C3 ยท Model: literature
Put the model into conversation with theory
C3 asks what existing research explains, challenges or has already said about the model. The aggregator uses the literature for comparison and criticism, and observations that fit no published template stay in the model.
Where this stage starts
C2 has built a model from the community material and tested its successive tellings against cases. The aggregator also has the expectations it wrote at the start. With that record, it can tell ideas brought to the study from ideas developed during it.
What the aggregator does
The aggregator begins with literature that could contradict the model. When a published explanation differs, it asks what causes the difference: a different setting, a real disagreement about how organizing works, or different terms for similar processes. It names evidence that could decide between these and leaves the question open when the record cannot decide.
Related work can then sharpen mechanisms and concepts. A borrowed idea stays when it explains the material; a familiar theoretical name is not enough. The aggregator records which sources it opened and which it recalls but has not checked, and a recalled citation carries less weight than a checked source.
The stage also compares its fourth-order themes with four problems of organizing: dividing tasks, assigning them, providing rewards and handling information. The comparison places the model in organization theory. Themes can fall outside all four, and that material may be part of what the study contributes.
Literature can prompt another look at a community or a change to the model, and each such change needs an evidence trail. Earlier formulations stay available, and findings affected by a revision are reconsidered. The aggregator also returns to its first expectations and states what the analysis changed.
What the next stage receives
C4 receives the current model, its relation to existing explanations and the unresolved disagreements. A version list names the current files, so a later stage cannot combine incompatible versions of the account by mistake.
What the output files contain
Markdown files hold prose; JSONL files hold one structured record per line.
The comparison with literatureliterature-C3.md, findings.jsonl
literature-C3.md explains agreements, contradictions and
conceptual links, with checked sources marked apart from unchecked
recollections. findings.jsonl links the relevant claims to
that literature record.
The comparison with the four problems of organizingmapping-C3.jsonl
mapping-C3.jsonl maps fourth-order themes to the four
problems where the evidence supports it. It also lists what does not
fit, so the comparison leaves the model whole.
Changes to the explanationmodel/arrows.jsonl, model/history.jsonl, model-C3.md, structure-C3.md, concept-C3.md
model/arrows.jsonl records the current relationships;
model/history.jsonl records changes and reasons. When
needed, model-C3.md, structure-C3.md and
concept-C3.md give complete successor accounts in place of
piecemeal patches.
Which version to readmanifest-C3.txt, notes-C3.md, tier_history.jsonl, scheme_v2.jsonl, assignments_final.jsonl
manifest-C3.txt names the accounts that have successors
and the earlier files that still apply. notes-C3.md
explains choices and remaining questions. If the coding structure
changes, tier_history.jsonl, scheme_v2.jsonl
and assignments_final.jsonl record the change and its
effect on placements.
Full stage description
Read the complete technical card for exact tasks, reading boundaries, checks and closing rules. The explanation above is a guide; the card holds the instructions.
Show how the stage is divided into its 3 legs
C3a: contradicting shelf. Repeats: no. Interview point: -.C3b: resembling shelf. Repeats: no. Interview point: -.C3c: the four problems. Repeats: no. Interview point: end.
Source versions and hashes identify the exact technical documents reproduced here.