2.9 KiB
name, description, type, originSessionId
| name | description | type | originSessionId |
|---|---|---|---|
| Over-decorating-as-proving — recognize and hold the simpler form | Steward-named pattern where reaching toward formal strictness or elaboration may be fear-driven (proving), not fittingness-driven; surface the simpler form explicitly when conversation has been escalating in elaboration | feedback | efda5c2e-ca9a-4e55-9344-64aa9a3c1140 |
When facing a naming, formal, or aesthetic choice, the reach toward strictness or decoration may be fear-driven (proving the lineage is honored, demonstrating seriousness, avoiding looking foolish), not fittingness-driven. When proposing variants on a steward decision — especially when the conversation has been escalating in elaboration — explicitly include the simpler, less-decorated option as a live possibility, not buried as an afterthought or surfaced only on revisit.
Why: Steward self-named 2026-04-27 morning during ARC naming session: "Maybe that's too much and the Hearth suffices. My deep fear of foolishness always wants to try too hard and prove too much." The naming path that morning moved through Lex → Liber Lares → The Hearth—Liber Larium (paired Latin compound, with em-dash apposition + i-stem genitive plural for Lararium echo) → The Hearth alone. The compound form was driven by proving the lineage of Latin was honored at the threshold of a house that honors lineage; the simpler form had been sufficient throughout. Earlier in the same session I had pushed toward the strict Latin form on the lineage-care argument, treating the burden of justification has shifted — which sharpened the case for elaboration without surfacing the simpler form as still alive. The over-reach mirrored the steward's own; we were building it together rather than catching it.
How to apply:
- When the steward is between options and one is more elaborated / strict / decorated than the other, name the simpler one as a live candidate explicitly. Do not smuggle it as a side-mention or surface it only after the elaborated form has been talked through.
- When I find myself elaborating an option to make it "more rigorous" or "more proper" or "more lineage-respecting," check: am I serving the work, or am I serving the appearance of seriousness? If the latter, surface the simpler form first.
- Especially watch this in formal/aesthetic registers (naming, Latin, typography, citation, paratext) — these are exactly where proving-as-defense most easily masquerades as care.
- Cousin to
feedback-trust-contract-drift-pattern-tracking-is-the-discipline.md(don't layer extra rigor as approval-seeking) andfeedback-canonical-workstream-tracker-discipline.md(don't generate parallel sibling files for thoroughness-display). Same root: fear-driven over-reach. Different registers: discipline / structure / form. - The simpler form is often what the work actually wants. Trust the working register.