cbrowser 16.5.0 → 16.7.1

package/dist/persona-questionnaire.js

@@ -0,0 +1,1629 @@
+/**
+ * CBrowser - Cognitive Browser Automation
+ *
+ * Persona Questionnaire System
+ * Research-based behavioral trait mapping for custom persona generation
+ *
+ * Copyright (c) 2026 WF Media (Alexandria Eden)
+ */
+/**
+ * Complete research-backed trait reference matrix.
+ * Each trait has 5 levels (0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0) with specific behaviors.
+ */
+export const TRAIT_REFERENCE_MATRIX = [
+    {
+        name: "patience",
+        description: "How long before giving up on a task",
+        researchBasis: "Nielsen Norman Group (2011) - Task abandonment studies",
+        levels: [
+            {
+                value: 0.0,
+                label: "Extremely Impatient",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Abandons after 3-5 seconds of confusion",
+                    "Clicks back immediately if page doesn't load in 2s",
+                    "Never scrolls below the fold",
+                    "Rage-clicks when frustrated",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.25,
+                label: "Impatient",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Gives up after 10-15 seconds of confusion",
+                    "Skips all instructions and tutorials",
+                    "Opens multiple tabs and abandons slow ones",
+                    "Frustrated by any loading indicators",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.5,
+                label: "Moderate Patience",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Will spend 30-60 seconds trying to solve a problem",
+                    "Reads headlines but skims body text",
+                    "Waits for pages up to 5 seconds",
+                    "Tries 2-3 approaches before giving up",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.75,
+                label: "Patient",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Spends 2-3 minutes on confusing tasks",
+                    "Reads error messages carefully",
+                    "Explores help documentation",
+                    "Tries multiple approaches systematically",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 1.0,
+                label: "Extremely Patient",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Will persist for 5+ minutes on difficult tasks",
+                    "Reads all instructions before starting",
+                    "Waits through long loading times without frustration",
+                    "Exhaustively explores all options",
+                ],
+            },
+        ],
+    },
+    {
+        name: "riskTolerance",
+        description: "Willingness to click unfamiliar or uncertain elements",
+        researchBasis: "Kahneman & Tversky (1979) - Prospect Theory; Fogg (2003) - Persuasive Technology",
+        levels: [
+            {
+                value: 0.0,
+                label: "Extremely Risk-Averse",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Only clicks elements they've used before",
+                    "Never enters personal information without extensive research",
+                    "Avoids all pop-ups and modals",
+                    "Won't click any CTA without reading fine print",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.25,
+                label: "Risk-Averse",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Hesitates before clicking unfamiliar buttons",
+                    "Checks URL security indicators frequently",
+                    "Prefers well-known brands and sites",
+                    "Reads privacy policies and terms",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.5,
+                label: "Moderate Risk Tolerance",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Clicks CTAs from reputable-looking sites",
+                    "Willing to try new features if clearly labeled",
+                    "Provides information for clear value exchange",
+                    "Balances caution with convenience",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.75,
+                label: "Risk-Tolerant",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Clicks most CTAs without hesitation",
+                    "Explores beta features and new tools",
+                    "Shares information freely for convenience",
+                    "Dismisses security warnings casually",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 1.0,
+                label: "Extremely Risk-Tolerant",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Clicks anything that looks interesting",
+                    "Ignores all security warnings",
+                    "Provides any information requested",
+                    "First to try experimental features",
+                ],
+            },
+        ],
+    },
+    {
+        name: "comprehension",
+        description: "Ability to understand UI conventions and patterns",
+        researchBasis: "Nielsen (2010) - Mental Models; Carroll (1990) - Minimal Manual",
+        levels: [
+            {
+                value: 0.0,
+                label: "Struggles Significantly",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Doesn't recognize standard UI patterns (hamburger menu, search icon)",
+                    "Confused by tabs, accordions, dropdowns",
+                    "Types URLs in search boxes",
+                    "Clicks logos expecting navigation",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.25,
+                label: "Below Average Comprehension",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Recognizes basic patterns but struggles with variations",
+                    "Needs labels for icons to understand function",
+                    "Confused by nested menus",
+                    "Misinterprets form validation messages",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.5,
+                label: "Average Comprehension",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Understands most common UI patterns",
+                    "Can navigate standard sites without help",
+                    "Sometimes confused by unconventional designs",
+                    "Needs help with complex multi-step flows",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.75,
+                label: "Good Comprehension",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Quickly understands new interface patterns",
+                    "Predicts where features will be located",
+                    "Adapts easily to different design systems",
+                    "Rarely needs help or documentation",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 1.0,
+                label: "Expert Comprehension",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Instantly grasps any UI pattern",
+                    "Predicts hidden features and shortcuts",
+                    "Notices subtle UX patterns others miss",
+                    "Can use any interface without instruction",
+                ],
+            },
+        ],
+    },
+    {
+        name: "persistence",
+        description: "Tendency to retry the same approach vs. try alternatives",
+        researchBasis: "Duckworth (2016) - Grit; Dweck (2006) - Growth Mindset",
+        levels: [
+            {
+                value: 0.0,
+                label: "Gives Up Immediately",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Abandons task on first failure",
+                    "Never retries failed actions",
+                    "Assumes errors are permanent",
+                    "Seeks help instead of trying again",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.25,
+                label: "Low Persistence",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Tries once more, then gives up",
+                    "Easily discouraged by error messages",
+                    "Quickly moves to alternatives",
+                    "Rarely waits for delayed results",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.5,
+                label: "Moderate Persistence",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Retries 2-3 times with same approach",
+                    "Willing to try one or two alternatives",
+                    "Balances persistence with pragmatism",
+                    "Knows when to ask for help",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.75,
+                label: "High Persistence",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Keeps trying same approach 4-5 times",
+                    "Believes problems are solvable",
+                    "Varies approach slightly each retry",
+                    "Rarely abandons without multiple attempts",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 1.0,
+                label: "Extremely Persistent",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Will retry indefinitely until success",
+                    "Never changes approach despite failures",
+                    "Convinced their method should work",
+                    "May miss obvious alternative solutions",
+                ],
+            },
+        ],
+    },
+    {
+        name: "curiosity",
+        description: "Tendency to explore vs. stay focused on goal",
+        researchBasis: "Kashdan (2004) - Curiosity and Exploration Inventory",
+        levels: [
+            {
+                value: 0.0,
+                label: "Tunnel Vision",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Never deviates from primary goal",
+                    "Ignores all non-essential elements",
+                    "Frustrated by distractions",
+                    "Uses sites purely transactionally",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.25,
+                label: "Goal-Focused",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Occasionally notices interesting elements",
+                    "Stays focused but may bookmark for later",
+                    "Prefers efficient, direct paths",
+                    "Explores only when goal is complete",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.5,
+                label: "Balanced Explorer",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Explores within reason while pursuing goals",
+                    "Clicks interesting links if convenient",
+                    "Balances task completion with discovery",
+                    "Sometimes gets sidetracked but returns",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.75,
+                label: "Curious",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Frequently explores tangential content",
+                    "Opens many tabs for later reading",
+                    "Enjoys discovering new features",
+                    "Often takes scenic routes to goals",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 1.0,
+                label: "Extremely Curious",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Constantly distracted by interesting content",
+                    "Forgets original task while exploring",
+                    "Opens dozens of tabs",
+                    "Values discovery over task completion",
+                ],
+            },
+        ],
+    },
+    {
+        name: "workingMemory",
+        description: "Ability to remember what they've tried and where they are",
+        researchBasis: "Baddeley (2000) - Working Memory Model; Miller (1956) - 7±2 Chunks",
+        levels: [
+            {
+                value: 0.0,
+                label: "Very Poor Working Memory",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Forgets what they just tried",
+                    "Repeats same failed actions",
+                    "Loses track of position in multi-step flows",
+                    "Can't remember form values between pages",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.25,
+                label: "Below Average",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Sometimes repeats failed attempts",
+                    "Needs visual indicators of progress",
+                    "Struggles with long multi-step processes",
+                    "Benefits from save-and-continue features",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.5,
+                label: "Average Working Memory",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Remembers most recent attempts",
+                    "Can handle 3-4 step processes",
+                    "Occasionally forgets earlier decisions",
+                    "Uses browser back button to retrace steps",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.75,
+                label: "Good Working Memory",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Tracks multiple parallel tasks",
+                    "Remembers all attempted solutions",
+                    "Comfortable with 5-7 step processes",
+                    "Rarely needs progress indicators",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 1.0,
+                label: "Excellent Working Memory",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Perfect recall of all attempts",
+                    "Tracks complex state across sessions",
+                    "Handles 10+ step processes easily",
+                    "Never repeats failed actions",
+                ],
+            },
+        ],
+    },
+    {
+        name: "readingTendency",
+        description: "How much text content is actually read vs. scanned",
+        researchBasis: "Nielsen (2006) - F-Pattern; Pernice (2017) - How People Read Online",
+        levels: [
+            {
+                value: 0.0,
+                label: "Pure Visual Scanner",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Never reads any text",
+                    "Looks only for buttons and images",
+                    "Ignores all instructions and labels",
+                    "Clicks based on visual prominence only",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.25,
+                label: "Heavy Skimmer",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Reads only headlines and CTAs",
+                    "Skims first few words of paragraphs",
+                    "Ignores body text entirely",
+                    "Relies on visual hierarchy for meaning",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.5,
+                label: "Moderate Reader",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Reads important-looking text",
+                    "Skims but catches key points",
+                    "Reads error messages and warnings",
+                    "Scans before committing to reading",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.75,
+                label: "Thorough Reader",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Reads most visible content",
+                    "Takes time to understand context",
+                    "Reads help text and tooltips",
+                    "Rarely misses important information",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 1.0,
+                label: "Complete Reader",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Reads every word on the page",
+                    "Reads terms and conditions",
+                    "Expands all collapsible content",
+                    "Never clicks without reading first",
+                ],
+            },
+        ],
+    },
+    {
+        name: "resilience",
+        description: "Ability to recover emotionally from setbacks and errors",
+        researchBasis: "Smith et al. (2008) - Brief Resilience Scale; Connor-Davidson (2003) - CD-RISC",
+        levels: [
+            {
+                value: 0.0,
+                label: "Very Low Resilience",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "One error causes complete abandonment",
+                    "Frustration persists across sessions",
+                    "Associates site with negative emotions",
+                    "Won't retry failed sites for days/weeks",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.25,
+                label: "Low Resilience",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Errors cause lasting frustration",
+                    "Needs breaks after setbacks",
+                    "Recovery takes several minutes",
+                    "Multiple errors cause abandonment",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.5,
+                label: "Moderate Resilience",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Frustrated briefly by errors",
+                    "Recovers within a minute",
+                    "Can continue after a few setbacks",
+                    "Persistent problems cause abandonment",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.75,
+                label: "High Resilience",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Shrugs off most errors quickly",
+                    "Treats failures as learning opportunities",
+                    "Maintains positive attitude through problems",
+                    "Rarely abandons due to frustration",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 1.0,
+                label: "Extremely High Resilience",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Errors don't affect emotional state",
+                    "Instantly refocuses after failures",
+                    "Views all setbacks as temporary",
+                    "Never abandons due to frustration alone",
+                ],
+            },
+        ],
+    },
+    {
+        name: "selfEfficacy",
+        description: "Belief in ability to solve interface problems",
+        researchBasis: "Bandura (1977) - Self-Efficacy Theory; Compeau & Higgins (1995)",
+        levels: [
+            {
+                value: 0.0,
+                label: "Very Low Self-Efficacy",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Assumes they can't figure things out",
+                    "Seeks help immediately on any confusion",
+                    "Blames self for all interface problems",
+                    "Avoids unfamiliar features entirely",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.25,
+                label: "Low Self-Efficacy",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Doubts ability to solve problems",
+                    "Quick to ask for help",
+                    "Attributes success to luck",
+                    "Avoids complex features",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.5,
+                label: "Moderate Self-Efficacy",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Believes they can solve most problems",
+                    "Tries before asking for help",
+                    "Balanced attribution of success/failure",
+                    "Willing to attempt new features",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.75,
+                label: "High Self-Efficacy",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Confident in problem-solving ability",
+                    "Rarely needs external help",
+                    "Attributes success to skill",
+                    "Embraces challenging features",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 1.0,
+                label: "Very High Self-Efficacy",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Absolutely confident in ability",
+                    "Never seeks help, always self-solves",
+                    "May underestimate problem difficulty",
+                    "Attempts anything without hesitation",
+                ],
+            },
+        ],
+    },
+    {
+        name: "satisficing",
+        description: "Decision style: accept 'good enough' vs. seek optimal",
+        researchBasis: "Simon (1956) - Bounded Rationality; Schwartz (2002) - Maximizing vs Satisficing",
+        levels: [
+            {
+                value: 0.0,
+                label: "Extreme Maximizer",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Must find the absolute best option",
+                    "Compares all available alternatives",
+                    "Experiences choice paralysis with many options",
+                    "Often regrets decisions, wonders 'what if'",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.25,
+                label: "Maximizer",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Seeks best option within reason",
+                    "Compares multiple alternatives",
+                    "Struggles with too many choices",
+                    "Sometimes second-guesses decisions",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.5,
+                label: "Balanced Decision Style",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Compares a few options then decides",
+                    "Balances optimization with efficiency",
+                    "Comfortable with 'good enough'",
+                    "Occasionally optimizes for important decisions",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.75,
+                label: "Satisficer",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Accepts first option meeting criteria",
+                    "Decides quickly without comparison",
+                    "Rarely second-guesses choices",
+                    "Prioritizes speed over optimization",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 1.0,
+                label: "Extreme Satisficer",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Takes first available option",
+                    "Never compares alternatives",
+                    "Decides instantly without deliberation",
+                    "May miss better options due to speed",
+                ],
+            },
+        ],
+    },
+    {
+        name: "trustCalibration",
+        description: "Baseline trust toward websites and requests",
+        researchBasis: "Fogg (2003) - Persuasive Technology; Riegelsberger (2005)",
+        levels: [
+            {
+                value: 0.0,
+                label: "Highly Skeptical",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Assumes all sites are potentially malicious",
+                    "Never provides real personal information",
+                    "Uses fake emails and disposable cards",
+                    "Scrutinizes every request for data",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.25,
+                label: "Skeptical",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Suspicious of most requests",
+                    "Verifies site legitimacy before engaging",
+                    "Limits information sharing",
+                    "Prefers well-known brands",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.5,
+                label: "Moderate Trust",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Trusts reputable-looking sites",
+                    "Provides information for clear value",
+                    "Checks for security indicators",
+                    "Reasonable caution without paranoia",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.75,
+                label: "Trusting",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Generally trusts professional sites",
+                    "Provides information readily",
+                    "Doesn't scrutinize requests closely",
+                    "Assumes good intent from businesses",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 1.0,
+                label: "Highly Trusting",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Trusts almost any site or request",
+                    "Provides any information asked",
+                    "Ignores security warnings",
+                    "Doesn't verify legitimacy",
+                ],
+            },
+        ],
+    },
+    {
+        name: "interruptRecovery",
+        description: "Ability to resume tasks after interruption",
+        researchBasis: "Mark et al. (2005) - Average 23min recovery; Altmann & Trafton (2002)",
+        levels: [
+            {
+                value: 0.0,
+                label: "Very Poor Recovery",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Completely loses track after any interruption",
+                    "Must restart task from beginning",
+                    "Can't remember what they were doing",
+                    "Abandons interrupted tasks frequently",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.25,
+                label: "Poor Recovery",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Struggles to resume after interruption",
+                    "Takes 5+ minutes to reorient",
+                    "Often repeats completed steps",
+                    "Benefits greatly from progress indicators",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.5,
+                label: "Moderate Recovery",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Can resume with some effort",
+                    "Takes 1-2 minutes to reorient",
+                    "Uses environmental cues to remember",
+                    "Occasional backtracking after interruption",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.75,
+                label: "Good Recovery",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Quickly resumes interrupted tasks",
+                    "Remembers exact state before interruption",
+                    "Uses mental bookmarks effectively",
+                    "Rarely loses progress to interruptions",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 1.0,
+                label: "Excellent Recovery",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Seamlessly resumes any interrupted task",
+                    "Perfect recall of state before interruption",
+                    "Handles frequent interruptions easily",
+                    "Never loses progress or context",
+                ],
+            },
+        ],
+    },
+    {
+        name: "informationForaging",
+        description: "Strategy for finding information: exhaustive search vs. scent-following",
+        researchBasis: "Pirolli & Card (1999) - Information Foraging Theory",
+        levels: [
+            {
+                value: 0.0,
+                label: "Exhaustive Search",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Systematically examines every option",
+                    "Doesn't skip any section or link",
+                    "Reads all content before deciding",
+                    "Very slow but thorough exploration",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.25,
+                label: "Methodical Search",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Explores most options systematically",
+                    "Follows some information scent",
+                    "Reads section headings before diving in",
+                    "Balances thoroughness with efficiency",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.5,
+                label: "Balanced Foraging",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Follows strong information scent",
+                    "Explores promising paths first",
+                    "Backtracks if scent goes cold",
+                    "Moderate exploration efficiency",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.75,
+                label: "Efficient Foraging",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Quickly follows information scent",
+                    "Skips low-scent areas",
+                    "Makes rapid relevance judgments",
+                    "Rarely backtracks unnecessarily",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 1.0,
+                label: "Expert Foraging",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Instantly identifies strongest scent",
+                    "Extremely efficient path-finding",
+                    "Never explores dead ends",
+                    "May miss information off main scent trail",
+                ],
+            },
+        ],
+    },
+    {
+        name: "changeBlindness",
+        description: "Tendency to miss changes in peripheral areas",
+        researchBasis: "Simons & Rensink (2005) - Change Blindness; Inattentional Blindness",
+        levels: [
+            {
+                value: 0.0,
+                label: "Notices All Changes",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Immediately spots any UI change",
+                    "Notices subtle color or layout shifts",
+                    "Detects changes in peripheral vision",
+                    "High visual attention to entire screen",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.25,
+                label: "Good Change Detection",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Notices most changes",
+                    "Catches updates in focus area",
+                    "Sometimes misses peripheral changes",
+                    "Notices animations and movements",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.5,
+                label: "Moderate Change Detection",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Notices obvious changes",
+                    "Misses subtle or gradual changes",
+                    "Requires movement to draw attention",
+                    "May miss toast notifications",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.75,
+                label: "Poor Change Detection",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Misses most peripheral changes",
+                    "Needs explicit indicators for updates",
+                    "Doesn't notice banner updates",
+                    "Focused tunnel vision",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 1.0,
+                label: "Severe Change Blindness",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Misses even significant changes",
+                    "Doesn't notice error messages appearing",
+                    "Ignores notification badges",
+                    "Needs flashing/animation to notice anything",
+                ],
+            },
+        ],
+    },
+    {
+        name: "anchoringBias",
+        description: "How much first information anchors subsequent judgments",
+        researchBasis: "Tversky & Kahneman (1974) - Anchoring and Adjustment",
+        levels: [
+            {
+                value: 0.0,
+                label: "No Anchoring",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Evaluates each option independently",
+                    "Not influenced by first price/offer seen",
+                    "Compares objectively without bias",
+                    "Resets expectations with new information",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.25,
+                label: "Slight Anchoring",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Somewhat influenced by first information",
+                    "Can adjust when shown counter-evidence",
+                    "Compares to initial anchor but updates",
+                    "Mild preference for first option",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.5,
+                label: "Moderate Anchoring",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "First information significantly influences",
+                    "Compares all options to first seen",
+                    "Adjustments from anchor are incomplete",
+                    "Default option strongly preferred",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.75,
+                label: "Strong Anchoring",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Heavily anchored to first information",
+                    "Rarely updates initial assessment",
+                    "First price seems 'normal', others 'high/low'",
+                    "Resistant to information that contradicts anchor",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 1.0,
+                label: "Extreme Anchoring",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Completely anchored to first information",
+                    "Won't change initial assessment",
+                    "All subsequent options judged against first",
+                    "Ignores contradicting information",
+                ],
+            },
+        ],
+    },
+    {
+        name: "timeHorizon",
+        description: "Focus on immediate vs. long-term outcomes",
+        researchBasis: "Ainslie (2001) - Hyperbolic Discounting; Present Bias",
+        levels: [
+            {
+                value: 0.0,
+                label: "Long-Term Focus",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Willing to wait for better outcomes",
+                    "Prefers delayed gratification",
+                    "Plans for future needs",
+                    "Accepts short-term inconvenience",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.25,
+                label: "Moderate Long-Term",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Considers future consequences",
+                    "Some patience for delayed rewards",
+                    "Balances now vs. later",
+                    "Values planning but not rigidly",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.5,
+                label: "Balanced Time Horizon",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Weighs immediate and future outcomes",
+                    "Context-dependent patience",
+                    "Reasonable trade-offs between now and later",
+                    "Neither impulsive nor over-planning",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.75,
+                label: "Present-Biased",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Prefers immediate outcomes",
+                    "Discounts future benefits heavily",
+                    "Chooses now over better-later",
+                    "Limited patience for delayed rewards",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 1.0,
+                label: "Extreme Present Focus",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Only cares about immediate results",
+                    "Won't wait for anything",
+                    "Ignores future consequences entirely",
+                    "Maximum hyperbolic discounting",
+                ],
+            },
+        ],
+    },
+    {
+        name: "attributionStyle",
+        description: "Tendency to blame self vs. system for errors",
+        researchBasis: "Weiner (1985) - Attribution Theory; Norman (1988) - Design of Everyday Things",
+        levels: [
+            {
+                value: 0.0,
+                label: "External Attribution",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Blames system/design for all errors",
+                    "Never assumes user error",
+                    "Expects interfaces to accommodate",
+                    "Reports bugs confidently",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.25,
+                label: "Mostly External",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Usually blames design for problems",
+                    "Recognizes some user errors",
+                    "Assumes most issues are system bugs",
+                    "Confident in problem reporting",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.5,
+                label: "Balanced Attribution",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Considers both user and system causes",
+                    "Reasonable assessment of fault",
+                    "Neither over-blames self nor system",
+                    "Context-dependent attribution",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.75,
+                label: "Mostly Internal",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Usually blames self for errors",
+                    "Assumes they're doing something wrong",
+                    "Reluctant to report bugs",
+                    "Questions own competence",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 1.0,
+                label: "Internal Attribution",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Always blames self for all errors",
+                    "Never considers system at fault",
+                    "Feels incompetent with any error",
+                    "Won't report bugs, assumes user error",
+                ],
+            },
+        ],
+    },
+    {
+        name: "metacognitivePlanning",
+        description: "Tendency to plan before acting vs. trial-and-error",
+        researchBasis: "Flavell (1979) - Metacognition; Card, Moran & Newell (1983) - GOMS",
+        levels: [
+            {
+                value: 0.0,
+                label: "Pure Trial-and-Error",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Clicks immediately without thinking",
+                    "No planning before action",
+                    "Random exploration strategy",
+                    "Doesn't form mental models",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.25,
+                label: "Minimal Planning",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Brief consideration before acting",
+                    "Some trial-and-error approach",
+                    "Forms simple expectations",
+                    "Adjusts approach after failures",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.5,
+                label: "Moderate Planning",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Thinks before acting on important tasks",
+                    "Mixes planning with exploration",
+                    "Forms rough mental models",
+                    "Plans for multi-step tasks",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.75,
+                label: "Careful Planning",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Plans most actions before taking them",
+                    "Forms clear mental models",
+                    "Anticipates consequences",
+                    "Systematic approach to tasks",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 1.0,
+                label: "Extensive Planning",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Always plans thoroughly before acting",
+                    "Detailed mental models of systems",
+                    "Anticipates all edge cases",
+                    "May over-plan simple tasks",
+                ],
+            },
+        ],
+    },
+    {
+        name: "proceduralFluency",
+        description: "Ability to follow multi-step procedures",
+        researchBasis: "Anderson (1982) - ACT-R; Procedural Memory",
+        levels: [
+            {
+                value: 0.0,
+                label: "Very Low Fluency",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Struggles with any multi-step process",
+                    "Loses place in procedures frequently",
+                    "Needs step-by-step guidance always",
+                    "Can't follow sequences from memory",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.25,
+                label: "Low Fluency",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Handles 2-3 step procedures",
+                    "Needs reminders for longer sequences",
+                    "Sometimes skips or repeats steps",
+                    "Benefits from progress indicators",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.5,
+                label: "Moderate Fluency",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Follows most standard procedures",
+                    "Handles 4-5 step sequences",
+                    "Occasional confusion on complex flows",
+                    "Can recover from minor errors in sequence",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.75,
+                label: "Good Fluency",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Follows complex procedures easily",
+                    "Handles 6-8 step sequences",
+                    "Rarely makes procedural errors",
+                    "Adapts procedures to context",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 1.0,
+                label: "Excellent Fluency",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Masters any procedure quickly",
+                    "Handles unlimited step sequences",
+                    "Never loses place in procedures",
+                    "Automates familiar procedures",
+                ],
+            },
+        ],
+    },
+    {
+        name: "transferLearning",
+        description: "Ability to apply knowledge from one interface to another",
+        researchBasis: "Thorndike (1901) - Transfer of Practice; Singley & Anderson (1989)",
+        levels: [
+            {
+                value: 0.0,
+                label: "No Transfer",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Each interface is completely novel",
+                    "Doesn't apply prior experience",
+                    "Starts from scratch every time",
+                    "No recognition of patterns across sites",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.25,
+                label: "Low Transfer",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Recognizes only identical patterns",
+                    "Struggles with variations",
+                    "Some learning transfers to identical UIs",
+                    "Confused by similar but different patterns",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.5,
+                label: "Moderate Transfer",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Transfers learning to similar interfaces",
+                    "Recognizes common patterns",
+                    "Adapts some knowledge across contexts",
+                    "Sometimes confused by variations",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.75,
+                label: "Good Transfer",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Applies learning broadly",
+                    "Recognizes patterns despite variations",
+                    "Quickly adapts to new interfaces",
+                    "Abstracts principles from experience",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 1.0,
+                label: "Excellent Transfer",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Instantly applies all prior learning",
+                    "Recognizes abstract patterns everywhere",
+                    "Every new interface feels familiar",
+                    "Master of analogical reasoning",
+                ],
+            },
+        ],
+    },
+    {
+        name: "authoritySensitivity",
+        description: "Tendency to follow authority cues and official-looking content",
+        researchBasis: "Milgram (1963) - Obedience to Authority; Cialdini (2006) - Authority Principle",
+        levels: [
+            {
+                value: 0.0,
+                label: "Authority Skeptic",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Questions all authority claims",
+                    "Verifies credentials independently",
+                    "Not influenced by official appearance",
+                    "Prefers peer reviews over expert claims",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.25,
+                label: "Moderately Skeptical",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Some skepticism of authority",
+                    "Verifies important claims",
+                    "Influenced but not controlled by authority",
+                    "Balances trust with verification",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.5,
+                label: "Balanced Authority Response",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Respects authority within reason",
+                    "Follows official guidance generally",
+                    "Questions when stakes are high",
+                    "Context-dependent authority trust",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.75,
+                label: "Authority Responsive",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Follows authority guidance readily",
+                    "Official-looking content is trusted",
+                    "Rarely questions expert claims",
+                    "Influenced by credentials and titles",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 1.0,
+                label: "Authority Deferential",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Always follows authority without question",
+                    "Completely trusts official appearance",
+                    "Never verifies claims from authorities",
+                    "Highly susceptible to authority manipulation",
+                ],
+            },
+        ],
+    },
+    {
+        name: "emotionalContagion",
+        description: "How much UI emotional design affects user mood",
+        researchBasis: "Hatfield (1994) - Emotional Contagion; Norman (2004) - Emotional Design",
+        levels: [
+            {
+                value: 0.0,
+                label: "Emotionally Stable",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "UI design doesn't affect mood",
+                    "Same performance in any aesthetic",
+                    "Not influenced by color psychology",
+                    "Purely functional evaluation",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.25,
+                label: "Slightly Affected",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Minor mood influence from UI",
+                    "Prefers pleasant aesthetics but functions anywhere",
+                    "Subtle color effects noticed",
+                    "Mostly rational evaluation",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.5,
+                label: "Moderately Affected",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "UI aesthetics affect experience noticeably",
+                    "Happy designs improve mood/performance",
+                    "Frustrated by ugly interfaces",
+                    "Emotional response to design choices",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.75,
+                label: "Strongly Affected",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "UI design significantly affects mood",
+                    "Strong preference for pleasing aesthetics",
+                    "Performance varies with emotional design",
+                    "Very responsive to color and imagery",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 1.0,
+                label: "Highly Contagious",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Mood completely controlled by UI design",
+                    "Can't function in unappealing interfaces",
+                    "Extreme response to emotional design",
+                    "Performance entirely mood-dependent",
+                ],
+            },
+        ],
+    },
+    {
+        name: "fearOfMissingOut",
+        description: "Susceptibility to urgency and scarcity messaging",
+        researchBasis: "Przybylski (2013) - Fear of Missing Out Scale; Cialdini - Scarcity Principle",
+        levels: [
+            {
+                value: 0.0,
+                label: "FOMO Immune",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Ignores all urgency messaging",
+                    "Not influenced by countdown timers",
+                    "Scarcity claims don't affect decisions",
+                    "'Limited time' means nothing",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.25,
+                label: "Low FOMO",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Rarely affected by urgency",
+                    "Recognizes manipulation tactics",
+                    "Minor response to genuine scarcity",
+                    "Evaluates deals on merit",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.5,
+                label: "Moderate FOMO",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Sometimes influenced by urgency",
+                    "Responds to credible scarcity",
+                    "Countdown timers create mild pressure",
+                    "Balances FOMO with rationality",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.75,
+                label: "High FOMO",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Often influenced by urgency messaging",
+                    "'Only X left' creates strong pressure",
+                    "Countdown timers trigger action",
+                    "Fears missing good deals",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 1.0,
+                label: "Extreme FOMO",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Always responds to urgency",
+                    "Any scarcity claim triggers action",
+                    "Can't resist 'limited time' offers",
+                    "Highly susceptible to FOMO manipulation",
+                ],
+            },
+        ],
+    },
+    {
+        name: "socialProofSensitivity",
+        description: "Influence of reviews, ratings, and social signals",
+        researchBasis: "Cialdini (2006) - Social Proof; Bandura (1977) - Social Learning",
+        levels: [
+            {
+                value: 0.0,
+                label: "Ignores Social Proof",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Reviews don't influence decisions",
+                    "Evaluates purely on own criteria",
+                    "Star ratings are meaningless",
+                    "Trusts own judgment over crowd",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.25,
+                label: "Low Social Proof Influence",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Minor consideration of reviews",
+                    "Uses ratings as one factor",
+                    "Skeptical of testimonials",
+                    "Independent evaluation primary",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.5,
+                label: "Moderate Social Proof",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Reviews influence moderately",
+                    "Checks ratings before deciding",
+                    "Testimonials carry some weight",
+                    "Balances social proof with own assessment",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.75,
+                label: "High Social Proof Influence",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Reviews heavily influence decisions",
+                    "High ratings required for consideration",
+                    "Trusts testimonials significantly",
+                    "'Most popular' is very persuasive",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 1.0,
+                label: "Relies on Social Proof",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Won't decide without reviews",
+                    "Follows crowd blindly",
+                    "Highest-rated always chosen",
+                    "Incapable of independent evaluation",
+                ],
+            },
+        ],
+    },
+    {
+        name: "mentalModelRigidity",
+        description: "Ability to update mental models when interfaces change",
+        researchBasis: "Johnson-Laird (1983) - Mental Models; Norman (2013) - Design of Everyday Things",
+        levels: [
+            {
+                value: 0.0,
+                label: "Rigid Mental Models",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Can't adapt to interface changes",
+                    "Expects things where they used to be",
+                    "Frustrated by any redesign",
+                    "Stuck on old patterns",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.25,
+                label: "Slow to Adapt",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Gradual adjustment to changes",
+                    "Needs time to relearn",
+                    "Prefers familiar layouts",
+                    "Eventually adapts with effort",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.5,
+                label: "Moderately Flexible",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Adjusts to changes reasonably",
+                    "Some friction with new patterns",
+                    "Can update mental models with effort",
+                    "Balances old habits with new learning",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 0.75,
+                label: "Flexible",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Quickly adapts to new patterns",
+                    "Updates mental models easily",
+                    "Minor friction with changes",
+                    "Embraces improvements",
+                ],
+            },
+            {
+                value: 1.0,
+                label: "Extremely Flexible",
+                behaviors: [
+                    "Instantly adapts to any change",
+                    "Mental models update immediately",
+                    "No preference for old patterns",
+                    "Thrives on interface evolution",
+                ],
+            },
+        ],
+    },
+];
+/**
+ * Generate a questionnaire for building a custom persona.
+ * Returns a subset of questions covering the most impactful traits.
+ */
+export function generatePersonaQuestionnaire(options) {
+    const { comprehensive = false, traits } = options || {};
+    // Core traits that have the highest behavioral impact
+    const coreTraits = [
+        "patience",
+        "riskTolerance",
+        "comprehension",
+        "selfEfficacy",
+        "satisficing",
+        "trustCalibration",
+        "workingMemory",
+        "resilience",
+    ];
+    const traitsToInclude = traits || (comprehensive
+        ? TRAIT_REFERENCE_MATRIX.map(t => t.name)
+        : coreTraits);
+    return traitsToInclude.map(traitName => {
+        const traitRef = TRAIT_REFERENCE_MATRIX.find(t => t.name === traitName);
+        if (!traitRef)
+            return null;
+        // Create question with 4 options (0.0, 0.33, 0.67, 1.0) for simpler choice
+        const levels = [
+            traitRef.levels[0], // 0.0
+            traitRef.levels[1], // 0.25
+            traitRef.levels[3], // 0.75
+            traitRef.levels[4], // 1.0
+        ];
+        return {
+            id: traitName,
+            trait: traitName,
+            question: generateQuestionText(traitRef),
+            options: levels.map(level => ({
+                value: level.value,
+                label: level.label,
+                description: level.behaviors.slice(0, 2).join("; "),
+            })),
+        };
+    }).filter(Boolean);
+}
+function generateQuestionText(trait) {
+    const questionMap = {
+        patience: "When you encounter a confusing website, how long do you typically try before giving up?",
+        riskTolerance: "How comfortable are you clicking on unfamiliar buttons or entering information on new websites?",
+        comprehension: "How easily do you understand new website interfaces and features?",
+        persistence: "When something doesn't work the first time, what do you usually do?",
+        curiosity: "While completing a task online, how often do you explore unrelated features or content?",
+        workingMemory: "How well do you remember what you've already tried when troubleshooting?",
+        readingTendency: "How much of a webpage's text do you typically read?",
+        resilience: "After encountering an error or frustrating experience, how quickly do you recover?",
+        selfEfficacy: "How confident are you in your ability to figure out new websites on your own?",
+        satisficing: "When making choices online (products, services, options), how do you decide?",
+        trustCalibration: "How trusting are you of websites asking for your information?",
+        interruptRecovery: "If you're interrupted while completing an online task, how easily do you pick up where you left off?",
+        informationForaging: "When searching for information on a website, what's your approach?",
+        changeBlindness: "How often do you notice when something changes on a webpage (new messages, updates)?",
+        anchoringBias: "When comparing options (prices, features), how much does the first option you see influence your judgment?",
+        timeHorizon: "When faced with a choice between something now vs. something better later, what do you prefer?",
+        attributionStyle: "When something goes wrong on a website, what's your first thought?",
+        metacognitivePlanning: "Before starting a new task on a website, do you plan your approach?",
+        proceduralFluency: "How comfortable are you with multi-step processes (like checkout flows)?",
+        transferLearning: "When you visit a new website, how much do you apply what you learned from other sites?",
+        authoritySensitivity: "How much do official-looking badges, certifications, or expert endorsements influence you?",
+        emotionalContagion: "How much does the visual design and aesthetics of a website affect your experience?",
+        fearOfMissingOut: "How do 'limited time' offers and countdown timers affect your decisions?",
+        socialProofSensitivity: "How much do reviews, ratings, and testimonials influence your decisions?",
+        mentalModelRigidity: "When a website you use regularly changes its layout, how do you respond?",
+    };
+    return questionMap[trait.name] || `How would you describe your ${trait.name}?`;
+}
+/**
+ * Build cognitive traits from questionnaire answers.
+ * Missing answers default to 0.5 (neutral baseline).
+ */
+export function buildTraitsFromAnswers(answers) {
+    const traits = {
+        patience: 0.5,
+        riskTolerance: 0.5,
+        comprehension: 0.5,
+        persistence: 0.5,
+        curiosity: 0.5,
+        workingMemory: 0.5,
+        readingTendency: 0.5,
+        resilience: 0.5,
+        selfEfficacy: 0.5,
+        satisficing: 0.5,
+        trustCalibration: 0.5,
+        interruptRecovery: 0.5,
+        informationForaging: 0.5,
+        changeBlindness: 0.3,
+        anchoringBias: 0.5,
+        timeHorizon: 0.5,
+        attributionStyle: 0.5,
+        metacognitivePlanning: 0.5,
+        proceduralFluency: 0.5,
+        transferLearning: 0.5,
+        authoritySensitivity: 0.5,
+        emotionalContagion: 0.5,
+        fearOfMissingOut: 0.5,
+        socialProofSensitivity: 0.5,
+        mentalModelRigidity: 0.5,
+    };
+    // Apply answers
+    for (const [trait, value] of Object.entries(answers)) {
+        if (trait in traits) {
+            traits[trait] = value;
+        }
+    }
+    // Apply trait correlations (research-based)
+    applyTraitCorrelations(traits);
+    return traits;
+}
+/**
+ * Apply research-based correlations between traits.
+ * When one trait is set, related traits should adjust unless explicitly set.
+ */
+function applyTraitCorrelations(traits) {
+    // If patience is low, resilience tends to be low (r = 0.4)
+    if (traits.patience < 0.3 && traits.resilience === 0.5) {
+        traits.resilience = 0.3;
+    }
+    // High comprehension correlates with transfer learning (r = 0.6)
+    if (traits.comprehension > 0.7 && traits.transferLearning === 0.5) {
+        traits.transferLearning = traits.comprehension * 0.8;
+    }
+    // Low self-efficacy correlates with internal attribution (r = 0.5)
+    if (traits.selfEfficacy !== undefined && traits.selfEfficacy < 0.3 && traits.attributionStyle === 0.5) {
+        traits.attributionStyle = 0.7; // Blame self more
+    }
+    // High curiosity correlates with FOMO (r = 0.3)
+    if (traits.curiosity > 0.7 && traits.fearOfMissingOut === 0.5) {
+        traits.fearOfMissingOut = 0.6;
+    }
+    // Low working memory correlates with poor procedural fluency (r = 0.7)
+    if (traits.workingMemory < 0.3 && traits.proceduralFluency === 0.5) {
+        traits.proceduralFluency = traits.workingMemory * 1.2;
+    }
+    // High trust correlates with authority sensitivity (r = 0.4)
+    if (traits.trustCalibration !== undefined && traits.trustCalibration > 0.7 && traits.authoritySensitivity === 0.5) {
+        traits.authoritySensitivity = 0.7;
+    }
+}
+// ============================================================================
+// Trait Lookup Utilities
+// ============================================================================
+/**
+ * Get behavioral description for a specific trait value.
+ */
+export function getTraitBehaviors(trait, value) {
+    const traitRef = TRAIT_REFERENCE_MATRIX.find(t => t.name === trait);
+    if (!traitRef)
+        return [];
+    // Find the closest level
+    const level = traitRef.levels.reduce((prev, curr) => Math.abs(curr.value - value) < Math.abs(prev.value - value) ? curr : prev);
+    return level.behaviors;
+}
+/**
+ * Get the label for a specific trait value.
+ */
+export function getTraitLabel(trait, value) {
+    const traitRef = TRAIT_REFERENCE_MATRIX.find(t => t.name === trait);
+    if (!traitRef)
+        return "Unknown";
+    const level = traitRef.levels.reduce((prev, curr) => Math.abs(curr.value - value) < Math.abs(prev.value - value) ? curr : prev);
+    return level.label;
+}
+/**
+ * Get full trait reference information.
+ */
+export function getTraitReference(trait) {
+    return TRAIT_REFERENCE_MATRIX.find(t => t.name === trait);
+}
+/**
+ * Export questionnaire as AskUserQuestion format for Claude sessions.
+ */
+export function formatForAskUserQuestion(questions) {
+    return questions.map(q => ({
+        question: q.question,
+        header: q.trait.slice(0, 12), // Max 12 chars for header
+        options: q.options.map(o => ({
+            label: o.label,
+            description: o.description,
+        })),
+        multiSelect: false,
+    }));
+}
+//# sourceMappingURL=persona-questionnaire.js.map