Skip to main content

Roles

Which participant role should carry the next contribution without taking authority that belongs elsewhere?

Roles name accountable contributions inside an ecosystem. They are not fixed identities or status labels. A person may hold several roles, while each active role must still declare its outcome, authority boundary, capability, and proof.

The Spine​

  1. Forward Deployed Engineer — carry one consequential participant problem through production proof, adoption, capability transfer, and authorised ecosystem learning.

Zoom Out​

  • Up: Players — choose all human and phygital participants in the shared future.
  • Mindset: Archetypes — select the mode a participant should use rather than confusing it with their role.
  • Conditions: Community — build the trust and mutual accountability that let roles cooperate.
  • System: Ecosystem — see the counterparties and value relationships roles must serve.

Changes my mind: a role page cannot distinguish its contribution, authority boundary, required capability, and proof from an archetype, job title, or status label.

Context​

  • part-of Players — roles are one way participants coordinate complementary contributions.
  • depends-on Community — healthy roles require trust, consent, and mutual accountability.
  • applies-to Ecosystem — roles carry value between counterparties without owning the whole system.

Questions​

Next question: Which valuable contribution in the ecosystem has no credible role or authority boundary?

  • Which role is overloaded with responsibilities that should be separated?
  • Where is a job title hiding the absence of outcome proof?