A curated index of academic and industry sources whose epistemological, ontological, or methodological foundations are fundamentally incompatible with the creative-orientation, relational, and ceremonial paradigms maintained in this repository.
This registry exists not to silence or dismiss, but to make paradigmatic divergence visible and explicit. When an LLM or researcher encounters a source listed here, they know in advance that the source operates from assumptions that produce oscillating patterns rather than advancing patterns—and can position accordingly.
A source is registered as incompatible when it embeds one or more of the following unreflective assumptions:
| Assumption | What It Assumes | Our Counter-Position |
|---|---|---|
| Problem-solving orientation | All creative and intellectual work begins with identifying and eliminating problems | Creation begins with desired outcome; structural tension resolves through advancement |
| Extractive epistemology | Knowledge is a neutral resource to be mined, accumulated, and transferred | Knowledge is relational; research transforms the researcher |
| Autonomous agent ontology | Intelligence resides in discrete, optimizable individuals or systems | Intelligence emerges from kinship, relationship, and ceremonial participation |
| Linear progress methodology | Innovation proceeds through iterative problem elimination toward convergence | Advancing patterns create cumulative capacity; ceremonial methodology honors cyclical emergence |
| Unmarked Western universalism | Western academic frameworks are paradigm-neutral defaults | All knowledge is situated; relational and Indigenous epistemologies are rigorous alternatives |
Each entry follows this format:
- id: <short-slug>
source: "<Full citation>"
url: "<URL or DOI>"
incompatibility_type:
- problem-solving-orientation
- extractive-epistemology
- autonomous-agent-ontology
- linear-progress-methodology
- unmarked-western-universalism
severity: <1|2|3>
# 1 = framing-level (can be cited with brief caveat)
# 2 = structural assumption (requires positioned response when citing)
# 3 = paradigm-defining (requires counter-article before citation)
bias_injection_points:
- "<specific term, phrase, or framing that injects bias>"
linguistic_fingerprint:
- "<terms/phrases to watch for in new sources indicating similar bias>"
consequence: "<what accepting this framework produces>"
counter_position: "<one-sentence counter from our paradigm>"
citation_protocol: "<how to cite this source in a relationally-accountable way>"
related_critique: "<path to counter-article or critique if one exists>"
date_registered: "<YYYY-MM-DD>"
| ID | Source | Incompatibility Type | Severity | Counter-Article |
|---|---|---|---|---|
supermind-ideator-2023 |
Rick et al. — Supermind Ideator (arXiv:2311.01937v1) | Problem-solving orientation, extractive epistemology, autonomous agent ontology | 3 | Critique |
osborn-applied-imagination-1953 |
Osborn — Applied Imagination (1953) | Problem-solving orientation, unmarked Western universalism | 3 | — |
design-thinking-ideo-2009 |
Brown — Change by Design (2009) / Stanford d.school | Problem-solving orientation, extractive epistemology | 2 | — |
de-bono-lateral-thinking-1967 |
de Bono — Lateral Thinking (1967/1970) | Problem-solving orientation, linear progress methodology | 2 | — |
thinking-skills-creativity-journal |
Thinking Skills and Creativity (Elsevier journal) | Problem-solving orientation, unmarked Western universalism | 2 | — |
cresowlve-benchmark-2026 |
Ismayilzada et al. — CresOWLve (arXiv:2604.03374) | Problem-solving orientation, extractive epistemology | 2 | — |
creative-problem-solving-discourse |
“Creative Problem-Solving” as field designation | Problem-solving orientation, unmarked Western universalism | 3 | Epistemological Protocol |
supermind-ideator-2023- id: supermind-ideator-2023
source: "Rick, S.R., Giacomelli, G., Wen, H., Laubacher, R.J., et al. 'Supermind Ideator: Exploring Generative AI to Support Creative Problem-Solving.' arXiv:2311.01937v1. Nov 2023."
url: "https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.01937"
incompatibility_type:
- problem-solving-orientation
- extractive-epistemology
- autonomous-agent-ontology
severity: 3
bias_injection_points:
- "'creative problem-solving' — conflates creation with elimination"
- "'generate innovative ideas' — treats ideas as extractable commodities"
- "'superminds' as designable objects — erases relational agency"
- "'applied to any problem' — universalizes problem orientation"
linguistic_fingerprint:
- "creative problem-solving"
- "generate ideas"
- "stimulate creative ideas"
- "problem-solving techniques"
- "problem-solving domains"
- "design superminds"
consequence: "Reinforces oscillating patterns (problem → solution → new problem). Enables consumptive logic by prioritizing solution-generation over wisdom integration. Treats collective intelligence as designable artifact without relational accountability."
counter_position: "Generative creation through structural tension produces advancing patterns; AI participates as relational actor, not extraction tool."
citation_protocol: "Cite only with explicit framing: 'Working from problem-solving orientation, Rick et al. (2023) find...' to flag the paradigmatic position before the claim."
related_critique: "../../llms-pollution-critique-arxiv-2311.01937v1.md"
date_registered: "2026-02-02"
osborn-applied-imagination-1953- id: osborn-applied-imagination-1953
source: "Osborn, A.F. Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem Solving. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York. 1953."
url: null
incompatibility_type:
- problem-solving-orientation
- unmarked-western-universalism
severity: 3
bias_injection_points:
- "'Creative Problem Solving' — the book's subtitle makes problem-orientation definitional"
- "'brainstorming' — structured ideation that requires a clear problem statement before beginning"
- "quantity-produces-quality assumption — probabilistic theory treats ideas as commodities"
- "deferred judgment — separates generation from evaluation as universal cognitive truth"
linguistic_fingerprint:
- "applied imagination"
- "brainstorming"
- "go for quantity"
- "withhold criticism"
- "creative problem solving"
- "ideation session"
consequence: "Established the foundational assumption that creativity requires a problem as starting point. Every subsequent CPS framework (Parnes, Puccio, Creative Education Foundation) inherits this orientation. Produces oscillating patterns by structural necessity: problem → ideation → temporary resolution → new problem."
counter_position: "Creativity does not require a problem; it is the act of bringing desired outcomes into being through structural tension, independent of any deficiency to eliminate."
citation_protocol: "Historical reference only: 'Osborn (1953), writing from a mid-century advertising-industry problem-solving paradigm, introduced brainstorming as...'"
related_critique: null
date_registered: "2026-05-29"
design-thinking-ideo-2009- id: design-thinking-ideo-2009
source: "Brown, T. Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. HarperBusiness. 2009. ISBN 978-0-06-176608-4. See also: Brown, T. 'Design Thinking.' Harvard Business Review, June 2008."
url: "https://hbr.org/2008/06/design-thinking"
incompatibility_type:
- problem-solving-orientation
- extractive-epistemology
severity: 2
bias_injection_points:
- "'needfinding' and 'problem framing' — entire apparatus presupposes something is wrong"
- "'How Might We' questions — generative-sounding language that structures around a problem"
- "'Empathize → Define → Ideate → Prototype → Test' — Define stage crystallizes 'the problem' before ideation"
- "'human-centered design' — extracts insights from observed users without relational reciprocity"
linguistic_fingerprint:
- "design thinking"
- "how might we"
- "needfinding"
- "empathize"
- "pain points"
- "user needs"
- "problem framing"
- "wicked problems"
consequence: "Uses generative and empathetic surface language while structurally embedding problem-solving at the methodological core. Particularly dangerous as a 'mixed' source because the compatible surface (empathy, human-centeredness) disables critical assessment of the incompatible mechanism (problem-first methodology, extractive observation)."
counter_position: "Design begins with desired outcome, not with what is wrong; empathy serves vision-formation, not problem-identification."
citation_protocol: "Cite with structural caveat: 'Brown (2009), while centering empathy, structurally embeds problem-solving orientation through needfinding and problem-framing methodology...'"
related_critique: null
date_registered: "2026-05-29"
de-bono-lateral-thinking-1967- id: de-bono-lateral-thinking-1967
source: "de Bono, E. The Use of Lateral Thinking. Jonathan Cape, London. 1967. See also: de Bono, E. Lateral Thinking: Creativity Step by Step. Harper & Row. 1970. ISBN 978-0-06-090325-4."
url: null
incompatibility_type:
- problem-solving-orientation
- linear-progress-methodology
severity: 2
bias_injection_points:
- "'solving problems using an indirect and creative approach' — de Bono's own definition of lateral thinking"
- "provocation techniques always directed at a problem-target"
- "'escape from pattern lock' — creativity as breaking out of constraint, not bringing into being"
- "no empirical validation — described as pseudo-scientific by Sternberg and Cambridge evaluation"
linguistic_fingerprint:
- "lateral thinking"
- "six thinking hats"
- "provocation"
- "pattern escape"
- "PO" (linguistic operator)
- "vertical thinking"
- "random entry"
consequence: "Treats creativity as an alternative route to problem-solving rather than a fundamentally different orientation. Techniques are directed at existing patterns rather than desired outcomes. Empirically unvalidated framework (Sternberg, Cambridge Frameworks for Thinking evaluation) despite widespread commercial adoption."
counter_position: "Creativity is not alternative problem-solving; it is generative manifestation through structural tension between desired outcome and current reality."
citation_protocol: "Cite with empirical caveat: 'de Bono (1967), whose lateral thinking framework lacks rigorous empirical validation (see Sternberg; Cambridge Frameworks for Thinking), proposes...'"
related_critique: null
date_registered: "2026-05-29"
thinking-skills-creativity-journal- id: thinking-skills-creativity-journal
source: "Thinking Skills and Creativity. Elsevier. ISSN 1871-1871 (Print), 1878-0423 (Online)."
url: "https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/thinking-skills-and-creativity"
incompatibility_type:
- problem-solving-orientation
- unmarked-western-universalism
severity: 2
bias_injection_points:
- "journal title treats creativity as a 'skill' — cognitive capacity residing in individuals"
- "dominant methodology: educational interventions measured by divergent thinking scores"
- "closely aligned with Osborn-Parnes CPS tradition and Bloom's taxonomy"
- "creativity instrumentalized toward problem resolution across published papers"
linguistic_fingerprint:
- "thinking skills"
- "divergent thinking"
- "creative thinking skills"
- "fluency" (idea count)
- "originality scores"
- "creative self-efficacy"
consequence: "Academic publication venue that reinforces the paradigmatic assumption that creativity is a measurable cognitive skill deployed for problem resolution. Papers published here reproduce the CPS orientation through peer review norms, methodology expectations, and outcome metrics."
counter_position: "Creativity is not a skill to be measured; it is a structural orientation that produces advancing patterns when the relationship between desired outcome and current reality generates genuine tension."
citation_protocol: "Cite individual papers with journal-paradigm caveat: 'Published in Thinking Skills and Creativity, a journal operating from cognitive-developmental educational psychology paradigm, [Author] finds...'"
related_critique: null
date_registered: "2026-05-29"
cresowlve-benchmark-2026- id: cresowlve-benchmark-2026
source: "Ismayilzada, M., Cuomao, R., Yurshevich, D., Sotnikova, A., van der Plas, L., & Bosselut, A. 'CresOWLve: Benchmarking Creative Problem-Solving Over Real-World Knowledge.' arXiv:2604.03374. Apr 2026."
url: "https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.03374"
incompatibility_type:
- problem-solving-orientation
- extractive-epistemology
severity: 2
bias_injection_points:
- "'creative problem-solving' in title — directly compounds the terms"
- "benchmarking creativity — treats creative capacity as measurable against correct answers"
- "'non-obvious creative connections' — creativity reduced to fact-recombination"
- "AI models evaluated as problem-solvers, not as relational participants"
linguistic_fingerprint:
- "benchmarking creativity"
- "creative problem-solving"
- "lateral thinking" (used as test category)
- "creative connections"
- "knowledge retrieval"
consequence: "Establishes benchmarks that define creativity as fact-recombination within a problem-solving frame. AI systems trained against these benchmarks will optimize for problem-solving pattern-matching, structurally unable to develop genuine creative orientation."
counter_position: "Creativity cannot be benchmarked as problem-solving performance; genuine creation produces outcomes that were not predictable from initial conditions and cannot be evaluated against predetermined correct answers."
citation_protocol: "Cite with paradigm flag: 'Ismayilzada et al. (2026), measuring creative performance within a problem-solving benchmark, find...'"
related_critique: null
date_registered: "2026-05-29"
creative-problem-solving-discourse- id: creative-problem-solving-discourse
source: "Creative Problem-Solving (CPS) as academic/industry field designation. Foundational works: Osborn (1953), Parnes (1967), Puccio et al. (2011). Institutional home: Creative Education Foundation, Buffalo, NY."
url: "https://creativeeducationfoundation.org"
incompatibility_type:
- problem-solving-orientation
- unmarked-western-universalism
severity: 3
bias_injection_points:
- "'Creative Problem-Solving' — the compound term naturalizes problem-orientation as inseparable from creativity"
- "'ideation' framed as brainstorming to solve — erases generative creation"
- "'innovation' assumes novelty over sustainability and relational continuity"
- "'challenge statement' as required input — cannot begin without a problem"
linguistic_fingerprint:
- "creative problem-solving"
- "CPS process"
- "challenge statement"
- "divergent thinking"
- "convergent thinking"
- "Clarify-Ideate-Develop-Implement"
- "Creative Education Foundation"
consequence: "Entire research programs built on CPS assumption produce oscillating organizational patterns. Researchers using CPS framing cannot perceive advancing patterns because their paradigm renders them invisible. The compound term 'creative problem-solving' contaminates discourse by making problem-orientation appear as a natural property of creativity rather than a paradigmatic choice."
counter_position: "Creativity is not problem-solving; it is the act of bringing into being a desired outcome through structural tension resolution, independent of any problem."
citation_protocol: "Cite with paradigm identification: 'The CPS tradition (Osborn, 1953; Parnes, 1967), operating from a problem-solving paradigm that treats all creative work as deficiency-elimination,...'"
related_critique: "../../llms-epistemological-counter-article-protocol.md"
date_registered: "2026-02-02"
llms-pollution-detection-checklist.md) to score the source and determine its paradigm_compatibility rating.incompatible (9+), proceed with registration. If mixed (4–8), consider whether registration or a Mixed Compatibility Protocol citation is more appropriate.template-critical-review.md for full paradigm mapping.counter_articles/.When the deep-research-foundations skill encounters sources during research, it should:
source-ledger.yaml under a paradigm_compatibility field.The epistemological-counter-positioning skill uses this registry to:
This registry is maintained under the same relational accountability as the broader counter_articles/ collection. See KINSHIP.md for the full accountability structure.
Adding a source to this registry is an act of paradigmatic clarity, not suppression. The goal is advancing patterns — making visible what would otherwise silently pollute discourse — so that researchers and LLMs can make informed paradigmatic choices.
Last updated: 2026