Update curriculum source files to current versions

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

@@ -1,5 +1,4 @@
 # 0: Kickoff & Onboarding
-
 ## Pre-session
 
 - Review Session 0 agenda and your intro talking points
@@ -11,7 +10,7 @@ This is the full cohort's orientation to the program. Participants do introducti
 
 
 :::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. 
+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. 
 
 :::
 
@@ -19,14 +18,14 @@ A theme we want to emphasize (based on feedback from Cohort 5) is: "friction is
 ### :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!***
+- 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)
+- Make sure they understand the Power Flower homework (especially that it is a private, individual reflection, and no one else will see it unless they want to share)
 - Note any first impressions to share at the PS check-in
 
 

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

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
 
 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.
+The theme is *moving from principles to personal values*.
 
 
 :::tip
@@ -15,8 +15,8 @@ The theme is moving from principles to personal values.
 
 ### :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?
+- 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**
@@ -38,16 +38,16 @@ The theme is moving from principles to personal values.
 
 #### **Check-in (5 min)**
 
-Individual sharing (15-20 min) - Each person shares 3-5 values from their individual reflection.
+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.
+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.
+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)**
@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ Prompts:
 - "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?
+> Example to offer: "Transparency" – does it mean open documents? Open conversations? Both? Neither? What exactly is meant?
 
 
 **Connecting to the 7 Principles (10 min)**
@@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ Look at the ICA principles together.
 
 - "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.
+    – 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)**
@@ -81,8 +81,7 @@ Look at the ICA principles together.
 **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.
+	- 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)**
@@ -103,7 +102,7 @@ If no one talks… awkward silence:
 - "Take a minute to look at the board silently. What stands out?"
 
 
-If tension emerges
+If tension emerges:
 
 - "Sounds like there are some different perspectives here. That's useful but we don't need to resolve it today."
 
@@ -138,6 +137,6 @@ They need to *write their answers down* before Session 2. Check that they're doi
 
 ### :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.
+- 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

@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
 
 ## **What happens in session**
 
-This session, we talk about the challenges of aligning on the studio's purpose.
+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.
+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**
 
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ Decision-making:
 
 ### :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.
+Each person answers in turn (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!
 
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ The goal isn't to solve everything today, just to get the conversation started!
 
 ### :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.
+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!
 
@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ This is an ongoing practice!
 ***For time and availability:***
 
 
-4. How many hours per week can you reliably, actually commit - a hard number.
+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?
 
@@ -111,14 +111,16 @@ Give silence and let it be awkward. *You really need to relish the awkwardness.*
 - 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?"
+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?"
+### 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.
+**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**
 
@@ -135,7 +137,7 @@ Note these for your PS check-in or message in the channel.
 
 **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.
+**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 is just a conversation starter. You're helping them notice where their assumptions about the studio's future align or diverge.
 
 
 **Before the conversation:**
@@ -145,21 +147,21 @@ Note these for your PS check-in or message in the channel.
 
 **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.
+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*?"
+- "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?"
+- "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?"
 
@@ -177,7 +179,7 @@ Then ground it:
 
 
 :::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.
+**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.
 
 :::
 
@@ -185,4 +187,4 @@ Then ground it:
 **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
+- 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

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
 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
+- 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.
@@ -14,17 +14,10 @@ Show the messy stuff. Participants need to see that this work is ongoing, not a
 
 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?
+- 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.
 
 
@@ -47,7 +40,7 @@ If you are the presenting PS for this session, you need to prepare a **10-minute
 ### **👆 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)
+- 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
 
 
@@ -80,7 +73,7 @@ Prompts if they get stuck:
 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?"
+- "'We value transparency' – what does that mean concretely? Open finances? Open conversations? Open documents?"
 
 **Step 3: HOW (5-7 min)**
 
@@ -114,7 +107,7 @@ Use the decision they identified in Session 3. Walk through the three rings toge
 
 - 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.
+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):**
 
@@ -144,20 +137,20 @@ If they only see positive effects:
 
 If one person dominates the values conversation:
 
-- "Let's hear from everyone — whose experience of this value is different?"
+- "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
+- 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
+- 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

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ Studios explore cooperative decision-making frameworks (consensus, consent, majo
 
 ### :eyes: **Your role during session**
 
-- Observe the facilitation rotation activity — note how your studio members handle facilitating, participating, and observing
+- 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
 
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ Studios explore cooperative decision-making frameworks (consensus, consent, majo
 
 - 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
+- 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**
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ Studios explore cooperative decision-making frameworks (consensus, consent, majo
 
 #### **Check-in (5 min)**
 
-"What did you notice in the facilitation rotation? What was harder than expected — facilitating, participating, or observing?"
+"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)**
 
@@ -54,19 +54,19 @@ 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."
+- 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.
+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?
+8. Clarify implementation – who does what? When do you check back?
 
 **Debrief (5 min):**
 
@@ -87,11 +87,11 @@ Work through the five questions together. Go one at a time.
 
 Prompts to keep it exploratory, not accusatory:
 
-- "No guilt here — we're just noticing."
+- "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.
+Capture observations – they'll bring these to Session 5.
 
 
 #### **Close (5 min)**
@@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ Capture observations — they'll bring these to Session 5.
 
 #### **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?
+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:
 
@@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ This feeds directly into Session 5's governance work.
 
 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."
+- "The point is to *notice* the process. How you decide matters as much as what you decide."
 
 If one person dominates the decision:
 
@@ -129,26 +129,22 @@ 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."
+- "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?
+- 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)
+- 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" (it's insidious)
 - 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

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 
 ## Pre-session
 
-If you are the presenting PS for this session, prep a **15–20 minute** case study from your studio covering:
+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
@@ -10,21 +10,19 @@ If you are the presenting PS for this session, prep a **15–20 minute** case st
 
 ## **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.
-
-:::
+Studios learn about:
+- legal structures (sole prop, partnership, corporation, worker coop)
+- governance models (collective governance, advice process, sociocratic circles, board + membership, DisCOs)
+- member management (adding, departing, removing members)
 
+A PS presenter shares a 15-20 minute case study on their studio's governance journey. We also introduce Community Rule as a tool for documenting governance in plain language. We focus on *making governance visible*, designing structures from the patterns noticed in Session 4, and distinguishing between governance practice and legal incorporation.
 
 ### :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?
+- 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
+- Note how they react to the member removal discussion. It's an uncomfortable topic.
 
 
 ### 👆 **Your role after session**
@@ -38,14 +36,14 @@ If you are the presenting PS for this session, prepare a **15-20 minute case stu
 
 ### **📚 Materials**
 
-- [Community Rule](https://communityrule.info/) tool (open in browser)
+- [Community Rule](https://communityrule.info/) tool
 - 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.
+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 will be a living document.
 
 
 ### **👆 Before the session**
@@ -59,53 +57,39 @@ This is a working session. You're helping the studio start documenting their gov
 
 #### **Check-in (5 min)**
 
-"What governance model stuck with you from the session? Did anything click — or feel wrong?"
+"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:
+Open the tool together. Community Rule works as a modular builder – you assemble your governance from pre-made or custom building blocks.
 
-- 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?
+Start with the basics: Name your studio and write a short summary of its structure.
 
-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.
+Then explore the module library together. There are four categories:
+
+- **Culture** – values, norms, purpose, solidarity, diversity
+- **Decision** – how decisions get made (lazy consensus, do-ocracy, vote, ranked choice, etc.)
+- **Process** – how policies are implemented and evolve (accountability process, delegation, transparency, dissolution, exclusion, etc.)
+- **Structure** – roles and internal entities (board, council, membership, ownership, roles, committee, etc.)
+
+Drag in the modules that feel relevant. Each one can be configured with key-value pairs – for example, a "Membership" module might have configuration like "Eligibility: active worker-owners who have completed a 3-month trial period." You can also create custom modules for anything the library doesn't cover.
+
+Don't try to build everything at once. Start by browsing the categories and noticing which modules the studio can configure easily vs. which ones lead to blank stares.
 
 Prompts:
 
-- "Where do you already have a clear answer?"
+- "Which of these are you already doing without naming it?"
 - "Where is there genuine disagreement or uncertainty?"
-- "Which of these have you been doing by default without naming it?"
-
+- "What's missing from the library that's specific to how you work?"
 
 #### **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."
-
+Start filling in what you can. Focus on the modules 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.
 
 #### **Close and gaps list (5 min)**
 
-- Make a list of fields that still need discussion
+- Make a list of areas 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?"
 
@@ -121,18 +105,18 @@ 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.
+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."
+- "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."
+- "You're already doing governance – this just helps you name it."
 
 If they skip over membership/removal:
 
@@ -142,23 +126,19 @@ 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
+- 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)
+- A studio that resists documenting anything – "we just know how we work" (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"
+- 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

@@ -13,10 +13,10 @@ This is a dense session covering revenue sources, financial transparency, compen
 
 ### :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?
+- 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
+- Watch the IP ownership discussion – this can surface unexpected disagreements, especially if someone brought existing work into the project
 
 
 ### 👆 **Your role after session**
@@ -37,28 +37,28 @@ This is a dense session covering revenue sources, financial transparency, compen
 
 ### :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*.
+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.
+- Check in 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
 
 
 ### **🌊 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?"
+"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?"
+"What financial information have you never been allowed to see at work. What might have been different if you had?"
 
 Let each person share. This grounds the conversation in lived experience before it becomes abstract.
 
@@ -73,10 +73,10 @@ Then move to the studio:
 **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?"
+- "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.
+Don't push anyone to share financial details they're not ready to. The goal is *naming the discomfort*.
 
 
 #### **Compensation models (15-20 min)**
@@ -92,18 +92,18 @@ Review the four models briefly:
 
 - "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?"
+- "Which model aligns best with your 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?"
+- "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.
+You don't need to reach a decision.
 
 
-#### **IP ownership — first pass (5-10 min)**
+#### **IP ownership – first pass (5-10 min)**
 
 If there's time, and only if the studio is ready:
 
@@ -111,14 +111,14 @@ If there's time, and only if the studio is ready:
 - "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."
+If these questions create tension, name it: "This is the kind of conversation that gets harder the longer you wait. 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
+- Remind them: Session 7 is about conflict – and money is often where conflict shows up first
 
 
 ### :star: **Tips**
@@ -129,11 +129,11 @@ If someone shuts down:
 
 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?"
+- "Saying 'we'll figure it out later' is a to avoid financial conversations. Try to think of a specific decision to 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?"
+- "Part of transparency is making sure everyone can participate in financial decisions. Can you explain that in plain terms?"
 
 If there's a clear financial power imbalance:
 
@@ -146,9 +146,9 @@ If they want to decide compensation now:
 
 ### **🏁 After the session**
 
-- Note how the financial conversations went — where was there openness vs. avoidance?
+- 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
+- Note any IP ownership disagreements – these need to be resolved before incorporation
 - Bring observations to your PS check-in
 
 
@@ -156,8 +156,8 @@ If they want to decide compensation now:
 
 - 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
+- "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
+- 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

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 
 ## 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
+- 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**
@@ -11,17 +11,17 @@ The heaviest session. Studios learn to reframe conflict as data (not failure), d
 
 
 :::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.
+**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?
+- 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?
+- Pay attention to body language during the accountability discussion – who checks out? Who leans in?
 
 
 ### 👆 **Your role after session**
@@ -42,15 +42,15 @@ The heaviest session. Studios learn to reframe conflict as data (not failure), d
 
 ### :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 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?
+- 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.
 
 
@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ This isn't a throwaway question. Give it real space. If someone needs to talk, l
 
 :::
 
-"What conflict or tension has your studio been avoiding? It doesn't have to be big — small avoidances are actually great to examine."
+"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:
 
@@ -138,11 +138,11 @@ If it gets heated:
 
 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?"
+- "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?"
+- "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:
 
@@ -151,18 +151,18 @@ If the template review feels abstract:
 
 ### **🏁 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?
+- 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
+- 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
+- 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
+- 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
+- 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

@@ -13,10 +13,10 @@ This is a closing session. Your role is less about facilitating new content and
 
 ### :eyes: **Your role during session**
 
-- Observe how your studio approaches the assessments — honest and reflective, or rushing through?
+- 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
+- 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**
@@ -44,14 +44,14 @@ Your weekly PS sessions end after this week, but you're still part of the commun
 
 ### :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.
+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 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
+- 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.
 
 
@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ Let this be genuine. Some people will be relieved, some sad, some anxious about
 
 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:
+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?"
@@ -81,11 +81,11 @@ If they've already completed it, ask: "Was anything surprising when you reflecte
 
 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
+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:**
 
@@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ Work through the seven areas together. For each, the studio rates themselves 1-5
 
 **5. Conflict & repair**
 
-- "Do you have a conflict process — even informal? Have you used it?"
+- "Do you have a conflict process – even informal? Have you used it?"
 - "What tension have you named? What's still unnamed?"
 
 **6. Program reflection**
@@ -126,15 +126,15 @@ Work through the seven areas together. For each, the studio rates themselves 1-5
 
 **Your role during this:**
 
-If a rating seems inflated — gently push:
+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:
+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:
+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?"
 
@@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ If anyone is interested in becoming a PS for a future cohort, encourage them to
 
 #### **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.
+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."
 
@@ -172,7 +172,7 @@ End with care. This matters.
 
 If they rush through the assessment:
 
-- "This is the last structured reflection you'll do with support. Take the time — it's worth it."
+- "This is the last structured reflection you'll do with support. Take the time – it's worth it."
 
 If they rate everything high:
 
@@ -195,15 +195,15 @@ If emotions come up:
 
 - 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
+- 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
+- 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

@@ -44,4 +44,5 @@ Use this list to get a baseline read on your studio. These are things to *notice
 - 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.*