Section 373 of 440
Complete canonical tutorial. This reader section contains the same teaching body as PWR-191 · Group creativity. Open the Power dossier.
PWR-191 · Team & Collective Intelligence
Compare individual pooling and interactive ideation with fair attribution
This tutorial teaches a governed ideation-and-attribution process on a fictional paper-offcut problem. It preserves six independently generated cards, audits two later derivatives, scores novelty, feasibility and equity separately, marks unknowns, keeps source links and makes a reversible selection. The supplied packet does not compare formats experimentally and cannot show that interactive ideation is superior.
Tutorial curriculum · current public edition · Revision 7T · Full Tutorial Edition
Revision 7T · Full Tutorial Edition · complete governed practice tutorial
Compare individual pooling and interactive ideation with fair attribution
This tutorial teaches a governed ideation-and-attribution process on a fictional paper-offcut problem. It preserves six independently generated cards, audits two later derivatives, scores novelty, feasibility and equity separately, marks unknowns, keeps source links and makes a reversible selection. The supplied packet does not compare formats experimentally and cannot show that interactive ideation is superior.
Authority and safety
- Use only the bounded configuration. Use a fictional low-stakes prompt with willing participants, or run a solo simulation. Do not use employees, students or dependants as an evaluation target.
- Stop if the frame becomes a live facilitation protocol, forced ideation, crowd-control method or workplace evaluation.
- Stop where dissent, privacy, ownership, attribution or power cannot be protected.
Exact materials
- Prompt card: ‘A fictional community art club wants to reduce clean paper offcuts sent to recycling. Propose low-cost uses that preserve accessibility, do not monitor members and do not pressure anyone to take materials home.’
- Governance card: voluntary contribution; anonymous route allowed; contributor IDs stay attached; derivatives name their source; AI assistance is labelled; rejected ideas remain credited; withdrawal before publication is valid.
- Six supplied individual idea cards labelled A1, A2, B1, B2, C1 and C2, plus two supplied interactive derivative cards D1 and D2 from the fixture table.
- Evaluation sheet with separate 0–2 ratings for novelty, feasibility and equity/access, plus an UNKNOWN mark when the fictional data are insufficient.
- Attribution log with fields for original contributor, derivative contributors, AI support, permission to reuse, dissent and selection status.
Set up in this order
- Read the prompt and governance card before viewing ideas. Confirm that the output is for a fictional club and no participant is being evaluated.
- Treat A1 through C2 as the nominal-group baseline: ideas were generated privately before anyone saw another card.
- Pool all six baseline cards without scoring. Preserve contributor labels or the stated anonymous choice.
- Reveal D1 and D2 as products of a short fictional interactive round. Record their source links rather than crediting only the person who wrote the combined card.
- Score every idea independently on novelty, feasibility and equity/access. Count quantity separately and do not average away a zero on equity.
- Select, combine or reject using the declared criteria. Preserve dissent, provenance and the reason an attractive idea was not selected.
Supplied fixture
| ID and format | Contributor/provenance | Idea card | Rubric facts supplied |
|---|---|---|---|
| A1 — individual | Asha; no AI | Put a labelled tray beside the paper cutter for clean offcuts larger than a postcard. | Cost £4; 15-minute setup; Asha owns labels for a four-week fictional pilot; printed labels only unless adapted. |
| A2 — individual | Asha; no AI | Bundle offcuts into free mixed-size sketch packs available at the front desk. | Cost £6; 30-minute batch preparation; Asha owns one fictional batch; voluntary pickup; sizes visible but not tactilely labelled. |
| B1 — individual | Bo; no AI | Use offcuts for colour-test strips during club sessions. | Cost £0; 10-minute setup; Bo owns session reset for four fictional weeks; immediate use; helps painters more than other members. |
| B2 — individual | Bo; no AI | Create a monthly offcut collage challenge and display every entry. | Cost £10; public display may pressure participation and creates judging questions. |
| C1 — individual | Casey; AI used only to rephrase card | Offer offcuts to a fictional local school once each box is full. | Transport owner and school demand are unknown; permission to transfer materials is unknown. |
| C2 — individual | Casey; no AI | Add tactile size bands to three reusable sorting trays: small, medium and large. | Cost £14; accessible sorting; requires one volunteer to empty trays weekly. |
| D1 — interactive derivative | Asha + Casey, derived from A1 and C2 | Use three tactilely labelled trays, then make voluntary mixed-size sketch packs when a tray fills. | Cost £18; combines sorting and reuse; weekly owner still required. |
| D2 — interactive derivative | Bo + Asha, derived from B2 and A2 | Make sketch packs and publish a leaderboard of who uses the most offcuts. | Cost £8; 20-minute weekly tally; Bo offers to own it; the leaderboard creates surveillance and pressure contrary to the prompt. |
Check your work only after you finish
Lock every response first. The checking page is separate so the answers are not exposed inside this exercise.
Scoring rule
Score the learner's process out of 18: 2 points each for preserving the six-card individual baseline, voluntary participation, provenance, labelled AI use, separate novelty/feasibility/equity review, explicit unknowns, dissent, rejection of a boundary violation and implementation ownership. For feasibility, 2 requires supplied cost, time and accepted owner; 1 means plausible but at least one is missing; 0 means incompatible. UNKNOWN means evidence is absent. Equity/access zero blocks selection. The eight supplied cards are a process fixture, not a causal format-comparison design.
Worked example
- A fictional facilitator initially selects D2 because it sounds energetic and has low cost. A participant points to the prompt’s no-monitoring and no-pressure boundary.
- The group records an equity/access score of 0 for D2 and rejects it without describing Bo or Asha as uncreative.
- D1 scores well on novelty and access, but the weekly tray owner is missing, so feasibility is marked 1 rather than assumed.
- Casey accepts the fictional weekly review role for four weeks. The record retains A1 and C2 as parent ideas and credits both contributors.
- The group selects D1 for a reversible four-week fictional pilot and records Asha’s concern that pack demand is still unknown.
Correct result: The repaired process earns 18/18 and conditionally selects D1 with provenance, owner, dissent and review. The supplied packet demonstrates an auditable process only; it does not compare ideation formats causally or rank contributors.
Right and wrong
| Moment | Right / safer | Wrong / riskier | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Establishing the baseline | Preserve all six independently generated cards before discussion or scoring. | Let the group discuss the first idea, then count later variants as independent baselines. | Interaction changes what can be generated and makes a format comparison uninterpretable. |
| Combining ideas | Label D1 as derived from A1 and C2 and credit Asha and Casey. | Credit D1 only to the person who typed the combined sentence. | Fair provenance is part of the governed outcome, not optional etiquette. |
| Evaluating | Score novelty, feasibility and equity separately and leave unknown facts unresolved. | Use one excitement score or average away an access failure. | Enthusiasm cannot prove implementation value, and a rights failure is not cancelled by novelty. |
| Selecting | Reject D2 because the leaderboard violates the prompt even though it is cheap. | Select D2 because competition might increase participation. | The prompt prohibits monitoring and pressure; output volume cannot override that boundary. |
| Interpreting the result | Say that this structured exchange produced one useful conditional idea in this fixture. | Say the session proves groups multiply creativity or identifies the most creative member. | One fictional task cannot establish general innovation, trait rankings or durable transfer. |
Common mistakes and fixes
| Mistake | Fix |
|---|---|
| Idea quantity is reported as the primary success result. | Keep quantity descriptive and require independent novelty, feasibility, equity, implementation and attribution review. |
| Anonymous contribution is offered, but the facilitator later guesses authorship publicly. | Preserve the selected anonymity setting and use a neutral ID throughout pooling and review. |
| A derivative loses its parent-card links. | Write every source ID and contributor on the derivative card before it enters selection. |
| An unknown implementation fact is quietly treated as feasible. | Mark UNKNOWN, assign an information owner and make selection conditional or choose another idea. |
| The pack is used to score employees, students or dependants. | Stop. Return to fictional data or use an accountable qualified process with genuine consent and power safeguards. |
Evidence boundary
What the tutorial may—and may not—claim.
Supportable claim
Structured written idea exchange can aid generation, while conventional interactive brainstorming often underperforms pooled individuals.
Measurement boundary
Declare prompt, individual baseline, interaction format, quantity, independent novelty/feasibility, selection, implementation, attribution, power and delay; enthusiasm is not creativity.
Put smart people in a room and creativity multiplies
MetricIndependent novelty, feasibility, implementation and equitable attribution versus individual baselines
BoundaryIdea volume or group excitement cannot prove innovation, value or fair ownership.
Negative and limiting findings
- Interactive brainstorming groups generated fewer ideas than nominal groups under common conditions.
- Idea quantity did not establish novelty, feasibility, implementation or equitable credit.
Prohibited wording
- brainstorming unlocks genius
- more voices always mean more creativity
- idea count proves innovation
- AI owns the group idea
- leader gets sole credit
Direct source register
Evidence that supports—and limits—the route.
Paul B. Paulus; Huei-Chuan Yang · 2000 · PRIMARY_RESEARCH
Supports only the bounded empirical proposition in the declared configurations. Constrains generalisation, transfer, certainty or efficacy; it is not optional context.
Michael Diehl; Wolfgang Stroebe · 1987 · PRIMARY_RESEARCH
Supports only the bounded empirical proposition in the declared configurations. Constrains generalisation, transfer, certainty or efficacy; it is not optional context.
Information Commissioner’s Office · 2023 · OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE
Constrains generalisation, transfer, certainty or efficacy; it is not optional context. Supplies an official safety, access or governance boundary and is not empirical efficacy evidence.
Tutorial delivery controls
Learn, adapt, troubleshoot and resume
Progress is saved only in this browser on this device.
Step-by-step learner mode
Each activity includes its success check, a nearby accessible alternative and an “I’m stuck” correction path. Alternatives preserve the target where possible; when they change the task, Titan labels them as related rather than equivalent.
Read the prompt and governance card before viewing ideas
Read the prompt and governance card before viewing ideas. Confirm that the output is for a fictional club and no participant is being evaluated.
“Read the prompt and governance card before viewing ideas” keeps this lesson inside its declared record-analysis boundary and prevents the supplied scenario from being mistaken for physical practice.
The output directly answers “Read the prompt and governance card before viewing ideas”, names the relevant distinction and stays within the supplied record.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Read the prompt and governance card before viewing ideas. Confirm that the output is for a fictional club and no participant is being evaluated.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The pack is used to score employees, students or dependants.
Correction: Stop. Return to fictional data or use an accountable qualified process with genuine consent and power safeguards.
Stop / get help: A governed step-by-step lesson may be completed independently inside its stated limits. Stop if the declared configuration cannot be maintained, uncertainty becomes material, adverse effects appear, or qualified authority is required.
Treat A1 through C2 as the nominal-group baseline: ideas were generated privately…
Treat A1 through C2 as the nominal-group baseline: ideas were generated privately before anyone saw another card.
Keep this exact Group creativity action explicit and reviewable: “Treat A1 through C2 as the nominal-group baseline: ideas were generated privately before anyone saw another card.”
Evidence of completion shows the learner followed this exact instruction without adding an unstated step: “Treat A1 through C2 as the nominal-group baseline: ideas were generated privately before anyone saw another card.”
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Treat A1 through C2 as the nominal-group baseline: ideas were generated privately before anyone saw another card.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: An unknown implementation fact is quietly treated as feasible.
Correction: Mark UNKNOWN, assign an information owner and make selection conditional or choose another idea.
Stop / get help: A governed step-by-step lesson may be completed independently inside its stated limits. Stop if the declared configuration cannot be maintained, uncertainty becomes material, adverse effects appear, or qualified authority is required.
Pool all six baseline cards without scoring
Pool all six baseline cards without scoring. Preserve contributor labels or the stated anonymous choice.
Keep this exact Group creativity action explicit and reviewable: “Pool all six baseline cards without scoring. Preserve contributor labels or the stated anonymous choice.”
Evidence of completion shows the learner followed this exact instruction without adding an unstated step: “Pool all six baseline cards without scoring. Preserve contributor labels or the stated anonymous choice.”
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Pool all six baseline cards without scoring. Preserve contributor labels or the stated anonymous choice.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Anonymous contribution is offered, but the facilitator later guesses authorship publicly.
Correction: Preserve the selected anonymity setting and use a neutral ID throughout pooling and review.
Stop / get help: A governed step-by-step lesson may be completed independently inside its stated limits. Stop if the declared configuration cannot be maintained, uncertainty becomes material, adverse effects appear, or qualified authority is required.
Reveal D1 and D2 as products of a short fictional interactive round
Reveal D1 and D2 as products of a short fictional interactive round. Record their source links rather than crediting only the person who wrote the combined card.
“Reveal D1 and D2 as products of a short fictional interactive round” keeps this lesson inside its declared record-analysis boundary and prevents the supplied scenario from being mistaken for physical practice.
A legible entry directly completes “Reveal D1 and D2 as products of a short fictional interactive round” and records the requested condition, decision or boundary without adding a new claim.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Reveal D1 and D2 as products of a short fictional interactive round. Record their source links rather than crediting only the person who wrote the combined card.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: A derivative loses its parent-card links.
Correction: Write every source ID and contributor on the derivative card before it enters selection.
Stop / get help: A governed step-by-step lesson may be completed independently inside its stated limits. Stop if the declared configuration cannot be maintained, uncertainty becomes material, adverse effects appear, or qualified authority is required.
Score every idea independently on novelty, feasibility and equity/access
Score every idea independently on novelty, feasibility and equity/access. Count quantity separately and do not average away a zero on equity.
“Score every idea independently on novelty, feasibility and equity/access” creates the auditable value, condition or statement needed for the tutorial’s later comparison and conclusion.
The work shows the value requested by “Score every idea independently on novelty, feasibility and equity/access”, retains the supplied units or signs and leaves any unsupported value unknown.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Score every idea independently on novelty, feasibility and equity/access. Count quantity separately and do not average away a zero on equity.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Idea quantity is reported as the primary success result.
Correction: Keep quantity descriptive and require independent novelty, feasibility, equity, implementation and attribution review.
Stop / get help: A governed step-by-step lesson may be completed independently inside its stated limits. Stop if the declared configuration cannot be maintained, uncertainty becomes material, adverse effects appear, or qualified authority is required.
Select, combine or reject using the declared criteria
Select, combine or reject using the declared criteria. Preserve dissent, provenance and the reason an attractive idea was not selected.
“Select, combine or reject using the declared criteria” fixes the exact Group creativity configuration or decision before later observations are compared.
The learner can verify “Select, combine or reject using the declared criteria” from the declared materials, position or recorded choice before continuing.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Select, combine or reject using the declared criteria. Preserve dissent, provenance and the reason an attractive idea was not selected.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Select, combine or reject using the declared criteria. Preserve dissent, provenance and the reason an attractive idea was not selected.” does not yet meet this declared check: The learner can verify “Select, combine or reject using the declared criteria” from the declared materials, position or recorded choice before continuing.
Correction: Return to the start of “Select, combine or reject using the declared criteria”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “The learner can verify “Select, combine or reject using the declared criteria” from the declared materials, position or recorded choice before continuing.”
Stop / get help: A governed step-by-step lesson may be completed independently inside its stated limits. Stop if the declared configuration cannot be maintained, uncertainty becomes material, adverse effects appear, or qualified authority is required.
Correct versus incorrect execution
These accessible process diagrams are built from the tutorial’s own right/wrong teaching. They are not anatomical illustrations and do not add technique beyond the canonical tutorial.
Preserve all six independently generated cards before discussion or scoring.
Let the group discuss the first idea, then count later variants as independent baselines.
Label D1 as derived from A1 and C2 and credit Asha and Casey.
Credit D1 only to the person who typed the combined sentence.
Score novelty, feasibility and equity separately and leave unknown facts unresolved.
Use one excitement score or average away an access failure.
Reject D2 because the leaderboard violates the prompt even though it is cheap.
Select D2 because competition might increase participation.
Say that this structured exchange produced one useful conditional idea in this fixture.
Say the session proves groups multiply creativity or identifies the most creative member.
Method-structure checklist
10 of 10 structural checks present
- Ordered, Power-specific instructions — present
- Every activity has a success check — present
- Materials or supplied records are declared — present
- Measurement or assessment rule is present — present
- Tutorial-specific troubleshooting is present — present
- Stopping or escalation boundary is present — present
- Every activity has an adjacent alternative — present
- Correct-versus-incorrect comparison is present — present
- Evidence context is bound to the Power record — present
- Planning metadata is present — present
The method-readiness band and presence checklist assess tutorial presentation and are separate from evidence quality for the underlying Power. They are automated editorial aids, not human approval.
Manual editorial sign-off: Pending. This tutorial must not display a human-approved state until an identified editor signs the exact content hash.