📦 deps(thirdparty): update snapshots

2026-07-29 07:59:17 +00:00
parent 60364c6660
commit 0c634043e3
427 changed files with 26138 additions and 2336 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+# Evidence model
+
+## Research basis
+
+Treat the popular `0→1`, `1→10`, and `10→100` language as a practical stage
+metaphor, not a validated personality taxonomy.
+
+- Peter Thiel popularized `0→1` for creating something new versus copying an
+  existing model. The later three-stage extension is practitioner language.
+- March's exploration/exploitation model supports a real distinction between
+  searching for new possibilities and refining existing capabilities.
+- D'Acunto, Tate, and Yang found that startups with more diverse collective
+  industry skillsets grew faster; a one-standard-deviation increase in skill
+  diversity was associated with 16% higher five-year employment growth and
+  10% higher sales growth from the mean.
+- A systematic review of entrepreneurial-team diversity describes diversity as
+  a double-edged sword: knowledge breadth can help while disparity, separation,
+  and conflict can hurt.
+- De Cooman et al. found the best team outcomes when members perceived both
+  supplementary fit (important similarities) and complementary fit (different
+  useful capabilities), mediated by cohesion.
+- Lewis's transactive-memory research supports making expertise legible:
+  effective teams know who knows what and can coordinate that expertise.
+
+Sources:
+
+- March, *Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning*:
+  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
+- D'Acunto, Tate, and Yang, *Entrepreneurial Teams: Diversity of Skills and
+  Early-Stage Growth*: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3750982
+- Klotz et al., *Entrepreneurial team diversity — A systematic review and
+  research agenda*: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2022.10.004
+- De Cooman et al., *Creating Inclusive Teams Through Perceptions of
+  Supplementary and Complementary Person–Team Fit*:
+  https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115586910
+- Lewis, *Measuring Transactive Memory Systems in the Field*:
+  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.587
+
+## Operational model
+
+Assess two independent axes.
+
+### Startup-stage contribution
+
+| Vector | Observable evidence |
+| --- | --- |
+| `zero_to_one` | frames unmet needs; runs discovery; invents; prototypes under ambiguity; creates a first working artifact |
+| `one_to_ten` | interviews users; iterates from evidence; wins early customers; establishes a repeatable product/GTM loop |
+| `ten_to_hundred` | designs reliable systems; delegates; hires; manages quality and economics; scales repeatable operations |
+
+### Functional contribution
+
+| Vector | Observable evidence |
+| --- | --- |
+| `problem_discovery` | finds important unmet needs and tests assumptions |
+| `product` | chooses scope, sequences value, and integrates feedback |
+| `engineering` | builds and operates technical systems |
+| `design` | creates understandable, usable experiences |
+| `go_to_market` | positions, sells, distributes, and learns from the market |
+| `operations` | creates repeatable delivery and reliable processes |
+| `people_leadership` | recruits, aligns, coaches, and resolves conflict |
+| `capital_partnerships` | secures resources and durable external alliances |
+
+Do not equate a job title with evidence. One outcome may support several
+vectors, but state the linkage explicitly.
+
+## Evidence hierarchy
+
+Weight evidence in this order:
+
+1. verified customer or operational outcome;
+2. shipped public artifact with clear ownership;
+3. repeated responsibility with a concrete result;
+4. specific peer or collaborator feedback;
+5. self-reported preference.
+
+Preference indicates energy and desired role, not demonstrated capability.
+Require at least two independent strong evidence items for a high-confidence
+`strong` label. Use `unknown` when evidence is absent.
+
+## Matching rule
+
+Maximize:
+
+1. coverage of explicit stage and functional gaps;
+2. overlap in project purpose, collaboration mode, and operating principles;
+3. credible, current evidence;
+4. reciprocal usefulness.
+
+Check separately for commitment, decision rights, risk tolerance, pace,
+communication norms, and conflict handling. These are not "soft extras";
+complementary skills without operating compatibility can make a worse team.
+
+Never infer compatibility from demographics or sensitive traits.