cbrowser 16.7.1 → 16.7.2

package/docs/traits/Trait-Index.md

@@ -0,0 +1,158 @@
+# Cognitive Traits Index
+
+> **Copyright**: (c) 2026 WF Media (Alexandria Eden). All rights reserved.
+>
+> **License**: [Business Source License 1.1](https://github.com/alexandriashai/cbrowser/blob/main/LICENSE) - Converts to Apache 2.0 on February 5, 2030.
+>
+> **Contact**: alexandria.shai.eden@gmail.com
+
+CBrowser's cognitive simulation system is built on 25 research-backed psychological traits organized into 6 tiers. Each trait represents a measurable dimension of human cognition that affects how users interact with web interfaces.
+
+## Trait Tiers Overview
+
+| Tier | Category | Traits | Description |
+|------|----------|--------|-------------|
+| 1 | [Core Traits](#tier-1-core-traits) | 7 | Fundamental cognitive capacities |
+| 2 | [Emotional Traits](#tier-2-emotional-traits) | 4 | Affective and motivational factors |
+| 3 | [Decision-Making Traits](#tier-3-decision-making-traits) | 5 | Choice and judgment processes |
+| 4 | [Planning Traits](#tier-4-planning-traits) | 3 | Strategic and procedural cognition |
+| 5 | [Perception Traits](#tier-5-perception-traits) | 2 | Attention and awareness limitations |
+| 6 | [Social Traits](#tier-6-social-traits) | 4 | Social influence and comparison |
+
+---
+
+## Tier 1: Core Traits
+
+Fundamental cognitive capacities that form the foundation of user behavior.
+
+| Trait | Scale | Primary Research |
+|-------|-------|------------------|
+| [Patience](Trait-Patience) | 0.0-1.0 | Nah (2004) - 8-10 second tolerance threshold |
+| [Risk Tolerance](Trait-RiskTolerance) | 0.0-1.0 | Kahneman & Tversky (1979) - Prospect Theory |
+| [Comprehension](Trait-Comprehension) | 0.0-1.0 | Card, Moran & Newell (1983) - GOMS Model |
+| [Persistence](Trait-Persistence) | 0.0-1.0 | Duckworth et al. (2007) - Grit Scale |
+| [Curiosity](Trait-Curiosity) | 0.0-1.0 | Berlyne (1960) - Epistemic Curiosity |
+| [Working Memory](Trait-WorkingMemory) | 0.0-1.0 | Miller (1956) - 7±2 Chunks |
+| [Reading Tendency](Trait-ReadingTendency) | 0.0-1.0 | Nielsen (2006) - F-Pattern |
+
+---
+
+## Tier 2: Emotional Traits
+
+Affective factors that influence persistence, confidence, and recovery from setbacks.
+
+| Trait | Scale | Primary Research |
+|-------|-------|------------------|
+| [Resilience](Trait-Resilience) | 0.0-1.0 | Smith et al. (2008) - Brief Resilience Scale |
+| [Self-Efficacy](Trait-SelfEfficacy) | 0.0-1.0 | Bandura (1977) - Self-Efficacy Theory |
+| [Trust Calibration](Trait-TrustCalibration) | 0.0-1.0 | Fogg (2003) - Stanford Credibility |
+| [Interrupt Recovery](Trait-InterruptRecovery) | 0.0-1.0 | Mark et al. (2005) - Cost of Interruption |
+
+---
+
+## Tier 3: Decision-Making Traits
+
+How users evaluate options, make choices, and allocate cognitive resources.
+
+| Trait | Scale | Primary Research |
+|-------|-------|------------------|
+| [Satisficing](Trait-Satisficing) | 0.0-1.0 | Simon (1956) - Bounded Rationality |
+| [Information Foraging](Trait-InformationForaging) | 0.0-1.0 | Pirolli & Card (1999) - Info Foraging |
+| [Anchoring Bias](Trait-AnchoringBias) | 0.0-1.0 | Tversky & Kahneman (1974) - Anchoring |
+| [Time Horizon](Trait-TimeHorizon) | 0.0-1.0 | Laibson (1997) - Hyperbolic Discounting |
+| [Attribution Style](Trait-AttributionStyle) | 0.0-1.0 | Weiner (1985) - Attribution Theory |
+
+---
+
+## Tier 4: Planning Traits
+
+Strategic thinking, procedural knowledge, and learning transfer capabilities.
+
+| Trait | Scale | Primary Research |
+|-------|-------|------------------|
+| [Metacognitive Planning](Trait-MetacognitivePlanning) | 0.0-1.0 | Flavell (1979) - Metacognition |
+| [Procedural Fluency](Trait-ProceduralFluency) | 0.0-1.0 | Sweller (1988) - Cognitive Load |
+| [Transfer Learning](Trait-TransferLearning) | 0.0-1.0 | Thorndike (1901) - Transfer of Practice |
+
+---
+
+## Tier 5: Perception Traits
+
+Limitations in visual attention and mental model updating.
+
+| Trait | Scale | Primary Research |
+|-------|-------|------------------|
+| [Change Blindness](Trait-ChangeBlindness) | 0.0-1.0 | Simons & Chabris (1999) - Gorilla Study |
+| [Mental Model Rigidity](Trait-MentalModelRigidity) | 0.0-1.0 | Johnson-Laird (1983) - Mental Models |
+
+---
+
+## Tier 6: Social Traits
+
+How social context and comparison affect user behavior.
+
+| Trait | Scale | Primary Research |
+|-------|-------|------------------|
+| [Authority Sensitivity](Trait-AuthoritySensitivity) | 0.0-1.0 | Milgram (1963) - Obedience |
+| [Emotional Contagion](Trait-EmotionalContagion) | 0.0-1.0 | Hatfield et al. (1993) - Contagion |
+| [FOMO](Trait-FOMO) | 0.0-1.0 | Przybylski et al. (2013) - FoMO Scale |
+| [Social Proof Sensitivity](Trait-SocialProofSensitivity) | 0.0-1.0 | Goldstein, Cialdini et al. (2008) |
+
+---
+
+## Trait Correlations
+
+Traits don't exist in isolation. Research-backed correlations:
+
+| Trait Pair | Correlation | Research Basis |
+|------------|-------------|----------------|
+| Patience ↔ Persistence | r = 0.45 | Both load on conscientiousness |
+| Working Memory ↔ Comprehension | r = 0.52 | Cognitive capacity overlap |
+| Self-Efficacy ↔ Persistence | r = 0.48 | Bandura (1977) |
+| FOMO ↔ Impatience | r = -0.41 | Przybylski et al. (2013) |
+| Resilience ↔ Self-Efficacy | r = 0.56 | Protective factors research |
+
+---
+
+## Using Traits in CBrowser
+
+### Via MCP Tool
+
+```typescript
+await cognitive_journey_init({
+  persona: "custom",
+  goal: "complete checkout",
+  startUrl: "https://example.com",
+  customTraits: {
+    patience: 0.3,
+    workingMemory: 0.5,
+    riskTolerance: 0.2
+  }
+});
+```
+
+### Via CLI
+
+```bash
+npx cbrowser cognitive-journey \
+  --persona custom \
+  --trait patience=0.3 \
+  --trait workingMemory=0.5 \
+  --start https://example.com \
+  --goal "complete checkout"
+```
+
+---
+
+## See Also
+
+- [Persona Index](../personas/Persona-Index) - Pre-configured trait combinations
+- [Bibliography](../research/Bibliography) - Complete academic references
+- [Research Methodology](../research/Research-Methodology) - How traits were selected
+- [Cognitive User Simulation](../Cognitive-User-Simulation) - Main documentation
+
+---
+
+## Bibliography
+
+See [Complete Bibliography](../research/Bibliography) for all academic sources.

package/docs/traits/Trait-InformationForaging.md

@@ -0,0 +1,209 @@
+# Information Foraging
+
+**Category**: Tier 3 - Decision-Making Traits
+**Scale**: 0.0 (weak scent-following) to 1.0 (strong scent-following)
+
+## Definition
+
+Information Foraging describes how users navigate information environments by following "information scent" - cues that indicate the likelihood of finding desired content along a particular path. Adapted from optimal foraging theory in behavioral ecology, this trait models how users decide which links to click, when to stay on a page versus navigate away, and how they allocate attention across competing information sources. High foragers follow strong scent trails efficiently and abandon low-scent paths quickly; low foragers may persist on weak trails or fail to recognize strong scent cues, leading to inefficient navigation patterns.
+
+## Research Foundation
+
+### Primary Citation
+
+> "Information foraging theory is an approach to understanding how strategies and technologies for information seeking, gathering, and consumption are adapted to the flux of information in the environment... The notion of information scent is used to explain how people assess the utility or relevance of information sources, and how they select navigation paths."
+> — Pirolli & Card, 1999, p. 643
+
+**Full Citation (APA 7):**
+Pirolli, P., & Card, S. K. (1999). Information foraging. *Psychological Review, 106*(4), 643-675.
+
+**DOI**: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.106.4.643
+
+### Supporting Research
+
+> "Users follow information scent to navigate the web. When scent is strong, users are more efficient. When scent is weak or misleading, they become lost and frustrated."
+> — Chi et al., 2001, p. 498
+
+**Full Citation (APA 7):**
+Chi, E. H., Pirolli, P., Chen, K., & Pitkow, J. (2001). Using information scent to model user information needs and actions on the web. *Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*, 490-497.
+
+**DOI**: https://doi.org/10.1145/365024.365325
+
+### Key Numerical Values
+
+| Metric | Value | Source |
+|--------|-------|--------|
+| Average page dwell time before abandonment | 10-20 seconds | Nielsen (2011) |
+| Probability of following highest-scent link | 0.62 | Chi et al. (2001) |
+| Back button usage with weak scent | 39% higher | Cockburn & McKenzie (2001) |
+| Scent strength predicts task success | r = 0.71 | Pirolli & Card (1999) |
+| Users scan 20% of page for scent cues | mean fixation | Nielsen (2006) |
+| Optimal patch-leaving threshold | 2-3 failed predictions | ACT-IF model (Pirolli, 2007) |
+
+## Behavioral Levels
+
+| Value | Label | Behaviors |
+|-------|-------|-----------|
+| 0.0-0.2 | Poor Forager | Fails to recognize relevant link text; persists on irrelevant pages too long; clicks randomly when uncertain; ignores navigation breadcrumbs; exhaustive rather than selective reading; high back-button usage; frequently "lost" in sites |
+| 0.2-0.4 | Weak Forager | Sometimes follows weak scent trails; slow to recognize dead-ends; occasional relevant selections; may be misled by ambiguous labels; moderate exploration efficiency; needs redundant cues |
+| 0.4-0.6 | Moderate Forager | Adequate scent detection in clear environments; recognizes strong cues but may miss subtle ones; reasonable patch-leaving decisions; some unnecessary exploration; effective with well-designed navigation |
+| 0.6-0.8 | Strong Forager | Quickly identifies high-scent options; efficient navigation path selection; abandons low-value pages promptly; uses multiple scent cues (text, images, position); rarely backtracks unnecessarily |
+| 0.8-1.0 | Expert Forager | Near-optimal information seeking; immediately recognizes scent patterns; predicts content accurately from cues; minimal wasted navigation; instinctively uses site architecture; very low back-button usage |
+
+## Web Behavior Patterns
+
+### Link Selection
+
+**Strong Foragers (0.7-1.0):**
+- Select links matching query terms
+- Use link position as additional cue
+- Notice snippet/preview text
+- Prefer specific over generic labels
+- Rapid confident selections
+
+**Weak Foragers (0.0-0.3):**
+- Random or sequential link selection
+- Ignore descriptive text
+- Click "Contact" when seeking products
+- Miss clearly-labeled navigation
+- Hesitant, exploratory clicking
+
+### Patch-Leaving Behavior
+
+The "patch" in foraging theory is analogous to a web page or site section:
+
+**Strong Foragers:**
+- Leave pages with weak scent within 5-10 seconds
+- Recognize when information gain has diminished
+- Move to higher-yield areas quickly
+- Efficient depth vs breadth decisions
+
+**Weak Foragers:**
+- Stay on low-yield pages 30+ seconds
+- Re-read content hoping for relevance
+- Deep navigation into wrong branches
+- Reluctant to "give up" on dead ends
+
+### Search Result Processing
+
+**Strong Foragers:**
+- Rapid snippet scanning
+- Click based on content prediction
+- Skip irrelevant domains immediately
+- Use search refinement efficiently
+
+**Weak Foragers:**
+- Sequential top-to-bottom clicking
+- Poor prediction from snippets
+- Click all results regardless of relevance
+- Rarely refine search queries
+
+## Information Scent Components
+
+| Scent Source | Description | Weight |
+|--------------|-------------|--------|
+| Link Text | Words in clickable anchor | High |
+| Surrounding Context | Text near the link | Medium |
+| Visual Design | Icons, colors, prominence | Medium |
+| Position | Navigation location, F-pattern | Medium |
+| Preview/Tooltip | Hover information | Low-Medium |
+| Domain/URL | Site credibility signals | Low |
+
+## Trait Correlations
+
+| Related Trait | Correlation | Mechanism |
+|--------------|-------------|-----------|
+| [Comprehension](Trait-Comprehension) | r = 0.48 | Understanding text enables scent detection |
+| [Reading Tendency](Trait-ReadingTendency) | r = 0.39 | Scanners may miss scent cues |
+| [Working Memory](Trait-WorkingMemory) | r = 0.31 | Holding goal enables scent evaluation |
+| [Patience](Trait-Patience) | r = 0.28 | Patient users may persist despite weak scent |
+| [Satisficing](Trait-Satisficing) | r = -0.44 | Strong foragers optimize paths |
+| [Curiosity](Trait-Curiosity) | r = 0.24 | Curious users explore adjacent scent |
+
+## Persona Values
+
+| Persona | Information Foraging Value | Rationale |
+|---------|---------------------------|-----------|
+| **Power User** | 0.90 | Expert at recognizing interface patterns |
+| **Tech Enthusiast** | 0.85 | Familiar with web conventions |
+| **Rushed Professional** | 0.75 | Efficient by necessity |
+| **First-Time User** | 0.35 | Lacks pattern recognition experience |
+| **Elderly Novice** | 0.30 | Unfamiliar with web conventions |
+| **Distracted Teen** | 0.50 | Knows patterns but attention divided |
+| **Careful Senior** | 0.45 | Methodical but may miss cues |
+| **Anxious User** | 0.40 | Anxiety impairs efficient processing |
+| **Overwhelmed Parent** | 0.55 | Experience exists but cognitive load interferes |
+
+## Design Implications
+
+### Strengthening Information Scent
+
+1. **Descriptive link text** - "View pricing plans" not "Click here"
+2. **Consistent labeling** - Same terms in navigation and content
+3. **Progressive disclosure** - Preview information on hover
+4. **Visual hierarchy** - Important links visually prominent
+5. **Breadcrumbs** - Show current location in hierarchy
+6. **Search suggestions** - Guide toward high-scent paths
+
+### Accommodating Weak Foragers
+
+1. **Redundant cues** - Multiple ways to find content
+2. **Clear error recovery** - Easy backtracking
+3. **Search prominence** - Alternative to navigation
+4. **Related links** - Suggest adjacent content
+5. **Wizard patterns** - Guided linear paths
+
+## Measurement in CBrowser
+
+```typescript
+// Information foraging affects navigation decisions
+function selectLink(availableLinks: Link[], goal: string, traits: Traits): Link {
+  const scentScores = availableLinks.map(link =>
+    calculateScent(link, goal)
+  );
+
+  if (traits.informationForaging > 0.7) {
+    // Strong forager: select highest scent
+    return availableLinks[argmax(scentScores)];
+  } else if (traits.informationForaging > 0.4) {
+    // Moderate: probabilistic selection weighted by scent
+    return weightedRandom(availableLinks, scentScores);
+  } else {
+    // Weak forager: may select randomly or sequentially
+    return random() > 0.5 ? availableLinks[0] : randomChoice(availableLinks);
+  }
+}
+
+// Patch-leaving decision
+function shouldLeavePage(timeOnPage: number, contentRelevance: number, traits: Traits): boolean {
+  const threshold = 10 + (1 - traits.informationForaging) * 20; // 10-30 seconds
+  const relevanceThreshold = 0.3 + traits.informationForaging * 0.4; // 0.3-0.7
+
+  return timeOnPage > threshold && contentRelevance < relevanceThreshold;
+}
+```
+
+## See Also
+
+- [Satisficing](Trait-Satisficing) - When "good enough" information suffices
+- [Reading Tendency](Trait-ReadingTendency) - Scanning vs reading affects scent detection
+- [Comprehension](Trait-Comprehension) - Understanding content enables evaluation
+- [Working Memory](Trait-WorkingMemory) - Holding goals while navigating
+- [Patience](Trait-Patience) - Persistence on weak-scent paths
+- [Persona Index](../personas/Persona-Index) - Trait combinations in personas
+
+## Bibliography
+
+Chi, E. H., Pirolli, P., Chen, K., & Pitkow, J. (2001). Using information scent to model user information needs and actions on the web. *Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*, 490-497. https://doi.org/10.1145/365024.365325
+
+Cockburn, A., & McKenzie, B. (2001). What do web users do? An empirical analysis of web use. *International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 54*(6), 903-922. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2001.0459
+
+Nielsen, J. (2006). F-shaped pattern for reading web content. *Nielsen Norman Group*. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/f-shaped-pattern-reading-web-content/
+
+Nielsen, J. (2011). How long do users stay on web pages? *Nielsen Norman Group*. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-long-do-users-stay-on-web-pages/
+
+Pirolli, P. (2007). *Information foraging theory: Adaptive interaction with information*. Oxford University Press.
+
+Pirolli, P., & Card, S. K. (1999). Information foraging. *Psychological Review, 106*(4), 643-675. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.106.4.643
+
+Spool, J. M., Perfetti, C., & Brittan, D. (2004). *Designing for the scent of information*. User Interface Engineering.

package/docs/traits/Trait-InterruptRecovery.md

@@ -0,0 +1,241 @@
+# Interrupt Recovery
+
+**Category**: Tier 2 - Emotional Traits
+**Scale**: 0.0 (poor recovery) to 1.0 (excellent recovery)
+
+## Definition
+
+Interrupt recovery measures a user's ability to resume tasks after interruptions, distractions, or context switches. This trait determines whether users can pick up where they left off after phone calls, notifications, browser tab switches, or system timeouts. Users with low interrupt recovery lose their mental context and must restart tasks from the beginning, often with degraded performance. Users with high interrupt recovery leverage environmental cues (breadcrumbs, form progress indicators, browser history) to seamlessly continue their work with minimal lost progress.
+
+## Research Foundation
+
+### Primary Citation
+> "We found that the average time to return to a disrupted task was 23 minutes 15 seconds. Furthermore, people did not simply resume the interrupted task; rather, they engaged in an average of 2.26 intervening activities before returning to the original task."
+> -- Mark, G., Gonzalez, V.M., & Harris, J., 2005, p. 112
+
+**Full Citation (APA 7):**
+Mark, G., Gonzalez, V. M., & Harris, J. (2005). No task left behind? Examining the nature of fragmented work. *Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*, 321-330.
+
+**DOI**: https://doi.org/10.1145/1054972.1055017
+
+### Supporting Research
+
+> "Resumption lag - the time to resume a task after an interruption - is significantly affected by the complexity of the primary task and the length of the interruption. Longer interruptions result in greater context loss and longer resumption times."
+> -- Altmann, E.M., & Trafton, J.G., 2002, p. 41
+
+**Full Citation (APA 7):**
+Altmann, E. M., & Trafton, J. G. (2002). Memory for goals: An activation-based model. *Cognitive Science*, 26(1), 39-83.
+
+**DOI**: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2601_2
+
+### Key Numerical Values
+
+| Metric | Value | Source |
+|--------|-------|--------|
+| Average task resumption time | 23 min 15 sec | Mark et al. (2005) |
+| Intervening activities before resumption | 2.26 average | Mark et al. (2005) |
+| Resumption lag (controlled lab) | 2-30 seconds | Altmann & Trafton (2002) |
+| Error rate increase post-interruption | 2x baseline | Monk et al. (2008) |
+| Context decay half-life | 15-60 seconds | Altmann & Trafton (2002) |
+| Visual cue resumption benefit | 40-60% faster recovery | Trafton et al. (2011) |
+
+### Interruption Types
+
+| Type | Description | Typical Duration |
+|------|-------------|------------------|
+| `external` | Phone call, person, notification | Seconds to hours |
+| `system` | Timeout, crash, page refresh | Instant to minutes |
+| `self_initiated` | Tab switch, new thought, distraction | Seconds to minutes |
+| `timeout` | Session expiration, idle disconnect | Instant |
+
+## Behavioral Levels
+
+| Value | Label | Behaviors |
+|-------|-------|-----------|
+| 0.0-0.2 | Very Poor | Loses all context after any interruption; must restart forms from beginning; forgets goal of task after distraction; cannot recall previous steps; re-reads entire page after tab switch; session timeout causes complete task abandonment; no use of environmental cues for recovery; takes full 23+ minutes to resume complex tasks |
+| 0.2-0.4 | Poor | Loses 40-60% of progress after interruption; struggles to remember where they were; re-enters data they previously completed; skips steps when resuming; high error rate post-interruption; may recognize environmental cues but doesn't effectively use them; resumes in wrong section of multi-step process |
+| 0.4-0.6 | Moderate | Loses 10-30% of progress after interruption; can use breadcrumbs and progress indicators to orient; may need to review recent steps; moderate resumption lag (5-15 seconds); error rate slightly elevated after interruption; benefits from "you were here" indicators |
+| 0.6-0.8 | Good | Minimal progress loss (< 10%) after interruption; quickly orients using page state, URL, form values; short resumption lag (2-5 seconds); actively seeks environmental cues; maintains mental context through moderate interruptions; can context-switch between tabs effectively |
+| 0.8-1.0 | Excellent | Near-seamless recovery from interruptions; leverages all environmental cues (breadcrumbs, history, form state); < 2 second resumption lag; mental context persists through long interruptions; can resume days later using browser history; proactively creates own resumption cues (bookmarks, notes) |
+
+## Trait Implementation in CBrowser
+
+### Context Loss Model
+
+CBrowser models context decay using exponential decay modified by trait:
+
+```typescript
+interface InterruptRecoveryState {
+  currentTaskContext: TaskContext;
+  environmentalCues: string[];      // Page elements aiding recovery
+  interruptionLog: Interruption[];  // History of interruptions
+  contextStrength: number;          // 0-1 memory of task context
+}
+
+interface Interruption {
+  type: 'external' | 'system' | 'self_initiated' | 'timeout';
+  duration: number;  // milliseconds
+  timestamp: Date;
+}
+
+// Context decay during interruption
+function calculateContextLoss(
+  interruptRecovery: number,
+  interruptionDuration: number,
+  cuesAvailable: number
+): number {
+  const halfLife = 15000 + (interruptRecovery * 45000);  // 15-60 sec half-life
+  const decayRate = Math.LN2 / halfLife;
+  const baseLoss = 1 - Math.exp(-decayRate * interruptionDuration);
+
+  // Environmental cues reduce loss
+  const cueRecovery = Math.min(0.6, cuesAvailable * 0.1);
+
+  return Math.max(0, baseLoss - cueRecovery);
+}
+```
+
+### Resumption Lag
+
+```typescript
+// Time to resume after interruption
+function getResumptionLag(
+  interruptRecovery: number,
+  contextLoss: number,
+  taskComplexity: number
+): number {
+  const baseLag = 2000;  // 2 seconds minimum
+  const complexityMultiplier = 1 + (taskComplexity * 2);  // 1x to 3x
+  const recoveryFactor = 1 + ((1 - interruptRecovery) * 10);  // 1x to 11x
+  const contextFactor = 1 + (contextLoss * 5);  // 1x to 6x
+
+  return baseLag * complexityMultiplier * recoveryFactor * contextFactor;
+  // Range: 2 seconds to several minutes
+}
+```
+
+### Environmental Cue Detection
+
+```typescript
+// Cues that help users recover context
+const environmentalCues = {
+  breadcrumbs: 0.15,        // "Home > Products > Category"
+  progressIndicator: 0.20,  // "Step 2 of 4"
+  formValues: 0.15,         // Previously entered data visible
+  pageTitle: 0.10,          // Descriptive title
+  recentHistory: 0.15,      // Browser back button history
+  urlPath: 0.10,            // Meaningful URL structure
+  visualPosition: 0.08,     // Scroll position preserved
+  notifications: 0.07       // "You have unsaved changes"
+};
+
+function calculateCueStrength(page: Page): number {
+  return Object.entries(environmentalCues)
+    .filter(([cue]) => page.hasCue(cue))
+    .reduce((sum, [, value]) => sum + value, 0);
+}
+```
+
+### Behavior Post-Interruption
+
+```typescript
+// How user behaves when resuming
+function getResumptionBehavior(
+  interruptRecovery: number,
+  contextLoss: number
+): 'continue' | 'review' | 'restart' {
+  const effectiveRecovery = interruptRecovery * (1 - contextLoss);
+
+  if (effectiveRecovery > 0.6) return 'continue';  // Pick up where left off
+  if (effectiveRecovery > 0.3) return 'review';    // Review recent steps, then continue
+  return 'restart';  // Begin task from start
+}
+```
+
+## Trait Correlations
+
+Research and theoretical models indicate the following correlations:
+
+| Related Trait | Correlation | Research Basis |
+|--------------|-------------|----------------|
+| Working Memory | r = 0.55 | Context maintenance is memory-dependent |
+| Comprehension | r = 0.38 | Understanding structure aids reorientation |
+| Persistence | r = 0.32 | Persistent users try harder to resume |
+| Patience | r = 0.28 | Recovery takes time; patient users invest it |
+| Reading Tendency | r = 0.25 | Readers use text cues for recovery |
+
+### Interaction Effects
+
+- **Interrupt Recovery x Working Memory**: Combined high values create maximally context-resilient users
+- **Interrupt Recovery x Low Patience**: Users may have recovery ability but not time patience to use it
+- **Interrupt Recovery x Comprehension**: High recovery + low comprehension = can find their place but may not understand current step
+
+## Persona Values
+
+| Persona | Interrupt Recovery Value | Rationale |
+|---------|--------------------------|-----------|
+| power-user | 0.75 | Skilled at context-switching; uses environmental cues effectively |
+| first-timer | 0.35 | Lacks schema for interpreting recovery cues |
+| elderly-user | 0.40 | Working memory challenges impede context retention |
+| impatient-user | 0.45 | May have ability but doesn't invest effort to recover |
+| mobile-user | 0.50 | Moderate; mobile users frequently interrupted |
+| screen-reader-user | 0.55 | Developed coping strategies for non-visual navigation |
+| anxious-user | 0.35 | Anxiety impairs working memory and recovery |
+| multi-tasker | 0.70 | Practiced at context-switching |
+
+## UX Design Implications
+
+### For Low Interrupt Recovery Users (< 0.4)
+
+1. **Auto-save everything**: Persist form data frequently and automatically
+2. **Session persistence**: Don't timeout sessions aggressively
+3. **"Welcome back" states**: Detect returning users and restore context
+4. **Prominent progress indicators**: Make "where you are" unmissable
+5. **Breadcrumb navigation**: Clear path back to current location
+6. **Unsaved changes warnings**: Prevent accidental navigation away
+7. **Email/save progress links**: Allow explicit progress saving
+
+### For High Interrupt Recovery Users (> 0.7)
+
+1. **Minimal recovery friction**: Don't force re-authentication unnecessarily
+2. **Smart defaults**: Pre-fill likely values based on previous session
+3. **Quick resume options**: "Continue where you left off" buttons
+4. **Tab state preservation**: Maintain state across browser sessions
+5. **History navigation**: Support effective use of back button
+
+### Environmental Cue Best Practices
+
+| Cue Type | Implementation | Recovery Benefit |
+|----------|----------------|------------------|
+| Progress indicators | Step X of Y, progress bars | 20% faster recovery |
+| Breadcrumbs | Clickable path hierarchy | 15% faster recovery |
+| Form persistence | Save partial form data | 40-60% less re-entry |
+| Descriptive titles | Page-specific, goal-oriented | 10% faster orientation |
+| Scroll restoration | Return to scroll position | Immediate context recovery |
+| Visual state | Expand/collapse states preserved | Reduces re-navigation |
+
+## See Also
+
+- [Trait-WorkingMemory](Trait-WorkingMemory) - Memory capacity (strongly related)
+- [Trait-Resilience](Trait-Resilience) - Emotional recovery from setbacks (different type of recovery)
+- [Trait-Patience](Trait-Patience) - Time tolerance for recovery process
+- [Trait-Persistence](Trait-Persistence) - Motivation to resume rather than abandon
+- [Trait-Index](Trait-Index) - Complete trait listing
+
+## Bibliography
+
+Adamczyk, P. D., & Bailey, B. P. (2004). If not now, when? The effects of interruption at different moments within task execution. *Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*, 271-278. https://doi.org/10.1145/985692.985727
+
+Altmann, E. M., & Trafton, J. G. (2002). Memory for goals: An activation-based model. *Cognitive Science*, 26(1), 39-83. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2601_2
+
+Czerwinski, M., Horvitz, E., & Wilhite, S. (2004). A diary study of task switching and interruptions. *Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*, 175-182. https://doi.org/10.1145/985692.985715
+
+Iqbal, S. T., & Horvitz, E. (2007). Disruption and recovery of computing tasks: Field study, analysis, and directions. *Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*, 677-686. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240730
+
+Mark, G., Gonzalez, V. M., & Harris, J. (2005). No task left behind? Examining the nature of fragmented work. *Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*, 321-330. https://doi.org/10.1145/1054972.1055017
+
+Mark, G., Gudith, D., & Klocke, U. (2008). The cost of interrupted work: More speed and stress. *Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*, 107-110. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357072
+
+Monk, C. A., Trafton, J. G., & Boehm-Davis, D. A. (2008). The effect of interruption duration and demand on resuming suspended goals. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied*, 14(4), 299-313. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014402
+
+Trafton, J. G., Altmann, E. M., & Ratwani, R. M. (2011). A memory for goals model of sequence errors. *Cognitive Systems Research*, 12(2), 134-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2010.07.010