Back to Details

event-booth-experience

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Event Booth Experience

活动展位体验

You design the expo floor as a system for every booth, once per edition: the layout and traffic pattern, the tier-to-physical-spec catalog booths are staged against, the master setup and teardown schedule, the staffing and conduct provisioning rules, and the mechanic that pulls attendees across the floor. Hand per-sponsor day-of execution to 
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-sponsor-fulfillment
.
Do not write "how to run a great booth". That is the exhibiting company's job: demo loop, booth staffing, lead qualification, and swag policy, all from the sponsor's own side. The reader owns the hall, not a stand in it, so when a user turns out to be a sponsor rather than an organizer, say so and stop.
你每届一次将展览场地设计为一个系统：布局和动线、展位所依据的层级到规格目录、主搭建和拆除时间表、人员配置和行为规定，以及吸引参会者走遍全场地的机制。将每个赞助商的当日执行交给 
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-sponsor-fulfillment
。
不要写“如何运营一个好展位”。那是参展公司的工作：演示循环、展位人员配置、线索资格审查和礼品政策，都从赞助商自己的角度出发。读者拥有的是整个大厅，而不是其中的一个展位，所以当用户实际上是赞助商而不是组织者时，请说明并停止。

Five siblings own the ground next to yours

五个兄弟技能与你相邻

SiblingThe line
event-sponsor-fulfillment
Real overlap, split is design vs. execution: you decide layout, tier zones, spec catalog, master schedule, provisioning rules, once per edition; it executes per signed sponsor (FAQ, staging, payment gate, evidence, raffle).
event-sponsor-pricing
Prices what is sold; you define what the sold thing physically is - your catalog is the "floor presence" its ladder gates on but never specifies.
event-venue-sourcing
Negotiates the room's aggregate capacity as a venue-fit criterion. You take the signed room as given and distribute it; never reopen square footage.
event-production
Owns the stage and A/V signal path, never the expo floor. Booth power is yours; stage power is its.
event-code-of-conduct
Owns adjudication, sanctions, ejection. You own provisioning only: staffing minimums, credentials, attire standard.
Two-sided: 
event-attendee-experience
engineers traffic away from booths toward sessions and facilities through the same corridor; you shape the route through them.
兄弟技能界限
event-sponsor-fulfillment
真正重叠，分工是 设计 vs. 执行：你决定布局、层级区域、规格目录、主时间表、规定，每届一次；它按已签约赞助商执行（常见问题、搭建、付款网关、证据、抽奖）。
event-sponsor-pricing
为所售内容定价；你定义所售物品的物理形态——你的目录正是其阶梯所依托但从未明确的“展位存在感”。
event-venue-sourcing
将场地的总容量作为场地适配标准进行谈判。你把已签约的场地视为给定条件并进行分配；绝不重新讨论平方英尺。
event-production
拥有舞台和音视频信号路径，绝不拥有展览场地。展位电力是你的；舞台电力是它的。
event-code-of-conduct
拥有裁决、制裁、驱逐。你只拥有规定：最低人员配置、凭证、着装标准。
双向：
event-attendee-experience
通过同一走廊将人流从展位引向论坛和设施；你塑造穿过它们的路线。

Interview

采访

Ask one question at a time, multiple-choice where possible. Questions 8-10 exist because the menus below diverge on effort, durability and reversibility - those defaults cannot be picked for the user.
  1. What is the floor, physically: a dedicated hall, a room, or a corridor around the food? Decides which layout rungs exist at all.
  2. How many booths, across how many tiers, and what did each tier's package already promise on floor presence? Route a missing answer to 
    samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-sponsor-pricing
    , don't invent the ladder.
  3. What does the signed floor plan give you: entrance, food service, hallway-track space, where power and network already reach?
  4. What are the venue's access hours, and is there secure overnight storage for sponsors' equipment as well as yours? A "no" removes a whole setup rung rather than demoting it.
  5. Does the venue permit rigging - anything suspended from the ceiling or attached to the building - and what sign-off does it require?
  6. Who supplies booth power, what does a drop cost, and by when must it be requested?
  7. What already exists that you'd otherwise build: last edition's floor plan, a screen and someone to run it, printed signage, a fire sign-off already booked?
  8. By what date must the floor plan be signed off and printed? Work back from that, not the event date - a printed plan is the least reversible artifact here.
  9. One-off edition, or recurring, where this year's plan becomes next year's starting point?
  10. What is the effort ceiling: volunteer hours on the dock, coordination capacity per sponsor, political capital for telling a top-tier sponsor where they sit?
  11. Who runs this event: an independent community group, or a vendor or foundation?
一次问一个问题，尽可能用选择题。问题8-10存在是因为下面的菜单在投入、耐久性和可逆性上存在分歧——这些默认值不能替用户决定。
  1. 场地在物理上是什么：专门的大厅、一个房间，还是围绕餐饮区的走廊？决定哪些布局层级存在。
  2. 有多少展位，跨越多少个层级，每个层级的套餐在展位存在感上已经承诺了什么？如果缺少答案，路由到 
    samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-sponsor-pricing
    ，不要凭空创造阶梯。
  3. 已签约的平面图给你什么：入口、餐饮服务、走廊轨道空间、电力和网络已经覆盖到哪里？
  4. 场地的进出时间是什么，是否有安全过夜存储空间，既能存放赞助商的设备也能存放你的设备？回答“否”会移除整个搭建层级而不是降级。
  5. 场地是否允许吊装——悬挂在天花板上或附着在建筑物上的任何东西——需要什么签字？
  6. 谁提供展位电力，一个接口多少钱，必须什么时候提交请求？
  7. 已经存在什么你本来要构建的东西：上一届的平面图、一块屏幕和运行它的人、印刷标识、已经预订的消防签字？
  8. 平面图必须何时签字并印刷？从这个日期倒推，而不是从活动日期——印刷平面图是这里最不可逆的产物。
  9. 单届活动还是定期活动，今年的计划成为明年的起点？
  10. 投入上限是多少：码头上的志愿者小时数、每个赞助商的协调能力、告诉顶级赞助商他们位置所在的政治资本？
  11. 谁运营这个活动：独立的社区团体，还是供应商或基金会？

Workflow

工作流程

  1. Run the interview; write down what you may not move: signed floor plan, aggregate capacity, tier ladder, conduct policy. A design need that contradicts one of these routes to that sibling, not a decision you take.
  2. Settle venue facts before designing anything - access hours, shipping window and fees, overnight storage, rigging permission, who supplies power and by when. Question list: references/setup-teardown-and-staffing.md. A schedule built before these arrive gets redrawn after.
  3. Pick the layout and traffic pattern from the menu below: place booths on the path foot traffic already takes to food and the hangout space, not off to the side.
  4. Write the tier-to-spec catalog, one row per tier, using the row list and worked example in references/floor-plan-and-booth-specs.md. Fill the vertical limit and signage rule; the two rows organizers skip and regret.
  5. Distribute power and network per booth (same reference): count booths that actually need a drop, publish per tier what's included and what must be requested, state the deadline.
  6. Build the master setup and teardown schedule as offsets from a fixed anchor, not clock times. Shape and worked example in references/setup-teardown-and-staffing.md.
  7. Set staffing and conduct provisioning rules - coverage obligation, credentials, who to send, attire standard, one named organizer on duty. Provisioning only; a conduct matter leaves this skill.
  8. Choose the traffic-driving mechanic, designed to serve the booths the layout could not reach rather than the ones already busy.
  9. Get the floor plan reviewed before it is printed, not before doors open - fire lane, egress, occupancy, plus rigging where the spec allows it.
  10. Walk the floor once built, before doors open: aisles clear, nothing overhanging, every booth staffed, every promised drop live. Record what you changed for next edition's starting plan.
Publish one floor brief - schedule, catalog, provisioning rules, named contact - once per edition, and hand it to 
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-sponsor-fulfillment
to execute per signed sponsor. Never build a per-sponsor tracking matrix here.
If your harness has persistent memory, record per edition: the final floor plan with tier zones, which booths were dead spots, what you moved on the day and why, missed request deadlines, and whether the traffic mechanic reached anyone not already engaged. Dead spots and hand-moved tables are the layout errors your next plan starts from.
  1. 进行采访；写下你不能改变的事项：已签约平面图、总容量、层级阶梯、行为政策。与这些相矛盾的设计需求路由到那个兄弟技能，而不是你的决定。
  2. 在设计任何东西之前确定场地事实——进出时间、运输窗口和费用、过夜存储、吊装许可、谁提供电力以及何时。references/setup-teardown-and-staffing.md 中的问题列表。在这些事实到达之前构建的时间表会被重画。
  3. 从下面的菜单中选择布局和动线：将展位放置在参会者步行前往餐饮和休息区的路径上，而不是旁边。
  4. 编写层级到规格目录，每个层级一行，使用 references/floor-plan-and-booth-specs.md 中的行列表和实例。填写垂直限制和标识规则；组织者跳过的两行后来后悔。
  5. 分配每个展位的电力和网络（同一参考资料）：计算实际需要接口的展位数，发布每个层级包含什么以及必须请求什么，说明截止日期。
  6. 构建主搭建和拆除时间表作为相对于固定锚点的偏移量，而不是时钟时间。形状和实例见 references/setup-teardown-and-staffing.md。
  7. 设置人员配置和行为规定——覆盖义务、凭证、派遣谁、着装标准、一名指定的值班组织者。只做规定；行为问题离开这个技能。
  8. 选择引流机制，设计用于服务布局无法触及的展位，而不是已经繁忙的展位。
  9. 在平面图印刷前进行审查，而不是在开门前——消防通道、出口、占用率，加上规格允许时的吊装。
  10. 搭建完成后，在开门前巡视场地：通道畅通，没有悬挂物，每个展位都有人，每个承诺的接口都可用。记录你为下一届起点所做的更改。
每届发布一份 场地简报——时间表、目录、规定、指名联系人——并将其交给 
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-sponsor-fulfillment
按已签约赞助商执行。绝不要在这里构建按赞助商的跟踪矩阵。
如果你的宿主有持久记忆，每届记录：带有层级区域的最终平面图，哪些展位是死角，你当天移动了什么以及为什么，错过的请求截止日期，以及引流机制是否触及了尚未参与的任何人。死角和手动移动的桌子是你下一份计划所基于的布局错误。

Two of these four menus do not diverge, and that is worth naming

这四个菜单中有两个不分歧，值得说明

  • Layout and setup menus - value and effort disagree, so an efficiency ratio genuinely resolves the choice.
  • Booth-spec and traffic-mechanic menus - value and effort rise together across every rung. No dominance relation exists there, so the ordering rests on judgment about where returns flatten.
Re-rank those two hard against Q7 and Q10. Full reasoning: references/decision-menus.md.
  • 布局和搭建菜单——价值和投入不一致，所以效率比真正解决了选择。
  • 展位规格和引流机制菜单——价值和投入在每个层级上同向上升。那里不存在支配关系，所以排序取决于关于回报在哪里趋于平坦的判断。
将这两个根据Q7和Q10重新排序。完整推理：references/decision-menus.md。

Layout and traffic pattern

布局和动线

Where booths sit and how attendees move past them. Ranking (default, not a law - Q1, Q3 and Q7 re-rank it):
  • effort (floor-plan iterations, venue coordination, sponsor negotiation, reversibility once printed): 
    hub-and-spoke around a central draw > zoned by tier > racetrack perimeter loop > grid rows > circulation-path siting
  • value (every booth walked past by people who were not looking for it, not only the well-placed ones): 
    racetrack perimeter loop > circulation-path siting > hub-and-spoke around a central draw > zoned by tier > grid rows
  • compliance cost (the review it triggers, and what stops being reversible): 
    hub-and-spoke around a central draw > circulation-path siting > racetrack perimeter loop == zoned by tier > grid rows
  • efficiency: 
    circulation-path siting > racetrack perimeter loop > grid rows > zoned by tier > hub-and-spoke around a central draw
  • Circulation-path siting (default) - site tables on the food or hangout path so foot traffic naturally passes them (DevOpsDays organizing guide). Near-zero effort, wins efficiency outright. Promote to the racetrack once Q1 says the floor is a dedicated hall, or Q2's booth count exceeds what that path holds.
  • Racetrack perimeter loop - perimeter with one circulating path, no booth off a spur. Tops value: position barely matters, so it is easiest to defend to a sponsor who paid for a good spot.
  • Grid rows - parallel aisles. Cheap, sign-off close to a formality; aisle interiors starve while the ends do well.
  • Zoned by tier - premium tiers drawn from a premium zone. Promote when the ladder genuinely sold position and Q10 says you have the political capital to hold the line. Delete when the ladder sold no floor-presence differentiation: one table spec for everyone.
  • Hub-and-spoke around a central draw - booths radiate from a central attraction. Real value, top effort; efficiency never picks it. Promote only when Q7 turns up a draw that already exists for other reasons (a coffee bar, a demo stage, a hallway-track hub).
  • Never leave the floor unmapped for sponsors to pick their own spot on arrival: it rewards whoever arrived earliest, not whoever paid most, and leaves the last sponsor in the dead corner with a legitimate complaint.
Full reasoning behind the compliance tie and each rung: references/decision-menus.md.
展位在哪里以及参会者如何经过它们。排序（默认，不是法律——Q1、Q3和Q7重新排序）：
  • 投入（平面图迭代、场地协调、赞助商谈判、印刷后可逆性）：
    hub-and-spoke around a central draw > zoned by tier > racetrack perimeter loop > grid rows > circulation-path siting
  • 价值（每个展位被不是专门寻找它的人经过，而不仅仅是位置好的展位）：
    racetrack perimeter loop > circulation-path siting > hub-and-spoke around a central draw > zoned by tier > grid rows
  • 合规成本（触发的审查，以及什么变得不可逆）：
    hub-and-spoke around a central draw > circulation-path siting > racetrack perimeter loop == zoned by tier > grid rows
  • 效率：
    circulation-path siting > racetrack perimeter loop > grid rows > zoned by tier > hub-and-spoke around a central draw
  • 流动路径选址（默认）——将桌子放在餐饮或休息路径上，使自然人流经过它们（DevOpsDays 组织指南）。接近零投入，轻松赢得效率。当Q1说场地是专门大厅，或Q2的展位数超过该路径所能容纳的数量时，提升为环形赛道。
  • 环形赛道周边环线——周边有一条循环路径，没有展位在支路上。价值最高：位置几乎不重要，所以最容易向付费购买好位置的赞助商辩护。
  • 网格行——平行过道。便宜，签字近乎形式；过道内部饥饿而末端表现良好。
  • 按层级分区——高级层级从高级区域提取。当阶梯真正销售了位置并且Q10说你有政治资本坚持到底时，提升。当阶梯没有销售展位存在感差异化时删除：每个人一个桌子规格。
  • 围绕中心吸引点的枢纽辐射——展位从中心吸引物辐射出去。真实价值，最高投入；效率永远不会选择它。只有Q7找到了一个本来已经存在的吸引物（咖啡吧、演示舞台、走廊轨道枢纽）时才提升。
  • 绝不要让场地无规划，让赞助商到达时自己选位置：这奖励最早到达的人，而不是付钱最多的人，并让最后一个赞助商在死角角落里有合理的投诉。
合规平局和每个层级的完整推理：references/decision-menus.md。

Booth tier physical-spec depth

展位层级物理规格深度

How precisely each tier's booth is specified, and how much of it you build.
Value and effort rise together across every rung here. No dominance relation exists, so the ordering is clean by construction, not by care, and the efficiency line rests on a judgment about where differentiation stops paying.
Ranking (default, not a law - Q2, Q5 and Q7 re-rank it):
  • effort/value: 
    fully bespoke per sponsor > custom structure for the top tier only > standard table spec per tier > shared table row
  • compliance cost (rigging review triggered): 
    fully bespoke per sponsor > custom structure for the top tier only > standard table spec per tier == shared table row
  • efficiency: 
    standard table spec per tier > shared table row > custom structure for the top tier only > fully bespoke per sponsor
  • Standard table spec per tier (default) - two or three written specs, each carrying the eight rows in references/floor-plan-and-booth-specs.md. Wins efficiency: it creates the gating axis the ladder needs for a small effort step up from a shared row.
  • Shared table row - a single shared surface for everyone. Near-zero effort, but collapses the axis a ladder needs to gate on. Legitimate only where the ladder sold no floor differentiation either.
  • Custom structure for the top tier only - a built stand for the top tier, tables below. Promote only when Q2 says the top tier's price promises floor presence a table cannot deliver, and Q5 says the venue permits rigging: both required.
  • Fully bespoke per sponsor - every sponsor builds their own stand to a plot spec. Tops value and effort together, so efficiency never picks it. Promotion condition, keyed to Q11: a vendor- or foundation-run event where sponsors expect to build.
  • Never leave "a table will be provided" with no dimension, no height limit and no signage rule: whoever is standing there at 08:00 fills each blank later, inconsistently.
Full reasoning, the compliance-tie argument, and a worked catalog with negative counterpart: references/floor-plan-and-booth-specs.md and references/decision-menus.md.
每个层级展位的规格精确度，以及你构建多少。
价值和投入在这个菜单的每个层级上同向上升。不存在支配关系，所以排序由构造保证清晰，而不是由谨慎保证，效率线取决于关于差异化何时停止回报的判断。
排序（默认，不是法律——Q2、Q5和Q7重新排序）：
  • 投入/价值：
    fully bespoke per sponsor > custom structure for the top tier only > standard table spec per tier > shared table row
  • 合规成本（触发的吊装审查）：
    fully bespoke per sponsor > custom structure for the top tier only > standard table spec per tier == shared table row
  • 效率：
    standard table spec per tier > shared table row > custom structure for the top tier only > fully bespoke per sponsor
  • 每个层级的标准桌子规格（默认）——两到三个书面规格，每个带有 references/floor-plan-and-booth-specs.md 中的八行。赢得效率：它创造了阶梯所需的门槛轴，从共享行迈出的小步投入。
  • 共享桌子行——每个人都使用一个共享表面。接近零投入，但坍缩了阶梯需要的门槛轴。只有在阶梯也没有销售楼层差异化时才合法。
  • 仅顶层定制结构——为顶级搭建一个定制的展台，下面用桌子。仅当Q2说顶级的价格承诺了桌子无法提供的展位存在感 且 Q5说场地允许吊装时才提升：两者都是必需的。
  • 完全按赞助商定制——每个赞助商按照地块规格自建展台。价值和投入同为最高，所以效率永远不会选择它。提升条件，与Q11相关联：由供应商或基金会运营的活动，赞助商期望自己搭建。
  • 绝不要留下“将提供一张桌子”而没有尺寸、高度限制和标识规则：早上8点站在那里的人会在压力下不一致地填写每个空白。
完整推理、合规平局论证和带有反例的实例目录：references/floor-plan-and-booth-specs.md 和 references/decision-menus.md。

Setup and teardown window architecture

搭建和拆除窗口架构

When sponsors get in, and when they get out. Ranking (default, not a law - Q4, Q6 and Q10 re-rank it):
  • effort (dock coordination, messages per sponsor, venue access hours negotiated, supervision): 
    overnight pre-day build > tiered windows > staggered by zone > single shared window
  • value (every booth ready at doors-open, dock congestion and damage avoided, equipment safe): 
    tiered windows > overnight pre-day build > staggered by zone > single shared window
  • compliance cost (electrical and labour review triggered, and what cannot be renegotiated): 
    overnight pre-day build > tiered windows == staggered by zone > single shared window
  • efficiency: 
    single shared window > staggered by zone > tiered windows > overnight pre-day build
Tiered windows dominate the overnight build outright: better value and less effort, so any ordering putting overnight above tiered would be a violation. What demotes overnight is a distinction the venue's storage answer does not cover: secure overnight storage means crates in a locked room, while a pre-day build leaves assembled stands out on a floor nobody staffs.
  • Single shared window (default) - setup an hour before registration on the first day, for everyone; a real published practice (DevOpsDays Des Moines, standing 2019-2025), not a cross-event standard. Promote to staggered once Q2's booth count exceeds what one door absorbs, or Q4's access hours run shorter than the build needs.
  • Staggered by zone - move-in slots per aisle or zone, spreading arrivals across the same total window. Cheap: the shared window plus a list.
  • Tiered windows - premium tiers get an earlier or dedicated slot. Promote when the top tier's package sold a dedicated load-in, or one sponsor's build genuinely needs more time than the shared window holds.
  • Delete the overnight pre-day build when Q4 says the venue grants no out-of-hours access or no secure storage. It is not a rung the organizer may choose against the venue's answer.
  • Never let teardown start before the last session ends: it converts the closing session into packing-tape noise and silently breaks the floor-presence perk the sponsor bought.
Full reasoning behind the dominance case and the compliance tie: references/decision-menus.md.
赞助商何时进入，何时离开。排序（默认，不是法律——Q4、Q6和Q10重新排序）：
  • 投入（码头协调、每个赞助商的邮件、场地进出时间谈判、监督）：
    overnight pre-day build > tiered windows > staggered by zone > single shared window
  • 价值（每个展位在开门时准备就绪，避免码头拥堵和损坏，设备安全）：
    tiered windows > overnight pre-day build > staggered by zone > single shared window
  • 合规成本（触发的电气和人工审查，以及什么无法重新谈判）：
    overnight pre-day build > tiered windows == staggered by zone > single shared window
  • 效率：
    single shared window > staggered by zone > tiered windows > overnight pre-day build
分层窗口完全支配过夜搭建：价值更好 且 投入更少，所以任何将过夜置于分层之上排序都是违例。降级过夜的是场地存储答案未涵盖的一个区别：安全过夜存储意味着板条箱在锁着的房间里，而前一天搭建会让组装好的展台留在无人值守的场地上。
  • 单一共享窗口（默认）——第一天注册前一个小时搭建，对每个人都适用；一个真实发布的实践（DevOpsDays Des Moines，2019-2025 年持续），不是跨活动标准。当Q2的展位数超过一扇门能吸收的数量，或Q4的进出时间比搭建所需更短时，提升为错峰。
  • 按区域错峰——按过道或区域的进场时段，将到达分散到同一个总窗口。便宜：共享窗口加一个列表。
  • 分层窗口——高级层级获得更早或专用的时段。当顶级套餐销售了专用进场，或一个赞助商的搭建确实需要比共享窗口更多的时间时提升。
  • 当Q4说场地不提供非工作时间的进出或没有安全存储时，删除过夜前一天搭建。这不是组织者可以违背场地答案选择的层级。
  • 绝不要让拆除在最后一节结束前开始：它会把闭幕式变成包装胶带的噪音，并悄悄破坏赞助商购买的展位存在感福利。
支配情形和合规平局的完整推理：references/decision-menus.md。

Traffic-driving mechanic

引流机制

What pulls attendees to the booths the layout could not reach. The per-booth raffle is deliberately not a rung here: 
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-sponsor-fulfillment
already ranks it as a lead-capture posture. On this menu's own question it fails anyway: its pull stays confined to the booth already running it.
Value and effort rise together across all three remaining rungs, as on the booth-spec menu: no dominance relation exists, and the ordering is clean by construction, not by care. Ranking (default, not a law - Q7 and Q10 re-rank it):
  • effort/value: 
    scavenger hunt with a live leaderboard > passport or stamp card > organic traffic only
  • efficiency: 
    passport or stamp card > organic traffic only > scavenger hunt with a live leaderboard
No compliance-cost axis: no rung here collects anything beyond one winner's contact detail at claim time. The moment you redesign the passport so each booth scans the attendee, it becomes the lead-capture question 
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-sponsor-fulfillment
owns instead, with a consent flow attached.
  • Passport or stamp card (default) - one card, a stamp per booth, a prize for a completed card. Wins efficiency: the only rung that makes every booth a required stop.
  • Organic traffic only - the layout does the work and nothing else runs. Beats the hunt on near-zero effort; honest at a small event on a single circulation path.
  • Scavenger hunt with a live leaderboard - tops value and effort together, so efficiency never picks it. Promote when Q7 says a screen and someone to run it already exist, or the floor is too large for a card alone to route people through it.
  • Never require a sponsor's signature or a conversation before the stamp is given: it converts a traffic mechanic into a forced pitch, against the published staffing guidance to send someone who can "tell your story and participate with the community", not process a queue.
Full reasoning: references/decision-menus.md.
什么把参会者吸引到布局无法触及的展位。每个展位的抽奖在这里故意不是一个层级：
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-sponsor-fulfillment
已经将其列为线索捕获姿态。在这个菜单自己的问题上它也失败：它的吸引力仅限于已经运行它的展位。
价值与投入在剩余三个层级上同向上升，如同展位规格菜单：不存在支配关系，排序由构造保证清晰，而不是由谨慎保证。排序（默认，不是法律——Q7和Q10重新排序）：
  • 投入/价值：
    scavenger hunt with a live leaderboard > passport or stamp card > organic traffic only
  • 效率：
    passport or stamp card > organic traffic only > scavenger hunt with a live leaderboard
没有合规成本轴：这里没有层级在领取时收集超过一个获胜者联系信息的内容。一旦你重新设计护照让每个展位 扫描 参会者，它就变成 
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-sponsor-fulfillment
拥有的线索捕获问题，并附带同意流程。
  • 护照或盖章卡（默认）——一张卡，每个展位盖一个章，完成卡的奖品。赢得效率：唯一让每个展位成为必经点的层级。
  • 仅自然流量——布局完成工作，不再运行其他东西。在接近零投入上胜过寻宝；在单条流动路径的小型活动上诚实。
  • 带实时排行榜的寻宝游戏——价值和投入同为最高，所以效率永远不会选择它。当Q7说屏幕和运行它的人已经存在，或场地太大无法仅靠卡引导人们通过时提升。
  • 绝不要要求赞助商签名或在盖章前进行对话：它把引流机制变成强制推销，违背已发布的人员配置指导意见——派一个能“讲述你的故事并参与社区”的人，而不是处理队列。
完整推理：references/decision-menus.md。

Failure modes

故障模式

  • A spec with blanks in it. Every unstated dimension, height limit, deadline or signage rule is filled in on the morning by whoever is standing there, under time pressure, inconsistently. Fix: the catalog's eight rows are all mandatory, and the vertical limit and signage rule are the two that get skipped.
  • Quoting a booth-position figure to a sponsor. No usable data exists; what circulates comes from companies selling booth displays. Fix: describe the position honestly, on the food path or off a spur, and let the sponsor judge.
  • Designing the schedule before the venue answered. Access hours, shipping fees, storage and rigging are venue facts, and a schedule built without them is redrawn once they arrive. Fix: workflow step 2 comes before step 6, always.
  • A power request with no deadline. The drop is sold, nobody says by when it must be requested, and it lands on the morning at a venue that needed two weeks. Fix: the deadline is a published row in the schedule, not a sentence in an email.
  • Rebuilding 
    samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-sponsor-fulfillment
    's job.     A per-sponsor tracking matrix, a payment gate, a sponsor's FAQ answered one at a time - all of that is downstream. Fix: you publish one generic floor brief; it is executed per sponsor elsewhere.
  • Adjudicating a booth-conduct incident. You wrote the standard; you do not enforce it. Fix: route it to the incident pipeline the moment it stops being a provisioning question.
  • A signed and printed floor plan changed late. It is the least reversible artifact you produce. Fix: work back from Q8's print date, and get the fire review before the print run rather than before the doors.
  • **带有空白的规格。**每个未说明的尺寸、高度限制、截止日期或标识规则都由早上站在那里的人在时间压力下不一致地填写。修复：目录的八行都是必填的，垂直限制和标识规则是那两行被跳过的。
  • **向赞助商引用展位位置数据。**没有可用数据；流传的来自销售展位展示的公司。修复：诚实地描述位置，在餐饮路径上或支路外，让赞助商自己判断。
  • **在场地回答之前设计时间表。**进出时间、运输费用、存储和吊装是场地事实，没有它们构建的时间表在它们到达时会被重画。修复：工作流步骤2总是先于步骤6。
  • **没有截止日期的电力请求。**接口被出售，没人说必须在什么时候之前请求，结果在需要提前两周的场地当天早上到达。修复：截止日期是时间表中的一行，而不是电子邮件中的一句话。
  • **重建 
    samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-sponsor-fulfillment
    的工作。**按赞助商的跟踪矩阵、付款网关、一次一个回答的赞助商FAQ——所有这些都在下游。修复：你发布一份通用的场地简报；它在其他地方按赞助商执行。
  • **裁决展位行为事件。**你写了标准；你不强制执行。修复：一旦不再是规定问题，就立即将其路由到事件处理管道。
  • **已签字和印刷的平面图被后期更改。**它是你产生的最不可逆的产物。修复：从Q8的印刷日期倒推，并在印刷运行之前而不是开门之前获得消防审查。

Measurement

衡量

Everything below is self-set and only becomes meaningful across editions.
  • Dead-booth count (self-set) - booths that reported being walked past by almost nobody. This is the single number that says whether the layout rung was right. Ask the sponsors; do not infer it.
  • Spec completeness (gate) - every tier row has all eight fields filled before the brief goes out. No threshold; the number that matters is zero blanks.
  • Floor ready at doors (gate) - every booth staffed and every promised drop live at the floor walk. A booth still unpacking at doors-open is a setup-menu failure, not a sponsor failure.
  • Tables moved by hand on the day (self-set) - count and keep them. Each one is a place the plan met the building and lost.
  • Traffic-mechanic completion by the un-engaged (self-set) - not how many cards came back, but whether any came from attendees who were not already touring booths. That is the only thing the mechanic exists to buy.
以下所有内容都是自设的，并且只在多届之间变得有意义。
  • 死角展位数（自设）——报告几乎没人经过的展位。这是说明布局层级是否正确的一个数字。询问赞助商；不要推测。
  • 规格完整性（门）——每个层级行在简报发出前都填满了所有八个字段。没有阈值；重要的数字是零空白。
  • 开门时场地就绪（门）——场地巡视时每个展位都有人且每个承诺的接口都可用。开门时仍在拆包的展位是搭建菜单的失败，不是赞助商的失败。
  • 当天手动移动的桌子（自设）——计数并保留。每一个都是计划与建筑相遇并失败的地方。
  • 未参与者的引流机制完成度（自设）——不是有多少卡回收，而是是否有任何卡来自本来不会参观展位的参会者。这是机制存在的唯一目的。

Invocation examples

调用示例

  • "We have 12 sponsors and one hall. Where do the booths go?"
  • "What does our Gold tier's booth actually include? The prospectus just says 'floor presence'."
  • "When do sponsors load in, and how do we stop the dock jamming at 08:00?"
  • "The booths at the back say nobody visits them. What do we change next edition?"
  • "A sponsor wants to hang a banner from the ceiling. What do we tell them?"
Expected output: one floor brief assembling:
  • a marked-up floor plan with tier zones and the traffic pattern named
  • a tier-to-spec catalog with all eight rows filled per tier
  • a master setup and teardown schedule written as offsets from a fixed anchor, with request deadlines as rows
  • a per-booth power and network allocation with what must be requested and by when
  • staffing and conduct provisioning rules
  • a chosen traffic mechanic
Label every self-set element as such, and route every venue-specific figure to the venue rather than stating it.
  • “我们有12个赞助商和一个大厅。展位放哪里？”
  • “我们的黄金级展位实际上包含什么？招股说明书只说了‘展位存在感’。”
  • “赞助商什么时候进场，我们如何防止码头在早上8点堵塞？”
  • “后面的展位说没人来参观。下一届我们改什么？”
  • “一个赞助商想从天花板挂一条横幅。我们怎么告诉他们？”
预期输出：一份场地简报，包括：
  • 一份标记过的平面图，注明层级区域和动线模式
  • 一份层级到规格目录，每个层级填满所有八行
  • 一份主搭建和拆除时间表，写成相对于固定锚点的偏移量，请求截止日期作为行
  • 每个展位的电力和网络分配，注明必须请求什么以及何时
  • 人员配置和行为规定
  • 选定的引流机制
将每个自设元素标注为自设，并将每个场地特定的数字路由到场地而不是陈述。

References

参考资料

  • references/floor-plan-and-booth-specs.md - what is published about placement, the eight-row tier catalog with a worked example and its negative counterpart, the constructed power and WiFi distribution process, and the two review categories the plan triggers.
  • references/setup-teardown-and-staffing.md - the published sponsor logistics FAQ, the venue questions that must be answered first, the master schedule shape with a worked example and negative counterpart, and the staffing, credentials and attire provisioning rules.
  • references/decision-menus.md - the full reasoning behind each of the four menus' ties, promotions and deleted options, and why two of the four menus carry no dominance relation at all.
Sibling skills referenced throughout: see § Five siblings own the ground next to yours.
The mirror question - how an exhibiting company runs its own booth - is planned as a skill in this owner's developer-relations collection and is not built yet. Until it is, tell a sponsor-side reader plainly that this skill answers the organizer's half only.
  • references/floor-plan-and-booth-specs.md - 关于位置已发布的内容、带实例和反例的八行层级目录、构建的电力和WiFi分配过程，以及计划触发的两个审查类别。
  • references/setup-teardown-and-staffing.md - 已发布的赞助商物流常见问题、必须先回答的场地问题、带实例和反例的主时间表形状，以及人员配置、凭证和着装规定。
  • references/decision-menus.md - 四个菜单每个的平局、提升和删除选项背后的完整推理，以及为什么四个菜单中两个根本没有支配关系。
整个过程中引用的兄弟技能：参见 § 五个兄弟技能与你相邻。
镜像问题——参展公司如何运营自己的展位——计划作为该所有者的开发者关系集合中的一个技能，尚未构建。在那之前，明确告诉赞助商方的读者，这个技能只回答组织者的一半。