Skip to content

Contract test: all 9 basic-case examples fail schema validation #1

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
oddtitoreal merged 2 commits into from
Aug 13, 2026
Merged

Contract test: all 9 basic-case examples fail schema validation #1

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
ce54711
test: add parametrized schema-contract validation for basic-case exam…
oddtitoreal Aug 13, 2026
d872f50
fix: align basic-case examples with current phase schemas
oddtitoreal Aug 13, 2026
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions examples/basic-case/phase-0-activation.json
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -4,9 +4,9 @@
"phase": "0",
"mode": "sensemaking",
"generated_at": "2026-03-29T10:00:00Z",
"validated_by_human": true,
"validated_by_human": false,
"related_artifacts": [],
"decision_rationale": "Activation of Specula Method for a community library seeking to formalize governance around collection curation and community voice in decision-making.",
"decision_rationale": "Activation of the Specula Method for a community library seeking to formalize governance around collection curation and community voice in decision-making.",
"evidence_refs": [
"Library board meeting notes (2026-03-15)",
"Community survey on collection preferences (n=127)"
Expand Down
30 changes: 16 additions & 14 deletions examples/basic-case/phase-1-scenarios.json
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -4,9 +4,11 @@
"phase": "1",
"mode": "exploration",
"generated_at": "2026-03-29T11:15:00Z",
"validated_by_human": true,
"related_artifacts": ["basic-case-phase-0"],
"decision_rationale": "Four scenarios explore the library's evolution across 10 years under different cultural/economic/tech drivers. Essential for understanding which governance model protects against which futures.",
"validated_by_human": false,
"related_artifacts": [
"basic-case-phase-0"
],
"decision_rationale": "Four scenarios explore the library's evolution across 10 years under different cultural/economic/tech drivers, to understand which governance model protects against which futures.",
"evidence_refs": [
"Local demographic trends (city planning dept)",
"Digital library adoption rates in peer libraries",
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -42,7 +44,7 @@
}
],
"scenario_type": "preferred",
"description": "Library becomes true civic hub: expanded programs, robust collection, active community governance, financial stability.",
"description": "Library becomes a true civic hub: expanded programs, robust collection, active community governance, financial stability.",
"maieutic_question": "What governance structure would best enable and protect this scenario?",
"user_response": "A transparent, community-inclusive governance model that formalizes input from patrons and staff"
},
Expand All @@ -57,16 +59,16 @@
},
{
"type": "economic",
"description": "City budget cuts; library funding reduced by 40%"
"description": "City budget cuts reduce library funding by 40%"
},
{
"type": "cultural",
"description": "Cultural shift toward private (corporate) gathering spaces"
"description": "Cultural shift toward private, corporate gathering spaces"
}
],
"scenario_type": "feared",
"description": "Library becomes marginal: reduced hours, minimal collection, volunteer-dependent, declining relevance.",
"maieutic_question": "What governance guardrails would allow the library to survive and eventually thrive even in this scenario?",
"maieutic_question": "What governance guardrails would let the library survive and eventually thrive even here?",
"user_response": "Explicit commitment to core values (accessibility, equity, community voice) that survive budget cuts"
},
{
Expand All @@ -80,16 +82,16 @@
},
{
"type": "tech",
"description": "Open-source tools allow libraries to offer services previously locked in corporate platforms"
"description": "Open-source tools let libraries offer services previously locked in corporate platforms"
},
{
"type": "economic",
"description": "Regional library cooperation creates economies of scale without central control"
}
],
"scenario_type": "wild_card",
"description": "Library becomes a node in a federated, community-controlled information network. Unexpected opportunity.",
"maieutic_question": "What governance principles would allow us to seize this opportunity while staying accountable to our community?",
"description": "Library becomes a node in a federated, community-controlled information network.",
"maieutic_question": "What governance principles would let us seize this opportunity while staying accountable?",
"user_response": "Governance must be interoperable with other libraries while maintaining local autonomy"
},
{
Expand All @@ -103,17 +105,17 @@
},
{
"type": "cultural",
"description": "Library becomes battleground for culture war issues"
"description": "Library becomes a battleground for culture-war issues"
},
{
"type": "economic",
"description": "Funding becomes conditional on compliance with majority political preferences"
}
],
"scenario_type": "negative",
"description": "Library loses independence; becomes tool of political faction; community loses trust.",
"maieutic_question": "What governance structures would protect democratic values and intellectual freedom even under political pressure?",
"user_response": "Clear separation between governance (community) and collection decisions; explicit intellectual freedom commitments"
"description": "Library loses independence; becomes a tool of a political faction; community loses trust.",
"maieutic_question": "What governance structures would protect intellectual freedom under political pressure?",
"user_response": "Clear separation between governance (community) and collection decisions; explicit intellectual-freedom commitments"
}
]
}
Expand Down
80 changes: 53 additions & 27 deletions examples/basic-case/phase-1.5-competitive-map.json
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2,50 +2,76 @@
"meta": {
"artifact_id": "basic-case-phase-1.5",
"phase": "1.5",
"mode": "exploration",
"mode": "convergence",
"generated_at": "2026-03-29T12:30:00Z",
"validated_by_human": true,
"related_artifacts": ["basic-case-phase-1"],
"decision_rationale": "Competitive map identifies how the library differentiates from digital platforms and corporate community spaces. Critical for positioning collection and governance model.",
"validated_by_human": false,
"related_artifacts": [
"basic-case-phase-1"
],
"decision_rationale": "The competitive map identifies how the library differentiates from digital platforms and corporate community spaces, and where the strategic white spaces are.",
"evidence_refs": [
"Amazon/Google services analysis",
"Competing bookstores and cafes in area",
"Competing bookstores and cafes in the area",
"Other library governance models (3 case studies)"
],
"tradeoffs": [
"May reveal uncomfortable truths about competitive disadvantage",
"Requires honest assessment of library's actual vs. perceived value"
"Requires honest assessment of the library's actual vs. perceived value"
],
"rejected_alternatives": [
"Ignoring competitive landscape (risk of obsolescence)",
"Competing on features where we'll always lose (speed, convenience)"
"Ignoring the competitive landscape (risk of obsolescence)",
"Competing on features where we always lose (speed, convenience)"
]
},
"payload": {
"competitors": [
"competitive_map": [
{
"competitor": "Amazon & Digital Commerce",
"future_trajectory": "Deeper algorithmic personalization and on-demand delivery become the default way people discover content.",
"occupied_territory": "Convenience, infinite selection, instant access.",
"ignored_territories": [
"Human curation",
"Community trust",
"Serendipitous discovery",
"Equity of access"
],
"confidence_level": "high"
},
{
"competitor_id": "amazon-market",
"name": "Amazon & Digital Commerce",
"positioning": "On-demand, infinite selection, convenience, personalized algorithms",
"strengths": ["Instant delivery", "Perfect personalization", "24/7 access"],
"weaknesses": ["No community", "Algorithm-driven curation", "Corporate ownership"],
"library_differentiation": "Human curation, community values, local trust, serendipity"
"competitor": "Coffee Shop & Bookstore",
"future_trajectory": "Premiumized social spaces monetize aesthetics and curated selection for paying customers.",
"occupied_territory": "Ambiance, social gathering, curated retail experience.",
"ignored_territories": [
"Free access",
"Comprehensive collection",
"Community-driven curation"
],
"confidence_level": "medium"
},
{
"competitor_id": "coffee-shop",
"name": "Coffee Shop & Bookstore",
"positioning": "Aesthetics, social gathering, experience",
"strengths": ["Pleasant ambiance", "Curated selection", "Integrated commerce"],
"weaknesses": ["Expensive", "Selection limited", "Profit-driven"],
"library_differentiation": "Free access, comprehensive collection, community-driven collection, equity focus"
"competitor": "Parks & Community Centers",
"future_trajectory": "Civic gathering spaces expand but remain disconnected from knowledge and learning resources.",
"occupied_territory": "Low-cost accessible community gathering.",
"ignored_territories": [
"Knowledge resources",
"Intellectual freedom",
"Diverse perspectives"
],
"confidence_level": "medium"
}
],
"white_spaces": [
{
"white_space_id": "ws-curation-trust",
"description": "Human-curated, community-governed knowledge with transparent, non-algorithmic collection decisions.",
"strategic_risk": "low",
"alignment_with_brand": "high"
},
{
"competitor_id": "civic-space",
"name": "Parks, Community Centers, Civic Spaces",
"positioning": "Community gathering, free/low-cost, accessible",
"strengths": ["Low cost", "Accessible", "Community focus"],
"weaknesses": ["No information/learning resources", "Fragmented purpose"],
"library_differentiation": "Knowledge + community integration, intellectual freedom, diverse perspectives"
"white_space_id": "ws-federated-autonomy",
"description": "Interoperable governance across libraries that preserves local autonomy and community accountability.",
"strategic_risk": "medium",
"alignment_with_brand": "high"
}
]
}
Expand Down
79 changes: 44 additions & 35 deletions examples/basic-case/phase-2-brand-dna.json
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2,11 +2,14 @@
"meta": {
"artifact_id": "basic-case-phase-2",
"phase": "2",
"mode": "synthesis",
"mode": "brand_archaeology",
"generated_at": "2026-03-29T14:00:00Z",
"validated_by_human": true,
"related_artifacts": ["basic-case-phase-1", "basic-case-phase-1.5"],
"decision_rationale": "Brand DNA synthesizes library's essential identity from scenarios and competitive position. Guides all downstream governance and collection decisions.",
"validated_by_human": false,
"related_artifacts": [
"basic-case-phase-1",
"basic-case-phase-1.5"
],
"decision_rationale": "Brand DNA synthesizes the library's essential identity from scenarios and competitive position, guiding all downstream governance and collection decisions.",
"evidence_refs": [
"Phase 1 scenarios (esp. Civic Hub preferred, Politicized feared)",
"Phase 1.5 competitive map (library's unique strengths)",
Expand All @@ -22,38 +25,44 @@
]
},
"payload": {
"brand_name": "Community Library Collective",
"tagline": "Knowledge, trust, and community voice at the center",
"core_values": [
{
"value": "Intellectual Freedom",
"definition": "We protect the right to seek, share, and challenge ideas—without censorship or algorithmic control.",
"governance_implication": "Collection decisions made by community, not corporate algorithms or political pressure"
},
{
"value": "Equity & Access",
"definition": "We ensure everyone—regardless of income, education, or ability—can access knowledge and community.",
"governance_implication": "Free access, materials in multiple formats, staff trained in accessibility"
},
{
"value": "Community Voice",
"definition": "We are governed by and accountable to the community we serve, not distant corporate or political entities.",
"governance_implication": "Formal governance structure with community representation; transparent decision-making"
},
{
"value": "Serendipity & Discovery",
"definition": "We believe unexpected encounters with books, people, and ideas enrich life in ways algorithms can't replicate.",
"governance_implication": "Diverse collection curated by humans, community curation alongside expert curation"
"brand_dna": {
"radical_values": [
{
"value": "Intellectual freedom",
"tested_in": "A 2025 challenge to remove several titles from the shelves after political pressure.",
"cost_paid": "Lost a conditional grant tied to removing the contested titles."
},
{
"value": "Equity of access",
"tested_in": "Debate over introducing paid premium services to close a budget gap.",
"cost_paid": "Forwent recurring premium-subscription revenue to keep all services free."
},
{
"value": "Community voice",
"tested_in": "Pressure to let a single donor dictate collection priorities.",
"cost_paid": "Declined a major earmarked donation to preserve community governance."
}
],
"accepted_biases": [
"Preference for local and independent authors over bestseller optimization",
"Bias toward physical and hybrid gathering over purely digital delivery"
],
"moral_entity": "A community-accountable steward of knowledge that treats access to information as a public good rather than a product.",
"refusal_zones": [
"Algorithmic collection decisions driven by engagement metrics",
"Censorship of lawful materials under political or commercial pressure",
"Selling or brokering patron data"
],
"tensions": {
"acceptable": [
"Slower decisions in exchange for transparent community deliberation",
"Narrower bestseller selection in exchange for diverse, curated breadth"
],
"unacceptable": [
"Trading intellectual freedom for funding",
"Trading equity of access for short-term revenue"
]
}
],
"brand_archetype": "The Mentor / Sage (trusted guide to knowledge) + The Everyman (for everyone, no gatekeepers)",
"tone_voice": {
"tone": "Warm, accessible, intellectually serious but not elitist",
"voice_elements": [
"We speak directly, not in jargon",
"We admit what we don't know",
"We center community perspective, not expert authority"
]
}
}
}
Loading
Loading