Every pattern TRACE can flag — 113 entries. Each report links its codes here. F = Fallacy · CD = Cultural Domination · SC = Solutionary Communication.
Definition. Drawing a broad conclusion from too little evidence. Deeper explanation. A speaker takes a small set of cases — sometimes just one — and treats it as proof of a general rule. The pattern runs across a spectrum: at one end, a single personal anecdote ("it worked for me") used to settle a general question; in the middle, a handful of vivid examples treated as a representative sample; at the far end, sweeping overgeneralizations ("everyone always," "nobody ever") with no underlying sample at all. A related variant flips the scale problem the other way — applying a finding from one scope (small group, short timeframe, narrow context) to a different scope as if scale didn't matter. All of these are the same underlying error: pattern-recognition outrunning the evidence that would support it. The fix is to surface the actual sample and ask whether it can carry the weight of the claim. Language indicators. "Always," "never," "everyone," "nobody," "all" used without support. One incident becoming "this is what they do." Anecdote treated as pattern. "It worked for me" treated as proof of general efficacy. Findings from one context applied to a different context without examination. Fix. SC-001 (Evidence Request). Ask what cases support the claim, how representative they are, and whether they apply at the scope the claim is being made.
---
Definition. Presenting a decision as if only two options exist when more options are available. Deeper explanation. Compressing the option space is one of the fastest ways to push a group toward a particular outcome. A real false dilemma usually has a third option that's obvious in retrospect — the speaker either didn't see it or didn't want the group to. This pattern often appears when the speaker is invested in a specific answer. A close cousin is the assumption that the truth must be the middle of two extremes — splitting the difference treated as inherently more reasonable than either pole — which is the same compression error in inverse: forcing the conclusion onto a single point on a binary axis rather than examining whether the axis itself is the right frame. Language indicators. "Either we do this or we fail." "You're with us or against us." "There's no other option." Hybrid, partial, or test options not considered. "The truth is somewhere in the middle" used as a default rather than an argued position. Fix. SC-002 (Naming the Third Option). Generate at least one alternative before deciding.
---
Definition. Claiming one action will inevitably lead to a chain of negative consequences without showing evidence for each link. Deeper explanation. The slippery slope feels persuasive because each link in the chain seems plausible if you don't examine it. The error is treating "could lead to" as "will lead to." Real chains of consequence have probabilities at each step; slippery slope arguments treat them as certainties. Language indicators. Catastrophic chain reaction. Inevitability language. "If we do this once…" No evidence shown for each link. Fix. SC-003 (Probability Check). Examine each link's likelihood separately.
---
Definition. Treating a claim as true because an authority says so, without naming the authority or its scope. Deeper explanation. Authority is sometimes legitimate evidence — an experienced doctor's opinion on a medical question carries weight. The fallacy appears when the authority is unnamed, outside its scope, or used to close discussion rather than support it. "Studies show," "experts agree," and "successful companies do X" are common forms — vague references that resist examination because there's nothing specific to examine. The cognitive-bias version is the disposition to overweight authority cues themselves: title, credentials, or position taken as evidence even when no claim has been substantively defended. Both run on the same shortcut — substituting source-credibility for substance — and both dissolve when the specific authority and its scope are named. Language indicators. "Experts say." "Studies show." "Successful companies do…" Unnamed sources. Title used to end discussion. Authority claim outside relevant domain. Deference to credentials in place of engagement with the claim. Fix. SC-004 (Source Specification). Name the specific authority and check whether the claim is in their domain.
---
Definition. A factual statement presented as true without visible evidence in the conversation. Deeper explanation. This is distinct from a claim that turns out to be wrong — a claim can be true and still be unsupported. The flag points to a gap between what's been asserted and what's been shown. Most real conversations contain many of these; the ones worth flagging are the ones that materially affect the decision under discussion. The pattern shows up in several variants: a vague claim with no specifics that could be checked ("things are getting worse"), a claim that hides an unstated premise the listener has to accept for the conclusion to follow, a claim built on a key term that's never defined (and so means whatever the speaker needs it to), and a claim offered in a context where contradictory evidence has been quietly omitted. All of these are the same gap between assertion and support, just located in different parts of the structure. Language indicators. "The fact is…" "We know…" Quantitative claim without source. Claim treated as settled when evidence has not been presented. Vague claim with no specifics. Argument that assumes a premise the listener never agreed to. Key term used without definition. Evidence cherry-picked or relevant counter-evidence omitted. Fix. SC-001 (Evidence Request).
---
Definition. Using emotionally or morally loaded words to shape interpretation before evidence is evaluated. Deeper explanation. Loaded language does argumentative work that the speaker hasn't made explicit. Calling a concern "fear" or a proposal "obviously selfish" pre-classifies it before anyone has examined the substance. The pattern is often unconscious — the speaker is not necessarily trying to manipulate, but the effect is the same. A related move uses ambiguity rather than charge: the same word carries one meaning when introducing the argument and a slightly different meaning when drawing the conclusion, so the conclusion seems to follow but actually rests on a quiet shift in what the word refers to. Both moves work by leaving evaluative or definitional work invisible. Language indicators. Charged adjectives doing argumentative work. Labels inserted before evidence. "Obviously selfish." "Toxic." "Real members would understand." A key term used in two different senses across a single argument. Fix. SC-005 (Restate Behaviorally). Translate the loaded term into specific observable behavior, and pin down which sense of any ambiguous term is in use.
---
Definition. Making a claim and then requiring others to disprove it instead of providing support. Deeper explanation. In conversation, whoever asserts a claim carries the burden of showing why it should be accepted. Burden-of-proof shifting reverses this: the speaker makes the assertion and then treats failure-to-disprove as confirmation. This is especially common when claims are vague enough that disproving them is impossible. Two variants are worth recognizing: the appeal-to-ignorance form ("X must be true because no one has shown it isn't"), which converts an absence of disproof into proof; and the personal-incredulity form ("I can't see how that could be true, so it isn't"), which converts the speaker's own inability to imagine an explanation into evidence against it. Both rest on the same reversal — the asserter's gap is treated as the listener's problem to fill. Language indicators. "You can't prove it's not true." "Show me evidence I'm wrong." Challenger asked to disprove an unsupported claim. "If that were true, I'd understand it." "No one has shown otherwise." Fix. SC-001 (Evidence Request). Restore the burden to the asserter.
---
Definition. Claiming to know what another person thinks, feels, wants, or intended without direct evidence. Deeper explanation. Intent claims are particularly destabilizing in groups because they're unfalsifiable from outside. Once "she meant to undermine the project" enters the conversation, defending against it is nearly impossible — the person being characterized can't directly disprove their own attributed motive. A close cousin is the disposition to explain other people's behavior in terms of their character while explaining one's own behavior in terms of situation: when she was late it's because she doesn't care; when I was late it's because traffic was bad. This is the same error operating as a stable bias rather than a one-time claim — the situational pressures shaping someone's behavior get edited out, and what remains is read as a window onto who they are. Language indicators. "They meant to…" "She was trying to…" "He only said that because…" Motive assigned without asking the person. Behavior described as character ("he's just like that") with situational context absent. Fix. SC-006 (Behavior Description + Direct Ask). Describe the observable behavior and ask the person what they meant.
---
Definition. Blending observable facts with personal interpretation without distinguishing between them. Deeper explanation. This pattern shows up as embedded inference — "She arrived late, which shows she doesn't care." The first half is fact, the second is interpretation, and they're presented as a single unit. Listeners often accept both because the fact lends credibility to the interpretation. Separating them usually reveals the interpretation is one possibility among several. Two variants are worth naming: an emotional reaction stated as if it were a fact about the world ("this proposal feels wrong, so it is wrong"), where a felt response gets converted into a property of the object; and a prediction stated as a fact ("this won't work"), where a forecast gets delivered with the certainty of a description. Both are versions of the same elision — the inferential or anticipatory step is hidden inside the assertion. Language indicators. "X happened, which means…" "He was quiet, which means he's hiding something." Interpretation embedded in description without signaling the shift. Feeling stated as fact about the situation. Prediction stated without "I think" or "I expect" markers. Fix. SC-007 (Separate Observation from Inference).
---
Definition. Continuing something mainly because of past investment rather than future value. Deeper explanation. Sunk cost fallacy is especially common in groups that have public histories — the past is visible to all, and stopping feels like admitting waste. The fallacy is treating past investment as a reason to continue, when the rational question is always whether continuing produces more value than the alternatives going forward. Beyond the in-conversation form, this appears as a stable cognitive disposition — the difficulty of letting go of prior commitments isn't only a momentary error of reasoning, it's a reliable pull on judgment that strengthens with the size of the prior investment. Language indicators. "We've come too far to stop." "Think about all the time we've put in." "We can't waste what we've already spent." Persistent reluctance to revisit a commitment in proportion to its size. Fix. SC-008 (Forward-Value Check). Ask what continuing gets us from this point forward, ignoring past investment.
---
Definition. Noticing and remembering information that confirms existing beliefs while ignoring contrary evidence. Deeper explanation. Everyone has confirmation bias to some degree. The flag is worth raising when it materially affects what's being considered — when contrary evidence is in the room and being dismissed, or when only supporting evidence is being volunteered. The pattern is most damaging in groups where one view has social momentum. Confirmation bias has many faces, all variants of the same evidence-filtering mechanism. The selective-evidence form picks the data points that fit and ignores the rest, sometimes after the fact (the pattern was drawn around the data rather than the other way around). The impression-skew variants color all subsequent evidence based on an early read — a positive first impression makes later evidence look more supportive than it is, and a negative first impression makes later evidence look more damaging. The group-membership variants tilt evaluation toward one's own side and against the other, often without the evaluator noticing. The self-attribution variant credits successes to one's own qualities and failures to circumstance, which produces a stable upward distortion of self-evidence over time. Sample-related variants distort what counts as evidence in the first place — looking only at successes (the failures dropped out and aren't visible), or weighting whichever vivid examples come to mind most easily as if they were the most representative. And directional variants pull attention toward whichever evidence fits a prior emotional or temporal frame: negative information when expecting bad outcomes, positive information when expecting good ones, recent information over older information that may matter more. The unifying move is the same in every case: which evidence reaches the assessment is filtered by what the assessor was already disposed to find. Language indicators. Contrary data dismissed without engagement. "This proves what I already thought." Ambiguous evidence interpreted only as support. Selective citation of cases that fit. "I knew it all along." Evidence about one's own group treated more favorably than equivalent evidence about another group. Successes attributed to self, failures to circumstances. Vivid recent examples weighted as if representative. Fix. SC-009 (Disconfirmation Question). Ask: what evidence would change this conclusion?
---
Definition. Presenting a claim with more certainty than the evidence warrants. Deeper explanation. Certainty inflation closes inquiry. When something is presented as "obvious" or "settled," questioning it requires social courage. The pattern often appears at decision points where the speaker wants to move past discussion. The fix is to surface uncertainty without rejecting the underlying claim. Two related dispositions amplify this in practice. The first is the tendency for low-knowledge speakers to overestimate their grasp of a topic precisely because they don't yet see the parts they don't know — confidence inflates in the early phase of learning and only deflates as expertise reveals the territory. The second is the broader habit of treating one's own perspective as the objective view of the world rather than as a perspective among others — disagreement gets read as the other side's distortion, when often it's a different vantage on the same situation. Both pull in the same direction: certainty inflated past what the evidence or vantage actually supports. Language indicators. "Obviously." "Clearly." "There's no question." "This is settled." Disagreement treated as ignorance. Confidence high in proportion to surface familiarity rather than depth. Other perspectives dismissed as bias rather than considered as alternative views. Fix. SC-010 (Uncertainty Naming). Restate the claim with its actual confidence level.
---
Definition. Attacking the person making a claim instead of addressing the claim itself. Deeper explanation. Ad hominem moves the target from the argument to the arguer. Sometimes the personal characteristic is genuinely relevant — a known conflict of interest, for instance, is information about the claim's reliability — but the fallacy proper is when character or identity is used to dismiss substance without engaging it. The pattern works in groups because attacking a person is fast and emotionally vivid; the underlying claim quietly drops out of the discussion. Language indicators. "You would say that, you always…" "Coming from you, that's rich." "Why should we listen to someone who…" Personal characteristic substituted for response to the substance. Fix. SC-005 (Restate Behaviorally) + SC-006 (Behavior Description + Direct Ask). Separate the person from the claim and engage the claim on its merits.
---
Definition. Misrepresenting someone's position in a weaker form, then arguing against the misrepresentation. Deeper explanation. The straw-man maneuver substitutes a position the speaker can defeat for the position the other person actually holds. Sometimes this is deliberate; often it's a translation error magnified by group acoustics — the misrepresentation gets repeated, shared, and treated as the thing being rebutted while the original position quietly disappears. The fix is structural: get the original speaker to confirm what their position actually is before the rebuttal continues. Language indicators. "So what you're saying is…" followed by a weaker or distorted version. "You're basically arguing that…" without checking. The position being rebutted is more extreme than what was actually said. Fix. SC-035 (Original Position Confirmation). Ask the original speaker to confirm or correct the restatement before responding.
---
Definition. Using a conclusion as part of its own proof. Deeper explanation. Circular reasoning hides a missing step by smuggling the conclusion into the premises, often with different wording. "We should trust this source because it's reliable, and we know it's reliable because we trust it" is the form, though in real conversation the loop is usually larger and harder to see. The diagnostic is whether the support, when examined, reduces to a restatement of the claim under different terms. Language indicators. Premise that depends on the conclusion. Definition that already contains the answer. "Of course, because…" where the "because" repeats the assertion. Fix. SC-001 (Evidence Request). Ask for support that doesn't restate the claim.
---
Definition. Using an emotional reaction as the reason to accept a claim. Deeper explanation. Emotion is information — it tells the listener something about the speaker, the stakes, or the situation. The fallacy isn't emotion in argument; it's emotion as proof. "If you really cared, you'd see this is right" replaces evidence with an emotional pull on the listener. This is distinct from loaded language (F-006), which embeds evaluative framing in the claim itself; appeal to emotion invokes the listener's feeling-state as the warrant for accepting the claim. The fix isn't to suppress feeling but to separate it from the question of what's true. Language indicators. "Imagine how you'd feel if…" used as conclusive. "If this doesn't move you, you're not paying attention." Strong emotional appeal where evidence would be expected. Fix. SC-007 (Separate Observation from Inference). Distinguish what's being felt from what's being claimed.
---
Definition. Treating a claim as true because many people believe it. Deeper explanation. Popularity is sometimes weak evidence for ordinary practical matters — if many experienced practitioners do X, that's information — but it doesn't substitute for substantive support. The fallacy collapses claim-truth into claim-popularity. This is the reasoning-failure version, distinct from the coercive version (CD-005), which uses perceived consensus as social pressure to conform. F-018 is the bare logical move: many people think X, therefore X. Language indicators. "Everyone knows…" "Most people would agree…" "It's the standard view." Popularity offered as the warrant for the claim. Fix. SC-001 (Evidence Request). Ask what supports the claim independent of how widely it's held.
---
Definition. Treating past practice OR newness as proof of correctness. Deeper explanation. These are inverse forms of the same shortcut: temporal status as warrant. The tradition appeal says "we've always done it this way, so it must be right"; the novelty appeal says "this is the latest thinking, so it must be better." Both substitute the fact of when something originated for whether it actually solves the current problem. The fix is to ask what the practice or innovation is doing — what it's for — rather than how old or new it is. Language indicators. "We've always…" "That's how it's done." "This is the cutting edge." "The old way doesn't apply anymore." Time-status used as the reason. Fix. SC-001 (Evidence Request). Ask what makes the approach work, independent of its age.
---
Definition. Introducing irrelevant material to deflect from the issue under discussion. Deeper explanation. Red herring is the general form: a topic shift that pulls attention away from the original concern without addressing it. Whataboutism is a specific variant — the deflection takes the form of a counter-accusation aimed back at the questioner or at a third party ("what about when they did X?"). Both work by changing what the conversation is about so the original question never gets answered. The fix is to name the move and return to the original concern. Language indicators. Sudden topic shift after a direct question. "But what about…" introducing an unrelated grievance. Counter-accusation in place of response. Fix. SC-014 (Decision Mode Clarification) or restating the original concern explicitly.
---
Definition. Changing the standard of proof after evidence has been provided. Deeper explanation. Goalpost-shifting works by treating the previously-stated bar as a starting point rather than the agreed standard. Evidence is presented; the standard quietly rises; new evidence is presented; the standard rises again. The pattern protects a position from disproof by making "enough evidence" a moving target. The fix is to lock the standard before the evidence is examined, so any later shift is visible. Language indicators. "But what about…" appended after evidence is provided. New criteria introduced after old criteria are met. "That's not quite what I meant by…" applied retroactively. Fix. SC-036 (Standards Lock). Define what would settle the question before the evidence is examined.
---
Definition. A question that contains an unproven assumption the answerer must accept to respond. Deeper explanation. Loaded questions trap any direct answer into ratifying the embedded assumption. "Have you stopped doing X?" assumes the person was doing X; either yes or no concedes it. The fix isn't to refuse to answer but to surface the assumption first and check whether it holds — once the embedded claim is visible, the question can be answered or reframed without ratifying material the speaker hasn't supported. Language indicators. A question whose phrasing requires accepting a contested premise to answer. Yes/no framing where neither answer is clean. Fix. SC-037 (Question Reframe). Surface the embedded assumption and ask whether it holds before answering.
---
Definition. Protecting a general claim by redefining the relevant group to exclude any counterexample. Deeper explanation. When a counterexample appears, the claim is preserved by tightening the definition of the group: "no true [X] would do that." The result is an unfalsifiable claim, because every counterexample can be defined out of the relevant population. The fix is to lock the definition of the group before it gets used in argument, so the boundary can't be redrawn to protect the conclusion. Language indicators. "Real [X] don't do that." "That's not what we mean by [X].'" Group boundaries adjusted in response to counterexamples. Fix. SC-038 (Definition Lock). Define the group explicitly before drawing conclusions about it.
---
Definition. Rejecting a criticism because the critic is also guilty of something similar. Deeper explanation. Tu quoque (literally "you also") deflects by turning attention to the critic's own conduct. Sometimes the parallel is genuinely instructive — consistency matters — but the move becomes fallacious when it substitutes for engaging the criticism on its merits. Whether the critic is also imperfect doesn't change whether the criticism is sound. Language indicators. "You do the same thing." "Who are you to say…" Counter-accusation offered as response. Critic's character treated as bearing on the validity of the criticism. Fix. SC-014 (return to the original concern) or SC-005 (Restate Behaviorally).
---
Definition. Treating temporal sequence or correlation as evidence of causation. Deeper explanation. Post hoc reasoning ("after this, therefore because of this") collapses sequence into cause. Two events reliably follow one another, or one precedes another in time, and the link is asserted without examining alternative explanations: common cause, coincidence, reverse causation, or selection effects. Real causal claims require something more than temporal proximity — a mechanism, controlled comparison, or repeated examination across conditions. The fix is to ask explicitly what evidence supports the causal link beyond the sequence itself. Language indicators. "Right after we did X, Y happened — so X caused it." Correlation offered as proof. Single sequence of events treated as causal evidence. Fix. SC-001 (Evidence Request). Ask what supports the causal link beyond the sequence.
---
Definition. Assuming what is true of the parts is true of the whole, or vice versa. Deeper explanation. Composition assumes that properties of the parts transfer to the whole — each member of the team is excellent, therefore the team is excellent. Division runs the inverse — the team is excellent, therefore each member is. Both ignore that wholes have properties that emerge from the relations among parts, not just the parts themselves; and parts have properties that the whole does not. The pattern shows up frequently in claims that scale up or scale down without re-examining whether the property survives the change of scale. Language indicators. "If each of these works, the combination will work." "If the system runs well, every component must be sound." Conclusions about wholes drawn from parts (or vice versa) without examining the relation. Fix. SC-009 (Disconfirmation Question). Ask whether the property in question actually transfers across the part-whole boundary.
---
Definition. Judging a claim by its source rather than by its evidence or reasoning. Deeper explanation. The genetic fallacy dismisses (or accepts) a claim on the basis of where it originated. This is distinct from F-004 (Appeal to Authority), which uses a source as positive proof; F-027 typically uses a source as disqualification — "that idea came from [disliked group], so it must be wrong." Source can be relevant evidence, but it's not a substitute for engaging the claim itself. The fix is to separate the source from the substance and evaluate the claim on its merits. Language indicators. "That's just [disliked-source] thinking." "Considering who said it…" Source-history used as the basis for rejection. Origin treated as definitive. Fix. SC-005 (Restate Behaviorally). Separate source from substance; evaluate the claim itself.
---
Definition. Switching between a strong, controversial claim and a weaker, easier-to-defend claim when challenged. Deeper explanation. The motte-and-bailey pattern relies on two claims that share surface vocabulary but differ in scope and defensibility. When unchallenged, the speaker advances the strong claim (the "bailey"); when challenged, the speaker retreats to a weaker claim (the "motte") that's much easier to defend; once the challenge passes, the strong claim returns as if it had been the defended one all along. The fix is to lock the meaning of the contested term so the switch becomes visible. Language indicators. Strong claim made, then walked back to a much milder version when pushed, then quietly resumed. Same key term used in two different scopes across the same exchange. Fix. SC-038 (Definition Lock). Pin the meaning of the contested term and require the speaker to defend the version they originally advanced.
---
Definition. Applying a standard inconsistently — making an exception without justifying it. Deeper explanation. Special pleading exempts a particular case from a general rule the speaker would otherwise apply, without offering a principled basis for the exemption. The pattern often appears defensively — the speaker's preferred case is excused from a standard the speaker has applied to others. The fix is to surface the inconsistency and ask what about this case warrants the exception, in terms that could apply to other cases too. Language indicators. "That's different because…" without specifying why the difference matters. Exception offered without principle. Standard applied to others but not to oneself or one's preferred case. Fix. SC-005 (Restate Behaviorally) + SC-009 (Disconfirmation Question). Name the standard, name the exception, and ask what justifies the difference.
---
Definition. Rejecting a practical solution because it isn't perfect. Deeper explanation. The nirvana fallacy compares a real option to a hypothetical perfect one and concludes the real option is unacceptable. The relevant comparison is almost never against perfection — it's against the realistic alternatives, including doing nothing. A good-enough option is often the best available, and rejecting it on perfectionist grounds usually means defaulting to a worse alternative the speaker hasn't acknowledged. Language indicators. "That doesn't fully solve the problem." "There are still cases where this won't work." Option dismissed against an unstated ideal rather than against alternatives. Fix. SC-039 (Compare Don't Reject). Ask what the realistic alternatives are and how the proposed option compares to them.
---
Definition. A comparison that breaks down on important differences. Deeper explanation. Analogies are persuasive shortcuts: they work when the cases share the relevant structure, and fail when they diverge on the points the argument turns on. Weak analogy stretches a comparison past its useful range; false equivalence treats two cases as morally or practically equal when their relevant features differ substantially. Both are diagnosed the same way — name the points the comparison rests on, and check whether they actually hold. Language indicators. "This is just like…" where the comparison strains on examination. "It's the same thing as…" applied across cases that differ on the relevant axis. Surface similarity treated as deep equivalence. Fix. SC-009 (Disconfirmation Question). Ask which features the comparison relies on and whether they hold in both cases.
---
Definition. Heavy reliance on the first number, idea, or frame introduced. Deeper explanation. Anchoring is the disposition to weight whatever is presented first more heavily than later information warrants. In negotiations and estimates the effect is well-documented — the opening number shapes the range of what feels reasonable, even when it's known to be arbitrary. In group discussions, the first frame for a problem often locks subsequent thinking inside that frame. This is distinct from confirmation bias (F-011) — anchoring isn't about filtering evidence to fit a prior belief; it's about how the first input distorts the scale on which later inputs are read. Language indicators. Estimates clustered around an opening number. Discussion staying within the boundaries of the first frame even when it's challenged. Resistance to estimates that are far from the anchor. Fix. SC-040 (Independent Baseline). Generate independent estimates or frames before exposing them to the prior anchor.
---
Definition. Preferring the current state because it is familiar. Deeper explanation. Status quo bias is a familiarity-based pull toward keeping things as they are, separate from any examination of whether the current state is actually preferable. This is distinct from sunk cost (F-010), which is past-investment-based — sunk cost says "we've put too much in to change"; status quo bias says "this is what we know, so this is what we keep." Both pull toward continuation but for different reasons, and the fix is similar — ask whether the current state would be the chosen state if it were being decided fresh. Language indicators. "We've always done it this way" used as conclusive. Reluctance to evaluate alternatives even when surfaced. Comfort with current arrangement treated as evidence for it. Fix. SC-009 (Disconfirmation Question) + SC-002 (Naming the Third Option). Evaluate the current state as if it were a new proposal.
---
Definition. Fearing losses more strongly than valuing equivalent gains. Deeper explanation. Loss aversion is the asymmetric weighting of losses against gains of the same size — losing $100 feels worse than gaining $100 feels good, by a substantial margin. In group decisions this shows up as resistance to changes that involve any visible loss, even when the gains clearly outweigh the losses on a symmetric assessment. The fix is to surface the asymmetry and compare both sides on the same scale. Language indicators. Possible losses dwell in the conversation; equivalent gains get less attention. "What if we lose…" weighted more heavily than "what if we gain…" of similar size. Fix. SC-009 (Disconfirmation Question). Compare losses and gains symmetrically.
---
Definition. Same facts producing different interpretations based on how they are presented. Deeper explanation. Framing effects arise when the same information feels meaningfully different depending on its presentation — a procedure with a 90% survival rate reads better than one with a 10% mortality rate, even though they're identical. In group discussion this shows up as conclusions shifting with the framing of the question rather than with the underlying information. The fix is to surface the frame and re-state the same information in alternative framings to see whether the conclusion holds. Language indicators. Framing-laden phrasing ("save lives" vs "prevent deaths," "tax cuts" vs "revenue reductions"). Conclusions tracking framing rather than substance. Fix. SC-020 (Name the Frame). Surface the frame and offer at least one alternative.
---
Definition. Assuming others share one's own preferences, motives, or feelings. Deeper explanation. Projection bias takes one's own current state — preferences, motivations, emotional responses — and generalizes it onto others as if it were the default. This is distinct from F-008 (Mind Reading), which attributes specific intent to a specific person; projection is the broader move of using one's own self-state as a proxy for what others must want or feel. The fix is to ask rather than assume — describe the behavior, ask the person what's going on for them, and let their answer override the projected assumption. Language indicators. "Anyone would feel…" "Of course they want…" Assumptions about others stated as obvious. Disagreement met with surprise rather than curiosity. Fix. SC-006 (Behavior Description + Direct Ask). Describe the observable behavior and ask the person directly.
---
Definition. Convergence on consensus suppressing genuine deliberation and dissent. Deeper explanation. Groupthink is the cognitive-side of premature consensus — the group converges on a position and the deliberation that would have tested it never happens. Doubts go unspoken, alternatives stop being generated, and the convergence itself feels like evidence the position is sound. This is distinct from CD-005 (Social Proof Pressure), which is the coercive use of perceived consensus to push someone toward compliance; F-037 is the reasoning-failure version, where the group itself generates the closure without anyone explicitly applying pressure. The fix is the same family of moves that disrupt premature closure — ask what would have to be true for the group to be wrong, and create explicit space for dissent. Language indicators. Quick convergence on a position with little or no dissent. "We all seem to agree" used early. Doubts that surface get smoothed over rather than examined. Fix. SC-009 (Disconfirmation Question). Ask what evidence would change the group's conclusion.
---
# CD — CULTURAL DOMINATION
Patterns of coercion, dominance, pressure, extraction, and consent erosion. The axis is coercive vs. non-coercive. CD patterns often run beyond the speaker into organizational and cultural layers — some appear because the surrounding culture or organizational structure encourages or normalizes them.
For organizational and structural solutions to CD patterns, refer to tealparadigm.org, omnione.world, and greenearthvision.org. The Fix field references SC remedies that work at the individual conversation level; structural fixes are linked at category level rather than per-pattern.
CD source frameworks: Jones & Okun, Creating a Multi-Cultural Organization (2001) for the organizational/cultural pattern set. Preston Ni, How to Spot and Stop Manipulators (2014) for the individual-level manipulation pattern set. Plus the four CD-relevant CIK libraries: LIB-01, LIB-04, LIB-05, LIB-06.
Each CD entry below is marked structurally tied or individual-only as a default. Structurally tied patterns are ones that organizational and cultural defaults reliably produce; individual-only patterns are ones that emerge from specific speakers in specific moments. The analysis engine (CIK-GPT-01) can override the default per-instance based on conversation context — a structurally-tied pattern can be flagged as individual-only in a particular report if the moment is clearly personal rather than systemic, and vice versa.
---
Definition. Pressuring the group to decide or act quickly without grounding the urgency in clear evidence. Deeper explanation. Urgency is one of the most reliable consent-bypass tools. Real deadlines exist, but coercive urgency works by making the source, mechanism, and consequence of the deadline vague while keeping the time pressure visible. Jones & Okun identify this as one of the core dominant-culture patterns: organizations train people to treat speed as virtue, which makes urgency feel structurally legitimate even when it isn't. The pattern shows up in several recognizable variants. The crisis form frames the moment itself as an emergency that justifies bypassing review, whether or not the conditions warrant the framing. The scarcity form attaches the urgency to a resource — funds, attention, opportunity — that's claimed to be running out, often in vague terms that resist examination. The access form uses urgency specifically to push past gatekeeping — "if we don't decide now we'll lose access to X" — converting time-pressure into a lever against process. All three share the same engine: the felt pressure to move fast is real; the underlying constraint that's supposed to justify it is left unexamined. Structural tie. Structurally tied (default). Sense-of-urgency is a core Jones & Okun dominant-culture pattern; most organizations reward speed and treat slowing down as failure. Override to individual-only when the urgency is clearly tied to a specific personal preference or single-speaker situation rather than "how things are." Language indicators. "We have to decide now." "If we wait, we lose everything." Resistance to slowing down. Deadline used without explaining its source. "There's a window." "This is our only chance." Urgency cited specifically when access or gatekeeping is in question. Fix. SC-012 (Time Sovereignty Check). Name the deadline, source, consequence, and reversible options. SC-013 (Treating Urgency as a Concern) — distinguish urgency-as-fact from urgency-as-pressure. Structural fix. Jones & Okun: realistic master-plans and budgets, leadership that understands things take longer than expected, plan for inclusivity in time terms, effectiveness over efficiency. See organizational resources.
---
Definition. Asking for approval or action ahead of the agreed review, scoping, or consent steps. Deeper explanation. Process bypass usually appears as a bid to compress the conversation: "we can work out the details later, the main thing is approving the partnership." It's effective because it sounds practical and forward-moving. The pattern is distinguishable from legitimate efficiency by whether the deferred details are actually material to the decision being requested. A particularly high-leverage variant is the bypass of stewardship around shared assets — mailing lists, funds, intellectual property, branding, reputation. Efficiency framing is the usual cover ("it's faster if I just handle it"), but the cost is bypassing the agreed steward of the asset. This case is worth recognizing because shared community assets are a recurring failure point: once direct access is granted, the steward's role is hollowed out, and reversing the precedent is hard. The general pattern and the asset-specific case run on the same mechanic — the request to skip an agreed process — and the fix is the same in both: name the mode the conversation is in, identify the steward or process being routed around, and route the request through the agreed channel even when it's slower. Structural tie. Individual-only (default). Override to structural when the bypass is consistent with how the organization normally operates — e.g., cultures where "just decide and move" is the default operating style, or where shared assets are routinely treated as available without process. Language indicators. "We can sort out the details later." "Just approve it now and we'll figure it out." Decision called before agreed review steps complete. "It's faster if I do it." "Let me handle the list / the funds / the announcement directly." Efficiency cited as reason to skip steward review. Fix. SC-014 (Decision Mode Clarification). Name what mode the conversation is in (exploring / deciding / committing) and what review steps remain. For stewardship-asset cases, also SC-021 (Stewardship Affirmation): name the asset's steward and route through them.
---
Definition. Using title, experience, role, or "trust me" framing to bypass questions, evidence, or consent. Deeper explanation. This pattern reframes a request for evidence as a trust question. "If the group trusts me, this should not be that hard" makes asking for proof feel like an accusation. The trust frame is sometimes legitimate — long relationships have earned trust — but the pattern is coercive when it's used to skip evidence rather than supplement it. Two related moves extend the same mechanic. The first deflects challenges by raising credentials only when the substance gets hard ("I've worked in this for fifteen years") — the credentials may be real, but their function in the moment is to displace the question rather than answer it. The second expands the role itself in real time: a person whose authority covers one domain quietly extends it into another, so that questions about the new domain feel like questions about their standing in the original one. All three forms work by converting an evidence-question into a relationship-question. Structural tie. Individual-only (default). Override to structural when the authority pressure is tied to organizational hierarchy that systematically discourages questioning of senior roles. Language indicators. "Trust me." "I've been doing this for years." "If you really trust me, you'll…" Question treated as disrespect. Credentials raised after a concern is voiced. Authority asserted in a domain where it hasn't been agreed. Fix. SC-015 (Separate Trust from Evidence). Acknowledge the trust while separately asking for the evidence the decision needs.
---
Definition. Stating or implying negative consequences for continued review, slowing down, or saying no. Deeper explanation. This pattern functions as pressure on consent. A statement like "I may need to move the opportunity elsewhere" can be a legitimate boundary or a coercive threat — the function depends on whether the speaker is naming a constraint they hold or leveraging it against the group. The same mechanic appears in several specific forms. The literal threat is the most direct: an explicit warning of cost if the group doesn't comply. The relationship-conditional form ties continued connection to compliance — "if you really cared about us, you wouldn't slow this down" — which makes the cost of saying no a relational one rather than a logistical one. The past-favor form converts prior generosity into present obligation: "after all I've done for this group" used to make refusal feel like ingratitude. All four versions work the same way — a cost is attached to the no, and the cost is loaded into the group's relationship with the speaker rather than into the merits of the decision. Structural tie. Individual-only (default). The pattern is almost always tied to a specific speaker's leverage in a specific moment. Language indicators. "If this takes too long…" "If we keep going at this pace, I'll have to…" "I don't want to be on the wrong side of this." Vague warnings. "If you really cared…" "After everything I've done…" Past favor invoked at the moment of the decision. Fix. SC-016 (Compassionate Reframing). Acknowledge the speaker's actual constraint and reframe it as a stated boundary rather than allowing it to function as pressure.
---
Definition. Implying or stating that agreement already exists when it has not been explicitly checked. Deeper explanation. Two patterns the libraries treat separately but which function similarly in practice. Social proof says "everyone else thinks this." Consensus illusion says "we've all agreed to this." Both create pressure to conform with an agreement that may not actually exist. A close relative is the cognitive disposition to update one's own beliefs based on the apparent beliefs of others — adopting a position because it seems to be the consensus position, even when the consensus itself hasn't been examined. This is distinct from the F-version of the same surface phenomenon (F-018, the bare reasoning move "many believe X therefore X"); CD-005 names the social pressure that this disposition creates when it operates inside a group, where the cost of dissent is interpersonal rather than purely epistemic. Structural tie. Individual-only (default). Override to structural in groups where treating silence as agreement is the cultural norm — e.g., cultures with strong groupthink defaults or where dissent carries social cost. Language indicators. "Everyone is on board." "Since we all agree…" Silence treated as agreement. Absent people counted as aligned. Drift toward an apparent group position without explicit check. Fix. SC-017 (Explicit Consent Check). Ask each affected person directly.
---
Definition. Tying agreement or disagreement to someone's identity, values, belonging, loyalty, or moral status. Deeper explanation. Identity pressure makes disagreement feel unsafe. "If you really cared about the mission, you'd support this" pre-frames a no as a statement about the dissenter's commitment. Groups often have real values, but the coercion is when those values are used to bypass discussion rather than ground it. A relational variant operates on the same principle through closer ties — leveraging love, friendship, or chosen-family bonds rather than group identity per se: "if you cared about me, you'd do this." The mechanism is identical — disagreement is reframed as a statement about the relationship rather than about the substance — but the bond being put at risk is interpersonal rather than communal. Structural tie. Individual-only (default). Override to structural in high-control cultures (some religious, some political, some highly mission-driven organizations) where identity pressure is structurally embedded. Language indicators. "People like us…" "If you're really aligned…" "A good person would…" Disagreement framed as betrayal. "If you loved/cared about me, you'd…" Personal closeness invoked as the warrant. Fix. SC-018 (Role Separation). Separate the person's identity, group belonging, relational standing, and the specific proposal under discussion.
---
Definition. Reframing a concern as a personal failing — fear, weakness, selfishness, disloyalty. Deeper explanation. This pattern relabels concerns rather than answering them. "We can't let fear run the process" turns a stewardship question into an emotional defect. The damage is done before the substance is engaged, because the concern has been pre-classified and dismissing it now requires defending the speaker's character rather than the substance. A close cousin substitutes moral urgency for shame — invoking the moral weight of a situation as the reason to drop questioning ("good people don't pause when this much is at stake"). The relabeling moves from emotional defect to moral failing, but the structural move is the same: the concern's content is replaced with a characterization of the person raising it. Structural tie. Individual-only (default). Override to structural in shame-based or hierarchical cultures where this pattern is reinforced by organizational norms. Language indicators. "You're being fearful." "Don't be selfish about this." "I'm disappointed in you." Stewardship concern relabeled as emotional defect. "This is too important to slow down for that question." Moral weight used to dismiss inquiry. Fix. SC-019 (Restate the Concern Behaviorally). Translate the pressure language back to the original concern in specific terms.
---
Definition. Defining the terms, categories, or interpretation of the conversation in a way that controls what conclusions feel possible. Deeper explanation. Frame control is the meta-pattern behind several other patterns. By naming what "the real issue" is, the speaker constrains the field of acceptable answers. The fix is not to reject the frame but to make it explicit — once a frame is named, it can be compared with alternatives. A particularly tight version of this is the single-narrative form, in which one explanation for what's going on is treated as the only acceptable one, and alternative readings are framed as misunderstandings or bad faith. The single-narrative move differs from ordinary frame control by closing off the meta-conversation about which frame is right — there is, by assertion, only one frame to be in. Structural tie. Individual-only (default). Override to structural when the frame being imposed is the standard interpretive frame of the organization or culture. Language indicators. "The real issue is…" "This is fundamentally about…" Labels inserted before evidence. Alternative frames dismissed. "There's only one way to understand this." Disagreement on framing treated as disagreement on facts. Fix. SC-020 (Name the Frame). Surface the frame and offer at least one alternative.
---
Definition. Framing a request, proposal, or action as being for the group when the primary beneficiary is the speaker. Deeper explanation. This pattern is hard to flag without sounding accusatory. The diagnostic is whether the group-benefit framing holds up under specific examination — if "this will be great for everyone" survives questions about who specifically benefits and how, it's probably genuine; if those questions consistently route back to the speaker, the pattern is real. Often unconscious. Several specific variants are worth recognizing. The literal namesake form is direct — personal benefit pursued under group-benefit cover. A more extreme version is the private-capture variant, where collective value built up by a group's work is converted into individual benefit ("I'll take this contact list / brand / network with me"). A subtler variant is the credit-claim form, where contributions made jointly get described as the speaker's own, gradually shifting the implicit ownership of shared work. All three operate on the same axis — group-benefit framing as cover for individual capture — at different scales of asymmetry. Structural tie. Individual-only (default). Override to structural in organizations with weak benefit-balance norms where capture of collective resources is normalized. Language indicators. "I'm doing this for the community." Group resources requested for what turns out to be a personal project. Alignment language masking access request. Collective work referred to in the first person singular. Contributions of others not named. Fix. SC-022 (Benefit-Balance Naming). Ask explicitly: who specifically benefits, by how much, and what is each party contributing?
---
Definition. Vague, flexible commitments that allow the speaker to claim credit if things go well while avoiding accountability if they don't. Deeper explanation. Strategic vagueness shows up as "I'll look into it," "we'll figure it out," "I'm supportive in principle." The pattern preserves optionality at the cost of specificity. Sometimes legitimate — early-stage exploration is genuinely vague — but coercive when used to gain access while deferring commitment. A close relative is the deflection of accountability through vagueness — when concrete questions about responsibility ("who owns this," "by when") get returned as soft answers that preserve plausible deniability. At the pattern level across multiple interactions, this becomes a recognizable non-reciprocity: requests for specifics consistently met with vagueness, while the speaker continues to draw on the group's commitments. The fix is the same in all cases — pin specifics to what's being agreed, and notice when the pinning itself is consistently resisted. Structural tie. Individual-only (default). Override to structural in low-accountability cultures where vague commitments are the operating norm. Language indicators. "I'll try." "We'll see." "I'm supportive in principle" without specifics. Commitments that imply participation but contain no concrete obligations. Direct questions about ownership or timeline returned as soft answers. Fix. SC-023 (Concrete Commitment Request). Ask for specific actions, owners, and deadlines.
---
Definition. Treating non-objection as agreement. Deeper explanation. Silence may mean agreement, or it may mean uncertainty, fear, fatigue, confusion, or absence. The pattern treats the ambiguous case as the simpler one, often without realizing. In groups with power differentials, silence is especially unreliable as a consent signal because objecting carries social cost. Several specific variants are worth naming. The momentum form treats the conversation's direction-of-travel as consent — the discussion has been moving toward X, therefore X is what we're doing — without an explicit check. The emotional-charge form treats the high feeling-tone of a moment as binding — strong agreement from some has been voiced, the emotional weight closes the question, and quieter participants are read as on board. The readiness-skip form moves to commit before the group has confirmed it's actually ready to commit, conflating "we've discussed enough" with "we've decided." The proxy-consent form goes further: someone speaks for absent or undeclared parties as if their consent were given. All four operate on the same shortcut — what counts as a yes is loosened until the question can be considered closed without anyone explicitly closing it. Structural tie. Individual-only (default). Override to structural in cultures where "silence is consent" is the explicit or implicit decision norm. Language indicators. "Nobody objected, so we're good." "Since we're all aligned…" Action items assigned before explicit yes. Quiet participants counted in. "We're clearly heading toward X." "Let's just commit to it." Speaking on behalf of absent parties. Fix. SC-017 (Explicit Consent Check).
---
Definition. A decision or commitment expands beyond what was originally agreed. Deeper explanation. Scope drift is incremental and often invisible in real time. Each addition feels small; the cumulative effect is that the eventual commitment has very little resemblance to the original agreement. The fix is periodic restatement: "what did we originally agree to, and what's been added?" Structural tie. Individual-only (default). Override to structural in organizations where scope expansion without explicit re-consent is the operating norm. Language indicators. "And also…" after a key decision. New responsibilities folded in without explicit consent. Original scope no longer visible. Fix. SC-024 (Scope Restatement). Pause periodically and restate the original scope alongside any additions.
---
Definition. A culture pattern where mistakes are treated as personal failings rather than learning, and where work is judged against an unattainable standard. Deeper explanation. Perfectionism in groups produces fear of trying, slow output, and reluctance to surface problems early. It shows up in conversation as criticism that doesn't separate person from mistake, as standards-shifting, and as resistance to "good enough" decisions. Structural tie. Structurally tied (default). Perfectionism is a core Jones & Okun dominant-culture pattern. Override to individual-only only when the perfectionist behavior is clearly an individual personality trait disconnected from organizational norms. Language indicators. "This isn't good enough" without specifics. Person criticized rather than work. Reluctance to commit because the result might be imperfect. Fix. SC-025 (Appreciation + Specific Suggestion). Separate person from mistake; ask for specific suggestions for improvement; expect mistakes as learning. Structural fix. Jones & Okun: develop appreciation culture, expect mistakes as learning, separate person from mistake, gentle reminders before criticism, ask for specific suggestions, bring concerns through proper channels. See organizational resources.
---
Definition. A pattern where feedback, concerns, or suggestions are met with self-protection rather than engagement. Deeper explanation. Defensiveness is structural as much as personal — many organizations train people to defend territory, status, and decisions reflexively. The pattern in conversation is feedback being deflected, contextualized away, or counter-attacked rather than engaged with on substance. Structural tie. Structurally tied (default). Defensiveness is a core Jones & Okun pattern; organizations routinely reward defensive responses. Override to individual-only when the defensiveness is clearly a personal trait disconnected from systemic norms. Language indicators. Concern met with explanation of why the concern is wrong. Counter-attack. Reframing the feedback as the giver's problem. Fix. SC-026 (Receive Before Responding). Reflect what was heard before responding, separating receiving from agreeing. Structural fix. Jones & Okun: understand the link between defensiveness and fear, name defensiveness when it appears, share strategies across teams. See organizational resources.
---
Definition. Treating one approach as the correct one and viewing alternatives as incorrect or undeveloped. Deeper explanation. "One right way" thinking dismisses approaches the speaker is unfamiliar with as not-yet-mature versions of their preferred way. It often appears in cross-cultural or cross-organizational contexts and shows up as confidence that disagreement is from people who haven't yet caught up. Structural tie. Structurally tied (default). One Right Way is a core Jones & Okun pattern. Override to individual-only only when the rigidity is clearly personal preference. Language indicators. "This is just how it's done." "Once they understand, they'll agree." Alternative approaches dismissed without examination. Fix. SC-027 (Multiple Paths Acknowledgment). Accept that multiple paths can lead to the same goal; ask what the alternative approach is solving for. Structural fix. Jones & Okun: accept multiple paths to same goal; never assume your organization knows best for a community in isolation. See organizational resources.
---
Definition. A culture pattern of binary framing — collapsing complex situations into two options. Deeper explanation. The cultural version of binary framing: groups and organizations that habitually frame problems as binary. The damage is that complexity gets pre-flattened before discussion can engage it. The fix is structural — building decision practices that explicitly seek third options. Structural tie. Structurally tied (default). Either/Or Thinking is a Jones & Okun pattern; many organizations structurally reward binary framing as decisive. Override to individual-only when the binary framing is a single-speaker moment rather than an organizational pattern. Language indicators. Two-option framing repeated across decisions. Nuance treated as evasion. Compromise dismissed as weakness. Fix. SC-002 (Naming the Third Option) at the conversational level. Structural fix. Jones & Okun: push for more than two alternatives; slow down for deeper analysis; standardize decision timing; avoid decisions under extreme pressure. See organizational resources.
---
Definition. A culture pattern where raising hard issues is treated as the problem, rather than the issues themselves. Deeper explanation. Groups with this pattern often confuse politeness with health. Conflict gets suppressed, then surfaces in coded form (passive aggression, side conversations, mass disengagement). Shows up as people raising concerns being treated as disruptive. Structural tie. Structurally tied (default). Fear of Open Conflict is a Jones & Okun pattern. Override to individual-only when the conflict-avoidance is a single-speaker preference rather than an organizational norm. Language indicators. Person raising concern treated as the problem. Politeness valued over directness. Unspoken concerns evident in tone but not addressed. Fix. SC-028 (Distinguish Politeness from Substance). Make raising hard issues structurally easy and separate from "being difficult." Structural fix. Jones & Okun: role-play conflict handling; distinguish between politeness and raising hard issues; revisit conflicts after resolution. See organizational resources.
---
Definition. Concentrating decision-making, information, or authority in a few people, with reluctance to distribute. Deeper explanation. Power hoarding often appears as concern about quality — "I just need to handle this one to make sure it's right." Sometimes legitimate; the pattern is when the concern persists past competence transfer or when sharing power feels personally threatening. Structural tie. Structurally tied (default). Power Hoarding is a Jones & Okun pattern; most hierarchical organizations structurally reward power concentration. Override to individual-only when the hoarding is clearly a single-speaker behavior in a system that otherwise distributes power. Language indicators. Decisions concentrated in one person despite group structure. Resistance to delegation. Information controlled rather than shared. Fix. SC-029 (Power Distribution Check). Name who decides what; ask whether others could be brought in. Structural fix. Jones & Okun: include power distribution in master plan; mentors support others; allow others to do their roles when producing results. See organizational resources.
---
Definition. A culture pattern where avoiding discomfort is treated as a structural right, often at the expense of growth or addressing real concerns. Deeper explanation. Shows up as deflection of difficult conversations — "this is making people uncomfortable" used to shut down work that needs to happen. The discomfort is real but discomfort isn't the same as harm. Distinguishing the two is part of the structural fix. Structural tie. Structurally tied (default). Right to Comfort is a Jones & Okun pattern; many cultures structurally privilege comfort over growth. Override to individual-only when the comfort-seeking is a single-speaker behavior. Language indicators. Discomfort cited as reason to stop. Hard conversations deferred indefinitely. Personal feeling treated as veto. Fix. SC-030 (Discomfort Naming + Continuing). Slow into the discomfort and stay with the work; distinguish discomfort from harm. Structural fix. Jones & Okun: understand discomfort is at the root of growth; deepen analysis of oppression; tools for tension and conflict. See organizational resources.
---
Definition. Measuring success by what can be counted, at the expense of harder-to-measure quality and process. Deeper explanation. This pattern is structural — it shapes what gets measured, rewarded, and protected. In conversation, it appears as resistance to process goals, dismissal of relationship-quality concerns, and pressure to demonstrate output even when output isn't the actual need. Structural tie. Structurally tied (default). Quantity Over Quality is a Jones & Okun pattern. Override to individual-only when the metric-focus is a single-speaker preference disconnected from organizational measurement systems. Language indicators. "We can't measure that." Quality concerns dismissed as soft. Output prioritized over process or relationship. Fix. SC-031 (Process Goals Naming). Include process and quality goals explicitly alongside output goals. Structural fix. Jones & Okun: include process/quality goals in planning; living values statement guiding daily work; measure process goals. See organizational resources.
---
Definition. Decisions made for affected people without their input, with the framing that the decider knows best. Deeper explanation. Paternalism often appears with genuine care — the decider really does want what's best. The pattern is the absence of input from affected people. The structural fix is decision processes that make affected-party input non-optional. Structural tie. Structurally tied (default). Paternalism is a Jones & Okun pattern; most hierarchical structures embed it. Override to individual-only when the deciding-without-input is a one-time speaker behavior in a structure that normally includes affected parties. Language indicators. Decisions made about affected people without consulting them. "We know what they need." Process designed without input from those it serves. Fix. SC-032 (Affected-Party Inclusion). Identify affected parties and include them in decisions affecting them. Structural fix. Jones & Okun: clear and fair decision processes; everyone knows who decides; include affected people in decision-making. See organizational resources.
---
Definition. Stating subjective claims, opinions, or interpretations as if they are universal facts, in a way that pushes listeners toward agreement they wouldn't give to the same content stated as opinion. Deeper explanation. Dynamic speech leaves room for the listener to disagree, hold a different view, or update with new information ("I think," "in my experience," "it seems to me"). Conclusive speech presents the same content as settled fact ("the truth is," "obviously," "the reality is"). The pattern is coercive when subjective material is delivered as objective — listeners get pushed toward agreement by the framing, not by the content. Structural tie. Individual-only (default). Override to structural in communication cultures that normalize conclusive framing — some professional, religious, or ideological contexts where speaking with absolute certainty is rewarded or expected. Language indicators. "The reality is…" "The truth is…" Personal interpretation delivered without "I think" or similar markers. Subjective claim presented as universal observation. Fix. SC-011 (Dynamic Framing). Restate the claim with appropriate "I think" / "in my view" / "from where I stand" markers.
---
Definition. Strong emotion driving the interpretation of a situation or the pressure to decide. Deeper explanation. Emotional activation operates differently from CD-007 (which is shame as a relabeling tool) and from F-017 (which is emotion offered as the warrant in an argument). CD-024 is emotion functioning as the engine of decision pressure: the activation level itself becomes the reason the group has to act, has to respond, has to settle the question now. This can come from any direction — alarm, indignation, excitement, distress — and the coercive effect is the same in each case: the elevated state replaces the question of whether the decision is sound with the question of whether the group is going to match the activation. The fix is to slow the loop, separate what's being felt from what's being decided, and re-establish the mode the conversation is supposed to be in. Structural tie. Individual-only (default), structural in cultures that systematically reward emotional escalation as a way of moving decisions. Language indicators. Sustained high-affect tone driving the pace. "We can't let this stand." "We have to respond now." Disagreement read as failure to feel the situation correctly. Fix. SC-007 (Separate Observation from Inference) + SC-014 (Decision Mode Clarification).
---
Definition. Framing a decision through fear of loss, harm, or exclusion. Deeper explanation. Fear framing constructs the decision as a defense against an outcome the group can't afford. This is distinct from CD-001 (urgency as time-pressure) — urgency centers on when, fear framing centers on what-might-be-lost. In practice the two often run together, but they can be separated: fear framing can persist even when the time horizon is generous, and urgency can press without invoking specific feared outcomes. The combined version (urgency-of-fear) is the most powerful pressure form, but the bare fear-frame is enough on its own to move groups toward agreement they wouldn't otherwise give. Structural tie. Individual-only (default), structural in fear-based organizational cultures. Language indicators. "If we don't, we'll lose…" "The risk of not doing this is…" Negative outcomes given disproportionate weight in framing. Decision presented primarily in terms of what can be prevented. Fix. SC-001 (Evidence Request) + SC-009 (Disconfirmation Question). Surface the specifics of the feared outcome and ask what evidence supports the framing.
---
Definition. An idealized future image used to encourage agreement before details are clear. Deeper explanation. Hope framing is the inverse of fear framing — agreement is sought against the pull of a positive future ("imagine where this could go") rather than the pressure of a negative one. The rescue variant goes further: the speaker positions themselves or the proposal as the path that delivers the hoped-for outcome, so disagreement reads as obstruction of the rescue. Both variants substitute the emotional pull of the imagined future for the substantive examination of the present proposal. The fix isn't to suppress hope but to anchor it to specific, examinable commitments. Structural tie. Individual-only (default), structural in vision-driven cultures that systematically reward future-promise framing. Language indicators. "Just imagine…" "This could be the moment…" "We finally have a way to…" Future-state imagery in place of present-state specifics. Fix. SC-023 (Concrete Commitment Request). Translate the hoped-for outcome into specific commitments, owners, and timelines.
---
Definition. Implying the group cannot succeed without a specific person, resource, or system. Deeper explanation. Dependency framing makes a particular dependency feel structurally necessary — without me / this / them, the project fails. This is distinct from CD-026 (rescue framing): rescue offers a positive way through, dependency forecloses the alternative ways through. Sometimes the dependency is real, but the pattern is coercive when it's used to discourage examination of alternatives or to extract terms the group wouldn't agree to if the dependency were optional. The fix surfaces alternatives — even imperfect ones — to test whether the dependency is actually necessary or just asserted. Structural tie. Individual-only (default), structural in cultures that concentrate dependence by design. Language indicators. "Nobody else can do this." "Without X, this won't work." Alternatives waved off rather than examined. Fix. SC-029 (Power Distribution Check) + SC-041 (Alternatives Generation).
---
Definition. Unnecessary complexity, density, or topic overload that prevents clarity, scrutiny, or consent. Deeper explanation. Confusion-as-control works by raising the cost of follow-up. The information is technically present, but presented in a form so dense or so quickly-shifting that examining any part of it is hard. Topic flooding is the temporal version — many topics introduced in succession, so that no single one gets the attention it would need to be evaluated. Both produce the same effect: the group ends up agreeing to (or letting pass) material that, if presented clearly and one-at-a-time, would have surfaced concerns. The fix is to slow the flow and restate the material in simple, examinable form. Structural tie. Individual-only (default), structural in cultures that reward complexity-as-expertise. Language indicators. Long, multi-clause sentences carrying decisional content. Multiple topics introduced before any one is resolved. Technical density that exceeds the audience's working knowledge. "Let me come back to that" repeatedly. Fix. SC-014 (Decision Mode Clarification) + restate-in-simple-terms move.
---
Definition. Repeating a claim until it feels true or until resistance weakens. Deeper explanation. Repetition leverages a familiar cognitive feature — repeated assertions feel more plausible than novel ones, even without supporting evidence. In group conversation, a claim that recurs through the discussion gradually shifts the baseline of what's been "established," even if it was never actually defended. The fix is to name the repetition and to ask, on each recurrence, what evidence has been added since the last one. Structural tie. Individual-only (default). Language indicators. Same claim returning across the discussion in slightly different forms. Assertion gaining force from familiarity rather than from new support. Fix. SC-001 (Evidence Request) + naming the repetition explicitly.
---
Definition. Discouraging the group from researching or comparing alternative options. Deeper explanation. Isolation-from-alternatives works by treating the comparison itself as illegitimate — "we don't need to look elsewhere," "those other options aren't really options," "we've already done that work." This is distinct from CD-008 (Frame Control), which constrains how the situation is interpreted; CD-030 constrains what options stay on the table. The two often run together, but isolation-from-alternatives is specifically about narrowing the option set rather than about controlling the interpretive frame. The fix is to do the comparison anyway, even briefly, to check whether the dismissal holds up. Structural tie. Individual-only (default), structural in cultures that systematically discourage external comparison. Language indicators. "We don't need to look at other options." "Those aren't real alternatives." "We've already considered everything." Resistance to even cursory comparison. Fix. SC-041 (Alternatives Generation).
---
Definition. Requesting access to resources, spaces, or decisions before contribution or scope is clear. Deeper explanation. Access-seeking without contribution is the asymmetry pattern in its purest form: a request for what the group has, made before the requester has named what they're offering or within what scope. This is distinct from CD-010 (Self-Benefit Disguised as Group Benefit), which dresses individual benefit in group-benefit language; CD-031 doesn't necessarily disguise the asymmetry — it may not address it at all. In low-stewardship cultures the request can sound entirely reasonable because nobody is in the habit of asking what's being offered in return. The fix is to make the question routine: what's the contribution, what's the scope of access, and how do they relate? Structural tie. Individual-only (default), structural in low-stewardship cultures where shared resources are routinely treated as available. Language indicators. Request for access without an offer of contribution. Scope of the access request left vague. Contribution side of the exchange not addressed. Fix. SC-043 (Contribution Scope Clarification).
---
Definition. Decisions made about people who are not named or consulted. Deeper explanation. This is the conversational-level form of an omission that CD-022 (Paternalism) names structurally. Where CD-022 describes an organizational pattern of deciding-without-input, CD-032 describes the moment in the conversation where affected parties simply don't appear — they aren't named, their interests aren't surfaced, and the decision moves forward without them. Both can be flagged together; CD-032 is the in-the-moment marker that the omission is happening here, in this exchange, regardless of whether the broader organizational pattern is also present. Structural tie. Individual-only (default), structural in organizations whose decision processes do not require affected-party identification. Language indicators. Decisions affecting third parties made without naming them. "It'll be fine for them" without check. Affected parties absent from the conversation and from the agenda. Fix. SC-032 (Affected-Party Inclusion).
---
Definition. The group is not clear whether it is discussing, exploring, deciding, advising, experimenting, or committing. Deeper explanation. Unclear decision mode is distinct from CD-002 (Process Bypass). Process bypass is the move of skipping an agreed mode; unclear decision mode is the situation where no mode has been clearly named in the first place. Without a named mode, the same exchange can be exploratory for some participants and committing for others — and decisions get made (or not made) based on which interpretation prevails, often without the group noticing. The fix is to name the mode explicitly at the front of the relevant exchange. Structural tie. Individual-only (default), structural in cultures that don't distinguish exploration from commitment. Language indicators. Discussion drifting toward action without an explicit decision moment. Some participants treating the conversation as binding while others treat it as exploratory. Ambiguity about whether something has been decided. Fix. SC-014 (Decision Mode Clarification).
---
Definition. Decision authority and ownership are not named. Deeper explanation. Unclear-who-decides is distinct from CD-019 (Power Hoarding). Power hoarding is the concentration of authority; unclear-who-decides is the absence of named authority — a different problem with a different fix. In flat structures and matrix organizations, this pattern can become chronic: decisions consistently float in the group without owners, action items are agreed but no one is responsible, and follow-through depends on whoever happens to take it on. The fix is simple but often skipped: name the decision owner explicitly, in the moment. Structural tie. Individual-only (default), structural in flat structures or matrix cultures with chronic authority ambiguity. Language indicators. Decision discussed without an owner being named. "We should…" without "and [name] will…" Ambiguity persisting after the discussion ends. Fix. SC-042 (Decision Owner Naming).
---
Definition. A role-holder issues procedural directives that constrain how, when, or whether others may participate — setting time limits, cutting speakers off, instructing collective behavior, or otherwise directing participation from a position of formal authority. Deeper explanation. Procedural Authority is the in-the-moment marker for the dominating form that institutional roles routinely produce — chairs, presiding officers, judges, facilitators, managers, parents in parental authority, teachers in classroom management. The role exists to direct or constrain participation, and the directive form is built into how the role functions in the current paradigm. This is distinct from CD-022 (Paternalism), which is about decisions made for affected people without their input — Procedural Authority is about directives within an exchange the affected people are present in. The pattern is calibrated to flag participation-constraining directives, not pure mechanical access. "Your time is up," "we'll allow 30 minutes for citizens forum," "this will be the last speaker," "now join me in the pledge" — these constrain or direct participation and flag. Pure mechanical handoffs that a system mechanically requires — "please unmute yourself," "the next speaker is X," announcing whose turn it is — generally don't flag, because there's no meaningfully softer alternative within role and the directive isn't constraining participation, it's enabling it. Whether a Procedural Authority flag carries the plain Structural marker (role-required form), the Structural - C sub-type, or fires plain depends on whether the role's function and the dominating form are inseparable (plain Structural) or whether softer forms were available and the speaker chose the dominating form (C). Most chair / council / manager procedural moments fall in C: the role required something, the speaker had non-dominating options, and the dominating form was chosen anyway. See the structural sub-types section in the preamble. The pattern is not an accusation. Most groups depend on procedural authority to function — someone has to keep time, manage handoffs, run the meeting. The flag surfaces it as information: this kind of speech happened, the role produced it, and the group can decide whether the form is working for them. If the group has explicitly agreed to this kind of role with clear scope, the flags may be skippable in practice. If something is feeling off, the role's scope or how it's being filled may be worth renegotiating. If someone is using the role forcefully to dominate, that's coercion the group can name regardless of structural marking. Structural tie. Structurally tied (default). The pattern arises specifically when someone is in an authoritative role; the role itself is the structure. Override to individual-only is rare — mostly applies to informal contexts where someone has self-appointed to a procedural role without clear group consent. Language indicators. Time-limit enforcement ("your time is up," "we'll allow X minutes"). Speaker-selection directives that constrain ("this will be the last speaker," "we'll come back to you"). Collective-behavior instructions ("now join me in," "please rise," "address the chair"). Process-rule announcements that bind the room ("comments must be directed to council, not to other speakers"). Procedural housekeeping that directs participation rather than just enabling it. Fix. SC-014 (Decision Mode Clarification) at the conversational level — surface what mode the conversation is in and what role-scope was agreed to. SC-018 (Role Separation) when the role is being treated as if it covers more than the group agreed to. Structural fix. Group-level role agreement: explicit scope for what the role-holder may and may not direct, agreed in advance. Periodic check-ins on whether the role's scope is still working. For frameworks on group governance and role design, see tealparadigm.org, omnione.world, and greenearthvision.org.
---
# SC — SOLUTIONARY COMMUNICATION
Healthy patterns. Clear, non-coercive, evidence-respecting, consent-preserving moves. SC entries are the positive counterparts to F and CD patterns and are the remedies referenced in Fix fields throughout this glossary. SC numbering is global to the glossary (not per-report), grouped here by purpose with internal subheaders.
---
## Clarity & Reasoning SCs (counterparts to F patterns)
---
Definition. Asking for the source, observation, or data that supports a claim. Deeper explanation. Evidence requests work best when they're specific and non-accusatory. "Do we have numbers? Like current traffic, conversion data, or a deadline from a venue?" is much more usable than "prove it." The fix isn't doubt — it's specificity. Language indicators. "What evidence supports that?" "Where are you seeing that?" "Can you point me to the source?" Counterpart to. F-001, F-005, F-007, F-016, F-018, F-019, F-025, CD-025, CD-029.
---
Definition. Surfacing at least one option beyond the two presented in a binary frame. Deeper explanation. Third options often exist in plain sight once the binary frame is named. The work isn't generating an option from nothing — it's noticing that the framing has compressed available choices. Language indicators. "Are those really the only two options?" "What if we…" "There's a third path here." Counterpart to. F-002, F-033, CD-017.
---
Definition. Examining the likelihood of each link in a chain of consequences separately. Deeper explanation. Slippery-slope arguments collapse when each link is examined for its actual probability. The fix is methodical: walk the chain link by link and ask "how likely is this step, given the prior step?" Language indicators. "How likely is each step?" "What's the actual probability of that follow-on?" Counterpart to. F-003.
---
Definition. Asking for the specific authority or evidence behind a claim and whether the authority is in the relevant domain. Language indicators. "Which experts?" "Which studies?" "Is that within their area of expertise?" Counterpart to. F-004.
---
Definition. Translating loaded or evaluative language into specific observable behavior. Deeper explanation. Behavioral restatement strips evaluative weight from a claim and lets the underlying observation be examined. "Selfish" becomes "asked for X without offering Y." The pattern, not the moral judgment, is what the conversation can act on. Language indicators. "What specifically did they do?" "Can we describe that without the label?" Counterpart to. F-006, F-014, F-024, F-027, F-029.
---
Definition. Describing observable behavior and asking the person directly what they meant, rather than attributing intent. Language indicators. "Here's what I heard you say. Was that what you meant?" "Can you tell me what you were going for?" Counterpart to. F-008, F-014, F-036.
---
Definition. Distinguishing what was observed from what's been inferred. Language indicators. "What I observed was X. What I'm inferring is Y. Those are separate." Counterpart to. F-009, F-017, CD-024.
---
Definition. Evaluating future value from this point forward, ignoring past investment. Language indicators. "Setting aside what we've spent so far, is this still the right direction?" Counterpart to. F-010.
---
Definition. Asking what evidence would change the conclusion. Deeper explanation. This is one of the highest-leverage SCs. Asking "what would change my mind?" surfaces whether a position is actually evidence-based. If the answer is "nothing would change my mind," that's important information about what kind of claim is being made. Language indicators. "What would have to be true for this to be wrong?" "What evidence would change your mind?" Counterpart to. F-011, F-026, F-029, F-031, F-033, F-034, F-037, CD-025.
---
Definition. Restating a claim with its actual confidence level rather than inflated certainty. Language indicators. "I'm not certain, but…" "Roughly, with some uncertainty…" "My best guess is X, with confidence Y." Counterpart to. F-012.
---
Definition. Restating subjective material with appropriate "I think" / "in my view" / "from where I stand" markers. Language indicators. "I think…" "From where I'm standing…" "In my view…" Speaker explicitly marks subjective claims as such. Counterpart to. CD-023.
---
## Coercion-Resistance SCs (counterparts to CD patterns)
---
Definition. Naming the deadline, its source, the consequence of delay, and reversible options. Deeper explanation. Real conversations show this pattern multiple times: "What exactly happens if we wait?" opens it; "By how much?" sharpens it. Together they distinguish urgency-as-fact from urgency-as-pressure. Language indicators. "What specifically happens if we delay?" "Who set this deadline?" "What's the reversible option?" Counterpart to. CD-001.
---
Definition. Reframing unverified time-pressure claims into concerns the group can examine, rather than facts the group must act on. Deeper explanation. "Then maybe we treat urgency as a concern, not a fact" is the canonical phrasing. This SC works alongside SC-012 — SC-012 surfaces the specifics; SC-013 holds the urgency claim accountable to them. Language indicators. "Let's treat urgency as a concern, not a fact." "Until we can ground the deadline, let's hold it as a concern." Counterpart to. CD-001.
---
Definition. Naming what mode the conversation is in — exploring, deciding, advising, experimenting, or committing. Deeper explanation. Strong opening-move version: "I want to be clear: I do not think we are ready to make a final decision unless we confirm scope, resources, affected people, and consent." Mid-conversation version: "Are you asking for concept approval or permission to begin implementation?" Language indicators. "Are we deciding or exploring right now?" "What kind of approval are you asking for?" "Let's name what mode we're in." Counterpart to. F-020, F-024, CD-002, CD-013, CD-024, CD-028, CD-033, CD-035.
---
Definition. Acknowledging trust while separately asking for the evidence the decision needs. Deeper explanation. "Trust is important, but trust does not replace clear agreements" is the form. The SC works because it doesn't reject the trust frame — it accepts it while declining the implication that trust substitutes for evidence. Language indicators. "I trust you, and I still need to see the numbers." "Trust isn't the question — agreement is." Counterpart to. CD-003.
---
Definition. Acknowledging a speaker's actual constraint and reframing it as a stated boundary rather than allowing it to function as pressure. Deeper explanation. "That sounds like pressure, but it also may be true. Can we name it as their boundary rather than a threat?" is the form. This SC is high-skill — it names the pressure pattern honestly and offers a reframe the pressuring party can accept without losing face. Language indicators. "Can we name that as your boundary rather than a consequence for us?" "I hear that as your timeline, not a threat." Counterpart to. CD-004.
---
Definition. Asking each affected person directly for explicit yes/no rather than treating silence or momentum as agreement. Deeper explanation. "Is that accurate?" followed by named yeses is the canonical form. The pattern works at both small scale (a single confirmation moment) and large scale (a structured round-robin). Language indicators. "Anika, yes? Leo, yes?" "Can each of you confirm?" "I want to hear an explicit yes." Counterpart to. CD-005, CD-012.
---
Definition. Separating the person's identity, group belonging, and the specific proposal under discussion. Language indicators. "Disagreeing on this doesn't mean you're not aligned." "Your standing here is separate from your view on this proposal." Counterpart to. CD-006, CD-035.
---
Definition. Translating pressure language back to the original concern in specific terms. Deeper explanation. "I don't think asking about money flow is fear. It is stewardship" is the form. The SC names what the concern actually is, refusing the shame-pressure relabel. Language indicators. "That's not [pressure-label] — it's [actual concern]." "Let me restate what I'm asking about." Counterpart to. CD-007.
---
Definition. Surfacing the interpretive frame being used and offering at least one alternative. Language indicators. "The way this is being framed is X. Another way to frame it is Y." "I notice we're treating this as [frame]. Is that the right frame?" Counterpart to. F-035, CD-008.
---
Definition. Affirming the asset's steward and routing the request through them, even when slower. Deeper explanation. "That is a process bypass. The list is a shared community asset" is the form. The SC names the asset and its stewardship explicitly, which makes the bypass visible and reframes the request through the appropriate channel. Language indicators. "That's a community asset — let's route through [steward]." "The list belongs to the group; let's go through the agreed process." Counterpart to. CD-002.
---
Definition. Asking explicitly who specifically benefits, by how much, and what each party is contributing. Language indicators. "Who specifically benefits from this?" "What does each of us contribute?" "Let's name the actual exchange." Counterpart to. CD-010.
---
Definition. Asking for specific actions, owners, and deadlines rather than accepting vague support. Language indicators. "What specifically will you do?" "By when?" "Who owns that?" Counterpart to. CD-011, CD-026.
---
Definition. Pausing periodically to restate the original scope alongside any additions. Language indicators. "What did we originally agree to?" "What's been added?" "Is this still within scope?" Counterpart to. CD-013.
---
## Consent & Stewardship SCs (counterparts to consent-integrity patterns)
---
Definition. Separating person from mistake; asking for specific suggestions rather than general criticism; expecting mistakes as learning. Deeper explanation. The move turns a mistake into a forward-looking agreement instead of a backward-looking judgment. "This didn't work out — how do we make it better next time?" is the form, and the answer takes the shape of an explicit agreement on what changes. The pivot has to be quick. The longer the conversation lingers on the wrongness of what happened, the more it slides back into criticism of the person who did it. Counterpart to. CD-014.
---
Definition. Reflecting what was heard before responding, separating receiving from agreeing. Language indicators. "Let me make sure I heard you. You said X. Is that right?" before any reply. Counterpart to. CD-015.
---
Definition. Accepting that multiple paths can lead to the same goal; asking what the alternative approach is solving for. Deeper explanation. The move shifts posture from controlling a role to filling it — trusting someone else's approach in their domain rather than treating one's own approach as the version everyone else's should converge to. The form is asking "how would you do this?" and then letting the answer stand, even when the method differs from the one the asker would have chosen. The work isn't agreeing that all approaches are equally valid in the abstract — it's accepting that on this team, in this domain, someone else's path can lead to the goal too. Counterpart to. CD-016.
---
Definition. Treating raising hard issues as separate from "being difficult," structurally rather than reactively. Deeper explanation. The move opens the hard conversation by naming it as a hard conversation and asking permission to have it. "This might be a difficult conversation — are you willing to have it?" separates the meta-question (can we talk about this?) from the substance (what we'd talk about). Once the person says yes, raising the hard thing is something they've agreed to engage with, not an act of difficulty being imposed on them. The structural value is in making the opening a routine — when this is how hard conversations begin, the conversation about whether to have the conversation stops being where the resistance accumulates. Counterpart to. CD-018.
---
Definition. Naming who decides what and asking whether others could be brought in. Deeper explanation. The move zooms out from the question of who is holding what to the question of what the group is actually trying to do, and asks each person what pieces they bring. "What are we trying to get to here? What pieces do you have, what pieces do I have, what are we missing?" — once the parts are surfaced, the work distributes itself to whoever holds the relevant piece, instead of routing through a single concentrated holder or being treated as dependent on one specific person. In conversation this often means catching the moment when discussion has narrowed onto one person's domain and pulling it back to the shared goal first. Note that power hoarding and dependency framing are usually structurally reinforced — this conversational move helps in the moment but doesn't substitute for the organizational work named in CD-019's structural fix. Counterpart to. CD-019, CD-027.
---
Definition. Slowing into discomfort and staying with the work, rather than speeding up to escape it; distinguishing discomfort from harm. Deeper explanation. When discomfort rises, the reflex is to speed up — change topic, smooth it over, shut down whatever surfaced it. The move is to decelerate instead. A breath, a pause, a willingness to stay with what's uncomfortable long enough for it to loosen on its own. Humor can do this work too — not deflection, but the kind of lightness that breaks the over-seriousness without dismissing what's hard. The move isn't usually verbal. It's a shift in pace and posture more than a phrase. The point is staying in the room with the work, distinguishing the discomfort of growth from the discomfort of actual harm. Counterpart to. CD-020.
---
Definition. Including process and quality goals explicitly alongside output goals. Deeper explanation. The move asks "what's working and what's not working?" as a question that sits alongside the output question, not subordinate to it. It can't be answered with a number, which is what makes it useful — it surfaces information about the lived experience of the work itself rather than the output it produces. In conversations dominated by financial or volume metrics, naming this question explicitly is often the thing that opens room for process and quality to be part of the goal rather than an afterthought. The form generalizes across contexts: customer satisfaction, team livelihood, the felt quality of how the work gets done — anything where the question isn't "how much" but "how well, and for whom." Counterpart to. CD-021.
---
Definition. Identifying affected parties and including them in decisions affecting them. Deeper explanation. "If this uses our space and list, our members should know what's happening before it's public" is the form — naming an affected party and asserting they should know before action is taken. Language indicators. "Who else is affected by this?" "Have we asked them?" Counterpart to. CD-022, CD-032.
---
Definition. Making the boundary of an agreement explicit, with named items on both sides. Deeper explanation. "Let's define what is not approved" followed by a specific list of not-approved items is the canonical form. This SC is one of the highest-leverage moves available because it eliminates the ambiguity that scope drift relies on. Language indicators. "What is approved is X. What is not approved is Y." Explicit not-approved list following an approved list. Counterpart to. CD-013, plus a general consent-integrity move.
---
Definition. Defining the next step as reversible and limited, with explicit rollback conditions. Deeper explanation. "We are not approving the partnership. We are approving a limited exploratory next step… reversible and does not authorize fund collection, public partnership announcement, list access, or platform use" is the canonical form. Reversible next-step framing lets a group move while preserving its ability to stop, which addresses both urgency pressure and consent-integrity concerns simultaneously. Language indicators. "Let's take a reversible next step." "What's the smallest move we could make and still reverse if needed?" Counterpart to. CD-001, CD-002.
---
## New SCs added in v0.2 (counterparts to new F and CD entries)
---
Definition. Asking the original speaker to confirm or correct a restatement of their position before the conversation moves on. Deeper explanation. Straw-man arguments survive in groups when no one stops to check whether the position being rebutted is the position actually held. SC-035 is the simple structural move that prevents this: before the rebuttal proceeds, the original speaker is given the chance to confirm or correct the restatement. The form is unfussy — "is that an accurate restatement of what you said?" — and the value is in making it routine, so the check happens before the misrepresentation has been agreed to and absorbed. Language indicators. "Is that an accurate restatement?" "Did I get your position right?" "Before we go further — [name], is that what you meant?" Counterpart to. F-015.
---
Definition. Defining the proof or success criteria explicitly upfront so they cannot shift mid-discussion. Deeper explanation. Goalpost-shifting works because the standard for "enough evidence" is left implicit; once the bar is unstated, it can rise quietly each time evidence is met. SC-036 names the bar before the evidence is examined: what would settle this question, in specific terms, before we look at what's been provided. The fix doesn't prevent disagreement about whether the evidence meets the bar — it just makes any later movement in the bar itself visible to the group. Language indicators. "Let's name what evidence would settle this before we go further." "What's the bar we're agreeing on?" "If we get X, are we done with this question?" Counterpart to. F-021.
---
Definition. Surfacing the assumption embedded in a question and asking whether the assumption holds before answering. Deeper explanation. Loaded questions trap any direct response into ratifying an unstated premise. SC-037 doesn't refuse the question — it surfaces what the question is assuming and asks whether the assumption holds, before answering. This separates the work of agreeing to the premise from the work of answering the question, which lets the answerer respond cleanly to whichever piece is actually under discussion. Language indicators. "That question contains an assumption I want to check." "Before I answer, can we look at what's being assumed?" "What's the premise behind that question?" Counterpart to. F-022.
---
Definition. Defining a category, group, or term before using it in argument, so it can't be redefined mid-discussion to exclude counterexamples or shift between scopes. Deeper explanation. Definition lock is the structural counter to two related fallacies: No True Scotsman (the boundary of a group gets redrawn to exclude counterexamples) and Motte-and-Bailey (the meaning of a term shifts between a strong claim and a weak one). Both work by leaving a key term unfixed; both dissolve when the term is pinned at the front of the discussion. The form is to ask, before the term is used to draw conclusions, exactly what the term covers — and to hold that definition steady through the rest of the exchange. Language indicators. "What exactly are we including in [category]?" "Let's lock the definition before we use it." "When you say [term], do you mean X or Y?" Counterpart to. F-023, F-028.
---
Definition. Comparing a practical option against realistic alternatives rather than against a theoretical perfect. Deeper explanation. The nirvana fallacy collapses when the comparison is against the actual alternatives rather than against an unstated ideal. SC-039 makes the comparison explicit: what are we measuring this against — perfect, or what we have, or what we'd otherwise do? Once the comparison set is named, "this isn't perfect" stops functioning as a sufficient reason to reject, because the question becomes whether the imperfect option is better than the realistic alternatives, which is usually a much easier question. Language indicators. "What are we comparing this to — perfect, or what we have now?" "Compared to our actual options, how does this score?" "What's the realistic alternative?" Counterpart to. F-030.
---
Definition. Generating an estimate, frame, or starting point without exposure to a prior anchor. Deeper explanation. Anchoring distorts judgment by weighting whatever was presented first more heavily than later inputs warrant. SC-040 is the structural workaround: before the first number or frame is shared, each participant produces their own — privately, in writing, or simultaneously — so the inputs can be compared against each other rather than against the anchor. The move is light to deploy but disproportionately effective at surfacing range of view that anchoring otherwise compresses. Language indicators. "Before we hear the first number, can each of us write our own?" "Let's set an independent baseline first." "Everyone share at the same time, not in sequence." Counterpart to. F-032.
---
Definition. Actively researching or naming alternatives before deciding. Deeper explanation. Alternatives generation is the structural counter to two related coercive patterns: Dependency Framing (the group is told it can't succeed without a specific person, resource, or system) and Isolation from Alternatives (comparison itself is treated as illegitimate). Both dissolve when alternatives are actually generated and examined, even briefly. The dependency or isolation may turn out to be real — but the check has to happen for the group to know. Language indicators. "What other options exist?" "Have we looked at alternatives?" "Let's spend ten minutes generating other paths before we decide." Counterpart to. CD-027, CD-030.
---
Definition. Explicitly naming who has authority for the decision under discussion. Deeper explanation. Decisions without named owners drift, get re-litigated, or fail to follow through. SC-042 is the simple structural move that prevents this: before the discussion ends, name who is actually deciding. In hierarchical settings the answer may be obvious; in flat or matrix settings it usually isn't, and the absence of a named owner is itself the problem. The fix is unfussy — "whose call is it, formally?" — and the value is in making the question routine, so it gets asked before the discussion closes rather than after the decision has quietly failed to happen. Language indicators. "Who's deciding this?" "Whose call is it, formally?" "Who owns this decision?" Counterpart to. CD-034.
---
Definition. Asking what the requester is offering and within what scope, before granting access. Deeper explanation. Access-seeking-without-contribution often passes unnoticed because the asymmetry isn't part of the conversation — only the request is. SC-043 makes the contribution side a routine question: what's being offered, and within what scope, alongside the access being requested. The form isn't adversarial; it's structural. Asking it consistently, including for small requests, makes it part of how the group thinks about exchanges rather than something raised only when an asymmetry has already become uncomfortable. Language indicators. "What are you offering in exchange?" "What's the scope of access you're asking for, and what's your contribution?" "Let's name both sides of this." Counterpart to. CD-031.
---
# O — OTHER
Fallback category for patterns that don't fit F, CD, or SC. Should be rare. No entries in this draft. If a pattern is repeatedly classified as O across reports, it should be promoted to a named entry in the appropriate category.
---
# CHANGE LOG
- Draft 0.3 (this version): Page renamed from "Glossary" to "Pattern Glossary" (human-readable name; document ID CIK-GLOSSARY-01 retained for system reference). Added CD-035 Procedural Authority — a calibrated entry for role-issued procedural directives that constrain how, when, or whether others may participate; pure mechanical access housekeeping (e.g., "please unmute yourself") is intentionally excluded. SC-014 and SC-018 counterpart references updated to include CD-035. Preamble expanded with the Structural Sub-Types section (Structural / C / R) explaining the runtime structural marker the engine applies, the resolution priority, the close-case default, and the framing that structural is information rather than accusation — paired with the Analysis Engine Instructions v0.6 work that introduced the sub-types. Per-entry Structural tie field on existing CD entries left unchanged — it sets the Glossary default for whether a pattern type is typically system-built and is independent of the engine's runtime per-flag sub-type marker. Subsequently extended within the same draft (Cycle 2 alignment): the structural sub-type label "Yes" was retired in favor of the bare marker `Structural`, since the literal word "Yes" reads strangely in a list of sub-types alongside "C" and "R". The role-required-form case now renders as `Structural` with no value; the marked cases remain `Structural: C` and `Structural: R`. Section heading and body text updated; CD-035 entry's structural-marker reference also updated. Paired with Engine Instructions Draft 0.7 (cascade) and Report Template v0.6 (Cycle 2 styling spec landed alongside the same label change). - Draft 0.2: v0.1 → v0.2 consolidation pass. Total entries 70 → 112. F section: 13 → 36 (F-013 retired into F-001; 24 new entries F-014 through F-037, covering ad hominem, straw man, circular reasoning, appeals to emotion / popularity / tradition-novelty, red herring / whataboutism, moving goalposts, loaded question, no true scotsman, tu quoque, post hoc, composition/division, genetic, motte-and-bailey, special pleading, nirvana, weak analogy, anchoring, status quo bias, loss aversion, framing effect, projection bias, groupthink). CD section: 23 → 33 (CD-009 retired into CD-002; 11 new entries CD-024 through CD-034, covering emotional activation, fear framing, hope/rescue, dependency, confusion-as-control / topic flooding, repetition, isolation from alternatives, access-seeking without contribution, affected parties not identified, unclear decision mode, unclear who decides). SC section: 34 → 43 (9 new entries SC-035 through SC-043 as counterparts to new F and CD patterns). Field set: Source field dropped; structural-tie field retained for CD with override guidance. Existing entries' deeper-explanation fields were rewritten in integrated form to absorb library-leftover patterns named in the Section B absorption plan, with v0.1 meaning preserved. ID gaps at F-013 and CD-009 are intentional to preserve stability of any prior flag references. SC-030 Definition rewritten from "Naming the discomfort and continuing with the work" to "Slowing into discomfort and staying with the work" to better reflect the actual move; v0.1 SC name preserved. - Draft 0.1: First canonical glossary. Mid-scope: 13 F entries, 23 CD entries, 34 SC entries. Total 70 entries.