Revision 7T · Full Tutorial Edition · Updated 1 September 2026
PWR-117 · SELF GUIDED full tutorial
Draw a testable stock-and-flow map of a fictional reusable-cup system
Systems thinking represents boundaries, parts, accumulations, flows, feedback and delays. A complicated diagram is not automatically true. This lesson uses a fictional café cup-return system so no real community is modelled without participation. The learner labels every causal link as observed, supplied by the fixture or assumed, finds a feedback loop, states a possible unintended effect and writes an observation that could disprove the map.
What you will produceThe learner produces a legible system map with a declared boundary, one stock, two flows, one feedback loop, one delay, evidence labels and a falsification check.
Full step-by-step individual tutorial · TLU-PWR-117
The learner produces a legible system map with a declared boundary, one stock, two flows, one feedback loop, one delay, evidence labels and a falsification check.
Map the supplied fictional system or a learner-owned low-stakes process.
Mark uncertainty and omit claims about people not represented.
Qualified help is required for
Clinical, policy, employment, security, environmental or resource-allocation modelling.
Real community representation without legitimate affected-person participation and domain review.
Never do this from the page alone
Use a classroom map to make consequential decisions about real people.
Turn speculation into causal arrows or treat visual complexity as validation.
2 · Get ready
Gather what you need and check the starting conditions
What you need
Two exact fictional café cards. Card A: 30 clean cups at 8:00; 18 borrowed by 9:30; 8 promptly returned; wash cycle 25 minutes; disposable use 4 per half-hour. Card B: disposable use rises to 10 per half-hour while the return fraction stays 8 of 10; a shorter 10-minute wash cycle restores 12 clean cups by 10:30. Card B weakens ‘more disposable use causes fewer returns’ but supports a washing-delay link.
A four-column link-challenge ledger headed candidate arrow, predicted pattern, Card B observation and verdict. Use only supported, weakened, contradicted or still unknown as verdicts; none of those words means causation has been proved.
Large paper or accessible diagram tool, two arrow styles and an assumption/evidence key.
Map review sheet for boundary, missing perspective, feedback, delay and falsifier.
Before you start
Write that the fixture is fictional and the decision is learning only.
Choose a narrow question: why are clean reusable cups sometimes unavailable at 10 a.m.?
Define arrow meanings before drawing: solid for supplied observation, dashed for assumption.
3 · The method
Follow these steps in order
State purpose and boundary
Write the question, time window, café area and what is outside the map, such as supplier contracts and city waste policy.
Why: A boundary controls what the map can answer and exposes omissions.
Check: The map title includes purpose, time and explicit exclusions.
List parts and perspectives
List clean cups, used cups, return point, washer, staff and customers, then mark whose behaviour is supplied versus imagined.
Why: Systems include people and infrastructure, and invented motivations must remain visible.
Check: Every person-related statement is sourced or labelled assumption.
Mark stocks and flows
Draw clean cups and used cups as accumulations. Add borrowing, returning, washing and loss as directional rates.
Why: Stocks change through flows; mixing them creates vague causal stories.
Check: At least one stock has an inflow and outflow with units.
Add evidence-labelled links
Connect variables only when the fixture supports a relationship; use dashed arrows for hypotheses and write the expected direction.
Why: A causal-looking arrow otherwise hides uncertainty.
Check: Each arrow has sign, status and plain-language meaning.
Find feedback and delay
Trace one closed loop and mark where time passes, such as washing delay reducing clean cups and increasing disposable use.
Why: Feedback and delay can create behaviour that a linear list misses.
Check: One loop and one timed delay can be read aloud.
Challenge the map
Put the strongest dashed arrow in the link-challenge ledger. Write the directional pattern it predicts before reading Card B, copy Card B's observed pattern, then choose supported, weakened, contradicted or still unknown and name which missing perspective could alter the interpretation.
Why: A map becomes useful when it can be wrong and corrected.
Check: The ledger contains a before-reading prediction, an exact observed pattern, a justified verdict and an absent voice.
Revise one feature
Use a second fictional data card to confirm, weaken or reverse one link. Date the new version and preserve the old one.
Why: Versioning shows updating rather than redrawing history.
Check: One link change is tied to the new evidence.
4 · Worked example
See the whole method used once
Scenario
A fictional café starts with 30 clean cups; 18 are borrowed before 9:30, only 8 are returned promptly and washing takes 25 minutes.
Walkthrough
Nia bounds the map to 8–11 a.m. cup availability and excludes purchasing policy.
She draws clean cups and used cups as stocks, with borrow, return and wash flows.
A solid link shows longer washing delay lowers clean availability; a dashed link suggests low availability increases disposable choice.
She traces a loop in which disposable choice may reduce returns and marks the claim as assumed.
Before opening Card B, she enters the prediction ‘if disposable use rises from 4 to 10 per half-hour, the return fraction will fall below 8 of 10’ in the ledger.
Card B instead keeps the return fraction at 8 of 10, so she marks the disposable-to-return arrow weakened; the same card associates a 25-to-10-minute wash reduction with 12 clean cups restored by 10:30, which she marks supported for this fixture but not proven causal.
She dates version two, changes the first arrow to a dashed uncertainty and writes ‘staff timing not represented’ as a perspective that could change the washing interpretation.
Result
Nia has a testable discussion map with a visible unsupported link. She has not proven customer motives or designed real café policy.
5 · Right and wrong
Compare correct or safer execution with the common wrong version
Right and wrong comparison
Moment
Right / safer
Wrong / riskier
Why it matters
Boundary
State what the map includes, excludes and asks.
Map “the whole café system.”
An unlimited boundary makes omissions invisible and claims unfalsifiable.
Arrow
Label observed and assumed links differently.
Draw every plausible story as a solid causal arrow.
Graphic certainty can exceed evidence.
People
Use supplied fictional roles and mark missing perspectives.
Invent why a real group behaves as it does.
Unrepresented people can be stereotyped or governed without authority.
Validation
Name evidence that would weaken a link.
Defend the map because it contains many loops.
Complexity is not validity.
6 · Common mistakes
Spot the error and apply the correction
Common mistakes and corrections
Mistake
Fix
A stock and a rate use the same box.
Use nouns for accumulated quantities and per-time labels for flows.
Arrow direction is ambiguous.
Write “more X leads to more/less Y, all else equal” beside it.
The delay is implied but not marked.
Add a clock symbol and declared interval to the relevant link.
Revision deletes the first map.
Keep dated versions and a change note tied to evidence.
7 · Practice
Turn the steps into a usable skill
First session
Read Card A only, bound the question to clean-cup availability from 8–11 a.m. and list clean cups, used cups, borrowing, return, washing and loss before drawing links.
Draw clean and used cup stocks, label every flow per unit time, and distinguish Card A observations from dashed hypotheses.
Trace one closed cup-availability loop and mark the 25-minute washing delay at the link where time passes.
Enter the disposable-use prediction in the four-column ledger before revealing Card B, then compare 4 versus 10 disposables per half-hour and the unchanged 8-of-10 return fraction.
Issue a verdict for each challenged arrow, record the unrepresented staff-timing perspective, and preserve both dated map versions.
Repeat plan
Use one different fictional low-stakes system each week for four weeks. Keep maps under 12 variables. On week four, ask another learner to interpret arrows from the key and flag unsupported links.
Progress when
Another reader can state the boundary and arrow meanings.
Every causal link has evidence or assumption status.
At least one revision follows disconfirming information.
Do not progress when
The map concerns real consequential decisions or people without participation.
More variables are added instead of resolving ambiguity.
No observation could change the favoured map.
8 · Check the result
Measure what changed
Auditability of one bounded system map.
How: Score presence and correctness of purpose, boundary, stock, flows, loop, delay, evidence status, missing perspective, falsifier and versioned revision.
Good result: All ten audit features are present, and an independent reader can state every sampled arrow’s direction, evidence status and plain-language claim from the legend. Any disagreement is corrected in a new version rather than converted into an arbitrary percentage pass.
This does not prove: It does not prove causal validity, policy effectiveness, community legitimacy or transfer to a real complex system.
Self-check
What is outside the boundary?
Which arrow is the weakest assumption?
Where is the stock and what changes it?
What observation would show the map is wrong?
9 · Stop, adapt or get help
Keep the safety boundary practical
Stop and get help
Stop if the exercise shifts to a real clinical, employment, policy, security or resource decision.
Stop if confidential data or identifiable people enter the map without authority.
Seek affected-person and domain review before representing a real community or acting on a map.
Accessibility and adaptations
Use a text table with source, relation, target, sign and status instead of a graphic.
Provide tactile arrows or high-contrast shapes with a non-colour legend.
Limit visible variables and offer a narrated map walkthrough.
10 · Evidence and limits
Why these instructions are here
primary research
One sustainability-education experiment found mixed effects: explicit systems-thinking material did not show the expected main effect and combined instruction could add cognitive load.
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.
01
State purpose and boundary
Write the question, time window, café area and what is outside the map, such as supplier contracts and city waste policy.
Why this step exists
A boundary controls what the map can answer and exposes omissions.
Success check
The map title includes purpose, time and explicit exclusions.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Write the question, time window, café area and what is outside the map, such as supplier contracts and city waste policy.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: A stock and a rate use the same box.
Correction: Use nouns for accumulated quantities and per-time labels for flows.
Stop / get help: Stop if the exercise shifts to a real clinical, employment, policy, security or resource decision.
02
List parts and perspectives
List clean cups, used cups, return point, washer, staff and customers, then mark whose behaviour is supplied versus imagined.
Why this step exists
Systems include people and infrastructure, and invented motivations must remain visible.
Success check
Every person-related statement is sourced or labelled assumption.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “List clean cups, used cups, return point, washer, staff and customers, then mark whose behaviour is supplied versus imagined.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “List clean cups, used cups, return point, washer, staff and customers, then mark whose behaviour is supplied versus imagined.” does not yet meet this declared check: Every person-related statement is sourced or labelled assumption.
Correction: Return to the start of “List parts and perspectives”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “Every person-related statement is sourced or labelled assumption.”
Stop / get help: Stop if the exercise shifts to a real clinical, employment, policy, security or resource decision.
03
Mark stocks and flows
Draw clean cups and used cups as accumulations. Add borrowing, returning, washing and loss as directional rates.
Why this step exists
Stocks change through flows; mixing them creates vague causal stories.
Success check
At least one stock has an inflow and outflow with units.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Draw clean cups and used cups as accumulations. Add borrowing, returning, washing and loss as directional rates.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Draw clean cups and used cups as accumulations. Add borrowing, returning, washing and loss as directional rates.” does not yet meet this declared check: At least one stock has an inflow and outflow with units.
Correction: Return to the start of “Mark stocks and flows”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “At least one stock has an inflow and outflow with units.”
Stop / get help: Stop if the exercise shifts to a real clinical, employment, policy, security or resource decision.
04
Add evidence-labelled links
Connect variables only when the fixture supports a relationship; use dashed arrows for hypotheses and write the expected direction.
Why this step exists
A causal-looking arrow otherwise hides uncertainty.
Success check
Each arrow has sign, status and plain-language meaning.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Connect variables only when the fixture supports a relationship; use dashed arrows for hypotheses and write the expected direction.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Arrow direction is ambiguous.
Correction: Write “more X leads to more/less Y, all else equal” beside it.
Possible snag: Revision deletes the first map.
Correction: Keep dated versions and a change note tied to evidence.
Stop / get help: Stop if the exercise shifts to a real clinical, employment, policy, security or resource decision.
05
Find feedback and delay
Trace one closed loop and mark where time passes, such as washing delay reducing clean cups and increasing disposable use.
Why this step exists
Feedback and delay can create behaviour that a linear list misses.
Success check
One loop and one timed delay can be read aloud.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Trace one closed loop and mark where time passes, such as washing delay reducing clean cups and increasing disposable use.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The delay is implied but not marked.
Correction: Add a clock symbol and declared interval to the relevant link.
Stop / get help: Stop if the exercise shifts to a real clinical, employment, policy, security or resource decision.
06
Challenge the map
Put the strongest dashed arrow in the link-challenge ledger. Write the directional pattern it predicts before reading Card B, copy Card B's observed pattern, then choose supported, weakened, contradicted or still unknown and name which missing perspective could alter the interpretation.
Why this step exists
A map becomes useful when it can be wrong and corrected.
Success check
The ledger contains a before-reading prediction, an exact observed pattern, a justified verdict and an absent voice.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Put the strongest dashed arrow in the link-challenge ledger. Write the directional pattern it predicts before reading Card B, copy Card B's observed pattern, then choose supported, weakened, contradicted or still unknown and name which missing perspective could alter the interpretation.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Put the strongest dashed arrow in the link-challenge ledger. Write the directional pattern it predicts before reading Card B, copy Card B's observed pattern, then choose supported, weakened, contradicted or still unknown and name which missing perspective could alter the interpretation.” does not yet meet this declared check: The ledger contains a before-reading prediction, an exact observed pattern, a justified verdict and an absent voice.
Correction: Return to the start of “Challenge the map”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “The ledger contains a before-reading prediction, an exact observed pattern, a justified verdict and an absent voice.”
Stop / get help: Stop if the exercise shifts to a real clinical, employment, policy, security or resource decision.
07
Revise one feature
Use a second fictional data card to confirm, weaken or reverse one link. Date the new version and preserve the old one.
Why this step exists
Versioning shows updating rather than redrawing history.
Success check
One link change is tied to the new evidence.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Use a second fictional data card to confirm, weaken or reverse one link. Date the new version and preserve the old one.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Use a second fictional data card to confirm, weaken or reverse one link. Date the new version and preserve the old one.” does not yet meet this declared check: One link change is tied to the new evidence.
Correction: Return to the start of “Revise one feature”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “One link change is tied to the new evidence.”
Stop / get help: Stop if the exercise shifts to a real clinical, employment, policy, security or resource decision.
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.
Boundary — An unlimited boundary makes omissions invisible and claims unfalsifiable.
Correct / safer
State what the map includes, excludes and asks.
Wrong / riskier
Map “the whole café system.”
Arrow — Graphic certainty can exceed evidence.
Correct / safer
Label observed and assumed links differently.
Wrong / riskier
Draw every plausible story as a solid causal arrow.
People — Unrepresented people can be stereotyped or governed without authority.
Correct / safer
Use supplied fictional roles and mark missing perspectives.
Wrong / riskier
Invent why a real group behaves as it does.
Validation — Complexity is not validity.
Correct / safer
Name evidence that would weaken a link.
Wrong / riskier
Defend the map because it contains many loops.
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.