concept-cartographer

name	concept-cartographer
description	Analyze any concept and produce a structured multi-dimensional classification across decomposition status, substitutability, strategic posture, IP regime, epistemic accessibility, maturity, combinatorial profile, application landscape, and temporal dynamics. Frame-relative, correlation-aware, and honest about its own limitations.

Concept Cartographer v0.2.0

Analyze any concept and produce a structured, multi-dimensional classification that replaces naive binary labels with formally defined, partially-independent axes grounded in explicit criteria.

Before you begin

1. Read references/dimension-definitions-v0.2.0.md — it contains the formal definitions, enum values, decision criteria, known correlations, and admitted limitations for every classification axis. Do not guess values from memory; confirm against the reference.

---

Why This Exists

Human concept classification tends toward false binaries: "is it primary or secondary?", "is it internal or external?", "is it a feature or a trade secret?" These framings are:

• Logically defective: they assume mutual exclusivity where none exists.
• Ontologically flat: they ignore dependency graphs, cyclic relations, and negative interactions between concepts.
• Epistemically naive: they collapse a multi-dimensional space of audiences into a single linear scale.
• Strategically incomplete: they miss maturity, defensibility, composability, temporal trajectory, and combinatorial leverage.
• Statically biased: they produce snapshots without trajectory, treating volatile classifications as if they were permanent.

This skill replaces those broken heuristics with a nine-sub-axis framework where each axis captures variance not fully captured by the others, and known correlations between axes are explicitly documented.

What this framework is NOT: It is not orthogonal (axes correlate), not complete (more dimensions exist), not computable (the formal tests are heuristic), and not culturally universal (it assumes an analytic, Western-business-compatible epistemology). It is a structured thinking tool, not a source of truth.

---

Phase 0 — Validate the Input

Before classifying anything, verify the input is well-formed.

A concept is: a named, bounded abstraction that can be the subject of a truth-apt proposition within a specified domain.

Check	Question	If fails
Nameable	Does it have or can it receive a stable label?	Ask the user to name it.
Bounded	Can you state what is and is not part of it?	Decompose until boundaries are clear.
Propositionally productive	Can you assert non-trivial true/false claims about it?	Reject: not yet well-formed for classification.

Phase 1 — Establish the Frame

Every classification is frame-relative. Before analyzing anything:

Property	Question
domain	What system, product, field, or organization?
viewpoint	From whose vantage? (engineer, strategist, end user, regulator, competitor, researcher, operator)
purpose	Why? (product positioning, IP strategy, communication planning, competitive analysis, knowledge management, investment decision)

If the user doesn't specify, infer from context and state explicitly, or ask.

Phase 2 — Structural Role

Two independent sub-axes. Evaluate each separately.

2a. Decomposition Status

Value	Definition	Test
primitive	Relative stopping point: decomposition within this domain's vocabulary yields only terms outside the domain. Not an intrinsic property.	All sub-components leave the domain.
composite	Fully derivable from other concepts in the domain. Knowledge of parts + composition rule is sufficient.	Parts exist in domain AND all properties of the whole are derivable from them.
emergent	Arises from other concepts but has at least one property not derivable from complete knowledge of parts and their composition rule, given current theory. Epistemic claim, not metaphysical.	Non-derivable property exists under current understanding. If future theory explains it, reclassify as composite.

2b. Substitutability Class

Value	Definition
irreplaceable	No known functional equivalent. Removal destroys capabilities.
costly_to_replace	Substitutes exist. Switching cost > 6 months or > 20% domain restructuring.
substitutable	Multiple equivalents. Low switching cost.

Output: Decomposition status + justification, substitutability class + known substitutes, frame-sensitivity note.

Phase 3 — Strategic Posture

Assign all applicable postures with weights (0.0–1.0, summing to 1.0):

Posture	Definition
differentiator	Unique competitive advantage. Hard to replicate.
commodity	Widely available. Table stakes. ≥3 equivalents exist.
enabler	Multiplier. Removal blocks ≥2 downstream capabilities.
moat	Compounds over time (network effects, data flywheels, switching costs).
standard	Value from adoption, not exclusivity. Competing with the standard is destructive.
public_good	Non-rivalrous, non-excludable. Goal is adoption, not protection.

Correlation check (mandatory): Does the posture assignment align with expected correlations from maturity and substitutability? If divergent, explain — divergence is often where the strategic insight lives.

Phase 4 — IP Regime

Every regime is a tuple: (regime, jurisdiction, confidence).

Regime	Definition
public_domain	Freely available. No protection needed or possible.
trade_secret	Value derives from secrecy. Disclosure destroys advantage.
patentable	Novel, non-obvious, useful. Structural assessment, not legal advice.
open_but_attributed	Shared freely, attribution builds brand or ecosystem.
proprietary_feature	Visible to users. Protected by product boundary, not secrecy.

jurisdiction ∈ { named legal jurisdiction or universal } confidence ∈ { assessed, assumed, unknown }

Phase 5 — Epistemic Accessibility

Do not use a linear 1–5 scale. Instead, enumerate the actual relevant audiences:

For each audience segment, produce:

Field	Content
audience	Named group (e.g., "ML engineers", "procurement officers", "regulators").
perceives	What value they see, in one sentence.
action_enabled	What this understanding lets them do.
channel	How you reach them (API docs, press release, patent filing, etc.).

Phase 6 — Maturity

Stage	Evidence Required
theoretical	Papers, proposals, designs. No implementation.
experimental	POC exists. Data is preliminary.
validated	Reproducible results under controlled conditions.
deployed	In production. Real users depend on it.
commoditized	Multiple independent implementations. Off-the-shelf.
deprecated	Was deployed/commoditized, now being actively replaced.

Correlation check (mandatory): Does maturity align with expected posture and IP correlations?

Phase 7 — Combinatorial Profile

Dependencies (may include cycles)

Format: A → B [type, condition?] Types: required, catalytic, unlocking

Positive Interactions

Type	Definition
synergy	1 + 1 > 2
threshold	Only works when all are present
amplification	Each addition multiplies effect

Negative Interactions

Type	Definition
inhibition	Co-presence reduces effectiveness of one or both
mutual_exclusion	Cannot coherently coexist in the same system
cannibalization	One reduces the need for the other

Phase 8 — Application Landscape

Category	Confidence	Evidence
proven_measured	High, quantified	Metrics, A/B tests, benchmarks.
proven_observed	High, qualitative	In production, not rigorously measured.
plausible	Medium	Theoretically sound, not tested here.
speculative	Low	Requires assumptions beyond current evidence.
excluded	High (negative)	Known to not work. State failure mode + source.

Phase 9 — Temporal Dynamics

Field	Content
velocity	stable, shifting, volatile
trajectory	Per-axis: current value → projected value + basis for projection
half_life	Time until current differentiating properties are commoditized/obsoleted
forcing_functions	External forces driving change

Mark as speculative. Speculative-and-stated > speculative-and-omitted.

---

Mandatory Correlation Audit

Before finalizing, check and document:

Axis Pair	Expected Correlation	Your Assignment	Aligned or Divergent?	Note
Maturity ↔ Posture	commoditized → commodity	...	...	...
Substitutability ↔ Posture	substitutable → commodity	...	...	...
IP Regime ↔ Posture	public_domain ↗ incompatible with moat	...	...	...
Maturity ↔ IP Regime	theoretical → limits proprietary_feature	...	...	...

Divergences are not errors. Unexplained divergences are.

---

Important Principles

• Frame-relativity is not optional. State the frame. Always.
• Do not claim orthogonality. Axes correlate. Document it.
• Never hallucinate applications or leverage. Mark uncertainty.
• The dependency graph + negative interactions are the most valuable output. Give them proportional attention.
• Challenge the user's framing. If they ask a binary question, explain why it's the wrong question.
• State what the framework cannot do. It is not computable, not complete, not culturally universal. Say so when relevant.
• Emergent is an epistemic claim. It means "we cannot currently derive this from parts," not "this is metaphysically irreducible." Be honest about the difference.