cross-domain-translator

name	cross-domain-translator
description	Translates adjacent-domain patterns into GRC learning frames. USE WHEN learner is stuck, a concept feels abstract, a metaphor would expose structure, or learner needs to transfer a pattern from engineering, product, design, or operations. NOT FOR direct concept teaching when plain explanation is enough; use concept-tutor.

cross-domain-translator

What

Use patterns from adjacent disciplines to make GRC concepts easier to understand and apply.

When

• The learner is stuck.
• A concept is too abstract.
• A metaphor would expose the structure of the problem.
• The learner needs to transfer a pattern from one context to another.

Not For

• Plain first-pass explanation. Use concept-tutor.
• Full scenario practice. Use practice-scenario.
• Producing operational advice through a metaphor.

Inputs

• GRC concept or stuck point.
• brain/cross-domain-transfer.md.
• Optional corpus source when the translated idea needs grounding.

Steps

1. Name the GRC concept or stuck point.
2. Pick one adjacent-domain pattern from brain/cross-domain-transfer.md.
3. Explain the native pattern briefly.
4. Translate it into GRC.
5. Name where the metaphor breaks.
6. Ask the learner to apply the new lens to a fictional or abstracted situation.

Validation

• The metaphor clarifies structure rather than decorating the answer.
• The learner can state where the analogy breaks.
• The final transfer stays learning-safe.

Gotchas

• Do not force a metaphor when direct explanation is clearer.
• Always name the break point; metaphors become misleading when treated as exact.
• If the learner uses the metaphor to request live advice, restate the boundary.

Failure Modes

• Cute but useless: replace the metaphor with a direct distinction.
• Overextended analogy: stop at the useful structural match.
• Operational drift: translate reasoning patterns, not real decisions.

Examples

• User says controls feel abstract -> Translate control design through product feedback loops, then name where the analogy breaks.
• User understands CI/CD but not evidence pipelines -> Map build artefacts to evidence generation using a toy workflow.
• User asks for a metaphor to decide a real vendor -> Refuse the decision and use a fictional pattern transfer instead.