objective: add sensemaking process reference
This commit is contained in:
parent
149497b823
commit
da912980fd
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,137 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
source_url: "https://andymatuschak.org/files/papers/Pirolli%2C%20Card%20-%202005%20-%20The%20sensemaking%20process%20and%20leverage%20points%20for%20analyst%20technology%20as.pdf"
|
||||
fetched_at: "2026-07-15T21:24:00Z"
|
||||
content_type: "application/pdf"
|
||||
notes: "Untrusted external reference captured as local Objective resource for Memory sensemaking design. This is a summary/extraction for design discussion, not project authority."
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Pirolli & Card (2005): The sensemaking process and leverage points for analyst technology
|
||||
|
||||
## Citation / source
|
||||
|
||||
Peter Pirolli and Stuart Card, PARC. "The Sensemaking Process and Leverage Points for Analyst Technology as Identified Through Cognitive Task Analysis" (2005).
|
||||
|
||||
Source PDF: <https://andymatuschak.org/files/papers/Pirolli%2C%20Card%20-%202005%20-%20The%20sensemaking%20process%20and%20leverage%20points%20for%20analyst%20technology%20as.pdf>
|
||||
|
||||
## Core model
|
||||
|
||||
The paper frames intelligence analysis as a sensemaking task:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
Information -> Schema -> Insight -> Product
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
The analyst transforms raw data into progressively more structured representations so expertise can apply and so results can be communicated.
|
||||
|
||||
The paper's notional data flow is especially relevant to Yoi Memory design:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
External data sources
|
||||
-> shoebox
|
||||
-> evidence file
|
||||
-> schemas
|
||||
-> hypotheses
|
||||
-> presentation / work product
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
- **External data sources**: raw material, mostly text in the studied setting.
|
||||
- **Shoebox**: the smaller subset collected as relevant for the task.
|
||||
- **Evidence file**: extracted snippets / nuggets from the shoebox, plus low-level inferences.
|
||||
- **Schemas**: re-representations that organize information for analysis.
|
||||
- **Hypotheses**: tentative conclusions with supporting or disconfirming evidence.
|
||||
- **Product**: report / presentation / action suited for communication.
|
||||
|
||||
## Two major loops
|
||||
|
||||
The process has two interacting loops rather than a simple linear pipeline.
|
||||
|
||||
### Foraging loop
|
||||
|
||||
Activities aimed at finding and selecting information:
|
||||
|
||||
- search and filter external data sources;
|
||||
- collect potentially relevant material into a shoebox;
|
||||
- read and extract evidence snippets;
|
||||
- follow up on questions generated by extracted evidence.
|
||||
|
||||
The paper highlights the exploration / enrichment / exploitation tradeoff:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Exploration**: monitor or search more of the information space; increases recall.
|
||||
- **Enrichment**: narrow the collected set into smaller, higher-precision subsets.
|
||||
- **Exploitation**: read/extract/analyze the chosen material more thoroughly.
|
||||
|
||||
Analyst tooling can help by changing the cost structure of search, scanning, assessment, selection, attention shifting, and follow-up searches.
|
||||
|
||||
### Sensemaking loop
|
||||
|
||||
Activities aimed at structuring and reasoning:
|
||||
|
||||
- schematize evidence;
|
||||
- build a case;
|
||||
- generate / manage hypotheses;
|
||||
- marshal evidence for and against hypotheses;
|
||||
- tell a story / produce a report;
|
||||
- re-evaluate based on feedback or new evidence.
|
||||
|
||||
The paper emphasizes opportunistic mixing of bottom-up and top-down processing:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Bottom-up**: data triggers schemas, relations, hypotheses, and products.
|
||||
- **Top-down**: hypotheses / client feedback trigger new searches, re-reading, and re-organization.
|
||||
|
||||
## Leverage points
|
||||
|
||||
### Foraging loop leverage
|
||||
|
||||
- Cost structure of exploration / enrichment / exploitation.
|
||||
- Cost structure of scanning, recognizing, and selecting items for attention.
|
||||
- Cost of shifting attentional control to a new domain or task.
|
||||
- Cost of follow-up searches generated by extracted information.
|
||||
- Broad-band low-fidelity assessment plus narrow-band high-fidelity processing is a useful design pattern.
|
||||
|
||||
### Sensemaking loop leverage
|
||||
|
||||
- Span of attention for evidence, hypotheses, and evidentiary relations.
|
||||
- Generation of alternative hypotheses.
|
||||
- Confirmation bias and failure to seek disconfirming evidence.
|
||||
- External representations can expand working memory for evidence/hypothesis structures.
|
||||
- Tools should help distribute attention toward diagnostic evidence and disconfirming relations.
|
||||
|
||||
## Implications for Yoi Memory Objective
|
||||
|
||||
This paper directly supports the Objective's direction that effective Memory is not just durable storage or retrieval count.
|
||||
|
||||
Useful design implications:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Task-bound shoebox**
|
||||
- For each Ticket / Objective / question, provide a bounded collection of potentially relevant materials.
|
||||
- Include provenance and why each item was collected.
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Evidence file**
|
||||
- Extract snippets from source material with source, applicability, confidence, and context.
|
||||
- Evidence should be usable for support and disconfirmation, not only recall.
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Schema / representation layer**
|
||||
- The system should help create intermediate structures: timelines, entity/relation maps, alternatives, checklists, hypothesis spaces, decision tables.
|
||||
- These are separate from raw Memory records.
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Hypotheses and alternatives**
|
||||
- Record competing explanations, rejected alternatives, open questions, and evidence gaps.
|
||||
- Avoid only storing final decisions.
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Disconfirming evidence**
|
||||
- Reviewer / Orchestrator support should explicitly search for contradiction and diagnostic evidence.
|
||||
- This belongs in Skill guidance and typed review tooling, not in a separate Knowledge store.
|
||||
|
||||
6. **Metrics**
|
||||
- Measure whether Memory changes product quality, review quality, decision quality, or time-to-evidence.
|
||||
- Avoid treating exposure/retrieval counts alone as success.
|
||||
|
||||
7. **Product connection**
|
||||
- The loop should end in a product: Ticket decision, implementation report, review, design doc, Skill update, or validated artifact.
|
||||
- Memory that never reaches a product is likely a graveyard.
|
||||
|
||||
## Boundary with current Yoi direction
|
||||
|
||||
- Knowledge as a separate record kind is being removed; this paper's reusable representations should map to Memory artifacts, Ticket artifacts, maintained docs, or Skills depending on authority.
|
||||
- Workflow tracking is being removed; procedural guidance such as "generate alternatives" or "seek disconfirming evidence" should live in Skills / role prompts and be enforced by typed tools where authority is needed.
|
||||
- Workspace backend should eventually be the authority for task-bound shoebox / evidence artifacts when Memory moves from local compatibility storage to control-plane records.
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user