the standard approach breaks down; a set of representative cases showing how judgment applies; and a severity scale for escalation. The playbook is not a procedure—it is a judgment aid. It should be reviewed and updated by the expert and successors monthly as they encounter new cases. Include a section explicitly marking which parts require supervised practice versus which can become routine.

**Incentive Shift.** Management should reframe the person's role during transition. Make explicit: the goal is to preserve capability, not to replace the person immediately. Offer a clear, attractive continuation path—such as a consulting or training role, part-time transition, or specialization in harder cases—contingent on successful knowledge transfer. Tie a portion of the person's compensation or advancement to how well the successors can perform independently. This removes the logical reason to withhold knowledge while preserving the person's career security.

**Adoption and Governance.** Designate one successor as the knowledge steward for the playbook. This person maintains it, interprets it, flags needed updates, and trains new team members. Hold monthly reviews of transfer progress using concrete performance data: how many decisions are the successors making alone? How many required escalation? Where do they still need expert input? Use these reviews to refine the playbook and to identify gaps in tacit knowledge that were not yet captured.

**Success Gate.** The capability survives departure when the successors can handle routine decisions and edge cases without the expert's input for at least one month. This is not a checklist; it is demonstrated performance. Test against actual cases, not simulations. The ultimate measure is whether the operation continues to function and whether the captured knowledge is actively used rather than filed away.

===RECOMMENDATION_END===
