Skip to content

CSC – Example Walkthrough

A frozen, illustrative run of the Cognitive Signal Chain (CSC) to demonstrate correct usage without prescribing behavior

1. Purpose

This document provides a single, concrete walkthrough of CSC in use.

Its purpose is to:

  • anchor abstract definitions in reality
  • demonstrate correct sequencing and mode discipline
  • serve as a reference example for future interpretation

This is not a template, checklist, or recommended workflow.

2. Scope and Constraints

This walkthrough:

  • covers one hypothetical but realistic design situation
  • shows one possible traversal of CSC
  • is intentionally frozen in time

It does not claim optimality or generality.

3. Scenario Description

Situation: A systems designer notices repeated friction between clients and vendors during software delivery, specifically around responsibility, expectations, and blame during delays.

Initial state:

  • Anecdotal observations
  • Conflicting narratives from different parties
  • No clear agreement on where failure originates

Intent: Determine whether a cooperation system is needed, and if so, design one responsibly.

4. Pedal 1: Sensemaking GPT

Input

  • Notes from past engagements
  • Informal conversations
  • Personal observations

Activity (Allowed)

  • Group recurring tensions
  • Surface contradictions
  • Restate signals neutrally

Output Artifacts

  • Pattern cluster: "Responsibility unclear at handoff points"
  • Pattern cluster: "Success defined differently by clients and vendors"
  • Open question: "Where does accountability actually transfer?"

Notes

  • No solutions proposed
  • No systems named
  • Ambiguity preserved

5. Pedal 2: Assumption Excavator GPT

Input

  • Pattern clusters from Sensemaking GPT

Activity (Allowed)

  • Translate patterns into assumptions
  • Separate observation from interpretation

Output Artifacts

  • Assumption: "Both parties share the same definition of 'done'"
  • Assumption: "Responsibility follows role titles"
  • Assumption: "Delays are caused by poor execution, not structural gaps"

Notes

  • Assumptions labeled, not judged
  • Confidence levels noted as low to medium

6. Pedal 3: System Design Lens GPT

Input

  • Explicit assumption list

Activity (Allowed)

  • Frame the concrete failure
  • Choose unit of analysis (client–vendor relationship)
  • Define decision optimized (who owns what, when)
  • Impose constraints

Output Artifacts

  • System contract draft for a Human Cooperation System
  • Non-negotiable rule: "Every deliverable has a single accountable owner"
  • Explicit misuse warning: "System fails if accountability is symbolic"

Notes

  • Design grounded in named assumptions
  • Tradeoffs explicitly acknowledged

7. Pedal 4: Red Team / Misuse GPT

Input

  • System contract and constraints

Activity (Allowed)

  • Simulate incentive misuse
  • Stress-test accountability rules

Output Artifacts

  • Misuse scenario: "Client offloads responsibility while retaining control"
  • Failure mode: "Accountability becomes ceremonial under power asymmetry"
  • Condition of collapse: "No enforcement mechanism for ownership"

Notes

  • No redesign performed
  • System fragility made explicit

8. Re-entry Example

Trigger: Red Team reveals accountability collapse under asymmetric power.

Action: Re-enter System Design Lens GPT.

Revised Artifact

  • Added constraint: "Accountability must be paired with decision authority"

This revision is explicitly logged.

9. Pedal 5: Translation GPT

Input

  • Revised system contract
  • Misuse warnings

Activity (Allowed)

  • Adapt language for practitioners
  • Surface warnings prominently

Output Artifacts

  • Plain-language explanation of the cooperation system
  • Onboarding example illustrating correct accountability transfer
  • Explicit caveat section

Notes

  • No structural changes introduced
  • System integrity preserved

10. Walkthrough Summary

This example demonstrates:

  • sequential cognitive mode enforcement
  • artifact-based context transfer
  • legitimate re-entry without mode collapse
  • separation between design and explanation

11. What This Example Is Not

This walkthrough is not:

  • a prescription
  • a best practice
  • a canonical use case

Different situations will require different presets and traversals.

12. Relationship to CSC

This document:

  • anchors CSC in lived practice
  • provides a shared reference point
  • reduces misinterpretation of abstract rules

CSC relies on examples like this to remain grounded without becoming rigid.

End of CSC Example Walkthrough.