# Source use · Foray 365, Essai 01

Read 18 October 2026. The sources motivate distinctions and design choices. Their empirical results are not measurements of this interface or of project handovers.

## Larkin, J. H. & Simon, H. A. (1987)

*Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words.* Cognitive Science 11, 65–100. [Published article](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1551-6708.1987.tb00863.x); [CMU author manuscript, dated 18 July 1986](https://iiif.library.cmu.edu/file/Simon_box00014_fld00953_bdl0001_doc0001/Simon_box00014_fld00953_bdl0001_doc0001.pdf).

Inspected manuscript sections 1.1–1.2 (printed pp. 3–10), the pulley example’s data structure and inference productions (pp. 11–15), and associated explanation. Used the separation of informational and computational equivalence, and the explicit data/operator account of search, recognition and inference. Construction consequence: test literal statement parity separately from reader outcomes; treat the time axis as a redundant external encoding with a possible comparison advantage. No computation-cost or human-efficiency finding is transferred to these cases.

## Zhang, J. & Norman, D. A. (1994)

*Representations in Distributed Cognitive Tasks.* Cognitive Science 18, 87–122. [Published article](https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1801_3); [author preprint](https://worrydream.com/refs/Zhang_2004_-_Representations_in_Distributed_Cognitive_Tasks.pdf). The mirror filename says 2004; the manuscript explicitly says 1994.

Inspected representational analysis and Experiment 2, especially its fixed-rule structure, internal/external rule distribution, 18-person within-subject design, six randomised orders, and stated starting-position constraint (manuscript pp. 20–22). Used its distinction among formal structure, representation and process. Construction consequence: preserve the gate semantics, vary presentation, record case/order/exposure, and avoid equating a representation audit with a process result. Our fictional commissioning records are not a Tower of Hanoi replication.

## Original material and scope

The six cases, exact rule, three-valued readiness model, counterfactuals, omission test, progress-first control, allocation grid and interface are authored for this essai. No source diagrams, research participant records or copyrighted figures are reproduced. No private portfolio or client material is present. The native 365 prompt governs the investigation but is not reproduced or linked into the public artefact.