ccpe-system/model-index/model-dependency-map.md

339 lines
5.2 KiB
Markdown

# Model Dependency Map
## 1. Purpose
This file tracks relationships among models in the CCPE model library.
It answers:
```text
Which models depend on which?
Which models derive from which?
Which models overlap?
Which models conflict?
Which models should be merged?
Which models have been deprecated or replaced?
```
This file is especially important when the library contains many models.
## 2. Relationship Types
Use these relationship types:
```text
parent-model
child-model
prerequisite
derived-model
sibling-model
overlapping-model
conflicting-model
merged-into
supersedes
deprecated-by
supports
tensions-with
```
## 3. Mapping Format
Use this format for each model:
```md
## {model-id}
### Parent Models
### Child Models / Derived Models
### Prerequisites
### Sibling Models
### Overlapping Models
### Conflicting Models
### Supports
### Tensions
### Notes
```
## 4. Initial Map
### cognitive-imaging
#### Parent Models
Conceptual parent models:
```text
prediction-error
free-energy-principle
algorithmic-compression
causal-intervention
complex-adaptive-systems
orthogonal-modeling
```
Status:
```text
active model relationship; conceptual dependencies are not all standalone Model Cards yet
```
#### Child Models / Derived Models
Potential child or derived procedures:
```text
prediction-error-capture
darkroom-suspension
multi-filter-enlarger
do-operator-test
conspiracy-breaker-check
cognitive-development-report
```
Status:
```text
candidate procedures; most should become Skills only if Codex invocation or cross-agent reuse is needed
```
#### Prerequisites
```text
Understanding of complex adaptive systems
Ability to distinguish correlation from causation
Awareness of model falsifiability
Tolerance for suspended judgment
```
#### Sibling Models
```text
cognitive-prism
giant-cognition
```
Status:
```text
candidate sibling relationship; needs user confirmation
```
#### Overlapping Models
```text
systems-thinking
argument-compression
causal-analysis
```
Status:
```text
external or candidate internal relationships
```
#### Conflicting Models
```text
TBD
```
#### Supports
```text
cognitive-imaging.skill.md
model-cards/intermediate/cognitive-imaging-model.md
agents/lite/cognitive-imaging-practitioner.prompt.md
article-review-committee.runtime.md (future candidate)
```
#### Tensions
Potential tensions:
```text
May overuse hard-science filters.
May mistake anomaly detection for insight.
May over-privilege anti-intuitive conclusions.
```
#### Notes
Cognitive Imaging appears to function both as an intermediate model and as a workflow model.
It now has an active Model Card and an active CCPE-Lite prompt.
Skill, Agent Spec, and Runtime expansion is deferred until scenario demand is confirmed.
### giant-cognition
#### Parent Models
```text
TBD
```
#### Child Models / Derived Models
```text
TBD
```
#### Prerequisites
```text
TBD
```
#### Sibling Models
```text
cognitive-imaging
cognitive-prism
```
#### Overlapping Models
```text
TBD
```
#### Conflicting Models
```text
TBD
```
#### Supports
```text
model-cards/applied/giant-cognition-model.md
agents/lite/giant-cognition.prompt.md
review-committee.runtime.md (future candidate)
```
#### Tensions
```text
May become too template-heavy if every review forces a full L0-L4 scan.
May over-emphasize cognitive architecture when a task only needs factual correction or light editing.
May confuse metaphorical model structure with empirical mechanism if used without boundary discipline.
```
#### Notes
Candidate applied model extracted from 《构建你自己的巨人 2.0》 and 巨人认知智能体2.2.
Current target form is Model Card + CCPE-Lite. Skill, Agent Spec, and Runtime conversion are deferred.
### cognitive-prism
#### Parent Models
```text
TBD
```
#### Child Models / Derived Models
```text
TBD
```
#### Prerequisites
```text
TBD
```
#### Sibling Models
```text
cognitive-imaging
giant-cognition
```
#### Overlapping Models
```text
TBD
```
#### Conflicting Models
```text
TBD
```
#### Supports
```text
TBD
```
#### Tensions
```text
TBD
```
#### Notes
Candidate model. Requires source review and Model Mining.
## 5. Dependency Review Checklist
When adding or updating relationships, ask:
```text
Is this a real dependency or just thematic similarity?
Does one model require the other?
Is one model a procedure derived from another?
Are these two models actually duplicates?
Is the relationship confirmed by source material?
Does the user need to confirm this relationship?
```
## 6. Candidate Relationship Policy
When uncertain, mark relationship as:
```text
candidate relationship
```
Do not treat uncertain dependencies as canonical.
## 7. Merge Review Policy
Consider merge review when:
```text
Two models share the same mechanism.
Two models differ only in name.
One model is a subroutine of another.
A candidate model is better represented as a Skill.
```
Do not merge when:
```text
Two models share vocabulary but solve different problems.
Two models share metaphor but have different mechanisms.
One is a foundational model and the other is an applied model.
```
## 8. Final Rule
Dependency mapping should reveal the architecture of the user's thinking.
It should not create artificial order where the model relationships are still uncertain.