Platform Dependencies
Features this venture requires from the platform.
Platform Dependencies
| Feature ID | Feature | Why | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| AUTH-001 | User registration | Facilitator and participant accounts | Service |
| USER-001 | User profiles | Facilitator identity and credentials | Service |
| USER-002 | Organisation management | Group and club management | Service |
| COLB-001 | Team chat | Community coordination | Service |
| REAL-003 | Real-time notifications | Session alerts | Service |
| AI-002 | Conversational AI | Onboarding and protocol guidance | Service |
| NOTE-001 | Email notifications | Session reminders | Service |
Context
- Platform feature matrix — Full capability register
- First principles — Unit economics of trust-building at scale
- Critical path — What must be true before facilitator certification works
- Business artifacts — Deliverables that prove facilitator impact
- Navigation first principles — Judgement that compounds through facilitation practice
- Standards — Shared naming that makes protocols portable across facilitators
- Scoreboard reality — Metrics that verify trust improvement is real
- Agency — The capability loop facilitators train through
- Behavioural biases — What blocks group trust and how protocols design around it
- Software platform — The delivery layer facilitators operate on
- Software protocols — The protocol architecture Touch For Fun builds on
- AI orchestration — Personalised onboarding and session guidance
- Marketing automation — Facilitator acquisition and retention sequences
- Science principles — Empirical foundation for what touch protocols actually change
- Matrix thinking — How to map facilitation protocols against group types and trust stages
- Journey priorities — What facilitators must prioritise to create lasting trust change
- Systems thinking — The reasoning framework behind protocol design for group trust
- Smart contracts — The protocol layer facilitator certification and completion runs on
- Purpose — Why this venture exists and what trust-building must prove
- Consulting AI model — How AI-guided facilitation becomes a scalable service
- Verifiable intent — How session completion and impact can be verified on-chain
Questions
What is the minimum measurable trust signal that proves a Touch For Fun session created lasting change — not just a good experience?
- Which dependency — USER-001 (facilitator identity) or AI-002 (protocol guidance) — matters most to session quality?
- If REAL-003 (real-time notifications) went down mid-session, what breaks first — flow or safety?
- At what facilitator count does the protocol network become self-reinforcing — where facilitators teach facilitators?