diff --git a/CHANGELOG.md b/CHANGELOG.md index 0e5a13d..77f6075 100644 --- a/CHANGELOG.md +++ b/CHANGELOG.md @@ -5,6 +5,21 @@ All notable changes to the Specula Method open documentation will be documented The format is based on [Keep a Changelog](https://keepachangelog.com/en/1.0.0/), and this project adheres to [Semantic Versioning](https://semver.org/spec/v2.0.0.html). +## [2.0.0] - 2026-10-21 + +### Changed +- `docs/method-overview.md`: v2.0 rewrite. One canonical six-phase sequence shared with `specula-bos` and the `specula-framework` schemas (`0`, `1`, `1.5`, `2` to `6`). Framing moves to Phase 0; the Ethical DNA moves after Scenario Generation, into Phase 2 (Brand Archaeology & Value Stress Test). Breaking change: the v1.1 seven-phase sequence is retired, with a mapping table v1.1 → v2.0. +- `docs/method-overview.md`: Phase 0 records threshold conditions with observable evidence and closes with a written consensus on research question, time window and working rules. Scenario construction rule (four generic futures, closed megatrends shared, one scenario against the strongest declared value, horizon 10–15 years). Value Stress Test on the operational form of values, judged by people who did not build the scenarios, with Causal Layered Analysis as second method. Preferable future designed in Phase 4 with backcasting. Decision criteria as hypotheses with expected effect and review date; Decision Log. Drift classification (error, superseded model, learning). Radar alerts on combinations of indicators. New section "Time and Compression". Metrics with calculation procedures. New role: External Reviewer. +- `README.md`: six-phase section aligned to v2.0, Phase 0 added; ecosystem table lists five repositories, `specula-handbook` included. +- `docs/runtime-alignment.md`: phase mapping restored to the runtime schema phases; fields added in `specula-framework` 1.3 listed. +- `docs/ai-governance.md`: scenario governance follows the construction rule; the preferable future is designed in Phase 4; Phase 2 review by people outside the scenario team; drift classification in Phase 6. +- `docs/ethical-framework.md`: the Ethical + Impact Gate closes Phase 3. +- `docs/community-co-creation-protocol.md` (1.1): new section on who sets the values, with three counterweights and speaking rules; corrected phase reference for speculative futures (Phase 1). +- `examples/session_example_01.md`: horizon 2036; `scenario_type` `exploratory` with `archetype` `discipline` (`preferred` is deprecated in `specula-framework` 1.3). + +### Added +- `docs/method-evolution.md`: v2.0 entry. + ## [1.1.0] - 2026-06-04 ### Added diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index c13d469..0e4dc91 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ Specula is a strategic design method that uses futures as tools to build living, ## SPECULA Ecosystem -This repository is one of three related SPECULA repositories: +This repository is one of five related SPECULA repositories: | Repository | Primary purpose | Primary audience | |---|---|---| @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ This repository is one of three related SPECULA repositories: | [`specula-framework`](https://github.com/oddtitoreal/specula-framework) | Canonical docs/specs/schemas/runtime profile | Governance architects, technical contributors | | `specula-method` (this repo) | Strategic foresight branding method and facilitation profile | Strategists, designers, innovation teams | | [`specula-skill`](https://github.com/oddtitoreal/specula-skill) | Constitution/state-machine implementation skill | AI engineers, governance implementers | +| [`specula-handbook`](https://github.com/oddtitoreal/specula-handbook) | Operational handbook in Italian ([docs.specula.design](https://docs.specula.design)) | Decision-makers, facilitators, students | Choose your entry point: - If you want to understand what the method builds → use `specula-bos`. @@ -64,16 +65,21 @@ The framework is designed to be: ## The Six-Phase Method -### Phase 1 — Scenario Generation -Opening the field through multiple possible and desirable futures. Uses desk analysis, interviews, explorative sessions, and AI to analyze weak signals and unusual correlations, combining cultural, technological, economic, regulatory, and environmental drivers. +The canonical sequence is shared with [`specula-bos`](https://github.com/oddtitoreal/specula-bos) and with the runtime schemas of [`specula-framework`](https://github.com/oddtitoreal/specula-framework). Scenarios come before values: the scenarios are the test that produces the Speculative Brand DNA. Full detail in the [Method Overview](./docs/method-overview.md). -### Phase 1.5 — Competitive Futures Mapping -Analyzing competitors' speculative trajectories: not just present campaigns, but research investments, partnerships, emerging languages, narrative territories they're occupying. The goal is to find the "white spaces"—futures no one is credibly presiding over yet. +### Phase 0 · Threshold & Framing +Verifying the three threshold conditions (real mandate, recognized crisis, willingness to subtract) with observable evidence, recorded in a Threshold Sheet. Putting the brief under stress and closing with a written consensus on research question, time window, and working rules. -### Phase 2 — Brand Archeology -Excavating what must remain stable across multiple scenarios: radical values, worldview, forms of care, inviolable limits. Uses the **Speculative Identity Model**: a canvas working on six intertwined dimensions—radical values, persona/entity, agency, speculative interactions, preferable horizons, alternative tools and metrics. +### Phase 1 · Scenario Generation +Opening the field through multiple futures. Weak signals are collected by people across cultural, technological, economic, regulatory, and environmental domains, with AI supporting correlations. Four scenarios are built with an explicit construction rule: one per generic future (growth, collapse, discipline, transformation), closed megatrends shared by all, one scenario built against the brand's strongest declared value, a horizon of 10–15 years. -### Phase 3 — Future Prototyping & Ethical Gate +### Phase 1.5 · Competitive Futures Mapping +Analyzing competitors' speculative trajectories: not just present campaigns, but research investments, partnerships, emerging languages, narrative territories they're occupying. The goal is to find the "white spaces": futures no one is credibly presiding over yet, each labelled as trend or countertrend. + +### Phase 2 · Brand Archeology & Value Stress Test +Excavating what holds across the scenarios: radical values, worldview, forms of care, inviolable limits. Traces come from documents as well as stories, and counterexamples are searched for actively. Each candidate value is written in operational form and projected into every scenario; people who did not build the scenarios judge whether it holds. Uses the **Speculative Identity Model**: a canvas working on six intertwined dimensions: radical values, persona/entity, agency, speculative interactions, preferable horizons, alternative tools and metrics. + +### Phase 3 · Future Prototyping & Ethical Gate Testing the brand in different futures through speculative design exercises, storytelling, service storyboards, narrative and conversational interfaces. Includes the **Resilience Protocol**: four stress-test scenarios (recession, regulatory revolution, technological discontinuity, plus a Wild Card black swan). The **Ethical Gate** is a formal checkpoint asking: @@ -81,16 +87,16 @@ The **Ethical Gate** is a formal checkpoint asking: - Does it introduce manipulative, extractive, or exclusionary practices? - Does it create unacceptable technological, social, or environmental dependencies? -Rejected prototypes are logged in the **Registry of Refusals**—what the brand chose not to become. +Rejected prototypes are logged in the **Registry of Refusals**: what the brand chose not to become. -### Phase 4 — Narrative Synthesis -Transforming the constellation of elements into coherent story systems capable of living across multiple time horizons. Produces adaptive narratives that can modulate depending on which scenario materializes, while keeping the core recognizable. +### Phase 4 · Narrative Synthesis & Strategic Protocol +Designing the preferable future after the exploration, as a project of its own, and connecting it to the present through backcasting in each scenario. Transforming the constellation of elements into story systems that can live across multiple time horizons. Translating values into decision criteria that carry an expected effect and a review date, recorded in a Decision Log. -### Phase 5 — Co-creation & Community Governance -Exposing the preferable future hypothesis to dialogue with communities: customers, partners, suppliers, territories, activists. AI acts as a designed mediator to amplify significant divergences without transforming them into destructive polarization. +### Phase 5 · Co-creation & Community Governance +Exposing the preferable future to dialogue with communities: customers, partners, suppliers, territories, activists. The Synthesis Circle fixes the values; the community shapes how they are put into practice, and dissent is logged. AI acts as a designed mediator to amplify significant divergences without transforming them into destructive polarization. -### Phase 6 — Activation & Specula Guardian -Translating work into concrete roadmap: projects, prototypes, releases, experiments, investments. **Specula Guardian** is a long-term accompaniment pact: monitoring the gap between imagined future and emerging reality, with an **Emergency Re-Speculation Clause** triggered when signals significantly diverge for two consecutive quarters. +### Phase 6 · Activation & Specula Guardian +Translating work into concrete roadmap: projects, prototypes, releases, experiments, investments. **Specula Guardian** monitors the gap between imagined future and emerging reality and classifies every drift as error, superseded model, or learning. The **Emergency Re-Speculation Clause** is triggered when signals significantly diverge for two consecutive quarters. --- @@ -203,4 +209,4 @@ See [ATTRIBUTION.md](ATTRIBUTION.md) for full guidelines. --- -*Version 1.0 — Last updated: February 2026* +*Version 2.0, October 2026* diff --git a/docs/ai-governance.md b/docs/ai-governance.md index b2256c0..3733079 100644 --- a/docs/ai-governance.md +++ b/docs/ai-governance.md @@ -26,16 +26,16 @@ This document outlines how AI is used responsibly within the framework, what lim --- ### 2. Scenario Generation -**Purpose**: Building plausible and preferable future scenarios by combining multiple drivers. +**Purpose**: Building divergent future scenarios by combining multiple drivers. **How it works**: - Language and visual models generate scenarios combining cultural, technological, economic, regulatory, and environmental factors - High-temperature configurations (more randomness) encourage unexpected combinations - Models explicitly prompted to generate "uncomfortable" scenarios where brand assumptions break down -**Human role**: Selecting which scenarios to develop further, ensuring plausibility, choosing preferable directions +**Human role**: Applying the construction rule (four generic futures, closed megatrends shared by all scenarios, one scenario built against the brand's strongest declared value) and checking internal consistency. The preferable future is designed later, in Phase 4, as a project of its own. -**Example**: Generating a 2030 scenario where water scarcity makes traditional cosmetics manufacturing impossible, forcing brands to reimagine production entirely. +**Example**: Generating a 2038 scenario where water scarcity makes traditional cosmetics manufacturing impossible, forcing brands to reimagine production entirely. --- @@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ AI generates coherent scenarios efficiently, but has no intrinsic understanding ### 4. Lacks Value Understanding AI doesn't "understand" declared values except through constraints we design into prompts and evaluation criteria. -**Our response**: Values are defined by humans in Phase 2 and encoded as explicit filters. AI operates within those constraints, not independently. +**Our response**: Values are tested by humans in Phase 2, through the Value Stress Test, and encoded as explicit filters. AI operates within those constraints, not independently. --- @@ -147,13 +147,13 @@ AI doesn't "understand" declared values except through constraints we design int ### Phase 1: Scenario Generation **AI Role**: High creativity, exploratory -**Governance**: Human selection of which scenarios advance, validation of plausibility +**Governance**: Humans apply the construction rule; AI proposals that converge on the present are discarded **Temperature**: High (0.8-0.9) to encourage divergence -**Review**: All scenarios reviewed for bias and plausibility before client presentation +**Review**: All scenarios reviewed for bias and internal consistency before client presentation ### Phase 2: Brand Archeology **AI Role**: Pattern recognition in existing materials -**Governance**: Humans define radical values, AI surfaces tensions +**Governance**: Humans write candidate values in operational form; reviewers who did not build the scenarios judge the Value Stress Test; AI surfaces tensions and incoherences in the corpus **Temperature**: Medium (0.6-0.7) **Review**: Synthesis validated against actual organizational behavior and history @@ -164,8 +164,8 @@ AI doesn't "understand" declared values except through constraints we design int **Review**: Every prototype through Ethical Gate before advancing ### Phase 4: Narrative Synthesis -**AI Role**: Draft narratives, explore registers and voices -**Governance**: Human selection of tone, approval of final narratives +**AI Role**: Draft narratives and backcasting paths, explore registers and voices +**Governance**: Humans design the preferable future, select tone, approve final narratives and decision criteria **Temperature**: Medium (0.5-0.7) **Review**: Client team approves all narrative directions and final copy @@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ AI doesn't "understand" declared values except through constraints we design int ### Phase 6: Activation & Guardian **AI Role**: Signal monitoring, drift detection -**Governance**: Humans interpret signals and decide on response +**Governance**: Humans classify every drift (error, superseded model, learning) and decide on response **Temperature**: Low (0.3-0.5) for accurate monitoring **Review**: Quarterly human review of all AI-flagged signals diff --git a/docs/community-co-creation-protocol.md b/docs/community-co-creation-protocol.md index 4118997..3e331ec 100644 --- a/docs/community-co-creation-protocol.md +++ b/docs/community-co-creation-protocol.md @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ # Community Co-Creation Protocol -**Version**: 1.0 -**Date**: 2026-03-27 +**Version**: 1.1 +**Date**: 2026-10-21 **Status**: Normative (Phase 5 operational protocol) **Repo**: specula-method **Allineamento**: specula-framework Phase 5 schema (`phase5_cocreation.schema.json`) @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ Questo documento specifica *come* funziona la Phase 5 nel dettaglio: La Community Co-Creation è **obbligatoria** quando almeno una delle seguenti condizioni è vera: 1. Il brand ha un'identità pubblica consolidata con una community riconoscibile (oltre 5.000 persone) -2. I futuri speculativi generati in Phase 3 hanno impatto diretto su stili di vita, valori, o abitudini delle comunità +2. I futuri speculativi generati in Phase 1 hanno impatto diretto su stili di vita, valori, o abitudini delle comunità 3. La AI Constitution dichiara "community" come stakeholder primario 4. Il `moral_entity` definito in Phase 2 è classificato come `caretaker` o `advocate` @@ -153,6 +153,28 @@ La co-creazione Specula richiede che i futuri siano ancora **aperti** quando la --- -## 8. Revisione di questo protocollo +## 8. Chi fissa i valori, chi ne decide l'attuazione + +Il metodo assegna due decisioni diverse a due gruppi diversi. + +- **I valori** li fissa il Circolo di Sintesi, che li ricava dal Value Stress Test della Phase 2. La decisione richiede mandato, continuità e responsabilità sulle conseguenze. +- **L'attuazione** la plasma la community: pratiche, linguaggi, rituali e servizi attraverso cui i valori diventano esperienza. + +Con questa divisione le persone a cui il brand si rivolge restano fuori dalla decisione sui valori. Il metodo lo dichiara e prevede tre contrappesi: + +1. Almeno un membro del Circolo rappresenta i destinatari del brand e ne porta la prospettiva nelle delibere. +2. La dissociazione valoriale (sezione 4.1) obbliga a riaprire la Phase 2: la community può costringere il Circolo a rimettere alla prova i valori. +3. Le voci minoritarie restano visibili nel Decision Log permanente (sezione 4.3). + +### 8.1 Regole di parola + +Nelle organizzazioni piccole chi decide siede spesso nello stesso gruppo che discute, e la sua presenza orienta gli interventi. In ogni sessione di co-creazione e in ogni delibera del Circolo valgono due regole: + +- i contributi si raccolgono per iscritto prima della discussione, anche in forma anonima; +- chi ha il mandato decisionale parla per ultimo. + +--- + +## 9. Revisione di questo protocollo Questo protocollo viene revisionato dopo ogni implementazione completa di Phase 5, con feedback dal facilitatore e dalla community stessa. L'obiettivo è costruire una libreria di casi che migliorino le domande maieutiche e i criteri di rappresentatività. diff --git a/docs/ethical-framework.md b/docs/ethical-framework.md index 7ac2b5e..b705183 100644 --- a/docs/ethical-framework.md +++ b/docs/ethical-framework.md @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ Over time, this registry becomes part of the brand's identity—a record of cohe ### When It Activates -The Ethical + Impact Gate (Phase 5) is applied after Confrontation & Discursive Prototyping, before Action Design. It covers every direction, prototype, or scenario being carried forward. This includes: +The Ethical + Impact Gate closes Phase 3 (Future Prototyping): it is applied after the confrontation of prototypes with people, before Narrative Synthesis & Strategic Protocol (Phase 4). It covers every direction, prototype, or scenario being carried forward. This includes: - Speculative product/service concepts - AI agent behaviors and personas - Business model innovations diff --git a/docs/method-evolution.md b/docs/method-evolution.md index 0966965..e5e1692 100644 --- a/docs/method-evolution.md +++ b/docs/method-evolution.md @@ -14,6 +14,32 @@ This file tracks the evolution of the Specula Method and defines, step by step, ## Versions +### v2.0 (October 2026) +**Definition**: A six-phase strategic foresight branding method in which the Speculative Brand DNA is the output of a stress test against divergent futures, with one canonical sequence shared by the method, the Brand Operating System and the runtime schemas. + +**Core updates**: +- **Sequence**: Framing moves to Phase 0; the Ethical DNA moves after Scenario Generation, into Phase 2. With the v1.1 order, the Value Stress Test checked values decided in advance. +- **Phase 0**: threshold conditions recorded with observable evidence in a Threshold Sheet; written consensus on research question, time window and working rules. +- **Scenario construction rule**: four generic futures, closed megatrends shared by all scenarios, one scenario built against the strongest declared value, horizon of 10–15 years. +- **Value Stress Test**: run on the operational form of each value, judged by people who did not build the scenarios, with Causal Layered Analysis as a second method. +- **Brand Archaeology**: traces from documents as well as stories, strategic interviews, counterexamples, a measure of change. +- **Preferable future**: designed after the exploration, with backcasting per scenario; `preferred` is no longer a scenario type. +- **Criteria as hypotheses**: each decision criterion carries an expected effect and a review date; the Decision Log records decisions against them. +- **Guardian**: every drift is classified as error, superseded model, or learning. +- **Governance**: who sets the values is declared, with counterweights and speaking rules; the Radar alerts on combinations of indicators. +- **Time and compression** declared; metrics given calculation procedures. + +**What this enables**: +- A Value Stress Test that can fail. +- Decision criteria that change with experience while values stay stable. +- One model to read across repositories, handbook, workshop kit and site. + +**What this does not change**: +- The seven principles, the three core gate questions, the Refusal Register. +- Confrontation, impact assessment and platforming from v1.1, now inside Phases 3, 5 and 6. + +--- + ### v1.0.1 (February 2026) **Definition**: Patch update of the open documentation profile, keeping the six-phase public structure and improving runtime alignment clarity. diff --git a/docs/method-overview.md b/docs/method-overview.md index 3573384..22b0222 100644 --- a/docs/method-overview.md +++ b/docs/method-overview.md @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ # Specula Method Overview -## Strategic Foresight Branding — v1.1 +## Strategic Foresight Branding, v2.0 -This document provides a high-level overview of the complete Specula Method. For detailed operational guidance, see the templates directory. +This document provides a high-level overview of the complete Specula Method. For detailed operational guidance, see the templates directory and the workshop protocols in [`specula-bos`](https://github.com/oddtitoreal/specula-bos/tree/main/workshops). ## The Core Question @@ -16,295 +16,292 @@ From that question, we work backward to design identities, products, services, a ## The Seven Non-Negotiable Principles 1. **Plurality before synthesis**: There is no single future. -2. **Preferable ≠ comfortable**: The preferable is political — it includes conflicts and trade-offs. +2. **Preferable ≠ comfortable**: The preferable is political. It includes conflicts and trade-offs. 3. **Everyday futures**: Scenarios must touch rituals, micro-decisions, real life. 4. **Evidence + imagination**: Signals and data feed the process; imagination builds the scenarios. -5. **Ethics as architecture**: Not a final stamp, but a structure that guides choices throughout. -6. **Artifacts that generate conversations**: Prototypes and narratives are tools for debate, not deliverables. +5. **Ethics as architecture**: A structure that guides choices throughout the process, from the first question to the last review. +6. **Artifacts that generate conversations**: Prototypes and narratives are tools for debate. 7. **From workshop to platform**: A living brand requires continuity, governance, and rituals. --- -## The Process: 7 Phases + 1 Continuous Loop +## The Process: Six Phases, One Canonical Sequence -### Phase 0: Activation & Governance -**Duration**: 1–2 days -**Output**: Project Charter, Stakeholder Map, AI & Data Checklist +The sequence below is the one used by the Brand Operating System ([`specula-bos`](https://github.com/oddtitoreal/specula-bos)), by the runtime schemas in [`specula-framework`](https://github.com/oddtitoreal/specula-framework) (`phase0` to `phase6`) and by the Specula Handbook. It follows the arc of any futures exercise: framing, documentation, exploration, action. -Creating the right container before generating content. +The order carries the method's central claim. Scenarios come before values because the scenarios are the test that produces the values: the Speculative Brand DNA is what remains standing after the brand's candidate values have been projected into divergent worlds. -**Key Activities**: -- Define mandate and objectives (what we want to change) -- Establish perimeter: product / service / identity / market -- Map available assets and constraints (time, budget, compliance, data) -- Set up AI: policy, datasets, access, privacy (GDPR / DPIA if required) - -**Deliverables**: Project Charter · Stakeholder Map · AI & Data Checklist +| Phase | BOS layer | Workshop | Main output | +|---|---|---|---| +| 0 · Threshold & Framing | precedes the BOS | Brief Under Stress | Threshold sheet, modulated brief, written consensus | +| 1 · Scenario Generation | 01 WORLD, 02 FUTURES | Weak Signals Map, Collaborative Worldbuilding | Signals library, four divergent scenarios | +| 1.5 · Competitive Futures Mapping | refines 02 FUTURES | inside Worldbuilding | White spaces, labelled trend or countertrend | +| 2 · Brand Archaeology & Value Stress Test | 03 IDENTITY | Brand Archaeology | Speculative Brand DNA, red lines | +| 3 · Future Prototyping & Ethical + Impact Gate | 04 EXPLORATION | Confrontation: the Brand in the Futures | Validated prototypes, Refusal Register | +| 4 · Narrative Synthesis & Strategic Protocol | 05 STRATEGY | From Prototype to Protocol | Preferable future, backcasting, criteria as hypotheses, Decision Log | +| 5 · Co-creation & Community Governance | 06 GOVERNANCE | Radar Calibration, Behavioral Matrix | Brand Radar, behavioral matrix, governance playbook | +| 6 · Activation & Specula Guardian | 07 INTERFACE | Agent Onboarding | Activation roadmap, Guardian Loop | --- -### Phase 1: Framing & Ethical DNA -**Duration**: 1–2 weeks -**Output**: Ethical DNA Canvas, Decision Principles, Red Lines +### Phase 0: Threshold & Framing +**Duration**: about 1 week (preliminary meetings plus the 90-minute Brief Under Stress) +**Output**: Threshold Sheet, Modulated Brief, Written Consensus -Defining what truly matters — and what is non-negotiable — before any scanning or scenario work begins. +Building the container and the question before generating content. -**Guiding Questions**: -- What strategic tension must we traverse? -- Which values are invariant? Which can evolve? -- Who are we at risk of excluding? Where is there a power asymmetry? -- What futures do we want to make "preferable" — and for whom? +**Threshold conditions, verified with observable evidence**: +- **Real mandate**: the person who signs can decide on brand and budget, and takes part in the process. +- **Recognized crisis**: the organization names the crisis in an internal document. Almost every organization lives inside some structural crisis; what counts is that this one recognizes its own. +- **Willingness to subtract**: the client lists in advance what it is ready to remove. -**Key Activities**: -- Workshops with internal teams -- Mapping radical values (non-negotiable even when costly) -- Articulating accepted biases and explicit preferences -- Identifying tensions and trade-offs in advance -- **Brief modulation via speculative HMW** — before any project begins, the existing brief is put under stress: implicit assumptions are surfaced, named as tensions, and reframed as speculative How Might We questions that open the generative field rather than optimize within it (see [The Brief Under Stress](https://github.com/oddtitoreal/specula-bos/blob/main/workshops/brief-sotto-stress.md)) +A Threshold Sheet records the evidence for each condition. It is archived for every engagement, including those that do not start. -**Deliverables**: Ethical DNA Canvas · Decision Principles (values → operational criteria) · Red Lines & Non-Negotiables · Modulated Brief +**Key activities**: +- Put the existing brief under stress: implicit assumptions are surfaced, named as tensions, and reframed as speculative How Might We questions (see [The Brief Under Stress](https://github.com/oddtitoreal/specula-bos/blob/main/workshops/brief-sotto-stress.md)) +- Opening exercise: how different was the organization ten years ago, and how different could it be ten years from now +- Agree in writing on three things: the research question, the time window, and the working rules +- Working rules protect free speech when the person who decides sits in the group: written contributions collected before discussion, and the decision-maker speaks last +- Set up AI: policy, datasets, access, privacy (GDPR / DPIA if required) -**Note**: The DNA document serves as compass for all subsequent prototyping and criterion for the Ethical + Impact Gate. +**Deliverables**: Threshold Sheet · Modulated Brief · Written Consensus (question, window, rules) · Stakeholder Map · AI & Data Checklist --- -### Phase 2: Scanning & Sensemaking -**Duration**: 1–2 weeks -**Output**: Signals Library, Driver & Tension Map, Competitive Futures Map, Implication Deck +### Phase 1: Scenario Generation +**Duration**: about 2 weeks +**Output**: Signals Library, Driver & Tension Map, Four Scenario Cards, Early Warning Dashboard -Building the raw material: signals, patterns, and forces. Before diving into brand identity, observe what is moving in the world — and what competitors are doing or could do. +**1a · Scanning & Sensemaking** -**Method (hybrid)**: -- AI: accelerated signal collection (public / industry sources) -- Human: situated observation (field notes, interviews, community) -- Synthesis: clustering, driver mapping, implications +Signals are collected by people. Every participant brings five weak signals from their own domain, and at least one third come from domains outside the brand's sector. Signals are organized on a declared grid: the five domains (cultural, technological, regulatory, economic, environmental) arranged around the research question from Phase 0. AI supports clustering and correlation across domains; collection stays human, because models tend to surface the signals that are already frequent. -**Phase 2.1 — Competitive Futures Mapping**: Mapping competitor R&D investments, partnerships, and messaging shifts along dimensions such as innovation radicalness, ethical depth, and co-creation openness. Goal: find futures no one is credibly occupying yet. - -**Deliverables**: Signals Library · Driver & Tension Map · Competitive Futures Map · Implication Deck (15–30 cards) - ---- +**1b · Scenario Weaving: the construction rule** -### Phase 3: Scenario Weaving -**Duration**: 1–2 weeks -**Output**: 3–4 Scenario Cards, Opportunity Map, Early Warning Dashboard +Divergence is built into the scenarios by construction: +- **Four scenarios, one per generic future**: growth, collapse, discipline, transformation (Dator, *Alternative Futures at the Manoa School*, Journal of Futures Studies 14(2), 2009). +- **Closed megatrends appear in every scenario**. Scenarios diverge only on the open variables. +- **One scenario is built against the brand's strongest declared value**: a world where that value is costly, co-opted, or irrelevant. +- **At least one scenario should look implausible to the client at first reading.** A scenario that looks reasonable to everyone is usually an extension of the present. +- **Horizon of 10–15 years** (for example 2036–2040). Values need a long window to be tested; decisions drawn from the scenarios are later translated into 1–3 year actions. -Generating divergent, plausible futures that are readable and usable — not predictions, but explorations. +**Each scenario includes**: a headline, a one-page daily-life vignette in present tense, key assumptions, opportunities and risks for the brand, and materialization indicators (what to observe today as confirmation or disconfirmation). -**Rules**: -- Scenarios must be divergent from each other but individually plausible -- Based on explicit drivers and assumptions -- Written in "daily-life" format: first-person vignettes, present tense -- Each scenario includes indicators (what to observe today as confirmation or disconfirmation) +**Deliverables**: Signals Library · Driver & Tension Map · Four Scenario Cards · Early Warning Dashboard (minimum 10 signals) -**Each scenario includes**: -- A memorable headline -- A one-page vignette in present tense -- Key assumptions -- Opportunities and risks for the brand -- Early warning indicators +--- -**Unique Element**: Deliberately generating "uncomfortable" scenarios where the brand doesn't exist, where its values are co-opted, or where its value proposition becomes irrelevant. These negative scenarios clarify what truly matters. +### Phase 1.5: Competitive Futures Mapping +**Duration**: inside the Worldbuilding workshop +**Output**: Competitive Futures Map, White Spaces -**Deliverables**: Scenario Cards · Opportunity Map · Early Warning Dashboard (minimum 10 signals) +Mapping competitors' speculative trajectories: research investments, partnerships, emerging languages, narrative territories. The goal is to find futures that no one is credibly occupying yet. Each white space is labelled as **trend** (part of a dominant movement) or **countertrend** (a niche that should not be mistaken for the dominant movement). --- -### Phase 4: Confrontation & Discursive Prototyping -**Duration**: 2–3 weeks -**Output**: Confrontation Plan, Discursive Prototypes Kit, Field Notes & Insight Log +### Phase 2: Brand Archaeology & Value Stress Test +**Duration**: 1–2 weeks (corpus preparation, 3-hour workshop, 1 hour of AI analysis) +**Output**: Speculative Brand DNA, Red Lines, Known Tensions + +Excavating what holds across divergent futures. -Making futures collide with people in the right context. Not "presenting scenarios" — making them **live**. +**The corpus of traces**: +- Decisions reconstructed from documents (minutes, budgets, offers declined), alongside the stories people tell about them +- Individual strategic interviews with different roles, external stakeholders included +- An inventory of the organization's official futures: what it has publicly said about where it is going +- Counterexamples: decisions that betrayed a declared value +- A measure of change: how much the organization has changed over the last ten years, besides what shaped it -**Activators**: -- Discursive artifacts (props, mock services, UI fiction) -- Role-play / embodied futures -- Exhibits / guided sessions -- "Specula Board" simulations in internal teams +**The Value Stress Test**: +- Each candidate value is first written in operational form ("if it does not improve X, it is not a valid choice"). The test runs on that form. +- The value is projected into each scenario. It holds if, in every scenario, it still distinguishes between options when doing so is costly. +- People who did not build the scenarios judge whether the value holds: an external reviewer, or a second team. +- Causal Layered Analysis works as a second method, reading each value at the level of worldview and metaphor. +- At least one candidate value must fall. If every value holds, the test has stressed nothing. -**Co-creation (with clear governance)**: The community or audience involved can contribute to defining *how* the brand's values translate into practices, languages, rituals, and services. The values (DNA) remain invariant. What is co-designed is their **implementation**. +The Speculative Identity Model canvas (see templates) records the result: radical values, each supported by at least three documented decisions; fragile values; contingent values; red lines; tensions that remain open. -**Deliverables**: Confrontation Plan · Discursive Prototypes Kit · Field Notes & Insight Log +**Deliverables**: Speculative Brand DNA · Red Lines & Non-Negotiables · Known Tensions · Counterexample Log --- -### Phase 5: Ethical + Impact Gate -**Duration**: 1 week -**Output**: Assessment Report, Decision Gate Board, Refusal Register, Assumption Test List +### Phase 3: Future Prototyping & Ethical + Impact Gate +**Duration**: about 2 weeks +**Output**: Discursive Prototypes Kit, Assessment Report, Refusal Register -Stress test: bias, risks, impacts, and coherence with the Ethical DNA. This is the same Ethical Gate from the method's foundation, enhanced with a systematic impact assessment layer. +**Confrontation & discursive prototyping**: making futures collide with people in the right context, through discursive artifacts (props, mock services, UI fiction), role-play and embodied futures, exhibits and guided sessions, "Specula Board" simulations with internal teams. The Resilience Protocol tests each prototype against four stress conditions (see templates). -**What is evaluated**: +**The Ethical + Impact Gate** evaluates every direction carried forward: - Unintended impacts (social, environmental, reputational) -- Exclusions / accessibility / inequalities +- Exclusions, accessibility, inequalities - Contradictions between DNA and scenario -- Robustness (what holds across multiple scenarios?) -- Feasibility (what can we actually test within 30–90 days?) +- Robustness: what holds across scenarios +- Feasibility: what can be tested within 30–90 days -**The Three Core Questions** (unchanged): +**The three core questions**: 1. Does this violate one or more declared radical values? 2. Does it introduce manipulative, extractive, or exclusionary practices? 3. Does it create unacceptable technological, social, or environmental dependencies? -**Decision portfolio**: -- **GO** — we run the experiment -- **HOLD** — evidence is missing -- **STOP** — against DNA or unacceptable risk +**Decision portfolio**: **GO** (we run the experiment) · **HOLD** (evidence is missing) · **STOP** (against the DNA or unacceptable risk). -**Refusal Register**: All STOP decisions are documented with the item refused, reasoning, principle or value invoked, and risk avoided. What gets rejected becomes part of the brand's identity, not a simple mistake. +**Refusal Register**: every STOP is documented with the item refused, the reasoning, the value invoked, and the risk avoided. What gets rejected becomes part of the brand's identity. -**Deliverables**: Assessment Report · Decision Gate Board · Refusal Register · Assumption Test List (max 12) +**Deliverables**: Confrontation Plan · Discursive Prototypes Kit · Assessment Report · Refusal Register · Assumption Test List (max 12) --- -### Phase 6: Action Design -**Duration**: 2 weeks -**Output**: Experiment Roadmap, Brand System Updates, Narrative Playbook +### Phase 4: Narrative Synthesis & Strategic Protocol +**Duration**: 1–2 weeks +**Output**: Preferable Future, Backcasting Map, Narrative Playbook, Strategic Protocol, Decision Log + +**The preferable future** is designed after the exploration, as a project of its own. The scenarios describe what could happen; the preferable future states what the brand will work toward, given what it has learned in them. Backcasting connects the two: for each scenario, which steps from today toward the preferable future still hold in that world. -Transforming insights and scenarios into measurable actions. +**Narrative synthesis** turns scenarios, DNA and preferable future into an operational narrative: posture, language, priorities, and limits. -**Phase 6.1 — Narrative Synthesis**: Transforming scenarios + DNA into an operational narrative — posture, language, priorities, and limits. Outputs: narrative thesis, key messages and daily-life micro-stories, tone-of-voice rules (do/don't), vocabulary, taboo words. +**The Strategic Protocol** translates the DNA into decision criteria. Values stay stable; the criteria that translate them into decisions are hypotheses. Each criterion carries an **expected effect** and a **review date**. New criteria are tried through experiments that can fail without damage. -**Key Activities**: -- Prioritizing first 30 / 60 / 90-day experiments -- Updating identity systems (narrative, tone, design system, services) -- Defining communication plan (what we tell and what we don't) -- Setting learning, coherence, and impact metrics +**The Decision Log** opens here. Every relevant decision is recorded with the criterion applied and the expected effect, so that the Guardian can later compare it with the observed effect. -**Deliverables**: Experiment Roadmap · Brand System Updates (principles → operational guidelines) · Narrative Playbook (stories, claims, messages, FAQ) +**The restitution to leadership** is designed as a design moment: a synthetic, tangible presentation of the choices, built to be decided on. + +**Deliverables**: Preferable Future & Backcasting Map · Narrative Playbook · Strategic Protocol · Decision Log · Experiment Roadmap (30 / 60 / 90 days) --- -### Phase 7: Platforming & Continuous Loop -**Duration**: Ongoing setup, then continuous -**Output**: Futures Platform Blueprint, Ritual Calendar, Specula Repository Structure +### Phase 5: Co-creation & Community Governance +**Duration**: 1–2 weeks +**Output**: Brand Radar, Behavioral Matrix, Brand Governance Playbook, Co-creation Record + +**Who sets the values, and why**: the Synthesis Circle fixes the values; the community shapes how they are put into practice. The method declares who stays outside that decision and what counterweight exists: at least one member of the Circle represents the people the brand serves, and dissent is logged in the co-creation record (see the [Community Co-Creation Protocol](./community-co-creation-protocol.md)). -Making Specula a continuous organizational capability — not an episodic project. +**Brand Radar**: five axes derived from the radical values, each with an indicator, a data source and an owner. Alert thresholds lean toward reopening, because a false alarm costs less than a late reaction. Alerts also fire on combinations of indicators, beyond single thresholds. Every escalation names people and times, scaled to the speed of the signals it watches. -**Components**: -- **Governance**: who decides what, when, and by which criteria -- **Rituals**: monthly scanning, quarterly sensemaking, semi-annual review -- **Repository**: signals / scenarios / decisions / experiments, organized and searchable -- **AI agent integration**: value guardian, signal harvester, scenario editor, risk & bias spotter +**Behavioral Matrix**: decisions placed as Allowed, Sensitive, or Forbidden, built from real cases. -**Deliverables**: Futures Platform Blueprint · Ritual Calendar · Specula Repository Structure +**Deliverables**: Brand Radar · Behavioral Matrix · Brand Governance Playbook · Co-creation Record --- -### +1: Guardian Loop (Continuous) -**Output**: Guardian Report (monthly or quarterly) +### Phase 6: Activation & Specula Guardian +**Duration**: setup in about 1 week, then continuous +**Output**: Activation Roadmap, Specula Agent, Ritual Calendar, Guardian Report + +**Activation and platforming**: an activation roadmap; the Specula Agent as operational interface; rituals (monthly scanning, quarterly sensemaking, semi-annual review); a repository of signals, scenarios, decisions and experiments. -Protecting coherence and values as the world changes. The Guardian is not maintenance — it is a living relationship where brand identity evolves while staying anchored to radical values. +**The Guardian Loop** monitors indicators and signals, updates scenarios, and compares expected and observed effects in the Decision Log. Every drift receives a classification, with the rule that produced it: -**What it does**: -- Monitors indicators and signals -- Flags coherence drift (gaps from DNA) -- Updates scenarios and implications -- Proposes corrective micro-actions +| Class | Rule | Action | +|---|---|---| +| **Error** | The drift violates a red line | Correct | +| **Model superseded** | The observed world falls outside all scenarios | Re-Speculation | +| **Learning** | The drift is repeated, spontaneous and widespread, and violates no red line | The Circle deliberates whether the criterion changes | -**Guardian Report structure**: Period covered · Context changes · Key signals (new / accelerating / fading) · Coherence Drift (with evidence) · Suggested decisions (GO / HOLD / STOP) · Required updates (scenarios / implications / principles / playbook) · Backlog (micro-actions with owner, deadline, metric) +**Emergency Re-Speculation Clause**: if signals diverge significantly from the imagined futures for two consecutive quarters, a 4-week accelerated re-speculation cycle starts. -**Emergency Re-Speculation Clause**: If signals diverge significantly from the imagined futures for two consecutive quarters, triggers a 4-week accelerated re-speculation cycle. +**Definition of Done**: the engagement is complete when the client governs its BOS autonomously. The Guardian is a periodic external review that presupposes that autonomy. + +**Guardian Report structure**: Period covered · Context changes · Key signals (new / accelerating / fading) · Drift classification (with evidence and rule) · Expected vs observed effects · Suggested decisions (GO / HOLD / STOP) · Required updates · Backlog (micro-actions with owner, deadline, metric) --- -## Roles +## Time and Compression -### Human Roles -- **Brand Alchemist** — guides identity synthesis and trade-off decisions -- **Futures Scout** — signals, fieldwork, pattern recognition -- **Narrative Architect** — daily-life scenarios, stories, discursive artifacts -- **Facilitator** — workshops, confrontation sessions, conflict management -- **Platform Steward** — governance, rituals, repository, continuity -- **Domain Experts** — legal, product, operations, customer care, etc. +A Full Journey takes 2–3 months, the sum of the phase durations above, with about 27 hours of workshops. A complete futures exercise in a large organization can take up to six months. Specula compresses three things: -### AI Roles (optional, configurable) -- **Value Guardian** — checks coherence with Ethical DNA -- **Signal Harvester** — surfaces signals and clusters -- **Scenario Editor** — improves clarity and plausibility of scenarios -- **Risk & Bias Spotter** — flags blind spots and unintended impacts +- The preliminary meetings, into one Brief Under Stress session plus the Threshold Sheet +- Signal collection, into structured pre-work and one 3-hour session +- Scenario construction, into one 4-hour workshop on tracks prepared by the facilitator + +The cost is less documentary depth and scenarios with less internal detail. The construction rule and the external judge of the Value Stress Test exist partly to offset that cost. Pilot engagements record the time spent per phase, so that the compression can be measured. --- -## Metrics +## Roles -Anti-fuffa indicators — measure what actually matters: +### Human Roles +- **Brand Alchemist**: guides identity synthesis and trade-off decisions, following written synthesis rules +- **External Reviewer**: judges the Value Stress Test without having built the scenarios +- **Futures Scout**: signals, fieldwork, pattern recognition +- **Narrative Architect**: daily-life scenarios, stories, discursive artifacts +- **Facilitator**: workshops, confrontation sessions, conflict management +- **Platform Steward**: governance, rituals, repository, continuity +- **Domain Experts**: legal, product, operations, customer care, etc. -- **Learning Velocity**: assumptions tested per month -- **Decision Lead Time**: time from insight to decision -- **Scenario Adoption**: how many functions use scenarios to make decisions -- **Brand Coherence Index**: coherence between outputs and DNA (quarterly audit) -- **Ethical Incident Rate**: ethical issues flagged (and corrected) within the cycle +### AI Roles (optional, configurable) +- **Value Guardian**: checks coherence with the DNA +- **Signal Correlator**: proposes correlations and clusters across domains +- **Scenario Editor**: improves clarity and internal consistency of scenarios +- **Risk & Bias Spotter**: flags blind spots and unintended impacts --- -## Rapid Implementation: 4–6 Week Checklist +## Metrics + +Each metric has a calculation procedure, so that two people computing it reach the same number. -- **Week 1**: Activation + Framing / DNA -- **Week 2**: Scanning + Sensemaking -- **Week 3**: Scenario Weaving -- **Week 4**: Confrontation + Discursive Prototypes -- **Week 5**: Assessment Gate + Decisions -- **Week 6**: Action Design + Platform Blueprint +- **Brand Coherence Index**: every quarter, a sample of decisions is drawn from the Decision Log. Two independent raters place each decision on the Behavioral Matrix. The index is the share of decisions both raters place as Allowed. Agreement between raters is reported with the index: when agreement is low, the matrix needs work before the index means anything. +- **Learning Velocity**: criteria reviewed per quarter, with expected and observed effects compared in the Decision Log. +- **Decision Lead Time**: time from insight to decision, read from the Decision Log. +- **Scenario Adoption**: number of functions that cite a scenario when recording a decision. +- **Ethical Incident Rate**: ethical issues flagged, and corrected, within the cycle. --- ## Key Differentiators -### 1. Structural Ethics -The Ethical + Impact Gate isn't optional — it's a formal phase with documentation requirements. Refusal is logged and becomes identity. +### 1. Values produced by a test +The Speculative Brand DNA is the output of a stress test against divergent futures, built with an explicit construction rule and judged by people outside the group that built the scenarios. -### 2. AI as Divergence Partner -AI is configured for high-temperature exploration, generating uncomfortable combinations that humans tend to ignore. Not for efficiency — for expanded possibility. +### 2. Structural Ethics +The Ethical + Impact Gate is a formal phase with documentation requirements. Refusal is logged and becomes identity. -### 3. Futures That Live -Scenarios are not slide decks. Discursive prototyping makes them collide with real people in real contexts — generating genuine reactions, not curated feedback. +### 3. Criteria that learn +Decision criteria carry an expected effect and a review date. The Guardian distinguishes errors from learning, so that coherence and adaptation can coexist. -### 4. Platform, Not Project -Platforming and the Guardian Loop transform speculative work from a one-time engagement into a continuous organizational capability. +### 4. Futures That Live +Discursive prototyping makes scenarios collide with real people in real contexts. -### 5. Hybrid Impact Metrics -Measuring process quality, business performance, AND systemic impact. Not one or the other. +### 5. Platform, Not Project +The Guardian Loop turns speculative work into a continuous organizational capability. --- -## Phase Mapping (v1.0 → v1.1) +## Phase Mapping (v1.1 → v2.0) -For continuity with earlier documentation and runtime integrations: +Version 1.1 defined the Ethical DNA before the scenarios. In that order, the Value Stress Test checks values decided in advance, and the scenarios can only confirm them. Version 2.0 restores the sequence used by `specula-bos` and by the runtime schemas: scenarios first, then the test that produces the DNA. -| v1.0 Phase | v1.1 Phase | +| v1.1 Phase | v2.0 Phase | |---|---| -| (implicit) | 0. Activation & Governance | -| Phase 2: Brand Archeology | 1. Framing & Ethical DNA | -| Phase 1: Scenario Generation (research) | 2. Scanning & Sensemaking | -| Phase 1.5: Competitive Futures Mapping | 2.1 Competitive Futures Map (sub-phase) | -| Phase 1: Scenario Generation (construction) | 3. Scenario Weaving | -| *(new)* | 4. Confrontation & Discursive Prototyping | -| Phase 3: Future Prototyping + Ethical Gate | 5. Ethical + Impact Gate | -| Phase 4: Narrative Synthesis | 6.1 Narrative Synthesis (sub-phase of Action Design) | -| Phase 5: Co-creation & Community Governance | Integrated into Phase 4 + Phase 7 | -| Phase 6: Activation | 6. Action Design | -| Phase 6: Specula Guardian | 7. Platforming + Guardian Loop | +| 0. Activation & Governance | 0. Threshold & Framing | +| 1. Framing & Ethical DNA | Framing → 0. Threshold & Framing · Ethical DNA → 2. Brand Archaeology & Value Stress Test | +| 2. Scanning & Sensemaking | 1. Scenario Generation (1a) | +| 2.1 Competitive Futures Map | 1.5 Competitive Futures Mapping | +| 3. Scenario Weaving | 1. Scenario Generation (1b) | +| 4. Confrontation & Discursive Prototyping | 3. Future Prototyping & Ethical + Impact Gate | +| 5. Ethical + Impact Gate | 3. Future Prototyping & Ethical + Impact Gate | +| 6. Action Design · 6.1 Narrative Synthesis | 4. Narrative Synthesis & Strategic Protocol | +| 7. Platforming & Continuous Loop | 5. Co-creation & Community Governance (governance) · 6. Activation & Specula Guardian (rituals, repository) | +| +1 Guardian Loop | 6. Activation & Specula Guardian | --- ## For Different Audiences ### For Practitioners -Start from the [Documentation Index](./00_index.md) for the canonical map. -See [Templates Directory](../templates/) for operational tools. -See [Ethical Framework](./ethical-framework.md) for detailed governance. +Start from the [Documentation Index](./00_index.md) for the canonical map. +See [Templates Directory](../templates/) for operational tools. +See [Ethical Framework](./ethical-framework.md) for detailed governance. See [Method Evolution Log](./method-evolution.md) for progressive definition. ### For Organizations -See [Investment Framework](./investment-framework.md) for engagement models. +See [Investment Framework](./investment-framework.md) for engagement models. See [FAQ](./faq.md) for common questions. ### For Researchers -See [Case Studies](../case-studies/) for methodological learnings. +See [Case Studies](../case-studies/) for methodological learnings. Contact us about academic partnerships and validation programs. --- -*Specula Method v1.1 — Updated June 2026* -*Incorporates the v2.4.5.2 aligned proposal (Feb 2026) into the canonical open documentation.* +*Specula Method v2.0, October 2026* diff --git a/docs/runtime-alignment.md b/docs/runtime-alignment.md index bba667b..c8bd01a 100644 --- a/docs/runtime-alignment.md +++ b/docs/runtime-alignment.md @@ -11,19 +11,28 @@ This note clarifies how the open `specula-method` assets align with the executab ## Phase mapping -Canonical sequence used by runtime-compatible integrations (v1.1): - -- `0` Activation & Governance -- `1` Framing & Ethical DNA -- `2` Scanning & Sensemaking -- `2.1` Competitive Futures Mapping -- `3` Scenario Weaving -- `4` Confrontation & Discursive Prototyping -- `5` Ethical + Impact Gate -- `6` Action Design -- `6.1` Narrative Synthesis -- `7` Platforming & Continuous Loop -- `+1` Guardian Loop (continuous) +Canonical sequence used by runtime-compatible integrations (v2.0). It matches the `phase` values of the schemas in `specula-framework/schemas/`: + +- `0` Threshold & Framing (`phase0_activation`) +- `1` Scenario Generation (`phase1_scenarios`) +- `1.5` Competitive Futures Mapping (`phase1_5_competitive_map`) +- `2` Brand Archaeology & Value Stress Test (`phase2_brand_dna`) +- `3` Future Prototyping & Ethical + Impact Gate (`phase3_prototypes`, `phase3_refusals`) +- `4` Narrative Synthesis & Strategic Protocol (`phase4_narrative_system`, `preferable_future`, `decision_log`) +- `5` Co-creation & Community Governance (`phase5_cocreation`) +- `6` Activation & Specula Guardian (`phase6_guardian`) + +The v1.1 sequence (seven phases plus Guardian Loop) is retired. Its mapping to v2.0 is in [Method Overview](./method-overview.md#phase-mapping-v11--v20). + +## Fields added in framework 1.3 + +Framework 1.3 adds optional fields that carry the v2.0 method into runtime artifacts: + +- `phase0_activation`: research question, time window, working rules, written consensus, threshold evidence +- `phase1_scenarios`: generic future archetype, closed megatrends, open variables, value the scenario is built against; `preferred` deprecated as `scenario_type` +- `phase2_brand_dna`: operational form of each value, stress-test result per scenario with reviewer, documented decisions with source type, counterexamples, fragile values, candidate values that fell +- `phase6_guardian`: drift classification with the rule applied, composite alerts, escalation owner and deadline +- New `decision_log` and `preferable_future` artifacts ## Schema profile mapping diff --git a/examples/session_example_01.md b/examples/session_example_01.md index 5281eb2..246e30b 100644 --- a/examples/session_example_01.md +++ b/examples/session_example_01.md @@ -4,21 +4,21 @@ - Brand: ExampleCo - Sector: Circular retail - Geography: EU -- Time horizon: 2035 +- Time horizon: 2036 ## Phase Scenario Generation (Phase 1) — Step 1 ## Single question -What sector are we working in and what time horizon are we using (e.g., 2030/2035)? +What sector are we working in and what time horizon are we using (e.g., 2036/2040)? ## Sample answer -Circular retail in the EU, 2035. +Circular retail in the EU, 2036. ## Deliverable (summary) - MODE | PHASE: `exploration | 1` - Operational summary: Defined sector and time horizon for scenario work. -- Decisions made: Sector = Circular retail; Geography = EU; Time horizon = 2035. +- Decisions made: Sector = Circular retail; Geography = EU; Time horizon = 2036. - Open decisions: Key uncertainty; dominant axes; weak signals. - Next question: Which variable today scares or excites you most? @@ -51,7 +51,8 @@ Circular retail in the EU, 2035. "description": "EU circularity standards become mandatory across retail categories" } ], - "scenario_type": "preferred", + "scenario_type": "exploratory", + "archetype": "discipline", "description": "Circular retail scales through compliance-led trust systems.", "maieutic_question": "Which trade-off are we willing to accept to preserve trust under strict regulation?", "user_response": null