{"id":"product/cultural-intelligence-patterns","relativePath":"product/cultural-intelligence-patterns.md","title":"Cultural-intelligence pattern candidates","markdown":"# Cultural-intelligence pattern candidates\n\nStatus: review-only candidate engine implemented; no additional public journey\nis authorized.\n\nRun a source-backed normalized dataset through:\n\n```powershell\npnpm connections:patterns -- --input=path/to/records-and-sources.json\n```\n\nThe input has `records` and `sources` arrays. Every source row requires the\nrecord ID, provider, citation URL, and retrieval timestamp. Records without valid\nsource evidence are rejected rather than used to create an uncited lead.\n\nThe report currently detects:\n\n- conflicting title or production-date fields among equivalent-linked records;\n- maker identifiers with the same normalized label as reconciliation candidates;\n- shared material, owner/custodian, and set or exhibition references;\n- absence of structured ownership-change events as a metadata coverage gap; and\n- contrasting production places among equivalent-linked records;\n- matching explicit exhibition identifiers across providers;\n- multi-object `used_specific_object` exhibition groupings;\n- structured acquisition and transfer histories from `changed_ownership_through`;\n- dated, multi-place ownership-event sequences as movement candidates; and\n- actors shared by explicit cross-provider activity records;\n- alternative maker assignments modeled with `AttributeAssignment`;\n- event timespans whose explicit end precedes their explicit beginning;\n- repeated production, creation, or activity technique identifiers;\n- shared iconographic concepts while keeping `represents` separate from `about`;\n  and\n- unidentified depicted-person leads expressed through\n  `represents_instance_of_type`.\n\nThe report also emits an event graph connecting source records, activities,\nplaces, actors, exhibition objects, and transfer-from/transfer-to participants.\nEdges retain the source record ID so a reviewer can reproduce each assertion.\n\nEvery candidate has deterministic identity, citations, confidence, an explicit\nclaim boundary, and `needs-review` status. Missing structured provenance is not\ncalled a suspicious historical gap. Shared owners are not automatically called\ncollectors. Shared sets are not called exhibitions until their entity type is\nverified. Geographic disagreement is not presented as movement.\n\nThe engine refuses demographic underrepresentation and exhibition-to-market\nimpact analysis from collection records alone because those conclusions need\nqualified contextual or market sources. Outputs are “newly surfaced\nevidence-backed candidates,” never verified discoveries. Pricing remains an\nunvalidated value-based report hypothesis until real buyer evidence is imported.\n\nEvent locations do not prove physical object movement. Exhibition object\nreferences require participation review before the report says works were\ndisplayed together. Ownership-event histories describe modeled acquisitions or\ntransfers without claiming completeness, authenticity, custody, or legal title.\n\nAlternative attribution candidates preserve the primary maker assertion and do\nnot resolve authorship. Timeline anomalies identify contradictory supplied\ntimestamps without proposing corrected dates. Repeated techniques do not imply a\nshared workshop or transmission path. Unidentified depicted people do not support\nidentity, demographic, marginalization, or underrepresentation conclusions.\n","sections":[],"html":"<h1 id=\"cultural-intelligence-pattern-candidates\">Cultural-intelligence pattern candidates</h1>\n<p>Status: review-only candidate engine implemented; no additional public journey</p>\n<p>is authorized.</p>\n<p>Run a source-backed normalized dataset through:</p>\n<pre><code>\npnpm connections:patterns -- --input=path/to/records-and-sources.json\n</code></pre>\n<p>The input has `records` and `sources` arrays. Every source row requires the</p>\n<p>record ID, provider, citation URL, and retrieval timestamp. Records without valid</p>\n<p>source evidence are rejected rather than used to create an uncited lead.</p>\n<p>The report currently detects:</p>\n<p>  and</p>\n<p>  `represents_instance_of_type`.</p>\n<ul><li>conflicting title or production-date fields among equivalent-linked records;</li><li>maker identifiers with the same normalized label as reconciliation candidates;</li><li>shared material, owner/custodian, and set or exhibition references;</li><li>absence of structured ownership-change events as a metadata coverage gap; and</li><li>contrasting production places among equivalent-linked records;</li><li>matching explicit exhibition identifiers across providers;</li><li>multi-object `used_specific_object` exhibition groupings;</li><li>structured acquisition and transfer histories from `changed_ownership_through`;</li><li>dated, multi-place ownership-event sequences as movement candidates; and</li><li>actors shared by explicit cross-provider activity records;</li><li>alternative maker assignments modeled with `AttributeAssignment`;</li><li>event timespans whose explicit end precedes their explicit beginning;</li><li>repeated production, creation, or activity technique identifiers;</li><li>shared iconographic concepts while keeping `represents` separate from `about`;</li><li>unidentified depicted-person leads expressed through</li></ul>\n<p>The report also emits an event graph connecting source records, activities,</p>\n<p>places, actors, exhibition objects, and transfer-from/transfer-to participants.</p>\n<p>Edges retain the source record ID so a reviewer can reproduce each assertion.</p>\n<p>Every candidate has deterministic identity, citations, confidence, an explicit</p>\n<p>claim boundary, and `needs-review` status. Missing structured provenance is not</p>\n<p>called a suspicious historical gap. Shared owners are not automatically called</p>\n<p>collectors. Shared sets are not called exhibitions until their entity type is</p>\n<p>verified. Geographic disagreement is not presented as movement.</p>\n<p>The engine refuses demographic underrepresentation and exhibition-to-market</p>\n<p>impact analysis from collection records alone because those conclusions need</p>\n<p>qualified contextual or market sources. Outputs are “newly surfaced</p>\n<p>evidence-backed candidates,” never verified discoveries. Pricing remains an</p>\n<p>unvalidated value-based report hypothesis until real buyer evidence is imported.</p>\n<p>Event locations do not prove physical object movement. Exhibition object</p>\n<p>references require participation review before the report says works were</p>\n<p>displayed together. Ownership-event histories describe modeled acquisitions or</p>\n<p>transfers without claiming completeness, authenticity, custody, or legal title.</p>\n<p>Alternative attribution candidates preserve the primary maker assertion and do</p>\n<p>not resolve authorship. Timeline anomalies identify contradictory supplied</p>\n<p>timestamps without proposing corrected dates. Repeated techniques do not imply a</p>\n<p>shared workshop or transmission path. Unidentified depicted people do not support</p>\n<p>identity, demographic, marginalization, or underrepresentation conclusions.</p>","updatedAt":"2018-10-20T01:46:40.000Z","checksum":"a4a8deb1d8d2b01d412058ccc76f7d1829e3e68387149a510885568c66710af5","checksumPrefix":"a4a8deb1d8d2","anchorCount":0,"lineCount":62,"rawUrl":"/api/docs/content?path=product%2Fcultural-intelligence-patterns.md","htmlUrl":"/docs?doc=product%2Fcultural-intelligence-patterns.md","apiUrl":"/api/docs/content?path=product%2Fcultural-intelligence-patterns.md"}