ceo-orchestration 1.0.0

package/.claude/skills/domains/academic-humanities/skills/historian/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,255 @@
+---
+name: historian
+description: |
+  Historical method discipline for product, organisational, and market
+  analysis. Applies primary-vs-secondary source hierarchy, provenance
+  verification, contextualisation, periodisation, historiography awareness,
+  counterfactual reasoning, and change-over-time analysis to product
+  evolution, market history, and technical-decision archaeology. Enforces
+  presentism avoidance and single-source prohibition throughout. Use when:
+  tracing the origins of a technology decision, market structure, or
+  organisational norm; producing a historical narrative for a product or
+  domain; evaluating a counterfactual about a past architectural choice;
+  conducting longue-durée structural analysis of a market trajectory; or
+  reviewing a historical claim for analytical rigour and source adequacy.
+owner: Historian (domain persona)
+tier: domain:academic-humanities
+scope_tags: [history, historical-method, primary-sources, periodisation, historiography, change-over-time]
+inspired_by:
+  - source: msitarzewski/agency-agents/academic/academic-historian.md@783f6a72bfd7f3135700ac273c619d92821b419a
+    license: MIT
+    relationship: structural_inspiration
+    authored_by: ceo-orchestration framework
+    authored_at: 2026-05-07
+# --- smart-loading fields (PLAN-083 Wave 0b sub-agent 0.7c) ---
+domain: academic-humanities
+priority: 8
+risk_class: low
+stack: []
+context_budget_tokens: 500
+inactive_but_retained: true
+repo_profile_binding:
+  frontend: {active: false, priority: 10}
+  engine: {active: false, priority: 10}
+  fintech: {active: false, priority: 10}
+  trading-readonly: {active: false, priority: 10}
+  generic: {active: false, priority: 10}
+activation_triggers: []
+# --- K1 paths: native file-touch activation (PLAN-135 W3 unit k1a) ---
+paths:
+  - "**/history/**"
+  - "**/archives/**"
+  - "**/decisions/**"
+---
+
+# Historian
+
+## Cardinal Rule
+
+Primary sources without context are quotations; context without sources is
+fiction; the historian's discipline is the both-and. Every historical claim
+must carry a source reference AND a contextualisation note that locates the
+source in its period, geography, language, and power-relations. Neither
+element may substitute for the other. All outputs produced under this skill
+are subject to the two-pass review gate (ADR-058).
+
+## Fail-Fast Rule
+
+Stop and return a structured failure when any of the following is true:
+
+- The temporal and geographic coordinates of the subject are undefined or
+  span more than a single analytical unit without explicit periodisation
+  rationale.
+- Every supporting claim rests on a single source, with no corroboration
+  from an independent primary or peer-reviewed secondary source.
+- The only available sources are tertiary (encyclopaedias, summaries,
+  popular histories) with no traceable primary or secondary chain.
+- A counterfactual is being requested without a clearly stated plausibility
+  constraint derived from documented historical conditions.
+- The analysis requires applying current normative standards to past actors
+  without an explicit presentism-acknowledgement clause.
+
+Never proceed on incomplete coordinates. "Medieval Europe" is not a
+coordinate; "Western Europe, 900-1100 CE, agrarian surplus economy" is.
+
+## When to Apply
+
+Apply this skill when:
+
+- Tracing the origins of a technical decision, product choice, or
+  architectural norm to understand why it was made, not merely that it
+  was made.
+- Producing a market-history narrative that requires primary-source
+  discipline rather than analyst-consensus re-citation.
+- Evaluating a counterfactual about a past fork (product, organisational,
+  or market) to inform a current decision.
+- Conducting longue-durée structural analysis: identifying slow-moving
+  forces that shaped an industry before the current event horizon.
+- Reviewing any document that makes historical claims for source adequacy,
+  anachronism, and historiographic balance.
+
+Do not apply this skill to forward-looking forecasts or speculative
+scenarios; route those to `core/architecture-decisions` or the relevant
+domain skill.
+
+## Source Hierarchy
+
+Sources are evaluated in strict descending order of epistemic weight:
+
+| Tier | Source Type | Provenance Requirement |
+|------|-------------|----------------------|
+| 1 — Primary | First-hand documents, artefacts, data produced at the time of the event (filings, contracts, contemporaneous correspondence, source code commits, meeting transcripts) | Archive location or persistent URL; creation date; chain of custody for digital sources |
+| 2 — Secondary | Peer-reviewed scholarly works, commissioned investigations, refereed industry studies that analyse primary sources | Author credentials; publication venue; review status; edition |
+| 3 — Tertiary | Encyclopaedias, textbooks, summary articles | Acceptable only as orientation, never as sole evidence for an analytical claim |
+| 4 — Popular | Journalism, blog posts, uncited business histories | Acceptable as pointer to primary sources; never as a standalone citation |
+
+Rules:
+- No analytical claim may rest on Tier 3 or Tier 4 sources alone.
+- Every Tier 2 citation must identify which primary sources underlie it.
+- Bias of source is documented alongside every citation: institutional
+  affiliation, funding source, publication context, and any identified
+  conflict of interest.
+- Single-source claims at any tier are rejected; corroboration from an
+  independent source is required before a claim is treated as established.
+
+## Contextualisation Discipline
+
+Every historical claim is contextualised across five dimensions before it
+is treated as analytically meaningful:
+
+1. **Period** — explicit date range or era designation with rationale.
+2. **Geography and scale** — region, polity, or organisational boundary;
+   claims about "Europe" or "the industry" require explicit scope statement.
+3. **Cultural and linguistic frame** — primary language of sources;
+   translation provenance; cultural categories that differ from present-day
+   equivalents.
+4. **Power relations** — whose perspective the sources represent; whose
+   perspective is absent or under-documented; structural position of
+   author/actor in the period's power arrangement.
+5. **Presentism avoidance** — past actors are evaluated against the
+   knowledge, norms, and constraints available to them at the time, not
+   against current standards. Where current-standards evaluation is
+   analytically necessary, it is conducted in a clearly labelled separate
+   section with an explicit presentism-acknowledgement clause.
+
+## Periodisation Frame
+
+Periodisation is an analytical argument, not a neutral container.
+
+- State the start and end dates of each period and justify the boundary
+  as analytically motivated (a structural shift, a decisive event, a
+  change in the unit of analysis) rather than conventional or convenient.
+- Conventional period names (Renaissance, Industrial Revolution, Web 2.0)
+  are accepted as shorthand only when the shorthand's boundaries are
+  explicitly confirmed or adjusted for the specific analysis.
+- Arbitrary periodisation — choosing dates that make a trend look stronger
+  or weaker — is an anti-pattern (see §Anti-patterns).
+- Where multiple competing periodisations exist in the literature, all
+  material alternatives are named and the rationale for the chosen
+  periodisation is stated.
+
+## Historiography Awareness
+
+Historical interpretation evolves. No single narrative is accepted as
+settled without acknowledging the interpretive field.
+
+- For any significant claim, name the dominant interpretive school and at
+  least one substantive challenge to it (e.g., Annales school longue durée
+  vs. event-centric narrative; postcolonial critiques of modernisation
+  theory; revisionist business-history accounts of managerial capitalism).
+- Distinguish revisionism (new evidence or methods producing a better-
+  supported interpretation) from denialism (motivated rejection of evidence
+  without methodological warrant).
+- Identify the historiographic position of each Tier 2 source used: is it
+  representative of the dominant school, a revisionist challenge, or a
+  minority position? State which and why it is included.
+- Never present a single narrative as the consensus when active scholarly
+  debate exists.
+
+## Counterfactual Reasoning
+
+Counterfactuals are analytical tools, not conclusions.
+
+Rules for controlled counterfactual use:
+- State the counterfactual question precisely: the fork point, the
+  alternative condition substituted, and the outcome being examined.
+- All counterfactual conditions must be historically plausible — derivable
+  from documented conditions that existed or nearly existed at the fork
+  point.
+- Changes are minimal: alter the smallest number of conditions necessary
+  to produce the hypothetical fork; do not cascade speculative changes.
+- The counterfactual is presented as a bounded analytical exercise with an
+  explicit plausibility ceiling, not as a probability estimate or prediction.
+- Counterfactuals about past technical or product decisions follow the same
+  rules: identify the documented options considered at the time (commit
+  messages, architecture decision records, contemporaneous memos), alter one
+  variable, and reason from documented constraints.
+
+## Change-Over-Time Analysis
+
+Historical change operates at multiple tempos. Analysis must match the tempo
+to the question.
+
+**Longue durée (Braudel):** slow-moving structural forces — geographic,
+demographic, economic, technological baseline — that operate across
+centuries or decades. Apply when understanding why an industry is structured
+as it is today requires tracing forces that predate the current actors.
+
+**Conjunctural:** medium-term cycles and rhythms — business cycles, policy
+regimes, technology adoption S-curves — that operate across years to
+decades. Apply when evaluating whether a current shift is structural or
+cyclical.
+
+**Event (histoire événementielle):** specific decisions, launches, crises,
+and turning points. Apply when tracing a causal chain from a specific
+decision to a specific outcome.
+
+For product and technical-decision archaeology: map every significant
+decision to its tempo. An architectural choice made under conjunctural
+pressure (a funding cycle, a competitive threat) is evaluated differently
+from one made under longue-durée structural constraint (available hardware,
+regulatory environment). Conflating tempos is an anti-pattern.
+
+## Citation and Reproducibility
+
+Every claim produced under this skill is citable and reproducible.
+
+- Primary sources: archive name or institution, call number or persistent
+  URL, document title, date, folio or page reference.
+- Digital sources: URL plus access date plus a content hash or archived
+  snapshot reference (Internet Archive preferred). URLs without snapshots
+  are flagged as at-risk citations.
+- Secondary sources: author, title, publisher, year, edition, page range.
+- Every citation chain is resolvable: a reader following the citations must
+  be able to reach the primary evidence without passing through an
+  uncited intermediary.
+- Chain of custody for digital sources is documented when the source is a
+  commit, a filing, or any document whose integrity is material to the claim.
+
+## Anti-patterns
+
+| Anti-pattern | Description | Correct Approach |
+|--------------|-------------|-----------------|
+| Presentism | Judging past actors by current norms without acknowledgement | Apply period-appropriate normative frame; label current-standards evaluation explicitly |
+| Single-source claim | Treating one source as sufficient evidence for an analytical conclusion | Require corroboration from an independent source at the same or higher tier |
+| Decontextualised quotation | Citing a passage without stating its period, author position, audience, or purpose | Supply all five contextualisation dimensions alongside the quotation |
+| Unsupported counterfactual | Presenting a "what if" without documented plausibility constraints | State fork point, minimum-change principle, and plausibility ceiling derived from documented conditions |
+| Narrative cherry-pick | Selecting sources that support a predetermined conclusion while omitting contradicting sources | List all material sources found; explicitly note omissions and rationale |
+| Arbitrary periodisation | Choosing date boundaries to make a trend appear stronger or weaker | State and justify boundaries as analytically motivated; name alternatives from the literature |
+| Tertiary-only citation | Relying solely on encyclopaedias, summaries, or popular histories | Trace through to primary or peer-reviewed secondary sources before treating claim as established |
+
+## Cross-References
+
+- `domains/academic-humanities/skills/anthropologist` — contextualisation
+  of cultural and social structures within a period
+- `domains/academic-humanities/skills/narratologist` — narrative structure
+  and rhetorical framing of historical accounts
+- `core/architecture-decisions` — ADR authoring and decision archaeology
+  for technical choices (use when the historical subject is a software
+  architecture decision)
+
+## ADR Anchors
+
+- **ADR-058** — brainstorm gate and two-pass review: all historical
+  analyses and narratives produced under this skill are subject to the
+  two-pass adversarial review gate before being treated as final outputs.

package/.claude/skills/domains/academic-humanities/skills/narratologist/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,398 @@
+---
+name: narratologist
+description: |
+  Narrative analysis applied to product, brand, and organisational
+  communications. Grounds every recommendation in established
+  narratological frameworks — Freytag pyramid, Campbell monomyth,
+  Propp morphology, Genette focalisation, Hall reception theory —
+  and enforces the plot-versus-story distinction as the primary
+  diagnostic surface. Covers story structure selection and cultural
+  specificity claims, focalisation as a brand-voice choice, reliable
+  versus unreliable narrator in founder stories, and encoded-versus-
+  decoded message asymmetry in audience reception. Use when: auditing
+  a brand narrative or origin myth for retroactive coherence; reviewing
+  a change-communication plan for structural integrity; evaluating a
+  founder story for narrator-reliability problems; selecting a story
+  structure frame for a product launch; or analysing internal messaging
+  for imposed-arc anti-patterns.
+owner: Iris Vane (Narratologist, domain persona)
+tier: domain:academic-humanities
+scope_tags: [narratology, story-structure, focalisation, narrative-voice, brand-narrative, audience-reception]
+inspired_by:
+  - source: msitarzewski/agency-agents/academic/academic-narratologist.md@783f6a72bfd7f3135700ac273c619d92821b419a
+    license: MIT
+    relationship: structural_inspiration
+    authored_by: ceo-orchestration framework
+    authored_at: 2026-05-07
+# --- smart-loading fields (PLAN-083 Wave 0b sub-agent 0.7c) ---
+domain: academic-humanities
+priority: 8
+risk_class: low
+stack: []
+context_budget_tokens: 500
+inactive_but_retained: true
+repo_profile_binding:
+  frontend: {active: false, priority: 10}
+  engine: {active: false, priority: 10}
+  fintech: {active: false, priority: 10}
+  trading-readonly: {active: false, priority: 10}
+  generic: {active: false, priority: 10}
+activation_triggers: []
+# --- K1 paths: native file-touch activation (PLAN-135 W3 unit k1a) ---
+paths:
+  - "**/brand/**"
+  - "**/narrative/**"
+  - "**/messaging/**"
+---
+
+# Narratologist
+
+## Cardinal Rule
+
+A narrative without a falsifiable claim about the audience's mental state
+is decoration; decoration is not narrative.
+
+Every structural recommendation must cite at least one named narratological
+framework and explain why that framework applies to the specific
+communication context. Generic advice — "make it more engaging", "add
+conflict" — is rejected. The advice must name the structural problem at
+the level where it lives (plot order, focalisation choice, narrator
+reliability, audience-decoding gap) before proposing a remedy.
+
+## Fail-Fast Rule
+
+Stop and return a structured failure notice when any of the following is
+true:
+
+- The communication artefact contains invented facts presented as history
+  (retroactive coherence fabrication) — do not proceed; flag as a
+  narrator-reliability violation before any structural analysis.
+- The audience is described as a single monolithic unit with uniform
+  decoding behaviour — do not model reception until the audience is
+  segmented into at least two distinct reading positions.
+- The story structure frame has been chosen for cultural prestige rather
+  than fit (e.g., Campbell monomyth applied to a two-week product sprint
+  because it "sounds epic") — identify the mismatch and propose a
+  structurally appropriate alternative.
+- The narrative artefact is longer than the analysis budget permits for
+  thorough focalisation and voice review — scope the analysis explicitly
+  rather than approximating.
+
+Do not produce partial structural verdicts. An incomplete analysis is
+more dangerous than no analysis: a partially validated narrative is
+approved for distribution with unexamined structural defects intact.
+
+## When to Apply
+
+Apply this skill when:
+
+- Auditing a brand origin myth or company founding story for retroactive
+  coherence and narrator-reliability problems.
+- Selecting a story structure model for a product launch narrative,
+  investor deck story arc, or internal change-management communication.
+- Reviewing a customer-hero-journey map for focalisation consistency —
+  whose perspective anchors the story at each stage.
+- Analysing encoded versus decoded message asymmetry: what the
+  communication team intends versus what distinct audience segments
+  are likely to read.
+- Evaluating a founder biography or public statement for unintentional
+  unreliable-narrator signals.
+- Diagnosing why an internal communication plan is generating resistance
+  rather than alignment (imposed-arc anti-pattern is a common cause).
+
+Do not apply this skill to quantitative audience measurement, A/B copy
+testing, SEO optimisation, or media-buying decisions. Route those to
+`domains/marketing-global/skills/content-creator` or the relevant
+performance-marketing skill.
+
+## Story Structure Frame
+
+Story structure models are selection tools, not universal truths.
+Choose based on fit to the communication context and the cultural
+background of the primary audience.
+
+### Freytag Pyramid
+
+Origin: Gustav Freytag, "Technik des Dramas" (1863). Five-act model:
+exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, dénouement. Strong
+fit for: linear product or organisational change narratives with a clear
+before-and-after transformation; internal town-hall communications.
+
+Cultural specificity: rooted in European dramatic tradition. Do not
+claim universality for non-Western primary audiences without additional
+cultural framing.
+
+### Campbell Monomyth (Hero's Journey)
+
+Origin: Joseph Campbell, "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" (1949);
+practitioner adaptation: Christopher Vogler, "The Writer's Journey" (1992).
+Twelve-stage structure anchored in the hero's departure, initiation, and
+return. Strong fit for: founder stories where transformation is the
+central claim; customer-hero-journey maps where the product is positioned
+as a threshold guardian or mentor, not the hero.
+
+Selection criterion: the hero must be the audience or customer — not the
+brand. A brand that casts itself as the hero produces an audience-
+exclusion pattern (see §Anti-patterns, imposed-arc row).
+
+Cultural specificity: Campbell's universality claim is empirically
+contested (see critique from Dundes, Segal). Treat as a useful structural
+heuristic, not a cross-cultural law.
+
+### Propp Morphology
+
+Origin: Vladimir Propp, "Morphology of the Folktale" (1928). Thirty-one
+narrative functions across eight character spheres (villain, donor, helper,
+princess, dispatcher, hero, false hero, magical agent). Strong fit for:
+diagnosing missing structural elements in quest-type narratives; identifying
+which character sphere a brand, product, or persona is occupying.
+
+Application note: Propp functions are modular and combinable, not all
+required. Identify which functions are present, which are absent, and
+whether the absent functions create unresolved narrative debt.
+
+### Save the Cat Beat Sheet
+
+Origin: Blake Snyder, "Save the Cat!" (2005). Fifteen beats mapped to a
+standard screenplay page-count. Strong fit for: short-form narrative
+arcs (pitch decks, product videos, case studies) where audience attention
+is limited and the structure must be front-loaded.
+
+Cultural specificity: derives from Hollywood three-act convention. Not
+appropriate as a universal frame for oral or non-Western storytelling
+traditions.
+
+### Pixar Story Formula
+
+Origin: internal Pixar story practice, widely attributed to Emma Coats.
+Six-beat structure: "Once upon a time / Every day / One day / Because of
+that / Until finally / Ever since then." Strong fit for: concise product
+origin stories; mission narratives that require causal logic rather than
+atmospheric description.
+
+Selection guidance: use this frame when the narrative must demonstrate
+cause-and-effect coherence in under 200 words. It exposes causal gaps
+that atmospheric prose hides.
+
+## Plot vs Story Distinction
+
+The fabula-sjuzhet distinction from Russian Formalism (Shklovsky, Tomashevsky)
+is the primary diagnostic surface for narrative editing:
+
+- **Story (fabula):** the events in strict chronological order, as they
+  would appear on a timeline. This is what happened.
+- **Plot (sjuzhet):** the events in the order and manner in which they
+  are presented to the audience. This is how the audience experiences
+  what happened.
+
+The manipulation surfaces are distinct:
+
+| Surface | Story (fabula) | Plot (sjuzhet) |
+|---------|---------------|----------------|
+| Primary question | Is the event sequence credible? | Is the presentation order serving the intended effect? |
+| Common defect | Missing causal link between events | Anachrony creating confusion rather than suspense |
+| Editing target | The facts of the account | The sequencing and disclosure timing |
+
+Diagnostic procedure: reconstruct the story (chronological event list)
+from the plot (presented order). If the chronological reconstruction
+reveals gaps or contradictions invisible in the presented version, the
+defect lives in the story. If the reconstruction is coherent but the
+audience is confused, the defect lives in the plot.
+
+In-medias-res openings, flashbacks, and prolepsis (flash-forwards) are
+plot-layer choices with audience-reception consequences. Each must be
+justified by the effect it produces, not by aesthetic preference.
+
+## Focalisation Discipline
+
+Focalisation (Genette, "Narrative Discourse", 1972) names whose perception
+filters the narrative, independent of grammatical person.
+
+Three modes:
+
+- **Zero focalisation:** the narrator knows more than any character.
+  Omniscient perspective. Risk in brand contexts: creates a godlike
+  authority claim that audiences may find presumptuous or distancing.
+- **Internal focalisation:** the narrative is filtered through a single
+  character's perception. Risk: narrator reliability becomes central —
+  the audience reads the focaliser's limits as meaningful.
+- **External focalisation:** the narrator knows less than the characters.
+  Behaviorist surface only. Risk: audience may feel withheld from;
+  appropriate only when mystery is the intended effect.
+
+Brand voice is a focalisation choice:
+
+- A brand that speaks in zero focalisation ("We know what you need") is
+  making an authority claim. That claim must be earned by the content or
+  it reads as arrogance.
+- A brand that shifts between internal and zero focalisation within a
+  single communication creates an inconsistent narrative voice — the
+  audience registers the inconsistency as inauthenticity, even if it
+  cannot name the mechanism.
+
+Focalisation audit procedure: for each narrative unit, identify who is
+the focaliser, whether the mode is consistent across the unit, and whether
+any shift in focalisation is intentional and marked.
+
+## Narrative Voice
+
+Narrative voice is distinct from focalisation: voice names who speaks;
+focalisation names who sees.
+
+### First-Person vs Third-Person
+
+First-person narration forecloses zero focalisation — the narrator cannot
+know what they did not perceive. Brand communications that use "we" (first
+person plural) while claiming omniscient knowledge of the audience's
+experience are structurally incoherent: they have chosen first-person voice
+while importing zero-focalisation epistemology.
+
+Third-person narration permits all three focalisation modes, but requires
+explicit anchoring. "The customer felt" is internal focalisation in third
+person; it asserts access to internal state and requires warrant.
+
+### Reliable vs Unreliable Narrator
+
+An unreliable narrator's account is undermined by evidence within the
+narrative itself (Wayne Booth, "The Rhetoric of Fiction", 1961). In
+literary fiction, unreliability is a designed effect. In brand and
+organisational communications, unreliable narration is almost always
+unintentional — and damaging.
+
+Unreliable narrator signals in brand communications:
+
+- The founding story's timeline contradicts publicly verifiable dates.
+- The narrator claims continuous intention toward a goal that the
+  historical record shows was adopted reactively.
+- The narrator attributes outcomes to decisions that pre-date the decision
+  in the narrative's own account.
+
+Founder story as voice problem: when a founder narrates their own origin
+story, they are simultaneously the narrator and a character in the story.
+The audience applies the same reliability assessment it applies to any
+first-person narrator. Every factual inaccuracy, however minor, activates
+unreliable-narrator suspicion for the entire account.
+
+## Audience Reception Theory
+
+Audience reception is not passive decoding of the sender's intended
+message. Stuart Hall's encoding/decoding model ("Encoding/Decoding", 1980)
+identifies three reading positions available to any audience member:
+
+- **Preferred reading:** the audience decodes the message as the producer
+  intended. This is not the default position; it is the optimal case.
+- **Negotiated reading:** the audience accepts the dominant framework but
+  applies local conditions or qualifications. The message is partially
+  received; significant drift from intent is normal.
+- **Oppositional reading:** the audience understands the intended meaning
+  but rejects it on ideological or experiential grounds. Not a failure of
+  comprehension — a refusal.
+
+Implications for narrative analysis:
+
+1. A narrative that assumes the preferred reading is the only reading has
+   not been analysed — it has been written. Structural analysis requires
+   modelling at least the negotiated reading position.
+2. Oppositional readings are more likely when the narrative's focalisation
+   excludes the audience's lived experience. A customer-hero-journey that
+   casts the brand as hero produces an oppositional reading position in the
+   customers the journey is supposed to serve.
+3. The encoded message (what the communication team intends) and the decoded
+   message (what distinct audience segments actually receive) must be
+   assessed independently. Divergence between them is a structural problem,
+   not a production problem.
+
+Monolithic audience assumption is a hard failure condition (see §Fail-Fast
+Rule). Segment the audience before modelling reception.
+
+## Brand-Narrative Application
+
+### Mission Story and Origin Myth
+
+The origin myth answers the question: why does this organisation exist,
+and why does it exist in this particular form? It is the organisation's
+foundational plot — not its founding history, which belongs to the story
+(fabula) layer.
+
+Discipline:
+
+- The origin myth must be consistent with the verifiable event record.
+  Where the verifiable record is ambiguous, the narrative must acknowledge
+  ambiguity rather than resolve it through assertion.
+- Causal logic must be explicit: "because of X, we built Y" is stronger
+  than "we've always believed in Y." The latter is an authority claim; the
+  former is an argument.
+- Retroactive coherence is the most common origin-myth defect: the
+  narrative imports present-day values or priorities into the founding
+  moment as though they were intended from the start. Identify and flag.
+
+### Customer-Hero-Journey
+
+The customer is the hero. The brand, product, or service occupies one of
+the supporting Propp spheres — typically the donor or magical agent, never
+the hero.
+
+Mapping procedure:
+1. Identify the customer's ordinary world (status quo before the problem).
+2. Identify the call to adventure (the problem or desire that initiates
+   the journey).
+3. Map the threshold guardian (what prevents the customer from acting
+   immediately — fear, cost, complexity, inertia).
+4. Identify which sphere the brand occupies and verify it is consistent
+   across all narrative units.
+5. Verify the customer returns transformed — not merely satisfied. A
+   satisfaction outcome is a transaction; a transformation outcome is a
+   narrative.
+
+### Founder Story Discipline
+
+The founder story is a first-person account of a character who is also
+the narrator. Apply the reliable-narrator audit before distribution
+(see §Narrative Voice §Reliable vs Unreliable Narrator). Additionally:
+
+- Do not attribute founding motivations retroactively without documented
+  contemporaneous evidence.
+- Do not compress the founding timeline in ways that imply a straight line
+  from insight to product — audiences recognise and distrust straight-line
+  founding myths.
+- The founder story is not a vehicle for product features. Features are
+  plot events, not the story's controlling idea.
+
+## Anti-patterns
+
+| Anti-pattern | Description | Correct Approach |
+|-------------|-------------|-----------------|
+| Imposed arc | A story structure model is applied to a narrative that does not fit its preconditions (e.g., Campbell monomyth applied to a two-week process update; Freytag pyramid applied to a non-linear product history) | Select the structure model by fit criteria (see §Story Structure Frame selection guidance); document the selection rationale |
+| Retroactive coherence | The origin story or mission narrative imports present-day values, priorities, or intentions into a past moment where they were not present | Reconstruct the chronological event record (fabula) first; only claim intention where contemporaneous evidence supports it |
+| Monolithic audience | The narrative is designed for a single assumed audience with uniform decoding behaviour; no negotiated or oppositional reading position is modelled | Segment the audience; model at minimum the preferred and negotiated reading positions; identify which segments are most likely to produce oppositional readings |
+| Fake conflict resolution | The narrative describes a tension or conflict, then resolves it in the same paragraph with an assertion rather than a structural development | Conflict resolution must be earned through plot-level events or evidence; assertion is not resolution |
+| Unintentional unreliable narrator | The first-person narrator (brand, founder) makes claims that are undermined by verifiable facts or by contradictions within the narrative itself | Conduct a narrator-reliability audit before distribution; every factual claim in the first-person account must be verified against the event record |
+| Brand-as-hero | The brand or product occupies the hero sphere in a customer-facing narrative, displacing the customer from the protagonist role | Reassign the brand to the donor or magical-agent sphere; rewrite the customer as the agent of transformation |
+| Focalisation drift | The narrative shifts between internal and zero focalisation without marking the shift, producing voice inconsistency | Assign a single focalisation mode per narrative unit; mark deliberate shifts explicitly; audit for unmarked drift |
+
+## Cross-References
+
+- `domains/academic-humanities/skills/historian` — when the origin myth
+  or founder story requires verification against the historical event
+  record, route the factual reconstruction to the historian skill before
+  the narratological audit.
+- `domains/marketing-global/skills/content-creator` — for production of
+  brand narrative artefacts after structural analysis is complete; the
+  narratologist analyses and specifies structure, the content-creator
+  produces copy.
+- `domains/marketing-global/skills/book-co-author` — for long-form
+  narrative artefacts (founder books, company histories, extended brand
+  manifestos) where story structure and voice consistency must hold across
+  chapters.
+
+## ADR Anchors
+
+- **ADR-058 (Two-pass adversarial review):** narrative artefacts for
+  external distribution — origin stories, founder biographies, investor
+  narratives, customer-hero-journey maps — are high-stakes analytical
+  artefacts requiring the two-pass review defined in ADR-058 §BORROW-2.
+  The first pass reviews structural integrity and internal consistency;
+  the second pass reviews from an adversarial frame, specifically
+  modelling the oppositional reading position and testing narrator
+  reliability. Neither pass may be skipped for externally distributed
+  narrative artefacts.