janderscience-skills 0.0.0-stage → 1.0.0

package/sources/headcount/verticals/education/skills/education/early-childhood-practice/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+---
+name: early-childhood-practice
+description: Judges whether material for children under six is developmentally plausible — what is typical at each age, why pre-K is not a thinner kindergarten, and which frameworks apply where Common Core does not. Use this to design or review pre-K material, decide whether a task is reasonable for an age, choose the right framework for a pre-K alignment claim, or push back on material that pushes school-age expectations downward.
+---
+
+# Early childhood practice
+
+Pre-K is not grade zero. Material for three- to five-year-olds fails most often by being a smaller
+version of kindergarten work — the same task, fewer items, larger print — which is a different
+mistake from being too hard.
+
+## There is no Common Core below kindergarten
+
+This is the first thing to establish, because the alignment claim printed on most pre-K material is
+either wrong or vague.
+
+What does apply:
+
+- **State early learning standards**, which exist in every state and vary substantially in structure
+  and in what they expect at each age.
+- **The Head Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework**, which covers birth to five across
+  approaches to learning, social-emotional, language and literacy, cognition, and perceptual and
+  physical development. It is a federal work and freely usable.
+- **NAEYC's position on developmentally appropriate practice**, which is not a standards document at
+  all — it is a statement of what practice should look like, and is the thing most often cited when
+  a task is challenged.
+
+A claim of "Common Core aligned" on pre-K material is not defensible.
+`education:standards-alignment` covers alignment above kindergarten.
+
+## Developmentally appropriate is a range, not a line
+
+The useful question is not whether a four-year-old can do a task. Some can. It is whether a typical
+four-year-old can do it without the experience becoming one of failing.
+
+Ranges worth holding, with the caveat that variation at these ages is wide and normal:
+
+- **Fine motor.** Tripod grasp is still consolidating at four. Tracing within narrow lines,
+  small-square handwriting and precision cutting are ahead of most of them, and repeated failure at
+  a motor task teaches avoidance of the subject it was attached to.
+- **Attention.** Sustained focus on an adult-directed task runs in single-digit minutes. A page that
+  takes twenty minutes is not one task, it is four, and it should be designed as four.
+- **Counting and cardinality.** Reciting number names comes well before understanding that the last
+  number said is how many there are. Material that assumes the second because the first is fluent
+  misreads the child.
+- **Letters.** Recognition, naming, sound and formation are four separate skills that develop at
+  different rates. Name-writing typically precedes general letter formation, because the motivation
+  is different.
+- **Symbolic reasoning.** A picture standing for a thing is not automatic at three and is usually
+  secure by five. Worksheets depend on it entirely.
+
+## Play is the method, which constrains the format
+
+The consensus position across the early childhood field is that young children learn through play,
+exploration and interaction — not that play is a reward after the work.
+
+This is uncomfortable for anyone producing worksheets, and the honest conclusion is that **the
+worksheet is a supporting format at this age, not the primary one**. Material that acknowledges this
+is better material: a page that prompts an activity, a conversation or a hunt around the room does
+more than the same page asking for tracing, and it is what a knowledgeable reviewer looks for.
+
+Where a page is the deliverable, the ones that work at this age tend to be open rather than
+closed — draw, sort, match, find — with no single correct answer to get wrong.
+
+## Pushdown is the failure mode to name
+
+Academic expectations have migrated downward, so kindergarten now carries work that was first grade
+a generation ago, and pre-K material follows. The pressure is commercial: parents buy what looks
+rigorous, and "gets them ready" sells.
+
+Being explicit about this is part of doing the work honestly. A pre-K page asking for sentence
+writing is not ambitious, it is misaimed, and the child who cannot do it concludes something about
+themselves rather than about the page. When a buyer asks for material a year ahead, that is a real
+request and it deserves a straight answer about what it will cost the child.
+
+## Sources
+
+`references/sources.md` in this skill lists the outside authorities that settle the questions
+here — what each one is authoritative for, and what you may do with it. Check them before
+answering on anything they cover, and cite what you used. Most are free to read and not free
+to reproduce; the use note on each is binding.
+
+## Never
+
+- Claim Common Core alignment for material below kindergarten.
+- Treat a pre-K task as a kindergarten task with fewer items.
+- Require fine-motor precision the age has not typically reached.
+- Design a single page that needs more sustained attention than the age sustains.
+- Present a worksheet as the primary way a three-year-old should be learning.

package/sources/headcount/verticals/education/skills/education/early-childhood-practice/references/sources.md

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+# Sources — `education:early-childhood-practice`
+
+<!-- Generated by scripts/build-sources.py from sources/*.toml. Do not edit. -->
+
+Check these before answering on anything they cover, and cite what you used. The use note on each one is binding: most of what a professional cites is free to read and not free to reproduce.
+
+## Head Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework, birth to five
+
+US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Head Start · US · public domain (US government) — quote freely
+
+<https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/interactive-head-start-early-learning-outcomes-framework-ages-birth-five>
+
+**Authoritative for:** What is expected of children from birth to five across approaches to learning, social-emotional, language, cognition and physical development. The one comprehensive pre-K framework that is freely usable, where Common Core does not reach.
+
+## NAEYC position statements, including Developmentally Appropriate Practice
+
+National Association for the Education of Young Children · US · **read and cite only — copyrighted, do not reproduce**
+
+<https://www.naeyc.org/resources/position-statements>
+
+**Authoritative for:** What practice should look like for children under eight, and the statement most often cited when a task is challenged as too advanced. Not a standards document — it constrains method, not content.
+
+## NSTA official positions
+
+National Science Teaching Association · US · **read and cite only — copyrighted, do not reproduce**
+
+<https://www.nsta.org/nstas-official-positions>
+
+**Authoritative for:** The profession's positions on early childhood and elementary science instruction, including what inquiry-based means in practice at an age that cannot yet read the procedure.
+
+---
+
+Sources are maintained in `sources/` upstream, not here. If one is wrong, out of date, or missing, fix it there — this file is regenerated and an edit to it is lost.

package/sources/headcount/verticals/education/skills/education/learning-materials-design/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,115 @@
+---
+name: learning-materials-design
+description: Designs worksheets, workbooks and practice material that actually teach — sequencing difficulty, managing cognitive load, writing instructions a child can follow unaided, and building answer keys that hold up. Use this to design or fix a worksheet or workbook, decide how much practice a skill needs, structure a page so it can be completed without an adult reading it aloud, or diagnose material that looks right and does not work.
+---
+
+# Learning materials design
+
+Most bad worksheets are not wrong. They are unusable: the instruction assumes a reading level above
+the skill being practiced, the page asks the student to hold three things in mind at once, or the
+difficulty jumps in a place the author could not see because the author already knows the answer.
+
+## The instruction is the hardest part of the page
+
+A worksheet is used by a child, often without an adult reading it to them, and frequently by a
+parent who did not see the lesson. The instruction has to survive that.
+
+Two constraints that conflict and have to be resolved deliberately:
+
+- **The instruction's reading level must sit below the skill being practiced.** A second-grade math
+  page whose directions need third-grade reading is a reading test with numbers on it. The child who
+  fails it may have no trouble with the math.
+- **The instruction must be complete.** "Solve" does not say whether to show work, what form the
+  answer takes, or what to do with the remainder.
+
+Where the two cannot both be met, the answer is usually a worked example rather than more words. One
+solved item at the top carries more instruction than a paragraph, and it is read.
+
+## Cognitive load is the budget
+
+Working memory is the scarce resource, and a page spends it on three things at once: the skill being
+learned, the format it is presented in, and everything incidental — decoration, unfamiliar layout, a
+font that makes a `9` look like a `g`.
+
+Only the first is worth spending on. The practical consequences:
+
+- **Change one thing at a time.** A page that introduces a new skill *and* a new answer format
+  measures neither.
+- **Keep the format stable across a section.** Familiarity with the layout is load the student stops
+  paying after the first page, and resetting it is a cost with no return.
+- **Decoration competes with content.** Illustration that carries meaning earns its space;
+  illustration that fills it costs attention, most sharply for the students who have least to spare.
+
+## Difficulty rises in steps somebody checked
+
+The author knows the answer, which makes difficulty jumps invisible from the inside. The reliable
+method is mechanical: list the sub-skills the final task requires, order them by dependency, and
+confirm every item exercises only sub-skills already introduced.
+
+Where practice sits in a sequence changes what it should look like:
+
+1. **Acquisition** — heavily scaffolded, worked examples adjacent, immediate feedback possible.
+   Errors here are information, so the page should make them visible rather than punish them.
+2. **Fluency** — scaffolding removed, volume up, the same skill in the same form. This is the stage
+   most commercial material skips, and the reason a student who "understands it" cannot do it in
+   March.
+3. **Generalization** — the skill in unfamiliar wrappers, mixed with earlier skills, in contexts the
+   examples did not cover. This is where transfer is tested and where spaced review belongs.
+
+Mixing stages on one page is common and usually a mistake: a generalization item among acquisition
+items reads as unfair, and an acquisition item among fluency items reads as filler.
+
+## The answer key is part of the product
+
+An answer key that is wrong is worse than no key, because it is trusted. It is also where multiple
+valid answers get discovered — the page that admits two readings, the drawing task with no
+determinate result, the word problem whose units were never stated.
+
+Build the key by solving the page cold, from the printed instruction, without reference to what was
+intended. Every item that is ambiguous when solved that way is ambiguous to the student, and the fix
+belongs on the page rather than in the key.
+
+For anything open-ended, the key states what makes an answer acceptable rather than pretending there
+is one answer. A parent needs that more than the child does.
+
+## Print is a constraint, not a format
+
+Material that will be printed or sold as a file has limits that a screen mockup hides: margin loss
+on a home printer, greyscale rendering of a color-coded task, and the fact that nobody can zoom.
+
+Design in black and white first and add color as reinforcement rather than as the carrier of
+meaning. A task that requires distinguishing red from green fails in greyscale and fails for the
+significant minority of readers who cannot make that distinction anyway.
+
+`marketing:visual-content` covers the design craft; what is specific here is that the constraint is
+a child's hand, a home printer and no adult present.
+
+## Tooling
+
+Layout for print material is a document problem before it is a design one. InDesign, Affinity
+Publisher, Canva and similar all produce a usable page; what determines whether a hundred-page
+workbook stays maintainable is whether the layout is driven by styles and templates rather than
+placed by hand, because the correction always arrives after page sixty.
+
+Generated material — the same task shape across many values — is worth scripting rather than
+copying. A script that emits items from a parameter set makes the difficulty sequence explicit and
+regenerable, and it is the only way a mistake in item construction gets fixed once rather than
+eighty times.
+
+For anything sold, keep the source and the output separate and treat the PDF as a build artifact.
+The alternative is a product nobody can correct.
+
+## Sources
+
+`references/sources.md` in this skill lists the outside authorities that settle the questions
+here — what each one is authoritative for, and what you may do with it. Check them before
+answering on anything they cover, and cite what you used. Most are free to read and not free
+to reproduce; the use note on each is binding.
+
+## Never
+
+- Write an instruction that reads above the level of the skill being practiced.
+- Introduce a new skill and a new answer format on the same page.
+- Build the answer key from what you intended rather than from what the page says.
+- Carry meaning in color alone.
+- Ship a difficulty sequence nobody walked through from the student's side.

package/sources/headcount/verticals/education/skills/education/learning-materials-design/references/sources.md

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+# Sources — `education:learning-materials-design`
+
+<!-- Generated by scripts/build-sources.py from sources/*.toml. Do not edit. -->
+
+Check these before answering on anything they cover, and cite what you used. The use note on each one is binding: most of what a professional cites is free to read and not free to reproduce.
+
+## Common Core State Standards — English Language Arts and Literacy
+
+NGA Center for Best Practices & CCSSO · US · free to use with attribution — credit the publisher
+
+<https://www.thecorestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/>
+
+**Authoritative for:** Reading, writing, language and foundational-skills standards by grade — including the reading foundational skills that stop after grade 5, which is a common source of wrong alignment above it.
+
+## DocsTeach
+
+US National Archives and Records Administration · US · public domain (US government) — quote freely
+
+<https://www.docsteach.org/>
+
+**Authoritative for:** Primary-source documents for US history material, freely usable, organized for classroom activities rather than for archivists.
+
+## International Literacy Association position statements and briefs
+
+International Literacy Association · global · **read and cite only — copyrighted, do not reproduce**
+
+<https://www.literacyworldwide.org/get-resources>
+
+**Authoritative for:** Research-informed positions on phonics, phonemic awareness, comprehension and writing instruction — the evidence base a literacy product's claims are judged against.
+
+## Library of Congress classroom materials
+
+Library of Congress · US · public domain (US government) — quote freely
+
+<https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/>
+
+**Authoritative for:** Primary sources usable in published material without a rights problem, with teaching context already attached. The first place to look before licensing an image.
+
+## NAEYC position statements, including Developmentally Appropriate Practice
+
+National Association for the Education of Young Children · US · **read and cite only — copyrighted, do not reproduce**
+
+<https://www.naeyc.org/resources/position-statements>
+
+**Authoritative for:** What practice should look like for children under eight, and the statement most often cited when a task is challenged as too advanced. Not a standards document — it constrains method, not content.
+
+## NCTM Principles and Standards and position statements
+
+National Council of Teachers of Mathematics · US · **read and cite only — copyrighted, do not reproduce**
+
+<https://www.nctm.org/standards-and-positions/principles-and-standards/>
+
+**Authoritative for:** The process standards — problem solving, reasoning and proof, communication, connections, representation — and the profession's position on what mathematics instruction should do. Some material requires membership.
+
+---
+
+Sources are maintained in `sources/` upstream, not here. If one is wrong, out of date, or missing, fix it there — this file is regenerated and an edit to it is lost.

package/sources/headcount/verticals/education/skills/education/standards-alignment/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+---
+name: standards-alignment
+description: Aligns learning material to the standard it claims — choosing the right framework for the grade and subject, citing standards by code rather than reproducing their text, and telling a real alignment from a decorative one. Use this to align a worksheet, lesson or workbook to Common Core, NGSS or a state framework, to check an alignment claim before publishing, or to decide what may lawfully be printed on the cover.
+---
+
+# Standards alignment
+
+An alignment claim is a promise to a buyer who cannot verify it quickly. Most published alignment is
+decorative — a code printed in a corner, chosen after the worksheet was written, that the task does
+not actually assess. It survives because nobody checks, until a district curriculum reviewer does.
+
+## Align to the verb, not the topic
+
+A standard is written as a performance: what the student does, to what, under what conditions. The
+topic is the least specific part of it and the part most alignment stops at.
+
+`3.NF.A.1` is about fractions. It is specifically about *understanding a fraction as a quantity
+formed by parts of a whole* — so a page of shaded-circle identification aligns, and a page of
+fraction addition drills does not, however much both are "fractions in third grade."
+
+The test to apply before printing a code: **could a student complete this task correctly without
+doing what the standard describes?** If yes, the alignment is decorative. A word problem solvable by
+guessing from the answer format assesses test-taking, and it is aligned to nothing.
+
+## Know which framework applies
+
+Grade and subject do not determine the framework on their own, and the mismatch is a common source
+of wrong claims:
+
+- **Common Core** covers mathematics and English language arts, K-12. It is adopted by most but not
+  all states, and several adopting states have renamed and amended it — a "Common Core aligned"
+  claim in a state that rewrote it is at best imprecise.
+- **NGSS** covers science, and is organized as performance expectations that bundle a practice, a
+  core idea and a crosscutting concept. Aligning to the disciplinary content alone misses two
+  thirds of what the expectation asks for.
+- **C3** covers social studies, and is an inquiry arc rather than a content list. It does not
+  enumerate facts, so "aligned to C3" is a claim about the shape of the task, not its subject.
+- **Pre-K has no Common Core.** Nothing below kindergarten is covered, and an alignment claim there
+  is either to a state early learning standard, to Head Start's framework, or to nothing. Treat
+  pre-K as its own problem — `education:early-childhood-practice` holds it.
+
+State standards exist alongside all of these, and for a product sold into one state they are the
+binding set. `education:learning-materials-design` covers what changes when the material is for a
+named district rather than a general market.
+
+## Cite the code, never the text
+
+This is where alignment becomes a legal question rather than an editorial one, and the distinction
+is sharper than most publishers treat it.
+
+**Citing a standard by its code is not reproduction.** `4-PS3-2`, `RL.5.2`, `2.MD.C.7` are
+identifiers. Using them to say what a page addresses is normal, expected, and safe.
+
+**Reproducing the standard's wording is a different act**, and whether it is permitted depends on
+the publisher:
+
+- Common Core carries a public license that permits use **with its required attribution notice**.
+  It is not public domain, and dropping the notice is the common failure.
+- NGSS is copyrighted, and "Next Generation Science Standards" is a registered trademark — which
+  constrains the alignment claim itself, not only the text.
+- State frameworks vary. Many are state government works and freely usable; some are licensed from
+  a vendor and are not.
+
+Paraphrasing to avoid the question does not avoid it, and a paraphrase that stays close enough to be
+useful is close enough to be a derivative. Write your own learning objective in your own words, and
+cite the code beside it. That is both safer and clearer to a teacher.
+
+`references/sources.md` carries the publisher and license class for each framework.
+
+## An alignment document is the deliverable
+
+For anything sold to a school, the alignment is an artifact, not an annotation. It lists, per page
+or per lesson: the code, the text of *your* objective, the task that provides evidence, and where a
+reviewer would look to verify it.
+
+Building it after the material is written is what produces decorative alignment. Building it first
+makes it a specification: each row is a task somebody then has to write.
+
+## Tooling
+
+Standards data is available as structured identifiers more often than publishers realize. Common
+Core and NGSS codes are stable and enumerable, and a spreadsheet keyed on them beats prose in a
+document — it makes coverage gaps visible, which is the question a reviewer asks first.
+
+Curriculum mapping tools — Chalk, Atlas, Eduplanet21, Kiddom and similar — hold the alignment
+document and the sequence together, and earn their place once the same material is sold into
+several states with different frameworks. Below that, a maintained spreadsheet with one row per
+standard and one column per unit is the same artifact without the subscription.
+
+Whatever holds it, keep the standard's code and your objective in separate fields. Merging them is
+how the standard's wording ends up in the product.
+
+## Sources
+
+`references/sources.md` in this skill lists the outside authorities that settle the questions
+here — what each one is authoritative for, and what you may do with it. Check them before
+answering on anything they cover, and cite what you used. Most are free to read and not free
+to reproduce; the use note on each is binding.
+
+## Never
+
+- Print a standard code chosen after the task was written.
+- Claim alignment to a framework the state in question does not use.
+- Reproduce a standard's wording without the license notice its publisher requires.
+- Align to the topic in the standard and ignore the performance it describes.
+- Claim Common Core alignment for anything below kindergarten.

package/sources/headcount/verticals/education/skills/education/standards-alignment/references/sources.md

@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+# Sources — `education:standards-alignment`
+
+<!-- Generated by scripts/build-sources.py from sources/*.toml. Do not edit. -->
+
+Check these before answering on anything they cover, and cite what you used. The use note on each one is binding: most of what a professional cites is free to read and not free to reproduce.
+
+## C3 Framework for Social Studies State Standards
+
+National Council for the Social Studies · US · **read and cite only — copyrighted, do not reproduce**
+
+<https://www.socialstudies.org/standards/c3>
+
+**Authoritative for:** The social studies inquiry arc — question, investigate, evaluate, act. It enumerates no facts, so an alignment claim to it is a claim about the shape of the task rather than its subject.
+
+## Common Core State Standards — English Language Arts and Literacy
+
+NGA Center for Best Practices & CCSSO · US · free to use with attribution — credit the publisher
+
+<https://www.thecorestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/>
+
+**Authoritative for:** Reading, writing, language and foundational-skills standards by grade — including the reading foundational skills that stop after grade 5, which is a common source of wrong alignment above it.
+
+## Common Core State Standards — Mathematics
+
+NGA Center for Best Practices & CCSSO · US · free to use with attribution — credit the publisher
+
+<https://www.thecorestandards.org/Math/>
+
+**Authoritative for:** The mathematics standards most US states adopted, by grade and domain, and the standard codes an alignment claim cites. The public license permits use with the required attribution notice — this is not public domain.
+
+## Head Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework, birth to five
+
+US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Head Start · US · public domain (US government) — quote freely
+
+<https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/interactive-head-start-early-learning-outcomes-framework-ages-birth-five>
+
+**Authoritative for:** What is expected of children from birth to five across approaches to learning, social-emotional, language, cognition and physical development. The one comprehensive pre-K framework that is freely usable, where Common Core does not reach.
+
+## NGSS appendices — practices, crosscutting concepts, core ideas
+
+NGSS Lead States / Achieve · US · **read and cite only — copyrighted, do not reproduce**
+
+<https://www.nextgenscience.org/resources/ngss-appendices>
+
+**Authoritative for:** What three-dimensional learning means in practice, and why aligning to the disciplinary content alone misses two thirds of what a performance expectation asks.
+
+## NSTA official positions
+
+National Science Teaching Association · US · **read and cite only — copyrighted, do not reproduce**
+
+<https://www.nsta.org/nstas-official-positions>
+
+**Authoritative for:** The profession's positions on early childhood and elementary science instruction, including what inquiry-based means in practice at an age that cannot yet read the procedure.
+
+## Next Generation Science Standards
+
+NGSS Lead States / Achieve · US · **read and cite only — copyrighted, do not reproduce**
+
+<https://www.nextgenscience.org/search-standards>
+
+**Authoritative for:** Science performance expectations by grade, each bundling a practice, a core idea and a crosscutting concept. Copyrighted, and the name is a registered trademark — cite the expectation code, never the wording.
+
+## Standards for Mathematical Practice
+
+NGA Center for Best Practices & CCSSO · US · free to use with attribution — credit the publisher
+
+<https://www.thecorestandards.org/Math/Practice/>
+
+**Authoritative for:** The eight practice standards that run across every grade. Material claiming to build reasoning rather than procedure is aligning here, and usually does not say so.
+
+---
+
+Sources are maintained in `sources/` upstream, not here. If one is wrong, out of date, or missing, fix it there — this file is regenerated and an edit to it is lost.

package/sources/headcount/verticals/education/vertical.toml

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+# The education vertical: curriculum-aligned learning materials.
+#
+# The second vertical, and the one that made the generator support a department the core does not
+# have. Industrial's skills belong to operations and people, which already exist. A curriculum
+# function is not a thinner version of anything in a cross-industry core, and filing it under an
+# existing department to avoid building the feature would misroute every request that reached it.
+
+[vertical]
+slug = "education"
+name = "headcount-education"
+title = "Education"
+tagline = "An agent organization for people who make learning materials — the full cross-industry core, plus standards alignment, materials design and assessment."
+description = "An agent organization for curriculum publishers, learning-materials authors and education programs. Each department installs independently so only the relevant function loads."
+keywords = ["education", "curriculum", "learning-materials", "standards-alignment"]
+rationale = """
+Making learning materials is a publishing business with a compliance problem attached. The core
+covers the publishing side — positioning, pricing, content operations, unit economics — and says
+nothing about the part that decides whether the material is any good or lawful to sell: whether it
+aligns to the standard it claims to, whether the task is developmentally plausible for the age on
+the cover, and whether the alignment can be stated without reproducing text that is not yours.
+
+That last constraint is not incidental. Most education standards are free to read and not free to
+reproduce. Common Core is usable only with its required attribution notice; NGSS is copyrighted
+with a registered trademark on its name. A generator that paraphrases a standard into a worksheet
+header is a legal problem, not a formatting choice. The skills here treat citing the code and
+reproducing the text as different acts, and the source catalog records which is permitted for each
+publisher.
+"""
+
+[repo]
+url = "https://github.com/cbrock84/headcount-education"
+upstream = "https://github.com/cbrock84/headcount"
+
+[[department]]
+name = "education"
+title = "Education"
+description = "Standards alignment, learning-materials design, assessment construction, and developmentally appropriate practice."
+keywords = ["curriculum", "standards", "assessment", "pedagogy"]
+category = "education"
+
+[emit]
+exclude_departments = []

package/sources/headcount/verticals/industrial/context/legal-risk/regulatory-compliance.md

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+## Regulators that arrive at the site
+
+A cross-industry compliance program is built around obligations that arrive as filings. An operating
+site adds regulators who arrive in person, inspect equipment and interview employees, and whose
+obligations run on clocks measured in hours.
+
+The categories worth tracking separately, because each has its own trigger and its own owner:
+
+- **Occupational safety.** Recordkeeping is continuous and the log is posted annually; serious
+  events carry a short notification window. The inspection is unannounced and the walkthrough is
+  itself evidence. `operations:ehs-and-workplace-safety` holds the operational side.
+- **Environmental permits.** Air, wastewater, stormwater and waste each carry conditions, monitoring
+  and periodic reporting. A permit condition breached is a violation whether or not anything was
+  released, and permits expire on their own schedule rather than the company's.
+- **Release reporting.** Spills and releases above a reportable quantity trigger notification within
+  hours. Knowing the quantities for what is on site is preparation, not response — nobody derives
+  them correctly at the time.
+- **Product and material regulation.** Hazard communication and safety data sheets, restricted
+  substances, labeling, and anything specific to what the site makes or handles.
+- **Equipment certification.** Pressure vessels, lifting equipment, forklifts and their operators
+  carry inspection and certification intervals with their own dates.
+
+**A site has a finite, enumerable obligation list, and most sites have never written it down.**
+Producing it once — obligation, regulator, trigger, frequency, named owner, evidence location — is
+the highest-value compliance work an operating site can do, and it is usually assembled in a week
+from permits already in the file.
+
+Contractors and temporary workers on the site are inside most of these obligations and outside most
+companies' tracking of them.

package/sources/headcount/verticals/industrial/context/operations/capacity-and-demand-planning.md

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+## On a plant floor, capacity is one resource
+
+Everything above describes a system's capacity in aggregate. A plant does not have one. It has a
+sequence of resources, and its output is set by the slowest one in the current product mix — which
+moves when the mix moves.
+
+Three consequences that do not follow from the aggregate view:
+
+- **The utilization threshold applies per resource, not per plant.** A plant at 70% overall with the
+  press at 95% behaves like a plant at 95%. Aggregate utilization is the number most likely to be
+  quoted and least likely to explain the queue.
+- **Capacity added anywhere else produces inventory.** Speeding up a feeding operation puts more
+  work in front of the constraint. The line looks busier and ships the same.
+- **The constraint is worth protecting, not optimizing.** Time lost at the constraint is lost for the
+  whole plant and cannot be recovered elsewhere. Keeping a deliberate buffer of work in front of it,
+  and scheduling maintenance and changeovers around it, is worth more than a percentage point of
+  its own efficiency.
+
+**Changeover time is capacity that looks like demand.** A resource whose nominal rate covers the
+order book can still be short, because a third of its hours go to setups the schedule implies. When
+capacity looks adequate on paper and is not in practice, count the changeovers the sequence requires
+before adding a shift. `operations:production-management` covers the sequencing decision that sets
+that number.
+
+**Labor availability is a separate constraint from machine availability**, and on most sites the
+binding one. Certified operators, shift coverage, and absence run on different arithmetic from
+equipment, and a plan built on machine hours alone will be wrong every time a qualified operator is
+out.

package/sources/headcount/verticals/industrial/context/operations/quality-management.md

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+## Inside a certified quality system
+
+Where the plant holds a certification — ISO 9001, IATF 16949, AS9100 or a customer-specific scheme —
+the quality system stops being purely internal. It carries obligations that are audited, and the
+audit tests the system rather than the product.
+
+What that changes in practice:
+
+- **Nonconformance has to be dispositioned and recorded**, not just fixed. Use as-is, rework, repair,
+  scrap, return — each with an authority level that says who may decide, and the reasoning attached.
+  An undocumented "we sorted it" is the finding.
+- **Corrective action is a defined loop with evidence at the end.** Containment first, so nothing
+  further escapes while the cause is being found; then cause; then the action; then verification that
+  the rate actually moved; then closure. Auditors open closed actions and look for the last step,
+  because it is the one most often missing.
+- **Document and change control is part of the product.** Which revision of the drawing, the work
+  instruction and the inspection plan was in force when the part was made is a question that will be
+  asked, sometimes years later.
+- **Traceability runs backwards from the customer.** Given a complaint, the system has to identify
+  the lot, the material, the machine, the shift and everything else made under the same conditions.
+  That defines the recall boundary, and a system that cannot draw it makes the boundary everything.
+
+**Certification is evidence of a system, not of quality.** A plant can hold a clean certificate and
+ship defects; the certificate says the process is documented and followed. Treat an audit finding as
+information about the system and the escaped-defect rate as information about the product, and do
+not let a clean audit answer a customer complaint.
+
+Customer-specific requirements sit on top of the standard and usually carry the sharper teeth —
+production part approval, annual revalidation, mandated containment on escape. Know which customer
+imposes what before the escape, not after.

package/sources/headcount/verticals/industrial/context/operations/supply-chain-and-logistics.md

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+## Inbound materials behave differently from inbound goods
+
+Everything above holds for a supply chain that moves finished goods. A plant's inbound side has
+properties that change the answers.
+
+**Lead time variability costs more than lead time.** A material that reliably takes six weeks can be
+planned. One that takes two to six weeks cannot, and the difference is absorbed as either safety
+stock or missed production. When pressing a supplier, press on the variance before the average.
+
+**A shortage of any one input is a shortage of the finished item.** Ninety-nine of a hundred
+components in stock is zero units buildable. This is why component-level availability, not aggregate
+inventory value, is the number that predicts whether the schedule holds — and why inventory
+reduction programs measured in dollars reliably delete the cheap part that stops the line.
+
+**Qualification makes second-sourcing slow.** Where material is specified, certified, or bound to a
+customer approval, an alternate supplier is a qualification project measured in months, not a
+purchase order. The time to start is before the single source is a problem. Rank single-sourced
+inputs by what stopping costs per day and qualify downward from the top.
+
+**Minimum order quantities and batch sizes propagate.** A supplier minimum that exceeds a run's
+requirement pushes the excess into inventory or forces a longer run than the schedule wanted. That
+is a supply decision reshaping the production schedule, and it should be visible as one rather than
+absorbed at the plant.
+
+Scrap and yield sit between the two sides: material consumed is what was issued, not what shipped,
+and a plan built on finished quantity under-orders by the yield gap every time.