329 lines
4.4 KiB
Markdown
329 lines
4.4 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
|
|
|
|
Potential parent models:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
prediction-error
|
|
algorithmic-compression
|
|
causal-intervention
|
|
complex-adaptive-systems
|
|
anti-entropy-insight
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Status:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
candidate relationships; needs review
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
#### Child Models / Derived Models
|
|
|
|
Potential child or derived models:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
prediction-error-capture
|
|
darkroom-epoché
|
|
multi-filter-enlarger
|
|
do-operator-test
|
|
conspiracy-breaker-check
|
|
cognitive-development-report
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Status:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
candidate relationships; some may be Skills rather than Models
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
#### 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
|
|
cognitive-imaging-specialist.agent.md
|
|
review-committee.runtime.md
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
#### 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 should likely produce both a Model Card and a Skill.
|
|
|
|
### 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
|
|
TBD
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
#### Tensions
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
TBD
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
#### Notes
|
|
|
|
Candidate model. Requires source review and Model Mining.
|
|
|
|
### 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.
|