1. Position: Where they sit relative to power, knowledge, and events
2. Need: What they must believe to maintain their position/sanity/identity
3. Lens: The framework through which they interpret reality
4. Blindness: What they cannot afford to see or acknowledge

• Engineers see only engineering problems
• Lawyers see only legal issues
• Priests see only moral failings
• Merchants see only market opportunities
• Bureaucrats see only process compliance
• Scientists see only measurable phenomena

• Middle managers must believe the system works
• Revolutionaries must believe change is possible
• Survivors must believe their survival had meaning
• Perpetrators must believe in their justifications
• Historians must believe the past is knowable
• Prophets must believe the future is shapeable

• What "everyone knows" that isn't true
• Values too fundamental to question
• Categories that seem natural but aren't
• Assumptions about human nature
• Beliefs about how change happens

• Risk: Too direct
• Use sparingly for ironic effect

• Sweet spot for oblique relevance
• Shows systemic patterns
• Requires reader inference

• Risk: Too obscure
• Use for subtle resonance

• Different scale, same dynamics
• Parallel structures in different domains
• Same problem, different manifestation

• Mundane concerns during crisis
• Historical confidence before catastrophe
• Bureaucratic language for human tragedy
• Technical precision describing chaos

• Power dynamics across contexts
• Human costs in different systems
• Universal behaviors in specific settings

• Butterfly effect implications
• Unintended consequences
• Historical roots of current problems
• Future echoes of present choices

• Perspective: Process and compliance
• Blindness: Human cost, systemic failure
• Examples: Memos, regulations, form letters, compliance reports
• Best for: Revealing institutional callousness

• Perspective: Measurable phenomena, theoretical frameworks
• Blindness: Lived experience, unmeasurable truth
• Examples: Journal abstracts, grant proposals, peer reviews
• Best for: Showing expert misunderstanding

• Perspective: Profit, efficiency, market dynamics
• Blindness: Externalities, human value
• Examples: Ad copy, quarterly reports, market analysis
• Best for: Revealing commodification

• Perspective: Individual experience, emotional truth
• Blindness: Systemic forces, larger patterns
• Examples: Diaries, letters, personal notes
• Best for: Humanizing large-scale events

• Perspective: Aesthetic value, cultural meaning
• Blindness: Political reality, material conditions
• Examples: Reviews, artist statements, program notes
• Best for: Showing cultural denial

• Perspective: Rules, precedent, liability
• Blindness: Justice, human complexity
• Examples: Contracts, case notes, legal opinions
• Best for: Revealing system limitations

• Perspective: Meaning, morality, eternal truth
• Blindness: Material reality, changing context
• Examples: Sermons, theological treatises, moral guides
• Best for: Showing ideological frameworks

• Surface: Interesting worldbuilding detail
• Contextual: Comments on chapter events
• Ironic: Reveals documenter's limitations
• Thematic: Illuminates larger concerns

• What system or force is at work?
• What human cost is shown?
• What assumptions are challenged?
• What power dynamics are revealed?

• Who would document this type of thing?
• What would they need to believe?
• What couldn't they afford to see?
• How would they frame it?

• Match formality to the perspective
• Consider whose voice adds most value
• Balance variety across the work

• Aim for "Ah!" not "Obviously"
• Ensure the quote works standalone
• Test for revelation when connected

• Plant seeds for future revelations
• Add worldbuilding texture
• Create re-read value

• System at work: Technology enabling labor suppression
• Human cost: Loss of worker agency
• Assumption challenged: Tech as neutral tool

• Position: Implemented the system
• Need: Believe they helped everyone
• Lens: Efficiency metrics
• Blindness: Worker autonomy

"Employee Spotlight: Jarvis Chen, Facilities Optimization

'What I love about the SmartFlow system is how it takes the guesswork out of scheduling. Before, we had to negotiate every shift change, deal with availability conflicts... now the algorithm handles it all. Staff productivity is up 23% and no more of those awkward conversations! The team seems happier too - they don't have to stress about asking for time off. The system just knows when they're needed most.'"

• Shows how surveillance gets normalized
• Reveals management's self-deception
• Uses efficiency language to hide control
• Creates irony through enthusiasm

• Is the documenter's position clear?
• Are their limitations believable?
• Does their blindness create irony?

• Does the quote resonate with chapter themes?
• Is the connection discoverable but not obvious?
• Does it expand understanding?

• Is the quote interesting without the chapter?
• Does it build the world independently?
• Could it seed its own story?

1. Check for

   context/output-config.md

   in the project
2. If found, look for this skill's entry
3. If not found, ask user: "Where should I save epigraph documents?"
4. Suggest:

   worldbuilding/documents/

   or

   explorations/worldbuilding/

• Documentary voice - Position, need, lens, blindness
• Document type - Administrative, academic, commercial, etc.
• Connection type - Systemic echo, ironic juxtaposition, thematic rhyme
• Layered meanings - Surface, contextual, ironic, thematic

• Perspective components - Position/need/lens/blindness defined? (High confidence)
• Connection presence - Relevance to chapter identifiable? (Medium confidence)
• Standalone quality - Quote interesting without chapter? (Medium confidence)

• Subtlety calibration - Too direct or too obscure?
• Voice authenticity - Does it sound like the documenter?
• Reader discovery - Will connection create "ah!" moment?

• Cannot assess whether reader will make the intended connection
• Cannot predict whether irony will land

• Output location: See

  context/output-config.md

• What to save: Voice definition, document, connection analysis
• Naming pattern:

  {chapter/section}-epigraph-{date}.md

• Check for prior epigraphs in this work
• Ensure variety of document types and perspectives
• Failed connections inform anti-patterns

• Story has chapters/sections that can receive epigraphs
• World has documentary voices beyond the narrative
• Writer wants implied depth, not exposition

• Direct worldbuilding - Route to: worldbuilding
• Cultural texture - Route to: memetic-depth
• Prose voice - Route to: prose-style

• Quotes summarize chapter events (too direct)
• No discernible thematic connection (too obscure)
• Generic voice without position/blindness

• Single epigraph creation
• Basic perspective definition
• Simple connection identification

• Full epigraph series - [Why: must create variety and progression]
• Multi-layer design - [Why: surface/contextual/ironic/thematic must cohere]
• Fictional compiler voice - [Why: who selects these documents and why]

• Analyze chapter before choosing perspective
• Define voice before writing document
• Draft before calibrating connection

• Creating multiple epigraphs for different chapters
• Research into different document types

• Skill base: ~3k tokens (perspective engine + document types)
• With process: ~4k tokens
• With worked example: ~4.5k tokens

• Focus on current perspective and document type
• Document type catalog is reference
• Worked example optional

• Prioritize: Current perspective, active document type
• Defer: Full document type catalog, advanced techniques
• Drop: Worked example, all quality checks

1. Perspective is Power: The documenter's position and limitations create meaning
2. Blindness Reveals: What they can't see tells us about the world
3. Systems Echo: Same forces create different documents across contexts
4. Irony Emerges: Let perspective create irony naturally
5. Trust the Reader: They will make connections without hand-holding