cbrowser 18.63.0 → 18.63.1

package/docs/traits/Trait-TransferLearning.md

@@ -1,249 +0,0 @@
-> **This documentation is no longer maintained here.**
->
-> For the latest version, please visit: **[Transfer Learning](https://cbrowser.ai/docs/Trait-TransferLearning)**
-
----
-
-# Transfer Learning
-
-**Category**: Tier 4 - Planning Traits
-**Scale**: 0.0 (low) to 1.0 (high)
-
-## Definition
-
-Transfer Learning measures a user's ability to apply knowledge, skills, and strategies learned in one context to new, different contexts. Users with high transfer learning recognize structural similarities between interfaces they have used before and novel interfaces, allowing them to leverage past experience even when surface features differ. They can generalize from "I know how Amazon checkout works" to "this unfamiliar e-commerce site probably works similarly." Low transfer learners treat each new interface as completely novel, unable to recognize that the skills they developed on one website apply to others, resulting in repeated re-learning of equivalent procedures.
-
-## Research Foundation
-
-### Primary Citation
-
-> "The mind is so specialized in its structure that only alterations of elements very much like the practiced elements are likely to affect the performance... transfer of practice occurs only where identical elements are concerned."
-> -- Thorndike & Woodworth, 1901, p. 250
-
-**Full Citation (APA 7):**
-Thorndike, E. L., & Woodworth, R. S. (1901). The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions. *Psychological Review*, 8(3), 247-261.
-
-**DOI**: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0074898
-
-### Supporting Research
-
-> "Transfer is not automatic. Students often fail to spontaneously apply knowledge learned in one context to new situations, even when the underlying principles are identical."
-> -- Perkins & Salomon, 1992
-
-**Full Citation (APA 7):**
-Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1992). Transfer of learning. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), *International encyclopedia of education* (2nd ed., pp. 6452-6457). Pergamon Press.
-
-### Key Numerical Values
-
-| Metric | Value | Source |
-|--------|-------|--------|
-| Spontaneous transfer rate | 10-30% | Gick & Holyoak (1980) |
-| Transfer with hints | 75-90% | Gick & Holyoak (1983) |
-| Near transfer success | 60-80% | Barnett & Ceci (2002) |
-| Far transfer success | 10-40% | Barnett & Ceci (2002) |
-| Identical elements threshold | 60-70% overlap | Thorndike & Woodworth (1901) |
-| Analogical mapping time | 2-5 seconds | Gentner (1983) |
-| Expert transfer advantage | 2-3x novices | Chi et al. (1981) |
-
-## Behavioral Levels
-
-| Value | Label | Behaviors |
-|-------|-------|-----------|
-| 0.0-0.2 | Very Low | Treats every website as completely novel; does not recognize common UI patterns across sites; re-learns login, navigation, and checkout on each new site; cannot apply previous experience; asks for help on familiar-type tasks; no generalization from examples |
-| 0.2-0.4 | Low | Recognizes only identical interfaces; slight variations cause confusion; can transfer within same website but not across sites; requires explicit instruction for each new context; occasional recognition of very common patterns (e.g., shopping cart icon) |
-| 0.4-0.6 | Moderate | Recognizes common UI patterns across similar sites; can generalize within categories (e-commerce to e-commerce); hesitates on novel combinations; transfers after brief exploration; needs some adaptation time for new patterns |
-| 0.6-0.8 | High | Quick pattern recognition across diverse sites; structural mapping enables rapid adaptation; recognizes analogous functions despite different appearances; transfers strategies effectively; minimal re-learning needed |
-| 0.8-1.0 | Very High | Instant structural recognition; applies appropriate mental models immediately; transfers across disparate domains; recognizes deep patterns beneath surface differences; can articulate transferable principles; effectively predicts how unfamiliar interfaces will behave |
-
-## Web/UI Behavioral Patterns
-
-### Cross-Site Navigation
-
-| Level | Observed Behavior |
-|-------|-------------------|
-| Very Low | Completely lost on new sites; does not look for familiar patterns; ignores navigation conventions; cannot find equivalent features |
-| Low | Eventually finds features through trial and error; does not initially look for familiar patterns; slow recognition |
-| Moderate | Looks for navigation menu in expected locations; finds equivalent features within same site category |
-| High | Immediately scans expected locations; quickly maps novel UI to familiar patterns; finds features on first or second try |
-| Very High | Instant mental model formation; predicts site structure; finds features immediately; adapts to unconventional designs |
-
-### Learning New Interfaces
-
-| Level | Observed Behavior |
-|-------|-------------------|
-| Very Low | Requires complete tutorial for each new site; cannot skip instructions; each interface is a fresh learning experience |
-| Low | Benefits from tutorials; slow to explore independently; gradual skill building within single site |
-| Moderate | Skims tutorials; explores based on prior experience; learns new patterns reasonably quickly |
-| High | Rarely needs tutorials; explores confidently; rapidly acquires new interface patterns |
-| Very High | No tutorials needed; immediately productive; teaches self new patterns through analogy |
-
-### Pattern Recognition Examples
-
-| Level | What They Recognize |
-|-------|---------------------|
-| Very Low | Only exact matches (same site, same button) |
-| Low | Same icons, same text labels across sites |
-| Moderate | Standard icons (cart, search, menu) regardless of styling |
-| High | Functional equivalents (hamburger menu = navigation), layout patterns (header/content/footer) |
-| Very High | Deep structural patterns (progressive disclosure, wizard flows, card-based layouts), design system conventions |
-
-### Cross-Domain Transfer
-
-| Level | Example Transfer Capability |
-|-------|----------------------------|
-| Very Low | Cannot transfer from web to mobile app, even for same service |
-| Low | Transfers within identical apps on different devices |
-| Moderate | Transfers between similar apps (Gmail to Outlook, Amazon to eBay) |
-| High | Transfers from consumer apps to enterprise software; recognizes patterns in unfamiliar domains |
-| Very High | Transfers abstract principles (progressive disclosure, information hierarchy) across all digital interfaces |
-
-## Transfer Distance Taxonomy
-
-Based on Barnett & Ceci (2002), transfer distance affects success rate:
-
-| Transfer Type | Distance | Success Rate | Example |
-|---------------|----------|--------------|---------|
-| Near-Near | Same site, same task | 95% | Amazon checkout today vs. yesterday |
-| Near | Same category, similar UI | 60-80% | Amazon to eBay checkout |
-| Far | Different category, similar structure | 30-50% | E-commerce checkout to airline booking |
-| Very Far | Different domain, abstract similarity | 10-30% | Web form skills to mobile app form |
-| Analogical | Structural similarity only | 10-20% | Folder organization to database organization |
-
-## 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 | Research Basis |
-|---------------|-------------|----------------|
-| [Comprehension](./Trait-Comprehension.md) | r = 0.61 | Deep comprehension enables recognition of structural similarities (Chi et al., 1981) |
-| [Procedural Fluency](./Trait-ProceduralFluency.md) | r = 0.62 | Fluent procedures are more transferable than struggling procedures (Anderson, 1982) |
-| [Metacognitive Planning](./Trait-MetacognitivePlanning.md) | r = 0.54 | Metacognition enables explicit strategy transfer (Perkins & Salomon, 1992) |
-| [Working Memory](./Trait-WorkingMemory.md) | r = 0.45 | Holding source and target representations requires working memory (Gentner, 1983) |
-| [Curiosity](./Trait-Curiosity.md) | r = 0.38 | Curious exploration facilitates pattern discovery (Berlyne, 1960) |
-
-## Persona Values
-
-| Persona | Value | Rationale |
-|---------|-------|-----------|
-| power-user | 0.85 | Extensive experience enables rich pattern library for transfer |
-| first-timer | 0.25 | Limited experience means few patterns to transfer from |
-| elderly-user | 0.40 | May have transfer from non-digital domains but limited web pattern library |
-| impatient-user | 0.50 | Average transfer ability; impatience orthogonal to transfer |
-| screen-reader-user | 0.65 | Strong mental models of accessible patterns transfer well |
-| mobile-user | 0.55 | Touch patterns transfer within mobile; may not transfer to desktop |
-| anxious-user | 0.45 | Anxiety may impair analogical reasoning under stress |
-
-## Implementation in CBrowser
-
-### State Tracking
-
-```typescript
-interface TransferLearningState {
-  knownPatterns: Map<PatternType, PatternExperience>;
-  currentSiteCategory: SiteCategory;
-  transferAttempts: TransferAttempt[];
-  successfulTransfers: number;
-  failedTransfers: number;
-  analogicalMappingActive: boolean;
-  patternLibrarySize: number;
-}
-
-interface PatternExperience {
-  patternType: PatternType;
-  exposureCount: number;
-  lastSeen: number;
-  successRate: number;
-  variants: string[];  // Different implementations encountered
-}
-
-interface TransferAttempt {
-  sourcePattern: PatternType;
-  targetContext: string;
-  success: boolean;
-  distance: 'near' | 'far' | 'very_far';
-}
-
-type SiteCategory =
-  | 'ecommerce'
-  | 'social_media'
-  | 'news'
-  | 'saas'
-  | 'government'
-  | 'banking'
-  | 'healthcare'
-  | 'education'
-  | 'entertainment'
-  | 'unknown';
-```
-
-### Behavioral Modifiers
-
-- **Pattern recognition time**: High transfer instantly recognizes patterns; low transfer requires full exploration
-- **Cross-site confidence**: High transfer maintains confidence on new sites; low transfer shows hesitation
-- **Error recovery**: High transfer applies learned recovery strategies; low transfer repeats same errors
-- **Learning speed**: High transfer learns new site patterns in 1-2 interactions; low transfer requires 5-10
-- **Prediction accuracy**: High transfer predicts where features will be; low transfer uses random exploration
-
-### Transfer Calculation
-
-```typescript
-function calculateTransferSuccess(
-  transferLevel: number,
-  sourcePattern: PatternExperience,
-  targetSimilarity: number,  // 0-1, structural similarity
-  distance: 'near' | 'far' | 'very_far'
-): number {
-  const distanceMultiplier = {
-    'near': 1.0,
-    'far': 0.6,
-    'very_far': 0.3
-  };
-
-  const baseRate = transferLevel * distanceMultiplier[distance];
-  const experienceBonus = Math.min(0.2, sourcePattern.exposureCount * 0.02);
-  const similarityBonus = targetSimilarity * 0.3;
-
-  return Math.min(1.0, baseRate + experienceBonus + similarityBonus);
-}
-```
-
-## Identical Elements Theory in Practice
-
-Thorndike's theory predicts that transfer depends on shared elements between contexts. In web interfaces:
-
-| Shared Element Type | Transfer Impact | Examples |
-|--------------------|-----------------|----------|
-| **Visual identical** | Highest (90%+) | Same icon, same color, same position |
-| **Functional identical** | High (70-85%) | Different icon but same function (magnifying glass = search) |
-| **Structural identical** | Medium (50-70%) | Same layout pattern but different content |
-| **Procedural identical** | Medium (40-60%) | Same steps in different order or context |
-| **Conceptual identical** | Low (20-40%) | Same underlying principle, different manifestation |
-
-## See Also
-
-- [Trait-ProceduralFluency](./Trait-ProceduralFluency.md) - Fluent procedures that enable transfer
-- [Trait-MetacognitivePlanning](./Trait-MetacognitivePlanning.md) - Strategic awareness of transferable knowledge
-- [Trait-Comprehension](./Trait-Comprehension.md) - Understanding that enables structural recognition
-- [Trait-WorkingMemory](./Trait-WorkingMemory.md) - Capacity for holding analogical mappings
-- [Cognitive-User-Simulation](../COGNITIVE-SIMULATION.md) - Main simulation documentation
-- [Persona-Index](../personas/Persona-Index.md) - Pre-configured trait combinations
-
-## Bibliography
-
-Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. *Psychological Review*, 89(4), 369-406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.89.4.369
-
-Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. *Psychological Bulletin*, 128(4), 612-637. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.612
-
-Berlyne, D. E. (1960). *Conflict, arousal, and curiosity*. McGraw-Hill.
-
-Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. *Cognitive Science*, 5(2), 121-152. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0502_2
-
-Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. *Cognitive Science*, 7(2), 155-170. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3
-
-Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. *Cognitive Psychology*, 12(3), 306-355. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(80)90013-4
-
-Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. *Cognitive Psychology*, 15(1), 1-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(83)90002-6
-
-Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1992). Transfer of learning. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), *International encyclopedia of education* (2nd ed., pp. 6452-6457). Pergamon Press.
-
-Thorndike, E. L., & Woodworth, R. S. (1901). The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions. *Psychological Review*, 8(3), 247-261. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0074898

package/docs/traits/Trait-TrustCalibration.md

@@ -1,227 +0,0 @@
-> **This documentation is no longer maintained here.**
->
-> For the latest version, please visit: **[Trust Calibration](https://cbrowser.ai/docs/Trait-TrustCalibration)**
-
----
-
-# Trust Calibration
-
-**Category**: Tier 2 - Emotional Traits
-**Scale**: 0.0 (low/skeptical) to 1.0 (high/trusting)
-
-## Definition
-
-Trust calibration measures a user's baseline disposition toward trusting or distrusting websites and online services. This trait determines how users evaluate credibility signals, how long they deliberate before committing to actions (especially those involving personal data or financial transactions), and their threshold for perceiving deceptive design patterns. Low-trust users scrutinize security indicators, read privacy policies, and require multiple credibility signals before proceeding. High-trust users click through quickly with minimal verification, potentially exposing themselves to phishing or dark patterns but completing legitimate flows more efficiently.
-
-## Research Foundation
-
-### Primary Citation
-> "We found eight types of credibility features: design look, structure/navigation, information focus, company recognition, security policies, physical address/contact, advertising policy, and personalization. Users evaluate these signals to determine trustworthiness, with professional design being the most cited factor."
-> -- Fogg, B.J. et al., 2003, p. 15-17
-
-**Full Citation (APA 7):**
-Fogg, B. J. (2003). *Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and do*. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. ISBN 978-1558606432
-
-**DOI**: N/A (Book) | Related paper: https://doi.org/10.1145/764008.763957
-
-### Stanford Web Credibility Project
-
-> "The Stanford Guidelines for Web Credibility were derived from research involving over 4,500 participants. Results indicated that 46% of users assessed credibility based on design look and 28% on information structure/focus."
-> -- Fogg, B.J. et al., 2001, p. 63
-
-**Full Citation (APA 7):**
-Fogg, B. J., Soohoo, C., Danielson, D. R., Marable, L., Stanford, J., & Tauber, E. R. (2003). How do users evaluate the credibility of Web sites? A study with over 2,500 participants. *Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Designing for User Experiences*, 1-15.
-
-**DOI**: https://doi.org/10.1145/997078.997097
-
-### Key Numerical Values
-
-| Metric | Value | Source |
-|--------|-------|--------|
-| Credibility signal categories | 8 distinct types | Fogg (2003) |
-| Design-based trust judgments | 46% of evaluations | Stanford Web Credibility Project |
-| Time to form initial trust judgment | 50ms - 3 seconds | Lindgaard et al. (2006) |
-| Privacy policy reading rate | < 3% of users | McDonald & Cranor (2008) |
-| CTA hesitation (skeptical users) | 3-10x longer dwell time | Derived from eye-tracking studies |
-
-### Eight Credibility Signals (Fogg, 2003)
-
-| Signal | Description | Detection Method |
-|--------|-------------|------------------|
-| `https` | Secure connection indicator | Protocol check |
-| `security_badge` | Trust seals, SSL badges, verification marks | Visual pattern matching |
-| `brand_recognition` | Known brand or company name | Brand database lookup |
-| `professional_design` | Polished visual design quality | Design quality heuristics |
-| `reviews_visible` | User reviews or testimonials | Review section detection |
-| `contact_info` | Physical address, phone number | Contact pattern matching |
-| `privacy_policy` | Privacy policy link presence | Footer/legal link detection |
-| `social_proof` | Social media presence, follower counts | Social element detection |
-
-## Behavioral Levels
-
-| Value | Label | Behaviors |
-|-------|-------|-----------|
-| 0.0-0.2 | Very Skeptical | Scrutinizes every credibility signal; reads privacy policies and terms of service; 10x longer dwell time on CTAs involving data submission; checks URL bar repeatedly; hovers over links to verify destinations; refuses to proceed without HTTPS; abandons sites with any missing trust signals; searches for company reviews before transacting |
-| 0.2-0.4 | Skeptical | Checks for basic credibility signals (HTTPS, contact info); 3-5x longer deliberation before form submission; reads error messages and confirmations carefully; suspicious of too-good-to-be-true offers; examines checkout pages for security badges; may abandon if any signal feels "off" |
-| 0.4-0.6 | Moderate | Notices credibility signals but doesn't actively seek them; normal CTA click speed on established sites; slight hesitation on unfamiliar sites; proceeds if overall impression is professional; checks security for financial transactions only; baseline vigilance without excessive scrutiny |
-| 0.6-0.8 | Trusting | Clicks through CTAs without deliberation; assumes sites are legitimate unless obvious red flags; rarely reads terms or privacy policies; may ignore browser warnings about certificate issues; completes forms without hesitation; focuses on task completion over verification |
-| 0.8-1.0 | Very Trusting | Immediate CTA clicks; dismisses security warnings as false positives; provides personal information freely; may fall for phishing or dark patterns; clicks email links without verification; enters payment information on unfamiliar sites; assumes all sites are trustworthy by default |
-
-## Trait Implementation in CBrowser
-
-### Trust Signal Detection
-
-CBrowser detects and aggregates credibility signals:
-
-```typescript
-interface TrustSignal {
-  type: 'https' | 'security_badge' | 'brand_recognition' |
-        'professional_design' | 'reviews_visible' |
-        'contact_info' | 'privacy_policy' | 'social_proof';
-  detected: boolean;
-  strength: number;  // 0-1 contribution to trust
-}
-
-function calculateSiteTrust(signals: TrustSignal[]): number {
-  const weights = {
-    https: 0.20,
-    security_badge: 0.15,
-    brand_recognition: 0.15,
-    professional_design: 0.15,
-    reviews_visible: 0.10,
-    contact_info: 0.10,
-    privacy_policy: 0.08,
-    social_proof: 0.07
-  };
-
-  return signals.reduce((sum, s) =>
-    sum + (s.detected ? weights[s.type] * s.strength : 0), 0);
-}
-```
-
-### CTA Deliberation Time
-
-```typescript
-// Time multiplier before clicking sensitive CTAs
-function getCtaDeliberationMultiplier(
-  trustCalibration: number,
-  siteTrust: number,
-  ctaSensitivity: 'low' | 'medium' | 'high'
-): number {
-  const sensitivityBase = { low: 1.0, medium: 2.0, high: 5.0 };
-  const baseMultiplier = sensitivityBase[ctaSensitivity];
-
-  // Skeptical users take much longer; trusting users barely pause
-  const trustAdjustment = 1 + ((1 - trustCalibration) * (1 - siteTrust) * 10);
-
-  return baseMultiplier * trustAdjustment;
-  // Very skeptical on untrusted site: up to 10x delay
-  // Very trusting: near 1x (no delay)
-}
-```
-
-### Trust State Tracking
-
-```typescript
-interface TrustState {
-  currentTrust: number;           // Dynamic trust level for current site
-  signalsDetected: TrustSignal[]; // Credibility signals found
-  betrayalHistory: string[];      // Sites that violated trust
-  verificationActions: number;    // Count of verification behaviors
-}
-
-// Trust erosion after perceived betrayal
-function handleTrustBetrayal(state: TrustState, severity: number): void {
-  state.currentTrust *= (1 - severity * 0.3);  // 0-30% trust reduction
-  state.betrayalHistory.push(currentDomain);
-  // Betrayal history persists across sessions (learned distrust)
-}
-```
-
-## 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 |
-|--------------|-------------|----------------|
-| Risk Tolerance | r = 0.45 | Trusting users take more risks with unknown sites |
-| Reading Tendency | r = -0.35 | Skeptical users read more content |
-| Patience | r = 0.28 | Verification takes time; skeptics invest it |
-| Comprehension | r = 0.18 | Weak correlation; trust is more emotional than cognitive |
-| Self-Efficacy | r = 0.22 | Some relationship; confident users may trust more |
-
-### Interaction Effects
-
-- **Trust Calibration x Risk Tolerance**: Combined high values create users vulnerable to scams
-- **Trust Calibration x Reading Tendency**: Low trust + high reading = policy-reading skeptics
-- **Trust Calibration x Patience**: Low trust + low patience = users who abandon rather than verify
-
-## Persona Values
-
-| Persona | Trust Calibration Value | Rationale |
-|---------|------------------------|-----------|
-| power-user | 0.55 | Moderate; aware of risks but efficient |
-| first-timer | 0.65 | Naive trust; hasn't learned skepticism yet |
-| elderly-user | 0.60 | Variable; may be trusting or overly cautious |
-| impatient-user | 0.70 | Trusts to save time; doesn't verify |
-| mobile-user | 0.55 | Moderate awareness of mobile security |
-| screen-reader-user | 0.50 | Cannot assess visual credibility signals |
-| anxious-user | 0.30 | Anxiety drives verification behaviors |
-| skeptical-user | 0.20 | Defining characteristic of persona |
-
-## UX Design Implications
-
-### For Low Trust Users (< 0.4)
-
-1. **Prominent security indicators**: Display HTTPS lock, trust seals visibly
-2. **Contact information**: Show physical address, phone, multiple contact methods
-3. **Progressive disclosure**: Don't ask for sensitive data upfront
-4. **Transparent policies**: Link to privacy policy, terms near data collection
-5. **Third-party validation**: Display BBB ratings, industry certifications
-6. **Testimonials with verification**: Real names, photos, verifiable reviews
-
-### For High Trust Users (> 0.7)
-
-1. **Streamlined flows**: Remove unnecessary verification steps
-2. **Trust but protect**: Implement backend protections since user won't verify
-3. **Explicit warnings**: Make important warnings unmissable since users dismiss easily
-4. **Confirmation steps**: Force review of sensitive submissions even if users want to skip
-5. **Dark pattern immunity**: These users are vulnerable; design ethically
-
-### Trust Signal Placement Best Practices
-
-| Signal Type | Optimal Placement | Impact on Skeptical Users |
-|-------------|-------------------|--------------------------|
-| HTTPS/Lock | URL bar (browser) + visual indicator | Critical; first thing checked |
-| Security badges | Near form submission buttons | Reduces CTA hesitation by 30-50% |
-| Contact info | Footer + dedicated contact page | Increases completion of sensitive forms |
-| Reviews | Product pages, checkout | Reduces cart abandonment |
-| Privacy policy | Footer link + inline near data fields | Builds trust through transparency |
-
-## See Also
-
-- [Trait-RiskTolerance](./Trait-RiskTolerance.md) - Willingness to take chances (related but distinct)
-- [Trait-ReadingTendency](./Trait-ReadingTendency.md) - Tendency to read content (skeptics read more)
-- [Trait-Patience](./Trait-Patience.md) - Time tolerance for verification
-- [Trait-SelfEfficacy](./Trait-SelfEfficacy.md) - Confidence may relate to trust
-- [Trait-Index](./Trait-Index.md) - Complete trait listing
-
-## Bibliography
-
-Corritore, C. L., Kracher, B., & Wiedenbeck, S. (2003). On-line trust: Concepts, evolving themes, a model. *International Journal of Human-Computer Studies*, 58(6), 737-758. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00041-7
-
-Fogg, B. J. (2003). *Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and do*. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
-
-Fogg, B. J., Soohoo, C., Danielson, D. R., Marable, L., Stanford, J., & Tauber, E. R. (2003). How do users evaluate the credibility of Web sites? A study with over 2,500 participants. *Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Designing for User Experiences*, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1145/997078.997097
-
-Lindgaard, G., Fernandes, G., Dudek, C., & Brown, J. (2006). Attention web designers: You have 50 milliseconds to make a good first impression! *Behaviour & Information Technology*, 25(2), 115-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290500330448
-
-McDonald, A. M., & Cranor, L. F. (2008). The cost of reading privacy policies. *I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society*, 4(3), 543-568.
-
-McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. *Information Systems Research*, 13(3), 334-359. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.13.3.334.81
-
-Riegelsberger, J., Sasse, M. A., & McCarthy, J. D. (2005). The mechanics of trust: A framework for research and design. *International Journal of Human-Computer Studies*, 62(3), 381-422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.01.001
-
-Wang, Y. D., & Emurian, H. H. (2005). An overview of online trust: Concepts, elements, and implications. *Computers in Human Behavior*, 21(1), 105-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2003.11.008

package/docs/traits/Trait-WorkingMemory.md

@@ -1,192 +0,0 @@
-> **This documentation is no longer maintained here.**
->
-> For the latest version, please visit: **[Working Memory](https://cbrowser.ai/docs/Trait-WorkingMemory)**
-
----
-
-# Working Memory
-
-**Category**: Tier 1 - Core Traits
-**Scale**: 0.0 (very limited capacity) to 1.0 (very high capacity)
-
-## Definition
-
-Working memory represents a user's capacity to hold and manipulate information during task completion. This trait determines how many interface elements, form fields, navigation steps, and instructions a user can simultaneously track. Users with low working memory become overwhelmed by complex interfaces and forget earlier steps in multi-part processes, while those with high working memory can handle complex dashboards, long forms, and intricate navigation structures.
-
-## Research Foundation
-
-### Primary Citation
-
-> "The span of immediate memory imposes severe limitations on the amount of information that we are able to receive, process, and remember. By organizing the stimulus input simultaneously into several dimensions and successively into a sequence of chunks, we manage to break (or at least stretch) this informational bottleneck."
-> - Miller, 1956, p. 95
-
-**Full Citation (APA 7):**
-Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. *Psychological Review*, 63(2), 81-97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158
-
-**DOI**: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158
-
-### Supporting Research
-
-> "Working memory capacity varies substantially across individuals and predicts performance on complex cognitive tasks, including reading comprehension, reasoning, and multitasking."
-> - Cowan, 2001, p. 89
-
-**Full Citation (APA 7):**
-Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. *Behavioral and Brain Sciences*, 24(1), 87-114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003922
-
-### Key Numerical Values
-
-| Metric | Value | Source |
-|--------|-------|--------|
-| Average chunk capacity | 7 plus or minus 2 (5-9 chunks) | Miller (1956) |
-| Cowan's revised estimate | 4 chunks (without rehearsal) | Cowan (2001) |
-| Duration without rehearsal | 15-30 seconds | Peterson & Peterson (1959) |
-| Optimal menu item count | 7 plus or minus 2 | Miller (1956) |
-| Form field cognitive load limit | 5-7 visible fields | UX research synthesis |
-| Information decay rate | 18-20% per 3 seconds | Atkinson & Shiffrin (1968) |
-
-## Miller's Chunking Theory
-
-### The Chunking Mechanism
-
-Miller discovered that while raw information capacity is limited, we can increase effective capacity through "chunking" - grouping related items into meaningful units.
-
-| Raw Items | Without Chunking | With Chunking |
-|-----------|------------------|---------------|
-| Phone number: 1-8-0-0-5-5-5-1-2-3-4 | 11 items (overload) | 3 chunks: 1-800 / 555 / 1234 |
-| Credit card: 4111111111111111 | 16 items (impossible) | 4 chunks: 4111 / 1111 / 1111 / 1111 |
-
-### Interface Design Implications
-
-- Group related form fields visually
-- Limit navigation menus to 7 plus or minus 2 items
-- Use progressive disclosure to manage complexity
-- Provide breadcrumbs as external memory aids
-
-## Behavioral Levels
-
-| Value | Label | Behaviors |
-|-------|-------|-----------|
-| 0.0-0.2 | Very Limited | Overwhelmed by more than 3-4 elements. Cannot complete multi-step forms. Forgets early steps in processes. Needs external memory aids for everything. Cannot compare more than 2 options. Loses place constantly in long pages. Cannot follow multi-part instructions. |
-| 0.2-0.4 | Limited | Handles 4-5 chunks maximum. Struggles with complex navigation. Needs visible step indicators. Forgets password requirements while typing. Can compare 2-3 options with difficulty. Benefits significantly from progress indicators. |
-| 0.4-0.6 | Moderate | Standard 7 plus or minus 2 capacity. Handles typical web interfaces. Can complete standard multi-step processes. Compares 3-4 options effectively. Follows breadcrumb navigation. May need to re-read instructions for complex tasks. |
-| 0.6-0.8 | High | Handles 8-10 chunks comfortably. Manages complex dashboards. Tracks multiple open tasks. Compares 5+ options mentally. Remembers earlier form inputs while completing later sections. Navigates complex hierarchies. |
-| 0.8-1.0 | Very High | Handles 10+ chunks. Power-user of complex interfaces. Tracks multiple simultaneous processes. Mentally holds entire site structure. Rarely needs visual aids for memory. Can complete complex forms from memory. |
-
-## 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 |
-|---------------|-------------|-----------|
-| [Comprehension](./Trait-Comprehension.md) | r = 0.52 | Memory capacity enables complex understanding |
-| [Procedural Fluency](../traits/Trait-ProceduralFluency) | r = 0.45 | Procedure execution requires memory |
-| [Metacognitive Planning](../traits/Trait-MetacognitivePlanning) | r = 0.48 | Planning requires holding multiple options |
-| [Curiosity](./Trait-Curiosity.md) | r = 0.28 | Limited memory restricts exploration |
-| [Interrupt Recovery](../traits/Trait-InterruptRecovery) | r = 0.41 | Memory enables task resumption |
-
-## Impact on Web Behavior
-
-### Form Completion
-
-| WM Capacity | Max Fields Visible | Multi-Page Tolerance | Error Recall |
-|-------------|-------------------|---------------------|--------------|
-| Very Low | 3-4 | 2 pages max | Forgets immediately |
-| Low | 4-5 | 3 pages | Forgets quickly |
-| Moderate | 5-7 | 4-5 pages | Recalls with cues |
-| High | 7-9 | 6-8 pages | Good recall |
-| Very High | 9+ | 10+ pages | Excellent recall |
-
-### Navigation Complexity
-
-```
-Very Low: Can handle 3 levels deep maximum, needs breadcrumbs
-Low: 4 levels with visual aids
-Moderate: 5-6 levels with occasional disorientation
-High: 7+ levels, rarely gets lost
-Very High: Unlimited depth, builds mental maps easily
-```
-
-### Multi-tab/Window Behavior
-
-- **Low working memory**: Loses track of tabs, forgets why opened tab, closes wrong tabs
-- **High working memory**: Manages 10+ tabs efficiently, remembers purpose of each
-
-### Comparison Tasks
-
-| WM Capacity | Products Compared | Needs Comparison Table |
-|-------------|-------------------|------------------------|
-| Very Low | 2 max | Yes, always |
-| Low | 2-3 | Yes |
-| Moderate | 3-4 | Helpful |
-| High | 4-5 | Optional |
-| Very High | 6+ | No |
-
-## Cognitive Load Theory
-
-Sweller's Cognitive Load Theory (1988) extends Miller's work:
-
-### Three Types of Load
-
-1. **Intrinsic Load**: Inherent complexity of the material
-2. **Extraneous Load**: Unnecessary complexity from poor design
-3. **Germane Load**: Productive effort toward learning
-
-### Working Memory Implications
-
-| WM Capacity | Total Load Tolerance | Extraneous Load Sensitivity |
-|-------------|---------------------|----------------------------|
-| Low | Very limited | Very sensitive |
-| Moderate | Standard | Moderately sensitive |
-| High | Expanded | Less sensitive |
-
-## Persona Values
-
-| Persona | Working Memory Value | Rationale |
-|---------|----------------------|-----------|
-| [Distracted Parent](../personas/Persona-DistractedParent) | 0.35 | Divided attention reduces available WM |
-| [Anxious First-Timer](../personas/Persona-AnxiousFirstTimer) | 0.4 | Anxiety consumes WM capacity |
-| [Methodical Senior](../personas/Persona-MethodicalSenior) | 0.45 | Age-related decline, compensated by strategy |
-| [Rushed Professional](../personas/Persona-RushedProfessional) | 0.55 | Distraction reduces available capacity |
-| [Tech-Savvy Explorer](../personas/Persona-TechSavvyExplorer) | 0.75 | Practice and familiarity increase effective capacity |
-| [Power User](../personas/Persona-PowerUser) | 0.85 | High baseline plus extensive chunking |
-
-## UX Design Implications
-
-### For Low-Working-Memory Users
-
-- Limit visible form fields to 3-4 at a time
-- Use progressive disclosure aggressively
-- Provide breadcrumbs and step indicators
-- Group related information visually
-- Avoid requiring users to remember info across pages
-- Use inline validation (immediate feedback)
-- Provide "save and continue" functionality
-- Format numbers in chunks (555-1234, not 5551234)
-
-### For High-Working-Memory Users
-
-- Can show more information density
-- Complex dashboards are navigable
-- Less need for progressive disclosure
-- Power-user features are accessible
-- Can handle comparison tables with many columns
-
-## See Also
-
-- [Trait Index](./Trait-Index.md) - All cognitive traits
-- [Comprehension](./Trait-Comprehension.md) - Uses working memory capacity
-- [Procedural Fluency](../traits/Trait-ProceduralFluency) - Memory for procedures
-- [Interrupt Recovery](../traits/Trait-InterruptRecovery) - Task state in memory
-- [Persona Index](../personas/Persona-Index.md) - Pre-configured personas
-
-## Bibliography
-
-Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), *The Psychology of Learning and Motivation* (Vol. 2, pp. 89-195). Academic Press.
-
-Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. *Behavioral and Brain Sciences*, 24(1), 87-114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003922
-
-Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. *Psychological Review*, 63(2), 81-97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158
-
-Peterson, L. R., & Peterson, M. J. (1959). Short-term retention of individual verbal items. *Journal of Experimental Psychology*, 58(3), 193-198. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0049234
-
-Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. *Cognitive Science*, 12(2), 257-285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4