# Values at Play in Digital Games > [!warning] Source identity correction > The downloaded filename claims this EPUB is Matthew Kaemingk and Cory B. Willson's *Work and Worship* (2020). It is not. The OPF metadata, NCX table of contents, title page, copyright page, ISBNs, chapter text, and references all identify Mary Flanagan and Helen Nissenbaum's *Values at Play in Digital Games* (MIT Press, 2014). This note follows the verified internal identity. **Work and Worship remains blocked pending a correct source.** > [!info] One-file session adaptation > The batch asked for one consolidated note per source. This file therefore contains the Layer 1 record, analytical outputs, session record, and proposed atomic notes. It does not create separate highlight, prompt-record, or permanent-note files. The source EPUB remains the authoritative Layer 1 artifact. ## Prompt 0 — Retrieval and vault setup ### Ingestion summary | Field | Result | | --- | --- | | Intended filename identity | *Work and Worship*, Matthew Kaemingk and Cory B. Willson, 2020 | | Verified content identity | *Values at Play in Digital Games*, Mary Flanagan and Helen Nissenbaum, 2014 | | Publisher | The MIT Press | | Retail ebook ISBN | 9780262324458 | | Other embedded ISBNs | 9780262324441; 9780262324434; hardcover 9780262027663 | | Layer 1 | Local EPUB substituted for Readwise | | Extraction | EPUB converted to plain text and GitHub-flavored Markdown with Pandoc | | Extracted extent | 9,177 lines; about 67,613 words | | Coverage | Introduction, chapters 1–9, notes, references, game references, and index read in full | | Reader highlights | None found | | Reader notes/colors/timestamps | Not available | | Duplicate records | No second matching internal edition found in the supplied directory | The substitution costs reader emphasis. Nothing in this source indicates what Courtney marked as important, so every priority in this analysis is system-selected. EPUB locations can shift by renderer; the stable IDs below use structural sections rather than fabricated page numbers. ### Source index | ID | Section | Coverage | Main material | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | VAP-INT | Introducing Values at Play | Read | Values-conscious design, conscientious designer, game-specific method | | VAP-01 | 1. Groundwork for Values in Games | Read | Values, agency, culture, liberal-democratic commitments, technology | | VAP-02 | 2. Uncovering Values at Play | Read | Designer understandings, player perceptions, interpretive constraints | | VAP-03 | 3. Game Elements: The Language of Values | Read | Fifteen elements of semantic architecture | | VAP-04 | 4. Overview of the Heuristic | Read | Iterative discovery, implementation, verification | | VAP-05 | 5. Discovery | Read | Values identification, stakeholders, conflicts, project constraints | | VAP-06 | 6. Implementation | Read | Translation into mechanics, scripts, software, cases, team correction | | VAP-07 | 7. Verification | Read | Artifact, experience, behavior, attitudes, mixed assessment methods | | VAP-08 | 8. Inspiring Designers | Read | Curriculum, Grow-a-Game, workshops, educational evaluation | | VAP-09 | 9. Reflections on Values at Play | Read | Industry power, dissent, limits of individual conscientiousness | | VAP-N | Notes and references | Read | Scholarly lineage and qualifications | ### Source-density observations The densest analytic material sits in chapters 1, 3, 4, and 7. Chapters 5–6 supply cases that show how the method behaves under real constraints. Chapter 9 supplies the strongest internal challenge: an ethically alert junior designer can change one decision yet lose another when marketing, sunk costs, hierarchy, and production schedules dominate. Repeated terms include *values*, *designers*, *players*, *games*, *elements*, *discovery*, *implementation*, *verification*, *agency*, *context*, and *stakeholders*. ## Prompt 1 — Setup, contract, baselines, biases, and priors ### Shared inputs > [!warning] Inferred reader inputs > Purpose, constraints, existing knowledge, and DEIB intent were inferred from the batch request and vault context. They are placeholders, not claims about Courtney's beliefs. Correcting one may require revisiting later conclusions. - **Purpose (inferred):** understand how ethical commitments enter design decisions and turn the method into practical, teachable review tools. - **Depth:** analytical. - **Constraints (inferred):** one consolidated note; local EPUB only; no reader-emphasis layer; external claims remain unverified unless the book itself documents them. - **Existing knowledge (inferred):** familiarity with technology, open-source work, accessibility, community governance, and evidence-aware auditing. - **DEIB intent (inferred):** examine power, race, gender, class, disability, culture, access, voice, labor, and who can influence a design process. ### Reading contract This reading asks whether Values at Play (VAP) offers a usable method for finding, building, and testing values in games. Success means being able to explain the method, locate values in concrete design elements, distinguish artifact claims from player-effect claims, and identify where organizational power can defeat ethical intent. Comparative studies with diverse teams, published replications, long-term player research, or evidence that the heuristic performs no better than ordinary reflective design would change the assessment. The book cannot establish universal player effects, industry-wide adoption, or causal social change from its cases alone. It also cannot show how well a 2014 curriculum transfers to current global studios, live-service platforms, generative systems, accessibility standards, or labor conditions. ### Prior beliefs and incentives - **Prior belief:** technical artifacts encode choices about who may act, what counts, and which outcomes receive rewards. - **Knowledge gap:** whether VAP has stronger validation than adjacent values-sensitive design methods. - **Desired outcome:** a repeatable ethical-design audit that fits product and community work. - **Resistance risk:** process language can make structural power appear manageable through workshops alone. - **Bias toward the book:** the method fits an existing preference for explicit criteria, iterative testing, and audit trails. This could inflate grades for C-006 through C-010. - **Counterweight:** judge behavior-change claims separately from the method's usefulness for reflection. ### Open questions #### Definitions and mechanisms 1. When is a value actually embodied rather than merely represented? 2. How do mechanics, narrative, interface, and context combine without making interpretation unlimited? 3. Who has authority to define a project's target values? 4. What resolves conflicts between liberty, security, equality, pleasure, and commercial survival? 5. How does player appropriation alter designer intent? #### Evidence and credibility 6. Which cases independently test VAP rather than report its creators' practice? 7. Does the heuristic outperform normal iterative design with an ethics checklist? 8. Which verification methods measure artifact properties, understanding, behavior, or attitudes? 9. How durable are measured effects? 10. Are failed implementations published as clearly as successful ones? #### Context, power, and application 11. Can junior staff safely challenge executives or publishers? 12. Who pays for discovery and verification when deadlines tighten? 13. How do labor conditions shape the values embedded in a game? 14. Can VAP govern monetization, moderation, data collection, and live updates? 15. What changes when communities co-design rather than merely playtest? #### DEIB and accessibility 16. Which racial, gender, class, national, and disability experiences shape the examples? 17. Does the fifteen-element framework treat accessibility as a value, a requirement, or both? 18. Are disabled players present as agents in discovery and verification? 19. Does diverse staffing alter decision rights or only add consultation? 20. Can a method grounded in liberal egalitarianism transfer where public values are framed differently? 21. How should teams handle conflicting values across cultures without treating one group as the default? ### Priors seed table | Claim placeholder | Initial belief | Prior confidence | Reason | Evidence needed | | --- | --- | ---: | --- | --- | | P-01 Artifacts embody values | Agree | 85% | Design choices constrain action | Counterexamples and conceptual argument | | P-02 Games differ ethically from linear media | Lean agree | 70% | Rules and agency matter | Comparative player studies | | P-03 VAP improves ethical attention | Uncertain-positive | 60% | Structured review often catches omissions | Controlled comparisons | | P-04 VAP improves final games | Uncertain | 50% | Attention may not survive production power | Product and player outcomes | | P-05 Diverse teams catch more failures | Lean agree | 75% | Different experience can expose defaults | Team-composition studies | | P-06 Games change offline attitudes | Uncertain | 45% | Effects depend on context and duration | Replicated longitudinal studies | | P-07 Iteration improves value alignment | Lean agree | 70% | Feedback exposes mismatches | Failed and successful cases | | P-08 Individual designers can reform studios | Skeptical | 35% | Authority and capital constrain dissent | Organizational evidence | | P-09 Values can be verified | Lean agree, scoped | 65% | Some claims are testable; others need interpretation | Construct-specific methods | | P-10 The framework transfers beyond games | Uncertain-positive | 60% | Elements resemble product-design decisions | Cross-domain trials | ### Drift assumptions The book's claims are fixed. Evaluative context has changed: game distribution, platform governance, free-to-play monetization, streaming, harassment, accessibility practice, unionization, generative AI, telemetry, and live-service design now shape values in ways a 2014 account only partly anticipates. Reassess current applicability yearly; don't reread the fixed historical claims as if they changed. ## Prompt 2 — Inspectional reading ### Book map and coverage | Section | Purpose | Relation to project | Evidence | Confidence | | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---: | | Introduction | Define values-conscious design | Frames audience and practical aim | Mass Effect controversy; project history | High | | Ch. 1 | Establish why values in games matter | Conceptual foundation | Philosophy of technology, game studies | High | | Ch. 2 | Show where values emerge | Links production and reception | Nondigital and digital examples | High | | Ch. 3 | Give a design vocabulary | Makes inspection operational | Fifteen game elements | High | | Ch. 4 | Define VAP cycle | Supplies argument spine | Iterative-design analogy | High | | Ch. 5 | Explain discovery | Identifies values, stakeholders, conflict | Cases and prompts | High | | Ch. 6 | Explain implementation | Turns abstractions into artifacts | Cases, specifications, team corrections | High | | Ch. 7 | Explain verification | Separates testable meanings of success | Design testing and social-science methods | High | | Ch. 8 | Support teaching and ideation | Shows curriculum and tools | Grow-a-Game and classroom use | High | | Ch. 9 | Admit institutional limits | Tests agency under industry power | Jan's studio account | High | Every listed section was read. Notes and references were checked for sourcing and qualifications. ### Central project The problem is that games express ethical and political values through many ordinary design decisions, while designers often lack a systematic way to notice or shape them. The authors propose an iterative heuristic: discover relevant values, implement them through a game's semantic architecture, and verify whether the artifact and player experience express the intended values. They synthesize philosophy of technology, game studies, design practice, pedagogy, and cases. The audience is designers, educators, students, and researchers. The rhetorical modes are **explain**, **advocate**, **teach**, **synthesize**, and **reinterpret**; the book explains a method while advocating for the conscientious designer. ### Provisional summary *Values at Play in Digital Games* argues that games inevitably carry human values through rules, available actions, characters, rewards, interfaces, software, hardware, and contexts of play. Designers can treat those values as design material rather than accidental residue. The proposed VAP heuristic cycles through discovery, implementation, and verification. Discovery identifies relevant values and stakeholders; implementation translates commitments into playable structures; verification tests the artifact, player understanding, behavior, or attitudes. Cases show the method catching stereotypes and generating design ideas, while the closing studio story shows that ethical awareness alone does not overcome hierarchy, marketing control, sunk costs, or production deadlines. The book is strongest as a practical vocabulary and reflective workflow. Its broader causal claims about games shaping players and society receive more limited evidence. [VAP-INT; VAP-03–VAP-09] ### Reading hotspots and strategy - **Chapters 1 and 2:** conceptual basis and limits on interpretation. - **Chapter 3:** reusable audit surface. - **Chapters 4–7:** full method, dependencies, and verification distinctions. - **Chapter 9:** strongest account of power and failure. - **Strategy:** full analytical read, completed. Revisit chapters 7 and 9 before applying VAP to a real project. A large independent evaluation showing no gain over ordinary practice would change the recommendation to selective use. ## Prompt 3 — Classification and terminology engine ### Classification - **Domain:** game studies and technology ethics. - **Subdomain:** values-sensitive game design. - **Genre:** scholarly-practical design guide. - **Argument:** conceptual, interpretive, methodological, and prescriptive. - **Method:** synthesis plus cases, design practice, and educational interventions. - **Intended use:** analyze existing games and guide production. - **Comparison traditions:** value sensitive design, reflective design, participatory design, responsible innovation, critical technical practice, game-design patterns. ### Controlled vocabulary | Term | Author's meaning | Competing meaning | Operational definition | Risk | Example / counterexample | Evidence | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Value | A property or commitment people consider important | Personal preference or market metric | A named normative concern that can guide and assess choices | High: moral, political, aesthetic, and instrumental senses can merge | Privacy / frame rate alone | VAP-01 | | Values at Play | Framework for analyzing and designing values in games | General claim that games have themes | Iterative discovery, implementation, and verification | Medium | VAP cycle / content label without design work | VAP-INT, VAP-04 | | Conscientious designer | Designer who takes values seriously | Designer claimed to be morally good | A practitioner who surfaces and tests normative effects | Medium: identity can replace accountability | Revising a stereotype / asserting good intent | VAP-INT, VAP-06 | | Embodied value | Value carried by artifact structure | Value named in dialogue | A value supported or constrained by mechanics and elements | High | Cooperation required by rules / poster saying “cooperate” | | Expressed value | Meaning reasonably communicated by a game | Any player interpretation | A value supported by artifact and context evidence | Medium | Reward system favors accumulation / idiosyncratic reading | | Player perception | Player's situated interpretation | Designer intent | Reported or observed meaning during play | Medium | Football as teamwork and violence / claim with no player evidence | VAP-02 | | Semantic architecture | Elements through which games generate meaning | Story alone | Combined rules, interface, characters, rewards, engine, context, and other elements | Low | Fifteen-element audit / plot synopsis | VAP-03 | | Discovery | Locating and defining project-relevant values | Brainstorming preferred themes | Stakeholder-aware identification of values and conflicts | Medium | Define privacy for a location game / select “good values” abstractly | VAP-04, VAP-05 | | Implementation | Translating values into playable form | Adding moral messaging | Encoding commitments in specifications, mechanics, art, text, and code | Low | Agency built into choices / diversity statement outside game | VAP-04, VAP-06 | | Verification | Assessing whether integration succeeded | Bug testing alone | Test defined artifact, experience, behavioral, or attitudinal outcomes | High | Player study matched to claim / satisfaction survey used for behavior | VAP-07 | | Stakeholder | Party affecting or affected by a design | Paying customer only | Actor with interests, risks, power, or knowledge relevant to the game | High | Players, workers, communities / investor-only list | VAP-02, VAP-05 | | Iteration | Repeated design-feedback-revision cycle | Repetition without learning | A loop with explicit findings and changed artifacts | Low | Prototype revision / unchanged rerun | VAP-04 | | Agency | Capacity for meaningful action within constraints | Any available input | Choices that alter relevant state or interpretation | High | Multiple consequential paths / cosmetic selection | VAP-01, VAP-03 | | Context of play | Social and material conditions around play | Game content alone | Setting, audience, norms, platform, and relations shaping experience | Low | Classroom play / decontextualized mechanic | VAP-02, VAP-03 | | Values conflict | Incompatibility or tradeoff among commitments | Mere disagreement | A choice where advancing one value constrains another | Medium | Privacy versus safety / compatible preferences | VAP-05 | | Structural inclusion | Inclusion supported by rules and decision rights | Diverse imagery | Participation and protection that persist beyond goodwill | High; mostly an analytic extension | Community veto or paid co-design / representational token | RI; informed by VAP-05, VAP-09 | ### Contested language and category-error watchlist - **“In” a game:** present; can mean artifact structure, player understanding, behavior, or attitude. Chapter 7 usefully separates these. - **Values:** present; the authors disclose a liberal-egalitarian orientation, but selection and conflict resolution remain contestable. - **Conscientious:** present; can imply personal virtue when procedural accountability matters more. - **Impact:** present; sometimes ranges from interpretation to social change. - **Correlation versus causation:** present risk in player-effect claims. - **Individual versus institution:** present, especially in chapter 9. - **Description versus prescription:** present but often explicitly signaled. - **Intention versus effect:** central and handled directly. - **Anecdote versus population evidence:** present in cases. - **Absence of evidence versus evidence of absence:** present risk where omitted player groups or failed cases are not discussed. - **Legal versus moral claims:** mostly not applicable. - **Theological versus historical claims:** not applicable. ## Prompt 4 — Claims inventory, dependencies, and evidence expectations ### Claims inventory | ID | Source | Claim | Type | Testability | Expected evidence | Falsifier | Evidence / section | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | C-001 | EA | All games express or embody human values. | Definitional/interpretive | Medium | Formal analysis across varied games | A coherent value-neutral account of all material choices | VAP-01 | | C-002 | EA | Games differ from linear media through rule systems, agency, and feedback. | Descriptive | High | Media comparison and player studies | No meaningful experiential difference after controls | VAP-01 | | C-003 | EA | Values emerge from both production and player perception. | Interpretive | Medium | Production records and audience research | Stable meaning fully explained by one side | VAP-02 | | C-004 | EA | Design constrains the range of plausible interpretations. | Interpretive | Medium | Comparative mechanic studies | Interpretations prove unrelated to design variation | VAP-02 | | C-005 | EA | Fifteen game elements offer a practical map of semantic architecture. | Methodological | Medium | Coverage and usability studies | Frequent value-bearing choices fall outside it without extension | VAP-03 | | C-006 | EA | Values-conscious design needs discovery, implementation, and verification. | Methodological | Medium | Process comparison | Projects succeed reliably while omitting a component | VAP-04 | | C-007 | EA | The three components work iteratively rather than linearly. | Practical | High | Project histories | Linear use performs as well under changing conditions | VAP-04 | | C-008 | EA | Discovery must define values in project context and identify stakeholders. | Prescriptive | Medium | Case comparisons | Abstract values and narrow stakeholder sets yield equal outcomes | VAP-05 | | C-009 | EA | Implementation translates values into concrete game elements. | Definitional/practical | High | Traceability from commitment to artifact | Claimed values succeed without artifact expression | VAP-06 | | C-010 | EA | Diverse perspectives can expose stereotypes missed by a design team. | Causal | Medium | Team and review comparisons | Diverse review shows no detection advantage across studies | VAP-06 | | C-011 | EA | Verification must specify what kind of success is being tested. | Methodological | High | Construct validity analysis | One measure validly captures artifact, understanding, behavior, and attitude | VAP-07 | | C-012 | EA | Artifact, player understanding, behavior, and attitude require different evidence. | Methodological | High | Measurement research | Constructs collapse empirically without loss | VAP-07 | | C-013 | EA | VAP materials can inspire students and practitioners to create values-conscious designs. | Causal | Medium | Pre/post and comparative design studies | No change in attention or outputs | VAP-08 | | C-014 | EA | Individual designers can act as agents of ethical change. | Evaluative/causal | Medium | Organizational cases | Dissent never changes decisions or requires institutional authority | VAP-09 | | C-015 | EA | Individual agency is limited by hierarchy and production constraints. | Descriptive | High | Organizational evidence | Junior ethical objections consistently control outcomes | VAP-09 | | C-016 | EA | Games may affect understanding, behavior, empathy, or attitudes. | Causal | High | Replicated longitudinal studies | Null or contrary effects across suitable studies | VAP-01, VAP-07 | | C-017 | IA | Systematic reflection reduces accidental value failures. | Causal | High | Controlled project comparisons | Equal or worse failure rates after use | VAP-04–VAP-06 | | C-018 | RI | Decision rights and budgets determine whether VAP survives production pressure. | Causal | High | Governance and budget records | Reflection works regardless of authority and resources | Not the authors' sentence; inferred from VAP-05, VAP-09 | | C-019 | RI | Accessibility should be traced across every game element and verification sample. | Prescriptive | Medium | Accessibility audits and user studies | A separate late-stage check reliably catches all barriers | Not the authors' sentence; inferred extension of VAP-03, VAP-07 | | C-020 | UI | VAP produces better games, not only more reflective designers. | Evaluative | Medium | Independent quality and player evidence | Comparable projects show no gain | VAP-08; unresolved scope of “better” | ### Evidence pattern Conceptual and methodological claims receive philosophical argument, design lineage, worked examples, and cases. Causal claims about players or industry change need stronger independent and longitudinal evidence than the book supplies. Internal agreement across chapters is one authored source, not repeated confirmation. The best evidence expectation is traceability: named value → design element → test construct → result → revision. ### Dependency graph ```mermaid flowchart TD C1["C-001: games embody values"] --> C3["C-003: production and reception shape values"] C2["C-002: games have distinctive structures"] --> C5["C-005: semantic architecture map"] C3 --> C4["C-004: design constrains interpretation"] C4 --> C6["C-006: VAP cycle is needed"] C5 --> C9["C-009: implement through elements"] C6 --> C8["C-008: contextual discovery"] C6 --> C9 C6 --> C11["C-011: construct-specific verification"] C11 --> C12["C-012: distinct evidence for distinct outcomes"] C8 --> C17["C-017: fewer accidental failures"] C9 --> C17 C12 --> C17 C15["C-015: institutional constraints"] -.limits.-> C14["C-014: designer agency"] C18["C-018 RI: authority and budget"] -.limits.-> C17 ``` The load-bearing bridge is C-004: design must meaningfully constrain interpretation without wholly determining it. C-006 then turns the conceptual point into a workflow. C-016 can fail without destroying VAP as a reflective design method. C-020 remains unresolved. ## Prompt 5 — Quantitative rigor setup The source is mainly conceptual and case-based, so quantitative treatment is scoped down. Probabilities below encode judgment, not measured frequencies. ### Policy and bands Use priors only for empirical claims. Update once per genuinely independent source. Treat the authors' cases, explanations, and restatements as dependent. Use the canonical bands: very low 0–20%, low 21–40%, uncertain 41–60%, moderate 61–75%, high 76–90%, very high 91–100%. | Claim | Prior | Evidence considered | Impact | Posterior | Band | Main input | | --- | ---: | --- | --- | ---: | --- | --- | | C-002 | 70% | Formal difference plus cited game-studies lineage | Moderate increase | 78% | High | Rule-based agency distinction | | C-010 | 75% | Sally case; internally reported | Small increase | 78% | High | Concrete correction, but one dependent case | | C-013 | 55% | Curriculum and workshop reports | Small increase | 62% | Moderate | Direct practice with limited independence | | C-014 | 45% | Jan changed rape scenario | No net change | 45% | Uncertain | One win paired with a structural loss | | C-015 | 65% | Jan case and stakeholder discussion | Moderate increase | 75% | Moderate | Sunk cost, marketing, and hierarchy | | C-016 | 45% | Methods discussion and cited studies | Small increase | 50% | Uncertain | Effect heterogeneity and limited durability evidence | | C-017 | 60% | Multiple cases from same project network | Small increase | 66% | Moderate | Mechanism is plausible; independence is weak | | C-020 | 50% | Educational and design cases | No meaningful update | 52% | Uncertain | “Better” lacks one stable outcome | Claims C-001, C-003–C-009, C-011–C-012, and C-019 are mainly conceptual, definitional, or prescriptive and receive **N/A — not empirically adjudicable** rather than invented numbers. ### Calibration warnings | Risk | Applicability | Severity | | --- | --- | --- | | False precision | Present in this table if read literally | High | | Double-counted passages | Present risk | High | | Correlated sources | Present; authors report many cases | High | | Publication bias | Plausible; successful teaching cases dominate | Medium | | Survivorship bias | Plausible | Medium | | Small samples | Present in cases | High | | Selection effects | Present in students and willing collaborators | High | | Unavailable denominators | Present | High | | Proxy measures | Present when ideation stands for ethical outcome | High | | P-values as effect sizes | Not materially assessable from extracted argument | N/A | Qualitative fallback: independent replication strongly increases confidence; traceable but author-reported cases moderately increase it; theoretical fit alone makes no meaningful update; construct mismatch moderately decreases it; contrary player or organizational evidence strongly decreases it. ## Prompt 6 — Analytical reading scaffold ### Chapter analysis slots | Section | Thesis and role | Evidence | Counterexamples / unanswered questions | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Intro | Values deserve constructive, game-specific design attention | Mass Effect dispute; project origin | Limited counterexample to moral panic; who defines constructive? | | Ch. 1 | Games embody and may activate values | Scholarship and examples | Transfer to offline behavior remains uncertain | | Ch. 2 | Values arise in artifact, production, player, and context | Football rule modification; game readings | No complete account of interpretive boundary-setting | | Ch. 3 | Fifteen elements locate value-bearing design choices | Comparative frameworks and examples | List isn't exhaustive; labor and distribution are diffuse | | Ch. 4 | VAP is iterative discovery–implementation–verification | Software iteration analogy | No head-to-head method comparison | | Ch. 5 | Discovery defines values and stakeholders | HPV and design cases | Power to settle conflicts remains underspecified | | Ch. 6 | Values become real through concrete elements | Production cases, including stereotype correction | Cases favor repairable failures; no counterexample where revision worsens design | | Ch. 7 | Verification must match the claim | Software and social-science methods | Long-term and cross-cultural validation are limited | | Ch. 8 | Tools can teach reflective practice | Curriculum and Grow-a-Game | Selection and novelty effects remain | | Ch. 9 | Designers can intervene but face structural limits | Jan's studio story | What governance would protect dissent? | ### Argument spine 1. Games are technological and cultural artifacts shaped by choices. 2. Their rules, elements, and play contexts express values. 3. Designers and players jointly affect meaning, but artifacts constrain plausible readings. 4. Ethical intent can be translated into design practice. 5. Discovery identifies values and stakeholders. 6. Implementation maps values into elements. 7. Verification tests whether the intended outcome occurred. 8. Iteration repairs mismatches. 9. Conscientious designers can improve practice, within institutional limits. **Weakest link:** the move from a reflective process to claims of better games or social effects. Repair requires independent comparisons, predeclared outcome constructs, diverse player samples, long-term follow-up, and publication of failures. ### Evidence ledger | ID | Claims | Type | Independence | Quality | Limits | Source | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | EV-01 | C-001–C-004 | Philosophy and game-studies synthesis | Partly independent citations | B | Interpretive disagreements remain | VAP-01–02, VAP-N | | EV-02 | C-005 | Analytic framework | Author-created | B | Completeness not established | VAP-03 | | EV-03 | C-006–C-009 | Method and cases | Mostly author network | B/C | No comparative control | VAP-04–06 | | EV-04 | C-010 | Sally stereotype repair | Author-reported practitioner account | C | One case; outcome self-assessed | VAP-06 | | EV-05 | C-011–C-012 | Measurement distinctions | Scholarly synthesis | B | Application quality varies | VAP-07, VAP-N | | EV-06 | C-013 | Curriculum and Grow-a-Game | Project-generated | C | Selection, novelty, limited follow-up | VAP-08 | | EV-07 | C-014–C-015 | Jan studio narrative | One anonymized account | C | No independent record | VAP-09 | The book cites many independent scholars, but its direct evidence for VAP's outcomes is largely generated by the authors' own project, collaborators, students, and cases. Chapter 9 contains evidence against a strong efficacy reading: awareness did not prevent the lynching scene or overcome marketing authority. ### Reading plan and completion criteria For application, read chapters 3–7 in order, then chapter 9 before making promises about outcomes. Verify current accessibility practice and platform governance externally. Prompt 7 entry conditions are met: full coverage, stable claims, vocabulary, evidence ledger, priors, and named weak link. ## Prompt 7 — X-ray analysis and fair criticism ### Strongest reconstruction Games are systems in which rules, interfaces, representations, rewards, and player contexts shape a bounded range of meanings and actions. Since values already enter those choices, designers should make them explicit. A cyclical method lets teams define relevant values with stakeholders, trace them into game elements, and test specific outcomes. This doesn't guarantee virtue or social change; it improves the chance that teams notice and repair mismatches between intention and artifact. The strongest version is a claim about disciplined attention and traceability, not about deterministic player effects. ### Claim evaluation | Claim | Support | Grade | Strongest objection / counterexample | Conclusion | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | C-001 | Broad conceptual argument | B | “All” risks vacuity if value means any choice | Accept with operational definition | | C-002 | Formal media properties | B | Agency varies widely across games and other media | Accept as family resemblance | | C-003 | Production and reception accounts | B | Relative weights remain unclear | Accept | | C-004 | Rule-change examples | B | Communities can appropriate games unexpectedly | Accept as constraint, not determination | | C-005 | Fifteen-element framework | B | Labor, distribution, moderation, and business model need stronger placement | Use as extensible checklist | | C-006 | Coherent method | B | Components resemble existing reflective practice | Accept as a useful synthesis, not uniquely proven | | C-007 | Iterative design logic | B | Iteration can repeat bias if feedback sources stay narrow | Accept with governance condition | | C-008 | Stakeholder discovery | B | Stakeholder mapping can preserve existing power | Add decision-rights analysis | | C-009 | Concrete traceability | A/B | Messaging can substitute for mechanic change | Accept; demand artifact evidence | | C-010 | Sally case | C | Diversity doesn't guarantee authority or correction | Plausible; broaden evidence | | C-011 | Construct-specific verification | A | None that defeats the distinction | Strongly accept | | C-012 | Distinct evidence needs | A | Measures can overlap, but don't collapse | Strongly accept | | C-013 | Curriculum reports | C | Novelty and instructor effects | Provisionally accept | | C-014 | Jan changed one proposal | C | He couldn't prevent another harm | Accept as limited agency | | C-015 | Same case shows constraint | B/C | One studio account | Accept with moderate confidence | | C-016 | Literature and methods | C | Effects vary, decay, and may not transfer | Uncertain | | C-017 | Cases and mechanism | C | No controlled comparison | Plausible, unconfirmed | | C-018 | Inference from power cases | C | Budget may matter differently across studios | Use as audit hypothesis, not author claim | | C-019 | Framework extension | B as prescription | Book doesn't center disability | Adopt as responsible extension | | C-020 | Ambiguous outcome | C | “Better” mixes ethics, fun, novelty, and market success | Unresolved until outcome is defined | Grade distribution: A/A-B 2, B/B-C 11, C 7, D/F 0. The book grades best when distinguishing constructs and providing a design vocabulary. It grades less strongly when moving from reflective process to causal effects or broad quality claims. ### Bias and rhetoric scan - **Selection and publication bias:** likely in successful project and classroom cases; materially limits efficacy claims. - **Authority bias:** possible because the method's creators assess their own program; moderate effect. - **Anecdotal reasoning:** present when cases stand in for prevalence; moderate effect. - **Equivocation:** “values in games” shifts among artifact, interpretation, behavior, and attitude, but chapter 7 explicitly corrects much of this risk. - **Genuine fallacy versus weakness:** the cases aren't invalid because they are cases. The weakness arises only when their scope expands beyond what they demonstrate. - **Counter-observations in the authors' favor:** they disclose liberal-egalitarian commitments, reject simple technological determinism, recognize player context, distinguish several verification targets, and close with a failed/partial intervention rather than a victory story. ### Repairs - Repair C-001 by reading “all games embody values” as “all games include choices reasonably open to normative analysis.” Cost: less rhetorical force, more analytic clarity. - Repair C-013 by narrowing it to “VAP materials can prompt explicit values discussion and ideation in some educational settings.” Faithful; cost: no broad efficacy claim. - Repair C-014 by adding “when designers have allies, timing, and decision access.” Faithful to chapter 9; cost: the heroic individual gives way to governance. - Repair C-016 by separating immediate understanding, short-term attitude, observed play behavior, and durable offline behavior. Faithful to chapter 7; cost: no single claim that games change people. - C-020 isn't repairable until “better” names a target and stakeholder. Replace it with several measurable outcomes. ## Prompt 8 — Systems, context, and historiography The book appeared in 2014 amid growing academic attention to games as cultural systems and longer debates over whether technologies carry politics. Its lineage joins Mumford and Winner's political artifacts, science and technology studies, affordance theory, value sensitive design, reflective practice, human-computer interaction, and game-design frameworks such as MDA. VAP's distinctive move is to bind normative inquiry to game elements and an iterative production cycle. Institutionally, games are produced through investors, publishers, executives, marketers, designers, programmers, platform owners, players, regulators, and cultural critics. Their incentives differ. Revenue, deadlines, ratings, technical performance, artistic aims, safety, representation, privacy, and labor conditions can conflict. Chapter 9 shows how production hierarchy and sunk motion-capture costs can overrule an ethical objection. Current interpretation adds live-service operations, global platform policy, loot boxes and other monetization, surveillance-scale telemetry, creator economies, generative assets, content moderation, accessibility standards, organized labor, and persistent online communities. These are later developments, not context available in full to the authors. ```mermaid flowchart LR PT["Philosophy of technology"] --> VSD["Value sensitive design"] STS["Science and technology studies"] --> VSD GS["Game studies: rules, agency, play"] --> VAP["Values at Play"] DP["Design patterns and iterative practice"] --> VAP VSD --> VAP VAP --> D["Discovery"] VAP --> I["Implementation"] VAP --> V["Verification"] VAP -.convergent, not documented influence.-> RI["Current responsible innovation and AI ethics workflows"] ``` Missing perspectives include many production workers below designer status, disabled players, global South studios, modders, moderators, community organizers, contract workers, people harmed by monetization, and communities claiming authority over cultural representation. ## Prompt 9 — DEIB, multicultural, accessibility, and reading-level audit ### Inclusion strengths The authors name gender and racial stereotypes, interrogate representation and agency, discuss stakeholder viewpoints, disclose their liberal-egalitarian commitments, and show a woman designer accepting correction from other women rather than treating identity as immunity from bias. Chapter 9 makes racialized violence and gendered harm central to a production conflict. The framework can place value questions in rules, interfaces, characters, hardware, context, and rewards rather than confining inclusion to imagery. These are real strengths, but most are reflective rather than structural. The method doesn't guarantee minority decision rights, protected dissent, paid participation, accessible testing, or remediation when leadership refuses a finding. ### Omission risks - Disability and neurodiversity don't receive sustained treatment. - Accessibility isn't a named cross-cutting requirement across the fifteen elements. - Studio labor, class, precarity, crunch, outsourcing, and union power receive too little attention. - The liberal-egalitarian baseline is disclosed, yet transfer across political and cultural traditions needs more work. - Players often appear as testers or interpreters rather than co-owners of decisions. - Commercial cases don't establish whether marginalized reviewers can stop a harmful release. - English-language academic reference density limits access. ### Multicultural transferability | Element | Transfer potential | Risk | Adaptation | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Discovery | High | Dominant group defines “shared” values | Local facilitators, paid community participation, conflict record | | Stakeholder map | High | Consultation without power | Record decision rights, vetoes, and compensation | | Semantic architecture | High | Categories reflect Western design discourse | Let communities add elements and meanings | | Implementation | Medium-high | Cultural symbols detached from context | Cultural review throughout production | | Verification | Medium | Imported measures misread players | Validate instruments locally; use qualitative work | | Conscientious designer | Medium | Individualist framing | Shift unit to accountable team and institution | ### Accessibility audit - **Vision:** interface, aesthetics, point of view, maps, and hardware can carry barriers; test contrast, scale, screen-reader paths, nonvisual cues, and remapping. - **Hearing:** narrative, feedback, and multiplayer communication require captions, visual alerts, speaker labels, and adjustable presentation. - **Motor:** actions, timing, hardware, and mechanics require remapping, alternatives to rapid input, hold/toggle options, and device compatibility. - **Cognitive and neurodivergent access:** rules, interface, tutorials, sensory intensity, navigation, and failure penalties require adjustable pacing and clear feedback. - **Economic access:** hardware, bandwidth, recurring payments, and platform lock-in are value-bearing. - **Process:** disabled players should enter discovery, implementation review, and verification, with compensation and decision access. These are analytic extensions. **Do not attribute them to Flanagan and Nissenbaum.** ### Reading level Syntactic difficulty is moderate: sentences are generally direct and examples carry the argument. Reference density is high: philosophy of technology, game studies, design methods, named games, and research traditions appear quickly. Estimate: advanced undergraduate, with graduate-level benefit in chapters 1 and 7. A glossary, diagrams, worked traceability example, and current accessibility supplement would improve access. ### Supplementary perspectives to seek Seek disability-led game accessibility work; critical race and feminist game studies; labor and union accounts; global game-production research; Indigenous data and cultural governance; queer game design; player-community moderation research; and critiques of extractive monetization. ## Prompt 10 — Notes pipeline ### Fleeting notes - Does “conscientious designer” accidentally turn ethics into personal character rather than institutional duty? - Add labor, business model, distribution, moderation, and governance to the fifteen-element audit. - Compare VAP verification with accessibility conformance and participatory evaluation. - Test whether values traceability belongs beside requirements traceability. - Find independent studies of VAP after 2014. ### Literature notes - **[[Values enter games through ordinary design choices]]:** rules, characters, actions, rewards, interfaces, engines, hardware, and contexts all shape possible meanings. [VAP-01–03] - **[[Discovery implementation verification is an iterative ethics cycle]]:** VAP treats ethical design as repeated inquiry, translation, testing, and revision. [VAP-04] - **[[Verification must match the kind of values claim]]:** artifact expression, understanding, behavior, and attitude are different constructs. [VAP-07] - **[[Diverse review can reveal defaults without guaranteeing power]]:** Sally's case demonstrates detection and repair; Jan's demonstrates institutional constraint. [VAP-06, VAP-09] - **[[Ethical awareness can lose to sunk costs and hierarchy]]:** completed motion capture and marketing influence restricted change. [VAP-09] ### Proposed permanent notes #### [[Ethical design needs traceability from value to test]] A value becomes operational when a team can trace it through a design element to a suitable verification method and revision decision. - **Confidence:** high as a process principle. - **Scope and conditions:** applies when the value and affected stakeholders can be named; doesn't prove that the chosen value is just. - **Supports:** [[Discovery implementation verification is an iterative ethics cycle]], [[Verification must match the kind of values claim]]. - **Attribution:** synthesis based on VAP; not the authors' sentence. #### [[Iteration repeats bias when feedback remains socially narrow]] Repeated testing can't correct what the selected testers, measures, and decision-makers never perceive or permit. - **Confidence:** moderate-high. - **Scope and conditions:** strongest in teams with homogeneous authority or constrained research; iteration can still fix technical issues. - **Supports:** VAP-04, VAP-06, VAP-09. - **Attribution:** system inference; do not attribute to the authors. #### [[Values conflicts are governance questions]] When values conflict, a brainstorm isn't enough. Teams need a rule for who decides, whose harms count, and how dissent can stop or revise a release. - **Confidence:** high as a normative design principle. - **Scope and conditions:** does not specify one universal governance model. - **Supports:** VAP-05, VAP-09. - **Attribution:** system inference. #### [[Accessibility belongs in every layer of semantic architecture]] Accessibility affects actions, interface, hardware, aesthetics, rules, feedback, context, and who can participate in verification. - **Confidence:** high. - **Scope and conditions:** exact requirements depend on game, platform, and user needs. - **Supports:** extension of VAP-03 and VAP-07. - **Attribution:** system extension, not an author claim. ### Structure notes and links - Suggested MOC: [[Ethical Technology Design MOC]] ↔ this note, [[Value Sensitive Design]], [[Accessibility]], [[Participatory Design]]. - Suggested project map: [[Responsible Product Review]] ↔ [[Ethical design needs traceability from value to test]]. - Suggested teaching map: [[Game Design Ethics Teaching Pack]] ↔ Prompt 11 below. No separate files were created because the batch contract requires one consolidated note. Create them later only if reciprocal links will be maintained. ### Attribution audit Direct quotations are avoided except for short phrases visible in the source. Author claims use EA labels and VAP section IDs. C-018, C-019, structural-inclusion criteria, current platform comparisons, and every proposed permanent note are system inferences or extensions. They must not be quoted or paraphrased as Flanagan and Nissenbaum's claims. ## Prompt 11 — Teaching pack ### Audience and objectives Audience: advanced undergraduate or graduate game-design, HCI, technology-ethics, product, or community-governance learners. Learners should be able to identify value-bearing elements, distinguish intent from effect, run discovery–implementation–verification, select evidence matched to a claim, and analyze institutional power. Prerequisites: basic design lifecycle, game mechanics, research ethics, and the difference between qualitative and quantitative evidence. ### Lesson sequence 1. **Artifact reading:** audit a familiar game through five of the fifteen elements. 2. **Interpretive boundaries:** compare plausible and implausible value readings. 3. **Discovery:** define one contested value and map stakeholders plus decision rights. 4. **Implementation:** change a mechanic, interface, reward, or rule to express the value. 5. **Verification:** state whether the claim concerns artifact, understanding, behavior, or attitude; choose a matching method. 6. **Power case:** analyze Jan's partial success and identify governance repairs. 7. **Accessibility pass:** test each design element for participation barriers. ### Vocabulary Values at Play, conscientious designer, semantic architecture, discovery, implementation, verification, player perception, stakeholder, agency, context of play, construct validity, decision rights. ### Discussion and misconception checks - Does every design choice express a value, or does that make “value” empty? - Who may define a target value for a community? - Can a game embody equality while its production exploits workers? - What evidence would show understanding but not behavior change? - **Misconception:** representation alone proves inclusion. Check rules, agency, voice, and governance. - **Misconception:** designer intent determines meaning. Check player and context evidence. - **Misconception:** playtesting verifies all claims. Ask what construct the test measures. - **Misconception:** iteration necessarily improves ethics. Inspect who gives feedback and who decides. ### Activities and assessment - Trace one value through discovery, two design elements, a test, and a revision. - Red-team a stakeholder map for omitted labor, disability, and cultural authority. - Compare two versions of a mechanic and predict value interpretations, then test with participants. - Assessment: annotated element audit (25%), traceability map (30%), verification design (25%), power and accessibility reflection (20%). ### Facilitator cautions and adaptations The “technology shapes us” analogy can become deterministic; keep player context and appropriation visible. Disclose that the book's outcome cases have limited independence. Rape and lynching in chapter 9 may be personally sensitive; summarize with advance notice and permit an alternate case. Don't attribute current accessibility or governance extensions to the authors. Provide text descriptions of diagrams, keyboard-accessible materials, captioned media, low-sensory participation options, asynchronous discussion, explicit vocabulary, and multiple assessment formats. For multicultural use, invite locally grounded definitions, compensate community expertise, and don't force consensus where values conflict. ### Further reading questions Teach these as live questions: Does VAP outperform other reflective methods? How should communities receive decision rights? What evidence supports durable player effects? How should the method change for live services, accessibility, labor, and monetization? ## Prompt 12 — Action, PARA, experiments, and drift monitoring ### Action inventory **Take:** add a value-to-element-to-test traceability row to design reviews; name affected stakeholders and decision rights; separate artifact, understanding, behavior, and attitude claims; include accessibility in every cycle. **Consider:** use the fifteen elements as a pre-mortem; add business model, labor, distribution, moderation, data, and governance; invite paid external reviewers before sunk costs lock decisions. **Avoid:** treating a values workshop as proof of an ethical product; measuring satisfaction when the claim concerns behavior; asking marginalized participants for unpaid moral labor; calling good intent verification. > [!danger] Most likely misuse > A team could use VAP language as ethics theater: it documents discovery and testing while leaders keep all decision rights and ignore adverse findings. ### PARA routing | Route | Material | Reason | | --- | --- | --- | | Projects | None automatically | A real design audit needs a named active project | | Areas | Ethical product practice; accessibility | Ongoing responsibilities | | Resources | This review, vocabulary, teaching pack | Reusable reference | | Archives | Source identity correction and completed session | Provenance and finished analysis | ### Experiments | Experiment | Claim | Hypothesis | Action | Measure | Duration | Stop condition | Review | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Values traceability pilot | C-017 | Explicit traceability catches missed effects | Apply to one small feature with team disclosure | Number and severity of findings; revisions accepted | One design cycle | No owner or findings can't change decisions | 2026-09-11 | | Diverse review timing | C-010 | Earlier review reduces sunk-cost resistance | Invite compensated reviewers before prototype lock | Findings raised and cost of repair | Two milestones | Participants lack safety or authority | 2026-10-11 | | Construct-matched test | C-011 | Naming the outcome improves test validity | Rewrite one vague “impact” claim into separate constructs | Reviewer agreement on measure fit | One week | Claim can't be operationalized | 2026-08-25 | | Accessibility element audit | C-019 | Cross-element review finds barriers missed late | Audit actions, interface, feedback, hardware, context | Actionable barriers by element | One prototype | No disabled participant input available | 2026-09-30 | These are ordinary disclosed design activities, not covert studies. ### Decision rules and drift - **Adopt** when the method finds a traceable issue and the project changes. - **Adapt** when findings are useful but vocabulary or stakeholder process doesn't fit. - **Test further** when outcomes depend on player behavior or long-term attitudes. - **Reject** a transferred claim when repeated diverse trials show no detection or decision benefit; revise [[Ethical design needs traceability from value to test]]. - **Defer** when participants lack safety, compensation, access, or power. Monitor current accessibility guidance, platform policies, monetization rules, privacy law, AI-assisted development, labor organization, and research on player effects every 6–12 months. The book's text, historical publication context, fifteen-element list, and its reported cases do not drift; only their present adequacy does. ## Prompt 13 — Visual thinking pack ### Visual 1: VAP cycle with power gate - **Purpose:** show iteration and the institutional condition missing from a purely procedural reading. - **Nodes:** discovery, implementation, verification, revision, decision rights/resources. - **Connections:** solid cycle among three components; dashed gate from power/resources to revision. - **Uncertainty:** C-018 is an RI node with dashed border. - **Sources:** C-006–C-012, C-018; VAP-04–VAP-09. ```mermaid flowchart LR D["Discovery: define values and stakeholders"] --> I["Implementation: map values into elements"] I --> V["Verification: test a named construct"] V --> R["Revision decision"] R --> D P["Decision rights, budget, schedule (RI)"] -.enables or blocks.-> R ``` ### Visual 2: Claim-to-evidence map - **Purpose:** prevent one test from standing in for every outcome. - **Nodes:** artifact, understanding, behavior, attitude, social outcome; matched evidence. - **Layout:** five horizontal lanes; no arrows between lanes unless evidence supports transfer. - **Uncertainty:** behavior-to-social-outcome arrows dashed. - **Sources:** C-011, C-012, C-016; VAP-07. ```mermaid flowchart TB A["Artifact embodies value"] --> AT["Element audit and expert review"] U["Player understands value"] --> UT["Interview and comprehension task"] B["Play behavior changes"] --> BT["Observed behavior in context"] T["Attitude or empathy changes"] --> TT["Validated pre/post measure"] S["Durable social outcome"] --> ST["Longitudinal field evidence"] B -.transfer uncertain.-> S T -.transfer uncertain.-> S ``` ### Visual 3: Stakeholder and authority map - **Purpose:** distinguish influence, harm, expertise, and decision power. - **Nodes:** executives, investors/publishers, design team, other workers, players, affected communities, platform, regulators. - **Layout:** concentric rings around artifact; node size represents decision authority, border color represents risk exposure. - **Warning:** current examples imply rather than fully document many power relations. - **Sources:** C-003, C-008, C-014, C-015, C-018; VAP-02, VAP-05, VAP-09. ### Visual 4: Extended semantic architecture - **Purpose:** preserve the fifteen elements while exposing current gaps. - **Core nodes:** narrative/goals, characters, actions, choices, social rules, environment rules, point of view, hardware, interface, engine/software, context, rewards, strategies, maps, aesthetics. - **Outer ring, dashed as analytic extension:** labor, business model, data, distribution, moderation, accessibility, governance. - **Connections:** each outer node connects to affected core elements. - **Sources:** C-005, C-019; VAP-03. ### Omitted visuals - **Timeline:** omitted because chronology isn't the argument's main structure. - **Causal-loop diagram:** omitted because the book doesn't provide enough quantified causal relations; a loop could overstate certainty. - **Decision tree:** omitted because the method is iterative and contextual rather than a fixed branching procedure. - **Comparison matrix:** omitted until an adjacent method such as value sensitive design is analyzed with equal source coverage. - **Action map:** Prompt 12's experiment table already carries the small set of actions more clearly. ## Session completion check 1. **Prompts run:** 0–13. 2. **Usable outputs:** all fourteen prompt sections are present in this file. 3. **Adaptations:** local EPUB replaced Readwise; section IDs replaced highlight IDs; one consolidated note replaced separate Layer 1/session/permanent-note files; Prompt 5 used a scoped qualitative policy; Prompt 10 proposes rather than creates atomic notes. 4. **Missing material, ranked:** (1) correct *Work and Worship* source, which blocks that title entirely; (2) reader highlights for this book, which removes reader emphasis; (3) independent current evaluations of VAP, which limits efficacy judgments; (4) stable print-page anchors, which limits page citation. 5. **Assumptions:** reader purpose, prior knowledge, constraints, and DEIB intent are visibly marked inferred; C-018, C-019, current-context additions, and permanent notes are system inferences. 6. **Next prompt:** none; chain complete. 7. **YAML:** executed, skipped, remaining, status, and source identity match the file. 8. **Attribution:** EA, IA, RI, and UI labels remain distinct. 9. **Guard:** no system inference is presented as an author quotation. 10. **Corrections:** the filename/content mismatch is preserved at the top rather than silently normalized. ## Prompts used this session - **Canonical specification:** [[6. Templates/Books/Work the Book]] version 2. - **Executed:** Prompts 0–13. - **Skipped:** none. - **Remaining:** none. - **Session date:** 2026-08-11. - **Status:** complete with source-identity correction. ### Revision candidates - Add an explicit source-identity gate before title-based routing: internal OPF/PDF metadata and title-page text must agree with the filename. - Add a rule for mislabeled sources: process under verified identity, retain the filename warning, and keep the requested title blocked. - Add decision rights, labor, business model, distribution, moderation, data, and accessibility as candidate extensions to semantic-architecture audits.