cbrowser 18.62.0 → 18.63.1

package/docs/traits/Trait-Resilience.md

@@ -1,162 +0,0 @@
-> **This documentation is no longer maintained here.**
->
-> For the latest version, please visit: **[Resilience](https://cbrowser.ai/docs/Trait-Resilience)**
-
----
-
-# Resilience
-
-**Category**: Tier 2 - Emotional Traits
-**Scale**: 0.0 (low) to 1.0 (high)
-
-## Definition
-
-Resilience measures the ability to recover emotionally and cognitively from setbacks, errors, and frustrating experiences during web interactions. Users with high resilience quickly bounce back from failed form submissions, confusing error messages, or dead-end navigation paths. Low-resilience users accumulate frustration that degrades their performance and increases abandonment likelihood. In web contexts, resilience determines how many errors a user can tolerate before giving up, how quickly they recover confidence after a mistake, and whether they interpret failures as temporary obstacles or permanent barriers.
-
-## Research Foundation
-
-### Primary Citation
-> "The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) was created to assess the ability to bounce back or recover from stress. [...] The BRS demonstrated good internal consistency across four diverse samples (Cronbach's alpha = 0.80-0.91, mean = 0.83)."
-> -- Smith, B.W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Steger, M.F., & Tooley, E., 2008, p. 194-195
-
-**Full Citation (APA 7):**
-Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Steger, M. F., & Tooley, E. M. (2008). The Brief Resilience Scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back. *International Journal of Behavioral Medicine*, 15(3), 194-200.
-
-**DOI**: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327558ijbm1501_10
-
-### Supporting Research
-
-> "Resilient individuals show faster physiological recovery from negative emotional arousal, returning to baseline cardiovascular levels approximately 50% faster than less resilient individuals."
-> -- Tugade, M.M., & Fredrickson, B.L., 2004, p. 327
-
-**Full Citation (APA 7):**
-Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient individuals use positive emotions to bounce back from negative emotional experiences. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, 86(2), 320-333.
-
-**DOI**: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.320
-
-### Key Numerical Values
-
-| Metric | Value | Source |
-|--------|-------|--------|
-| Internal consistency (alpha) | 0.80-0.91, mean 0.83 | Smith et al. (2008) |
-| Test-retest reliability | 0.69 (1 month), 0.62 (3 months) | Smith et al. (2008) |
-| Recovery speed ratio (high vs low) | 1.5x-2.0x faster | Tugade & Fredrickson (2004) |
-| Negative emotion decay rate | 50% faster in resilient | Tugade & Fredrickson (2004) |
-| Frustration accumulation threshold | 3-5 errors (low), 8-12 errors (high) | Derived from BRS norms |
-
-## Behavioral Levels
-
-| Value | Label | Behaviors |
-|-------|-------|-----------|
-| 0.0-0.2 | Very Low | Abandons after 1-2 errors; frustration lingers across sessions; interprets errors as personal failure; avoids complex tasks after setbacks; frustration decays only 5-10% per success; may refuse to retry failed actions; clicks back button immediately after any error |
-| 0.2-0.4 | Low | Abandons after 3-4 errors; takes 5+ successful actions to recover emotionally; requires "easy wins" to rebuild confidence; may restart entire task after error; frustration decays 10-15% per success; avoids paths where previous errors occurred; seeks simpler alternatives after failures |
-| 0.4-0.6 | Moderate | Abandons after 5-6 errors; recovers within 2-3 successful actions; willing to retry failed actions once; frustration decays 20% per success; can separate isolated errors from overall task progress; may try alternative approaches before abandoning; normal emotional reset between sessions |
-| 0.6-0.8 | High | Tolerates 7-10 errors before abandonment; rapid emotional recovery (1-2 actions); views errors as temporary and solvable; frustration decays 25-30% per success; actively explores alternative solutions; maintains positive outlook during complex multi-step tasks; uses errors as learning opportunities |
-| 0.8-1.0 | Very High | Tolerates 10+ errors with minimal frustration impact; frustration decays 30%+ per success; treats errors as normal part of process; maintains goal focus despite repeated setbacks; quickly adapts strategy without emotional disruption; may enjoy challenging interfaces as puzzles; near-instant emotional recovery |
-
-## Trait Implementation in CBrowser
-
-### Frustration Decay Formula
-
-CBrowser models resilience through differential frustration decay rates:
-
-```typescript
-// Frustration decay after successful action
-const decayRate = 0.10 + (resilience * 0.25);  // 10% to 35%
-newFrustration = currentFrustration * (1 - decayRate);
-
-// Frustration accumulation on error
-const accumulationRate = 0.15 - (resilience * 0.10);  // 5% to 15%
-newFrustration = Math.min(1.0, currentFrustration + accumulationRate);
-```
-
-### Abandonment Threshold Adjustment
-
-```typescript
-// Base abandonment threshold modified by resilience
-const baseFrustrationThreshold = 0.85;
-const adjustedThreshold = baseFrustrationThreshold + (resilience * 0.10);
-// Low resilience: abandons at 0.85 frustration
-// High resilience: tolerates up to 0.95 frustration
-```
-
-### Error Tolerance Count
-
-```typescript
-// Number of consecutive errors tolerated
-const errorTolerance = Math.floor(2 + (resilience * 10));
-// Low resilience: 2-4 errors
-// High resilience: 10-12 errors
-```
-
-## Estimated Trait Correlations
-
-> *Correlation estimates are derived from related research findings and theoretical models. Empirical calibration is planned ([GitHub #95](https://github.com/alexandriashai/cbrowser/issues/95)).*
-
-Research and theoretical models indicate the following correlations:
-
-| Related Trait | Correlation | Research Basis |
-|--------------|-------------|----------------|
-| Self-Efficacy | r = 0.56 | Bandura's protective factors research; both buffer against failure impact |
-| Persistence | r = 0.52 | Duckworth's grit research; resilience sustains effort through setbacks |
-| Patience | r = 0.38 | Both involve tolerance of suboptimal conditions |
-| Working Memory | r = 0.22 | Lower correlation; resilience operates more on emotional than cognitive level |
-| Risk Tolerance | r = 0.31 | Resilient users more willing to try risky actions knowing they can recover |
-
-### Interaction Effects
-
-- **Resilience x Self-Efficacy**: Combined high values create "invulnerable" users who persist through almost any challenge
-- **Resilience x Low Patience**: Creates users who recover quickly but still abandon due to time pressure (not frustration)
-- **Resilience x Low Comprehension**: Resilient users may repeatedly attempt wrong solutions without frustration, creating unproductive persistence
-
-## Persona Values
-
-| Persona | Resilience Value | Rationale |
-|---------|-----------------|-----------|
-| power-user | 0.75 | Experienced users expect and recover from errors quickly |
-| first-timer | 0.40 | New users frustrated by errors, haven't built coping strategies |
-| elderly-user | 0.55 | Patience compensates; willing to try again but may need encouragement |
-| impatient-user | 0.30 | Low frustration tolerance drives quick abandonment |
-| mobile-user | 0.50 | Moderate; accustomed to occasional tap errors |
-| screen-reader-user | 0.65 | Accustomed to accessibility issues; developed coping mechanisms |
-| anxious-user | 0.25 | Anxiety amplifies setback impact; slow emotional recovery |
-| skeptical-user | 0.45 | Setbacks confirm suspicions but don't cause extreme frustration |
-
-## UX Design Implications
-
-### For Low Resilience Users (< 0.4)
-
-1. **Progressive disclosure**: Limit choices to reduce error opportunities
-2. **Forgiving inputs**: Auto-correct minor errors, suggest corrections
-3. **Immediate positive feedback**: Celebrate small wins to accelerate recovery
-4. **Clear error attribution**: Explain that errors are system issues, not user failures
-5. **Easy restart points**: Provide clear "start over" options without losing all progress
-
-### For High Resilience Users (> 0.7)
-
-1. **Challenge tolerance**: Can present complex flows without excessive hand-holding
-2. **Error details**: Provide technical error information for self-diagnosis
-3. **Exploration support**: Allow trial-and-error discovery without frustration accumulation
-4. **Advanced features**: Surface power-user capabilities that may have learning curves
-
-## See Also
-
-- [Trait-SelfEfficacy](./Trait-SelfEfficacy.md) - Belief in problem-solving ability (strongly correlated)
-- [Trait-Persistence](./Trait-Persistence.md) - Tendency to continue trying (behavioral manifestation)
-- [Trait-Patience](./Trait-Patience.md) - Time-based tolerance (distinct but related construct)
-- [Trait-InterruptRecovery](./Trait-InterruptRecovery.md) - Recovery from external disruptions
-- [Trait-Index](./Trait-Index.md) - Complete trait listing
-
-## Bibliography
-
-Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. *American Psychologist*, 56(3), 218-226. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218
-
-Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. *Child Development*, 71(3), 543-562. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00164
-
-Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. *American Psychologist*, 56(3), 227-238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.227
-
-Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Steger, M. F., & Tooley, E. M. (2008). The Brief Resilience Scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back. *International Journal of Behavioral Medicine*, 15(3), 194-200. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327558ijbm1501_10
-
-Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient individuals use positive emotions to bounce back from negative emotional experiences. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, 86(2), 320-333. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.320
-
-Windle, G., Bennett, K. M., & Noyes, J. (2011). A methodological review of resilience measurement scales. *Health and Quality of Life Outcomes*, 9(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-9-8

package/docs/traits/Trait-RiskTolerance.md

@@ -1,162 +0,0 @@
-> **This documentation is no longer maintained here.**
->
-> For the latest version, please visit: **[Risk Tolerance](https://cbrowser.ai/docs/Trait-RiskTolerance)**
-
----
-
-# Risk Tolerance
-
-**Category**: Tier 1 - Core Traits
-**Scale**: 0.0 (very risk-averse) to 1.0 (very risk-seeking)
-
-## Definition
-
-Risk tolerance represents a user's willingness to engage in uncertain or potentially negative outcomes during web interactions. This trait governs how users approach unfamiliar websites, whether they click on unknown links, how readily they enter personal information, and their willingness to try new features. Users with low risk tolerance require extensive reassurance and social proof before taking action, while high risk tolerance users readily explore, experiment, and commit to actions with less information.
-
-## Research Foundation
-
-### Primary Citation
-
-> "Losses loom larger than gains. The pain of losing is psychologically about twice as powerful as the pleasure of gaining... people are more willing to take risks to avoid a loss than to make a gain."
-> - Kahneman & Tversky, 1979, p. 279
-
-**Full Citation (APA 7):**
-Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. *Econometrica*, 47(2), 263-291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
-
-**DOI**: https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
-
-### Supporting Research
-
-> "The fourfold pattern of risk attitudes: risk aversion for gains and risk seeking for losses of high probability; risk seeking for gains and risk aversion for losses of low probability."
-> - Tversky & Kahneman, 1992, p. 312
-
-**Full Citation (APA 7):**
-Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. *Journal of Risk and Uncertainty*, 5(4), 297-323. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00122574
-
-### Key Numerical Values
-
-| Metric | Value | Source |
-|--------|-------|--------|
-| Loss aversion ratio | 2:1 (losses weighted 2x gains) | Kahneman & Tversky (1979) |
-| Certainty effect magnitude | 0.79 weighting for 80% probability | Kahneman & Tversky (1979) |
-| Risk premium for uncertainty | 15-30% of expected value | Tversky & Kahneman (1992) |
-| Form abandonment (trust concerns) | 17% of cart abandonments | Baymard Institute (2023) |
-| Conversion lift from trust badges | 32% average | ConversionXL (2019) |
-| Secure checkout preference | 61% cite security as factor | Statista (2022) |
-
-## Behavioral Levels
-
-| Value | Label | Behaviors |
-|-------|-------|-----------|
-| 0.0-0.2 | Very Risk-Averse | Refuses to click unknown links. Never enters credit card without extensive security verification. Abandons forms asking for personal info. Only uses well-known, established websites. Reads all terms and conditions. Exits immediately if anything seems "off." Requires HTTPS, trust badges, and reviews before any purchase. |
-| 0.2-0.4 | Risk-Averse | Hesitates before providing email addresses. Checks for HTTPS before entering any data. Reads reviews before purchasing. Prefers guest checkout over account creation. Suspicious of pop-ups and overlays. Needs clear return/refund policies visible. May research company before transacting. |
-| 0.4-0.6 | Moderate | Standard caution level. Checks basic trust signals (HTTPS, known brand). Willing to enter information on reputable-looking sites. May skip reading all terms. Uses familiar payment methods. Balances convenience against security. Accepts cookies with mild hesitation. |
-| 0.6-0.8 | Risk-Tolerant | Readily explores new websites. Enters email freely for content access. Tries new payment methods. Downloads apps without extensive research. Clicks on interesting links even from unfamiliar sources. Creates accounts easily. Minimal verification before form submission. |
-| 0.8-1.0 | Very Risk-Seeking | Clicks first, thinks later. Ignores security warnings. Enters personal data casually. Experiments with unverified sites and downloads. May fall for phishing without pattern recognition. No hesitation on unfamiliar checkouts. Dismisses browser warnings. |
-
-## Estimated Trait Correlations
-
-> *Correlation estimates are derived from related research findings and theoretical models. Empirical calibration is planned ([GitHub #95](https://github.com/alexandriashai/cbrowser/issues/95)).*
-
-| Related Trait | Correlation | Mechanism |
-|---------------|-------------|-----------|
-| [Trust Calibration](../traits/Trait-TrustCalibration) | r = -0.48 | Risk-averse users have stricter trust requirements |
-| [Self-Efficacy](../traits/Trait-SelfEfficacy) | r = 0.35 | Confident users take more risks |
-| [Patience](./Trait-Patience.md) | r = -0.22 | Impatient users skip risk evaluation |
-| [Curiosity](./Trait-Curiosity.md) | r = 0.44 | Curious users accept risk to explore |
-| [FOMO](../traits/Trait-FOMO) | r = 0.38 | Fear of missing out overrides risk concerns |
-
-## Prospect Theory Application
-
-### Loss Aversion in Web Context
-
-The 2:1 loss aversion ratio means:
-- **Perceived losses** (data breach, spam, fraud) are weighted 2x more than equivalent gains
-- Users need perceived gains to be 2x the perceived risk to act
-- A $50 savings must feel twice as large as the "risk" of entering credit card info
-
-### Framing Effects
-
-Same action, different risk perception:
-- "Save 20% today" (gain frame) vs "Don't lose 20% savings" (loss frame)
-- Loss frame more effective for risk-averse users
-- Gain frame more effective for risk-tolerant users
-
-### Certainty Effect
-
-Users overweight certain outcomes:
-- "Guaranteed free shipping" > "95% probability of free shipping" even if EV higher
-- Risk-averse users especially prefer certain, smaller gains
-
-## Impact on Web Behavior
-
-### Form Submission
-
-```
-Very Risk-Averse: Abandons at email field, never enters financial info
-Risk-Averse: Needs trust signals, checks privacy policy
-Moderate: Standard conversion with basic trust signals
-Risk-Tolerant: Completes most forms readily
-Very Risk-Seeking: Submits any form without hesitation
-```
-
-### Link Clicking
-
-- **Low risk tolerance**: Only clicks clearly labeled, contextual links
-- **High risk tolerance**: Clicks promotional links, external links, unfamiliar CTAs
-
-### Account Creation
-
-- **Low risk tolerance**: Prefers guest checkout, temporary emails, minimal data
-- **High risk tolerance**: Full registration, connected accounts, shared data
-
-## Persona Values
-
-| Persona | Risk Tolerance Value | Rationale |
-|---------|----------------------|-----------|
-| [Anxious First-Timer](../personas/Persona-AnxiousFirstTimer) | 0.2 | High uncertainty amplifies risk perception |
-| [Methodical Senior](../personas/Persona-MethodicalSenior) | 0.3 | Cautious, has experienced scams |
-| [Distracted Parent](../personas/Persona-DistractedParent) | 0.35 | Protective instinct, limited verification time |
-| [Rushed Professional](../personas/Persona-RushedProfessional) | 0.55 | Trades security for speed on familiar sites |
-| [Tech-Savvy Explorer](../personas/Persona-TechSavvyExplorer) | 0.75 | Confident in detecting risks, explores freely |
-| [Impulsive Shopper](../personas/Persona-ImpulsiveShopper) | 0.8 | Emotion overrides risk calculation |
-
-## UX Design Implications
-
-### For Low-Risk-Tolerance Users
-
-- Display trust badges prominently (SSL, BBB, payment logos)
-- Show security messaging near form fields
-- Include testimonials and review counts
-- Explain why information is needed
-- Offer guest checkout options
-- Display clear refund/return policies
-- Use familiar brand associations
-
-### For High-Risk-Tolerance Users
-
-- Can use more aggressive CTAs
-- Less need for trust signals (though still beneficial)
-- Can experiment with novel interaction patterns
-- May respond to urgency/scarcity tactics
-
-## See Also
-
-- [Trait Index](./Trait-Index.md) - All cognitive traits
-- [Trust Calibration](../traits/Trait-TrustCalibration) - Related credibility trait
-- [Satisficing](../traits/Trait-Satisficing) - Decision-making under uncertainty
-- [Persona Index](../personas/Persona-Index.md) - Pre-configured personas
-
-## Bibliography
-
-Baymard Institute. (2023). 49 cart abandonment rate statistics 2023. https://baymard.com/lists/cart-abandonment-rate
-
-ConversionXL. (2019). Trust seals and badges: Do they help conversions? https://cxl.com/blog/trust-seals/
-
-Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. *Econometrica*, 47(2), 263-291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
-
-Statista. (2022). Reasons for shopping cart abandonment during checkout worldwide. https://www.statista.com/statistics/379508/primary-reason-for-digital-shoppers-to-abandon-carts/
-
-Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. *Science*, 185(4157), 1124-1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
-
-Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. *Journal of Risk and Uncertainty*, 5(4), 297-323. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00122574

package/docs/traits/Trait-Satisficing.md

@@ -1,181 +0,0 @@
-> **This documentation is no longer maintained here.**
->
-> For the latest version, please visit: **[Satisficing](https://cbrowser.ai/docs/Trait-Satisficing)**
-
----
-
-# Satisficing
-
-**Category**: Tier 3 - Decision-Making Traits
-**Scale**: 0.0 (maximizing) to 1.0 (satisficing)
-
-## Definition
-
-Satisficing describes a decision-making strategy where users accept the first option that meets a minimum threshold of acceptability rather than exhaustively evaluating all alternatives to find the optimal choice. Coined by Herbert Simon as part of his bounded rationality framework, this trait profoundly affects web behavior: high satisficers click the first search result that seems relevant, select the initial product matching basic criteria, and complete forms with "good enough" information. Low satisficers (maximizers) compare every option, read all reviews, and often experience decision paralysis or post-decision regret when they cannot be certain they made the optimal choice.
-
-## Research Foundation
-
-### Primary Citation
-
-> "Because of the limits of human ability to process information, people must use approximate methods to handle most tasks. These methods are called heuristics. A decision maker who chooses the best available alternative according to some criterion is said to optimize; one who chooses an alternative that meets or exceeds specified criteria, but that is not guaranteed to be either unique or in any sense the best, is said to satisfice."
-> — Herbert A. Simon, 1956, p. 129
-
-**Full Citation (APA 7):**
-Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. *Psychological Review, 63*(2), 129-138.
-
-**DOI**: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042769
-
-### Supporting Research
-
-> "Maximizers reported significantly less satisfaction with consumer decisions than satisficers... and were more likely to engage in social comparison, regret, and depression."
-> — Schwartz et al., 2002, p. 1189
-
-**Full Citation (APA 7):**
-Schwartz, B., Ward, A., Monterosso, J., Lyubomirsky, S., White, K., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Maximizing versus satisficing: Happiness is a matter of choice. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83*(5), 1178-1197.
-
-**DOI**: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1178
-
-### Key Numerical Values
-
-| Metric | Value | Source |
-|--------|-------|--------|
-| Satisficers report higher life satisfaction | r = 0.34 | Schwartz et al. (2002) |
-| Maximizers report more regret | r = 0.47 | Schwartz et al. (2002) |
-| Maximizers score higher on depression scales | r = 0.35 | Schwartz et al. (2002) |
-| Search result clicks concentrated on first 3 results | 68% | Nielsen Norman Group (2006) |
-| Time increase for maximizing vs satisficing decisions | 2.3x | Iyengar & Lepper (2000) |
-| Choice overload threshold | 6-24 options | Iyengar & Lepper (2000) |
-
-## Behavioral Levels
-
-| Value | Label | Behaviors |
-|-------|-------|-----------|
-| 0.0-0.2 | Extreme Maximizer | Opens every search result in tabs; compares all product options in spreadsheets; reads all reviews before purchasing; frequently abandons decisions due to inability to choose; experiences strong post-decision regret; uses comparison tools obsessively |
-| 0.2-0.4 | Moderate Maximizer | Evaluates 5-10 options before deciding; scrolls through multiple search pages; reads several reviews per product; uses filters extensively; sometimes backtracks to reconsider rejected options; takes 3-5x longer than average on e-commerce decisions |
-| 0.4-0.6 | Balanced | Considers 3-5 options typically; reads a few top reviews; uses basic filters; satisfied with "good" rather than "best"; moderate use of comparison features; occasional regret but moves on quickly |
-| 0.6-0.8 | Moderate Satisficer | Clicks first plausible search result; selects from top 2-3 options only; reads 1-2 reviews if any; quick form completion with minimal verification; rarely uses comparison tools; low post-decision regret |
-| 0.8-1.0 | Extreme Satisficer | Clicks first search result immediately; selects default or featured options; skips reviews entirely; completes forms with minimal information; uses "I'm feeling lucky" type features; zero post-decision rumination |
-
-## Web Behavior Patterns
-
-### Search Behavior
-
-**Maximizers (0.0-0.3):**
-- Open 10+ tabs from search results
-- Refine search queries 5+ times
-- Use advanced search operators
-- Visit page 2+ of search results
-- Cross-reference multiple search engines
-
-**Satisficers (0.7-1.0):**
-- Click first relevant result
-- Rarely modify initial query
-- Never visit page 2
-- Trust featured snippets
-- Single-engine reliance
-
-### E-commerce Behavior
-
-**Maximizers:**
-- Use price comparison extensions
-- Track price history
-- Read negative reviews specifically
-- Sort by multiple criteria
-- Experience cart abandonment from indecision
-
-**Satisficers:**
-- Buy featured/recommended products
-- Accept default shipping options
-- Minimal review reading
-- Quick checkout completion
-- Higher impulse purchase rate
-
-### Form Completion
-
-**Maximizers:**
-- Double-check all fields
-- Research required information
-- Prefer precise over approximate values
-- May abandon if uncertain about "best" answer
-
-**Satisficers:**
-- First valid value entered
-- Skip optional fields
-- Round numbers ("about 30" not "32")
-- Quick completion even if imprecise
-
-## Estimated Trait Correlations
-
-> *Correlation estimates are derived from related research findings and theoretical models. Empirical calibration is planned ([GitHub #95](https://github.com/alexandriashai/cbrowser/issues/95)).*
-
-| Related Trait | Correlation | Mechanism |
-|--------------|-------------|-----------|
-| [Patience](./Trait-Patience.md) | r = -0.38 | Satisficers make faster decisions, reducing patience demands |
-| [Working Memory](./Trait-WorkingMemory.md) | r = 0.21 | Maximizing requires holding multiple options in memory |
-| [Risk Tolerance](./Trait-RiskTolerance.md) | r = 0.25 | Satisficing accepts "good enough" risk of non-optimal choice |
-| [Information Foraging](./Trait-InformationForaging.md) | r = -0.44 | Maximizers forage longer for complete information |
-| [Time Horizon](./Trait-TimeHorizon.md) | r = -0.19 | Maximizers invest present time for future optimal outcomes |
-
-## Persona Values
-
-| Persona | Satisficing Value | Rationale |
-|---------|-------------------|-----------|
-| **Rushed Professional** | 0.85 | Time pressure forces satisficing |
-| **Distracted Teen** | 0.75 | Low investment in optimal outcomes |
-| **Careful Senior** | 0.25 | Methodical comparison seeking |
-| **Tech Enthusiast** | 0.30 | Researches extensively before adopting |
-| **Overwhelmed Parent** | 0.70 | Cognitive load forces "good enough" |
-| **First-Time User** | 0.55 | Moderate - wants results but uncertain |
-| **Power User** | 0.40 | Knows optimal paths but values efficiency |
-| **Anxious User** | 0.20 | Fear of wrong choice drives maximizing |
-| **Elderly Novice** | 0.30 | Careful, methodical approach |
-
-## Design Implications
-
-### For Satisficers (high values)
-- Feature prominent default/recommended options
-- Place best options first in lists
-- Minimize choice complexity
-- Clear "quick path" through interfaces
-- Reduce confirmation dialogs
-
-### For Maximizers (low values)
-- Provide comparison tools
-- Enable sorting by multiple criteria
-- Show detailed specifications
-- Include comprehensive reviews
-- Allow saving/returning to decisions
-
-## Measurement in CBrowser
-
-```typescript
-// Satisficing affects search result selection
-if (traits.satisficing > 0.7) {
-  // Click first relevant result
-  return selectResult(results[0]);
-} else {
-  // Open multiple results for comparison
-  const toCompare = results.slice(0, Math.ceil((1 - traits.satisficing) * 10));
-  return openForComparison(toCompare);
-}
-```
-
-## See Also
-
-- [Information Foraging](./Trait-InformationForaging.md) - How users hunt for information
-- [Anchoring Bias](./Trait-AnchoringBias.md) - How first information affects decisions
-- [Risk Tolerance](./Trait-RiskTolerance.md) - Willingness to accept uncertainty
-- [Working Memory](./Trait-WorkingMemory.md) - Capacity for option comparison
-- [Persona Index](../personas/Persona-Index.md) - Trait combinations in personas
-
-## Bibliography
-
-Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79*(6), 995-1006. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.995
-
-Nielsen, J. (2006). F-shaped pattern for reading web content. *Nielsen Norman Group*. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/f-shaped-pattern-reading-web-content/
-
-Schwartz, B., Ward, A., Monterosso, J., Lyubomirsky, S., White, K., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Maximizing versus satisficing: Happiness is a matter of choice. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83*(5), 1178-1197. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1178
-
-Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. *Psychological Review, 63*(2), 129-138. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042769
-
-Simon, H. A. (1990). Invariants of human behavior. *Annual Review of Psychology, 41*(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.000245