LVTD-LLC Commitment Ladder Design
Design commitments that help users act on real intent, not commitments that trap them into defending a decision. The consistency drive is useful when it supports identity-aligned action and risky when it hides changing terms.
Quick Start
- Read
guidelines.mdto choose the smallest useful reference set. - Load
references/commitment/knowledge.mdfor concepts andreferences/commitment/rules.mdfor operating rules. - Use
workflows/build-commitment-ladder.mdfor repeatable tasks. - For audits, surface both the active influence cue and the ethical rewrite.
Contents
| File | Purpose |
|---|---|
| references/commitment/knowledge.md | Core concepts and source-grounded definitions |
| references/commitment/rules.md | Rules, boundaries, and practical guidelines |
| references/commitment/examples.md | Bad/better examples for applied situations |
| references/commitment/smells.md | Red flags and anti-patterns to detect |
| references/commitment/checklist.md | Fast review checklist |
| workflows/build-commitment-ladder.md | Create a sequence of small, authentic commitments that lead toward a meaningful user goal. |
Operating Principles
- Use only honest evidence. Do not invent popularity, scarcity, credentials, endorsements, or social connection.
- Separate helping a good decision from pushing a shortcut response. If the cue is counterfeit, treat it as a red flag.
- When rewriting, preserve user agency: add context, alternatives, and enough time to decide when stakes are meaningful.
Output Pattern
- Diagnosis - name the influence principle or cue.
- Evidence Check - state what proof supports or is missing from the cue.
- Risk - explain manipulation, trust, or decision-quality risk.
- Rewrite or Recommendation - provide an ethical alternative.
Validation
Use the prompts in evals/evals.json as smoke tests. A good result identifies the relevant Influence principle, preserves user agency, and avoids fabricated evidence or coercive pressure.