A structured, operational checklist for assessing whether an academic or industry source embeds paradigmatic assumptions incompatible with creative-orientation, relational, and ceremonial frameworks. Produces a severity score and a
paradigm_compatibilityrating for use in source ledgers.
The compound term “creative problem-solving” conflates two structurally incompatible orientations — creating (bringing a desired outcome into being from structural tension) and problem-solving (identifying and eliminating what is wrong). They are not different techniques for the same work; they produce fundamentally different structural patterns: advancing vs. oscillating.
When a source treats “creative problem-solving” as an unproblematic category, it has already made a paradigmatic choice that erases creation as a distinct orientation. This checklist makes that choice visible.
Important: Recognizing this fiction does not mean attacking or reacting against problem-solving — that reaction is itself problem-solving (oscillation). The response is generative, not reactive: name the paradigmatic choice, position accordingly, and create from structural tension. Over-vigilance against problem-solving language is itself a problem-solving pattern. The goal is accurate discernment, not policing.
source-ledger.yaml under paradigm_compatibility.The source treats all intellectual and creative work as beginning with identifying and eliminating problems.
| # | Signal | Example | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | Uses “solve,” “fix,” or “eliminate” as the primary verb for creative work | “solve creative challenges” | 1 |
| 1.2 | Compound term “creative problem-solving” used as unproblematic category | “support creative problem-solving” | 2 |
| 1.3 | Success defined as gap elimination rather than desired-outcome manifestation | “bridging the ideation gap” | 2 |
| 1.4 | Methodology organized around problem identification → solution generation → evaluation | “identify pain points, generate solutions, test” | 3 |
| 1.5 | No distinction between creating and reacting; creation treated as a form of problem-solving | Entire framework assumes creation = solving | 3 |
External grounding: Fritz (1989, The Path of Least Resistance) demonstrates that problem-solving orientation produces oscillating patterns (temporary resolution → regression) while creative orientation produces advancing patterns (cumulative capacity building). This is structural, not preferential.
The source treats knowledge as a neutral resource to be mined, accumulated, and transferred without transformation of the knower.
| # | Signal | Example | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2.1 | Ideas treated as extractable commodities (“generate ideas,” “harvest insights”) | “the system generates innovative ideas” | 1 |
| 2.2 | Knowledge transfer assumed context-independent and value-neutral | “transfer best practices across domains” | 2 |
| 2.3 | No acknowledgment that research transforms the researcher | Methodology section describes process without positionality | 2 |
| 2.4 | More-than-human agency excluded from knowledge production | Only human cognitive agents recognized | 2 |
| 2.5 | Knowledge validated solely by novelty and utility metrics | “ideas evaluated for novelty and feasibility” | 3 |
External grounding: Smith (2012, Decolonizing Methodologies) and Wilson (2008, Research Is Ceremony) establish that knowledge is relational — it lives in relationships and transforms those who participate in its creation. Tuck & Yang (2012) identify extraction as a structural feature of settler-colonial epistemology.
The source assumes intelligence resides in discrete, optimizable individuals or systems rather than emerging from relational webs.
| # | Signal | Example | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3.1 | Agents modeled as independent optimizers without relational context | “each agent maximizes its objective function” | 2 |
| 3.2 | Collective intelligence designed as aggregate of individual contributions | “combine individual insights into group solutions” | 2 |
| 3.3 | AI positioned as tool serving individual users, not relational participant | “the tool assists the user in generating ideas” | 1 |
| 3.4 | No accountability structure for who/what is affected by the system’s outputs | “designed for general use across domains” | 3 |
| 3.5 | Spiritual, ceremonial, or more-than-human agency excluded by ontological assumption | Only computational and cognitive agents acknowledged | 2 |
External grounding: Wilson (2008) articulates a relational ontology where reality is composed of relationships, not discrete objects. Kovach (2009, Indigenous Methodologies) demonstrates that intelligence emerges from conversational, relational engagement.
The source assumes innovation proceeds through iterative problem elimination toward convergence, without cyclical or ceremonial phases.
| # | Signal | Example | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4.1 | Methodology described as linear pipeline (input → process → output) | “users submit problems, system generates solutions” | 1 |
| 4.2 | Iteration framed as successive approximation toward fixed solution | “iterative refinement toward optimal design” | 2 |
| 4.3 | No recognition of germination, assimilation, completion phases | Creative process flattened to ideation + evaluation | 2 |
| 4.4 | Emergence, surprise, and unplanned outcomes treated as noise, not signal | “ensuring consistent, predictable outputs” | 3 |
| 4.5 | No delayed resolution — tension immediately collapsed by generating answers | “the system immediately suggests 20 ideas” | 3 |
External grounding: Fritz (1989, 1999) identifies three phases of the creative process (germination, assimilation, completion), each with distinct requirements. Premature resolution of structural tension produces false equilibrium rather than genuine advancement.
The source presents Western academic frameworks as paradigm-neutral defaults without acknowledging their situated nature.
| # | Signal | Example | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5.1 | No positionality statement or paradigmatic self-identification | Methodology presented as “standard” or “objective” | 1 |
| 5.2 | Western paradigm terms used as universal categories without qualification | “creativity,” “innovation,” “knowledge” as self-evident concepts | 1 |
| 5.3 | Non-Western knowledge systems absent from literature review | Only Western academic citations | 2 |
| 5.4 | Framework presented as applicable to “any domain” without cultural contextualization | “can be applied to any problem” | 2 |
| 5.5 | Indigenous, relational, or ceremonial methodologies not mentioned as legitimate alternatives | Complete erasure of non-Western research paradigms | 3 |
External grounding: Fricker (2007, Epistemic Injustice) names testimonial injustice (credibility deficit based on identity) and hermeneutical injustice (conceptual exclusion) as structural features of knowledge systems that present themselves as universal. Mignolo (2011) traces “Western universalism” to specific colonial histories.
Sum all severity scores for Present signals only.
| Total Score | Rating | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| 0–3 | compatible |
Source operates from a compatible or sufficiently neutral paradigm. Cite normally. |
| 4–8 | mixed |
Source uses compatible surface language but embeds incompatible assumptions at structural level. Cite with explicit paradigmatic contextualization. See Mixed Compatibility Protocol. |
| 9+ | incompatible |
Source’s paradigmatic foundations are fundamentally incompatible. Requires counter-positioning before citation. Register in Incompatible Sources Registry. |
sources:
- id: <short-id>
field: <field>
title: <title>
url: <url>
paradigm_compatibility: <compatible|mixed|incompatible>
pollution_score: <number>
incompatibility_types:
- <type-slug if any signals present>
incompatibility_notes: "<specific signals found>"
registered_incompatible: <true|false>
Sources rated mixed are often more dangerous than clearly incompatible ones because their compatible surface language can disable critical assessment.
| Compatible Surface | Incompatible Mechanism | What Happens If You Don’t Distinguish |
|---|---|---|
| “We aim to support human flourishing” | Methodology: “identify pain points and generate solutions” | Reader imports problem-solving methodology under cover of flourishing language |
| “Co-creative design with communities” | Ontology: communities as user-groups to extract insights from | “Relational” language masks extractive practice |
| “Fostering innovation ecosystems” | Epistemology: innovation = novelty-production; ecosystem = market | Ecological metaphor masks commodity logic |
| Signal | Present? | Score | Evidence from Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | P | 1 | “support creative problem-solving” |
| 1.2 | P | 2 | “creative problem-solving” used as unproblematic compound throughout |
| 1.3 | P | 2 | Success = generating novel ideas for problem domains |
| 1.4 | P | 3 | Methodology: identify problem → generate ideas → select → refine |
| 1.5 | P | 3 | No distinction between creating and problem-solving |
| 2.1 | P | 1 | “suggest new ideas that might never have occurred to the users” |
| 2.2 | P | 2 | “extended to support additional techniques for other specific problem-solving domains” |
| 2.3 | P | 2 | No researcher positionality or transformation acknowledged |
| 2.5 | P | 3 | Ideas evaluated by novelty and applicability |
| 3.3 | P | 1 | “help people use creative problem-solving techniques” — AI as tool |
| 3.4 | P | 3 | “superminds” designed without accountability structure |
| 4.1 | P | 1 | Linear pipeline: problem → AI ideation → user selection |
| 4.5 | P | 3 | System “suggest[s] new ideas” immediately, collapsing creative tension |
| 5.1 | P | 1 | No positionality statement |
| 5.4 | P | 2 | “can be applied to any problem” |
Total Score: 30 → Rating: incompatible
This source scores well above the incompatible threshold across all five types. Registered in Incompatible Sources Registry as supermind-ideator-2023.
This checklist does not claim that problem-solving is never valid. Some situations structurally call for problem resolution:
The checklist identifies sources that embed problem-solving orientation as the default for ALL creative and intellectual work — including domains where creative orientation would produce advancing patterns rather than oscillation. The contamination is not in problem-solving itself, but in its unreflective universalization.
Ask: What is the structural call of the situation?
When a source treats problem-solving as the universal default without this discrimination, it earns incompatibility signals regardless of its domain contributions.
Last updated: 2026