@unified-product-graph/core 0.8.1 → 0.8.2

package/dist/index.js

@@ -946,7 +946,7 @@ var UPG_EDGE_CATALOG = {
   // product → persona is the most fundamental relationship in the
   // user domain ("who is this product for?") and was the only way to
   // anchor a fresh persona to its product before this edge existed. Without
-  // it, the natural agent path through `/upg-persona` produced an orphan
+  // it, the natural agent path through `/upg-new-persona` produced an orphan
   // persona only attached laterally via `ideal_customer_profile_maps_to_persona`
   // or `positioning_resonates_with_persona`. Semantic, not hierarchy: a
   // product doesn't "contain" personas; it targets them.
@@ -2161,6 +2161,13 @@ var UPG_EDGE_CATALOG = {
   // release strategy to the concrete deployments it governs.
   incident_affects_feature: { forward_verb: "affects", reverse_verb: "affected_by", classification: "cross-domain", source_type: "incident", target_type: "feature" },
   release_strategy_used_by_deployment: { forward_verb: "used_by", reverse_verb: "uses", classification: "cross-domain", source_type: "release_strategy", target_type: "deployment" },
+  // v0.8.2 (UPG-615): ITIL/ITSM incident management explicitly links an incident
+  // to the customer-facing support tickets/cases it spawns — when a service
+  // breaks, customers raise tickets; the incident is the cause, the ticket the
+  // effect. Closes the otherwise-unmediated "Customer Support" island in
+  // `playbook:operations-quality`, binding `support_ticket` to the incident/ops
+  // spine. Source: ITIL v4 incident management; DORA/SRE customer-facing impact.
+  incident_generates_support_ticket: { forward_verb: "generates", reverse_verb: "generated_by", classification: "cross-domain", source_type: "incident", target_type: "support_ticket" },
   // Cluster C: User Research linkage matrix.
   // research_study → {participant, research_question, survey_response,
   // interview_guide} containment edges already exist (49/49 in Wave 4).
@@ -11968,6 +11975,9 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
   },
   {
     "id": "value-proposition-canvas",
+    "approach_ids": [
+      "trace"
+    ],
     "name": "Value Proposition Canvas",
     "version": "1.0.0",
     "description": "Map customer jobs, pains, and gains on one side, then align product features, pain relievers, and gain creators on the other to achieve product-market fit.",
@@ -12072,6 +12082,9 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
   },
   {
     "id": "persona-canvas",
+    "approach_ids": [
+      "trace"
+    ],
     "name": "Persona Canvas",
     "version": "1.0.0",
     "description": "Demographics, goals, frustrations, JTBD: a structured template for creating research-backed personas.",
@@ -12184,6 +12197,9 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
   },
   {
     "id": "empathy-map",
+    "approach_ids": [
+      "trace"
+    ],
     "name": "Empathy Map",
     "version": "1.0.0",
     "description": "Visualise what a user says, thinks, does, and feels to build deeper empathy and uncover hidden needs.",
@@ -12344,6 +12360,7 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
             "property": "evolution_stage",
             "type": "enum",
             "required": true,
+            "scope": "framework",
             "label": "Evolution Stage",
             "description": "Where this component sits on the evolution axis",
             "enum_values": [
@@ -12357,6 +12374,7 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
             "property": "visibility",
             "type": "number",
             "required": true,
+            "scope": "framework",
             "label": "Visibility",
             "description": "Y-axis position (0=infrastructure, 1=anchor/user)"
           }
@@ -12366,6 +12384,7 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
             "property": "evolution_stage",
             "type": "enum",
             "required": true,
+            "scope": "framework",
             "label": "Evolution Stage",
             "description": "Where this component sits on the evolution axis",
             "enum_values": [
@@ -12379,6 +12398,7 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
             "property": "visibility",
             "type": "number",
             "required": true,
+            "scope": "framework",
             "label": "Visibility",
             "description": "Y-axis position (0=infrastructure, 1=anchor/user)"
           }
@@ -12388,6 +12408,7 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
             "property": "evolution_stage",
             "type": "enum",
             "required": true,
+            "scope": "framework",
             "label": "Evolution Stage",
             "description": "Where this component sits on the evolution axis",
             "enum_values": [
@@ -12401,6 +12422,7 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
             "property": "visibility",
             "type": "number",
             "required": true,
+            "scope": "framework",
             "label": "Visibility",
             "description": "Y-axis position (0=infrastructure, 1=anchor/user)"
           }
@@ -12410,6 +12432,7 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
             "property": "evolution_stage",
             "type": "enum",
             "required": true,
+            "scope": "framework",
             "label": "Evolution Stage",
             "description": 'Where this component sits on the evolution axis (need anchor is usually at "product" or "commodity")',
             "enum_values": [
@@ -12423,6 +12446,7 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
             "property": "visibility",
             "type": "number",
             "required": true,
+            "scope": "framework",
             "label": "Visibility",
             "description": "Y-axis position (0=infrastructure, 1=anchor/user); needs sit at 1.0"
           }
@@ -12463,6 +12487,9 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
   },
   {
     "id": "business-model-canvas",
+    "approach_ids": [
+      "plan"
+    ],
     "name": "Business Model Canvas",
     "version": "1.0.0",
     "description": "Nine building blocks that describe how an organisation creates, delivers, and captures value.",
@@ -12602,6 +12629,9 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
   },
   {
     "id": "porter-five-forces",
+    "approach_ids": [
+      "inspect"
+    ],
     "name": "Porter Five Forces",
     "version": "1.0.0",
     "description": "Analyse industry competitiveness through five forces: rivalry, new entrants, substitutes, buyer power, and supplier power.",
@@ -12691,6 +12721,9 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
   },
   {
     "id": "swot-analysis",
+    "approach_ids": [
+      "inspect"
+    ],
     "name": "SWOT Analysis",
     "version": "1.0.0",
     "description": "Map Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats in a 2x2 grid. Internal vs external, helpful vs harmful.",
@@ -13017,6 +13050,7 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
             "type": "assessment",
             "scale_id": "reach_5",
             "required": true,
+            "scope": "framework",
             "label": "Reach",
             "description": "How many users will this impact per quarter?"
           },
@@ -13025,6 +13059,7 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
             "type": "assessment",
             "scale_id": "impact_5",
             "required": true,
+            "scope": "framework",
             "label": "Impact",
             "description": "How much will this impact each user, on the impact scale?"
           },
@@ -13033,6 +13068,7 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
             "type": "assessment",
             "scale_id": "confidence_5",
             "required": true,
+            "scope": "framework",
             "label": "Confidence",
             "description": "How confident are you in the reach, impact, and effort estimates?"
           },
@@ -13041,6 +13077,7 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
             "type": "assessment",
             "scale_id": "effort_5",
             "required": true,
+            "scope": "framework",
             "label": "Effort",
             "description": "How much work is required to build and ship this, on the effort scale?"
           }
@@ -13127,6 +13164,9 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
   },
   {
     "id": "build-measure-learn",
+    "approach_ids": [
+      "reflect"
+    ],
     "name": "Build-Measure-Learn",
     "version": "1.0.0",
     "description": "The core Lean Startup feedback loop: build a minimum viable product, measure its impact with actionable metrics, and learn whether to pivot or persevere.",
@@ -13262,6 +13302,7 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
             "property": "functional_response",
             "type": "enum",
             "required": true,
+            "scope": "framework",
             "label": "Functional Response",
             "description": "How users feel when the feature IS present",
             "enum_values": [
@@ -13276,6 +13317,7 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
             "property": "dysfunctional_response",
             "type": "enum",
             "required": true,
+            "scope": "framework",
             "label": "Dysfunctional Response",
             "description": "How users feel when the feature IS NOT present",
             "enum_values": [
@@ -13290,6 +13332,7 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
             "property": "delighter_count",
             "type": "number",
             "required": false,
+            "scope": "framework",
             "label": "Delighter classifications",
             "description": "Count of survey responses classifying this feature as a delighter (attractive)"
           },
@@ -13297,6 +13340,7 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
             "property": "performance_count",
             "type": "number",
             "required": false,
+            "scope": "framework",
             "label": "Performance classifications",
             "description": "Count of survey responses classifying this feature as performance (one-dimensional)"
           },
@@ -13304,6 +13348,7 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
             "property": "must_be_count",
             "type": "number",
             "required": false,
+            "scope": "framework",
             "label": "Must-be classifications",
             "description": "Count of survey responses classifying this feature as must-be (basic)"
           },
@@ -13311,6 +13356,7 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
             "property": "indifferent_count",
             "type": "number",
             "required": false,
+            "scope": "framework",
             "label": "Indifferent classifications",
             "description": "Count of survey responses classifying this feature as indifferent"
           }
@@ -13503,6 +13549,7 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
             "property": "moscow",
             "type": "enum",
             "required": true,
+            "scope": "framework",
             "label": "MoSCoW priority",
             "description": "Which scope bucket this requirement falls into for the current release",
             "enum_values": [
@@ -13513,16 +13560,7 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
             ]
           }
         ]
-      },
-      "computed_properties": [
-        {
-          "property": "must_have_ratio",
-          "expression": "must_count / total_count",
-          "entity_type": "feature",
-          "label": "Must-have Ratio",
-          "format": "percentage"
-        }
-      ]
+      }
     },
     "structure": {
       "pattern": "table"
@@ -13686,6 +13724,9 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
   },
   {
     "id": "c4-model",
+    "approach_ids": [
+      "trace"
+    ],
     "name": "C4 Model",
     "version": "1.0.0",
     "description": "Visualise software architecture at four levels of abstraction: System Context, Container, Component, and Code. Each level zooms in to reveal more detail.",
@@ -13778,6 +13819,9 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
   },
   {
     "id": "adr-log",
+    "approach_ids": [
+      "inspect"
+    ],
     "name": "ADR Log",
     "version": "1.0.0",
     "description": "Architecture Decision Records: log decisions with context, options, and rationale.",
@@ -13891,6 +13935,9 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
   },
   {
     "id": "atomic-design",
+    "approach_ids": [
+      "trace"
+    ],
     "name": "Atomic Design",
     "version": "1.0.0",
     "description": "Atoms, Molecules, Organisms, Templates, Pages: a methodology for creating design systems from the smallest elements up.",
@@ -13988,6 +14035,9 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
   },
   {
     "id": "double-diamond",
+    "approach_ids": [
+      "plan"
+    ],
     "name": "Double Diamond",
     "version": "1.0.0",
     "description": "Discover, Define, Develop, Deliver: a four-phase divergent/convergent design process.",
@@ -14078,6 +14128,9 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
   },
   {
     "id": "dora-metrics",
+    "approach_ids": [
+      "inspect"
+    ],
     "name": "DORA Metrics",
     "version": "1.0.0",
     "description": "Four key metrics for software delivery performance: deployment frequency, lead time, change failure rate, and time to restore.",
@@ -14137,16 +14190,7 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
             ]
           }
         ]
-      },
-      "computed_properties": [
-        {
-          "property": "stability_index",
-          "expression": "change_failure_rate * mean_time_to_recovery",
-          "entity_type": "metric",
-          "label": "Stability Index",
-          "format": "number"
-        }
-      ]
+      }
     },
     "structure": {
       "pattern": "collection"
@@ -14275,6 +14319,9 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
   },
   {
     "id": "pirate-metrics-aarrr",
+    "approach_ids": [
+      "trace"
+    ],
     "name": "Pirate Metrics AARRR",
     "version": "1.0.0",
     "description": "Track user lifecycle across five stages: Acquisition, Activation, Retention, Revenue, and Referral.",
@@ -14308,7 +14355,7 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
       "required_properties": {
         "metric": [
           {
-            "property": "lifecycle_stage",
+            "property": "metric_category",
             "type": "enum",
             "required": true,
             "label": "Lifecycle stage",
@@ -14322,16 +14369,7 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
             ]
           }
         ]
-      },
-      "computed_properties": [
-        {
-          "property": "conversion_rate",
-          "expression": "(stage_exits / stage_entries) * 100",
-          "entity_type": "metric",
-          "label": "Stage Conversion",
-          "format": "percentage"
-        }
-      ]
+      }
     },
     "structure": {
       "pattern": "funnel",
@@ -14395,6 +14433,9 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
   },
   {
     "id": "north-star-metric",
+    "approach_ids": [
+      "plan"
+    ],
     "name": "North Star Metric",
     "version": "1.0.0",
     "description": "One metric that best captures the core value you deliver. Supported by 3-5 input metrics that drive it.",
@@ -14428,7 +14469,7 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
       "required_properties": {
         "metric": [
           {
-            "property": "metric_role",
+            "property": "designation",
             "type": "enum",
             "required": true,
             "label": "Metric role",
@@ -14446,16 +14487,7 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
             "description": "How strongly this input metric moves the North Star (input metrics only)"
           }
         ]
-      },
-      "computed_properties": [
-        {
-          "property": "nsm_impact",
-          "expression": "input_metric_value * leverage",
-          "entity_type": "metric",
-          "label": "NSM Impact",
-          "format": "number"
-        }
-      ]
+      }
     },
     "structure": {
       "pattern": "collection"
@@ -14491,6 +14523,9 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
   },
   {
     "id": "marketing-mix-4ps",
+    "approach_ids": [
+      "plan"
+    ],
     "name": "Marketing Mix 4Ps",
     "version": "1.0.0",
     "description": "The foundational marketing framework. Every marketing strategy must address four decisions: what to sell (Product), what to charge (Price), where to sell (Place), and how to promote (Promotion).",
@@ -14584,6 +14619,9 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
   },
   {
     "id": "bullseye-framework",
+    "approach_ids": [
+      "plan"
+    ],
     "name": "Bullseye Framework",
     "version": "1.0.0",
     "description": "Test 19 traction channels systematically. Start with the outer ring (what's possible), narrow to the middle ring (what's probable), then focus on the inner ring (what's working). Run cheap tests across all channels to find your bullseye.",
@@ -14670,6 +14708,9 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
   },
   {
     "id": "product-led-growth-framework",
+    "approach_ids": [
+      "plan"
+    ],
     "name": "PLG Framework",
     "version": "1.0.0",
     "description": "Product-led go-to-market motion. Free entry gives users access, the aha moment hooks them, they expand usage within their team, and monetisation captures value from power users.",
@@ -14852,6 +14893,9 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
   },
   {
     "id": "raci-matrix",
+    "approach_ids": [
+      "inspect"
+    ],
     "name": "RACI Matrix",
     "version": "1.0.0",
     "description": "Assign roles: Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed for each activity.",
@@ -14903,16 +14947,7 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
           "role": "item"
         }
       ],
-      "required_properties": {},
-      "computed_properties": [
-        {
-          "property": "coverage_score",
-          "expression": "assigned_count / total_activities",
-          "entity_type": "team",
-          "label": "RACI Coverage",
-          "format": "percentage"
-        }
-      ]
+      "required_properties": {}
     },
     "structure": {
       "pattern": "matrix"
@@ -15050,328 +15085,1253 @@ var UPG_FRAMEWORKS = [
     "category": "data_analytics",
     "origin": {
       "type": "practitioner",
-      "attribution": "Amplitude/Reforge",
-      "description": "Popularised by Amplitude and Reforge around 2018 as growth teams needed to decompose north star metrics into actionable component metrics and identify the highest-leverage improvement opportunities.",
-      "url": "https://amplitude.com/blog/north-star-metric",
-      "year": 2018,
-      "license": "open_attribution"
+      "attribution": "Amplitude/Reforge",
+      "description": "Popularised by Amplitude and Reforge around 2018 as growth teams needed to decompose north star metrics into actionable component metrics and identify the highest-leverage improvement opportunities.",
+      "url": "https://amplitude.com/blog/north-star-metric",
+      "year": 2018,
+      "license": "open_attribution"
+    },
+    "tags": [
+      "data_analytics",
+      "tree"
+    ],
+    "slots": [
+      {
+        "label": "Metric",
+        "entityTypeId": "metric",
+        "description": "A measurable indicator at any level of the tree: north star at the root, driver and input metrics as children"
+      },
+      {
+        "label": "Outcome",
+        "entityTypeId": "outcome",
+        "description": "The business or product outcome the north-star metric is designed to represent"
+      },
+      {
+        "label": "Dashboard",
+        "entityTypeId": "dashboard",
+        "description": "Dashboard visualising the metrics tree and showing real-time progress across levels"
+      },
+      {
+        "label": "Report",
+        "entityTypeId": "report",
+        "description": "Periodic report analysing movement across the tree and attributing changes to specific inputs"
+      }
+    ],
+    "data": {
+      "entity_types": [
+        {
+          "type": "metric",
+          "role": "item"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "outcome",
+          "role": "root"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "dashboard",
+          "role": "item"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "report",
+          "role": "item"
+        }
+      ],
+      "required_properties": {}
+    },
+    "structure": {
+      "pattern": "tree"
+    },
+    "presentation": {
+      "layout": {
+        "type": "tree",
+        "direction": "TB",
+        "engine": "dagre"
+      },
+      "colour_by": "type",
+      "collapsible": true,
+      "card_fields": [
+        "title",
+        "description",
+        "status"
+      ]
+    },
+    "education": {
+      "purpose": "Decompose a top-level business metric into its component parts and drivers, creating a tree that shows exactly which levers move the number.",
+      "core_question": "What are the component metrics that drive our north star, and which lever has the most headroom for improvement?",
+      "when_to_use": [
+        "You need to structure your data architecture or analytics practice",
+        "Data quality, governance, or accessibility is a problem",
+        "You want to move from ad-hoc analysis to systematic data practices"
+      ],
+      "when_not_to_use": [
+        "The product generates minimal data that does not warrant formal practices",
+        "You are in very early stage where data infrastructure is premature"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  {
+    "id": "team-health-check",
+    "approach_ids": [
+      "inspect"
+    ],
+    "name": "Team Health Check",
+    "version": "1.0.0",
+    "description": "A facilitated team self-assessment across dimensions like mission, fun, learning, speed, and support, using traffic-light voting to surface strengths and improvement areas in a safe format.",
+    "category": "team_process",
+    "origin": {
+      "type": "practitioner",
+      "attribution": "Spotify / Kniberg",
+      "description": "Popularised by Spotify and Henrik Kniberg's Squad Health Check model (2014). Teams self-assess health across dimensions like mission clarity, psychological safety, speed, and learning.",
+      "url": "https://engineering.atspotify.com/2014/09/squad-health-check-model/",
+      "year": 2014,
+      "license": "open_attribution"
+    },
+    "tags": [
+      "team_process",
+      "table"
+    ],
+    "slots": [
+      {
+        "label": "Team",
+        "entityTypeId": "team",
+        "description": "Team conducting the health check; all members vote anonymously on each dimension"
+      },
+      {
+        "label": "Retrospective",
+        "entityTypeId": "retrospective",
+        "description": "Health check session results feeding into the retrospective discussion and action items"
+      },
+      {
+        "label": "Metric",
+        "entityTypeId": "metric",
+        "description": "Health dimension scored, e.g. delivering value, teamwork, fun, learning, mission clarity, speed"
+      },
+      {
+        "label": "Team OKR",
+        "entityTypeId": "team_okr",
+        "description": "Team OKR or improvement goal derived from consistently red health check dimensions"
+      }
+    ],
+    "data": {
+      "entity_types": [
+        {
+          "type": "team",
+          "role": "scored_item"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "retrospective",
+          "role": "item"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "metric",
+          "role": "item"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "team_okr",
+          "role": "item"
+        }
+      ],
+      "required_properties": {}
+    },
+    "structure": {
+      "pattern": "table"
+    },
+    "presentation": {
+      "layout": {
+        "type": "table",
+        "columns": [
+          {
+            "property": "title",
+            "label": "Team",
+            "sortable": true
+          },
+          {
+            "property": "title",
+            "label": "Retrospective",
+            "sortable": true
+          },
+          {
+            "property": "description",
+            "label": "Metric"
+          },
+          {
+            "property": "title",
+            "label": "Team OKR",
+            "sortable": true
+          }
+        ]
+      },
+      "sort_by": {
+        "property": "title",
+        "direction": "asc"
+      },
+      "colour_by": "type",
+      "card_fields": [
+        "title",
+        "description",
+        "status"
+      ]
+    },
+    "education": {
+      "purpose": "Regularly assess team health across dimensions (psychological safety, autonomy, mission clarity, fun, speed, learning) to catch problems early and celebrate strengths.",
+      "core_question": "How is the team really doing: where do they feel strong, where do they feel stuck, and what has changed since last check?",
+      "when_to_use": [
+        "You need to improve team collaboration, clarity, or effectiveness",
+        "Roles and responsibilities are unclear or causing friction",
+        "You want to establish or improve team processes and ceremonies"
+      ],
+      "when_not_to_use": [
+        "The team is small and informal coordination works well",
+        "Process overhead would slow down a team that needs speed"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  {
+    "id": "raid-log",
+    "approach_ids": [
+      "inspect"
+    ],
+    "name": "RAID Log",
+    "version": "1.0.0",
+    "description": "A project management register tracking Risks, Assumptions, Issues, and Dependencies, the four categories most likely to derail a project if left unmanaged.",
+    "category": "program_mgmt",
+    "origin": {
+      "type": "practitioner",
+      "description": "Standard project management tool used across methodologies. The RAID log (Risks, Assumptions, Issues, Dependencies) provides a single living document for tracking all factors that could derail a programme.",
+      "license": "cc_by"
+    },
+    "tags": [
+      "program_mgmt",
+      "table"
+    ],
+    "slots": [
+      {
+        "label": "Risk Register",
+        "entityTypeId": "risk_register",
+        "description": "Risk or assumption logged with likelihood, impact, owner, and mitigation strategy"
+      },
+      {
+        "label": "Risk",
+        "entityTypeId": "risk",
+        "description": "Individual risk scored by probability and impact; severity = probability * impact"
+      },
+      {
+        "label": "Dependency",
+        "entityTypeId": "dependency",
+        "description": "Dependency on another team, system, or deliverable that could block progress if not resolved"
+      },
+      {
+        "label": "Status Report",
+        "entityTypeId": "status_report",
+        "description": "Status update summarising RAID log changes: new risks, resolved issues, and dependency updates"
+      },
+      {
+        "label": "Deliverable",
+        "entityTypeId": "deliverable",
+        "description": "Deliverable affected by logged risks, issues, or dependencies, linking RAID items to project scope"
+      }
+    ],
+    "data": {
+      "entity_types": [
+        {
+          "type": "risk_register",
+          "role": "item"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "risk",
+          "role": "scored_item"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "dependency",
+          "role": "item"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "status_report",
+          "role": "item"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "deliverable",
+          "role": "item"
+        }
+      ],
+      "required_properties": {
+        "risk": [
+          {
+            "property": "probability",
+            "type": "number",
+            "required": true,
+            "label": "Probability",
+            "description": "Likelihood the risk materialises (risk.probability assessment)"
+          },
+          {
+            "property": "impact",
+            "type": "number",
+            "required": true,
+            "label": "Impact",
+            "description": "Consequence severity if the risk materialises (risk.impact assessment)"
+          }
+        ]
+      },
+      "computed_properties": [
+        {
+          "property": "severity",
+          "expression": "probability * impact",
+          "entity_type": "risk",
+          "label": "Severity",
+          "format": "number"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "structure": {
+      "pattern": "table"
+    },
+    "presentation": {
+      "layout": {
+        "type": "table",
+        "columns": [
+          {
+            "property": "title",
+            "label": "Item",
+            "sortable": true
+          },
+          {
+            "property": "description",
+            "label": "Category"
+          },
+          {
+            "property": "status",
+            "label": "Status"
+          },
+          {
+            "property": "description",
+            "label": "Owner / Action"
+          }
+        ]
+      },
+      "sort_by": {
+        "property": "title",
+        "direction": "asc"
+      },
+      "colour_by": "type",
+      "card_fields": [
+        "title",
+        "description",
+        "status"
+      ]
+    },
+    "education": {
+      "purpose": "Track Risks, Assumptions, Issues, and Dependencies in a single living document so the project manager sees all potential blockers in one place.",
+      "core_question": "What are the current risks, untested assumptions, open issues, and external dependencies that could derail this programme?",
+      "when_to_use": [
+        "You are managing complex, multi-team initiatives with dependencies",
+        "You need to track risks, decisions, and milestones across workstreams",
+        "Stakeholders need visibility into programme-level progress"
+      ],
+      "when_not_to_use": [
+        "The project is small enough for a single team to manage",
+        "Formal programme management would create overhead without value"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  {
+    "id": "ice-scoring",
+    "approach_ids": [
+      "prioritise"
+    ],
+    "name": "ICE Scoring",
+    "version": "1.0.0",
+    "description": "Rate ideas by Impact, Confidence, and Ease on a 1-10 scale. Multiply for a composite score. Fast and lightweight.",
+    "category": "prioritization",
+    "origin": {
+      "type": "practitioner",
+      "attribution": "Sean Ellis",
+      "description": "Created by Sean Ellis as a lightweight growth experiment scoring method. Widely adopted in growth teams.",
+      "year": 2010,
+      "license": "open_attribution"
+    },
+    "tags": [
+      "prioritization",
+      "table"
+    ],
+    "slots": [
+      {
+        "label": "Items to score",
+        "entityTypeId": "feature",
+        "description": "Features or experiments being evaluated"
+      },
+      {
+        "label": "Impact",
+        "entityTypeId": "outcome",
+        "description": "How much will this move the needle?"
+      },
+      {
+        "label": "Confidence",
+        "entityTypeId": "assumption",
+        "description": "How sure are we about the impact?"
+      },
+      {
+        "label": "Ease",
+        "entityTypeId": "feature",
+        "description": "How easy is this to implement?"
+      }
+    ],
+    "data": {
+      "entity_types": [
+        {
+          "type": "feature",
+          "role": "scored_item"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "outcome",
+          "role": "item"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "assumption",
+          "role": "item"
+        }
+      ],
+      "required_properties": {
+        "feature": [
+          {
+            "property": "impact",
+            "type": "number",
+            "required": true,
+            "scope": "framework",
+            "label": "Impact",
+            "description": "Expected impact on the target metric (1-10)"
+          },
+          {
+            "property": "confidence",
+            "type": "number",
+            "required": true,
+            "scope": "framework",
+            "label": "Confidence",
+            "description": "Confidence in the impact estimate (1-10)"
+          },
+          {
+            "property": "ease",
+            "type": "number",
+            "required": true,
+            "scope": "framework",
+            "label": "Ease",
+            "description": "Ease of implementation (1-10)"
+          }
+        ]
+      },
+      "computed_properties": [
+        {
+          "property": "ice_score",
+          "expression": "impact * confidence * ease",
+          "entity_type": "feature",
+          "label": "ICE Score",
+          "format": "number"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "structure": {
+      "pattern": "table"
+    },
+    "presentation": {
+      "layout": {
+        "type": "table",
+        "columns": [
+          {
+            "property": "title",
+            "label": "Items to score",
+            "sortable": true
+          },
+          {
+            "property": "impact",
+            "label": "Impact",
+            "sortable": true
+          },
+          {
+            "property": "confidence",
+            "label": "Confidence",
+            "sortable": true
+          },
+          {
+            "property": "ease",
+            "label": "Ease",
+            "sortable": true
+          }
+        ]
+      },
+      "sort_by": {
+        "property": "title",
+        "direction": "asc"
+      },
+      "colour_by": "type",
+      "card_fields": [
+        "title",
+        "description",
+        "status"
+      ]
+    },
+    "education": {
+      "purpose": "Provide a lightweight scoring model for early-stage ideas when detailed effort estimates are unavailable. Faster than RICE and useful for brainstorm triage.",
+      "core_question": "Which ideas should we investigate further based on their potential impact, confidence in our assumptions, and implementation ease?",
+      "when_to_use": [
+        "You have more ideas or features than capacity to build them",
+        "Stakeholders disagree on what to build next",
+        "You need a transparent, defensible prioritisation process"
+      ],
+      "when_not_to_use": [
+        "You have a single obvious next step with no contention",
+        "The backlog is small enough to sequence intuitively"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  {
+    "id": "wsjf",
+    "approach_ids": [
+      "prioritise"
+    ],
+    "name": "WSJF (Weighted Shortest Job First)",
+    "version": "1.0.0",
+    "description": "Prioritise work by dividing Cost of Delay (user value + time criticality + risk reduction) by job duration to maximise economic throughput.",
+    "category": "planning",
+    "origin": {
+      "type": "practitioner",
+      "attribution": "Reinertsen / SAFe",
+      "description": "Developed by Don Reinertsen and adopted as a core practice in the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe). Combines urgency (Cost of Delay) with job size to produce an economic prioritisation sequence.",
+      "url": "https://www.scaledagileframework.com/wsjf/",
+      "year": 2011,
+      "license": "open_attribution"
+    },
+    "tags": [
+      "planning",
+      "table"
+    ],
+    "slots": [
+      {
+        "label": "Backlog Items",
+        "entityTypeId": "feature",
+        "description": "Backlog Items: feature entries to evaluate"
+      },
+      {
+        "label": "User/Business Value",
+        "entityTypeId": "metric",
+        "description": "User/Business Value: metric entries to evaluate"
+      },
+      {
+        "label": "Time Criticality",
+        "entityTypeId": "metric",
+        "description": "How much value decays if delivery is delayed (deadlines, competition, seasonal windows)"
+      },
+      {
+        "label": "Risk Reduction / Opportunity Enablement",
+        "entityTypeId": "metric",
+        "description": "Risk Reduction / Opportunity Enablement: metric entries to evaluate"
+      },
+      {
+        "label": "Job Size",
+        "entityTypeId": "metric",
+        "description": "Estimated effort (story points, t-shirt size, or person-weeks)"
+      }
+    ],
+    "data": {
+      "entity_types": [
+        {
+          "type": "feature",
+          "role": "scored_item"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "metric",
+          "role": "item"
+        }
+      ],
+      "required_properties": {
+        "feature": [
+          {
+            "property": "user_value",
+            "type": "number",
+            "required": true,
+            "scope": "framework",
+            "label": "User/Business Value",
+            "description": "Relative value to users and the business if delivered"
+          },
+          {
+            "property": "time_criticality",
+            "type": "number",
+            "required": true,
+            "scope": "framework",
+            "label": "Time Criticality",
+            "description": "How much value decays if delivery is delayed (deadlines, competition, seasonal windows)"
+          },
+          {
+            "property": "risk_reduction",
+            "type": "number",
+            "required": true,
+            "scope": "framework",
+            "label": "Risk Reduction / Opportunity Enablement",
+            "description": "Value from reducing risk or enabling future opportunities"
+          },
+          {
+            "property": "job_size",
+            "type": "number",
+            "required": true,
+            "scope": "framework",
+            "label": "Job Size",
+            "description": "Estimated effort (story points, t-shirt size, or person-weeks)"
+          }
+        ]
+      },
+      "computed_properties": [
+        {
+          "property": "wsjf_score",
+          "expression": "(user_value + time_criticality + risk_reduction) / job_size",
+          "entity_type": "feature",
+          "label": "WSJF Score",
+          "format": "number"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "structure": {
+      "pattern": "table"
+    },
+    "presentation": {
+      "layout": {
+        "type": "table",
+        "columns": [
+          {
+            "property": "title",
+            "label": "Backlog Items",
+            "sortable": true
+          },
+          {
+            "property": "user_value",
+            "label": "User/Business Value",
+            "sortable": true
+          },
+          {
+            "property": "time_criticality",
+            "label": "Time Criticality",
+            "sortable": true
+          },
+          {
+            "property": "risk_reduction",
+            "label": "Risk Reduction / Opportunity Enablement",
+            "sortable": true
+          },
+          {
+            "property": "job_size",
+            "label": "Job Size",
+            "sortable": true
+          },
+          {
+            "property": "wsjf_score",
+            "label": "WSJF Score",
+            "sortable": true
+          }
+        ]
+      },
+      "sort_by": {
+        "property": "title",
+        "direction": "asc"
+      },
+      "colour_by": "type",
+      "card_fields": [
+        "title",
+        "description",
+        "status"
+      ]
+    },
+    "education": {
+      "purpose": "Prioritise work by dividing the Cost of Delay by job duration, ensuring the most time-sensitive, valuable items are done first.",
+      "core_question": "Considering the cost of waiting, which items should we start now to maximise economic benefit?",
+      "when_to_use": [
+        "You need to coordinate work across multiple teams or time horizons",
+        "Stakeholders need visibility into what is coming and when",
+        "You want to balance commitments with flexibility"
+      ],
+      "when_not_to_use": [
+        "The team is small enough that informal coordination works",
+        "Plans would create false precision about uncertain outcomes"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  {
+    "id": "cost-of-delay",
+    "approach_ids": [
+      "prioritise"
+    ],
+    "name": "Cost of Delay",
+    "version": "1.0.0",
+    "description": "Quantify the economic cost of not shipping a feature to drive priority decisions. Combines urgency with value.",
+    "category": "prioritization",
+    "origin": {
+      "type": "practitioner",
+      "attribution": "Don Reinertsen",
+      "description": "Formalised in The Principles of Product Development Flow (Celeritas Publishing). Foundational to lean product economics.",
+      "year": 2009,
+      "license": "public_domain"
+    },
+    "tags": [
+      "prioritization",
+      "table"
+    ],
+    "slots": [
+      {
+        "label": "Items to evaluate",
+        "entityTypeId": "feature",
+        "description": "Features or initiatives being assessed"
+      },
+      {
+        "label": "User-Business Value",
+        "entityTypeId": "outcome",
+        "description": "Revenue, retention, or strategic value"
+      },
+      {
+        "label": "Time Criticality",
+        "entityTypeId": "metric",
+        "description": "How much value decays with delay"
+      },
+      {
+        "label": "Risk Reduction",
+        "entityTypeId": "risk",
+        "description": "What risk does this mitigate?"
+      }
+    ],
+    "data": {
+      "entity_types": [
+        {
+          "type": "feature",
+          "role": "scored_item"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "metric",
+          "role": "item"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "outcome",
+          "role": "item"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "risk",
+          "role": "item"
+        }
+      ],
+      "required_properties": {
+        "feature": [
+          {
+            "property": "cost_of_delay",
+            "type": "number",
+            "required": true,
+            "scope": "framework",
+            "label": "Cost of Delay",
+            "description": "Weekly revenue impact of not shipping"
+          },
+          {
+            "property": "job_size",
+            "type": "number",
+            "required": true,
+            "scope": "framework",
+            "label": "Job Size",
+            "description": "Weeks of development effort"
+          }
+        ]
+      },
+      "computed_properties": [
+        {
+          "property": "wsjf_score",
+          "expression": "cost_of_delay / job_size",
+          "entity_type": "feature",
+          "label": "WSJF Score",
+          "format": "number"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "structure": {
+      "pattern": "table"
+    },
+    "presentation": {
+      "layout": {
+        "type": "table",
+        "columns": [
+          {
+            "property": "title",
+            "label": "Items to evaluate",
+            "sortable": true
+          },
+          {
+            "property": "cost_of_delay",
+            "label": "User-Business Value",
+            "sortable": true
+          },
+          {
+            "property": "job_size",
+            "label": "Job Size",
+            "sortable": true
+          },
+          {
+            "property": "wsjf_score",
+            "label": "CoD Score",
+            "sortable": true
+          }
+        ]
+      },
+      "sort_by": {
+        "property": "title",
+        "direction": "asc"
+      },
+      "colour_by": "type",
+      "card_fields": [
+        "title",
+        "description",
+        "status"
+      ]
+    },
+    "education": {
+      "purpose": "Quantify the economic impact of not delivering a feature by a given date, making urgency visible and enabling time-sensitive prioritisation.",
+      "core_question": "How much value are we losing every week this feature is not in production, and does that urgency justify fast-tracking it?",
+      "when_to_use": [
+        "You have more ideas or features than capacity to build them",
+        "Stakeholders disagree on what to build next",
+        "You need a transparent, defensible prioritisation process"
+      ],
+      "when_not_to_use": [
+        "You have a single obvious next step with no contention",
+        "The backlog is small enough to sequence intuitively"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  {
+    "id": "five-whys",
+    "approach_ids": [
+      "reflect",
+      "inspect"
+    ],
+    "name": "Five Whys",
+    "version": "1.0.0",
+    "description": 'Iteratively ask "why?", typically five times, starting from a symptom; each answer becomes the subject of the next question. The chain of answers reveals the underlying root cause behind the surface problem.',
+    "category": "team_process",
+    "origin": {
+      "type": "practitioner",
+      "attribution": "Sakichi Toyoda / Toyota Production System",
+      "description": "Developed within the Toyota Production System as a root-cause analysis technique. Popularised through Lean and Six Sigma practice; now a widely used incident-review and design-debug staple.",
+      "year": 1930,
+      "license": "public_domain"
+    },
+    "tags": [
+      "team_process",
+      "reflection",
+      "root_cause",
+      "tree"
+    ],
+    "slots": [
+      {
+        "label": "Symptom",
+        "entityTypeId": "need",
+        "description": "The observed problem the analysis starts from."
+      },
+      {
+        "label": "Why chain",
+        "entityTypeId": "insight",
+        "description": 'Each "why?" answer along the chain, typically five iterations deep.'
+      },
+      {
+        "label": "Root cause",
+        "entityTypeId": "insight",
+        "description": "The terminal answer at the bottom of the chain: the underlying cause to address."
+      }
+    ],
+    "data": {
+      "entity_types": [
+        {
+          "type": "need",
+          "role": "root"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "insight",
+          "role": "branch"
+        }
+      ],
+      "required_properties": {}
+    },
+    "structure": {
+      "pattern": "tree"
+    },
+    "presentation": {
+      "layout": {
+        "type": "tree",
+        "direction": "TB"
+      },
+      "sort_by": {
+        "property": "title",
+        "direction": "asc"
+      },
+      "card_fields": [
+        "title",
+        "description"
+      ]
+    },
+    "education": {
+      "purpose": 'Move past surface symptoms by chaining "why?" questions until the underlying root cause surfaces, so fixes target the real driver rather than a downstream effect.',
+      "core_question": "Why is this happening, and why is THAT happening, until we reach a cause we can act on?",
+      "when_to_use": [
+        "A problem keeps recurring after surface fixes",
+        "Post-incident review where the obvious cause feels too obvious",
+        "Designing a fix and you want to confirm you understand the actual driver"
+      ],
+      "when_not_to_use": [
+        "The problem has multiple independent root causes (use a fishbone or richer RCA tool)",
+        "You need quantitative attribution rather than a single-thread narrative",
+        'Five linear "whys" oversimplify a systems problem with feedback loops'
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  {
+    "id": "pre-mortem",
+    "approach_ids": [
+      "reflect"
+    ],
+    "name": "Pre-mortem",
+    "version": "1.0.0",
+    "description": "Imagine the project has already failed; work backward listing the plausible causes of the failure. Produce a risk register and matching mitigations before the work starts.",
+    "category": "team_process",
+    "origin": {
+      "type": "practitioner",
+      "attribution": "Gary Klein",
+      "description": "Popularised by Gary Klein in Harvard Business Review (2007) as a prospective-hindsight technique. Inverts the post-mortem: imagine failure first, then list causes, while there is still time to act.",
+      "url": "https://hbr.org/2007/09/performing-a-project-premortem",
+      "year": 2007,
+      "license": "published_methodology"
+    },
+    "tags": [
+      "team_process",
+      "reflection",
+      "risk",
+      "collection"
+    ],
+    "slots": [
+      {
+        "label": "Imagined failures",
+        "entityTypeId": "risk",
+        "description": "Plausible failure modes named as if they had already occurred."
+      },
+      {
+        "label": "Causes",
+        "entityTypeId": "insight",
+        "description": "For each imagined failure, the contributing causes the team can foresee."
+      },
+      {
+        "label": "Mitigations",
+        "entityTypeId": "initiative",
+        "description": "Mitigation actions the team will take before failure can occur."
+      }
+    ],
+    "data": {
+      "entity_types": [
+        {
+          "type": "risk",
+          "role": "bucket"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "insight",
+          "role": "bucket"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "initiative",
+          "role": "bucket"
+        }
+      ],
+      "required_properties": {}
+    },
+    "structure": {
+      "pattern": "collection"
+    },
+    "presentation": {
+      "layout": {
+        "type": "grid",
+        "groupBy": "type"
+      },
+      "sort_by": {
+        "property": "title",
+        "direction": "asc"
+      },
+      "colour_by": "group",
+      "card_fields": [
+        "title",
+        "description"
+      ]
+    },
+    "education": {
+      "purpose": "Surface project risks early by inverting hindsight: imagine the project has already failed and ask why, while there is still time to mitigate.",
+      "core_question": "It is six months from now and the project has failed catastrophically. What happened, and why?",
+      "when_to_use": [
+        "Kicking off a project with significant downside or irreversible commitment",
+        "A plan looks too clean and the team senses unspoken concerns",
+        "Stakeholders disagree on risk; the exercise externalises and ranks them"
+      ],
+      "when_not_to_use": [
+        "The work is small, reversible, and cheap to course-correct",
+        "The team is in execution mode and reflective ceremonies will derail momentum",
+        "Risk surfacing has become performative: the team names risks but never mitigates them"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  {
+    "id": "red-team",
+    "approach_ids": [
+      "reflect",
+      "inspect"
+    ],
+    "name": "Red Team",
+    "version": "1.0.0",
+    "description": "Structured adversarial review. A designated group is assigned to attack a plan, design, or proposal from an outside-in stance, surfacing weaknesses the inside-out builders cannot see.",
+    "category": "team_process",
+    "origin": {
+      "type": "practitioner",
+      "attribution": "US Department of Defense (Cold War era); broadened by security and intelligence practice",
+      "description": `Originated in Cold War-era military strategic exercises ("red" team takes the adversary role against the "blue" team's defence). Adopted by cybersecurity, intelligence analysis, and product teams as a structured contrarian-review practice.`,
+      "year": 1960,
+      "license": "public_domain"
     },
     "tags": [
-      "data_analytics",
-      "tree"
+      "team_process",
+      "reflection",
+      "adversarial",
+      "collection"
     ],
     "slots": [
       {
-        "label": "Metric",
-        "entityTypeId": "metric",
-        "description": "A measurable indicator at any level of the tree: north star at the root, driver and input metrics as children"
-      },
-      {
-        "label": "Outcome",
-        "entityTypeId": "outcome",
-        "description": "The business or product outcome the north-star metric is designed to represent"
+        "label": "Target",
+        "entityTypeId": "initiative",
+        "description": "The plan, design, or proposal under adversarial review."
       },
       {
-        "label": "Dashboard",
-        "entityTypeId": "dashboard",
-        "description": "Dashboard visualising the metrics tree and showing real-time progress across levels"
+        "label": "Attack vectors",
+        "entityTypeId": "risk",
+        "description": "The angles the red team uses to probe weaknesses."
       },
       {
-        "label": "Report",
-        "entityTypeId": "report",
-        "description": "Periodic report analysing movement across the tree and attributing changes to specific inputs"
+        "label": "Findings",
+        "entityTypeId": "insight",
+        "description": "Weaknesses, blind spots, or unstated assumptions surfaced by the review."
       }
     ],
     "data": {
       "entity_types": [
         {
-          "type": "metric",
-          "role": "item"
-        },
-        {
-          "type": "outcome",
+          "type": "initiative",
           "role": "root"
         },
         {
-          "type": "dashboard",
-          "role": "item"
+          "type": "risk",
+          "role": "bucket"
         },
         {
-          "type": "report",
-          "role": "item"
+          "type": "insight",
+          "role": "bucket"
         }
       ],
       "required_properties": {}
     },
     "structure": {
-      "pattern": "tree"
+      "pattern": "collection"
     },
     "presentation": {
       "layout": {
-        "type": "tree",
-        "direction": "TB",
-        "engine": "dagre"
+        "type": "grid",
+        "groupBy": "type"
       },
-      "colour_by": "type",
-      "collapsible": true,
+      "sort_by": {
+        "property": "title",
+        "direction": "asc"
+      },
+      "colour_by": "group",
       "card_fields": [
         "title",
-        "description",
-        "status"
+        "description"
       ]
     },
     "education": {
-      "purpose": "Decompose a top-level business metric into its component parts and drivers, creating a tree that shows exactly which levers move the number.",
-      "core_question": "What are the component metrics that drive our north star, and which lever has the most headroom for improvement?",
+      "purpose": "Stress-test a plan against an explicit adversary by assigning reviewers to attack rather than agree, so weaknesses surface before reality finds them.",
+      "core_question": "If a competent adversary wanted this to fail, where would they push first, and would we hold?",
       "when_to_use": [
-        "You need to structure your data architecture or analytics practice",
-        "Data quality, governance, or accessibility is a problem",
-        "You want to move from ad-hoc analysis to systematic data practices"
+        "A high-stakes decision, launch, or security posture needs hardening",
+        "Inside-out thinking is dominant and dissent has gone quiet",
+        "Risk register is suspiciously short for the size of the bet"
       ],
       "when_not_to_use": [
-        "The product generates minimal data that does not warrant formal practices",
-        "You are in very early stage where data infrastructure is premature"
+        "Early-stage exploration where adversarial framing would crush a fragile idea prematurely",
+        "Team trust is too low: red-teaming will read as personal attack rather than role-play",
+        "The work is small enough that a lightweight devil's-advocate pass is sufficient"
       ]
     }
   },
   {
-    "id": "team-health-check",
-    "name": "Team Health Check",
+    "id": "devils-advocate",
+    "approach_ids": [
+      "reflect"
+    ],
+    "name": "Devil's Advocate",
     "version": "1.0.0",
-    "description": "A facilitated team self-assessment across dimensions like mission, fun, learning, speed, and support, using traffic-light voting to surface strengths and improvement areas in a safe format.",
+    "description": "Designate one reviewer to formally take the opposing position regardless of personal view. The assigned-role contrarian defangs groupthink by making dissent legitimate and structured.",
     "category": "team_process",
     "origin": {
       "type": "practitioner",
-      "attribution": "Spotify / Kniberg",
-      "description": "Popularised by Spotify and Henrik Kniberg's Squad Health Check model (2014). Teams self-assess health across dimensions like mission clarity, psychological safety, speed, and learning.",
-      "url": "https://engineering.atspotify.com/2014/09/squad-health-check-model/",
-      "year": 2014,
-      "license": "open_attribution"
+      "attribution": "Roman Catholic Church (advocatus diaboli); broadened by decision-quality practice",
+      "description": "Originated in 16th-century canonisation proceedings as the advocatus diaboli, an official assigned to argue against canonising a candidate. Adopted by decision-science and product-team practice as a structured antidote to groupthink.",
+      "year": 1587,
+      "license": "public_domain"
     },
     "tags": [
       "team_process",
-      "table"
+      "reflection",
+      "decision_quality",
+      "collection"
     ],
     "slots": [
       {
-        "label": "Team",
-        "entityTypeId": "team",
-        "description": "Team conducting the health check; all members vote anonymously on each dimension"
-      },
-      {
-        "label": "Retrospective",
-        "entityTypeId": "retrospective",
-        "description": "Health check session results feeding into the retrospective discussion and action items"
+        "label": "Proposal",
+        "entityTypeId": "initiative",
+        "description": "The plan or recommendation under consideration."
       },
       {
-        "label": "Metric",
-        "entityTypeId": "metric",
-        "description": "Health dimension scored, e.g. delivering value, teamwork, fun, learning, mission clarity, speed"
+        "label": "Opposing arguments",
+        "entityTypeId": "insight",
+        "description": "The case against the proposal, voiced by the assigned contrarian regardless of personal view."
       },
       {
-        "label": "Team OKR",
-        "entityTypeId": "team_okr",
-        "description": "Team OKR or improvement goal derived from consistently red health check dimensions"
+        "label": "Counter-evidence",
+        "entityTypeId": "evidence",
+        "description": "Data points the contrarian raises that the proposal does not yet account for."
       }
     ],
     "data": {
       "entity_types": [
         {
-          "type": "team",
-          "role": "scored_item"
-        },
-        {
-          "type": "retrospective",
-          "role": "item"
+          "type": "initiative",
+          "role": "root"
         },
         {
-          "type": "metric",
-          "role": "item"
+          "type": "insight",
+          "role": "bucket"
         },
         {
-          "type": "team_okr",
-          "role": "item"
+          "type": "evidence",
+          "role": "bucket"
         }
       ],
-      "required_properties": {},
-      "computed_properties": [
-        {
-          "property": "health_index",
-          "expression": "(green_count - red_count) / total_indicators",
-          "entity_type": "team",
-          "label": "Health Index",
-          "format": "number"
-        }
-      ]
+      "required_properties": {}
     },
     "structure": {
-      "pattern": "table"
+      "pattern": "collection"
     },
     "presentation": {
       "layout": {
-        "type": "table",
-        "columns": [
-          {
-            "property": "title",
-            "label": "Team",
-            "sortable": true
-          },
-          {
-            "property": "title",
-            "label": "Retrospective",
-            "sortable": true
-          },
-          {
-            "property": "description",
-            "label": "Metric"
-          },
-          {
-            "property": "title",
-            "label": "Team OKR",
-            "sortable": true
-          }
-        ]
+        "type": "grid",
+        "groupBy": "type"
       },
       "sort_by": {
         "property": "title",
         "direction": "asc"
       },
-      "colour_by": "type",
+      "colour_by": "group",
       "card_fields": [
         "title",
-        "description",
-        "status"
+        "description"
       ]
     },
     "education": {
-      "purpose": "Regularly assess team health across dimensions (psychological safety, autonomy, mission clarity, fun, speed, learning) to catch problems early and celebrate strengths.",
-      "core_question": "How is the team really doing: where do they feel strong, where do they feel stuck, and what has changed since last check?",
+      "purpose": "Make dissent a legitimate role rather than a personal stance. Assigning one reviewer to argue against the proposal forces the team to confront the strongest counter-case.",
+      "core_question": "If we had to argue against this proposal (not because we believe it, but because the role demands it) what is the strongest case?",
       "when_to_use": [
-        "You need to improve team collaboration, clarity, or effectiveness",
-        "Roles and responsibilities are unclear or causing friction",
-        "You want to establish or improve team processes and ceremonies"
+        "A decision is heading toward consensus and you suspect groupthink",
+        "Stakes are high and the team has not heard a serious counter-argument",
+        "Cultural norms make raw dissent costly; assigning the role lowers the social cost"
       ],
       "when_not_to_use": [
-        "The team is small and informal coordination works well",
-        "Process overhead would slow down a team that needs speed"
+        "Genuine disagreement already exists in the room (let it surface; do not theatricalise it)",
+        "The decision is small enough that the ceremony costs more than the insight returned",
+        "The assigned contrarian will be punished socially for the role; set the norms first or skip"
       ]
     }
   },
   {
-    "id": "raid-log",
-    "name": "RAID Log",
+    "id": "second-order-thinking",
+    "approach_ids": [
+      "reflect"
+    ],
+    "name": "Second-order Thinking",
     "version": "1.0.0",
-    "description": "A project management register tracking Risks, Assumptions, Issues, and Dependencies, the four categories most likely to derail a project if left unmanaged.",
-    "category": "program_mgmt",
+    "description": 'After deciding a move, ask "and then what?" repeatedly. Trace second-, third-, and higher-order consequences to surface downstream effects that first-order reasoning misses.',
+    "category": "team_process",
     "origin": {
       "type": "practitioner",
-      "description": "Standard project management tool used across methodologies. The RAID log (Risks, Assumptions, Issues, Dependencies) provides a single living document for tracking all factors that could derail a programme.",
-      "license": "cc_by"
+      "attribution": "Howard Marks / Charlie Munger",
+      "description": `Howard Marks distinguished first-order vs second-order thinking in The Most Important Thing (2011) as the essential discipline of consequential decision-making. Charlie Munger's "and then what?" framing is the practical heuristic.`,
+      "url": "https://www.oaktreecapital.com/insights/memo/dare-to-be-great-ii",
+      "year": 2011,
+      "license": "published_methodology"
     },
     "tags": [
-      "program_mgmt",
-      "table"
+      "team_process",
+      "reflection",
+      "consequences",
+      "tree"
     ],
     "slots": [
       {
-        "label": "Risk Register",
-        "entityTypeId": "risk_register",
-        "description": "Risk or assumption logged with likelihood, impact, owner, and mitigation strategy"
-      },
-      {
-        "label": "Dependency",
-        "entityTypeId": "dependency",
-        "description": "Dependency on another team, system, or deliverable that could block progress if not resolved"
+        "label": "First-order move",
+        "entityTypeId": "decision",
+        "description": "The decision or move under consideration."
       },
       {
-        "label": "Status Report",
-        "entityTypeId": "status_report",
-        "description": "Status update summarising RAID log changes: new risks, resolved issues, and dependency updates"
+        "label": "Second-order consequences",
+        "entityTypeId": "insight",
+        "description": "Downstream effects that follow from the first-order move."
       },
       {
-        "label": "Deliverable",
-        "entityTypeId": "deliverable",
-        "description": "Deliverable affected by logged risks, issues, or dependencies, linking RAID items to project scope"
+        "label": "Higher-order consequences",
+        "entityTypeId": "insight",
+        "description": "Third-, fourth-, fifth-order ripples: second-order consequences of the second-order consequences."
       }
     ],
     "data": {
       "entity_types": [
         {
-          "type": "risk_register",
-          "role": "item"
-        },
-        {
-          "type": "dependency",
-          "role": "item"
-        },
-        {
-          "type": "status_report",
-          "role": "item"
+          "type": "decision",
+          "role": "root"
         },
         {
-          "type": "deliverable",
-          "role": "item"
+          "type": "insight",
+          "role": "branch"
         }
       ],
-      "required_properties": {},
-      "computed_properties": [
-        {
-          "property": "severity",
-          "expression": "probability * impact",
-          "entity_type": "risk",
-          "label": "Severity",
-          "format": "number"
-        }
-      ]
+      "required_properties": {}
     },
     "structure": {
-      "pattern": "table"
+      "pattern": "tree"
     },
     "presentation": {
       "layout": {
-        "type": "table",
-        "columns": [
-          {
-            "property": "title",
-            "label": "Item",
-            "sortable": true
-          },
-          {
-            "property": "description",
-            "label": "Category"
-          },
-          {
-            "property": "status",
-            "label": "Status"
-          },
-          {
-            "property": "description",
-            "label": "Owner / Action"
-          }
-        ]
+        "type": "tree",
+        "direction": "TB"
       },
       "sort_by": {
         "property": "title",
         "direction": "asc"
       },
-      "colour_by": "type",
       "card_fields": [
         "title",
-        "description",
-        "status"
+        "description"
       ]
     },
     "education": {
-      "purpose": "Track Risks, Assumptions, Issues, and Dependencies in a single living document so the project manager sees all potential blockers in one place.",
-      "core_question": "What are the current risks, untested assumptions, open issues, and external dependencies that could derail this programme?",
+      "purpose": 'Resist first-order reasoning by chaining "and then what?" until non-obvious downstream consequences come into view.',
+      "core_question": "If we make this move and it works, what does the world look like next, and is that the world we want?",
       "when_to_use": [
-        "You are managing complex, multi-team initiatives with dependencies",
-        "You need to track risks, decisions, and milestones across workstreams",
-        "Stakeholders need visibility into programme-level progress"
+        "A decision has feedback loops, market reactions, or behavioural ripples",
+        "The first-order case is compelling, which is exactly when downstream effects bite",
+        "Considering an irreversible or large-scale commitment"
       ],
       "when_not_to_use": [
-        "The project is small enough for a single team to manage",
-        "Formal programme management would create overhead without value"
+        "Routine, reversible, low-blast-radius decisions where deliberation costs more than mistakes",
+        "Higher-order branches diverge into pure speculation with no anchor in evidence",
+        "Time pressure makes a deeper trace expensive and the first-order call is good enough"
       ]
     }
   }
@@ -16325,7 +17285,10 @@ var STRATEGY_OUTCOMES_PLAYBOOK = {
   region: "strategy_outcomes",
   is_canonical: true,
   related_framework_ids: ["okr-framework", "three-horizons", "north-star-metric", "metrics-tree", "wardley-map"],
-  target_anchor_entity: "objective",
+  // DT-PB-3: anchor is `outcome`, not `objective`. The creation_sequence
+  // creates outcome (step 3) before objective (step 4), and outcome is the
+  // strategy region's gravitational centre (objectives translate outcomes).
+  target_anchor_entity: "outcome",
   creation_sequence: [
     seqStep(
       1,
@@ -16481,8 +17444,12 @@ var DISCOVERY_RESEARCH_VALIDATION_PLAYBOOK = {
     seqStep(
       8,
       "Test",
-      ["experiment", "test_plan", "evidence"],
-      "Validate with targeted experiments. Close the loop between research and action."
+      // DT-PB-1: was `experiment` — which resolves to NO canonical edge with
+      // hypothesis or test_plan, forcing an orphan. `experiment_run` is the
+      // hypothesis-linked test unit (experiment_run_validates_hypothesis,
+      // test_plan_ran_as_experiment_run, experiment_run_yields_evidence).
+      ["experiment_run", "test_plan", "evidence"],
+      "Validate with targeted experiment runs. Close the loop between research and action."
     )
   ]
 };
@@ -16529,8 +17496,8 @@ var MARKET_COMPETITIVE_PLAYBOOK = {
     seqStep(
       6,
       "Moves",
-      ["partnership"],
-      "Look where competitors are weak and trends are strong. That intersection is where your moves live, including who to partner with."
+      ["competitive_battle_card"],
+      "Look where competitors are weak and trends are strong. That intersection is where your moves live: arm the team with battle cards that turn each competitor weakness into a position you can win. (Partnership moves belong in the business & GTM playbook, where `partnership` connects.)"
     )
   ]
 };
@@ -16943,8 +17910,8 @@ var OPERATIONS_QUALITY_PLAYBOOK = {
     seqStep(
       5,
       "Quality Gates",
-      ["test_suite", "test_case", "regression_test", "qa_session"],
-      "Establish what does not ship until tests pass. Define the test pyramid: unit, integration, end-to-end."
+      ["test_suite", "test_case", "regression_test", "qa_session", "feature", "bug"],
+      "Establish what does not ship until tests pass. Define the test pyramid: unit, integration, end-to-end. Quality is a delivery concern: gates guard the features they cover and the bugs they catch, which is also where incidents trace back (a shipped defect becomes a production incident)."
     ),
     seqStep(
       6,
@@ -21011,7 +21978,7 @@ var UPG_ANTI_PATTERNS = [
       ]
     },
     why_it_matters: "Without any chain link, every downstream artefact (need, opportunity, feature) loses its anchor. Features end up addressing demographics instead of struggles.",
-    remediation: "For each persona, connect it into the user chain via at least one of: `persona_pursues_job`, `persona_experiences_need`, `persona_aspires_to_desired_outcome`, or `persona_incurs_switching_cost`. Use `/upg-persona` or the JTBD canvas workflow.",
+    remediation: "For each persona, connect it into the user chain via at least one of: `persona_pursues_job`, `persona_experiences_need`, `persona_aspires_to_desired_outcome`, or `persona_incurs_switching_cost`. Use `/upg-new-persona` or the JTBD canvas workflow.",
     stages: ["concept", "validation", "build", "beta", "launch", "growth", "mature"],
     severity: "high",
     source: { kind: "practitioner", attribution: "Clayton Christensen, Jobs to Be Done" }
@@ -21151,7 +22118,7 @@ var UPG_ANTI_PATTERNS = [
       ]
     },
     why_it_matters: "OKRs without measurable key results cannot be tracked, debated, or learned from. The graph carries intent but not accountability.",
-    remediation: "For each `objective`, define 2\u20134 `key_result` entities and link via `objective_achieved_through_key_result`. Use `/upg-okr` to author.",
+    remediation: "For each `objective`, define 2\u20134 `key_result` entities and link via `objective_achieved_through_key_result`. Use `/upg-new-okr` to author.",
     stages: ["validation", "build", "beta", "launch", "growth", "mature"],
     severity: "high",
     source: { kind: "book", citation: "Measure What Matters, John Doerr (2017)" }
@@ -21211,7 +22178,7 @@ var UPG_ANTI_PATTERNS = [
       }
     },
     why_it_matters: 'A graph with one persona past validation is usually carrying an unexamined "everyone is the same user" assumption.',
-    remediation: "Add personas representing the next 1\u20132 most distinct user segments. Use `/upg-persona`.",
+    remediation: "Add personas representing the next 1\u20132 most distinct user segments. Use `/upg-new-persona`.",
     stages: ["validation", "build", "beta", "launch", "growth", "mature"],
     severity: "medium",
     source: { kind: "practitioner", attribution: "Alan Cooper, The Inmates Are Running the Asylum" }
@@ -21229,7 +22196,7 @@ var UPG_ANTI_PATTERNS = [
       ]
     },
     why_it_matters: "Build-only graphs commit the team to delivery without a learning loop. Every shipped feature becomes a permanent assumption.",
-    remediation: "Spin up at least one `experiment_plan` or `hypothesis` per quarter's build batch. Use `/upg-discover` or `/upg-hypothesis`.",
+    remediation: "Spin up at least one `experiment_plan` or `hypothesis` per quarter's build batch. Use `/upg-new-discovery` or `/upg-new-hypothesis`.",
     stages: ["build", "beta", "launch", "growth"],
     severity: "high",
     source: { kind: "practitioner", attribution: "Marty Cagan, Inspired (continuous discovery)" }
@@ -21520,19 +22487,31 @@ var REFLECT_MODES = [
 ];
 
 // src/approaches/definitions/index.ts
+function deriveFrameworkExamples() {
+  const byApproach = {
+    plan: [],
+    inspect: [],
+    prioritise: [],
+    trace: [],
+    reflect: []
+  };
+  for (const fw of UPG_FRAMEWORKS) {
+    for (const approachId of fw.approach_ids ?? []) {
+      if (approachId in byApproach) {
+        byApproach[approachId].push(fw.id);
+      }
+    }
+  }
+  return byApproach;
+}
+var FRAMEWORK_EXAMPLES = deriveFrameworkExamples();
 var PLAN = {
   id: "plan",
   label: "Plan",
   description: 'The path of arrival to "what should I build next?". Plan engages a region by surveying its entity coverage against canonical expectations and surfacing the missing scaffolding: the entities a healthy region carries that this graph does not. Cartographic sense: you are walking the coastline of a region and noting where the contour is incomplete, not deciding a strategy. Frameworks like Now/Next/Later, MoSCoW, and Wardley Mapping live within Plan as the named techniques for organising the gap-filling sequence.',
   question_answered: "what should I build next?",
   signature_hint: "({ region?: UPGRegionId }) \u2192 { missing_entities, coverage_score }",
-  framework_id_examples: [
-    "now-next-later",
-    "moscow",
-    "wardley-map",
-    "okr-framework",
-    "three-horizons"
-  ]
+  framework_id_examples: FRAMEWORK_EXAMPLES.plan
 };
 var INSPECT = {
   id: "inspect",
@@ -21540,28 +22519,15 @@ var INSPECT = {
   description: 'The path of arrival to "what\'s broken?". Inspect engages a region or a set of entities by running canonical health checks (anti-pattern audits, drift reports, lint passes) and emitting a structured violation list with severity, kind, target entity, description, and fix hint. Cartographic sense: you are surveying the coastline for hazards before approach; the violations are the rocks marked on the chart. The named techniques inside Inspect are the audit catalogues themselves (`UPG_ANTI_PATTERNS` and the lint passes built on the structural rules).',
   question_answered: "what's broken?",
   signature_hint: "({ region?: UPGRegionId, entities?: entity_ids[] }) \u2192 { violations: [{ severity, kind, entity_id, description, fix_hint }] }",
-  framework_id_examples: [
-    "heuristic-evaluation",
-    "tech-debt-tracker",
-    "accessibility-maturity-model",
-    "cognitive-walkthrough",
-    "blameless-postmortem"
-  ]
+  framework_id_examples: FRAMEWORK_EXAMPLES.inspect
 };
 var PRIORITISE = {
   id: "prioritise",
   label: "Prioritise",
-  description: `The path of arrival to "what's most important?". Prioritise engages an explicit candidate set (entity ids the caller passes in) and ranks it by an explicit framework: RICE, ICE, Kano, Cost of Delay. The framework_id is required because prioritisation without a declared scoring lens is incoherent. Cartographic sense: you have a set of charted destinations and you are computing the order of arrival from a chosen vantage. Different frameworks weight the same candidate set differently; the approach delegates the actual ranking math to the named technique (the framework definition).`,
+  description: `The path of arrival to "what's most important?". Prioritise engages an explicit candidate set (entity ids the caller passes in) and ranks it by an explicit framework: RICE, Kano, MoSCoW. The framework_id is required because prioritisation without a declared scoring lens is incoherent. Cartographic sense: you have a set of charted destinations and you are computing the order of arrival from a chosen vantage. Different frameworks weight the same candidate set differently; the approach delegates the actual ranking math to the named technique (the framework definition).`,
   question_answered: "what's most important?",
   signature_hint: "({ candidates: entity_ids[], framework_id }) \u2192 { ranked: [{ entity_id, score, rationale }], framework_used }",
-  framework_id_examples: [
-    "rice-scoring",
-    "ice-scoring",
-    "kano-model",
-    "cost-of-delay",
-    "moscow",
-    "wsjf"
-  ]
+  framework_id_examples: FRAMEWORK_EXAMPLES.prioritise
 };
 var TRACE = {
   id: "trace",
@@ -21569,34 +22535,15 @@ var TRACE = {
   description: 'The path of arrival to "walk a meaningful path through existing graph". Trace engages an anchor entity and follows a path expressed as a UPGEntityType[] shorthand. Example: `["persona", "job", "feature"]` walks persona\u2192job\u2192feature using the canonical edge for each pair (resolved via `resolve_edge_for_pair`). An optional `edges_override` array selects non-canonical edges per hop when a pair has multiple resolutions. Cartographic sense: you are tracing a route across charted terrain; anchor is the departure, path is the heading sequence, the canonical edges are the roads. No DSL invented; the shorthand IS the path expression.',
   question_answered: "walk a meaningful path through existing graph",
   signature_hint: "({ anchor: entity_id, path: UPGEntityType[], edges_override?: (string | null)[] }) \u2192 { trail: [{ depth, entity_id, edge_type_in }], reached: entity_id[] }",
-  framework_id_examples: [
-    "opportunity-solution-tree",
-    "strategic-cascade",
-    "metrics-tree",
-    "user-journey-map",
-    "impact-map",
-    "dependency-map"
-  ]
+  framework_id_examples: FRAMEWORK_EXAMPLES.trace
 };
 var REFLECT = {
   id: "reflect",
   label: "Reflect",
-  description: 'The path of arrival to "what should I be questioning?". Reflect engages an optional scope (region, entity, or `null` for the whole graph) and emits structured prompts a thinker should consider: assumptions to test, alternatives to weigh, blind-spots to surface, load-bearing claims to verify. Mode is optional; absence is open reflection. Cartographic sense: before approaching the coastline, you are asking which features of your chart you have not actually verified; the prompts mark the parts of the map that may be conjecture. Five Whys, Pre-mortem, Red Team, and Devil\'s Advocate are the named techniques inside this approach.',
+  description: 'The path of arrival to "what should I be questioning?". Reflect engages an optional scope (region, entity, or `null` for the whole graph) and emits structured prompts a thinker should consider: assumptions to test, alternatives to weigh, blind-spots to surface, load-bearing claims to verify. Mode is optional; absence is open reflection. Cartographic sense: before approaching the coastline, you are asking which features of your chart you have not actually verified; the prompts mark the parts of the map that may be conjecture. Retrospective and Build-Measure-Learn are the named reflective techniques in the canonical surface.',
   question_answered: "what should I be questioning?",
   signature_hint: "({ scope?: UPGRegionId | entity_id | null, mode?: 'assumptions' | 'alternatives' | 'blind-spots' | 'load-bearing' }) \u2192 { prompts: [{ kind, question, target_entities? }] }",
-  framework_id_examples: [
-    // Reflection classics: the five canonical reflect frameworks.
-    "five-whys",
-    "pre-mortem",
-    "red-team",
-    "devils-advocate",
-    "second-order-thinking",
-    // Reflective ceremonies + reflective JTBD lens already in the catalog.
-    "retrospective",
-    "four-forces-of-progress",
-    "assumption-canvas",
-    "win-loss-analysis"
-  ]
+  framework_id_examples: FRAMEWORK_EXAMPLES.reflect
 };
 var UPG_APPROACHES = [PLAN, INSPECT, PRIORITISE, TRACE, REFLECT];
 var UPG_APPROACHES_BY_ID = Object.fromEntries(
@@ -23793,7 +24740,7 @@ function isCanonical(text) {
 }
 
 // src/index.ts
-var UPG_VERSION = "0.8.0";
+var UPG_VERSION = "0.8.2";
 var UPG_FORMAT_VERSION = "0.4.0";
 var MARKDOWN_FORMAT_VERSION = "0.1";
 var UPG_TYPES = getTypes();