Add Coop Foundations Curriculum content and import script

9 session pages and 10 PS Guide markdown files for the Baby Ghosts
cooperative foundations curriculum. Import script creates documents in
Outline wiki with cross-links between paired session/PS Guide pages.

content/curriculum/PS Guides/0-kickoff-onboarding.md

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+# 0: Kickoff & Onboarding
+
+## Pre-session
+
+- Review Session 0 agenda and your intro talking points
+- Be ready to introduce yourself and your studio's journey
+
+## **What happens in session**
+
+This is the full cohort's orientation to the program. Participants do introductions, learn about the program structure, build initial community agreements, and get the Power Flower homework.
+
+
+:::info
+A theme we want to emphasize (based on feedback from Cohort 5) is: "friction is part of the work." It's to be expected, and is not something to fear or avoid. 
+
+:::
+
+
+### :eyes: **Your role during session**
+
+- You're introduced and matched with your studio
+- Observe your studio during introductions - who talks, who doesn't, what pain points do they talk about?
+- Participate in community agreements drafting - you are ***part of the community!***
+
+
+### **👆Your role after session**
+
+- Connect and chat with your studio in their Slack channel(s)
+- Make sure they understand the Power Flower homework (especially that it is a private, individual reflection, and no one else will see it)
+- Note any first impressions to share at the PS check-in
+
+
+### :triangular_flag_on_post: **Red flags to watch for**
+
+- One person from the studio dominates introductions or positions themselves as the main character
+- Team members who seem checked out already
+
+
+### :hammer_and_wrench: **Tools introduced**
+
+- Power Flower (homework, private)
+- __[Community agreements](https://publish.obsidian.md/baby-ghosts-corp-docs/Public/Policies/Loving+Justice)__ (Miro, collective)
+- __[Loving Justice](https://publish.obsidian.md/baby-ghosts-corp-docs/Public/Policies/Loving+Justice)__ framework

content/curriculum/PS Guides/1-coop-principles-power.md

@@ -0,0 +1,143 @@
+# 1: Coop Principles & Power
+
+## **What happens in session**
+
+In this session, we cover cooperative history and lineages, crediting Global South, Indigenous, Black, women's traditions, not just Rochdale. We also review the 7 ICA Principles.
+
+The theme is moving from principles to personal values.
+
+
+:::tip
+**Homework assigned:** individual journaling, team values map (with PS), and individual prep for The Talk (Session 2).
+
+:::
+
+
+### :eyes: **Your role during session**
+
+- Observe small group activity (cooperative lineage sharing) - note whose stories are shared
+- Listen for how studios talk about values - vague or specific?
+
+
+## **This week's Studio Support Meeting: Values Mapping**
+
+### **📚 Materials**
+
+- Studio Miro board with Values Mapping template
+- 7 Principles reference
+
+
+### **👆 Before the session**
+
+- Confirm everyone completed their individual journaling (Session 1 homework)
+- Ensure the studio Miro board has the template
+- Have the 7 Principles visible (on the board or screen-shared)
+
+
+### **🌊 Session flow**
+
+#### **Check-in (5 min)**
+
+Individual sharing (15-20 min) - Each person shares 3-5 values from their individual reflection.
+
+Prompts:
+
+- "What values came up when you did the journaling?"
+- "You don't need to explain or justify."
+
+As they share: each person adds values to the Miro board (stickies in their colour/section). No discussion - just capture.
+
+Watch for: someone dominating or going first every time; someone staying quiet - invite them in gently; values that sound the same but might mean different things to different people.
+
+
+#### **Noticing patterns (10-15 min)**
+
+Look at the board together.
+
+Prompts:
+
+- "What do you notice?"
+- "Where do you see overlap?"
+- "Any surprises?"
+- "Are there values that seem similar but might mean different things to different people?"
+
+
+> Example to offer: "Transparency" - does it mean open documents? Open conversations? Both? Neither? What exactly is meant?
+
+
+**Connecting to the 7 Principles (10 min)**
+
+Look at the ICA principles together.
+
+**Prompts**:
+
+- "Do you see connections between your values and these principles?"
+- "Draw lines or group things if it helps."
+    - This can be loose - don't let them fixate on making a beautiful diagram. The point is seeing that their values connect to a larger cooperative tradition.
+
+
+#### **To bring back to Session 2 (5 min)**
+
+**Prompts**:
+
+- "What's one thing you learned about where your team aligns or diverges?"
+- * *You'll share this in Session 2 - doesn't need to be polished.*
+    - Have someone write it down or capture it on the board.
+
+
+#### **Community agreements contribution (5 min)**
+
+"Based on this conversation, are there 1-2 values you'd propose adding to the cohort community agreements?" Capture these to bring back to the full group.
+
+
+### :star: **Tips**
+
+
+If someone is dominating:
+
+- "Let's hear from someone who hasn't shared yet."
+
+
+If no one talks… awkward silence:
+
+- "Take a minute to look at the board silently. What stands out?"
+
+
+If tension emerges
+
+- "Sounds like there are some different perspectives here. That's useful but we don't need to resolve it today."
+
+
+If they want to debate definitions:
+
+- "It's okay to mean different things. The goal is simply to notice where you might need to clarify later."
+
+
+If time runs short:
+
+- Prioritize steps 2-3 (sharing and noticing). The principles connection and agreements contribution can be done async if needed.
+
+
+### **🏁After the session**
+
+- Note any tensions/surprises for your PS check-in
+- Remind the team to bring their learnings to Session 2
+
+### **👉 Also this week**
+
+#### **Make sure they're prepping for The Talk**
+
+Session 2 homework includes individual prep on four topics: financial reality, time/availability, skills/contributions, decision-making styles. 
+
+
+:::warning
+They need to *write their answers down* before Session 2. Check that they're doing this!
+
+:::
+
+
+### :triangular_flag_on_post: **Red flags to watch for**
+
+- A studio that can't name any values beyond "we want to make good games" - don't we all! Too vague.
+- One person speaking for the group about "our" values
+- Values that are all abstract with no grounding in practice

content/curriculum/PS Guides/2-shared-purpose-alignment.md

@@ -0,0 +1,188 @@
+# 2: Shared Purpose & Alignment
+
+## **What happens in session**
+
+This session, we talk about the challenges of aligning on the studio's purpose.
+
+We go over common pitfalls - vague goals like "we all just want to make good games" and assuming shared politics means shared work values. We do four rounds of The Talk, asking detailed individual questions about financial reality, time/availability, skills/contributions, and decision-making styles. Studios practice this in their channels with the Peer Support present.
+
+### :eyes: **Your role during session**
+
+***This is a big one.*** You're facilitating The Talk in your studio's breakout room (aka their project or studio channel). Here are some things to watch for:
+
+
+Financial reality:
+
+- People minimizing their own needs
+- Wide gaps in financial situations not being acknowledged
+- Someone going quiet
+
+
+Time/availability:
+
+- Vague answers
+- Someone over committing to match others
+
+
+Skills/contributions:
+
+- People only naming strengths and not gaps
+- Assumptions about roles based on past
+- Someone taking on the hard or tedious stuff by default
+
+
+Decision-making:
+
+- Very different styles that could clash (fast decider vs. slow processor)
+- Someone who goes along to avoid conflict
+- Past conflicts referenced passively
+
+
+### :triangular_ruler: **Format**
+
+Each person answers in turn (1.5-2 min each), use the Miro timer, brief open discussion after everyone answers, then move to next round.
+
+The goal isn't to solve everything today, just to get the conversation started!
+
+## **This week's Studio Support Meeting: Continuing The Talk**
+
+**Materials:** Notes from Session 2 activity, participants' original prep from Session 1
+
+### :world_map: **Context**
+
+In Session 2, studios practiced The Talk - four rounds covering financial reality, time/availability, skills/contributions, and decision-making styles. They started these conversations but didn't finish them (this is the intention). During this Studio Support Meeting, help them go deeper: create space to continue conversations that got cut short or stayed shallow, draw out what went unsaid, help the team notice patterns.
+
+This is an ongoing practice!
+
+### :ocean: **Session flow**
+
+#### **Check-in (5 min)**
+
+"How did The Talk feel for you? Anything still sitting with you from Session 2?" Let each person respond briefly. Listen for tensions, moments of relief, unfinished ideas.
+
+#### **Go deeper on one round (20-25 min)**
+
+"Which round felt most unfinished or brought up the most tension?" Revisit the questions in the round they choose, but this time, push past the first answer.
+
+
+***For financial reality:***
+
+
+1. What would change for you if the studio couldn't pay you anything for six months?
+2. Are you trying not to seem demanding, and not sharing your true needs?
+3. Are there differences in monetary needs that create (a sense of) unbalanced power dynamics?
+
+
+***For time and availability:***
+
+
+4. How many hours per week can you reliably, actually commit - a hard number.
+5. What's something that would cause you to miss a deadline? How would you want to handle that as a team?
+6. Are you building around one person's availability? Intentionally?
+
+
+***For skills and contributions:***
+
+
+7. What happens if no one does the "dreaded task"?
+8. When you're overwhelmed, do you want people to check in or give you space? Does the team know that about you?
+9. Is anyone doing work that isn't visible or acknowledged?
+
+
+***For decision-making:***
+
+
+10. What happens if you disagree about something, but don't say anything?
+11. Has there been a decision in this group where you felt unheard?
+12. When you're under pressure, do you speed up or slow down? Do these styles clash between members?
+
+
+#### **Draw out the unsaid (15 min)**
+
+
+:::warning
+***This could be hard.*** "Was there anything you wanted to say in Session 2 but didn't?"
+
+:::
+
+Give silence and let it be awkward. *You really need to relish the awkwardness.* Let folks build up courage to speak up. If nothing comes up, at least you've created an opening for later.
+
+- Is there a question you wish someone had asked you?
+- Is there something you noticed about a teammate's answer that you're still thinking about?
+- Is there an elephant in the room?
+
+If something big comes up: help them decide - "Is this something you want to keep talking about now, or table for later?"
+
+
+4. Close and next steps (5 min) - "What's one thing you want to carry forward from this conversation?"
+
+Remind them: these conversations don't end here; tension is interesting information, not failure; they can bring things back to future PS sessions.
+
+**Nudge them on their Session 2 homework:** writing down tension points and unsaid questions. Check that they're doing this - we need this to build on later.
+
+## :triangular_flag_on_post:**Red flags**
+
+- One person's needs consistently minimized (by themselves or others)
+- Financial gaps with no acknowledgment of how they affect power
+- A founder or initiator whose preferences are treated as default
+- Someone checked out or going along without engaging
+- A topic the group keeps avoiding
+- Stuck or clearly in conflict
+
+Note these for your PS check-in or message in the channel.
+
+## :point_right: **Also this week: Scale and Pace**
+
+**Duration:** 15-20 minutes (can be folded into the same meeting as Continuing The Talk, or done as a separate short check-in)
+
+**Context:** Session 2 homework asks each person to individually reflect on where they see the studio in 1/3/5 years and what their revenue model might look like. This isn't a formal exercise - it's a conversation starter. You're helping them notice where their assumptions about the studio's future align or diverge.
+
+
+**Before the conversation:**
+
+- Confirm everyone has done some thinking on this (even loosely). If they haven't, give them 5 minutes of quiet writing time before you start.
+
+
+**How to facilitate:**
+
+Start with a round: each person shares one thing about where they see the studio. Keep it brief - you're listening for gaps, not building a business plan.
+
+
+Prompts to draw out differences:
+
+- "When you picture the studio in three years, how many people are on the team?"
+- "Are you imagining one game, or multiple projects?"
+- "What does 'success' look like for you personally - not the studio, *you*?"
+- "Is this your full-time thing, or alongside other work?"
+
+
+Then ground it:
+
+- "Who are your players? Do you know?"
+- "What's your revenue model - game sales, services, grants, a mix?"
+- "Can that sustain you? For how long?"
+- "What happens if the game takes twice as long as you think?"
+
+
+**What you're listening for:**
+
+- Major mismatches in ambition (one person wants a 20-person studio, another wants a 3-person collective)
+- Revenue model assumptions that haven't been tested or discussed ("we'll just get a publisher")
+- Someone who hasn't thought about this at all
+- Scale assumptions that don't match the team's actual capacity
+- Different definitions of sustainability (covering rent vs. building wealth vs. just making a game)
+
+
+**What you're not doing:** Judging their plans or telling them what's realistic. You're helping them see whether they're actually talking about the same studio.
+
+
+:::tip
+**Tip:** **If you notice a big gap** - say, one person assumes this is a side project and another has quit their job for it - name it gently. "I'm noticing you might be picturing different scales here. Is that something you've talked about?" This is the kind of divergence that festers if it stays unspoken.
+
+:::
+
+
+**After the conversation:**
+
+- Note any major alignment gaps for your PS check-in
+- They'll keep returning to scale and pace throughout the program - this is just the first pass

content/curriculum/PS Guides/3-actionable-values-impact.md

@@ -0,0 +1,163 @@
+# 3: Actionable Values and Impact
+
+## Pre-session
+
+If you are the presenting PS for this session, prepare a **10-minute** case study from your studio covering:
+
+- How you arrived at your current values (what process did you use? what changed through iteration?)
+- One example of values guiding a real decision — especially a hard one
+- Where you've seen a gap between stated values and actual practice, and what you did about it
+
+Show the messy stuff. Participants need to see that this work is ongoing, not a one-time exercise.
+
+## **What happens in session**
+
+Studios move from identifying values to making them operational. The session introduces two tools: the Why/What/How framework (turning values into concrete practices) and Layers of Effect (mapping ripple effects of decisions). A Peer Support presenter shares a case study from their own studio. Studios work through scenarios using values-first thinking and identify a decision to run through the tools with their PS this week.
+
+
+:::info
+If you are the presenting PS for this session, you need to prepare a **10-minute case study** from your studio covering: how you arrived at your current values, one example of values guiding a real decision (especially a hard one), and where you've seen a gap between stated values and actual practice. Show the messy stuff — participants need to see that this work is ongoing.
+
+:::
+
+
+### :eyes: **Your role during session**
+
+- If presenting: deliver your case study. Be honest about what didn't work and what you're still figuring out.
+- Observe your studio during the scenario exercise — who applies values first vs. jumping to solutions?
+- Note whether studios can connect their Session 1 values to the tools, or if values are still too vague to be actionable.
+
+
+### 👆 **Your role after session**
+
+- Confirm everyone understood the Why/What/How framework and the Layers of Effect template
+- Make sure the Miro templates (Why/What/How and Layers of Effect) are on your studio's board
+- Note which decision they chose for the homework activity
+
+
+## **This week's Studio Support Meeting: Why/What/How + Layers of Effect**
+
+### **📚 Materials**
+
+- Studio Miro board with Why/What/How template
+- Studio Miro board with [Layers of Effect template](https://miro.com/templates/layers-effect-template/)
+- The studio's values map from Session 1
+
+
+### **👆 Before the session**
+
+- Confirm the Miro templates are set up and accessible
+- Review the studio's values map — pick 1-2 values that seem ripe for the Why/What/How exercise (have a suggestion ready in case the team gets stuck)
+- Know which decision they identified at the end of Session 3 for the Layers of Effect exercise
+
+
+### **🌊 Session flow**
+
+#### **Check-in (5 min)**
+
+"How did the scenario exercise land for you? Was it easy or hard to start with values before jumping to solutions?"
+
+Let each person respond briefly. Listen for whether they found the tools useful or abstract.
+
+
+#### **Why/What/How deep dive (20-25 min)**
+
+Pick one value from the studio's values map together and work through the full framework.
+
+**Step 1: WHY (5-7 min)**
+
+"Why does this value matter to your studio? What's at stake if you don't practice it?"
+
+Prompts if they get stuck:
+
+- "What would go wrong if you dropped this value tomorrow?"
+- "Who is affected if this value isn't practiced?"
+
+**Step 2: WHAT (5-7 min)**
+
+"What does practicing this value actually look like? What are you committing to?"
+
+Push for specificity:
+
+- "If a new member joined next month, how would they know you practice this value?"
+- "'We value transparency' — what does that mean concretely? Open finances? Open conversations? Open documents?"
+
+**Step 3: HOW (5-7 min)**
+
+"How will you actually do this? What specific activities, rituals, or outputs?"
+
+This is where it gets real:
+
+- "How often? Who's responsible? Where does it live?"
+- "What's the minimum viable version you could start this week?"
+
+Capture everything on the Miro board.
+
+
+#### **Layers of Effect practice (15-20 min)**
+
+Use the decision they identified in Session 3. Walk through the three rings together.
+
+:::tip
+**Parallel framework for context:** Neil Postman's "Seven Questions for any new technology" maps closely to Layers of Effect. If a studio is struggling with the concentric rings framing, try Postman's questions as an alternate way in: (1) What problem does this solve? (2) Whose problem is it? (3) What new problems does solving it create? (4) Who is most impacted? (5) What changes in language? (6) What shifts in power? (7) What unintended uses might emerge?
+:::
+
+**Primary effects (5 min):** "What are the direct, immediate impacts of this decision?"
+
+- Who gains? Who pays? Who's invisible but affected?
+
+**Secondary effects (5 min):** "What are the known but less obvious impacts?"
+
+- What dependencies or new risks are you introducing?
+
+**Tertiary effects (5 min):** "What unforeseen consequences might emerge over time?"
+
+- What standards could this establish? What shifts over years?
+
+Use yellow stickies for opportunities/benefits and red for risks/costs. These might be connected — a benefit in one layer can create a risk in another.
+
+**Debrief (5 min):**
+
+- "Did mapping this change how you think about the decision?"
+- "Did your values hold up, or did you notice a gap between intention and effect?"
+
+
+#### **Close and next steps (5 min)**
+
+- "How often should you revisit your values and check whether your effects match your intentions?"
+- Encourage them to make this a recurring practice, not a one-time exercise
+
+
+### :star: **Tips**
+
+If the Why/What/How stays vague:
+
+- "Can you make that even more specific? What would someone actually *see* you doing?"
+
+If they rush through Layers of Effect:
+
+- "Slow down at tertiary. The unforeseen stuff is where the most important learning happens."
+
+If they only see positive effects:
+
+- "Every decision has costs. Who bears them? Who's invisible here?"
+
+If one person dominates the values conversation:
+
+- "Let's hear from everyone — whose experience of this value is different?"
+
+
+### **🏁 After the session**
+
+- Note whether the studio can translate values into practices or if they're still stuck at the abstract level
+- Note any gaps between stated values and emerging practices — these will come up again
+- Remind them to discuss as a studio: how often should you revisit values and check your effects?
+
+
+## :triangular_flag_on_post: **Red flags to watch for**
+
+- Values that are all "why" with no "what" or "how" — inspiration without practice
+- A studio that can't see any negative effects of their decisions — lack of critical thinking or avoidance
+- One person defining "our" values without challenge from the group
+- Tools treated as a box-checking exercise rather than genuine reflection
+- "We already know our values" without being able to articulate practices

content/curriculum/PS Guides/4-decision-making-in-practice.md

@@ -0,0 +1,154 @@
+# 4: Decision-Making in Practice
+
+## **What happens in session**
+
+Studios explore cooperative decision-making frameworks (consensus, consent, majority, delegation, random chance). They practice identifying who gets to raise issues, work through decision-making steps, and discuss handling dissent. The session also covers meetings (roles, facilitation, rotating responsibilities) and the "genius trap." Studios do a facilitation rotation practice in groups of three. The Informal Hierarchy Check-In is introduced as an ongoing tool.
+
+
+:::tip
+**Homework assigned:** practice one decision-making framework on a real decision, map current role distribution, complete the Informal Hierarchy Check-In as a studio, and notice where decisions happen this week.
+
+:::
+
+
+### :eyes: **Your role during session**
+
+- Observe the facilitation rotation activity — note how your studio members handle facilitating, participating, and observing
+- Listen for how they talk about where decisions currently happen (meetings? DMs? default to one person?)
+- Note whether anyone identifies informal hierarchy patterns during the journaling activity
+
+
+### 👆 **Your role after session**
+
+- Make sure your studio understands the Informal Hierarchy Check-In questions and plans to work through them together
+- Confirm they've chosen which decision-making framework to practice this week
+- Check that they understand the difference between consensus and consent — this trips people up
+
+
+## **This week's Studio Support Meeting: Decision-Making Practice + Informal Hierarchy Check-In**
+
+### **📚 Materials**
+
+- Informal Hierarchy Check-In questions (from session)
+- Decision-making frameworks reference (consensus, consent, majority, delegation)
+- The studio's notes from the facilitation rotation activity
+
+
+### **👆 Before the session**
+
+- Know which decision-making framework the studio chose to practice
+- Have a small, real decision ready in case the studio can't think of one (e.g., "What should your next team social activity be?" or "How should you structure your next sprint?")
+- Review the 5 Informal Hierarchy Check-In questions so you can facilitate them smoothly
+
+
+### **🌊 Session flow**
+
+#### **Check-in (5 min)**
+
+"What did you notice in the facilitation rotation? What was harder than expected — facilitating, participating, or observing?"
+
+#### **Practice a decision-making framework (20-25 min)**
+
+Help the studio work through a real decision using their chosen framework.
+
+**Set up (3 min):**
+
+- Name the decision clearly. Write it down where everyone can see it.
+- Name the framework you're using — "We're going to try consent on this."
+- Clarify: who is affected by this decision? Does everyone here need to be part of it?
+
+**Work through the decision-making steps (15-20 min):**
+
+1. Understand the context — what's happening? What do people feel about it?
+2. Identify the underlying need — what are we actually trying to address?
+3. Generate options — encourage weird ideas. Notice who contributes.
+4. Check alignment with values — how do these options fit with who you want to be?
+5. Evaluate consequences — who benefits, who's affected, trade-offs?
+6. Decide using the framework — name the method before you begin.
+7. Before finalizing: "Does anyone have concerns they haven't voiced? Is anyone agreeing just to move on?"
+8. Clarify implementation — who does what? When do you check back?
+
+**Debrief (5 min):**
+
+- "How did that feel compared to how you usually make decisions?"
+- "What was different about naming the framework first?"
+- "Did anyone notice moments where old patterns kicked in?"
+
+
+#### **Informal Hierarchy Check-In (15-20 min)**
+
+Work through the five questions together. Go one at a time.
+
+1. **Who spoke most in our last meeting?**
+2. **Whose idea did we go with by default?**
+3. **Who knows how to do [X] that no one else knows?**
+4. **What happened last time someone disagreed?**
+5. **Whose schedule shapes our meeting times?**
+
+Prompts to keep it exploratory, not accusatory:
+
+- "No guilt here — we're just noticing."
+- "These patterns aren't problems yet. But under pressure, they become cracks."
+- "What would you want to change? What's actually fine?"
+
+Capture observations — they'll bring these to Session 5.
+
+
+#### **Close (5 min)**
+
+- "What's one pattern you noticed that you want to keep an eye on?"
+- Remind them to notice where decisions happen this week (in meetings? DMs? Slack? who's present?)
+
+
+### 👉 **Also this week**
+
+#### **Map your current role distribution**
+
+This can be done async or as part of the PS meeting if there's time. The question is simple: for each role/responsibility in the studio, where did it come from — explicit decision or implicit default?
+
+Prompts:
+
+- "Who handles finances? Was that decided or did it just happen?"
+- "Who schedules meetings? Who takes notes? Who answers external emails?"
+- "Are there roles no one officially has but someone 'just does'?"
+
+This feeds directly into Session 5's governance work.
+
+
+### :star: **Tips**
+
+If the decision-making practice feels artificial:
+
+- "The point isn't the outcome — it's noticing the process. How you decide matters as much as what you decide."
+
+If one person dominates the decision:
+
+- "I noticed [name] spoke first and longest. Can we try a round where everyone shares before discussion?"
+
+If no one disagrees:
+
+- "That was quick! Is everyone actually aligned, or is someone going along to keep things moving?" (This is a direct reference to the dissent section from the session.)
+
+If the hierarchy check-in gets tense:
+
+- "This isn't about blame. The same name coming up a lot is information, not an indictment."
+
+If someone gets defensive:
+
+- "It's okay — noticing patterns is the hardest part. You don't need to fix anything today."
+
+
+### **🏁 After the session**
+
+- Note which patterns came up in the Informal Hierarchy Check-In — especially anything the studio seemed to avoid discussing
+- Note how the decision-making practice went — did they actually use the framework or fall back into old patterns?
+- Bring observations to your PS check-in
+
+
+## :triangular_flag_on_post: **Red flags to watch for**
+
+- A studio that "decides" everything by default to one person and calls it delegation
+- Someone consistently going along without engaging — "I'm fine with whatever"
+- Resistance to the hierarchy check-in — "we don't have hierarchy, we're all equal" (everyone has patterns)
+- Decisions happening outside the room (in DMs between two people) and being presented as done
+- The same person always facilitating, taking notes, or scheduling

content/curriculum/PS Guides/5-coop-structures-governance.md

@@ -0,0 +1,164 @@
+# 5: Coop Structures and Governance
+
+## Pre-session
+
+If you are the presenting PS for this session, prep a **15–20 minute** case study from your studio covering:
+
+- How your studio makes decisions now
+- What you tried that didn't work
+- One example of governance helping resolve a real issue
+
+## **What happens in session**
+
+Studios learn about legal structures (sole prop, partnership, corporation, worker coop), governance models (collective governance, advice process, sociocratic circles, board + membership, DisCOs), and member management (adding, departing, removing members). A PS presenter shares a 15-20 minute case study on their studio's governance journey. The session introduces Community Rule as a tool for documenting governance in plain language. Key themes: making governance visible, designing structures from the patterns noticed in Session 4, and distinguishing between governance practice and legal incorporation.
+
+
+:::info
+If you are the presenting PS for this session, prepare a **15-20 minute case study** covering: how your studio makes decisions now, what you tried that didn't work, and one example of governance helping resolve a real issue. Be honest about the messy parts.
+
+:::
+
+
+### :eyes: **Your role during session**
+
+- If presenting: deliver your case study
+- Observe how your studio responds to the governance models — what resonates? What causes confusion or resistance?
+- Listen for whether they connect their Session 4 Informal Hierarchy Check-In observations to governance design choices
+- Note how they react to the member removal discussion — this is often where discomfort shows up
+
+
+### 👆 **Your role after session**
+
+- Make sure your studio has access to [Community Rule](https://communityrule.info/)
+- Confirm they understand the homework: start a Community Rule draft with you, discuss financial sustainability, and do a personal reflection on financial access
+- Note which governance model(s) they're gravitating toward
+
+
+## **This week's Studio Support Meeting: Community Rule Drafting**
+
+### **📚 Materials**
+
+- [Community Rule](https://communityrule.info/) tool (open in browser)
+- Studio's Informal Hierarchy Check-In observations from Session 4
+- Notes on which governance model(s) interested them
+
+
+### :world_map: **Context**
+
+This is a working session. You're helping the studio start documenting their governance in plain language using Community Rule. They don't need to finish — the goal is to surface where they already have answers vs. where they need more conversation. This draft will evolve.
+
+
+### **👆 Before the session**
+
+- Familiarize yourself with the Community Rule interface and fields
+- Review the studio's Informal Hierarchy Check-In observations
+- Have the governance models overview handy (collective governance, advice process, circles, board + membership) in case they need a refresher
+
+
+### **🌊 Session flow**
+
+#### **Check-in (5 min)**
+
+"What governance model stuck with you from the session? Did anything click — or feel wrong?"
+
+
+#### **Community Rule walkthrough (10 min)**
+
+Open the tool together. Walk through the fields it asks for:
+
+- What is this community?
+- Who are the members? What qualifies someone for membership?
+- How are decisions made?
+- What roles exist?
+- How do you change these rules?
+
+Don't try to fill everything in right away. Start by identifying which fields the studio can answer easily vs. which ones need more discussion.
+
+Prompts:
+
+- "Where do you already have a clear answer?"
+- "Where is there genuine disagreement or uncertainty?"
+- "Which of these have you been doing by default without naming it?"
+
+
+#### **Draft together (20-25 min)**
+
+Start filling in what you can. Focus on the fields where there's energy or alignment. When you hit a field where there's disagreement, note it and move on — don't try to resolve everything today.
+
+**Key fields to prioritize:**
+
+**Decision-making:** "Based on what you practiced in Session 4, what framework are you leaning toward for different types of decisions?"
+
+- Major decisions (new members, large spending, creative direction shifts)
+- Day-to-day decisions (task assignment, meeting scheduling)
+- Emergency/time-sensitive decisions
+
+**Roles:** "What roles do you actually need right now? Who's doing them? Was that decided or default?"
+
+Connect back to their role distribution mapping from last week.
+
+**Membership:** "This is the hard one. What happens when someone wants to join? When someone wants to leave? When someone needs to leave?"
+
+- You don't need to resolve this today. Just surface where assumptions differ.
+- If they resist discussing removal: "I know this is uncomfortable. But having a process before you need it is a form of care."
+
+
+#### **Close and gaps list (5 min)**
+
+- Make a list of fields that still need discussion
+- "What's the most important unresolved question?"
+- "Who's going to take a first pass at writing up what we decided today?"
+
+
+### 👉 **Also this week**
+
+#### **Financial sustainability conversation**
+
+Session 5 homework asks each person to reflect: *What does financial sustainability look like for you personally? What would you need from this project?*
+
+This is prep for Session 6 (Equitable Economics). Check in during the week:
+
+- "Has everyone spent some time thinking about the financial sustainability question?"
+- "And the personal reflection: what financial information have you never been allowed to see at work?"
+
+These don't need to be discussed as a studio yet — just make sure individuals are reflecting.
+
+
+### :star: **Tips**
+
+If they want to pick a governance model immediately:
+
+- "You don't have to commit today. Start with collective governance or advice process — you can add complexity as you learn what you actually need."
+
+If Community Rule feels bureaucratic:
+
+- "Think of it as making the invisible visible. You're already doing governance — this just names it."
+
+If they skip over membership/removal:
+
+- "This is the part that matters most when things get hard. Even a rough sketch now saves a lot of pain later."
+
+If one person is doing all the talking about governance:
+
+- "Governance designed by one person is just management with extra steps. Everyone needs to shape this."
+
+If time runs short:
+
+- Prioritize decision-making and roles. Membership can be returned to next week.
+
+
+### **🏁 After the session**
+
+- Note where the studio has clear alignment vs. where they got stuck
+- Note any tension around membership/removal — these conversations will deepen
+- Remind them about the financial sustainability reflection for Session 6 prep
+- Bring the draft status to your PS check-in
+
+
+## :triangular_flag_on_post: **Red flags to watch for**
+
+- A studio that resists documenting anything — "we just know how we work" (that's exactly the problem)
+- Governance designed around one person's strengths or preferences
+- Avoiding the membership/removal conversation entirely
+- Confusing governance with incorporation — "we're not a real coop yet so we don't need this"
+- A draft that looks perfect on paper but doesn't match how the studio actually operates

content/curriculum/PS Guides/6-equitable-economics.md

@@ -0,0 +1,163 @@
+# 6: Equitable Economics
+
+## **What happens in session**
+
+This is a dense session covering revenue sources, financial transparency, compensation models (equal pay, needs-based, role-based, hybrid), profit-sharing basics, and IP ownership. Studios discuss what financial sustainability means personally, explore open-book practices, and start thinking about what "fair" compensation looks like. The session connects financial decisions to the governance structures from Session 5.
+
+
+:::tip
+**Homework assigned:** discuss financial transparency (what feels vulnerable to share?) and compensation models (what feels fair?). These conversations are prep for the PS meeting this week.
+
+:::
+
+
+### :eyes: **Your role during session**
+
+- Observe how your studio reacts to the compensation models discussion — where do they light up? Where do they tense up?
+- Listen for financial information gaps — who has financial literacy? Who doesn't?
+- Note whether anyone avoids the personal financial sustainability question
+- Watch the IP ownership discussion — this can surface unexpected disagreements, especially if someone brought existing work into the project
+
+
+### 👆 **Your role after session**
+
+- Check that everyone understands the homework and is willing to have the financial conversations
+- Note any immediate tensions about money that surfaced during the session
+- Make sure they know the tools mentioned: [CoBudget](https://cobudget.com/), [OpenCollective](https://opencollective.com/), [coop.love](https://coop.love)
+
+
+## **This week's Studio Support Meeting: Financial Transparency and Compensation**
+
+### **📚 Materials**
+
+- Compensation models reference (equal pay, needs-based, role-based, hybrid)
+- Studio's Community Rule draft from Session 5 (financial decision-making sections)
+- Revenue sources overview from the session
+
+
+### :world_map: **Context**
+
+Money is where values meet reality. This studio support meeting helps the studio have the financial conversations that most groups avoid. Your role is to create enough safety for vulnerability while pushing past surface-level comfort. These conversations don't need to reach decisions today — they need to *happen*.
+
+
+### **👆 Before the session**
+
+- Check in with each studio member (or the group) about whether they've started reflecting on the homework questions
+- Review the studio's governance draft — what did they decide about financial decision-making?
+- Be prepared for this session to be emotionally charged. Money reveals power dynamics and personal vulnerabilities.
+
+
+### **🌊 Session flow**
+
+#### **Check-in (5 min)**
+
+"The session covered a lot of ground about money. What's sitting with you? Anything surprising — or anything you're dreading talking about?"
+
+
+#### **Financial transparency (15-20 min)**
+
+Start with the personal reflection prompt from Session 5 homework:
+
+"What financial information have you never been allowed to see at work — and what would have been different if you had?"
+
+Let each person share. This grounds the conversation in lived experience before it becomes abstract.
+
+Then move to the studio:
+
+**Prompts:**
+
+- "What financial information would feel vulnerable to share with your studio?"
+- "What would you need in order to feel safe sharing it?"
+- "What's the minimum level of financial transparency you'd want in your coop?"
+
+**Practical questions:**
+
+- "Who currently knows the most about the studio's finances? Is that a choice or a default?"
+- "If you were to do open books — what would that actually look like? A shared spreadsheet? Monthly summaries? Full access to accounts?"
+- "What's one step you could take this week toward more transparency?"
+
+Don't push anyone to share financial details they're not ready to share. The goal is naming the discomfort, not forcing disclosure.
+
+
+#### **Compensation models (15-20 min)**
+
+Review the four models briefly:
+
+- **Equal pay:** same rate regardless of role
+- **Needs-based:** adjusted for members' actual financial situations
+- **Role-based:** different rates for different roles
+- **Hybrid:** base rate plus adjustments
+
+**Discussion prompts:**
+
+- "What feels fair to you? Where do you notice tension between 'fair' and 'comfortable'?"
+- "What would you need to know about each other's situations to decide together?"
+- "Which model aligns best with your stated values?"
+
+**Dig deeper:**
+
+- "If you chose equal pay, what happens when one person is working 40 hours and another is working 15?"
+- "If you chose needs-based, who decides what counts as a 'need'?"
+- "If you chose role-based, who decides which roles are worth more — and doesn't that recreate hierarchy?"
+
+You don't need to reach a decision. You need to surface where assumptions differ.
+
+
+#### **IP ownership — first pass (5-10 min)**
+
+If there's time, and only if the studio is ready:
+
+- "Who owns the game you're making together?"
+- "Has anyone brought existing work into the project? What happens to that?"
+- "What happens to IP if someone leaves?"
+
+If these questions create tension, name it: "This is exactly the kind of conversation that gets harder the longer you wait. You don't need answers today — just notice where you're not aligned."
+
+
+#### **Close (5 min)**
+
+- "What's one financial conversation your team has been avoiding?"
+- "What's one concrete step you can take before next session?"
+- Remind them: Session 7 is about conflict — and money is often where conflict shows up first
+
+
+### :star: **Tips**
+
+If someone shuts down:
+
+- "Money stuff can be really personal. You don't have to share anything you're not ready to. But notice what you're protecting and why."
+
+If the group avoids specifics:
+
+- "Saying 'we'll figure it out later' is the most common way studios avoid financial conversations. What's one specific thing you can decide or discuss today?"
+
+If one person has significantly more financial literacy:
+
+- "Part of transparency is making sure everyone can participate in financial decisions. Can you explain that in simpler terms?"
+
+If there's a clear financial power imbalance:
+
+- Don't force anyone to disclose. But you can note: "Financial differences affect power whether you name them or not. The question is whether you address it openly."
+
+If they want to decide compensation now:
+
+- "You can start with a provisional model. Try it for a period, then revisit. Consent-based: is this good enough for now, safe enough to try?"
+
+
+### **🏁 After the session**
+
+- Note how the financial conversations went — where was there openness vs. avoidance?
+- Note any power dynamics around financial literacy or financial resources
+- Note any IP ownership disagreements — these need to be resolved before incorporation
+- Bring observations to your PS check-in
+
+
+## :triangular_flag_on_post: **Red flags to watch for**
+
+- One person controlling all financial information or decisions
+- Someone minimizing their own financial needs to match the group
+- "We don't need to talk about money yet" — avoidance that will become a crisis later
+- Financial plans that assume best-case scenarios with no contingency
+- Major gaps in financial literacy that no one is addressing
+- IP ownership assumptions that haven't been discussed — especially if someone brought pre-existing work
+- Compensation discussions where one person's opinion is treated as the default

content/curriculum/PS Guides/7-conflict-resolution-collective-care.md

@@ -0,0 +1,168 @@
+# 7: Conflict Resolution and Collective Care
+
+## Pre-session
+
+- Review Baby Ghosts' [Conflict Resolution Policy](https://publish.obsidian.md/baby-ghosts-corp-docs/Public/Policies/Conflict+Resolution+Policy) before session — this is the template participants will adapt for homework
+- Check in with your studio about how their compensation discussions went; any friction that came up is useful for this session
+
+## **What happens in session**
+
+The heaviest session. Studios learn to reframe conflict as data (not failure), distinguish structural from interpersonal conflict, and practice behaviourally-specific feedback. Key tools: the Loving Justice framework (Brave? Kind? Honest? Humble?), the intent/behaviour/impact model ("stay on your side of the net"), and the Window of Transformation (zones of activation). The session covers multi-directional accountability, escalation as care, and the idea that trust comes from repair, not avoidance.
+
+
+:::warning
+**Before this session:** review Baby Ghosts' [Conflict Resolution Policy](https://publish.obsidian.md/baby-ghosts-corp-docs/Public/Policies/Conflict+Resolution+Policy). Check in with your studio about how their compensation discussions went — any friction that came up is useful material for this session.
+
+:::
+
+
+### :eyes: **Your role during session**
+
+- Observe how your studio responds to the conflict reframing — relief, resistance, or discomfort can all be informative
+- Watch the activity closely — are they able to use behaviourally-specific feedback or do they slide into judgments?
+- Note whether anyone identifies conflicts they've been avoiding
+- Pay attention to body language during the accountability discussion — who checks out? Who leans in?
+
+
+### 👆 **Your role after session**
+
+- Check in with each studio member (even briefly, via Slack) about how the session landed
+- Make sure they have the link to Baby Ghosts' [Conflict Resolution Policy](https://publish.obsidian.md/baby-ghosts-corp-docs/Public/Policies/Conflict+Resolution+Policy)
+- If any studio member seems activated or upset, reach out directly. This session can surface real pain.
+
+
+## **This week's Studio Support Meeting: Conflict Policy and Practice**
+
+### **📚 Materials**
+
+- Baby Ghosts' [Conflict Resolution Policy](https://publish.obsidian.md/baby-ghosts-corp-docs/Public/Policies/Conflict+Resolution+Policy) and [Procedures](https://publish.obsidian.md/baby-ghosts-corp-docs/Public/Procedures/Conflict+Resolution+Procedures)
+- Loving Justice framework reference
+- Window of Transformation zones reference
+
+
+### :world_map: **Context**
+
+This PS meeting has two parts: (1) helping the studio name an avoided tension, and (2) reviewing the conflict resolution template together. The order matters — naming a real tension first gives the template review practical grounding. But read the room. If the tension-naming conversation goes deep, let it run and abbreviate the template review. The real work is the conversation, not the document.
+
+This may be the most emotionally demanding PS meeting. Be prepared to hold space without trying to fix everything.
+
+
+### **👆 Before the session**
+
+- Review the Baby Ghosts conflict resolution policy and procedures yourself — know the structure well enough to guide a discussion
+- Reflect on what you observed during the session and the compensation discussion last week — is there an unresolved tension you've noticed?
+- Check your own readiness. If you're carrying a lot from your own studio or personal life, be honest with yourself about your capacity to hold space today.
+
+
+### **🌊 Session flow**
+
+#### **Check-in (5 min)**
+
+"How are you feeling after that session? Anything stirred up?"
+
+This isn't a throwaway question. Give it real space. If someone needs to talk, let them.
+
+
+#### **Name one avoided tension (15-20 min)**
+
+:::warning
+***This could be hard.*** Go gently but don't avoid it.
+
+:::
+
+"What conflict or tension has your studio been avoiding? It doesn't have to be big — small avoidances are actually great to examine."
+
+**If no one speaks up immediately**, let the silence sit. Count to 15 in your head before you intervene. Then try:
+
+- "Is there something you've been wanting to bring up but haven't found the right moment?"
+- "Think back to the last few weeks. Was there a moment where something felt off but no one said anything?"
+- "Are there any patterns from the Informal Hierarchy Check-In (Session 4) that you haven't addressed?"
+
+**If something does come up:**
+
+Help them practice the tools from the session:
+
+1. **Behaviourally-specific feedback:** "What did you actually observe? What's the behaviour you can point to?"
+2. **Stay on your side of the net:** "What was the impact on you? Separate that from what you think they intended."
+3. **Loving Justice check:** "Is what you want to say brave? Kind? Honest? Humble?"
+4. **Window of Transformation:** "Where are you right now? Where do you think the other person is? Is this a good time for this conversation?"
+
+**If something big surfaces:**
+
+Don't try to resolve it in this meeting. Help them decide:
+
+- "Is this something you want to keep working through now, or does it need a dedicated conversation?"
+- "Would it help to have a third party present when you continue this?"
+- "What would make it safe enough to keep talking?"
+
+
+#### **Review the conflict resolution template (15-20 min)**
+
+Go through Baby Ghosts' policy together. For each section, ask:
+
+- "Does this make sense for your studio?"
+- "What would you change?"
+- "What's missing?"
+
+**Key areas to discuss:**
+
+**Who initiates:** "In your studio, who would actually be the one to say 'we need to use the process'? Is it comfortable for everyone to do that, or would some people never initiate?"
+
+**Documentation:** "How much documentation feels right? Too little and things get lost. Too much and it becomes punitive."
+
+**Timelines:** "How quickly should you respond to a raised concern? What's realistic?"
+
+**When resolution isn't reached:** "What happens if you go through the whole process and still can't agree? What's the last resort?"
+
+**Escalation:** "Who's your third party? Another studio member? Your PS? Someone outside the program?"
+
+They don't need to finalize a policy today. The goal is to identify what resonates, what needs adapting, and what gaps exist.
+
+
+#### **Close (5 min)**
+
+- "What's one thing you want to commit to about how you handle conflict going forward?"
+- "Is there anything from today's conversation that needs follow-up before next session?"
+- Remind them: Session 8 is the last session. Encourage them to use this week to address anything unresolved.
+
+
+### :star: **Tips**
+
+If no one wants to name a tension:
+
+- Don't force it. "That's okay. The invitation stays open. Sometimes naming something takes longer. You can always come back to this."
+
+If it gets heated:
+
+- "Let's pause. Where is everyone right now?" (Use the Window of Transformation language.) "Is this a conversation we can have right now, or do we need to step back?"
+
+If someone minimizes:
+
+- "You said 'it's not a big deal' — but you brought it up. Can you say more about why it's on your mind?"
+
+If someone deflects to structural issues to avoid interpersonal ones (or vice versa):
+
+- "It can be both. What's the structural part, and what's the interpersonal part? Which one are you more comfortable talking about — and which one are you avoiding?"
+
+If the template review feels abstract:
+
+- "Think about the tension we just discussed. Would this process have helped? Where would it break down?"
+
+
+### **🏁 After the session**
+
+- Note how the tension-naming went — did something real surface, or did the studio stay safe?
+- Note how they responded to the conflict resolution template — did they engage or treat it as a formality?
+- If any individual seems affected, follow up with them directly
+- Bring observations to your PS check-in — especially anything that concerns you about studio dynamics
+
+
+## :triangular_flag_on_post: **Red flags to watch for**
+
+- A studio that insists they have no conflicts — avoidance is not peace
+- Someone who identifies a conflict but then immediately retracts: "never mind, it's fine"
+- Conflict always attributed to one person — scapegoating
+- Political framing used to avoid naming emotional experience (the emotional-political conflation trap from the session)
+- A studio that wants the policy "just in case" but clearly has an active, unnamed conflict
+- Someone who seems shut down or dissociated — check in with them privately after
+- Performative agreement: "I'm fine with whatever the group decides" when they clearly aren't

content/curriculum/PS Guides/8-self-evaluation-pathways.md

@@ -0,0 +1,209 @@
+# 8: Self-Evaluation and Pathways
+
+## **What happens in session**
+
+The final session. Studios do a personal self-assessment (private) and a studio self-assessment (collective, shared with Baby Ghosts). The studio assessment rates seven areas on a 1-5 scale (from "Considering/Reflecting" to "First Draft of Documentation"): values/purpose/alignment, governance, decision-making/meetings, equitable economics, conflict/repair, program reflection, and what's next. The session covers post-program supports (Ghost Guild, workshops, PS recruitment, incorporation resources) and closes with a collaborative zine activity and group celebration.
+
+
+:::info
+This is a closing session. Your role is less about facilitating new content and more about helping your studio reflect honestly and plan for what comes next. The assessments are the core deliverable.
+
+:::
+
+
+### :eyes: **Your role during session**
+
+- Observe how your studio approaches the assessments — honest and reflective, or rushing through?
+- During the studio assessment, note whether they're aligned on their ratings or if there's disagreement about where they actually are
+- Watch for emotional responses during the closing — this program has been intense, and endings can surface unexpected feelings
+- Participate in the zine activity and closing — you're part of this community
+
+
+### 👆 **Your role after session**
+
+- Make sure both assessments get completed (personal assessment individually, studio assessment together)
+- Schedule a final PS meeting for this week to help them complete assessments and talk about next steps
+- Make sure they understand Ghost Guild and post-program supports
+
+
+:::tip
+Your weekly PS sessions end after this week, but you're still part of the community. Many studios appreciate knowing you're available for occasional check-ins as they hit milestones or challenges.
+
+:::
+
+
+## **This week's Studio Support Meeting: Assessments and What's Next**
+
+### **📚 Materials**
+
+- Personal self-assessment form (each member should have their own copy)
+- Studio self-assessment template (on studio Miro board)
+- Community Rule draft from Session 5
+- Any notes or documents the studio has created during the program
+
+
+### :world_map: **Context**
+
+This is your last formal PS meeting with this studio. The goal is to help them complete their assessments with honesty and specificity, and to set them up for continuing this work without you. Resist the urge to sugarcoat or wrap things up neatly. The most useful thing you can do is help them see clearly where they are — strengths and gaps alike.
+
+
+### **👆 Before the session**
+
+- Review your notes from the full program — what patterns have you noticed? What's shifted? What's stayed stuck?
+- Review the studio's Community Rule draft, values map, and any other documents they've produced
+- Prepare your own honest assessment of where the studio is — you'll use this to calibrate if their self-assessment seems off
+- Think about what you want to say to this studio at the close. This matters.
+
+
+### **🌊 Session flow**
+
+#### **Check-in (5 min)**
+
+"How are you feeling about the program ending? What's sitting with you?"
+
+Let this be genuine. Some people will be relieved, some sad, some anxious about what comes next. All of those are valid.
+
+
+#### **Personal self-assessment (10-15 min)**
+
+If they haven't completed the personal assessment yet, give them quiet time to work on it now.
+
+This is private — you don't need to see it or discuss it. But you can offer:
+
+- "Take your time with this. Be honest with yourself."
+- "Where have you grown? Where do you still feel uncertain?"
+- "What do you need from your collaborators that you haven't asked for yet?"
+
+If they've already completed it, ask: "Was anything surprising when you reflected? Anything you want to share?"
+
+
+#### **Studio self-assessment (20-25 min)**
+
+Work through the seven areas together. For each, the studio rates themselves 1-5:
+
+1. **Considering/Reflecting** — Thought about individually, not discussed as a team
+2. **Discussing Collectively** — Talking together but no decisions
+3. **Brainstorming** — Actively generating ideas and exploring options
+4. **Sifting/Sorting** — Narrowing down, making choices, working toward alignment
+5. **First Draft of Documentation** — Something written down — a policy, process, or shared agreement
+
+**Go through each area:**
+
+**1. Values, purpose & alignment**
+
+- "Can each person name your studio's core values? Do those match?"
+- "Do you have a documented values statement or Why/What/How?"
+
+**2. Governance**
+
+- "Where is your Community Rule draft? What's documented vs. still informal?"
+- "Do you have a membership/removal process, even a rough one?"
+
+**3. Decision-making & meetings**
+
+- "Are you using a named framework? Rotating meeting roles?"
+- "What decisions still happen by default?"
+
+**4. Equitable economics**
+
+- "Have you had the money conversations? Compensation, transparency, IP?"
+- "What's decided vs. what's still avoided?"
+
+**5. Conflict & repair**
+
+- "Do you have a conflict process — even informal? Have you used it?"
+- "What tension have you named? What's still unnamed?"
+
+**6. Program reflection**
+
+- "What worked about this program for you? What didn't?"
+- "What do you wish had been different?"
+
+**7. What's next**
+
+- "What's your plan for revisiting governance and values after the program ends?"
+- "Who's responsible for scheduling that?"
+
+**Your role during this:**
+
+If a rating seems inflated — gently push:
+
+- "You rated governance a 4, but last week you hadn't discussed membership or removal. What's your thinking?"
+
+If a rating seems deflated — acknowledge progress:
+
+- "You rated conflict a 2, but you named and addressed a real tension two weeks ago. That's meaningful progress."
+
+If there's disagreement on a rating — that's data:
+
+- "You see yourselves differently on this one. That's worth exploring. What does each of you see?"
+
+Capture the assessment on the Miro board.
+
+
+#### **What's next (10-15 min)**
+
+Help them make concrete plans:
+
+- "When is your next governance review? Put it on the calendar right now."
+- "Who's going to be your accountability partner for keeping up these practices?"
+- "What's the first thing that will slip? How will you catch it?"
+
+Talk about Ghost Guild and post-program supports. Make sure they know what's available.
+
+If anyone is interested in becoming a PS for a future cohort, encourage them to talk to the program team.
+
+
+#### **Close (5-10 min)**
+
+This is your moment. Share what you've observed over the program — what you're proud of, what you're hopeful about, where you think they'll need to stay vigilant.
+
+Be specific. "You've grown" is less useful than "In Session 2, no one would say what they actually needed financially. By Session 6, you had that conversation and it was hard but you did it."
+
+Then let each studio member share something too:
+
+- "What's something you're proud of from the program?"
+- "What conversation did you have that you wouldn't have had otherwise?"
+
+End with care. This matters.
+
+
+### :star: **Tips**
+
+If they rush through the assessment:
+
+- "This is the last structured reflection you'll do with support. Take the time — it's worth it."
+
+If they rate everything high:
+
+- "I'm glad you feel good about your progress. Can I push on a couple of these? I want to make sure the assessment is useful to you going forward."
+
+If they rate everything low:
+
+- "You've done more than you think. Let me reflect back what I've seen over these weeks."
+
+If they're anxious about the program ending:
+
+- "The structures you've built are real. The tools don't disappear. And the Ghost Guild community is there for you."
+
+If emotions come up:
+
+- Let them. This is appropriate. Don't rush past it.
+
+
+### **🏁 After the session**
+
+- Ensure the studio assessment is submitted (goes to Baby Ghosts)
+- Ensure each person has completed or will complete their personal assessment
+- Share your own PS observations with the program team — what this studio needs going forward, what to watch for, where they're strong
+- Thank the studio. Mean it.
+
+
+## :triangular_flag_on_post: **Red flags to watch for**
+
+- A studio that can't complete the assessment because they disagree on where they are — this reveals deeper alignment issues
+- Rushing through to "get it done" — avoidance of reflection
+- Ratings that don't match what you've observed — denial or lack of self-awareness
+- No plan for continuing governance practices after the program — high risk of drift
+- One person taking responsibility for everything post-program — that's not a coop
+- Signs that the program surfaced issues the studio hasn't resolved — make sure the program team knows

content/curriculum/PS Guides/pre-program-onboarding-and-prep.md

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+# Pre-program: Onboarding and Prep
+
+# **Your first Studio Support Meetings**
+
+
+:::info
+Use this list to get a baseline read on your studio. These are things to *notice and gently explore* over your first couple of conversations. No need to interrogate, and you don't need to go through all of them.
+
+:::
+
+
+### **Relational foundation**
+
+- How long have they known each other? Have they made anything together before?
+- How do they currently make decisions? (Note who answers this question.)
+- What happens when they disagree?
+- Has anyone left a previous collaboration? What happened?
+- Who's doing most of the talking right now? Who's quiet?
+- Is there evidence of trust (or trust-building potential) in the group?
+
+
+### **Capacity and commitment**
+
+- Is everyone working on this full-time, part-time, or around day jobs?
+- Are time contributions roughly equal? If not, how are they thinking about that?
+- What happens if someone needs to step back or leave?
+- Who has business/admin skills? Financial literacy? Project management?
+- Is there openness about strengths *and* limitations?
+
+
+### **Game related**
+
+- Where is the project at? (Concept, prototype, production, shipped?)
+- Who holds the creative vision? Is that shared or concentrated?
+- Have they discussed IP ownership yet?
+- What are the core disciplines in the group? (art, code, design, audio, writing, production?)
+- What's missing? Are they aware of the gaps?
+- Has anyone worked in games professionally before? In what capacity?
+
+
+#### **What you're doing with this information:**
+
+- Building your own picture of the studio's dynamics, strengths, and risk areas.
+- You don't need to resolve anything yet, just notice.
+- Bring observations to your PS check-in.
+
+*Credit:* **Effective Practices in Starting Co-ops** *and Christine Clarke of __[Freedom Dreams](https://www.freedomdreamscoop.com/)__ for inspiration/starting points.*