{ "code": "S06", "name": "Hinge", "shape": "before-after", "family": "Lists and comparisons", "fits": "An old question or view, and the new one that replaces it.", "use_when": "Reframing: \"instead of X, we ask Y\". The persimmon colon is the arrow.", "slots": [ { "name": "eyebrow", "holds": "the framing words", "budget": "2-4 words" }, { "name": "head", "holds": "what changes", "budget": "under 10 words" }, { "name": "steps", "holds": "3 x (icon, title, one sentence): before, the shift (highlighted), after", "budget": "sentence under 25 words" } ], "columns": 3, "density": "standard", "surface": "paper", "works_on": [ "deck", "page" ], "library": "Hoffman", "dir": "S06-hinge", "semantic": { "audience_question": "What earlier view are we replacing, through what shift, with what new view?", "intent": "Distinguish the old framing, the turning point and the replacement framing.", "reasoning_relation": "before, turning point and after", "message_pattern": "We previously asked [old question]. The evidence points to [better question].", "required_content": [ "A fair statement of the current frame.", "A documented limitation or clearly labelled hypothesis that motivates a change.", "A replacement question that responds to that limitation." ], "narrative_positions": [ "context", "explanation", "evidence: choose only when the page supports the surrounding argument" ], "requires_before": [ "Show the delay diagnosis and how jobs were classified." ], "enables_after": [ "Explain a parts-readiness trial and how its effect would be measured." ], "slot_roles": { "eyebrow": "Name the act of reconsidering the frame, not an unrelated topic.", "head": "State the change of question or approach.", "steps": "Three linked units: current view; the evidence or lens that challenges it; the resulting view. Give each a short title, sentence and illustrative icon." }, "avoid_when": [ "A chronology with no changed interpretation", "Unrelated before and after claims", "A benefit claim without the mechanism" ], "layout_specific_contract": "An old question or view, and the new one that replaces it.", "provenance": { "basis": "interpretation of the existing layout and slot contracts", "review": "Tessel model-authored guidance; implementation approved by Nic, 2026-10-10", "corpus_evidence_status": "not yet established", "guide": "../SEMANTICS.md" }, "reader_outcome": "Distinguish the old framing, the turning point and the replacement framing.", "matching": { "audience_question": "What earlier view are we replacing, through what shift, with what new view?", "reader_outcome": "Distinguish the old framing, the turning point and the replacement framing.", "reasoning_relation": "before, turning point and after", "content_shape": { "composition": "An old question or view, and the new one that replaces it.", "selected_state": "An old question or view, and the new one that replaces it.", "density": "standard", "columns": 3, "column_note": "Base metadata only; selected option can replace the base geometry." }, "required_slots": [ { "name": "eyebrow", "reader_question": "What kind of content or argument section am I reading?", "semantic_role": "Name the act of reconsidering the frame, not an unrelated topic.", "content_unit_count": { "min": 1, "max": 1, "basis": "authored composition members where a repeated group is specified; otherwise one named slot; not a required amount of evidence" }, "placeholder": "[REAL CONTENT · eyebrow · the framing words]", "layout_budget": { "authored": "2-4 words", "policy": "Working composition guidance: preserve scope and qualification; change layout rather than truncate the argument." }, "markup": { "slot": "eyebrow", "occurrences": 1, "annotation_status": "present", "visibility_status": "not asserted from static parsing", "sample_word_counts": [ 3 ] } }, { "name": "head", "reader_question": "What earlier view are we replacing, through what shift, with what new view?", "semantic_role": "State the change of question or approach.", "content_unit_count": { "min": 1, "max": 1, "basis": "authored composition members where a repeated group is specified; otherwise one named slot; not a required amount of evidence" }, "placeholder": "[REAL CONTENT · head · what changes]", "layout_budget": { "authored": "under 10 words", "policy": "Working composition guidance: preserve scope and qualification; change layout rather than truncate the argument." }, "markup": { "slot": "head", "occurrences": 1, "annotation_status": "present", "visibility_status": "not asserted from static parsing", "sample_word_counts": [ 6 ] } }, { "name": "steps", "reader_question": "What does this distinct step, state, scenario or observation contribute?", "semantic_role": "Three linked units: current view; the evidence or lens that challenges it; the resulting view. Give each a short title, sentence and illustrative icon.", "content_unit_count": { "min": 3, "max": 3, "basis": "authored composition members where a repeated group is specified; otherwise one named slot; not a required amount of evidence" }, "placeholder": "[REAL CONTENT · steps · 3 x (icon, title, one sentence): before, the shift (highlighted), after]", "layout_budget": { "authored": "sentence under 25 words", "policy": "Working composition guidance: preserve scope and qualification; change layout rather than truncate the argument." }, "markup": { "slot": "steps", "occurrences": 1, "annotation_status": "present", "visibility_status": "not asserted from static parsing", "sample_word_counts": [ 43 ] } } ], "rejection_constraints": [ "A chronology without a change of interpretation, or unsupported claims that the new view supersedes the old.", "Inventing a straw man or presenting two unrelated statements as a transformation." ], "option_guidance": { "option": "default", "composition_delta": "An old question or view, and the new one that replaces it.", "semantic_change": "retains base content relationship; changes presentation or disclosure", "matching_instruction": "Select S06 default when the supplied material answers “What earlier view are we replacing, through what shift, with what new view?” through before, turning point and after. Respect this state: An old question or view, and the new one that replaces it." }, "provenance": { "status": "inferred composition evidence", "author_intent": "not independently confirmed", "basis": [ "retained source composition where available", "authored layout and slot contracts", "static implementation inspection" ], "source_visual_count": 1, "source_visual_sha256": [ "e7276be9461ab2798b48d6a79b83742aeefbcca2a450f99a73960e044b199ba1" ], "source_export": "private source images remain outside this draft site", "markup_sha256": "c2deb9e2574df75d7d6e344549affbcb58e3274f5d09238e61cd48e7798df0bf", "limits": [ "Static parsing inventories authored nodes; it does not certify rendered visibility, responsive fit or interactive state.", "Budgets are authored layout guidance, not a content-writing limit or proof of fit.", "Matching guidance is a draft inference; it does not establish facts, endorsement, causation or source author intent." ] }, "adaptation_rules": [ "Choose by audience question, reasoning relation and required content before aesthetic preference.", "Supply every required semantic role; retain visible unknowns as labelled real-content placeholders.", "A number needs source, scope and units; a quotation needs faithful wording and attribution.", "Do not infer importance from area, colour, depth or movement unless the content explicitly defines that encoding.", "Keep colour token roles, structural objects, licences and source records; changing content does not authorize changing them." ] }, "rejection_constraints": [ "A chronology without a change of interpretation, or unsupported claims that the new view supersedes the old.", "Inventing a straw man or presenting two unrelated statements as a transformation." ], "markup_inventory": { "file": "spread.html", "sha256": "c2deb9e2574df75d7d6e344549affbcb58e3274f5d09238e61cd48e7798df0bf", "method": "static lxml markup plus authored option description; no rendered-visibility claim", "all_markup_slot_counts": { "eyebrow": 1, "head": 1, "steps": 1 }, "slot_evidence": { "eyebrow": [ { "tag": "span", "classes": "eyebrow", "sample_word_count": 3, "repeated_children": 0 } ], "head": [ { "tag": "h2", "classes": "head", "sample_word_count": 6, "repeated_children": 0 } ], "steps": [ { "tag": "div", "classes": "flow", "sample_word_count": 43, "repeated_children": 5 } ] }, "option_selectors": [], "linked_implementation": [ { "file": "../spreads.css", "sha256": "32da94472b0c9131e4d5dae7d5bf0498b09202a9e66294b4e4f23e6ddfbf37ba" }, { "file": "../spread.js", "sha256": "3d99948b83f750bd4ae95dac08e3e50a395de7c149c90a6f1a1c0ea36a2634a4" } ] }, "variations": { "shared-consequence": { "audience_question": "Who else bears the consequence of this apparently individual problem?", "intent": "The reader sees a second affected party and can judge whether the intervention should address their relationship.", "reader_outcome": "The reader sees a second affected party and can judge whether the intervention should address their relationship.", "reasoning_relation": "Initial individual frame, relational consequence, revised question.", "message_pattern": "Widening the view to a related party can reveal a more useful reason to act.", "required_content": [ "Evidence of the starting frame, or an explicit label that it is a hypothesis.", "Support for how one party affects another; a fictional example cannot supply that proof." ], "narrative_positions": [ "Reframe who experiences a problem." ], "requires_before": [ "Establish the actual problem and label any untested interpretation." ], "enables_after": [ "Show a proposed response that addresses the newly visible relationship, then state how it would be tested." ], "slot_roles": { "eyebrow": "Identify this as fictional teaching material.", "headline": "State the communication point and its relevance.", "closing": "Land the implication or prepare the next unit.", "qualification": "Keep evidence status and material limitations visible.", "beats": "Initial frame, relational consequence and revised question, in order." }, "avoid_when": [ "A new stakeholder with no causal connection.", "Blaming a person for a systemic constraint.", "A slogan presented as evidence." ], "variation_rule": "Three reasoning roles are fixed: initial frame, relationship, revised question.", "provenance": { "basis": "Reviewed fictional teaching reconstruction; confidential correspondence excluded.", "payload_sha256": "3e581be8b14dd0218bb20771ec21065faf411407c875ffccbb3eb851c73141b3" }, "matching": { "id": "S06--shared-consequence", "code": "S06", "name": "Shared consequence", "dir": "S06-hinge", "option": "shared-consequence", "files": { "html": "cases/sc-902f7120efd94bbbb2b320538743887e/spread.html", "preview": "cases/sc-902f7120efd94bbbb2b320538743887e/preview.webp", "case": "cases/sc-902f7120efd94bbbb2b320538743887e/case.json", "guide": "cases/sc-902f7120efd94bbbb2b320538743887e/index.html", "reuse": "cases/sc-902f7120efd94bbbb2b320538743887e/reuse.json", "prompt": "cases/sc-902f7120efd94bbbb2b320538743887e/prompt.txt", "storyboard": "cases/sc-902f7120efd94bbbb2b320538743887e/storyboard.md" }, "case_id": "SC-902f7120efd94bbbb2b320538743887e", "audience_question": "Who else bears the consequence of this apparently individual problem?", "reader_outcome": "The reader sees a second affected party and can judge whether the intervention should address their relationship.", "reasoning_relation": "Initial individual frame, relational consequence, revised question.", "content_shape": { "composition": "Three connected beats retain the S06 hinge, with the relational beat emphasised. A compact complete view compresses a paced reveal.", "selected_state": "Shared consequence", "cardinality": { "semantic": "Three reasoning roles are fixed: initial frame, relationship, revised question.", "tested": [ 3 ], "adaptation": "Preserve the relationship and all qualifications; new counts require an inspected populated instance." } }, "required_slots": [ { "name": "eyebrow", "reader_question": "Who else bears the consequence of this apparently individual problem?", "semantic_role": "Identify this as fictional teaching material.", "content_unit_count": { "min": 1, "max": 1, "basis": "This populated instance; see reuse.json for count alternatives." }, "layout_budget": { "authored": "Preserve complete meaning and qualifications; inspect the populated instance.", "policy": "Recompose when content does not fit; do not omit required content." }, "placeholder": "[AUTHORISED CONTENT: Identify this as fictional teaching material.]", "markup": { "slot": "eyebrow", "annotation_status": "present in selected case HTML" } }, { "name": "headline", "reader_question": "Who else bears the consequence of this apparently individual problem?", "semantic_role": "State the communication point and its relevance.", "content_unit_count": { "min": 1, "max": 1, "basis": "This populated instance; see reuse.json for count alternatives." }, "layout_budget": { "authored": "Preserve complete meaning and qualifications; inspect the populated instance.", "policy": "Recompose when content does not fit; do not omit required content." }, "placeholder": "[AUTHORISED CONTENT: State the communication point and its relevance.]", "markup": { "slot": "headline", "annotation_status": "present in selected case HTML" } }, { "name": "closing", "reader_question": "Who else bears the consequence of this apparently individual problem?", "semantic_role": "Land the implication or prepare the next unit.", "content_unit_count": { "min": 1, "max": 1, "basis": "This populated instance; see reuse.json for count alternatives." }, "layout_budget": { "authored": "Preserve complete meaning and qualifications; inspect the populated instance.", "policy": "Recompose when content does not fit; do not omit required content." }, "placeholder": "[AUTHORISED CONTENT: Land the implication or prepare the next unit.]", "markup": { "slot": "closing", "annotation_status": "present in selected case HTML" } }, { "name": "qualification", "reader_question": "Who else bears the consequence of this apparently individual problem?", "semantic_role": "Keep evidence status and material limitations visible.", "content_unit_count": { "min": 1, "max": 1, "basis": "This populated instance; see reuse.json for count alternatives." }, "layout_budget": { "authored": "Preserve complete meaning and qualifications; inspect the populated instance.", "policy": "Recompose when content does not fit; do not omit required content." }, "placeholder": "[AUTHORISED CONTENT: Keep evidence status and material limitations visible.]", "markup": { "slot": "qualification", "annotation_status": "present in selected case HTML" } }, { "name": "beats", "reader_question": "Who else bears the consequence of this apparently individual problem?", "semantic_role": "Initial frame, relational consequence and revised question, in order.", "content_unit_count": { "min": 3, "max": 3, "basis": "This populated instance; see reuse.json for count alternatives." }, "layout_budget": { "authored": "Preserve complete meaning and qualifications; inspect the populated instance.", "policy": "Recompose when content does not fit; do not omit required content." }, "placeholder": "[AUTHORISED CONTENT: Initial frame, relational consequence and revised question, in order.]", "markup": { "slot": "beats", "annotation_status": "present in selected case HTML" } } ], "rejection_constraints": [ "A new stakeholder with no causal connection.", "Blaming a person for a systemic constraint.", "A slogan presented as evidence." ], "option_guidance": [ "State the original frame fairly.", "Explain the relationship that motivates the shift.", "Distinguish a creative interpretation from a demonstrated cause.", "Introduce any campaign name after the audience understands its meaning." ], "provenance": { "basis": "Reviewed fictional teaching reconstruction; confidential correspondence excluded.", "payload_sha256": "3e581be8b14dd0218bb20771ec21065faf411407c875ffccbb3eb851c73141b3" }, "adaptation_rules": [ "State the original frame fairly.", "Explain the relationship that motivates the shift.", "Distinguish a creative interpretation from a demonstrated cause.", "Introduce any campaign name after the audience understands its meaning." ], "format_readiness": { "html": "Static HTML checked at 1600x900, 960x540 and 390x844 on eight surfaces. 1600x900 fits a 16:9 canvas; compact/phone views reflow vertically. Text remains editable in HTML.", "pptx": "unverified", "pdf": "unverified", "motion": "complete static composition; no animation or interactive decision engine" }, "alternative": { "layout": "S90", "description": "Faster comparison, but the causal middle may disappear. Use only when that relationship is already established.", "basis": "Current markup and contract comparison; alternative replacement not rendered." } }, "narrative_profile": { "central_point": "Widening the view to a related party can reveal a more useful reason to act.", "communication_job": "Reframe who experiences a problem.", "audience_value": "Make an overlooked consequence intelligible without transferring blame or claiming everyone shares the same belief.", "reading_path": [ "Read the governing point.", "Follow the labelled relationship in the populated HTML; retain the condition and qualification.", "Use the closing beat to prepare the next unit." ], "adaptation": { "required_inputs": [ "Evidence of the starting frame, or an explicit label that it is a hypothesis.", "Support for how one party affects another; a fictional example cannot supply that proof." ], "slot_guidance": { "eyebrow": "Identify this as fictional teaching material.", "headline": "State the communication point and its relevance.", "closing": "Land the implication or prepare the next unit.", "qualification": "Keep evidence status and material limitations visible.", "beats": "Initial frame, relational consequence and revised question, in order." }, "can_change": [ "Authorised scenario, wording and presentation brand.", "Three reasoning roles are fixed: initial frame, relationship, revised question." ], "must_survive": [ "State the original frame fairly.", "Explain the relationship that motivates the shift.", "Distinguish a creative interpretation from a demonstrated cause.", "Introduce any campaign name after the audience understands its meaning." ] }, "narrative_fit": { "before": "Establish the actual problem and label any untested interpretation.", "after": "Show a proposed response that addresses the newly visible relationship, then state how it would be tested.", "good_uses": [ "If the relational link lacks support, retain it as a hypothesis and propose research instead of a definitive campaign." ], "poor_fits": [ "A new stakeholder with no causal connection.", "Blaming a person for a systemic constraint.", "A slogan presented as evidence." ] }, "worked_example": { "fictional": true, "scenario": "A fictional neighbourhood tool library is reviewing late returns. The initial brief concentrates on reminders to borrowers; a conceptual scenario shows the next household unable to start a planned repair.", "slot_fills": { "eyebrow": [ "text: Fictional teaching example / Shared consequence" ], "headline": [ "text: A late return can delay someone else." ], "closing": [ "text: How might the service protect the handover?" ], "qualification": [ "text: Fictional teaching scenario, not observed results or an approved operating plan. No claim about actual borrower behaviour or campaign effectiveness. The complete static view must retain all three logical beats." ], "beats": [ "title: One borrower; text: The initial brief treats a late return as one person missing a deadline.", "title: The next project; text: In this fictional scenario, the next household cannot begin its repair without the reserved tool.", "title: Protect the handover; text: How might the service help both households plan around a dependable return?" ] }, "reasoning": "The intermediate relationship earns the shift. The final question now invites a service response instead of a generic reminder campaign.", "qualification": "Fictional teaching scenario, not observed results or an approved operating plan. No claim about actual borrower behaviour or campaign effectiveness. The complete static view must retain all three logical beats." }, "evidence": { "observations": [ "Reviewed fictional content, slot map and explicit independent HTML.", "See batch-02-review.json for measured render and gallery checks." ], "interpretations": [ "Make an overlooked consequence intelligible without transferring blame or claiming everyone shares the same belief." ], "not_verified": [ "Editable PowerPoint, PDF exports and audience effectiveness.", "Counts beyond the specifically checked instances." ], "references": [ "cases/sc-902f7120efd94bbbb2b320538743887e/case.json", "cases/sc-902f7120efd94bbbb2b320538743887e/reuse.json", "batch-02-review.json" ] }, "review": { "status": "reviewed", "basis": "Tessel reviewed the version-bound fictional meaning/privacy payload. Render and integration evidence are separately recorded." }, "variation_relationship": "different-job" } } }, "narrative_profile": { "central_point": "A specific limitation in the current view motivates a new question or way of working.", "communication_job": "Explain why the audience should change its frame, including the turning point.", "audience_value": "Perspective on what the old frame misses and what the new frame would let the audience examine; reduces the uncertainty of why a change is warranted.", "reading_path": [ "Read the headline as the proposed shift.", "Read left to right: current frame, the reason to reconsider it, replacement frame.", "Treat the arrows as a logical dependency: the middle must explain the move, not merely repeat the headline." ], "adaptation": { "required_inputs": [ "A fair statement of the current frame.", "A documented limitation or clearly labelled hypothesis that motivates a change.", "A replacement question that responds to that limitation." ], "slot_guidance": { "eyebrow": "Name the act of reconsidering the frame, not an unrelated topic.", "head": "State the change of question or approach.", "steps": "Three linked units: current view; the evidence or lens that challenges it; the resulting view. Give each a short title, sentence and illustrative icon." }, "can_change": [ "Subject, vocabulary and icons.", "Use an observed change or a proposed reframing, clearly labelled." ], "must_survive": [ "Three ordered roles and an explicit reason for the transition.", "The old view must be represented fairly.", "A proposed benefit stays a hypothesis until supported." ] }, "worked_example": { "fictional": true, "scenario": "A fictional repair cooperative notices that most late jobs wait for parts rather than technicians.", "slot_fills": { "eyebrow": "Change the question", "head": "Parts readiness should govern repair scheduling.", "steps": [ "Current question: How can we fit more repairs into each day?", "Turning point: In our fictional job review, missing parts caused most delays.", "Better question: Which parts must be ready before we promise a slot?" ] }, "reasoning": "The obstacle changes the optimisation target from technician capacity to parts readiness; the middle box earns the new question.", "qualification": "Fictional teaching example only; proposed actions and testimony are not measured outcomes or real endorsements." }, "narrative_fit": { "before": "Show the delay diagnosis and how jobs were classified.", "after": "Explain a parts-readiness trial and how its effect would be measured.", "good_uses": [ "Strategy pivots", "Reframing a problem after diagnosis", "Explaining a change of operating principle" ], "poor_fits": [ "A chronology with no changed interpretation", "Unrelated before and after claims", "A benefit claim without the mechanism" ] }, "evidence": { "observations": [ "The source capture shows three arrow-linked boxes labelled before, shift and after, with the middle box highlighted.", "The current HTML uses the same three-part flow for old question, lens and new question." ], "interpretations": [ "The communication job and adaptation rules below are an interpretation of the viewed composition and current implementation, not a statement from the source author." ], "not_verified": [ "Original author intent, surrounding source-deck argument, factual sample claims and audience effects have not been independently verified." ], "references": [ "02_product/spreads/S06-hinge/source.webp", "dist/S06-hinge/spread.html", "dist/S06-hinge/spread.json" ] }, "review": { "status": "reviewed", "basis": "Viewed retained source capture and inspected current markup/slot contract; reviewed reasoning and example mapping. This is layout-contract review, not source-intent confirmation." }, "variation_relationship": "base" } }, "options": [ { "id": "shared-consequence", "what": "Widening the view to a related party can reveal a more useful reason to act.", "label": "Shared consequence", "surface": "paper", "files": { "html": "cases/sc-902f7120efd94bbbb2b320538743887e/spread.html", "preview": "cases/sc-902f7120efd94bbbb2b320538743887e/preview.webp", "case": "cases/sc-902f7120efd94bbbb2b320538743887e/case.json", "guide": "cases/sc-902f7120efd94bbbb2b320538743887e/index.html", "reuse": "cases/sc-902f7120efd94bbbb2b320538743887e/reuse.json", "prompt": "cases/sc-902f7120efd94bbbb2b320538743887e/prompt.txt", "storyboard": "cases/sc-902f7120efd94bbbb2b320538743887e/storyboard.md" }, "case_id": "SC-902f7120efd94bbbb2b320538743887e", "cardinality": { "semantic": "Three reasoning roles are fixed: initial frame, relationship, revised question.", "tested": [ 3 ], "adaptation": "Preserve the relationship and all qualifications; new counts require an inspected populated instance." } } ], "also_seen_in": [], "source": { "ref": "Hoffman L35 Flow diagram", "url": "https://github.com/neekchan/hoffman-agency-design-system/blob/main/templates/deck/Deck.dc.html" } }