Briefing — Iteration 4: Per-Template Naming & HL Vision Visual¶
Parent: HL-TFW-32 Predecessor: RES iter3 — Confirmed originals (Strategic Insights, Fact Candidates), chose "Diagrams", formalized multi-iteration Mode: deep Goal: Re-examine the "one name for all" constraint and define the HL vision visual as distinct concept.
Why This Iteration¶
User challenges two assumptions from RES1-RES3:
-
"One term for all templates" may be wrong. Different artifacts = different framings, different mindsets. Each template could have its own section name. The requirement for one term came from simplifying the collection algorithm — but an agent can look into each section regardless. We could have one common section NUMBER and a generic heading, while each template has its own specific name.
-
HL §3.1 (Result Visualization) is NOT a diagram/process. It's a Working Backwards-style "see the result as if it's done" — inspired by Amazon PR/FAQ documents. This is conceptually different from a process flow or business process diagram. The upper part (vision result) should remain distinct. Need a term for this.
-
The "Diagrams" section for process/business flow — that's a different thing. Maybe "Value Maps"? Or something else. This separates from the vision visualization.
Open Threads from Iteration 3¶
| # | Thread | This iteration? |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Qualifier for Strategic Insights by context (Planning vs Execution) | ✅ — folded into per-template naming question |
| 2 | plan.md exact insertion point for iteration gate | ❌ — detail-level, defer to TS |
| 3 | Cross-model validation of naming test | ❌ — defer, not blocking |
New Hypotheses¶
| # | Hypothesis | Source |
|---|---|---|
| H_pertemplate | Different templates should have DIFFERENT section names for the same logical section (common number, specific name). Collection algorithm reads each section by number, not by name | User (2026-04-10) |
| H_visionvs | HL §3.1 "Result Visualization" is fundamentally different from "Diagrams"/"Process Maps" — it's an Amazon Working Backwards-style outcome preview, not a process visualization | User (2026-04-10) |
| H_valuemaps | The process/flow visualization section could be called "Value Maps" — showing where value is created/delivered | User (2026-04-10) |
Research Plan¶
Gather¶
- Amazon Working Backwards / PR/FAQ: what is the "see the finished picture" section called? How does it differ from process diagrams?
- Hybrid naming practices: organizations that use common section numbers with template-specific names
- "Value Maps" as term — is it established? What does it mean in practice?
Extract¶
- Design: per-template naming table for §6, §7, §11, and visualization section
- Separate the two visual concepts: "outcome preview" (HL) vs "process diagram" (RF/RES)
- Collection algorithm: how does /tfw-knowledge gather from differently-named sections?
Challenge¶
- Stress-test: does per-template naming confuse new agents MORE or LESS than one generic name?
- Does "Value Maps" work cross-domain (analytics, education, research, not just business)?
- Is HL §3.1 really a separate concept, or does "Diagrams" cover both?
User Direction¶
- «что если отпустить требования иметь один термин. разные артефакты это разные фрейминги, разный майндсет. возможно стоит подобрать каждое под каждое»
- «я подумал, что на стадии сбора так будет проще алгоритм построить. но ведь не проблема заставить агента заглянуть в каждый раздел»
- «конкретно ХЛ уже обязан иметь визуал. я хочу визуально видеть результат, представить что он уже есть, это взято из working backwards amazon»
- «вот эта верхняя часть визуал результата - оно должно там и остаться, это не диаграмма и не бизнес процесс»
- «а вот то что будет в разделе визуального представления потока ценности, или бизнес процесса — этот вот уже что-то другое. Value maps?»
Stage complete: YES