Initial import from provided wardley zip

AGENTS.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+# Wardley Mapping Agent
+
+## Purpose
+
+This project trains an AI agent to support humans in creating, discussing, and reasoning about Wardley Maps. The knowledge base is derived from Simon Wardley's book "Wardley Maps" (https://learnwardleymapping.com/book/).
+
+## Knowledge Base
+
+19 chapter summaries in `ch*/SUMMARY.md` covering the full Wardley Mapping methodology:
+- **Ch 1-3**: Foundations (situational awareness, map structure, evolution axis, climatic patterns)
+- **Ch 4-6**: Doctrine, execution, getting started
+- **Ch 7-8**: Evolution research, worth-based development, flow
+- **Ch 9-11**: Anticipation, disruption cycles (Peace-War-Wonder), organizational myths
+- **Ch 12-14**: Phoenix scenario (practical exercise + analysis + strategy)
+- **Ch 15-16**: Scenario planning, strategic loops, inertia management
+- **Ch 17-19**: Timing, government transformation, strategic gameplay
+
+## Bootstrap
+
+Before assisting with any Wardley Mapping task, run:
+
+```bash
+./load-knowledge.sh
+```
+
+This reads all chapter summaries so you have the full methodology context.
+
+## Core Concepts Quick Reference
+
+- **Wardley Map**: value chain (y-axis: visibility) + evolution (x-axis: genesis -> commodity)
+- **Evolution stages**: Genesis -> Custom Built -> Product -> Commodity/Utility
+- **Climatic patterns**: universal forces (everything evolves, inertia, Red Queen, co-evolution)
+- **Doctrine**: universal principles (focus on user needs, transparency, appropriate methods, think small)
+- **Pioneer-Settler-Town Planner**: team structure matching evolution stages
+- **Peace-War-Wonder**: cyclical economic pattern driving disruption
+- **ILC (Innovate-Leverage-Commoditise)**: ecosystem strategy using APIs + metadata
+
+## How to Help Users
+
+1. **Creating maps**: guide through the 3-step process (user needs -> value chain -> add evolution)
+2. **Analyzing maps**: apply climatic patterns, identify inertia, spot evolution opportunities
+3. **Strategy**: use gameplay categories (accelerators, ecosystem plays, positioning)
+4. **Challenging assumptions**: maps make assumptions visible - help users question them
+5. **Anticipation**: apply Peace-War-Wonder, co-evolution, weak signals to predict change

ch01-on-being-lost/SUMMARY.md

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+# Chapter 1: On Being Lost
+
+## Core Problem
+
+Most business leaders lack situational awareness. Strategy is typically reduced to buzzwords ("innovation", "efficiency") without genuine understanding of the competitive landscape. Wardley realized as CEO that he had no real framework for strategic evaluation.
+
+## Sun Tzu's Five Factors
+
+From *The Art of War*, five interdependent factors govern strategy:
+
+1. **Purpose** - moral imperative, why others follow
+2. **Landscape** - environmental description, obstacles
+3. **Climate** - external forces, rules of competition
+4. **Doctrine** - universal principles, standard practices
+5. **Leadership** - context-specific strategic choices
+
+Most business strategy jumps from purpose directly to leadership, skipping landscape, climate, and doctrine entirely.
+
+## Two Types of "Why"
+
+- **Why of Purpose**: overarching goals (win the game, survive)
+- **Why of Movement**: tactical decisions (why this move over that)
+
+Business typically addresses only purpose, ignoring movement.
+
+## What Makes a Useful Map
+
+Effective maps require:
+- Visual representation
+- Context specificity
+- Position of components
+- An anchor for reference
+- Movement/dynamics capability
+
+Common business tools (SWOT, Porter's Forces, trend maps) lack several of these, particularly movement.
+
+## The Strategy Cycle
+
+Inspired by Boyd's OODA loop (Observe-Orient-Decide-Act):
+- Purpose evolves with landscape changes
+- Acting is essential for learning
+- Climate changes require constant strategy adjustment
+- No element is permanently "core" - everything is transitional
+
+## Key Examples
+
+- **Chess analogy**: without seeing the board, you can only copy "magic sequences" rather than understand context-specific strategy
+- **Battle of Ball's Bluff**: lack of situational awareness led Union generals to commit troops to disadvantageous terrain
+- **Thermopylae**: Themistocles chose terrain to negate Persian numerical superiority - maps enable choices that spreadsheets cannot
+
+## Key Takeaways
+
+1. Situational awareness through mapping is fundamental to strategy, not optional
+2. Context matters absolutely - copying successful companies without understanding their landscape explains most failures
+3. Strategy requires learning mechanisms; without maps you can't distinguish universal principles from situation-specific choices
+4. Communication breaks down without shared visual frameworks
+5. Outcome bias obscures strategy quality - success might reflect luck, making imitation dangerous
+6. The problem isn't execution but understanding

ch02-finding-a-path/SUMMARY.md

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+# Chapter 2: Finding a Path
+
+## Core Problem
+
+Businesses are living, constantly evolving systems. Strategy tools must capture both structure and change over time.
+
+## Four Stages of Evolution
+
+Components move across four maturity stages (x-axis):
+
+1. **Genesis** - unique, rare, uncertain, constantly changing (exploration)
+2. **Custom Built** - uncommon, artisan, bespoke, frequently changing (learning)
+3. **Product** - increasingly common, repeatable, manufactured (refining)
+4. **Commodity/Utility** - standardized, high-volume, undifferentiated, invisible (efficiency)
+
+Competition drives this evolution: desire for advantage creates novel solutions; desire to keep up spreads them until commonplace.
+
+## The Wardley Map Framework
+
+Core elements:
+1. **Visual** representation
+2. **Context-specific** to your business at that moment
+3. **Anchor**: user and their needs (y-axis = visibility/value)
+4. **Position**: components arranged by dependency and visibility
+5. **Movement**: components evolving left-to-right toward commoditization
+
+Additional elements: flow (communication/resources between components), types (activities, practices, data, knowledge), climatic patterns.
+
+## Three-Step Mapping Process
+
+**Step 1 - Define User Needs**: Identify scope and genuine user requirements (not wants). Distinguish between user needs and business needs.
+
+**Step 2 - Create Value Chain**: Use post-it notes with teams. Place visible user-facing items higher, supporting infrastructure lower. All maps are imperfect - don't aim for perfection.
+
+**Step 3 - Add Evolution**: Position each component by ubiquity, competitor usage, product availability, novelty. This step generates healthy debate.
+
+## Key Insight: Standardization Enables Complexity
+
+Once components commoditize, they become building blocks for more sophisticated systems. Maudslay's screw-cutting lathe (1800) enabled standardized, interchangeable parts, which enabled complex machinery and modern mass production.
+
+## Key Examples
+
+- **Thomas Thwaites' toaster**: building from scratch costs £1,000+ for 5 seconds of function, showing how products depend on standardized components
+- **Nokia**: paper mill (1865) -> rubber -> consumer electronics -> telecoms, showing "core" business transforms over time
+
+## Key Takeaways
+
+1. Maps must show both structure (value chain) and dynamics (evolution)
+2. Components naturally flow from novel to commonplace driven by competition
+3. Higher-positioned items have more user visibility; lower items are invisible infrastructure
+4. Common mistake: treating components by how you build them rather than actual market maturity
+5. Effective mapping requires cross-functional teams challenging assumptions
+6. A "good enough" map in 2-4 hours beats a perfect map that's never completed
+7. Mapping cannot be outsourced - strategic learning requires organizational practice

ch03-exploring-the-map/SUMMARY.md

@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+# Chapter 3: Exploring the Map
+
+## Core Focus
+
+Applying climatic patterns - universal business dynamics - to Wardley Maps to anticipate change and improve strategic decisions.
+
+## Climatic Patterns
+
+### 1. Everything Evolves
+Components move left-to-right due to supply-demand competition. All activities, practices, and mental models progress from novel to commonplace.
+
+### 2. Characteristics Change
+As components evolve, properties shift predictably:
+- **Uncharted**: rare, poorly understood, unpredictable, high uncertainty, potential competitive advantage
+- **Industrialised**: commonplace, well-defined, standardised, predictable, cost of doing business
+
+### 3. No One Size Fits All
+Different evolutionary stages require different management:
+- **Genesis/Uncharted**: Agile (exploration, experimentation)
+- **Transitional/Product**: Lean (efficiency, measurement, MVP)
+- **Industrialised**: Six Sigma / ITIL (deviation reduction, standardization)
+
+Single-methodology organizations fail because components occupy different stages simultaneously.
+
+### 4. Efficiency Enables Innovation
+Industrialised components become building blocks for higher-order systems. "Genesis begets evolution begets genesis."
+
+### 5. Higher-Order Systems Create New Worth
+Commodification (social-to-economic value) differs from commoditisation (differentiated-to-undifferentiated). Transitional domains generate highest profitability. But industrialised components enable unpredictable future opportunities.
+
+### 6. No Choice on Evolution (Red Queen Hypothesis)
+Competitors adapting to evolved components force others to follow. Stagnation becomes unviable.
+
+### 7. Past Success Breeds Inertia
+Existing suppliers resist evolution because transitional domains deliver maximum profitability. Amazon - unencumbered by legacy models - industrialised computing while established vendors resisted.
+
+## Key Insight
+
+Amazon dominated cloud not through superior engineering but because they had no legacy business model creating inertia. Pat Gelsinger dismissed Amazon as "a company that sells books" - precisely why Amazon could disrupt.
+
+## Application
+
+Using these patterns on a map enables:
+- Anticipating which components will commoditize
+- Predicting resistance to change (inertia)
+- Identifying platform evolution trajectories
+- Spotting opportunities from compound evolution
+- Making assumptions visible for collaborative discussion
+
+## Key Takeaways
+
+1. Maps enable pattern recognition for strategic foresight
+2. Evolution is inevitable but uneven across components
+3. Industrialization paradox: reduces near-term advantage while enabling unpredictable future value
+4. Organizational adaptation is competitive necessity
+5. Visible assumptions on maps beat assumptions locked in minds

ch04-doctrine/SUMMARY.md

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+# Chapter 4: Doctrine
+
+## Definition
+
+Doctrine = universal business principles applicable across industries. Unlike climatic patterns (which affect you regardless), doctrine represents deliberate principles you choose to adopt. Key distinction: doctrine *principles* (abstract) vs doctrine *implementation* (context-specific).
+
+## Eight Core Doctrines
+
+### 1. Focus on User Need
+Anchor decisions on actual customer needs, not business assumptions. Revenue/profit follow from satisfying users. Common pitfalls: confusing customer needs with business requirements, bias toward legacy systems.
+
+### 2. Use a Common Language
+Maps serve as universal language enabling cross-functional collaboration. Without shared frameworks, translation errors and misalignment proliferate between departments.
+
+### 3. Be Transparent
+Share maps so assumptions can be challenged constructively. Transparency prevents "walking an Army through a minefield."
+
+### 4. Challenge Assumptions
+Every member bears responsibility for questioning decisions. Retribution against challengers is "a deadly sin."
+
+### 5. Remove Duplication and Bias
+Organizations unconsciously duplicate components across units. Real examples: 380 isolated ERP systems (chemical company), 740+ duplications (energy company), 1,000+ risk management systems (bank). Profile diagrams aggregate maps to reveal repetition and bias.
+
+### 6. Use Appropriate Methods
+Different components need different development approaches. Applying specification-heavy contracts to uncertain components guarantees expensive change-control battles. Maps reveal which to outsource vs build in-house.
+
+### 7. Think Small
+Decompose systems into components, structure teams around them. Amazon's "Two Pizza" model, Haier's cell-based structure. Teams need defined interfaces, fitness functions, and decision autonomy.
+
+### 8. Think Aptitude and Attitude
+Three attitudes mapped to evolution stages:
+
+- **Pioneers**: explore uncharted territory, accept high failure rates, build future possibilities
+- **Settlers**: transform prototypes into products, balance innovation with reliability
+- **Town Planners**: industrialize through standardization, efficiency, scale
+
+Misaligning attitude with domain creates dysfunction.
+
+## Design for Constant Evolution
+
+The "mechanism of theft" cycle:
+1. Town planners industrialize components into utilities
+2. Pioneers build higher-order systems consuming these utilities
+3. Settlers productize repeating patterns
+4. Town planners industrialize those products
+
+Three success pillars (from Daniel Pink's *Drive*): Purpose, Autonomy, Mastery.
+
+## Key Takeaways
+
+1. Doctrine are tools, not universal laws - implementation is context-specific
+2. Transparency and challenge create competitive advantage
+3. Duplication destroys capability - solving same problems repeatedly prevents innovation
+4. Structure drives culture, not vice versa
+5. Appropriate methods by evolution stage prevent cost disasters
+6. Pioneer-Settler-Town Planner structures remain extremely rare but highly effective
+7. Dual structures (only pioneers + town planners) eliminate the critical middle (settlers)

ch05-the-play-and-a-decision-to-act/SUMMARY.md

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+# Chapter 5: The Play and a Decision to Act
+
+## Core Focus
+
+Transitioning from strategic analysis to execution. How mapping enables decisions about where to attack, demonstrated through building Zimki - a cloud platform preceding AWS by two years.
+
+## Two Forms of "Why"
+
+- **Purpose-driven**: winning the game
+- **Movement-driven**: tactical positioning (this chapter's focus)
+
+## The Kodak Case Study
+
+Despite pioneering digital imaging, Kodak's film processing business created organizational inertia. They invested in photo printers exactly when camera phones made printing irrelevant. Comfortable options don't guarantee rosy futures.
+
+## Key Frameworks
+
+### Accelerators, Decelerators, and Constraints
+- **Accelerators**: open source drives components toward commodity
+- **Decelerators**: FUD and patents slow evolution
+- **Constraints**: dependencies in underlying components bottleneck progress
+
+### Innovate-Leverage-Commoditise (ILC) Model
+Ecosystem approach leveraging external innovators:
+1. Build utility components with public APIs
+2. Enable external companies to innovate atop your platform
+3. Monitor consumption metadata to identify emerging patterns
+4. Industrialise successful patterns as new utility services
+5. Repeat - creating expanding platforms
+
+Key insight: monitoring API consumption identifies successful companies faster than marketing surveys.
+
+### Context-Specific Gameplay Categories
+- User perception alteration
+- Evolution accelerators/decelerators
+- Ecosystem models
+- Positional, defensive, attacking plays
+- Poison mechanisms
+
+## The Zimki Strategy
+
+Vision: "pre-shaved Yaks" - eliminate pointless development tasks. Code in browsers, single-language (JavaScript), no infrastructure management.
+
+Seven strategic points:
+1. Code platform + component services via APIs
+2. Open source entire system
+3. Create certified provider marketplace
+4. Build ecosystem through common services
+5. Eliminate development friction
+6. Exploit utility infrastructure providers
+7. Encourage fragmented infrastructure markets
+
+## What Happened
+
+- Beta Feb 2006 (2 years before AppEngine)
+- Rapid growth: 1,000+ developers by Q1 2007
+- Amazon EC2 launch validated the concept
+
+But: Wardley ignored the board and parent company's needs. They viewed utility computing as unrealistic, refused investment, blocked buyouts, cancelled open-sourcing. Zimki closed by year-end 2006.
+
+## Key Takeaways
+
+1. Maps guide strategy but don't determine outcomes - execution requires political navigation
+2. Multiple user needs exist: external customers, employees, boards, parent organizations
+3. ILC models create powerful feedback loops via ecosystem size
+4. Past success creates inertia (Kodak)
+5. Strategy is cyclic - decisions impact corporate purpose itself
+6. Being strategically right means nothing if you can't navigate organizational politics

ch06-getting-started-yourself/SUMMARY.md

@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+# Chapter 6: Getting Started Yourself
+
+## Core Argument
+
+Situational awareness is fundamental to strategy, not a luxury. Most executives lack understanding of their business landscape yet few admit it.
+
+## The Competency Gap
+
+Executives don't know what they don't know. Even seasoned leaders "fake it" without actual landscape understanding. Organizations conflate strategy (understanding position/movement) with tactical execution.
+
+## Lessons from Gaming (WoW Analogy)
+
+MMORPGs teach business principles:
+- Situational awareness before engagement
+- Diverse aptitudes for different challenges
+- Mandatory collaboration
+- Systematic preparation
+
+Well-coordinated raid teams outperform chaotic organizations because they understand their environment.
+
+## Anti-Pattern Organization Traits
+
+Failing organizations exhibit:
+- Cannot describe user needs
+- Multiple conflicting languages/tools instead of common frameworks
+- Poor transparency across silos
+- Assumption-driven rather than evidence-based
+- Excessive duplication resistance
+- One-size-fits-all methods
+- Avoidance of small, iterative approaches
+- Confusion between aptitude types
+- Bolted-on structures without integration
+
+## Implementation: Coordination Function
+
+Organizations should establish a coordination function (spend control mechanism) that:
+- Encourages mapping above certain expenditure thresholds
+- Identifies patterns and duplication across units
+- Challenges assumptions transparently
+- Promotes doctrine compliance through visibility, not force
+
+## Mapping Principles
+
+- "All models are wrong; some are merely useful"
+- "Where before why" - identify position before justifying strategy
+- Iterative, continuous learning cycles - not "Deathstar" all-encompassing efforts
+- Executives must learn mapping themselves, not outsource strategic thinking
+
+## Key Takeaways
+
+1. Situational awareness is non-negotiable for strategy
+2. Maps create common language enabling transparency
+3. Implementation requires structural change via coordination functions
+4. Resistance is predictable - "too busy" or "too complex" often masks power consolidation
+5. Start small, iterate continuously
+6. Gaming discipline and systematic approaches outpace typical corporate strategy

ch07-finding-a-new-purpose/SUMMARY.md

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+# Chapter 7: Finding a New Purpose
+
+## Core Focus
+
+Validating the evolution axis of Wardley Maps through research, and discovering that evolution can be measured (but not time-predicted).
+
+## Purpose Requirements
+
+Meaningful purpose requires three elements:
+- Clear objective
+- Defined scope
+- Moral imperative
+
+## The Evolution Breakthrough
+
+Initial assumptions proved wrong: evolution doesn't correlate with adoption percentages or time. "When 10% adopt something, it becomes a product" doesn't hold across technologies.
+
+### The Discovery
+Analyzing thousands of publications revealed predictable language pattern shifts:
+- Articles progress: "wonder" -> construction -> operation/features -> everyday use
+- This linguistic evolution indicates increasing certainty about an activity
+- Activities evolve through multiple diffusion waves of improving versions, not single S-curves
+
+## Evolution Curve: Ubiquity vs. Certainty
+
+Rather than time or adoption %, evolution tracks how **widespread AND certain** an activity becomes:
+- Genesis -> Custom-built -> Product -> Commodity -> Utility
+
+## Diffusion vs. Evolution
+
+Critical distinction:
+- **Diffusion**: adoption of specific innovations over time
+- **Evolution**: changing nature of an activity across multiple improving versions
+
+Activities don't follow predictable timelines but follow predictable paths.
+
+## Supply vs. Demand Competition
+
+Two forces drive evolution:
+- **Demand**: useful activities spread (ubiquity driver)
+- **Supply**: providers improve activities (certainty driver)
+
+## Chain of Needs
+
+Maps extend beyond single organizations, connecting supplier needs -> user needs -> end-consumer needs. Misalignment between these creates conflict.
+
+## Key Insight
+
+Many "innovations" are predictable consequences of evolution, not accidents. Amazon EC2 wasn't a surprise - utility computing was inevitable once computing became sufficiently certain and widespread.
+
+## Key Takeaways
+
+1. Evolution is measurable but not time-predictable - you know *what* will happen, not *when*
+2. Understanding landscape context prevents strategic mismatch
+3. Activities follow consistent evolutionary paths regardless of time or adoption rates
+4. Maps are useful models, not reality - windows on wider systems
+5. Revenue should flow from meeting user needs, not extracting value

ch08-keeping-the-wolves-at-bay/SUMMARY.md

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+# Chapter 8: Keeping the Wolves at Bay
+
+## Core Focus
+
+The tension between simplification and usefulness in strategic mapping. Introduces worth-based development, pricing granularity, and flow.
+
+## The Simplicity Trap
+
+Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety: "the controlling mechanism of a system must be capable of representing what is being controlled." Organizations oversimplify through 2x2 matrices, trading deeper understanding for apparent manageability.
+
+## Worth-Based Development
+
+Using a Large Format Printer (LFP) project example: shifting from contract-based to outcome-based compensation aligns incentives. Charging per lead generated rather than upfront:
+- Focuses both parties on actual user value
+- Incentivizes cost-effectiveness
+- But exposes friction with rigid budgeting systems ("corporate corpus")
+
+Result: more leads in 3 months than the client typically produced annually.
+
+## Pricing Granularity
+
+Zimki (2006) charged per function call. This granular cost visibility enabled:
+- Identifying inefficient code
+- Informed investment decisions about optimization
+- Predated AWS Lambda by 8 years
+
+## Flow and Capital Movement
+
+Maps contain multiple flows: financial, physical, informational, risk, time, social. Understanding flows enables financial modeling and reveals where to invest for maximum impact.
+
+## Efficiency vs. Effectiveness
+
+Critical distinction demonstrated via manufacturing example:
+- Company proposed millions in robotics to automate server modification
+- Mapping revealed root cause: custom server racks forcing expensive modifications
+- Effective solution: eliminate the value chain by adopting utility computing
+- Not "make the ineffective process more efficient"
+
+"Be very careful of process improvements focused solely on efficiency without questioning why the process exists."
+
+## Key Takeaways
+
+1. Simplification carries costs - trading complexity for manageability hides critical insights
+2. Align incentives with value through outcome-based models
+3. The corporate corpus resists change - good intentions embedded in systems impede innovation
+4. Maps reveal hidden assumptions normalized through repetition
+5. Granularity enables optimization - detailed cost visibility drives better decisions
+6. Question the premises - before improving efficiency, verify the activity merits existence

ch09-charting-the-future/SUMMARY.md

@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+# Chapter 9: Charting the Future
+
+## Core Focus
+
+Anticipation as a strategic capability. Understanding patterns and cycles to predict change before competitors.
+
+## Three Dimensions of Predictability
+
+- **p(what)**: Can we predict what will change?
+- **p(when)**: Can we predict when?
+- **p(who)**: Can we predict which actors drive change?
+
+## Four Conditions for Change
+
+Before any component evolves to a new state, four conditions must align:
+1. **Concept** must exist
+2. **Technology** must be available
+3. Activity must be **suitably** defined/widespread
+4. Consumer **attitude** must support adoption
+
+## Weak Signals
+
+Detect impending change through:
+- Publication type analysis (operational focus -> usage focus signals commoditization)
+- Behavioral patterns
+- Language/emphasis shifts in industry discourse
+
+## Climatic Pattern: Co-Evolution
+
+Practices evolve alongside supporting activities. As computing moved product -> utility:
+- **Legacy practices**: N+1 redundancy, capacity planning, DR testing, change control
+- **DevOps practices**: design for failure, scale-out, chaos engineering, continuous deployment
+
+This co-evolution is predictable and observable across industries.
+
+## Climatic Pattern: Peace, War, and Wonder
+
+Cyclical economic pattern:
+
+**Wonder Phase**: Novel, uncertain genesis. High risk, highest potential value. Capital flows toward exploration.
+
+**Peace Phase**: Products compete on features. High margins, stable competition. Inertia builds in incumbents.
+
+**War Phase**: Commodity forms emerge via new entrants unburdened by legacy. Punctuated equilibrium - rapid, nonlinear change. Corporate casualties. Highly predictable patterns:
+- Explosion of higher-order systems
+- New entrants building commodity services
+- Disruption of past giants
+- Co-evolution of practice
+- Higher efficiency
+- Red Queen effect forcing widespread adoption
+
+## Predictability Categories
+
+- **Known**: Trivial, obvious trends. Little competitive advantage.
+- **Unknown**: Unpredictable (product-to-product substitution). Essentially gambling.
+- **Knowable**: "Trends determinable prior to occurrence but considered unknown by the majority." This is where strategic advantage lies.
+
+## Ten Climatic Patterns
+
+1. Everything evolves (given competition)
+2. Success breeds inertia
+3. Inertia increases with past success intensity
+4. No choice over evolution (Red Queen)
+5. Inertia kills (not lack of innovation)
+6. Product-to-utility shows punctuated equilibrium
+7. Efficiency enables innovation
+8. Capital flows to new value areas
+9. Co-evolution accompanies industrialization
+10. Higher-order systems create future worth
+
+## Key Takeaways
+
+1. What will happen is often highly predictable; when and who are harder
+2. Maps enable teams to challenge assumptions about future change systematically
+3. Inertia is the primary disruption risk - companies fail from past success creating barriers
+4. Focus resources on knowable changes, not unknowable product substitutions
+5. Co-evolution is reliably predictable across industries
+6. You can predict that new systems will emerge from commoditized components, just not which ones

ch10-i-wasnt-expecting-that/SUMMARY.md

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+# Chapter 10: I Wasn't Expecting That
+
+## Core Focus
+
+Organizational evolution through competitive cycles. Predictive frameworks for understanding large-scale business disruption.
+
+## Peace, War, and Wonder Cycle
+
+Economic activities exhibit three competitive states mirroring C.S. Holling's Adaptive Renewal Cycle from ecology. Activities progress: genesis (wonder) -> product stabilization (peace) -> industrialization (war), releasing capabilities for new innovations.
+
+## Kondratiev Waves
+
+Technological revolutions don't begin with invention but with industrialization of pre-existing activities. The Age of Electricity emerged from utility-scale AC provision, not electricity's discovery. Each economic age features associated organizational shifts.
+
+## Population Dynamics Study (2011)
+
+Analysis of 100+ Silicon Valley companies identified distinct populations:
+
+**Traditional vs. Next Generation organizations**:
+- Development: single methods vs. adaptive mixed approaches
+- Operations: scale-up/N+1 vs. distributed/chaos engineering
+- Structure: department silos vs. autonomous cells
+- Learning: analyst-driven vs. ecosystem/model-driven
+- Open source: cost reduction vs. strategic weapon
+
+## Punctuated Equilibrium
+
+Product-to-utility transitions appear gradual but shift rapidly once industrialization begins. The "marble hall" analogy: at 19 seconds, only half-full seems gradual - but only 5 seconds remain.
+
+## Three Disruption Types
+
+1. **Genesis of new acts**: unpredictable, requires cultural bias toward rapid response
+2. **Product-to-product substitution**: unpredictable (e.g., iPhone vs. Blackberry)
+3. **Product-to-utility business model shifts**: highly predictable using weak signals
+
+## Inertia Classification
+
+Consumer concerns: disruption to past norms, transition costs, uncertainty about new form.
+Supplier inertia: past success creates resistance despite inevitable market shifts.
+
+## The Death Spiral
+
+Organizations cutting costs often eliminate exactly what they need for the future (innovative voices) while retaining those optimized for declining business. This paradoxically increases cultural resistance to change.
+
+## Key Takeaways
+
+1. Organizational evolution follows identifiable patterns linked to value chain industrialization
+2. Predictable disruption (product-to-utility) requires different defenses than unpredictable (product competition)
+3. Companies die from inertia-induced blindness, not insufficient innovation
+4. Communication infrastructure accelerates overall pace of change
+5. Incumbent advantage paradoxically becomes weakness
+6. Overlapping waves create illusions of constant disruption; underlying rates are measurable

ch11-a-smorgasbord-of-the-slightly-useful/SUMMARY.md

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+# Chapter 11: A Smorgasbord of the Slightly Useful
+
+## Core Focus
+
+Opportunity identification, contracting pitfalls, common business misconceptions, and strategy mastery. Preparation for strategic scenarios.
+
+## Opportunity of Change
+
+Evolution occurs through punctuated equilibrium. The peace-to-war shift creates confusion because competitive dynamics fundamentally change. Cloud computing example: traditional hardware companies had every advantage but failed because executives couldn't envision infrastructure as utility.
+
+Opportunities exist at: genesis of novel activities, unmet user needs, product differentiation windows, peace-to-war transitions.
+
+## The Contracting Problem
+
+Large outsourcing contracts covering broad system components create predictable failure. Dividing work by financial lots rather than evolutionary stage mixes industrialized and novel components. Applying specification contracts to uncertain components guarantees expensive change-control battles.
+
+**FIRE Principle** (Fast, Inexpensive, Restrained, Elegant): decompose systems into discrete areas matching evolutionary stage.
+
+**Legacy approaches**:
+- Disposing of liability: continuously refactor
+- Sweating and dumping: minimize legacy investment, build replacements
+- Pig in a poke: monetize legacy by selling as someone else's "future"
+
+## Organizational Myths Debunked
+
+**"Efficiency reduces budgets"**: Jevons Paradox - efficiency enables new activities, creating new demand. Computing is a million times cheaper per unit; IT budgets haven't fallen proportionally.
+
+**"We'll adapt later"**: Capital flows toward evolving value. Missing the peace-to-war window means fighting entrenched winners.
+
+**"Execution trumps strategy"**: 2012 study of 160+ companies: high awareness + high action outperforms all other combinations. Blind execution against strategically aware competitors fails.
+
+**"Principles substitute for strategy"**: Declaring "focus, great people, fail fast" without environmental maps produces no advantage.
+
+**"Core focus ensures survival"**: No "core" survives indefinitely - only transient competitive positions. Activities get industrialized.
+
+## Situational Awareness vs. Action Framework
+
+High awareness + high action > low awareness + high action > high awareness + low action > low awareness + low action. Strategy and execution form one interconnected discipline.
+
+## Climatic Patterns Summary
+
+- Universal evolution through competition
+- Multiple diffusion waves
+- Ubiquity (not time) measures evolution
+- Uncertainty inversely correlates with maturity
+- Characteristics transform during evolution
+- No universal method fits all contexts
+- Co-evolution of practices
+- Efficiency enables new innovation
+- Capital flows toward future value
+- Accelerating communication speeds overall evolution
+
+## Key Takeaways
+
+1. Visual maps with movement create shared situational awareness impossible through specs or diagrams
+2. Transition windows determine winners - missing them means competing against entrenched incumbents
+3. Context-specific tailoring beats universal methods
+4. Corporate blindness is common - most lack environmental maps
+5. Efficiency creates abundance, not scarcity
+6. No formula substitutes for developing environmental understanding through maps and pattern recognition

ch12-the-scenario/SUMMARY.md

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+# Chapter 12: The Scenario
+
+## Core Focus
+
+A practical exercise in applying Wardley Mapping. Readers analyze a subsidiary company's direction and recommend priorities to the executive board (45-minute exercise).
+
+## The Company: Phoenix
+
+Software system for monitoring data centre power consumption to identify efficiency improvements.
+
+**Key metrics**:
+- £123M revenue (2016), 43% European market share
+- 6,277 customers across Europe
+- Proprietary analytics engine based on decade of best practices
+- 90%+ customer satisfaction but 9% attrition rate
+- £301M European market, £3B applicable market
+
+**Threat**: US competitor using cloud-based SaaS entered Europe, growing from <3% (2015) to estimated £25M (2016).
+
+## Current Strategic Priorities (as proposed by management)
+
+1. Cloud service development (£45M investment, 2018-2020 launch)
+2. Cost efficiencies through outsourced data sets (3-4% savings)
+3. Brazil expansion
+4. Product development (new features to reduce attrition)
+5. Marketing campaign (market share 43% -> 65%)
+
+## Organizational Tensions
+
+- Legacy CIO (original founder) vs. newer Chief Digital Officer
+- Company transitioning from startup to mature organization
+- Acknowledged threat from cheaper Chinese sensors (currently inadequate)
+
+## The Exercise
+
+Rather than providing answers, readers must:
+- Evaluate whether priority ordering serves long-term success
+- Develop alternative rankings if disagreeing
+- Prepare board communication
+- Tolerate discomfort of decision-making under uncertainty
+
+## Critical Tensions
+
+- Legacy vs. Innovation
+- Market expansion vs. core improvement
+- Cost reduction vs. differentiation
+- On-premise licensing vs. hybrid delivery models
+
+## Key Takeaways
+
+1. Strategic analysis requires uncomfortable decision-making under imperfect information
+2. Context matters: understanding organizational dynamics shapes strategy validity
+3. Multiple valid perspectives exist - no single "correct" answer
+4. Recognizing disruptive threats requires continuous market monitoring
+5. Priority ordering affects resource allocation and strategic outcomes

ch13-something-wicked-this-way-comes/SUMMARY.md

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+# Chapter 13: Something Wicked This Way Comes
+
+## Core Focus
+
+Systematic strategic analysis of the Phoenix scenario using Wardley Maps combined with doctrine assessment. Demonstrates how mapping reveals existential threats invisible to conventional analysis.
+
+## The Strategic Problem
+
+Phoenix faces an existential threat from a US competitor transitioning to cloud-based utility with an ecosystem model. The proposed strategy (cloud by 2020, Brazil expansion, incremental improvement) will fail because:
+
+1. **Timing disadvantage**: by 2020, US competitor will have equivalent revenue but superior positioning, ecosystem maturity, and cloud infrastructure
+2. **Technology disruption**: commodity Chinese sensors will necessitate complete system rewrites
+3. **Market dynamics**: £300M current market cannot support both players at projected growth rates
+
+## Doctrine Assessment
+
+Evaluated against universal strategic principles:
+
+**Amber concerns**:
+- Lack of continuous evolution structures
+- Insufficient responsiveness to market signals (customer cost complaints)
+- Absence of iterative strategy
+
+**Red alerts**:
+- No demonstrable situational awareness
+- No common communication frameworks
+- Challenges to assumptions are dismissed
+- Inadequate focus on actual user needs
+
+The CIO (who challenged sensor strategy) is the only leader showing strategic thinking but faces organizational resistance.
+
+## Frameworks Applied
+
+- **Wardley Maps**: progressive visualization from needs to competitive landscape
+- **Climatic Patterns**: predicting market evolution toward utility models
+- **Four-Factor Utility Shift**: concept + technology + suitability + attitude must align
+- **Doctrine Framework**: universal principles organized by severity (amber vs. red)
+
+## Key Takeaways
+
+1. Maps expose blind spots that verbal discussions obscure
+2. Inertia compounds weakness - past accomplishments prevent adaptation
+3. Competitive ecosystems amplify advantage through self-reinforcing loops
+4. The 10% dissatisfied customers citing high costs signal inevitable market transition
+5. Doctrine matters more than specifics - reveals organizational resilience capacity
+6. Time is the enemy in disruption - gradual change accelerates into sudden collapse

ch14-to-thine-own-self-be-true/SUMMARY.md

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+# Chapter 14: To Thine Own Self Be True
+
+## Core Argument
+
+There is no universally "right" strategic answer. Mapping observes environmental change and competitive dynamics but cannot prescribe specific actions or guarantee outcomes. Value lies in understanding and exploiting uncertainty systematically.
+
+## Learning Over Mechanistic Solutions
+
+Organizations seek simple levers ("mapping saves 12% of costs"). Wardley rejects this, advocating iterative learning with context-specific decision-making. "Mistakes learned can be taught to others."
+
+## The Two-Play Strategy (Phoenix Scenario)
+
+Wardley demonstrates his approach through a real 2008 subsidiary scenario:
+
+### The Grey Play (Pig in a Poke)
+- Sell the struggling subsidiary to maximize capital returns
+- Market it attractively despite anticipating future challenges
+- Reposition internal resources for future opportunities
+- Uses deception of timing, not factual dishonesty
+
+### The Orange Play (Building the Future)
+- Launch separate venture based on emerging technological practices
+- Locate in untapped market (Brazil) to avoid direct competition
+- Recruit talented personnel from the acquired company
+- Build with proper doctrine and resilience from day one
+
+## The Mapping Effect on Decision-Making
+
+Tested with 200+ executives:
+- **Before mapping training**: most chose cloud investment (continuing the existing path)
+- **After mapping training**: most chose to sell the company
+
+This demonstrates how situational awareness fundamentally changes strategic choices.
+
+## Key Takeaways
+
+1. Context determines implementation - no formula applies universally
+2. Ethical pragmatism matters: strategic boldness doesn't require dishonesty
+3. Organizational capability limits strategy - even good maps can't overcome misaligned doctrine
+4. Multiple valid paths exist - Wardley's answer is "my answer, not the right answer"
+5. Mapping transforms decision-making by revealing landscape dynamics invisible to conventional analysis

ch15-on-the-practice-of-scenario-planning/SUMMARY.md

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+# Chapter 15: On the Practice of Scenario Planning
+
+## Core Argument
+
+Context and role fundamentally shape strategic decisions. Identical market conditions produce vastly different optimal strategies depending on your position.
+
+## Two Substitution Patterns
+
+**Product-to-product** (e.g., Blackberry -> Android):
+- Can often execute a "second curve" - build new while exploiting legacy
+- Less compounding inertia
+- Comeback possible through innovation
+
+**Product-to-utility** (e.g., traditional hosting -> cloud):
+- Practices co-evolve with the utility shift
+- Multiple compounding sources of inertia
+- Punctuated equilibrium (rapid transformation)
+- Legacy skills become liabilities
+- Financial markets typically force "sweating" strategies
+- Second-curve plays nearly impossible
+
+## The Spiral of Death
+
+Organizations cutting costs eliminate exactly what they need for the future:
+- Radical thinkers and pioneers get cut
+- Those optimized for declining business are retained
+- Cultural resistance to change increases paradoxically
+
+## Tower and Moat Strategy
+
+Utility providers copy product innovations and incorporate them into standardized services. This renders competitors' differentiation efforts counterproductive - the more you innovate, the more the utility provider absorbs.
+
+## Common Executive Failures
+
+1. Overseas market expansion as avoidance (increases inertia)
+2. Product innovation against utility competitors (futile differentiation)
+3. Aggressive cost-cutting without preserving experimental capability
+4. Price wars without understanding competitor value chains
+5. "Core focus" reinforcing obsolete competencies
+
+## Key Takeaways
+
+1. Maps don't tell you what to do - they enable communication, collaboration, and pattern learning
+2. Role determines gameplay: CEO and hedge fund manager face same landscape, play different games
+3. Product-to-utility shifts are far more dangerous than product-to-product substitution
+4. Financial market dynamics (hedge fund incentives) influence CEO behavior
+5. Leadership demands balancing present extraction with future optionality
+6. Understanding your specific context, not universal playbooks, separates effective leaders from failures

ch16-super-looper/SUMMARY.md

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+# Chapter 16: Super Looper
+
+## Core Focus
+
+Practical application of Wardley Mapping through a detailed case study (LFP scenario). Demonstrates how mapping combines landscape analysis, financial modeling, organizational structure, and inertia management.
+
+## Key Arguments
+
+**Strategic Cycles Drive Decisions**: Loop repeatedly through observation, orientation (doctrine), decision-making, and action. Each loop refines understanding before commitment.
+
+**Maps Precede Financials**: "Put financials to the back of your mind. They can be skewed by bias to the present." Maps reveal evolutionary patterns; spreadsheets reflect current state bias.
+
+## Evolution Characteristics Cheat Sheet
+
+Detailed criteria distinguishing stages I-IV:
+- Ubiquity and certainty
+- Publication focus
+- Market consolidation
+- User/industry perception
+- Value focus and efficiency emphasis
+
+## Financial Options Analysis
+
+Two scenarios compared:
+
+**In-house variant**: Higher expected short-term returns but increases legacy technical debt and inertia.
+
+**Public platform variant**: Lower immediate returns but positions for future market opportunities and emerging practices.
+
+Key insight: consumption-based billing fundamentally alters investment logic. Code refactoring becomes financially rational when directly tied to operational costs.
+
+## Eight Types of Inertia (with mitigations)
+
+1. **Knowledge gaps**: training/skill development
+2. **Governance changes**: explain co-evolution patterns
+3. **Political capital loss**: offer relevance in future direction
+4. **Vendor relationships**: strategic vendor management
+5. **Data favoring past success**: portfolio thinking, options analysis
+6. **Cultural/reward misalignment**: HR/incentive restructuring
+7. **Market perception obstacles**: weak signal analysis
+8. **Barriers to entry**: often unavoidable market forces
+
+## Organizational Structure
+
+Three role archetypes (aligned with Kent Beck's 3X):
+- **Pioneers**: eXplore uncertain spaces
+- **Settlers**: eXpand understanding and refine
+- **Town Planners**: eXploit and optimize
+
+Separate cells handle different domains with distinct leadership types.
+
+## Gameplay Strategies
+
+**Legacy play**: spread doubt about platform viability to protect existing position.
+
+**Future play**: openly develop co-evolved practices, establish thought leadership, create centers of gravity attracting talent.
+
+## Key Takeaways
+
+1. Mapping precedes financial analysis - evolutionary position provides superior strategic clarity
+2. Managing inertia requires diagnosis: visible resistance is manageable; hidden resistance is dangerous
+3. Time invested in strategic loops compounds value
+4. Consumption-based models enable new practices by making inefficiencies visible
+5. Short-term returns trade against long-term position - requires leadership alignment
+6. Evolution is pattern-based, not time-predictable

ch17-to-infinity-and-beyond/SUMMARY.md

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+# Chapter 17: To Infinity and Beyond
+
+## Core Focus
+
+Practical strategy execution at Canonical, transforming Ubuntu into the dominant cloud guest OS. Demonstrates business horizons, Porter's forces through evolution, legacy management, and strategic timing.
+
+## Three Horizons Model (and its limitations)
+
+From "Alchemy of Growth" (1999):
+- **Horizon 1**: core profitable business (defend/extend)
+- **Horizon 2**: emerging medium-term growth
+- **Horizon 3**: long-term ventures for survival
+
+Critique: inadequate without mapping. Horizons are context-specific and don't cleanly map to evolution stages or pioneer/settler/town planner roles.
+
+## Legacy and Inertia
+
+Legacy isn't tied to specific organizational roles. It emerges from "failure to evolve" anywhere in the system:
+- Activities trapped behind inertia barriers
+- Co-evolved practices resisting change
+- Invisible lower-order systems
+
+Any team can become legacy through failure to evolve.
+
+## Porter's Five Forces Through Peace-War-Wonder
+
+- **Wonder**: uncertain, consumer-driven, no established competitors
+- **Peace**: product competition, occasional substitution threats
+- **War**: industrialization threatens incumbents; new entrants dominate
+
+## Strategic Timing
+
+Identical hype cycle positions require radically different strategies depending on evolutionary stage:
+- Cloud computing (2008): "all in" (operational value/industrialization)
+- 3D printing (2008): "wait and see" (still custom/product)
+
+## The Benefit Curve
+
+Two waves of value:
+- **Differential value**: advantage from being different (peaks early)
+- **Operational value**: efficiency advantage (peaks later, during industrialization)
+
+The gap between expected and actual benefit resembles the Gartner hype cycle.
+
+## Case Study: Canonical's Cloud Strategy
+
+**Challenge**: 300-person company vs. RedHat and Microsoft. Internal resistance viewed cloud as distraction from support-license revenue.
+
+**Play**:
+- Recognize cloud as industrialization (Horizon 2)
+- Aggressively pursue guest OS market share ("land grab")
+- Support co-evolved practices (DevOps, containerization)
+- Provide transitional offerings for customers facing inertia
+
+**Outcome**: Within 18 months, Ubuntu dominated cloud guest OS. A CIO observed: "the future was all RedHat and then suddenly it was all Ubuntu."
+
+## Key Takeaways
+
+1. Context determines strategy - same technology needs opposite approaches at different evolutionary positions
+2. Legacy is predictable - understanding inertia lets you anticipate competitor paralysis
+3. Timing requires mapping - hype cycles gain precision calibrated against evolutionary certainty
+4. Organizational structure doesn't determine legacy
+5. Co-evolution matters - ignoring practice evolution creates hidden inertia
+6. Competitors' inertia is exploitable

ch18-better-for-less/SUMMARY.md

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+# Chapter 18: Better for Less
+
+## Core Focus
+
+Wardley's work with UK Government's "Triple Helix" group to reform government IT. Explores doctrine phases, cognitive biases, and organizational transformation.
+
+## Government IT Problems
+
+- Lack of engineering skills
+- Over-reliance on outsourcing
+- No effective cost controls
+- Massive duplication across departments
+- Culture prioritizing failure avoidance over results
+- Projects costing hundreds of millions with poor success rates
+
+## The Mapping Gap
+
+Critical discovery: "nobody knew what maps were." A 2013 survey found only 4 of 600 companies possessed anything resembling mapping. Most operated blind.
+
+## The "Better for Less" Paper
+
+Six core doctrines:
+1. Think big
+2. Do better with less
+3. Move fast
+4. Commit to direction while remaining adaptive
+5. Pragmatism over ideology
+6. Bias toward new approaches
+
+## Doctrine Phases (Four Stages)
+
+**Phase I - Stop self-harm**: Remove duplication, understand user needs, improve situational awareness.
+
+**Phase II - Context awareness**: Apply appropriate tools, embrace FIRE (fast, inexpensive, restrained, elegant).
+
+**Phase III - Better for Less**: Optimize flows, seek continuous improvement, inspire change.
+
+**Phase IV - Continuous evolution**: Design for constant adaptation with pioneer-settler-town planner structures.
+
+## Cognitive Biases
+
+- False consensus (assuming others know what you know)
+- Confirmation bias
+- Loss aversion and sunk cost
+- Outcome bias
+- Hindsight bias
+- Survivorship bias
+- Dunning-Kruger effect
+
+## Strategic Cycles
+
+- **OODA Loop** vs. **PDCA**: familiarity determines planning depth
+- **JDI to DMAIC spectrum**: "just do it" (unknown) to structured improvement (known)
+
+## Key Examples
+
+**Healthcare**: Mapping preventative care reveals feedback loops - longer-lived populations need increased treatment, requiring medical innovation investment.
+
+**Automotive (2025)**: Self-driving cars, utility-based ownership. Unintended consequence: digital subscription tiers embedding social inequality through automated traffic prioritization.
+
+**OpenStack failure**: Organizational hubris and misguided API differentiation strategy undermined potential as AWS competitor.
+
+## Key Takeaways
+
+1. Without situational awareness through mapping, organizations can't eliminate duplication or apply appropriate methods
+2. Actively counter cognitive biases through collaborative map-making
+3. Context determines method - no single approach works universally
+4. Doctrine application requires sequence: user needs and duplication first, then advanced play
+5. Humility is essential - maps are imperfect learning aids, not truth
+6. Map systems forward to identify unintended consequences

ch19-on-playing-chess/SUMMARY.md

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+# Chapter 19: On Playing Chess
+
+## Core Focus
+
+Foundational strategic principles using Wardley Maps. Strategy = understanding landscapes, honest self-assessment, deliberate resource allocation.
+
+## Stepping Stones
+
+Effective strategy creates "stepping stones that expand future possibilities" rather than gambling. Three methods for map-based advantage identification:
+1. Combine evolved components to create higher-order activities in uncharted territory
+2. Find efficiencies by breaking costly dependencies within value chains
+3. Identify components approaching commodity despite market inertia
+
+Key distinction: opportunities expand future options; gambling narrows them. "Just because you could do something doesn't mean you should."
+
+## Policy Over Technology
+
+Strategic advantage doesn't always require technology. Pharmaceutical supply chain example: address opacity through policy mechanisms (opening regulatory systems, public transparency campaigns) rather than technology mandates.
+
+## Capital Evolution and Purchasing Context
+
+"Stocks" of capital (activities, practices, data, knowledge) evolve through stages. Evolution transforms assets into liabilities. Purchasing must align with evolutionary position:
+
+- **Uncharted/novel**: venture capital or time-and-materials
+- **Developing**: outcome-based contracts with targets
+- **Established product**: commercial off-the-shelf
+- **Industrialized**: unit or utility-based pricing
+
+Challenges traditional accounting which treats capital as static.
+
+## Key Examples
+
+**Fotango**: mapping identified infrastructure would become a constraint, leading to strategic pivot toward cloud. Analysis was sound; parent company politics killed it.
+
+**Stewart Butterfield's pivots**: failed game (Ludicorp) -> Flickr -> failed game (Tiny Speck) -> Slack. Success through flexible repositioning, not singular focus.
+
+**Regulatory mapping**: how regulators can map stakeholder needs and capital flows to identify policy levers.
+
+## Key Takeaways
+
+1. Honesty is foundational - acknowledge actual competitive position
+2. Expand possibilities, don't reduce them
+3. Evolution creates context-specific requirements for purchasing, accounting, methodology
+4. Maps' primary value is facilitating strategic discourse and post-action review
+5. Policy shapes outcomes as powerfully as technology
+6. Inertia is dual-edged: prevents premature industrialization but catastrophic when ignored during actual transitions

load-knowledge.sh

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env bash
+# Reads all chapter summaries to bootstrap Wardley Mapping knowledge.
+# Usage: ./load-knowledge.sh
+
+set -euo pipefail
+
+dir="$(cd "$(dirname "$0")" && pwd)"
+
+for summary in "$dir"/ch*/SUMMARY.md; do
+  echo "=== $(basename "$(dirname "$summary")") ==="
+  cat "$summary"
+  echo
+done