Team Confidence (GrpProsp)

Tightened by the literature 3 Nov 2026 (docs/model-edits/tighten/); provisional

How far you feel the group, as it now stands, can pull off the venture it has taken on and not yet finished: a game, project, season or campaign. It is confidence in the capability the venture will run on, not luck, not your own prospects (Payoff), not whether each will do their part (Dependability) and not a general sense that the group is strong. The culture's face sets where that capability is looked for.

10: You feel sure the group, as it stands, can pull off what it has set itself; the venture looks well within its reach.

1: You feel sure the group, as it stands, cannot pull off what it has set itself; the venture looks beyond it.

Pre-language: A felt sense, before any words, that this band can bring off what it is setting out to do: chimpanzee males who hear strangers chorus and advance together when their party holds three or more males, and stay silent or hold back when it holds fewer (Wilson et al. 2001); and the chimpanzee who picks as partner the one who has made a joint task work before (Melis et al. 2006). Intimates read it from her bearing as the venture starts: settled and forward-leaning, in step with the others, or hesitant and watchful, eyes on the others rather than the task.

Effect on Engagement: That is likely to succeed in goals that you believe are worth pursing, or you would not have joined the group in the first place, and that has agreed goals, or otherwise random changes to the group's direction will move outside the model's ability to predict.

Capability spread across the members. How far you feel the group, as it now stands, can pull off the venture it has agreed to take on and not yet finished. It is confidence in the group's capability for that venture, spread across its members, their skill included, and including the skill of whoever the band looks to for this venture for the day. Whether that member lords it over you is Parity's ground, and whether the others look to you is Esteem's. It is not luck, not your own prospects (Payoff), not whether each will do their part (Dependability), and not a general sense that the group is strong. 10: You feel sure the group, as it stands, can pull off what it has set itself; the venture looks well within its reach. 1: You feel sure the group, as it stands, cannot pull off what it has set itself; the venture looks beyond it.

Confidence in those who steer. How far you feel those at the top of the order, yourself included if you are there, can steer the group through the venture it has taken on and not yet finished: read the ground, choose the course, set each member to the part that suits them and right the course when it goes wrong. It reads their competence to direct this venture only, with the hands they have: whether the skill below is fit for the venture is read here as part of their steering, so a crew they have kept on a venture beyond it lowers this reading. It is not whether they deal evenly with you, hearing you, holding you to the same rules and serving no favourites first (Parity), not the deference you draw for what you bring (Esteem), not your rung in the order (Rank), not what staying will bring you (Payoff), and not whether those below will carry their parts (Dependability). A well-meaning leader out of their depth rates low; a hard one who knows the way rates high. 10: You feel sure those at the top know the way through what the group has taken on; you follow their lead without second-guessing it, and if you are among them you feel the course is in safe hands. 1: You feel sure those at the top cannot steer the group through what it has taken on; each call they make looks like the wrong one, and if you are among them you feel the course slipping out of your hands.

Payoff (OwnProsp)

Tightened by the literature 3 Nov 2026 (docs/model-edits/tighten/); provisional

How likely you feel it is that staying in this group will get you what you yourself are after from it: the place, play, pay, skill, advancement or mate you joined for. It is a forecast of what the group will deliver to you, not your own ability, not your present rung in the order (Rank), not the deference you draw now for what you bring (Esteem), not whether the others want you among them now (Belonging), not the group's own venture (Team Confidence), not whether help you give comes back (Reciprocity), not whether anyone takes more than their due or tilts a share-out against you now (Parity), and not a tally of what it has given so far. Each of these can feed the forecast without being it.

10: You are sure that staying will bring you what you came for; the group's dealings with you keep opening the way to it.

1: You are sure that staying will bring you nothing you came for; whatever you do here, the way to it stays shut.

Pre-language: The felt yield of staying with this band for her: whether being here keeps bringing her food, a mate, a place or a skill, or keeps bringing her nothing. Intimates read it from whether she settles in and works at her own aims here, or drifts to the edge, looks outward and leaves.

Effect on Engagement: Where you feel that you are likely to achieve your personal goals, whether or not they are part of the group goals (Team Confidence) or indeed, conflict with them. Presumably if personal and group goals are in conflict, you would prefer to have low levels of Team Confidence however such a condition is out of scope for the model as it indicates deception and potentially sabotage, which is a cognitive rather than an unconscious drive (as the Pillars are contended to be).

Rank (Status)

Tightened by the literature 3 Nov 2026 (docs/model-edits/tighten/); provisional

Your felt rung in the group's settled order of precedence: how far you go first, take the first turn and the first share as a matter of course, and how far you go after others and take what is left. All recognise the order, so it is not fought out each time. The precedence attaches to your place, however you came by it: an office, seniority, the backing of kin or allies, an old contest no one reopens, or credit for what you bring that has settled, over time, into a place others take for granted. It is distinct from the live deference you draw for what you bring now (Esteem), and once settled it does not need present fear to hold it day to day (Parity), though an old contest or the backing of allies may stand behind it.

10: You go first as a matter of course: the first turn, the first share and the best seat are yours without a word said, and no one in the group stands above you.

1: You go last as a matter of course: you wait your turn and take your share and seat after everyone else, without a word said, and no one in the group stands below you.

Pre-language: Her felt rung in an order all recognise: the others let her pass, eat and settle first and greet her with the calm signals of submission, or she passes, eats and settles after them and greets them so, and neither side has to fight it out each time. Intimates read it from who passes first when paths cross, who eats first, who takes the best spot, and who greets whom.

Effect on Engagement: Where you feel that you possess formal power within a group, enabling you to utilise the group to achieve your own vision, which aligns the group with your identity. This is why new leaders often revoke measures taken by the preceding.

Rule-Keeping (NormExp)

Tightened by the literature 3 Nov 2026 (docs/model-edits/tighten/); provisional

How strongly it strikes you as wrong when another member breaks from the group's settled ways in a way the group would condemn, in act or by openly pressing to change them. The settled ways are read from what members actually do as well as from what they say should be done: where most members have stopped keeping a way, a breach of it jars less, however firmly the way is still spoken of; where most keep it, a lone breach jars most. It is felt indignation at a breach, not dislike of the person. Intimates read it from whether you pull the member up. An objection, a rebuke or mockery are anger's forms: they look for the member to mend their ways and be taken back. Where the breach repeats or reads as bad character, a cold shoulder or shutting them out are contempt's forms, and they last. The reading's level does not set the form; the form sets how long the response bites and whether it ends in reconciliation or exclusion. Your own conformity and your openness to ideas are not part of it. Among equals the group's ways include its levelling ways: not presuming on success or boasting, not keeping back what should be shared, and pulling your weight; a breach of these stirs the same bristle, and the band answers it with ribbing and complaint (Boehm 1999; Wiessner 2005). Whether such a member lords it over you yourself is Parity's ground. Whether their holding back leaves your own need unmet is Reciprocity's, and whether you can count on them to do their part is Dependability's; the bristle here answers the breach, whoever it wrongs.

10: The smallest departure the group would condemn jars you at once as plainly wrong, and intimates see you pull the member up on the spot: a sharp word or a mocking laugh, or a cold shoulder where the breach repeats or reads as bad character.

1: A member breaking the group's settled ways, or openly pressing to change them, leaves you unmoved even where the group would condemn it; nothing in you says it is wrong, and intimates see you let it pass.

Pre-language: The bristle at one of the band doing a thing the wrong way. Its sign is the move to pull them up: a protest cry, a shove, a cold shoulder or exclusion. In one small theft experiment, captive chimpanzees retaliated for their own losses but did not punish theft from others (Riedl et al. 2012); the era rests on that one study and is provisional. Intimates read it from how she meets another's departure: with indignation and a rebuke, or with a shrug. Forager bands such as the Ju/'hoansi turn a like bristle, by criticism and mockery, on upstarts and stingy members (Wiessner 2005); in this model that egalitarian form is carried by Safety->Parity and stands here only as the contrast. The face here is the guarding of a ranked group's settled ways.

Effect on Engagement: Where you feel that you can manage (minimise unwelcome or surprising) change, by using your power to reduce any propensity for others to suggest change. While high Rule-Keeping undermines Psychological Safety for others, it makes you personally feel safer.

Dependability (OutResp)

Tightened by the literature 3 Nov 2026 (docs/model-edits/tighten/); provisional

How far you feel the other members can be counted on to do their part in the shared work: each carries through what they take on and keeps their word about it, so you leave work in their hands without checking that they are doing it. The reliance may rest on their own will or on knowing that a part let drop gets pulled up by the group or its rules; either can raise it. It is reliability, not skill (Team Confidence), not whether a slip or weak spot you show would be used against you (Safety), and not your indignation at a member who lets a part drop (Rule-Keeping); that answers the breach, while this reads what you expect of them next. A part let drop likely moves it further than a part carried through.

10: You leave any part of the work with any member and never check whether they are doing it; what they take on gets done and what they promise about it holds.

1: You check up on and chase others' work and redo what they skimp, expecting them to shirk, cut corners or go back on their word.

Pre-language: Whether she can turn her back on them at a shared task. One who counts on her fellows leaves the watch, the carry or the young in their hands and goes about her own business without looking back; one who does not keeps glancing over, hovers at their work or takes it over herself. Intimates read it from how often she looks back, checks and takes over. The mechanism is trust calibrated to a partner's record of carrying a joint task, the kind of partner assessment the interdependence account places early in human cooperation (Tomasello et al. 2012). What sets this Pillar apart from Reciprocity is what the record is of: the partner's share of a joint task, not a favour returned to her. It is her reading of them; whether they turn their backs on her is a different thing and not read here.

Effect on Engagement: With competent and trustworthy people because you like being associated with 'winners', you admire and wish to model yourself off them, and they can help you to improve.

Parity (Levelling)

Tightened by the literature 3 Nov 2026 (docs/model-edits/tighten/); provisional

How far you feel no one in the group sets themselves over you unfairly: by force or fear, by taking more than their due and keeping it, by tilting how shares, turns and chances are handed out, who gets a hearing, or how a quarrel is settled, towards themselves or their favourites, or by treating you with contempt. The culture's face sets where that threat is looked for: among equals, a would-be boss; in a ranked group, partial or overbearing dealing from those above.

10: No one in the group makes you comply by force or threat, takes more than their due and keeps it, or tilts a share-out, a hearing or the settling of a quarrel against you; you take your portion and go about your business without watching anyone warily.

1: One or a few in the group make you comply through force or fear, take more than their due and keep it, or decide and divide in favour of their own while you are passed over or go unheard; you watch them warily and let them have their way, because objecting gets you nowhere or draws their anger.

Pre-language: Freedom from a bully she must appease. The free animal moves, feeds and takes her share in the strongest member's presence without flinching or a glance at that member's mood; the coerced one tracks that member's moods, freezes on approach and does whatever heads off an attack. Intimates read it from whether she watches one particular member warily and shrinks or placates when that member comes near, while staying easy with everyone else, and whether, at a share-out, she is handed her portion in turn or watches the one dividing it feed his friends first and pass her by. The root is dominance, the coalitions that check it and the option to leave (Boehm 1999), not primate inequity aversion.

No one lords it over you. How far you feel no one in the group sets themselves over you: makes you do, drop or endure things by force or fear; takes more than the group's ordinary share-out gives them, of food, credit or say, and makes it stick; tilts how shares, turns and chances are handed out, or how a quarrel is settled, towards themselves or their favourites, passing you over; or treats you with contempt, as if above you. You go along of your own accord, unafraid, not shortchanged and not passed over. The reaction that lowers it takes one of two forms, depending on whether you could answer the wrong. Alone against force, it is wariness and fear, and you keep away or appease. With others who would back you, or where the wrong is a grab or a tilted share-out rather than a threat, it is aggrieved anger, and you want to confront them. Either form lowers the reading by the same amount; they differ in what you then do and in which cards bite. Where you could move to another group at little cost, a would-be boss has less hold over you, and the same push lowers this reading less; where leaving is costly, it lowers it more. It is not rank (Rank), acceptance (Belonging), deference for what you bring (Esteem), the return on help or whether those with a surplus of their own share it on demand (Reciprocity), whether others do their part of the work (Dependability), the cost of showing yourself (Safety), the others' verdict on your own conduct (Repute) or whether a charge against your character stands before those who count (Face). A respected leader, a settled order you accept, an even-handed share-out that happens to leave you less this time, or the group together pulling up a breach of its ways leaves it high; a member you must appease, one who grabs and gets away with it, or one who hands out or settles in favour of their own lowers it. Where the group has spoken ways of deciding, having those ways applied to you as to anyone, and a fair hearing for your say, feed the same reading even when the outcome goes against you; a say that is heard and then brushed aside, never weighed, does not raise it. 10: No member or clique can make you do or drop anything by force or threat, no one takes more than their due and keeps it, and whoever hands out or settles things does so with no thumb on the scale. You move, take your share and go about your business in the strongest member's presence as freely as in anyone's. 1: One or a few members make you comply through force or fear, take more than their due and keep it, or hand out and settle things in favour of their own while you are passed over. Alone against them, you watch them warily, fall quiet when they come near, and let them have their way to head off their anger. Where others would back you, or the wrong is a grab or a tilt rather than a threat, it galls you and you bristle at them, though you may still let it pass because objecting gets you nowhere.

Even hands from those above. How far you feel those above you in the order, and the order's own ways of deciding, deal evenly with you: they hear you before deciding what touches you, hold you to the same rules as anyone at your rung, hand out shares, turns and chances without serving their favourites first, settle quarrels without a thumb on the scale, give orders only as far as the rules of your place allow, without threat or fear, and treat you with the courtesy your place is owed. It is not your rung (Rank), not whether partners repay you (Reciprocity), not whether those at the top can steer (Team Confidence), not deference for what you bring (Esteem), not the cost of showing yourself (Safety), not whether you are kept among them (Belonging) and not whether a charge against your character stands before those who count (Face), though being denied a hearing on such a charge lowers this reading. A settled order that gives you less by rank but applies its rules evenly and hears you leaves it high; a decision made over your head, a patron who serves his own first, a superior who rules by threat, or contempt from above lowers it. 10: Those above you hear you out before any call that touches you, apply the same rules to you as to anyone at your rung and hand out turns and shares with no favourite served first; you take your portion when it comes without watching the one who divides it. 1: Calls that touch you are made over your head, favourites are served before you whatever the rules say, and objecting gets you waved off or met with a threat; you watch whoever divides, settles and gives orders with a wary, aggrieved eye.

Safety (DivsExp)

Tightened by the literature 3 Nov 2026 (docs/model-edits/tighten/); provisional

How safe you feel to show yourself in this group: to let a slip, a mood, a need or a disagreement show, or go about things your own way, expecting no put-down, mockery or rebuff for it. It includes whether a slip, a need or a weak spot you let show would be turned against you to get ahead of you or to do you harm. It is your reading of what showing yourself will cost you, not whether you speak up; not whether a need you show gets met (Reciprocity), whether your word carries weight (Esteem) or whether you are wanted (Belonging); not whether anyone pushes you about by force or fear, whether those who decide hear you out before a call that touches you or whether those above treat you with contempt whatever you show (Parity); not the verdict already held on your conduct (Repute) or being openly charged or caught out before those who count (Face); and not your own indignation at others' departures (Rule-Keeping).

10: You feel free to let slips, moods, needs and disagreements show as they come and to go about things your own way, expecting no one to pounce on them, laugh at them or turn away.

1: You feel that letting a slip, a mood, a plain need, a disagreement or a way of your own show would draw a put-down or be used against you, so you scan faces before you move and keep your reactions masked.

Pre-language: Relaxed against braced among her own: the loose body and open play of an animal that expects no bite from its fellows, against the scanning, tense stillness of one that does. Intimates read it from how loose or tight she is when eyes turn to her, and from whether she hides a hurt or a want.

Effect on Engagement: Where you feel that your ideas will be welcomed and well-received. While related to IncResp (HCP), Expression is closer to a norm of Psychological Safety than being given specific respect for one's competence. Such a norm creates a warm, less hostile environment, which is distinct from cohesion: a close, friendly group can still make challenge feel risky.

Reciprocity

Tightened by the literature 3 Nov 2026 (docs/model-edits/tighten/); provisional

Your felt reading of whether help in this group comes back: what you give is returned, what you ask for is met. It holds until evidence moves it. A return that falls short of what was given or agreed moves it further, and is slower to be made good, than a return that exceeds it. It concerns the return on help, not whether others carry their part of shared work (Dependability), whether anyone takes more of a common take than their due (Parity), your indignation at a member who keeps back what should be shared (Rule-Keeping), where you stand (Rank), whether the others want you among them (Belonging) or how they judge your conduct (Repute, Face), though your good name feeds the return. The culture's face sets where the return is looked for.

10: What you give comes back and what you ask for is met, as a matter of course; you count on the return without a second thought.

1: What you give is not returned and what you need goes unmet; you expect nothing back from anyone here.

Pre-language: The felt return on sharing: grooming that is returned by those groomed (Schino and Aureli 2008), and forager food handed over on demand to whoever asks (Peterson 1993), with those who have given tending to be given to in turn (Allen-Arave, Gurven and Hill 2008). Intimates read it as a sign in her behaviour: whether she hands over on request and asks as of right, expecting the return, or hesitates, hoards and goes without rather than ask.

Return from the group. Help goes to whoever needs it, and the return comes from the group at large. Big windfalls often go out by demand and tolerated taking, to whoever is there, whatever their record, though that is one route among several; what tracks being seen to share is the smaller, everyday giving and the care a member gets when sick or hurt. Whoever has a surplus is pressed to share on demand, and asking is as normal as giving. Your reading is whether, when you are in need, the group at large gives to you. 10: Whoever has gives to whoever needs; what you have put in comes back to you from any member when you are in need. 1: Giving goes into a hole: nothing comes back from anyone, those with a surplus hide it, and need goes unmet.

Return from the partner. Help flows between particular partners who return it to each other. It is conditional on a return from the same partner: in kind between equals, or across rank, as favour and protection passed down for loyalty and service passed up. Your reading is whether your partners pay you back, not where you stand (Rank), whether they do their part of the shared work (Dependability), whether those above decide evenly (Parity) or whether your character stands unchallenged before those who count (Face), though being shown up as one who leaves a favour unreturned lowers Face, and Face in turn feeds the return. 10: Every partner you help pays you back and those you ask deliver; whoever stands above you covers you and whoever stands below you backs you, each in turn. 1: Partners take and do not return; whoever stands above you leaves you uncovered and whoever stands below you will not back you; you expect no return from anyone you deal with.

Belonging

Tightened by the literature 3 Nov 2026 (docs/model-edits/tighten/); provisional

How far you feel the others want you among them: whether they make room for you and draw you in, or leave you at the edge. It is their acceptance of you, read from how they treat you, not whether they defer to you for skill or contribution (Esteem), where you stand in the order (Rank) or how they judge your conduct (Repute). The culture's face sets what the acceptance rests on. It is not your own fondness for them (Warmth).

10: Others make room for you on sight and draw you into whatever is going on; you never doubt that you are wanted here.

1: Gatherings form without you and you are left at the edge; you doubt that anyone wants you here.

Pre-language: Being let into the huddle or kept out of it, time after time. The others shift to make a place, share, groom and turn towards her, or close ranks, turn away and leave her at the fringe, and keep doing so. Intimates read it from whether she moves freely into the middle of the group or hovers at its edge, watching for a gap.

Wanted as one of their own in good standing. The others want you among them as one of their own in good standing: you pull with the group as far as you are able and do not feed on it. The acceptance does not depend on how much you produce or on any place in an order, though being looked to for what you bring can draw you further in. Nor is it unconditional: a member the group has judged to shirk, cheat or feed on the others (Repute) tends to be edged out. You read it from how the group as a whole treats you, not from the judgement itself. 10: Others make room for you and draw you in as a matter of course, and have done so through good seasons and bad; you feel it would take shirking, cheating or turning on the group to change it. 1: Gatherings form without you and you are left at the edge: they treat you as a freeloader or an outsider, not as one of their own.

Included while you keep your place. The others keep you among them so long as you keep to what your place in the order calls for, high or low, and do not step out of line. The acceptance is real but conditional on keeping the place, not on the place itself (Rank). You read it from how they treat you while you keep it and from the standing threat of being dropped, not from whether anyone of standing has charged you with stepping out of line or whether that charge has been answered (Face). 10: You have kept your place and the others keep you among them: at every gathering a place is made for you, whether high or low, as a matter of course. 1: You have stepped out of line and been dropped, or were never given a place at all: gatherings form without you and you are kept at the edge.

Esteem (Prestige)

Tightened by the literature 3 Nov 2026 (docs/model-edits/tighten/); provisional

How far the others defer to you freely for what you bring: they turn to you, watch and copy how you do it, bring you their problems and take your advice. It is not whether they want you among them (Belonging), your rung in the settled order (Rank) or their verdict on your conduct (Repute). The culture's face sets how far the deference reaches.

10: Whenever your kind of skill or contribution counts, the others turn to you, watch and copy how you do it, bring you their problems and take your advice.

1: No one asks you, watches you or copies you; when your kind of skill or contribution is needed they turn to someone else.

Pre-language: Being the one others watch, copy and seek out: eyes on her hands, bodies drawn near while she works, problems brought to her, her way of doing things taken up; as children attend to and learn from models whom others attend to. Intimates read it from who gets watched, copied and sought, and who is passed over when a task of her kind comes up. In apes the pull is not cleanly apart from rank: chimpanzees copy both higher-ranking and expert models (Kendal et al. 2015), and subordinates hide what they know while dominants watch (Drea and Wallen 1999).

Effect on Engagement: Where you feel that others have a high opinion of your competence and trustworthiness: you feel valued and understood; you feel that others regard you to be a legitimate and useful member of the group; your identity as belonging to this group is consistent with others' appraisal of you.

Looked to for what you bring, kept modest. How far you feel the others turn to you freely for what you bring the band: skill, knowledge, a good eye for the venture in hand. They watch how you do it, copy you, follow your lead on the matter in hand and bring you their problems, while you stay one of them: the deference gives you no right to command, and it lasts only while what you bring does. Whether you carry it modestly is the others' verdict on your conduct (Repute), which feeds it. Being shown up as clumsy or mistaken on a matter of skill, or as falling short on your share for want of skill rather than will, lowers it; falling short for want of will is Repute's ground. It is not whether they want you among them (Belonging), not freedom from being pushed about (Parity) and not the return on your help (Reciprocity). 10: Whenever your kind of skill counts, the others look to you, copy how you do it, bring you their problems and follow your lead on it for the day. 1: No one watches, copies or follows you on anything; when your kind of skill is needed they turn to someone else.

Deferred to for what you bring. How far you feel the others defer to you freely for what you bring the group: skill, knowledge or contribution it values. They watch how you do it, copy you, bring you problems, take your advice, hand you decisions and jobs that matter and take your word on them. The deference is given, not owed to any place in a rank order (Rank). Being handed a decision or a job because of what you bring is part of it; being shown up before others as clumsy or mistaken on a matter of skill, or as falling short on your share for want of skill rather than will, lowers it. Whether the others count you a decent member, fair in your dealings and carrying your share of the work, is not (Repute); nor is whether anyone of standing has openly charged you with, or caught you at, wronging people, dodging your share or stepping out of your place (Face); and neither is whether help you give comes back to you (Reciprocity) nor whether those above you hear you out and deal evenly with you (Parity). It fades once what you bring does; any precedence that has by then settled into your place is Rank, not Esteem. 10: Whenever your kind of skill or contribution counts, the others turn to you, watch and copy how you do it, bring you their problems and take your advice. 1: No one asks you, watches you or copies you; when your kind of skill or contribution is needed they turn to someone else.

Warmth

provisional

How fond you feel of the members as a whole: whether you like being with them, are drawn to their company and feel their troubles as partly yours. It is your liking for them, not their acceptance of you (Belonging), not whether help comes back (Reciprocity), not whether they can be counted on (Dependability), and not how much of yourself you put into the group (Engagement), which can be high in a group whose members you merely tolerate.

10: You brighten at the sight of them, enjoy their company for its own sake and feel their troubles as partly yours.

1: Their company is a duty, their troubles leave you unmoved and you are glad when the gathering breaks up.

Pre-language: Affection for her fellows: the face that lights and the body that leans in and lingers, against the flat face and the body turned away. Intimates read it from how she greets them and how long she stays.

Making Fetch Happen: Belonging to DivsExp (Reinforce, E)

Revised 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars (reword); provisional

Increment: When the others draw me in as one of their own, and after a knock one of them comes and sits with me, my bracing eases; I expect a slip, a mood or a disagreement of mine to be taken as coming from one of their own, and my felt safety to show myself rises.

Decrement: When gatherings form without me and no one comes to me after a knock, I expect a slip or a disagreement of mine to be met as an outsider's would be, with a rebuff, and I mask myself and brace: my felt safety to show myself falls.

A member who feels the others want her among them expects a slip, a mood or a disagreement of hers to be borne as one of their own's; one left at the edge expects it to be held against her. Human evidence carries the card. People who feel socially isolated are held to grow more watchful for social threat (Cacioppo and Hawkley 2009, a model whose attention tests are mixed). The largest stress hormone responses in the laboratory, and the slowest recovery, come where the self may be judged by others and the outcome is out of one's control (Dickerson and Kemeny 2004, a meta-analysis of 208 studies); a member at the edge has least control over how she is judged. Others also regulate a member's feeling directly: people turn to others to change their own feeling (Zaki and Williams 2013), and holding a husband's hand damped neural threat responses, more so the better the marriage (Coan, Schaefer and Davidson 2006; 16 married women, so carrying it from spouse to group is the model's step). That regulation is another's act on her and belongs to the scene; the comfort after a knock enters the lines only as a sign she reads that she is wanted, and the card carries her expectation of how what she shows will be met. In chimpanzees, consolation by a valued partner lowered victims' stress behaviour in one group (Fraser, Stahl and Aureli 2008) but not in another (Koski and Sterck 2007), so the primate route stays secondary; keep the card modest. Felt safety in teams is a shared reading that interpersonal risk is acceptable (Edmondson 1999). Distinct from Among friends (E:Warmth->Safety), which reads her own fondness for the members; this card reads their acceptance of her.

Pre-language (increment): When others seek her out and play with her, she lets her moods and fumbles show without watching faces.

Pre-language (decrement): When others leave her at the edge, she watches faces, masks her reactions and braces for a snap.

Friends at my back: Belonging to Levelling (Reinforce, E)

Generated for the draft model; provisional, awaiting Ben Rechecked 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars: kept.

Increment: When I feel the others want me among them, I sense they would close round me if anyone tried to push me about, grab more than their due or tilt a share-out against me; such a move looks bound to be checked before it sticks, and my sense that no one can lord it over me rises.

Decrement: When gatherings form without me and no one seeks me out, I feel I would stand alone if someone pushed me about, grabbed or tilted a share-out against me; such a move looks able to stick, I keep away or let it pass, and my sense that no one can lord it over me falls.

Felt protection from domination rests on expected coalitional support, and being bonded into the group is the felt basis of that expectation; an isolated member is exposed. Among foragers, followers acting together check a would-be dominant (Boehm 1993), so a member who feels wanted among them expects that check to include her. In primates, grooming partners are more likely to back each other in fights (Seyfarth and Cheney 1984; across species, Schino 2007, a meta-analysis), a neighbouring route from bond to backing that is consilient but not direct. Emotion research adds the felt side: people who see their group as strong feel more anger at an opposing group and more wish to move against it, with anger carrying the effect of strength on that wish (Mackie, Devos and Smith 2000, between groups, so carrying it to backing within one group is the model's step). That a member without backing meets the push with fear instead is the common-sense mirror. Backing also sets the form her reaction takes, anger she can voice or wariness, but Parity's E face counts both forms alike; the reading moves with whether the push, grab or tilt can stick, and the form shows in play and in which cards bite. Exposure lowers Parity only where someone is pushing, grabbing or tilting a share-out: where no member is doing so, there is nothing to be backed against, so set both lines small or nil.

Pre-language (increment): When others seek her out and groom her, she faces a swaggering member without shrinking, expecting her companions to come to her side, and her sense of no bully rises.

Pre-language (decrement): When others leave her on her own, she shrinks when a forceful member nears, with no one to run to, and her sense of no bully sinks.

One of us, so it comes back: Belonging to Reciprocity (Reinforce, E)

Revised 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars (replace); provisional

Increment: When the others draw me in as one of their own, I feel surer that what I put in will come back from the group and that what I need will be met: my sense that help comes back to me rises.

Decrement: When gatherings form without me and I am left at the edge, I feel that what I give goes into a hole and that my needs would go unmet: my sense that help comes back to me falls.

In the return-from-the-group face, big windfalls reach whoever is there by demand and tolerated taking, but the smaller, everyday giving and the care a member gets when sick or hurt go more readily to those the others count as their own. Being wanted as one of their own in good standing is the felt sign that she is among those this giving reaches, so her need will be met; being left at the edge is the sign that she stands outside its reach and will be passed over. Her name as a sharer is a separate route (Bad Name, Empty Hands). People expect generalised returns from their own group and not from outsiders (bounded generalised reciprocity: Yamagishi and Kiyonari 2000); carrying that from group membership to graded acceptance within one group is an extension, so keep the step modest, and keep it smaller still where the help in question is a windfall shared out on demand.

Pre-language (increment): When others seek her out and draw her in, she reaches for a share of what they have without hesitation, expecting it to be handed over, and her sense that giving comes back grows.

Pre-language (decrement): When others leave her at the edge, she hangs back from the food and holds what she has close, expecting nothing to come her way, and her sense that giving comes back sinks.

Open or masked: DivsExp to Belonging (Discretionary, E)

Fixed 3 Nov 2026 after the final high and low check (second round); provisional

Whether feeling safe to show myself draws me closer to the others depends on what I would be showing them. Circumstance one: what shows is ordinary, play, laughter, moods, owned slips and disagreements aired for the group's sake. HIGH: I let them show, I join the joking and the play, and I sense I am being taken as one of their own, so my Belonging rises. LOW: braced and masked, I stay out of the play and sense I come across as aloof, someone they would leave at the edge of the talk, so my Belonging falls. Circumstance two: what I have to show is mostly a run of needs, complaints and pleas for reassurance, pressed on the others more often than they can comfortably carry. HIGH: I go on letting them show and sense I am wearing on them, so my Belonging falls. LOW: braced and masked, I keep those needs to myself; I sense nothing new laid on them, but also that masking keeps me from them, so my Belonging holds or slips a little. Someone already wanted among them can feel surer of being borne with longer, and needs she cannot help she can expect to be borne as one of their own. Whether they judge her to be feeding on them is Repute's ground, carried by Can't Look Them in the Eye. How the others in fact receive her (shared laughter drawing closeness, Kurtz and Algoe 2015; masking lowering a partner's rapport, Butler et al. 2003; disclosure drawing liking, Collins and Miller 1994; reassurance seeking going with rejection, a small and mostly concurrent effect of r about .14, Starr and Davila 2008) belongs to the scene. Most of these studies measure how partners receive the one who masks or discloses, which is scene ground; none measures her own felt belonging. Suppression's social cost also varies with context (Pauw et al. 2022, where one moderator did not replicate). That she reads her own play or masking, and her own pressing of needs, as drawing her in or setting her apart rests on common sense; laughter's homologues in great-ape play vocalisations (Davila Ross, Owren and Zimmermann 2009) suggest how basic the felt pull of shared play is. Both arms of circumstance two rest on common sense and are untested. The high arm, that pressing needs leaves her feeling she wears on them, borrows only the small adjacent effect above. The low arm allows a small fall because concealment can lower the concealer's own belonging (Newheiser and Barreto 2014, a concealed stigmatised identity), so masking likely costs something even here. Keep both circumstances modest.

Pre-language (explanation): When she does her share alongside the others, showing her moods and fumbles freely draws them to her, while going still and masked leaves her on the edge. When the others have begun to turn from her constant wants and complaints, showing more of them makes them turn further away, while keeping them hidden lets them come back to her and make room for her again.

Mistakes in the open: DivsExp to GrpProsp (Reinforce, E)

Revised 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars (replace); provisional

Increment: When I feel safe to let a slip or a disagreement show, I sense that troubles with the venture come out where the group can deal with them, and I feel surer it can pull the venture off.

Decrement: When I brace and mask myself, I sense that slips and doubts are being hidden around me as well as by me, and I feel less sure the group can pull the venture off.

Psychological safety supports team learning behaviour, through which teams take up problems and correct course; in Edmondson's (1999) teams it worked on performance through that learning behaviour. Edmondson measured safety as a belief the team shares, so the evidence is team-level shared safety. A member's own felt safety is one sign of whether that climate holds around her, so it carries into her confidence in the group's capability; that step rests on common sense. Edmondson also found team efficacy unrelated to learning behaviour once safety was controlled, so her data do not show a path from safety to confidence in capability. The link from safety to performance depends on the task, and is stronger for complex work (Sanner and Bunderson 2015, as summarised). Direction may run both ways: confidence and performance are held to feed each other over time (efficacy-performance spirals, Lindsley, Brass and Thomas 1995, a theory piece); the longitudinal study once cited for this is unidentified, a gap. Her sense that others hide their slips too is an inference from her own masking and rests on common sense, since no source tests it. Keep the step modest. Framework: team psychological safety and learning (Edmondson 1999); common sense for the step to her own confidence.

Pre-language (increment): When she is loose among them and her fumbles on the shared venture draw help rather than jeers, she sees fumbles mended as they happen and goes at the venture with confidence.

Pre-language (decrement): When she is braced and hides her fumbles, she sees others hide theirs too, and the venture feels shakier to her.

Free to scoff, free of bullies: DivsExp to Levelling (Reinforce, E)

Revised 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars (reword); provisional

Increment: When I feel safe to let a disagreement show, I feel free to speak up or scoff at anyone who starts to push me about, help themselves to more than their due, or tilt a share-out or a turn towards themselves or their favourites, and such a move looks less able to pass unanswered: my sense of Parity rises.

Decrement: When I brace and mask myself, I let a pushy member's demands, grabs and favouritism pass without a murmur and take what is handed to me, and I feel myself made to go along: my sense of Parity falls.

The everyday tools of levelling are ridicule, criticism and open objection (Wiessner 2005; Boehm 1993); those studies show the tools biting when used collectively, and that collective check belongs to the scene. A member who feels safe to let a disagreement show feels free to use these tools against a pushy member, and so reads such a move as less likely to pass unanswered; both steps, including the link from felt freedom to speak to her reading of Parity, rest on common sense, since the safety in question is safety to object. Felt freedom to object differs from expecting the objection to succeed: objecting can bring retaliation, and bystander work suggests safety from those with power matters more than safety among peers (MacCurtain et al. 2018, not yet checked). Expected backing is carried by E:Belonging->Levelling, so keep this card modest. The indignation that prompts the objection is Rule-Keeping's ground (Ribbing the big shot); this card carries only her felt freedom to voice it. Both lines need someone pushing, grabbing or tilting a share-out: where no member is doing so, there is no move to scoff at and masking leaves nothing to let pass, so set both lines small or nil. The favouritism limb rests on the finding that a rigged procedure draws more objection than an unequal outcome alone: preschoolers protest an unequal split more when a rigged procedure produced it than when a fair one did (Grocke, Rossano and Tomasello 2015).

Pre-language (increment): When she is loose among the others, she bristles, mocks or protests when a swaggering member pushes at her, and goes about her business beside him without a glance at his mood.

Pre-language (decrement): When she is braced, she goes still and gives way when a swaggering member pushes at her, and watches his mood.

Need shown, need met: DivsExp to Reciprocity (Reinforce, E)

Revised 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars (replace); provisional

Increment: When I feel safe to let a need show, I can ask plainly for what I need, and a plain ask here looks likely to be answered: my sense that what I need here will be met rises.

Decrement: When I brace and keep my needs masked, I can only hint at them, and help I have not asked for looks unlikely to come: my sense that what I need here will be met falls.

Felt safety lets a member ask plainly for what she needs, and a need she can ask for looks like one the group will meet. A braced member can only hint, and help she has not asked for looks unlikely to come. Both steps are her own reading and rest on common sense; the link from hinting to expecting less help is untested, a gap. Whether help then arrives belongs to the scene. People underestimate how readily others help when asked directly (Flynn and Lake 2008, not replicated as a direct replication), so a member who feels free to ask may find the return better than she feared, while one who masks her needs never learns that her estimate was too low. The underestimate holds for face-to-face asks and reverses over email (Roghanizad and Bohns 2017), and was shown among strangers; carrying it to shown needs in a standing group is an extension, so keep both lines modest, and keep the decrement small where she has no pressing need to show. Unasked, unseen support can help the receiver more than visible support (Bolger and Amarel 2007); that finding bears on outcomes, which belong to the scene, and leaves her forecast untouched.

Pre-language (increment): When she is loose among them, she whimpers or reaches when hungry or hurt, is given to, and her sense that giving comes back grows.

Pre-language (decrement): When she is braced, she hides her hunger or hurt, is given nothing, and her sense that giving comes back sinks.

Reading the welcome through my own stake: Engagement to Belonging (Reinforce, E)

Fixed 3 Nov 2026 after the final high and low check (fixed); provisional

Increment: When I am putting much of myself into this group, the small signs (a nod, a seat kept, a glance my way) read to me as welcome for one of their own, and my sense that they want me among them rises.

Decrement: When I am pulling out of this group, the same small signs read as mere politeness and the gaps read as edging me out, as if I were an outsider, and my sense that they want me among them falls.

Most belonging cues in a small group are ambiguous, and people read them in line with how they themselves stand. The sociometer gauges felt relational value from such cues (Leary and Baumeister 2000), and people who anxiously expect rejection readily perceive it in others' ambiguous behaviour, from strangers as well as romantic partners (Downey and Feldman 1996). Those works concern expectation and self-view, not investment, so the step from her own investment to that reading is a common-sense extension of findings that a perceiver's expectations and self-view shape her reading of others' regard. A person who puts much of herself into the group gives the others the benefit of the doubt. A person on her way out reads coolness into the same scene, and finds in it a felt reason for going. The card acts on small, ambiguous signs only; plain welcome or plain exclusion is read as it is. Higher need to belong went with more accurate reading of social cues (Pickett et al. 2004), which sits against a pure projection account, so keep the effect modest. Commitment, identification and perceived support overlap heavily in organisational meta-analyses, so the link may partly reflect one shared bond. The reverse path, Belonging raising Engagement, is better supported and stays a distinct card. Her own investment colours how she reads their acceptance of her as one of their own; how they judge her conduct is Repute's ground, and the card moves only her reading of the others' treatment, not the treatment itself.

Pre-language (increment): Bound up in the band, she takes the others' approaches and the room made beside her as welcome. Her feeling of being wanted among them rises.

Pre-language (decrement): Drifting away from the band, she reads the others' glances as indifferent and sees groups forming without her. Her feeling of being wanted among them falls.

Bringing herself in, or bracing: Engagement to DivsExp (Reinforce, E)

Fixed 3 Nov 2026 after the final high and low check (fixed); provisional

Increment: When I am putting much of myself into this group, I bring my whole self into it, and the faces around me read as open rather than judging: I feel safer letting slips, moods, needs and disagreements show.

Decrement: When I have withdrawn into myself and am on my way out of this group, the same faces read as watchful and ready to mock: I mask my reactions, braced for a put-down, and feel less safe to let them show.

Kahn (1990) defines engagement and disengagement as two movements of the self, expressing it in the role or withdrawing and defending it, and names safety as one condition of engagement. The established path therefore runs from Safety to Engagement; a meta-analysis of psychological safety places engagement in its network as an outcome (Frazier et al. 2017; mostly cross-sectional studies). The feedback path here is a proposal and its direction provisional, best read as the return half of a loop in which Safety is the better-established driver. Investment carries enthusiasm and withdrawal carries flatness, and mood colours judgements of other people in its own direction (Forgas 1995, checked only in part), so an invested member may read the same faces as more open and a withdrawing one as more watchful. The mood route to face reading is mixed, has rival explanations and is weakest for familiar targets, such as members of her own group. Kahn's account does not itself show how a withdrawing member reads faces; that step rests on the mood route alone, and the bracing half also leans on interpretation bias in social anxiety, a neighbouring construct with likely publication bias and one contrary study. Keep the card small, smaller than Safety's evidence cards. I considered Inverse (an invested member has more to lose, so feels more exposed) but rejected it as the default, because Kahn treats self-expression and engagement as one movement; that exposure effect belongs on a scene card about how a shown disagreement is received.

Pre-language (increment): Bound up in the band, she moves loosely and plays unguarded, and eyes turning to her no longer feel like a threat: her felt safety among them rises.

Pre-language (decrement): Withdrawn from the band, she tightens, scans faces and goes still, and eyes turning to her feel like a coming blow: her felt safety among them falls.

Thrown in, the venture looks winnable: Engagement to GrpProsp (Reinforce, E)

Fixed 3 Nov 2026 after the final high and low check (fixed); provisional

Increment: When I am thrown into this group heart and effort, I feel buoyed, and what we manage feels like a sign of what we can do: I feel more sure that we, as we stand, can pull off the venture we have taken on.

Decrement: When I have withdrawn from this group and am half out of the door, I feel flat, and the same showing looks like the limit of what we can do: I feel less sure that we, as we stand, can pull off the venture we have taken on.

Engagement in this model includes her feeling, and work engagement carries vigour and enthusiasm that set it apart from job attitudes (Christian, Garza and Slaughter 2011). That standing enthusiasm or flatness, tied to her engagement and distinct from a passing mood, is what colours her reading of the group's capability for the venture still ahead: an invested member reads what the group manages as a sign of what it can do, a withdrawing one reads the same showing as its limit. The Affect Infusion Model describes how feeling colours judgements built from scratch (Forgas 1995), but predicts least infusion where the judge has a set aim in view, which a member weighing her own group's venture often has; passing mood is fast while Engagement moves only at checkpoints, and large tests of mood effects on life-satisfaction judgements found the effects small at most (Yap et al. 2017, as summarised, not yet checked; their judgement is of one's own well-being, so carrying it to judgements of a group's capability is an extension), so the card claims no moment-to-moment mood route. Salanova, Llorens and Schaufeli (2011) propose and test a gain spiral in which efficacy beliefs and engagement influence each other over time through positive affect such as enthusiasm, in students working in groups; the return path from engagement to efficacy was not confirmed in detail, and the efficacy to engagement direction is better supported, so the loop from engagement to felt prospects is a likely reading of their work and should be kept modest. Most of that evidence concerns a member's belief in her own capability; its spread to the group's capability is an extension. Shared performance feedback can raise both engagement and confidence at once, a third-variable account the card cannot rule out. Because Team Confidence also feeds Engagement, the two form a positive loop; the brake must come from Team Confidence evidence cards (setbacks, missed goals), and the increment here should be small.

Pre-language (increment): Bound up in the band's shared push, she moves with spring, and the venture ahead looks within the band's reach: her sense of the band's prospects rises.

Pre-language (decrement): Withdrawn and hanging back, she sees the band fumble, and the venture ahead looks beyond it: her sense of the band's prospects falls.

Inside the coalition: Engagement to Levelling (Reinforce, E)

Fixed 3 Nov 2026 after the final high and low check (fixed); provisional

Increment: When I am putting much of myself into this group, it feels like ours to defend, and I feel ready to stand with the rest against anyone who throws their weight about; a forceful member no longer looks able to make me do or drop anything, or to take more than their due and keep it: my sense that no one here can set themselves over me rises.

Decrement: When I have drawn back from this group but cannot readily leave it, it no longer feels worth a stand, and I would sooner keep my head down than face anyone down; a forceful member looms larger and I give way to their mood: my sense that no one here can set themselves over me falls.

In forager bands, the absence of a bully rests on a levelling coalition of the rest, ready to check a would-be dominant (Boehm 1993). Boehm describes the coalition at the level of the band, and band-level levelling is uneven across groups (Thomson et al. 2025, searched only). The model takes her felt freedom from being pushed about to depend partly on her own readiness to join that check; that central step rests on common sense. Among employees, greater satisfaction and investment go with voice and loyalty, and lesser with exit and neglect (Rusbult and colleagues 1988); that work concerns responses to a declining job, so its extension to standing up to a forceful member is the model's. Readiness to face down a forceful member is also distinct from willingness to speak up (Sherf et al. 2021, searched only). When Engagement is high the group feels like hers to defend, so a forceful member feels less able to make her comply. When it is low and she cannot readily leave, nothing here seems worth a stand, and the same forcefulness feels like a threat she must appease. The link may run partly the other way, with felt Parity or efficacy raising her identification with the group. Caution, on common sense: a member with a ready and cheap way out depends less on the group and has less to lose by defying a forceful member, so set the decrement small or nil where her exit is ready. Both lines need a member who throws their weight about: where no one does, there is nothing to stand against or give way to, so set both lines near nil. Whether the others would back her is a separate matter, carried by Friends at my back (Belonging). Parity here is her own felt exposure to force, fear or a grab that sticks, and leaves aside whether she likes or rates the forceful member.

Pre-language (increment): Drawn into the band, she stands among the others when a forceful member swaggers, feels them at her side and goes on with her business. Her sense that no one can push her about rises.

Pre-language (decrement): Pulled to the band's edge, she watches the forceful member warily, goes still when it comes near and gives way, feeling no one at her back. Her sense that no one can push her about falls.

Trusting those I am in it with: Engagement to OutResp (Reinforce, E)

Fixed 3 Nov 2026 after the final high and low check (fixed); provisional

Increment: When I am thrown into this group and putting in all I can, I take the others to be putting in as I am, and a part of theirs not yet done reads as on its way: I feel more confident that they will do what they take on.

Decrement: When I have drawn back from this group and am doing the least I can, I take the others to be doing the same, and a part of theirs not yet done reads as dropped: I feel less confident that they will do what they take on.

Projection is the checked route. In repeated public goods games, beliefs about others' contributions go with one's own contributions (Smith 2013), and conditional cooperators match what they expect of others (Fischbacher and Gächter 2010), though those authors put the decay of cooperation down mainly to preferences, so their work does not show beliefs falling with contributions. The link between beliefs and one's own contribution is partly reciprocal and endogenous (Smith 2013; Gächter and Renner 2010, both searched only), so the card claims a modest projection effect only. The step from expected contributions to a member's felt reading of whether the others will do their part is a model proposal. Engagement moves only at checkpoints, so the card claims a standing reading, not a passing one. Team trust and performance links shrink in time-lagged designs, a further reason to keep the card small. The card forms a loop with Engagement, since Engagement is fed by the perceptions; the brake is parts plainly carried through or plainly dropped, which move Dependability on their own evidence. Two secondary routes remain possible, unchecked here. Affect: feeling colours judgements of other people (Forgas 1995), less so when she judges with a set aim in view, as she may when a teammate she depends on must deliver. Sampling over many plays: an engaged member keeps relying on others, so a single let-down is soon corrected, while a disengaged member stops relying on them and the last let-down stands (Denrell 2005). The card moves reliability only, leaving her reading of the group's capability to Team Confidence. One caution: members who believe a partner is not pulling their weight cut their own effort (the sucker effect, Kerr 1983). That reaction is driven by seeing the coasting, so it belongs on a Dependability evidence card.

Pre-language (increment): Bound up in the band, she leaves tasks in others' hands and sees them done, and each task carried through sticks: her trust that those around her will do their part rises.

Pre-language (decrement): Withdrawn from the band, she stops leaving tasks with others, and the last task dropped is what she carries away: her trust that they will do their part falls.

One of us, so paid back: Engagement to Reciprocity (Discretionary, E)

Fixed 3 Nov 2026 after the final high and low check (fixed); provisional

In egalitarian sharing the return comes from the group. Whether putting much of myself in raises my sense that help comes back depends on whether what comes back seems to keep pace with what I feel I have put in. Circumstance one (the default), returns keep pace or are unclear. HIGH: I am pouring my time and effort into this group, I feel the others need what I bring, and what comes my way reads as the group looking after one it relies on: my sense that help here comes back to me rises. LOW: I am pulling out, I know I have held back and given the others less reason to look after me, and I expect to be passed over when I am in need: my sense that help here comes back to me falls. Circumstance two, I have been putting in heavily and the everyday help and care coming back look ordinary. HIGH: the more I have put in, the more my own share looms in memory and the others' fades, so an ordinary return reads as short: my sense that help here comes back to me falls. LOW: having put in little, a little back is what I expected, and the card adds nothing. Circumstance one rests on the interdependence accounts: when members depend on one another, each has a direct stake in a partner's welfare and helps that partner (Roberts 2005; Tomasello and colleagues 2012). Both are theoretical evolutionary accounts, and their extension to a member's felt Engagement in a present-day group is the model's; the reading of ambiguous cues and the expectation of being passed over rest on common sense. Circumstance two rests on egocentric credit: people overclaim their share of joint work because their own part comes to mind more readily (Ross and Sicoly 1979), and the overclaiming grows with group size, while asking members to think of others' parts one by one reduces it (Schroeder, Caruso and Epley 2016). The step from overclaimed credit to a felt shortfall in the return is a model proposal, so play circumstance two modest, larger in bigger groups. Engagement is the felt size of her stake and effort in the group. Big windfalls still reach her by demand whatever her stake, since demand sharing and tolerated scrounging do not track contribution, so the card bites on everyday giving and on the care she gets when sick or hurt. Even there, the forager literature leaves unsettled how far sharing tracks contribution (Gurven 2004, searched only), so keep circumstance one modest too. Whether the others want her among them is a separate route (One of us, so it comes back), and so is what they say of her as a sharer (Bad Name, Empty Hands). The card moves her reading of the group's return; it keeps no tally of particular debts.

Pre-language (increment): Bound up in the band, she shares freely and feels the band's food and help come round to her in turn. Her sense that what she gives comes back rises.

Pre-language (decrement): Loosened from the band, she keeps to herself and, when hungry, hangs back expecting nothing to be passed her way. Her sense that what she gives comes back falls.

Circle the Wagons: GrpProsp to Belonging (Discretionary, E)

Fixed 3 Nov 2026 after the final high and low check (second round); provisional

Whether the venture's prospects draw the others round her depends on where the trouble is seen to come from. Threats seen as external tend to strengthen group identity, and threats seen as internal can weaken it (Greenaway and Cruwys 2019, a theoretical synthesis). Circumstance one (the default): the trouble is seen as inside the group, or no source is named. HIGH: with the venture going well, the others are easy with each other and with her and draw her in, so her Belonging rises (runs as Reinforce). LOW: with the venture failing, the others grow short with each other and she is left at the edge of the talk, so her Belonging falls. The stronger path may run from performance to cohesion (Mullen and Copper 1994), but the effect is small, its direction rests on a few cross-lagged studies, it comes from realised results while Team Confidence is a forecast, and it runs mainly through commitment to the task, with liking among members playing a smaller part, so keep this branch modest. In the egalitarian face acceptance holds through good seasons and bad, so keep it smallest for a member long drawn in. Being blamed herself for the failure is Repute's ground (Pointing Fingers), not this card's. Circumstance two: the trouble is seen as coming from outside (a rival group, an outside body, or a setback from outside such as lost funding or a forced change of ground), and the group still sees a fight worth making. LOW here means the venture is threatened, not yet hopeless: the others close ranks against the threat and draw her in as one of us, so her Belonging rises (runs as Inverse). HIGH: the outside threat looks easily met, the huddle loosens and her place returns to its ordinary level, so her Belonging slips back down, by no more than an earlier huddle raised it; with no such rise, the step is nil. Animal findings offer analogues only, and both are correlational: green woodhoopoe groups preened each other more after conflicts with neighbouring groups, most after long ones (Radford 2008), and in wild chimpanzees oxytocin rose before and during intergroup conflict, which the authors link to in-group cohesion (Samuni et al. 2017). In people, external conflict raises cohesion only under some conditions (Stein 1976): the threat falls on the whole group, the group already has some cohesion, and a way of meeting the threat seems to exist. Physical danger and real violent conflict can lower in-group cooperation instead (Silva and Mace 2015, field experiments around sectarian riots in Belfast), so the rally branch covers setbacks to the venture and does not run where the threat is to members' safety. Where the venture looks hopeless, run circumstance one.

Pre-language (explanation): Where the band huddles when things go badly and she is still half an outsider, a faltering venture has them gathering close and pulling her in among them, while a venture going well lets them drift back to leaving her on the edge. Where the band turns on whoever seems to drag, a faltering venture may leave her at the edge, while a venture going well sees them make room for her again.

Stakes tighten or loosen: GrpProsp to DivsExp (Reinforce, E)

Fixed 3 Nov 2026 after the final high and low check (fixed); provisional

Increment: When I feel sure the group can pull off the venture, no one is hunting for whose slip will cost us, so a slip passes without remark and I let my tiredness, moods and doubts show, expecting no one to pounce: my sense that I can show myself here without cost rises.

Decrement: When I feel the venture is beyond us, I feel heads turning to find who is dragging us down, so I mask my tiredness and keep my doubts and disagreements hidden, braced for blame: my sense that I can show myself here without cost falls.

A change in the venture's prospects changes how much seems to hang on each member's showing. With the rowing crew's season looking won there is slack, no one hunts for a culprit, and a doubt about the stroke passes as a refinement. With the season looking lost, heads turn to find whose slip is costing the crew and she masks her tiredness, braced for a put-down. The card carries only that anticipated cost of showing herself, before any charge is made; a charge of shirking made openly by someone of standing is Face's ground, and the group's verdict that she does not pull her weight is Repute's, carried by Pointing Fingers. The link from failing prospects to a hunt for culprits rests on common sense; no forager or primate evidence was found for scapegoating after failure. Threat rigidity (Staw, Sandelands and Dutton 1981), a broad theory with thin group-level tests, points the same way but awaits a check and is not relied on, so keep the card modest. Where a group treats errors as things to learn from and fix, with no punishment, felt safety goes with learning behaviour (Edmondson 1999, one firm, cross-sectional; the construct has since been pooled in meta-analyses, mainly in the direction from safety to performance), so set the decrement small or nil there. Where she sees the shortfall as within the group's power to put right, the decrement may also be weaker (Konig et al. 2021, searched only). Caution on the high side: in a tight-knit group whose confidence has hardened, a doubt about the plan itself can draw pressure to keep quiet. That point also rests on common sense; groupthink, often cited for it, has only partial empirical support (Esser 1998), and a meta-analysis found no overall effect of cohesion on decision quality (Mullen et al. 1994), so the effect is conditional and is not relied on. Set the increment small for disagreement in such a group. The card runs as Reinforce; no reverse effect is strong enough to make it Discretionary.

Pre-language (explanation): Where the band's way is to try other ways when things go badly, a faltering venture draws them together and she shows her moods and fumbles freely, while a venture going well has them guarding what works and she keeps her fumbles hidden, bracing a little. Where the band's way is to turn on one another, a faltering venture makes her go still, watch faces and mask her reactions, while a venture going well leaves no one turning on anyone and she moves unguarded again.

Failing hunts breed bosses: GrpProsp to Levelling (Reinforce, E)

Fixed 3 Nov 2026 after the final high and low check (fixed); provisional

Increment: When I feel sure the group can pull off the venture, I see no call for anyone to take charge by force or settle things over our heads, and if the strongest starts to drive the pace I shrug it off; I go about my business beside them without a glance at their mood: my sense that no one here can set themselves over me rises.

Decrement: When I feel the venture is beyond us, I find myself looking to the strongest to take charge, and when they drive us by threat and temper and settle things without hearing us, I do not push back but do what they want to head off their anger: my sense that no one here can set themselves over me falls.

When people feel a loss of control under uncertainty they turn towards dominant leaders over prestigious ones (Kakkar and Sivanathan 2017, large cross-national samples from 69 countries; their uncertainty was economic and personal, so its extension to a failing group venture is a proposal). Work on intergroup conflict and preference for dominant leaders (Laustsen and Petersen 2017; Laustsen et al. 2025) may anchor the step more closely and should be preferred once read; neither is checked yet. A failing venture may therefore lend a would-be dominant the support that would otherwise check him. Kakkar and Sivanathan's evidence comes from large market societies. Where members can move to another group at little cost, they walk away from a would-be boss rather than submit (Woodburn 1982), and forager band membership is fluid (Hill et al. 2011, searched only), so the decrement applies only where leaving is costly and is small where members can readily move. Leaders gain most authority in small-scale societies where failure of collective action threatens the group itself (Glowacki and von Rueden 2015), so keep the decrement for ventures whose failure would threaten the group, not for every setback. On the high side, on common sense alone, members confident of success see no need for anyone to take charge, so a would-be dominant who tries to drive the pace is shrugged off. Direction that rests on force, or that settles things without a hearing, lowers a member's Parity; a respected leader simply taking the lead would not. Where no member is pushing or settling things over the others' heads, set the decrement small or nil. The increment should be modest.

Pre-language (increment): When the band's venture is going well, no one shoves or snaps, and if the strongest starts to, the others ignore him; she goes about her business beside him without a glance at his mood, and her sense that no one can push her about rises.

Pre-language (decrement): When the venture is faltering, the strongest start shoving and snapping, and she goes still near them and does what they want to head off their anger, and her sense that no one can push her about falls.

Scapegoating: GrpProsp to OutResp (Reinforce, E)

Revised 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars (reword); provisional

Increment: When the group's venture looks well within its reach, I credit the others with carrying their parts, and I feel I can leave work in their hands without checking: my confidence that they will do their part rises.

Decrement: When the venture looks beyond the group, my frustration looks for whose shirking or broken word is dragging it down, and I come to expect that member, and others like them, to let their parts slip: my confidence that the others will do their part falls.

A venture that looks within reach casts a warm light on the others' carrying-through, so she leaves work in their hands with less checking; this step rests on common sense, so keep the increment modest. One that looks beyond the group can set her looking for a culprit, and some of the blame may land on a member's unwillingness. Blame that lands on another member's want of skill moves Team Confidence, and blame that others lay openly on her own want of skill moves her Esteem; neither belongs to this card. Members' attributions for a group's outcome shift with its success or failure, chiefly in how much each takes on herself (Forsyth and Schlenker 1977); that study does not show blame turned on fellow members, so the step to blaming another's unwillingness rests on common sense. Schlenker and Miller (1977) is reported to show egocentric overclaiming, members taking a larger share of the group's outcome for themselves; whether members lay more of a failure on one another than on themselves awaits a reading of the paper and is not relied on. The claim that observers credit a team for success but lay its failure on individual members (Naquin and Tynan 2003) is not yet checked. Those studies concern failure already suffered; the step to a felt forecast of failure is a proposal, so keep the decrement modest. Realised team performance may not reliably move later trust (a 96-team longitudinal study found no effect, and Feitosa et al. 2020 report shrinkage of time-lagged effects; both searched only), which is a further reason to keep both lines modest. Failing groups often lay the failure on an outside cause (group-serving bias, Allen et al. 2020, searched only); then no member is blamed, and the decrement should be small.

Pre-language (increment): When the venture is going well, she watches those carrying it with approval and leaves them to their tasks without hovering.

Pre-language (decrement): When it is going badly, her frustration turns on whoever faltered: she glares at them, hovers over what they do and snatches tasks back from them.

Leaned on, left out: Levelling to Belonging (Reinforce, E)

Fixed 3 Nov 2026 after the final high and low check (fixed); provisional

Increment: When no one in the group can push me about or take what is mine, and whoever hands out shares or settles a quarrel does it even-handedly, I move among the others freely and nothing keeps me at the edge when they gather: my sense that they want me among them rises a little.

Decrement: When a forceful member makes me comply through fear, I go quiet and keep out of the way at gatherings, and I take it that the others, seeing me leaned on, would as soon keep their distance from me; or when whoever hands out shares or settles a quarrel passes me over for his own and the rest let it stand, I take it that they do not much care to keep me among them: my sense that they want me among them falls.

A member pushed about by force or fear draws back from the group's circle: she keeps out of the way of the one who leans on her, and so is less often among the others, and reads her own withdrawal as being less wanted. This rests on common sense about avoiding a threat. That she expects the others to keep their distance too is also common sense; whether they in fact pull away is unsettled (among children, victimisation by peers is reported to predict growing rejection, Hodges and Perry 1999, not yet checked, and the links between victimisation and rejection run both ways and vary with sex and sample), so the card stays on her own reading, what the others do belongs to the scene, and the step is kept modest. Partial dealing is a second route, since Parity covers share-outs and settlements as well as force: when whoever hands out shares or settles a quarrel passes her over and the rest let it stand, she reads it as a sign that she counts for less among them. The relational model of procedural justice holds that people read even-handed treatment by those in charge as a sign that they are valued members of the group, and partial treatment as a sign that they are not (Tyler and Lind 1992, not yet checked). Its evidence concerns identification, pride and respect, which lie close to belonging without being the same, and the effect depends on how much the member cares about her place in the group, so keep this route modest too. Where no one can lord it over her and dealing is even, nothing holds her at the edge; that removes a barrier without itself making her welcome, and the step rests on common sense only, so set the increment smaller than the decrement. Ribbing a member who gets above herself is not this card: it is Repute's ground (Tall Poppy Talk; Insulting the meat). Boundary: the withdrawal in the first limb is fear's pull. Where she meets the push with anger, as when she has backing or the wrong is a grab rather than a threat, anger moves her towards the one who leans on her rather than away, and anger tends towards later reconciliation where contempt tends towards lasting exclusion (Fischer and Roseman 2007); she is not keeping out of the way, so set the first limb small there.

Pre-language (explanation): After she brings in a large kill and carries herself high, where no one can push anyone about the others run down her meat, mock and turn their backs a little, and she feels less welcome until she lowers herself; where a strong one already pushes her about and turns on her for it, the others close round her and she feels more welcome. When she has done nothing to stand out and no one can drive her off, the others close round her when a strong one tries, and she feels more welcome; when a strong one already has her cowed, she keeps out of the way, the others stay clear of her, and she feels less welcome.

No blow to brace for: Levelling to DivsExp (Reinforce, E)

Revised 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars (reword); provisional

Increment: When no one here can make me do anything by force or threat, I stop watching for a blow and let my slips, moods and disagreements show as they come: my felt safety to show myself rises.

Decrement: When a member can make me comply through fear, I check his face before I move and keep my reactions masked, expecting any slip or disagreement of mine to draw his scorn or a put-down: my felt safety to show myself falls.

In social primates, scratching and other self-directed behaviour appear in socially tense situations and track anxiety (Troisi 2002). Self-directed behaviour rises when the nearest neighbour is dominant (Castles, Whiten and Aureli 1999), and the authors read it as a measure of how secure the relationship is. That finding comes from rank alone, without coercion, so it bounds this card: the rank route is Low in the order, guarded (X:Status->DivsExp), and where the same nearby member fires both, play only one. The hearing route, a call made over her head before she could speak, is Heard before the call (X:Levelling->DivsExp); this card does not read it, and where one cue would fire both, play only one. In despotic species subordination carries the heaviest stress, though not in egalitarian ones, and the pattern turns on the style of the hierarchy, its stability and the social support open to subordinates (Sapolsky 2005), so set the decrement smaller where she has others to lean on. In people, on common sense, the same guardedness shows as masking: near someone who can hurt her, she hides whatever might set him off, and when the threat is absent she shows herself. Work on abusive supervision and fear-driven defensive silence (Kiewitz et al. 2016) is the closest human anchor; it has not yet been read at full text. Caution: the card runs through force or fear only. Where her Parity is low only because someone takes more than their due, or hands out and settles in favour of his own, with no threat behind it, she has no blow to brace for, so set the decrement small. Set it small too where she meets the threat with anger, backed by others and ready to confront him: she bristles rather than masks, so the cost of showing herself has not risen much.

Pre-language (increment): When no one looms over her, she plays and moves loosely, unguarded when eyes turn to her, and her ease at being seen rises.

Pre-language (decrement): When one member looms over her, she scans him, scratches herself and goes still as he nears, hiding any fumble, and her ease at being seen sinks.

Cowed hands: Levelling to GrpProsp (Reinforce, E)

Revised 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars (replace); provisional

Increment: When no one here can make me do anything by force or fear, take more than their due, or hand things out to their own, I take it that my effort and the others' will go into the venture itself rather than into watching one member's mood: my sense that the group can pull it off rises.

Decrement: When a member makes me comply through fear, takes more than his due and keeps it, or hands out the jobs and the shares to his own, I take it that my effort and the others' will go into heading him off rather than into the venture: my sense that the group, as it stands, can pull off the venture sinks.

Coercion and partiality pull attention and effort away from the task and towards the one who holds them; that the lost effort weakens the venture rests on common sense. That a member who takes more than his due and keeps it draws effort away from the venture also rests on common sense. Chimpanzee pairs low in tolerance do worse at a cooperative task than tolerant pairs (Melis, Hare and Tomasello 2006a), and an abusive supervision climate lowers group performance through collective efficacy (Priesemuth et al. 2014, a cross-sectional field study; extended here from supervisor to any member, so keep the step modest). No checked source ties partiality in handing out jobs and shares to the group's capability; the evidence on favouritism is absent or mixed, and one press-reported study found it helped loosely structured teams, so where Parity is low only through favouritism, set the decrement small. Accepted differences of role and rank are not low Parity, and this card reads only coercion, grabbing and partiality. Do not lean on hierarchy as a help to coordination: in a meta-analysis hierarchy had a small net negative effect on team performance and viability, carried by conflict, and the predicted coordination benefits were largely unsupported (Greer et al. 2018, as reported by the reviewer, details not checked here). Pressure from members to make everyone pull their weight is not coercion in this sense. The card reads only the capability left to the venture; whether each member still does their part is Bullies poison trust (E:Levelling->OutResp), and problems or know-how kept quiet travel through Safety. Contested boundary from emotion research: fear carries pessimistic forecasts and anger optimistic ones, through appraisals of certainty and control (Lerner and Keltner 2001, on judgements of risk to oneself, so carrying it to the venture is the model's step). A 2025 registered replication (searched only) did not support anger optimism for negative events, so the split is contested. The decrement fits a member who reads low Parity with fear, standing alone against force. Where she reads it with anger, backed and ready to push back, her forecast for the venture may sag less; set the decrement small there, and treat that reduction as provisional.

Pre-language (increment): When no one looms over the band, she sees them all intent on the chase or the forage, each putting in freely, and her feeling that it will come off rises.

Pre-language (decrement): When one member looms and snaps, she sees the band glancing at him rather than at the quarry, hanging back and breaking off, and her feeling that it will come off sinks.

Bullies poison trust: Levelling to OutResp (Reinforce, E)

Revised 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars (reword); provisional

Increment: When no one here can make me do anything by force or fear, I take it that the others carry their parts for the work's sake rather than for one member's eye, and will keep at them whoever is watching, so I check up on them less: my confidence that they will do their part rises a little.

Decrement: When a member here makes me comply through fear, I take it that the others work to please him rather than to finish their parts, and will cover themselves and let tasks drop once his eye moves on, so I start checking up on their work: my confidence that they will do their part falls.

Coercion distorts how others behave: they appease, hide, protect themselves and work to the coercer's eye, and she expects all of this and reads it as unreliable. The lines carry her inference from the coercion; parts she actually sees dropped or carried move Dependability directly and are not played on this card. That compliance won by threat holds only while the one who wields it is watching, so that parts are done for his eye and dropped when it moves on, and kept up whoever is watching once he is gone, is a common-sense step resting on Kelman's framework (Kelman 1958; French and Raven 1959), which awaits checking. The finding that abused subordinates hold back discretionary effort and turn to deviance (Zellars, Tepper and Duffy 2002; Mitchell and Ambrose 2007) also awaits checking; the card extends it from supervisor to any member. Hierarchy raises conflict-enabling states in teams (Greer et al. 2018), which is loose support for the decrement only. The decrement holds for coercion she reads as self-serving, a bully's fear; enforcement she sees as fair or legitimate leaves her reading of the others' dependability intact, by analogy with the contrast between selfish and reserved sanctions in a trust game (Fehr and Rockenbach 2003, which measured trustees' returns rather than reliability at shared work), so set it nil there. Without coercion this distortion is gone and the others' carrying-through shows plainly, but shirking can persist for other reasons, so keep the increment small or nil. The card runs on force or fear only; where Parity is low only because someone grabs or hands out to their own, set it nil.

Pre-language (increment): When no one bullies, she watches the others keep at their tasks and leaves them to it without hovering: her sense that they will do their part rises.

Pre-language (decrement): When a bully dominates, she sees the others cringe, scramble for favour and abandon tasks as he passes, and she hovers over what they do: her sense that they will do their part falls.

No grabber, open hands: Levelling to Reciprocity (Reinforce, E)

Revised 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars (reword); provisional

Increment: When no one here can take what they like from me by force or threat, and no one takes more than their due and keeps it, I can share without fear that it will be seized on the way or turned into leverage over me, and I expect what I put in to go where it is needed and come back round: my reading that help comes back rises.

Decrement: When a member can make me hand over what I have through fear, or helps himself to more than his due and gets away with it, I take it that what I put in will go to him as tribute rather than back round the group, and that the others will keep what they have out of his reach, so I expect little back from anyone: my reading that help comes back falls.

Return from the group fares best where no one can seize what is shared or turn a gift into leverage. Immediate-return foragers act to prevent accumulation and domination (Woodburn 1982), and the rank and file check would-be dominants together (Boehm 1993). Demand and tolerated taking are one part of forager sharing (Peterson 1993; Blurton Jones 1984), though Hadza rankings of sharing motives suggest they are not its main driver (source not named here; awaiting check). Claims pressed among equals on whoever has a surplus are part of the return (Reciprocity) and leave Parity high; only taking beyond the group's ordinary share-out that is made to stick, most often backed by force or threat, counts as seizure here. Hiding food is also the ordinary forager answer to demand pressure among equals, with no coercer present (Peterson 1993), so only concealment from the coercer or grabber counts on this card; ordinary hiding from demand is no evidence of low Parity and does not fire it. The lines carry her expectation drawn from the coercion or grabbing; hiding or giving she actually sees moves Reciprocity directly and is not played here, and the others' answer to the grabber belongs to the interaction card of the same name (I:Levelling->Reciprocity). Sanctions run by the group or seen as fair do not lower the reading either, since peer sanctioning institutions are reported to aid cooperation in a multilab replication (source not named here; awaiting check); only seizure or threat by a coercer or an unchecked grabber counts. One strand of the decrement has experimental support: in a trust game, trustees returned less to investors who used a threat of fines than to those who held it in reserve, and sanctions read as selfish or greedy all but destroyed altruistic cooperation (Fehr and Rockenbach 2003, checked). That shows partners holding back from the one who threatens, which fits her expecting the others to keep what they have out of his reach. The effect depends on gaps in endowment (Calabuig et al. 2016) and comes from pairs of strangers, so carrying it to the expected return from a whole group is an extension. The step that giving becomes tribute rather than going back round the group rests on common sense, with the trust game as a pairwise analogue: under a coercer or a grabber who gets away with it, she expects the return from the group to dry up.

Pre-language (increment): When no one in the band looms or snatches, she gives from her pile and finds others giving from theirs when she is short, and her sense that what she gives comes back rises.

Pre-language (decrement): When one member snatches and threatens, what she holds out is taken and nothing comes back, the others hunch over their food, and her sense that giving brings any return sinks.

Don’t Dis Me Bro: OutResp to Belonging (Reinforce, E)

Revised 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars (reword); provisional

Increment: When the others carry through what they take on and keep their word, so that nothing of theirs is left for me to pick up, I read it as regard for me, as someone they would not leave in the lurch: my sense that they want me among them rises a little.

Decrement: When the others drop what they take on or go back on their word and leave me to pick up their parts, I read it as not counting with them, as someone they are content to leave in the lurch: my sense that they want me among them falls.

People read how much others value them from how others treat them, and being let down or betrayed is among the plainest signs of low relational value (Leary, Springer, Negel, Ansell and Evans 1998, not replicated; Leary 2001). Dependability reads whether the others carry through what they take on and keep their word. Where their parts and promises touch her, she reads reliability as regard and a dropped part that lands on her as disregard. The step from that felt regard or devaluation to her reading of whether they want her among them is common sense, since Belonging is read from how they treat her. Lab effects of rejection on mood and self-esteem are weaker than the sociometer account implies (Blackhart et al. 2009, a meta-analysis that measured mood and self-esteem, not felt acceptance). A part let drop moves Dependability further than one carried through, and the same asymmetry holds here, so keep the increment small and the decrement modest, and set the card nil where the parts carried or dropped do not touch her. Her own fondness for them is a separate route (Counted on, cared for). Others answering her trust or distrust in kind runs through their response and belongs to the scene.

Pre-language (increment): When she leaves others to their tasks without hovering, they warm to her and seek her company.

Pre-language (decrement): When she hovers over their work and snatches it back to redo it, they bristle, cool towards her and keep away.

Nobody hunting for cover: OutResp to DivsExp (Reinforce, E)

Revised 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars (replace); provisional

Increment: When I can leave my part with any of them and count on them to carry it through and keep their word, no blame is in the air over dropped parts; I stop guarding myself among them and let slips, moods and needs show as they come, expecting no one to pounce on them, laugh at them or turn away: my felt safety to show myself rises.

Decrement: When the others drop what they take on, blame is in the air over the dropped parts, and I take it that a slip shown here will draw a sharp word or a sneer, so I mask my slips and keep my needs out of sight: my felt safety to show myself falls.

Trust is the willingness to be vulnerable to others' actions (Mayer, Davis and Schoorman 1995), and team psychological safety is the shared belief that interpersonal risk is tolerated (Edmondson 1999); on common sense, felt reliance on the members is one ground of that belief. In 191 teams cognition-based trust fed affect-based trust and through it team psychological safety (Schaubroeck, Lam and Peng 2011, as reported by the reviewer and not checked here). That supported path is mediated, running from perceived reliability through affect-based trust to felt safety, and it concerns trust in the leader; the card's peer-level version, inside one member's reading, is an extension, so keep the increment moderate. Dependability reads the integrity limb, carrying parts through and keeping one's word; ability is Team Confidence's ground, and whether a slip would be turned against her is Safety's own ground. The card carries only the spill from reliability at work to Safety. Where her reliance rests mainly on rules or on knowing that a dropped part gets pulled up by the group, a pulling-up climate stays in the air, so keep the increment small. Blame contagion supports the first half of the decrement: people who watch someone blame another are more likely to blame others for their own unrelated failures (Fast and Tiedens 2010, a laboratory effect), so where parts are dropped blame is in the air. That study shows blame spreading; the further step, that she then expects a shown slip to draw a sharp word or a sneer and masks her slips, is common sense with no direct source. Keep the decrement moderate. Distinct from E:Levelling->DivsExp (fear of one coercer) and E:GrpProsp->DivsExp (the stakes of the venture).

Pre-language (increment): When those around her do their share, she is loose and unguarded under their eyes when she fumbles.

Pre-language (decrement): When those around her slack off, she braces when she fumbles, expecting their glares and snarls to turn on her.

Quality Street: OutResp to GrpProsp (Reinforce, E)

Revised 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars (reword); provisional

Increment: When I feel the others will carry through what they take on, I count every member's skill as put to work on the venture, with none of our effort lost to chasing or redoing parts: my confidence that the group, as it stands, can pull it off rises.

Decrement: When I expect the others to shirk, cut corners or go back on their word, I count on skill that will sit idle and on effort lost to chasing and redoing their parts, so the capability left for the venture shrinks: my confidence that the group, as it stands, can pull it off falls.

A joint venture depends on each part being carried through as well as on skill, so felt reliability feeds the sense of what the group, as it stands, can do. Intrateam trust is positively related to team performance across 112 studies (rho about .30), holding after past performance is controlled, and more so where tasks are interdependent (De Jong, Dirks and Gillespie 2016); team efficacy itself tracks performance more closely under high interdependence (Gully et al. 2002). The data are correlational and her forecast is a reading, so keep the card moderate, and smaller in loosely coupled groups where members can finish their work alone.

Pre-language (increment): When those around her keep at their tasks and finish what they start, she settles into the shared venture confident it will come off.

Pre-language (decrement): When those around her drift off and leave tasks half done, she grows uneasy about the shared venture, expecting it to fail.

Help binds us: Reciprocity to Belonging (Reinforce, E)

Revised 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars (reword); provisional

Increment: When what I give comes back from the others and what I need is met, I count them as people I cannot do without; after a clash I go back to them soon to make it up, sure of being taken back, and I feel the circle as open to me: my Belonging rises.

Decrement: When what I give goes unreturned and my needs go unmet, I have little to lose with them; after a clash I stay away and let it stand, expecting no one to draw me back, and I read their gatherings as closed to me: my Belonging falls.

The lines rest on reconciliation, the better evidenced route. Primates reconcile most with partners whose relationship is valuable to them, and raising partner value experimentally raises reconciliation (Cords and Thurnheer 1993; Aureli, Cords and van Schaik 2002); friendly reunions after a clash lower the risk of renewed attack (Aureli and van Schaik 1991). That valuable relationships pattern is consistent across primates, though not uniform across species and sexes, and the evidence is dyadic. In the egalitarian face Reciprocity is her felt reading of what the group as a whole returns to her, so the step from repair with partners to her reading the whole circle as open to her is an untested extension. Scale the card to how many members are her valued partners: large in a small band where most are, small in a larger group where only one or two are. The repair route also depends on how secure her ties feel: a secure tie may need little repair, so the card moves less there. Reconciliation is commoner in tolerant than in despotic macaque species (Thierry 2000, not checked here), so the card fits deck E. Help that comes back also produces positive feeling attached to the group (Lawler 2001, affect theory of social exchange), and gratitude binds the one helped closer to the helper (Algoe 2012); those raise her fondness for them, which E:Reciprocity->Warmth carries, so they do not drive this card. On the reviewer's reading (not checked here), shared identity moderates how exchange turns into attachment, and in forager settings need met may count for more than strict return; play the card by need met where the group shares that way. The card moves her reading through her own readiness to make up or stay away; how the others actually treat her when she comes back belongs to the scene (rulebook 8.5).

Pre-language (increment): When what she shares comes back and she is fed and groomed in need, she is drawn closer to the others and they to her: her feeling of being welcome among them rises.

Pre-language (decrement): When she gives and nothing comes back, and she is passed over in need, she drifts to the edge of their company: her feeling of being welcome among them falls.

Here to Help: Reciprocity to DivsExp (Reinforce, E)

Revised 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars (reword); provisional

Increment: When what I put in comes back and what I need is met, I take it that a need or a slip shown here will draw no put-down or rebuff, and that a clash will soon be made up; I let my moods, needs and slips show: my felt safety to show myself rises a little.

Decrement: When what I give goes into a hole and my needs go unmet, I take it that a need or a slip shown here will draw a put-down or a turned back, and that a clash will stay unmended; I mask what I need and brace for a put-down: my felt safety to show myself falls.

Primary route: post-conflict repair, drawn by analogy from primate work. Primate victims of aggression show more self-scratching and run a higher risk of renewed attack, and in that study friendly reunions reduced both (Aureli and van Schaik 1991); reunions happen most where the relationship is valuable (Cords and Thurnheer 1993; Aureli, Cords and van Schaik 2002). Evidence that reconciliation lowers anxiety is mixed across primate studies (capuchin, tolerant-species and olive baboon work, as reported by the reviewer and not checked here). A member whose help comes back has partners she makes up with, so a clash leaves her braced only briefly. That evidence is dyadic and holds for valued partners; scale as for E:Reciprocity->Belonging, by how many members are her valued partners. Secondary route: rewarding co-worker relations go with higher felt psychological safety (May, Gilson and Harter 2004), and high-quality relationships, measured as emotional carrying capacity, tensility and connectivity, predicted later safety (Carmeli, Brueller and Dutton 2009); both as reported by the reviewer, not checked here. Those studies test broad relationship quality and leave return of help untested, and leadership and team design are usually the stronger predictors of safety, so keep the rise at a little. Help that comes back is the everyday evidence, on common sense, that a shown need will be answered and not punished. The card takes only being braced for a put-down, since fear of force is Parity's ground (Helpers stand together, E:Reciprocity->Levelling). Overlaps E:Reciprocity->Belonging plus E:Belonging->DivsExp (Making Fetch Happen), so play this card small where both fire.

Pre-language (increment): When the band meets her need and gives back what she shared, she feels safe among them, and lets her slips, moods and wants show without bracing for a slap-down.

Pre-language (decrement): When her need goes unmet and nothing she shared comes back, she feels unprotected, masks her moods and hides even a plain want, braced to be snapped at or turned from.

Mucking in Together: Reciprocity to GrpProsp (Reinforce, E)

Revised 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars (reword); provisional

Increment: When what I put in comes back and whoever needs help gets it, I feel the group covers its own weak spots, and my confidence that it can pull off the venture we have set ourselves rises.

Decrement: When what I give goes into a hole and need goes unmet while others could see it, I feel those who struggle will be left to fall short, and my confidence that the group can pull off the venture falls.

Where help flows to whoever needs it, members' gaps are covered by others, so the group can do more than its weakest hands alone. Backup is a core teamwork process (Marks, Mathieu and Zaccaro 2001; Porter et al. 2003), and helping goes with the quantity and quality of work-group output (Podsakoff, Ahearne and MacKenzie 1997). Those studies concern help with the work itself; Reciprocity reads the return on her own help and need, so carrying them to this card is an extension, and the card fires only where the help she sees given or withheld bears on the venture. The member-level steps are common sense: that she reads the help she sees given and returned as the group covering its weak spots, that need left unmet in plain view tells her the weak spots will stay open, and that either reading moves her felt confidence in the venture. The effect belongs to help matched to need that does not breed dependency or free riding. Backing up has costs, since helpers can neglect their own tasks and those helped can ease off later (Barnes et al. 2008), so keep the rise moderate, and smaller where the help she sees is heavy or goes to members who lean on it.

Pre-language (increment): When the band shares food and help with whoever falls short, she feels them strong together, and goes to the shared hunt sure of the kill.

Pre-language (decrement): When those who have hide it and the weak are left to struggle, she feels the band falling short, and goes to the shared hunt expecting it to fail.

Helpers stand together: Reciprocity to Levelling (Reinforce, E)

Revised 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars (reword); provisional

Increment: When what I give comes back from the group as a matter of course, I count on help coming back too if anyone tries to set themselves over me, and I go about my business beside the strongest as freely as beside anyone: my sense that no one here can set themselves over me rises.

Decrement: When nothing I give comes back from the group, I cannot count on anyone's help if the strongest turns on me, and I start to watch him warily and give way: my sense that no one here can set themselves over me falls.

Help repaid includes help in a quarrel. Among primates, grooming given is repaid in agonistic support, a small but reliable effect (Schino 2007, meta-analysis of 36 studies on 14 species, mean r about 0.15), and chimpanzee males gain alpha status through coalitional backing (de Waal 1982, Chimpanzee Politics). Those trades run between particular partners. Among egalitarian peoples, subordinates acting together keep a would-be dominant in check (Boehm 1993). The supported ends are therefore partner-specific support and coalitional checking of dominants. The step joining them, from help coming back from the group to counting on the group's backing against a would-be dominant, is the model's own and rests on common sense: people who repay favours as a matter of course can be expected to repay them in a quarrel too. Group-wide return does not guarantee backing, since bystanders tend to side by status or prior ties, and human evidence that friends buffer against a dominant is mixed (as reported by the reviewer, not checked here); play it moderately. Where her help comes back from the group, she counts on its backing against anyone who would set himself over her, and the fear goes out of a strong member's presence; where it does not, she stands alone. Where no member is pressing to set himself over others, the decrement is small: standing alone makes her warier of the strongest, but no one is yet lording it over her. The card rests on the return she can count on, not on being wanted (Friends at my back, E:Belonging->Levelling) or on her own commitment (Inside the coalition, E:Engagement->Levelling). All three carry the same expectation of backing, so where either of those also fires on the same scene, play this card small.

Pre-language (increment): When the others share back with her and console her freely, she feels them as allies and feeds and moves near the strongest without a glance at their mood: her sense that no one can make her yield rises.

Pre-language (decrement): When nothing passes back to her from the others, she feels unbacked, goes still when a strong one approaches and gives up her place to them: her sense that no one can make her yield falls.

Good for Their Word: Reciprocity to OutResp (Reinforce, E)

Revised 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars (replace); provisional

Increment: When what I put in comes back from the group as a matter of course, I feel these are people who look out for more than themselves, and I leave their part of the shared work in their hands without checking and give a slip the benefit of the doubt: my sense that they can be counted on rises.

Decrement: When what I give goes into a hole and my needs go unmet, I feel these people look after themselves first, and I start checking up on their part of the shared work, expecting them to shirk it: my sense that they can be counted on falls.

The card assumes, on common sense, that trust built in one exchange carries over to other dealings with the same people. When an employer fails to deliver what it promised in exchange, employees' trust falls and their contributions fall with it, and trust, together with unmet expectations, carries that effect (Robinson 1996); across studies, breach is followed by mistrust and a sense of violation, which carry its effects onto work attitudes (Zhao et al. 2007). Those studies concern the employer, not fellow members, so the carry-over to members' carrying of their parts is an extension; keep it moderate. The breach-trust link is reported to be stronger for younger members (as reported by the reviewer, not checked here), and the carry-over may be weak between strangers and weak ties, so play the card small there. Prior trust also softens the reading of later breaches (Robinson 1996, its only source here), which the increment carries: a member whose help comes back gives others' lapses the benefit of the doubt. The decrement's checking up on their part of the shared work has no direct source; it is a gap resting on common sense, that one who expects shirking watches for it.

Pre-language (increment): When the band gives back what she has shared, she leaves the shared task in their hands and stops looking over at it.

Pre-language (decrement): When nothing comes back from those she shared with, she eyes them at the shared task, watching for them to slack, and does their bit over herself.

Clinging or letting go: Belonging to NormExp (Discretionary, H)

Fixed 3 Nov 2026 after the final high and low check (fixed); provisional

Felt inclusion sets her stake in the settled order, and the direction depends on what her place rests on. The split into two circumstances, and the default timing below, are the facilitator's own proposals with no direct source. Circumstance one, her place is still on trial (a newer choir member whose place rests on being seen to keep the ways). HIGH: kept securely among them, she has nothing to prove and lets small departures pass, so her Rule-Keeping falls. LOW: feeling herself edged out, she is jarred by every departure from the settled ways and pulls others up on it sharply, so her Rule-Keeping rises (here the card runs as Inverse). Evidence: peripheral members of a valued group are harsher towards outsiders when other members can see, while core members do not change with audience (Noel, Wann and Branscombe 1995). That concerns public negativity towards outgroups, not indignation at an ingroup breach, and its dependence on an audience suggests display as much as felt indignation; so the step to circumstance one is a proposal, and the felt rise should be played modestly, larger when other members are watching. Circumstance two, the ways have long been her own (a long-standing club member). HIGH: kept among them, she feels a breach of the club's ways as a breach of her own and pulls the breacher up, so her Rule-Keeping rises a little. LOW: pushed aside for good, she is no longer stung when others break ways that have stopped being hers, and lets it pass, so her Rule-Keeping falls (here the card runs as Reinforce). Circumstance two rests on the black sheep effect, harsher judgement of an ingroup member who lets the group down (Marques, Yzerbyt and Leyens 1988), found stronger among highly identified members, at least when the group's identity is under threat (Branscombe, Wann, Noel and Coleman 1993). The effect is contested: a 2023 pooled analysis including unpublished studies found no black sheep effect overall (d = -0.01; as reported by the reviewer, not checked here). So the high-Belonging rise holds, if at all, only under high identification, identity threat and a shared moral norm; play it small, and near nil where those are absent. Felt acceptance is not identification; the circumstance supplies the identification, and Belonging only keeps it alive. Identification itself already moves Rule-Keeping through H:Engagement->NormExp, which is a further reason to keep circumstance two's rise small, for the acceptance alone. The withdrawal fall of circumstance two is the facilitator's own proposal with no direct source, in keeping with chronic exclusion leading to resignation and withdrawal (Williams 2007). Default (facilitator's proposal): circumstance one in a member's first months, circumstance two after.

Pre-language (explanation): While her place is still new, slipping toward the edge sets her bristling at any new way and she snaps at whoever tries it, while being held close lets her settle and let it pass. Once the ways are long her own, being held close leaves her bristling at anyone who breaks them, while being left right out means others' new ways no longer stir her and she lets them pass.

Kept close, near the food: Belonging to OwnProsp (Reinforce, H)

Generated for the draft model; provisional, awaiting Ben Rechecked 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars: kept.

Increment: When I am kept among them in my place, I feel within reach of the shares, mates and chances the group holds, and my sense that staying will get me what I am after rises.

Decrement: When I am kept at the edge, I feel far from what the group holds and out of reach when shares, mates and chances come round, and my sense that staying will get me what I am after falls.

In a ranked group, being kept close is access: to shares, partners and allies. Among primates, grooming is traded for tolerance at food (de Waal 1997, the chimpanzee's service economy); that finding concerns favours traded with a partner. Baboon work on social bonds and fitness (Silk et al. 2003; Cheney et al. 2016) is candidate primate support for closeness as access, to be cited here once verified. The step to felt inclusion as access in its own right, and from food to the shares, mates and chances of a human group, rests on common sense: what the group holds is handed out among those present and in favour. Where sharing is broad among all present, as in forager meat sharing, being kept close within the group adds little beyond being there, so the move is small. Nearness to the core goes largely with rank, so scale the move to the access that being kept close adds at her rank, kept separate from the rank itself. The card reads access through being kept close, not through rank (H:Status->OwnProsp), not through favours traded with a particular partner, such as grooming repaid with tolerance at food, which belong to H:Reciprocity->OwnProsp, and not through partial dealing by those who hand out (H:Levelling->OwnProsp): even an even-handed share-out passes by one who is not there when it is made.

Pre-language (increment): When she is let near and kept in the troop's company, she feeds and seeks partners with energy, and her hope of getting what she is after rises.

Pre-language (decrement): When she is pushed to the edge, she hangs back from food and partners, and her hope of getting what she is after sinks.

Out of Sight, Not Copied: Belonging to Prestige (Reinforce, H)

Revised 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars (replace); provisional

Increment: When I am kept among them in my place, I feel what I bring is in their sight, and I expect that when my kind of skill is needed it is to me they will turn: my sense that they turn to me for it rises.

Decrement: When I am kept at the edge, I feel what I bring is out of their sight, and I see them turn to someone nearer when my kind of skill is needed: my sense that they turn to me for it falls.

Deference for skill needs the skill to be in view. The visibility step rests on common sense, with only loose analogous support: Coussi-Korbel and Fragaszy (1995) propose, in a model built on nonhuman animals, that social spacing and coordination shape who learns from whom; it is a framework with predictions, not a test. Coelho et al. 2024 (PNAS) is candidate primate support to replace it once verified. On common sense, in a ranked group a member kept in the company feels her skill in view and expects to be looked to for it, while one kept at the edge feels it out of view and sees others turn to someone nearer, whatever her skill. Whether they in fact watch and come to her belongs to the scene. Nearness is neither necessary nor sufficient for being turned to: teams can pass over experts who are present, and members at the edge may still be turned to for knowledge only they hold. Nearness only puts what she brings in view: scale the rise to what she brings the group and how visible that skill is, and set it near nil where she brings little it values.

Pre-language (increment): When she is kept in the troop's company, the young sit near and watch her crack nuts, and her feeling of being looked to rises.

Pre-language (decrement): When she is kept at the edge, the young crowd round others at the nut stones, and her feeling of being looked to sinks.

Kept in, deals open: Belonging to Reciprocity (Reinforce, H)

Revised 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars (reword); provisional

Increment: When I am kept among them, the partners I help know I am there to call a favour in and that the others would see if they shorted me, and my sense that the partners I help will pay me back rises.

Decrement: When I am kept at the edge, I am not there to call a favour in and fewer of the others would take note if a partner shorted me, so I expect partners to take and not return: my sense that anyone I help will pay me back falls.

Exchange with a particular partner holds while defaulting would cost the partner: reciprocal cooperation is stable when future dealings are expected (Axelrod 1984), and when cooperating is not too risky for the partner (Dal Bó and Fréchette 2018, as reported by the reviewer, not checked here). Inclusion keeps her on hand to call the favour in, and among others who would see a partner short her. People give more to those seen to give (Wedekind and Milinski 2000; a partial replication, Russell, Stoilova and Dosoftei 2020, not checked here), so a partner's standing with those others rides on how they treat her. Observability raises good treatment only modestly (r about .14, as reported by the reviewer, not checked here), so keep the onlooker part small. That fewer onlookers take note when a partner shorts a member kept at the edge is the model's own step, resting on common sense; onlookers may instead make it up to an excluded member, which the scene can stage. Exclusion weakens both, so a partner can short the one at the edge, who is not there to hold them to it and is watched over by fewer who would. The felt horizon of her own staying belongs to H:Engagement->Reciprocity; this card reads only the others' inclusion of her.

Pre-language (increment): When she is kept close in the troop, those she grooms groom her back and those she backs back her, and she settles into the give-and-take expecting return.

Pre-language (decrement): When she is pushed to the edge, those she grooms move off without returning it, and she stops expecting anything back from them.

Kept close while I keep my place: Engagement to Belonging (Reinforce, H)

Engagement card, generated for the draft model; provisional, awaiting Ben Rechecked 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars: kept.

Increment: When I am putting much of myself into this group, keeping to my place comes easily, and the slot they give me at each gathering reads as a real place among them; my sense that they want me among them rises.

Decrement: When I am pulling out of this group, the terms of my slot gall me and I hang at the margin, and I read that margin as where they have put me; my sense that they want me among them falls.

In ranked groups inclusion often comes on terms: one is kept close so long as one keeps one's place. The model offers this as common sense, with no checked source. A member who has invested more accepts the terms easily and reads her slot as a real place. A member who has withdrawn finds the terms galling, drifts outward, and then reads the periphery as where she has been put. People who expect rejection are quick to see it in others' behaviour (Downey and Feldman 1996, on a disposition in close relationships). The step from her own investment to that reading is a proposal on common sense. Sociometer theory (Leary and Baumeister 2000) supplies only the reading of inclusion from others' treatment; it does not run from investment to that reading. The card needs a group that does offer real terms of inclusion to a member who keeps her place; where no such terms are on offer, her investment gives her nothing to read as a place, so set the move near nil. The reverse path, from feeling wanted to putting more in, is better supported and may carry most of this loop, so keep the card modest.

Pre-language (increment): Settled in the troop, she yields readily and is let in close, and she takes the closeness as her place. Her feeling of being kept among them rises.

Pre-language (decrement): Restless in the troop, she yields grudgingly and lingers at its edge, and she feels herself pushed out. Her feeling of being kept among them falls.

Invested, I guard our ways: Engagement to NormExp (Reinforce, H)

Revised 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars (reword); provisional

Increment: When I have put much of myself into the group, another member's break from our settled ways strikes me as an affront to what is ours, and I judge it the more harshly; my sense that such a breach is plainly wrong rises.

Decrement: When I am holding back from the group, another member's departure from our settled ways barely touches me, and I let it pass; my sense that such a breach is wrong falls.

Fellow members who break the group's norms are judged more harshly than outsiders who do the same (the black sheep effect: Marques, Yzerbyt and Leyens 1988). Highly identified members judge a disloyal fellow member more harshly still, at least when the group's identity is under threat (Branscombe, Wann, Noel and Coleman 1993). The effect is contested: a 2023 pooled analysis including unpublished studies found no black sheep effect overall (d = -0.01; as reported by the reviewer, not checked here), so the rise holds, if at all, under high identification, identity threat and a shared moral norm; play it moderately, and small where those are absent. Identification with the group is the tested proxy for investment here; the step from her investment to identification rests on common sense. High identifiers have also been found to follow the ingroup's salient norm more closely than low identifiers, with the difference reported to vanish under a fairness norm (Jetten, Spears and Manstead 1997); her own conformity is not Rule-Keeping, so this is context only. On common sense, as investment rises the settled ways feel more like her own, and a breach by another feels like damage to something of hers. The card holds for ways the group values and she does not judge harmful, and runs stronger when the group's identity is under threat (Branscombe). Packer's normative conflict model (Packer 2008) sets the boundary: where she sees a norm as harmful, a strongly invested member may dissent or defend the breacher, a reflective act outside this model, so the card does not fire there. Packer also separates nonconformity from disengagement from dissent. The decrement, that a member holding back has no stake in the ways, so a breach barely touches her and Rule-Keeping falls, rests on common sense with no source found.

Pre-language (increment): Having just thrown herself in, she bristles when another starts doing things a new way, and threatens or turns her back on them. Her indignation at the breach rises.

Pre-language (decrement): Having just drawn back, she watches another try a new way and feels nothing stir; she lets it pass. Her indignation at the breach falls.

Putting in, in line for my due: Engagement to OwnProsp (Discretionary, H)

Revised 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars (replace); provisional

Redrawn as Discretionary. Whether putting much of myself in raises or lowers my sense that staying will bring me what I am after depends on whether the group's dealings with me keep pace with what I put in. Circumstance one (the default), returns keep pace or are still unclear: places, shares and chances have come my way roughly in step with my effort, or nothing yet shows otherwise. HIGH: having put much in, I feel I have earned my due, and the group's dealings with me read as the way to what I came for opening up: my Payoff rises. LOW: having held back, I feel I have given them no reason to bring me on, and the way reads as closing: my Payoff falls. Circumstance two, returns are plainly flat: I have put in more and more while places, shares and chances, handed out by the group's ordinary ways, keep going to others (a share-out tilted towards favourites is Parity's ground and reaches Payoff through H:Parity->Payoff). HIGH: the more I have put in, the more the flat return reads as being taken for granted; I feel short-changed and expect more of the same however much I put in: my Payoff falls. LOW: having put in little, a flat return is no more than I looked for; the card adds nothing, and the scene alone moves my Payoff. Circumstance one is a proposal on common sense: a member's felt claim from what she has put in colours an ambiguous forecast. No direct test of it was found. Circumstance two rests on equity theory: people weigh what they get against what they put in, and under-reward relative to input brings distress and anger (Adams 1965); in social exchange, giving creates an expectation of return (Blau 1964). The step from feeling short-changed to a lower forecast of what staying brings rests on common sense, with proxy support only from work linking felt under-reward to intention to leave: a return that has stayed flat against rising input is read as what staying will go on bringing. In circumstance two part of that route runs through exhaustion from giving without return, and the exchange mechanism is weaker in cultures where identification with the group, more than exchange, binds members to it (Rockstuhl et al. 2020); set the fall smaller there. Groups do repay contribution with status and influence (Willer 2009), but that route runs through H:Engagement->Rank and H:Engagement->Esteem and on to Payoff, so this card carries only her felt claim; keep both circumstances modest. The card moves her forecast of what the group will deliver, and leaves her confidence in her own ability alone.

Pre-language (increment): Her investment has just deepened; she feels herself in line for the troop's favour and looks to it to bring her what she wants. Her hope of getting what she is after rises.

Pre-language (decrement): Her investment has just slackened; she feels herself out of favour and expects the troop to give her nothing. Her hope of getting what she is after falls.

Putting in, looked to: Engagement to Prestige (Reinforce, H)

Revised 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars (replace); provisional

Increment: When I am putting much of myself into the group, I feel what I bring to each scene showing, and I read the others' questions and glances as turning to me for it; my sense that they defer to me for what I bring rises.

Decrement: When I am putting little of myself into the group, I feel I bring little to each scene, and I read the others' turning elsewhere as my contribution no longer counting; my sense that they defer to me for what I bring falls.

Esteem, in this model, is deference freely given to those whose skill or contribution others value. Members who contribute more to the group are given more status and influence (Willer 2009); that conferral is the others' act and belongs to the scene, and here it stands only as background. That study rewards contribution as sacrifice; here only the deference for what she brings moves, and the others' verdict on whether she carries her share is Repute's (H:Engagement->Face carries the open charge). The card rests on her reading, an inference from ambiguous cues, and her own recent conduct colouring it is a step on common sense: having just put in more, she reads others' questions and glances as turning to her; having just pulled back, she reads their turning elsewhere as her contribution no longer counting. People's sense of their own status mostly tracks what others actually confer (Anderson, Srivastava, Beer, Spataro and Chatman 2006), so most of the move runs through the scene and this card adds only a small tilt to her reading. People track how much others value their relationships with them (Leary 2005), so such a reading is one she is primed to make; whether usefulness is a named part of that relational value is still to be checked against the text. The link holds only when her putting in shows as contribution to what the group values. Effort alone is not contribution, and deference may follow domain skill or other cues that her effort does not show (Brand and Mesoudi 2019), so where her effort is unseen or off what the group values, set the move near nil. Moderate confidence.

Pre-language (increment): Having just thrown herself into the work, she finds the others watching her, copying her and bringing her their troubles. Her sense of being looked to rises.

Pre-language (decrement): Having just drawn back, she sees the others pass her by and turn to another when the work needs doing. Her sense of being looked to falls.

The long shadow of staying: Engagement to Reciprocity (Reinforce, H)

Fixed 3 Nov 2026 after the final high and low check (fixed); provisional

Increment: When I am putting much of myself into the group and mean to stay, I feel we will be around each other long enough for every favour to come back, and I read what I give my partners as sure to be repaid; my sense that help I give comes back from those I help rises.

Decrement: When I am putting little of myself into the group and am half out of the door, I feel I may not be around when a favour falls due, and I read my partners as having no reason to repay one who is leaving; my sense that help I give comes back from those I help falls.

Conditional exchange holds only while partners expect to meet again: the shadow of the future (Axelrod 1984). In lab games with anonymous pairs, cooperation is higher when play may continue than when the end is known, in the direction theory predicts (Dal Bó 2005). How long she means to stay is part of Engagement: a member who has put much of herself in sees herself staying, one who is gone or going does not. High Engagement lengthens the felt horizon on both sides, so she reads her partners as bound to repay one who stays; on common sense the same holds for a patron across rank. Low Engagement shortens it, and she reads herself as the one partners will stop repaying. The partner face applies: what moves is her reading of the return, not her readiness to deal.

Pre-language (increment): Settled in the troop, she grooms her partners and feels them groom her back and come to her side in a fight. Her sense that her partners repay her rises.

Pre-language (decrement): Half gone from the troop, she feels her partners slow to groom her back or to come to her aid. Her sense that her partners repay her falls.

Guarding the ways earns a place: NormExp to Belonging (Discretionary, H)

Revised 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars (reword); provisional

Whether pulling up a breach makes her feel one with the others depends on whether they share the bristle. Circumstance one, the others share the bristle: the breach falls short of what the group plainly stands for, or overshoots it in a way they resent, and they are already muttering (a member skipping the rota the rest keep). HIGH: she pulls the breacher up and feels herself standing with the others, so her Belonging rises. LOW: she lets it pass while they bristle and feels herself out of step with them, soft on the ways, so her Belonging falls. Circumstance two, the others do not share the bristle (a small departure the settled ways condemn in principle but the members present would shrug off here and now). HIGH: she pulls up a member the others think harmless and senses she has set herself apart from them as a scold, so her Belonging falls. LOW: she lets it pass as the rest do and feels herself one of them, so her Belonging holds or rises a little. In either circumstance, where HIGH has her pulling up a member well above her own place, she feels it as stepping out of line and her Belonging falls; what it does to her rung belongs to H:Rule-Keeping->Rank. Her felt alignment or misalignment with the others' bristle rests on common sense alone. The sources below bear on how others respond to deviants and punishers; they are scene context only and do not carry the card's step. Members derogate fellow members who depart from the group's norm in a direction it condemns (Abrams et al. 2000), though the black sheep base for this is contested by a reported 2023 null still to be confirmed; people seldom punish those who fail to punish, though they do reward those who punish (Kiyonari and Barclay 2008); groups can sanction those who contribute more than the norm (Herrmann, Thoni and Gachter 2008); people put down the morally motivated who seem to reproach them (Minson and Monin 2012, on an out-group minority); third-party punishers are trusted (Jordan et al. 2016), but trust is not inclusion. Responses to enforcers are mixed across games and settings, so the size of the move is uncertain. Judge the sign by the others' visible bristle, and keep the card modest. Circumstance one is the default in ranked groups with settled ways.

Pre-language (increment): When she bristles and threatens a member trying a new way, others side with her and keep her close, and her sense of being kept in the troop rises.

Pre-language (decrement): When she lets a member's new way go unchallenged, others turn from her, and her sense of being kept in the troop sinks.

Loyalty repaid: NormExp to Reciprocity (Reinforce, H)

Revised 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars (replace); provisional

Increment: When another member's breach jars me and my partners see me bristle and pull them up, I feel I have shown myself one who stands up for our ways and can be relied on, and shown those above me loyalty they owe favour for: my sense that the partners I help will pay me back rises a little.

Decrement: When a breach leaves me unmoved and I let it pass while my partners look on, I feel I have given them no sign that I can be relied on, and given those above me no loyalty to repay: my sense that the partners I help will pay me back falls.

Third-party punishers are trusted more, and in fact behave more trustworthily, than non-punishers (Jordan, Hoffman, Bloom and Rand 2016); punishment works as a signal that the punisher can be relied on. That signal has a reported direct non-replication and mixed follow-ups, and where found it is small and needs her indignation to be visible (Kupfer and Tybur 2023, citation still to be checked), so the increment fires only when her partners see her bristle, and the rise is small. Jordan et al. also found the signal weakens where helping can be shown directly, and bystanders reward third-party helpers more than third-party punishers (Raihani and Bshary 2015), so where she could have helped the wronged member instead, set the rise near nil. In small-scale settings, restoring relations and helping, more than punishing, show that a member can be relied on (Wiessner 2020). That evidence concerns punishing unfair splits in economic games; the step to pulling up a breach of the group's settled ways rests on common sense. That the trust brings back what she gives is an inference: partners choose and keep up exchanges with those they judge reliable, so her help to them is more readily returned. Across rank, holding the line on the group's ways reads as loyalty passed up, which a patron repays with favour and protection; this step rests on common sense, with no source found. Where she pulls up a member above her own place, those above read it as stepping out of line rather than loyalty; that route belongs to H:Rule-Keeping->Rank, so set the rise near nil there. Both lines also need a breach the others condemn too (Eriksson et al. 2021): where they think it harmless, pulling up reads as scolding and letting it pass as ordinary (H:Rule-Keeping->Belonging, circumstance two), so set both moves near nil. With the Reputation expansion pack in play, the open standing she wins as one who holds the line runs through H:Rule-Keeping->Face and H:Face->Reciprocity; this card then carries only the reliance her partners take from what they saw themselves, and should be smaller still where H:Rule-Keeping->Face or X:Rule-Keeping->Repute also fires. The decrement needs her partners to have seen her let the breach pass and rests on common sense, with no source found, so the card should be modest.

Pre-language (increment): When she threatens a member trying a new way, the higher-ranked one she sided with backs her in her next squabble and lets her share its food.

Pre-language (decrement): When she lets a member's new way go by, the higher-ranked ones do not come to her side when she is threatened.

Valued service, kept place: Prestige to Belonging (Reinforce, H)

Fixed 3 Nov 2026 after the final high and low check (fixed); provisional

Increment: When the others turn to me for what I bring, watch how I do it and take my advice, I feel them keep me near because they need me, the threat of being dropped seems far off, and my sense of being kept among them rises.

Decrement: When no one asks me or copies me and they turn to someone else when my kind of skill is needed, I feel that nothing I bring holds me in and that one step out of line would see me dropped, and my sense of being kept among them falls.

Groups repay valued contributors with freely conferred deference (Henrich and Gil-White 2001), and followers are held to repay a leader's valued service with prestige (Price and Van Vugt 2014, a theory review). That followers also keep close to those they learn from rests on common sense here, since the checked reading of Henrich and Gil-White did not confirm it. Under this deck's face, being kept among them rests on keeping her place, and she reads it partly from the standing threat of being dropped. A member the others turn to feels that threat recede, because the group needs what she brings; one passed over feels nothing she brings holds her in, so her keeping feels more conditional. These two steps rest on common sense, supported only by adjacent theory (service repaid with prestige) and by game evidence that, where members can be expelled, expulsion falls mostly on low contributors (Cinyabuguma, Page and Putterman 2005). The link needs the group's need for her skill to be visible to her, and her own need to belong may strengthen or weaken it. Status and belonging are distinct motives (Anderson, Hildreth and Howland 2015), so esteem does not guarantee a felt place; keep the card modest. The card moves her felt security of being kept, not her place.

Pre-language (increment): When others watch her work and copy her, they sit close by her and no one moves to push her out, and her sense of being kept in the troop rises.

Pre-language (decrement): When others stop watching her and go to another to learn, they sit by that one instead and she feels easily pushed out, and her sense of being kept in the troop sinks.

Comfortable in my Own Skin: Prestige to NormExp (Inverse, H)

Revised 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars (reword); provisional

Increment: When no one turns to me, watches or copies me, my footing feels hollow, and another member's break from the settled ways jars me as wrong: I bristle and pull them up, and my sense that such a breach is plainly wrong rises.

Decrement: When the others turn to me, copy how I do things and bring me their problems, my footing feels earned, and another member's break from the settled ways jars me less: I am readier to let it pass, and my sense that such a breach is wrong falls.

The mechanism is threat. Feeling that no one defers to her for what she brings is a threat to her worth in the group; that step rests on common sense. Self-uncertainty draws people to groups with clear normative prescriptions (Hogg 2014). When a person who holds power feels her competence is in doubt, she turns on others in hostile ways, and affirming her self-worth removes the effect (Fast and Chen 2009); power without status also breeds interpersonal conflict (Anicich, Fast, Halevy and Galinsky 2016). Both concern hostility or conflict towards others in general, not indignation at a breach of the group's ways, so carrying them to Rule-Keeping is the model's extension; keep the effect moderate. The settled ways are ground on which her place is still secure, so another member's breach jars as a further threat and strikes her as wrong: Rule-Keeping rises. When others defer to her for what she brings, the threat lifts and a breach jars less: Rule-Keeping falls. Setting the fall smaller than the rise is a modelling choice resting on the threat adding hostility and affirmation taking that addition away, and self-affirmation findings are fragile. The card follows a single source level. Her own conformity and her openness to new ideas are not Rule-Keeping and are left to other Pillars' cards. Fast and Chen found the effect only among those holding power, so it is strongest where Rank is high and Esteem low, and small or nil where Rank is low. A member whose worth is threatened may instead withdraw or break the ways herself, so policing others is one response of several, and untested as such.

Pre-language (increment): When others stop watching and copying her and take their troubles to another, she grows tense and keeps to the troop's familiar routines, threatening or turning from any member who starts a new way; her guarding of the settled ways rises.

Pre-language (decrement): When others watch and copy her and bring their troubles to her, she is loose and unthreatened, and lets a member who starts a new way go on unchallenged; her guarding of the settled ways eases.

Looked To, Let In: Prestige to OwnProsp (Reinforce, H)

Revised 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars (replace); provisional

Increment: When the others turn to me for what I bring, take my advice and hand me jobs that matter, I feel doors opening for me here, and my sense that staying will bring me what I came for rises.

Decrement: When no one asks me or copies me and they turn to someone else, and the jobs that matter go elsewhere, I feel the way to what I came for closing, and my sense that staying will bring it falls.

Under this deck's face, being deferred to includes being handed decisions and jobs that matter, and these open the way to the place, skill or advancement a member came for, so felt deference carries a forecast of what the group will deliver to her. Henrich and Gil-White (2001) hold that the prestigious receive freely conferred benefits from those who defer to them; the final step, from felt deference to her own forecast of what staying will bring, rests on common sense. The card holds where the group hands out jobs and advancement by esteem and she reads the deference as earned. It weakens in strongly egalitarian groups and where deference follows apparent more than real competence (Anderson and Kilduff 2009), since she may then doubt it will last. Whether help she gives comes back is Reciprocity's ground (H:Prestige->Reciprocity), so this card carries only the opening of the way to what she came for.

Pre-language (increment): When the others watch and copy her, she feels the troop's food and partners within her reach, and her hope of getting what she is after rises.

Pre-language (decrement): When they turn to another to watch and copy, she feels shut out of what the troop holds, and her hope of getting what she is after sinks.

Sought-After Partner: Prestige to Reciprocity (Reinforce, H)

Revised 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars (replace); provisional

Increment: When the others turn to me for what I bring, I feel my help is worth a good deal to them, and my sense that the partners I help will pay me back rises.

Decrement: When no one asks me or copies me any more, I feel my help is worth little to them, and my sense that partners will repay what I give falls.

In a market for partners, exchange rates follow supply and demand, so a partner in demand can command better terms (Noe and Hammerstein 1994). Field test: when a single low-ranking vervet female could open a food box, she received more grooming relative to what she gave, and when a second provider was introduced her gain was partly lost (Fruteau, Voelkl, van Damme and Noe 2009). That is one unreplicated field test of behavioural market pricing, and moving from it to a member's expectation that partners will repay her is the model's extension. On that extension, deference for what she brings raises what she expects partners to return, and a rival with the same skill lowers it. The card holds where what she brings is scarce and the others can choose their partners; a rival offering the same skill erodes it. Being in demand may instead bring more requests and a sense of being used, so keep the rise modest. As deference fades, so does what she expects partners to give back.

Pre-language (increment): When the others watch and copy her, those she grooms groom her back at length, and she feels sure of return.

Pre-language (decrement): When the others turn to another to watch and copy, those she grooms move off without returning it, and she stops expecting return.

Trading partners keep you close: Reciprocity to Belonging (Reinforce, H)

Revised 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars (reword); provisional

Increment: When my partners pay me back and those I ask deliver, I feel we are worth too much to each other to lose: I sit close to them, and after a clash with one of them I go to them soon, low and friendly, expecting to be let close again: my sense of being kept among them in my place rises.

Decrement: When partners take and do not return and what I ask for goes unmet, I feel I am worth little to them: I hang back from sitting beside them, leave a clash with one of them unmended and keep out of their way, expecting no one to draw me back: my sense of being kept among them falls.

In ranked groups grooming and favours are exchanged for tolerance and support, a prediction of Seyfarth's (1977) model that later tests have mostly but not uniformly confirmed (Schino 2001); across studies the grooming-for-support effect is small (bias-corrected r = 0.15; Schino 2007). Grooming is reciprocated across primate groups (Schino and Aureli 2008), and partner value predicts reconciliation after conflict (Aureli, Cords and van Schaik 2002; Cords and Thurnheer 1993), though the valuable-partner account of reconciliation has contested cases (Silk 2002; reports from bonobos and from the Mahale chimpanzees). A partner who repays is a valuable partner: she is tolerated close day to day, and repair with her after a clash keeps a member in the troop's company. An unrepaired rift with a partner who never repaid leaves her at the edge. Reconciliation repairs one partnership; reading it as being kept among the others as a whole is an extension, resting on common sense. Boundary: the card holds partner by partner on existing ties, and carries to her felt belonging in the group only where those partners make up most of the group; play it small where they are a few among many. The card reads favours repaid by trading partners. Fondness for her few close partners, and their answering contact, is the interaction card I:Warmth->Belonging#2 (Close partners keep me in); where both fire on the same partner, play this card small, since a repaid partner and a bonded one are often the same member.

Pre-language (increment): When her grooming is returned and partners back her, they tolerate her close by, and her feeling of being kept close grows.

Pre-language (decrement): When partners take her grooming and give none back, they drift from her, and her feeling of being kept close fades.

Power to your Elbow: Reciprocity to OwnProsp (Reinforce, H)

Revised 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars (reword); provisional

Increment: When the partners I help pay me back and those I ask deliver, I feel backed in going after what I came for, and my sense that staying will bring it to me rises.

Decrement: When partners take and do not return and those I ask do not deliver, I feel on my own in going after what I came for, and my sense that staying will bring it to me falls.

In ranked primate groups grooming is predicted to be exchanged for agonistic support (Seyfarth 1977, a model that tests have mostly but not uniformly confirmed) and is traded for tolerance at food (de Waal 1997, the chimpanzee's service economy). Across species, grooming given and support received go together within pairs (Schino 2007, a meta-analysis). Carrying this to a member's expected payoff from staying in a human group rests on common sense: a member whose partners pay her back feels backed and expects staying to open the way to what she came for; one whose help is not returned stands alone and expects little from the group. Boundaries. The card runs through direct return from particular partners: macaques show strong direct reciprocity and little indirect or generalised reciprocity (source not yet given; unchecked), so help from the group at large is not read here. It also runs through perceived return, which tracks actual return only modestly (perceived and received support correlate at about r = 0.35 in a meta-analysis; Haber et al. 2007, to be checked), and the path can run the other way, with an optimistic member reading more support than she gets; keep the step modest.

Pre-language (increment): Helped when she reaches for it, she feels backed and goes for what she wants here as one sure of getting it.

Pre-language (decrement): Left unhelped when she needs it, she feels alone and hangs back, as if what she wants here is out of reach.

Rank draws the circle: Status to Belonging (Reinforce, H)

Fixed 3 Nov 2026 after the final high and low check (fixed); provisional

Increment: When I go first as a matter of course and take the first share and the best seat, the others cluster round me and I feel no threat of being dropped: my sense of being kept among them in my place rises.

Decrement: When I go last and take what is left, I feel how little slack my place gives me and that any step out of line would see me dropped: my sense of being kept among them falls a little.

In ranked groups grooming tends to be directed up the order (Seyfarth 1977; tests have mostly but not uniformly confirmed it). The pattern varies across species, and grooming is also traded reciprocally (Schino 2007), which offers a competing account of why attention runs up the order: rank is one route to being drawn close among several. After a fight, low-ranking chimpanzee victims are consoled less often than high-ranking ones (Romero, Castellanos and de Waal 2010), so the comfort that keeps a member in the cluster runs up the order with the grooming. Higher status is also accorded respect and voluntary deference (Anderson, Hildreth and Howland 2015), though their status includes deference freely given, which is Esteem's ground here, so it supports this card only loosely. Under this deck's face a place is made for members high or low who keep to it, so rank does not decide inclusion outright; what moves is the felt threat of being dropped. That step from rank to felt security rests on common sense: a member who goes first feels her keeping is beyond question; one who goes last feels how little slack her place gives her, and that any step out of line would see her dropped. Status shielded its holders from punishment for low-severity deviance but became a liability for high-severity deviance (Karelaia and Keck 2013), so the slack a high rung gives covers small lapses, not serious ones. That work concerns formal leaders and observers' punishment; carrying it to the felt security of being kept among peers is a proposal. A member settled at the bottom who keeps to her place may still feel fairly secure, so the fall there is modest. Anxiety about exclusion among middle-status members (Phillips and Zuckerman 2001) cannot be carried by a card that follows a single source level and is left to play.

Pre-language (increment): When others yield her the first turn, they groom her and cluster near her, and her feeling of being kept close grows.

Pre-language (decrement): When she goes last to everything, others groom her less and she feels how easily she could be left at the edge, and her feeling of being kept close fades.

Self Interest Quo: Status to NormExp (Reinforce, H)

Revised 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars (reword); provisional

Increment: Secure at the top of the order, I feel a member's break from the settled ways as a break in the order that puts me first; it jars at once and I pull them up: my sense that such a breach is plainly wrong rises.

Decrement: Low in the order, the settled ways are what keep me last, so a member breaking from them stirs less in me, though I still bristle a little, and I am slower to pull them up: my sense that such a breach is wrong falls a little.

Proposal, modest weight, resting on common sense with adjacent support. Those an order puts first have most to lose by a breach of it, so a breach of the settled ways jars them as a breach of their own place; those it holds at the bottom have less stake. The indignation is felt, not reasoned. Social dominance theory concerns attitudes to rank between social groups and is a trait measure, so it is set aside. The nearest checked support is the black sheep effect: an unlikeable ingroup member is judged more harshly than a matching outgroup member (Marques, Yzerbyt and Leyens 1988). That study compared ingroup with outgroup and did not measure identification; later work found highly identified members judging a disloyal fellow member more harshly, at least when the group's identity was under threat (Branscombe, Wann, Noel and Coleman 1993). Nothing there links it to rank, and treating a high place as one ground of identification is the model's step. Middle-status conformity (Phillips and Zuckerman 2001) concerns members' own conformity, and later work finds the pattern depends on ascribed status and reverses for actors of low ascribed status (Prato and colleagues 2019), so it bounds the slope only. Idiosyncrasy credit (Hollander 1958), the latitude a high-status member earns to deviate, likewise bounds the card only. Boundaries. Those holding high rank as a stable trait opposed norm violators rising, but the slope did not appear when rank was manipulated (Stamkou et al. 2016), so the card reads a settled place, not a passing one. The reaction also shifts with the violator's own rank and with whether that rank rests on dominance or prestige (Kakkar et al. 2020). The earlier appeal to system justification is withdrawn: the claim that the disadvantaged legitimise the order more than others did not hold across three large representative data sets (Brandt 2013). Keep the decrement small for a different reason: a low-ranked member who identifies with the group still bristles at breaches by the black sheep route. The card follows a single source level and cannot carry a middle peak. The insecurity of a place still on trial, whatever its rung, is carried by H:Belonging->NormExp (Clinging or letting go). Only her reaction to others' breaches moves here.

Pre-language (increment): Secure at the top, she bristles when another member does something in a new way, and threatens them or turns her back on them.

Pre-language (decrement): Low in the order, she watches another member do something in a new way and lets it pass, unbothered.

Built-in Advantage: Status to OwnProsp (Reinforce, H)

Revised 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars (reword); provisional

Increment: Going first as a matter of course, with the first turn and the first share mine without a word said, I feel the group opening the way to what I came for, and my sense that staying will bring it to me rises.

Decrement: Going last as a matter of course, waiting my turn and taking what is left, I feel what I came for slipping past me to those ahead, and my sense that staying will bring it to me falls.

Precedence is a standing claim on what the group hands out: the first turn, the first share and the best seat fall to the high-ranked before anyone else, so a member who goes first as a matter of course can expect what she came for to reach her, and one who goes last cannot. The step from going first or last to her expected payoff from staying rests on common sense about ordered access and has no direct test. Primate work on rank and priority of access to mates (Altmann 1962; Cowlishaw and Dunbar 1991) and on social queuing (Kokko and Johnstone 1999) points the same way, but none of it has been checked for this card and the card does not rely on it. In humans the link between men's status and reproductive success is modest (r = 0.19 across 33 nonindustrial societies; von Rueden and Jaeggi 2016, to be checked); its status measures mix settled rank with deference for what one brings, so it bears on this card only loosely. Precedence can follow from rank as well as signal it, so keep the step modest. Where the order is a queue by seniority, a low place is the start of the line and staying is how one moves up; play the decrement weak for a junior who expects to rise.

Pre-language (increment): High in the order, she takes first pick and others give way, and she goes after what she wants confident of getting it.

Pre-language (decrement): Low in the order, she waits on others' leavings, and expects to miss out on what she wants.

Repaid in order of rank: Status to Reciprocity (Reinforce, H)

Revised 3 Nov 2026 against the tightened Pillars (replace); provisional

Increment: Going first as a matter of course, I expect what I give to come back promptly and in full, since those below serve those above before anyone else, and my sense that my partners pay me back rises.

Decrement: Going last as a matter of course, I expect the service I pass up to come back late and short, with cover and favour from above reaching me only after everyone above me has been served, and my sense that my partners pay me back falls.

Under this deck's face, those below repay those above with service, and what flows back down is mostly tolerance, cover and occasional support. The card's proposal, resting on common sense, is that precedence orders how soon and how fully returns come, as it orders shares, so the same exchange reads as well repaid from the top and thinly repaid from the bottom. Primate work on grooming running up the order and being exchanged in part for support (Seyfarth 1977; Schino 2001; Schino 2007) is background only: it has not been checked for this card and the card does not rely on it. Possible boundary, to be confirmed: in unequal pairs people may expect established precedent to continue, with turn-taking reciprocity expected mainly between equals (Chen and Saxe, read only in press and conference summary); if confirmed, precedent rather than rank would order the returns. The card moves her felt reading of returns from partners, not her readiness to help, and not whether others do their part of the shared work (Dependability).

Pre-language (increment): High in the order, she is groomed back at once and at length by those she grooms, and her sense that what she gives returns grows.

Pre-language (decrement): Low in the order, she grooms those above her and waits long for little in return, and her sense that what she gives returns fades.

Faltering venture tightens ranks: GrpProsp to NormExp (Inverse, H)

Increment: When I feel those at the top cannot steer us through what we have taken on, our settled ways look like all that still holds us on course, so a member breaking from them or pressing to change them, in a way the group would condemn, jars me as wrong and I am quick to pull them up: my indignation at breaches rises.

Decrement: When I feel those at the top know the way through what we have taken on, a member trying something different or urging a change, even in a way the group would condemn, looks like no danger, since the course is in hands that will right it, and I let it pass: my indignation at breaches eases.

Deck H; the source is Team Confidence's hierarchical face. The nearest small-group evidence: in freely interacting groups an opinion deviate was rejected more when the dissent came close to the group's decision deadline, which the authors put down to a heightened need for collective closure (Kruglanski and Webster 1991). That study manipulated time pressure, not doubt about the venture; reading a faltering venture as raising the same need for closure is an inference. The closure effect also depends on who deviates, including the deviate's gender (Doherty, searched, not checked). Across whole societies, histories of threat go with stronger norms and less tolerance of deviance (Gelfand et al. 2011), which points the same way but does not test a member's reaction to her group's venture, and the tightness measure it rests on has had its validity challenged. The face adds its own step, a common-sense proposal: in a ranked group the settled ways are partly the top's standing direction, so when live steering from the top looks weak, members lean harder on those ways and a departure reads as one more push off course; when steering looks sure, the top is trusted to catch a stray move, and it passes. Boundaries. The decrement covers departures that do not cross a call from the top; a member who defies the top's own direction is challenging the order, which this card does not carry, so keep the decrement small. Where the settled way is itself the top's failing course and the failure is openly acknowledged, departures can read as a needed correction; there the pull to guard the ways and the pull to welcome change offset each other, so the card does not fire and the step is nil. Both boundaries rest on common sense. Scale the card to who deviates as well as to the venture. The card covers the acute, felt jar of a venture slipping out of the leaders' grip, and the effect should be modest.

Pre-language (increment): When the band's venture is going badly and the prize looks out of reach, she clings to the usual way of doing it and bristles at a fellow who does it differently, with a protest or a shove. Her norm guarding rises.

Pre-language (decrement): When the prize looks well within the band's reach, she lets a fellow try an odd way of doing it without a second look. Her bristle at breaches subsides.

Shirkers sharpen the bristle: OutResp to NormExp (Reinforce, X)

Increment: When I can leave any part of the work with any member and see it carried through, a member who dodges a part or cuts a corner in the way we do the shared work stands out against everyone else's keeping of it; it jars me at once as plainly wrong and I pull them up with a sharp word: my indignation at breaches rises.

Decrement: When I keep having to check up on, chase and redo what others took on, a dodged part or a cut corner in the shared work is only what most here do, and it no longer strikes me as a breach worth pulling up; I let it pass: my indignation at breaches eases.

The settled ways are read from what members actually do: people keep a norm, and expect it kept, when they see most others keep it, and drop it when they see most break it (Bicchieri and Xiao 2009). Free riders are punished in proportion to how far they fall below the others' contributions (Fehr and Gächter 2000), so the same dodge stands out more, and draws more anger, where the rest carry their parts; the negative emotions that appear to drive the punishment grow likewise (Fehr and Gächter 2002; the emotion evidence is questionnaire-based). Where many shirk, the threat of exclusion also fails to hold the line (Kerr et al. 2009). Unaffected observers punish breaches of a cooperation norm too, though less than those harmed (Fehr and Fischbacher 2004), and cooperators punish defectors even where punishing cannot narrow the payoff gap, so the motive reads as retaliation for unfair conduct rather than inequity (Falk, Fehr and Fischbacher 2005); for that reason anger at a coaster is Rule-Keeping's ground, and Parity does not carry it (E:OutResp->Levelling). The evidence concerns contributions to a common pool; reading it as doing one's part of the shared work is the model's step, and the card is limited to the way the shared work is done. Among equals pulling your weight is one of the levelling ways Rule-Keeping guards, so the step is short there. The shirking that lowered Dependability is not counted again here; the bristle at that shirking itself belongs to the scene. Noise: where she cannot see who dropped what, punishment goes astray and fails to hold up cooperation (Grechenig, Nicklisch and Thöni 2010), so set the increment small there. The card was earlier Inverse, on the proposal that chasing shirkers sensitises her to the next breach; that runs against the evidence above and against Rule-Keeping's own definition, and is dropped. With X:NormExp->OutResp the card forms a Reinforce loop: a keen bristle keeps parts carried, and parts carried keep a dodge conspicuous. The loop runs down as readily as up, as contributions decay where shirking goes unchecked (Fehr and Gächter 2000, rounds without punishment); watch for runs from play to play. The public goods evidence is shared with X:Reciprocity->NormExp, read there as the ways of sharing; play both small where one scene fires both.

Pre-language (increment): When the others keep leaving their end of the carry or the watch to her, she bristles sooner at any of them doing a thing the wrong way and moves to pull them up: a protest cry, a shove, a cold shoulder. Her norm guarding rises.

Pre-language (decrement): When the others reliably hold their end of the shared task, she meets a fellow's odd way of doing things with a shrug and goes about her business. Her bristle at breaches subsides.

Hoarders stir the levellers: Reciprocity to NormExp (Inverse, X)

provisional

Increment: When what I give the group stops coming back and what I need goes unmet, though sharing is still our way, a member stepping outside our settled ways of sharing and helping strikes me as wrong at once, and I am readier to pull them up: my indignation at breaches rises.

Decrement: When whoever has gives to whoever needs and what I put in comes back from any member, a member who is slow to share or keeps back a little of what should go round strikes me as no great matter, since it all comes back in the end, and I let it pass: my indignation at breaches eases.

When help stops coming back, a member's patience with those who step outside the ways of sharing and helping runs out. In a one-shot public goods experiment about half of subjects cooperated conditionally, giving more the more others gave (Fischbacher, Gächter and Fehr 2001). Negative emotions toward free riders appear to underlie costly punishment of them, even among strangers (Fehr and Gächter 2002; the emotion evidence is questionnaire-based). The increment rests on her own giving going unreturned. She is the cooperator who has been left short, and from that position the next departure from the ways of sharing jars at once. The felt indignation is better supported than the voiced rebuke: bystanders to unfairness feel modest anger but seldom act on it (Pedersen, McAuliffe and McCullough 2018, searched, not verified), so the pulling up is the likelier sequel, not a certain one. The holding back that lowered Reciprocity is not counted again here; the card carries only the sensitising to the next departure. Boundary, graded: the settled ways are read from what members actually do (Bicchieri and Xiao 2009), so the increment shrinks as hoarding spreads and is nil where nobody shares any more; it holds in full while she still reads sharing as the group's settled way. Enforcement also depends on settled cooperative norms and trust: where civic norms are weak, punishment can turn antisocial and fall on cooperators (Herrmann, Thöni and Gächter 2008; Balliet and Van Lange 2013; both searched, not verified), and there the step shrinks. On the decrement side, a member secure in the return can afford to overlook an occasional lapse, which rests on common sense. A flat refusal to share may still stand out the more in a high-giving group, so the decrement eases her reaction to small departures only; keep it smaller than the increment. The public goods evidence concerns contributions to a common pool and is shared with X:OutResp->NormExp; here it is read as the ways of sharing and helping, there as doing one's part of the work, and each reading is the model's step. Play both small where one scene fires both. Breaches in how the shared work is done belong to that card. The card reads her guarding of a settled way of sharing, which is Rule-Keeping's ground; the levelling of a grabber who takes more than his due and makes it stick is Parity's ground and stays there, as Parity's definition draws it. The felt jar may run ahead of the voiced rebuke where her Rank or Parity is low. Any era claim for third-party enforcement stays unchecked until Pedersen et al. 2018 and Riedl et al. 2012 are read in full.

Pre-language (increment): When her food goes out and nothing comes back while others hide their surplus, she bristles at fellows doing things the wrong way and moves to demand, protest or turn her back; her norm guarding rises.

Pre-language (decrement): When food passes freely and comes back to her from whoever next has, a fellow's odd way of doing things draws no bristle; her norm guarding falls.

Low in the order, guarded: Status to DivsExp (Reinforce, X)

provisional

Increment: When I hold a high place in a settled order, I expect an objection or a slip of mine to be let pass, with no one pouncing on it, so I let it show with less softening first: my felt safety to show myself rises a little.

Decrement: When I sit low in the order, I expect a slip or an objection of mine to be pounced on while those above are watching, so I soften every objection and swallow my first reaction: my felt safety to show myself falls.

A low place goes with holding back while those above watch, and a high place in a settled order with expecting slips to be let pass. Subordinate rhesus monkeys that had learned a task performed it only when apart from higher-ranking animals, with little aggression needed to suppress it (Drea and Wallen 1999); subordinate chimpanzees approach only food a dominant cannot see (Hare et al. 2000); self-directed behaviour, a measure of anxiety, rises when the nearest neighbour is dominant (Castles, Whiten and Aureli 1999). Low-ranking victims of aggression are consoled less than high-ranking ones (Romero, Castellanos and de Waal 2010), a sign that a low place draws less kindly attention; consolation itself, a need met, is Reciprocity's ground and is not played here. Reduced power goes with attention to threat and inhibited social behaviour (Keltner, Gruenfeld and Anderson 2003), a theory paper about power, so carrying it to settled rank is the model's step. In hospital teams, higher profession-based status goes with greater psychological safety, and leader inclusiveness weakens the status gap (Nembhard and Edmondson 2006; checked against the abstract only). Embarrassment works as an appeasement display (Keltner and Buswell 1997), which fits the softening in the decrement line. Keep the increment smaller than the decrement: the power literature reports approach and inhibition effects of unequal size, and the primate evidence concerns subordinates holding back, not dominants opening up. Boundaries. Where places are being contested, set the increment nil: in unstable orders dominants carry the most stress (Sapolsky 2005), and alpha male baboons have high glucocorticoids (Gesquiere et al. 2011). Scale the card to dominance style: large in steep, despotic orders and small in tolerant ones, where conflicts are milder and more often two-way (Thierry 2000, not checked here). Scale it also to power distance: the cost of speaking up from a low place is greater where hierarchy is accepted as proper (not checked here). Rank and safety stay distinct readings, since a member can be well placed in a group that punishes slips, or lowly in one that does not; an inclusive leader weakens the card. Where E:Levelling->DivsExp fires on the same nearby dominant, play only one. The same holding back shows as unseen skill on H:Status->Prestige; do not count one act on both in a scene. This card carries the route through settled place; E:Prestige->DivsExp carries the weaker route through live deference for what she brings. From the comparative psychologist's synthesis build (Standing->Safety), its most-used card.

Pre-language (increment): When she stands high in the band, she bares a protest openly and goes on, and no one turns on her for it. Her ease in showing herself rises.

Pre-language (decrement): When she stands low, she wraps any protest in appeasing grins and crouches, checks her first flare, and flushes and averts when caught out. Her ease in showing herself falls.

Heard from where I sit: Status to Prestige (Reinforce, H)

provisional

Increment: When I go first as a matter of course, I expect what I put forward to be taken as good before it has shown its worth, my suggestion taken up and the result credited to me, and I feel sure they turn to me for what I bring: my sense that they defer to me for it rises.

Decrement: When I go last as a matter of course, I keep my way of doing things to myself while those above are watching, so what I bring stays out of sight, I expect anything I do put forward to be passed over or credited to someone higher, however good it is, and I watch the next problem go to someone else: my sense that they turn to me for what I bring falls.

Two routes. First, her expectation from her rank: status creates expectations that favour those already ahead, and hierarchies reinforce themselves through those expectations (Magee and Galinsky 2008); eminent people get more credit for comparable work (Merton 1968), though such cumulative credit is contested outside peer review. Those works describe how others judge and credit; that she, knowing her rank, infers the same deference for herself is a common-sense step, and the others' actual crediting belongs to the scene. Expectation states theory (Berger and colleagues) makes the same argument about who is listened to in task groups, but no primary source for it has been checked yet. Second, her own inhibition: subordinate rhesus monkeys that had learned a task performed it only when apart from higher-ranking animals (Drea and Wallen 1999), so what a low-ranked member brings stays out of sight. Chimpanzees copy dominant as well as knowledgeable models (Kendal et al. 2015), so rank draws the watching that Esteem reads. The reading stays on Esteem's ground; deference owed to the place itself is Rank and is not carried here. With H:Prestige->Status it forms a reinforcing pair. The brake is Esteem evidence, a visible failure of what she brings. Boundary, provisional: the halo is strongest where a contribution's worth is hard to judge and credit is assigned opaquely, and weakens where quality is easily seen or credit is transparent, since a plain result can be seen whoever offers it (consistent with Huber et al. 2022, searched, though that work does not test this boundary). The increment rests on that unchecked expectation, so keep it modest. The holding back is the same act that lowers Safety on X:Status->DivsExp; do not count one act on both in a scene.

Settling into a place: Prestige to Status (Reinforce, H)

provisional

Increment: When the others keep turning to me for what I bring, hand me decisions and leave jobs that matter in my hands, I come to take the first word as mine as a matter of course, and I feel it has become my place: my felt rung in the order rises.

Decrement: When what I bring stops counting and my word is doubted in front of the others, with nothing that matters handed to me, I stop expecting the first word and give way: my felt rung in the order slips a little.

Freely conferred deference is a route to rank (Henrich and Gil-White; Cheng et al.). Contributors are repaid with standing and influence (Willer), and perceived competence buys influence (Anderson and Kilduff). Once established, status holds itself through expectations (Magee and Galinsky). Those works describe the others conferring rank, which belongs to the scene; here she settles into the place, or lets it go, herself as the deference she reads builds up, a step resting on common sense. Respect for skill need not become rank or influence (von Rueden, Gurven and Kaplan 2008), so the increment rests on deference that shows up as decisions and jobs that matter handed to her; esteem alone, with nothing handed over, does not fire it. The step from live deference to a place taken for granted is slow. Proposal: each play moves Rank by a small fraction of Esteem's level, so the settling builds over many plays; make the decrement weaker than the increment, because a settled place outlasts the skill that earned it. That asymmetry rests on theory only (Magee and Galinsky 2008; expectation-states accounts of how a standing order preserves itself) and has no direct test. It applies once a place is established: in a new group's early weeks, places still move when contributions fall short (Bendersky and Shah 2013), so there play the decrement at full strength. This card absorbs the older model's most-used card: being trusted with something that matters is Esteem evidence, and its settling is this card.

Backed into my place: Belonging to Status (Reinforce, H)

provisional

Increment: When I am kept among them and a place is made for me as a matter of course, and a turn or a share of mine is questioned, I feel the room is with me and hold to it without a word: my felt rung in the order, shaken by the question, firms up again.

Decrement: When I am kept at the edge and my turn or my share is questioned in front of the others, I feel no one here would speak for me, and I give way: my felt rung in the order falls.

In macaques, kin support matters for winning rank (Chapais and Larose 1988), though keeping rank among peers need not depend on it when subordinates cannot form coalitions (same source), and grooming is traded for agonistic support (Schino 2007), in line with Seyfarth's (1977) model of grooming directed up the hierarchy for rank-related benefits. Those findings concern support from particular partners in return for service. That is the ground of H Reciprocity, where a patron covers you. This card reads the acceptance of the group as a whole and takes from the primate work, by analogy only, that whether a challenge to a place succeeds depends partly on who backs it. The card therefore fires only when a turn or share of hers is contested; it does not carry a rank held steady by acceptance alone. The human step has no direct test and is a proposal, common sense in any committee: a member kept at the edge whose turn is questioned feels no one would speak for her and gives way, while one kept among them feels the room with her and holds. The decrement's route through felt self-worth is uncertain: two 2009 meta-analyses of rejection disagree on whether exclusion lowers self-esteem (Blackhart et al. 2009; Gerber and Wheeler 2009), so the card leans on her reading that no one would back her more than on any drop in her worth. Whether the questioner in fact yields belongs to the scene. Hierarchical acceptance is held at any rung, high or low. The increment therefore only firms up a turn or share that was in doubt and never lifts her above her place; keep it smaller than the decrement. It is distinct from Esteem: the felt assent is for who she is to them, not for what she brings. Where the questioning is an open charge, by someone of standing, that she has stepped out of her place, the charge itself is Face's ground and reaches Rank through H:Face->Status; this card then carries only whether the room backs her, and the drop in Rank is counted once in the scene.

Friends get the rope: Belonging to OutResp (Reinforce, E)

provisional

Increment: When the others draw me in as one of their own, I expect them not to let one of their own down on the work we share, so I hand them parts of it without a second thought and leave them to it: my confidence that they will do their part rises.

Decrement: When I am left at the edge, I expect them to feel no call to keep their word to someone who is not one of their own, so I keep the work in my own hands and check what little I hand over: my confidence that they will do their part falls.

The felt shift at the cue rests on group-based trust: people extend more trust to fellow members of their own group because they expect them to treat members well (Foddy, Platow and Yamagishi 2009, not checked here). The ingroup effect is small in trust games (d about 0.14, Romano et al. 2017) and depends on reputational stakes, on membership being common knowledge and on culture, being weaker in Japan. That work compares ingroup with outgroup; carrying it to graded acceptance within one group is the model's extension, and so is narrowing expected good treatment to expecting members not to let one of their own down on shared work. Being drawn in as one of their own tells her she is a member they will not leave in the lurch, so she leaves work in their hands more readily. Whether help she gives or asks for comes back is Reciprocity's ground and is not carried here. The decrement, that a member left at the edge trusts less and checks more, has no direct test and rests on the same extension. Trust that rests on her own fondness for the members is carried by E:Warmth->OutResp; where both fire, play this card small. The gain for Dependability also builds across plays from sampling, a common-sense step pending a check of Fetchenhauer and Dunning 2010 and Denrell 2005: a member who trusts more sees more work carried through, while one who withholds trust sees little and has nothing to correct her last let-down. Control read as distrust lowers the other's effort (Falk and Kosfeld 2006), an effect that is real but usually small on replication (Ziegelmeyer, Schmelz and Ploner 2012); that is the others' response and belongs to the scene, so over many plays withheld trust may prove partly self-fulfilling there, not on this card. Keep the card modest.

Generous, so sought: Reciprocity to Prestige (Reinforce, H)

provisional

Increment: When the partners I help pay me back as a matter of course, I can afford to give freely, beyond any one partner and in the others' sight, and I feel myself one with help worth bringing their problems to: my sense that they turn to me for what I bring rises.

Decrement: When the partners I help do not pay me back, I stop giving beyond what I must, and I feel I have less in hand that the others would come to me for: my sense that they turn to me for what I bring falls a little.

In public settings, the most generous members gain the most status, here freely given deference (Esteem), and are the most preferred partners (Hardy and Van Vugt 2006), and contributors are given influence and deference (Willer 2009). Both studies concern contributions to a common pool; the step to help given beyond her own partners in the others' sight is by analogy. Repayment only sustains the giving: a felt return makes open-handed giving affordable to her, a step resting on common sense and untested, and her felt esteem comes from the open-handed giving itself, never from being repaid. Work on helping and status ties esteem to giving more than one receives (Flynn et al. 2006). The card carries her felt reading as that giving opens or closes, a cautious proxy for what the others confer; their answering deference belongs to the scene (rulebook 8.5). The standing gain holds for visible, open-handed giving and fades when the giving reads as strategic or as a paid trade (Bliege Bird and Power 2015; a further source cited earlier as Livingston, Cohen and Halevy 2010 is not confirmed and needs checking, the nearest found being Halevy, Chou, Cohen and Livingston 2012). Each play moves her felt reading a step; the deference builds over many plays. Her name as a sharer is Repute's ground and is not carried here. The card forms a positive loop with H:Prestige->Reciprocity; the brake is a partner who stops repaying.

Low rung, easy target: Status to Levelling (Reinforce, X)

provisional

Increment: When I hold a high place in a settled order, no one tries to push me about, take my due or pass me over when things are handed out, and I go about my business beside the strongest without a glance at their mood: my sense that no one here can force me, take more than their due or hand out unfairly, and get away with it, rises.

Decrement: When I sit low in the order, the one who likes to push is about and no one here reins him in, I read myself as his easy target, open to losing my turns and my share beyond what the order gives him and to being passed over when he hands things out to his own; I start to watch him and do what heads off his temper: my sense that no one here can force me, take more than their due or hand out unfairly, and get away with it, falls.

Rank shapes how much aggression and stress an animal receives, but direction and size depend on the society: subordination is most stressful in stable despotic orders and not in egalitarian ones, and in unstable orders the high-ranked face the most challenges (Sapolsky 2005); formalised, reconciled orders damp overt aggression (de Waal 1986). In a settled order she accepts, a low place moves Parity little, and an even-handed share-out that gives her less by rank leaves it high, as the Parity definition says; a low place in a settled, legitimate order may not lower the reading at all and can raise tolerance of unequal shares (Albrecht et al. 2012, not confirmed; needs checking, and the step rests on the Parity definition and common sense meanwhile). In well-levelled groups low rank carries less exposure (Boehm 1993). The card bites only when someone who could use her low place to push, take or pass her over is about and the group does little to check him; the decrement is her reading of her own exposure to him. Peer-victimisation evidence is cross-sectional, and low status may follow being targeted as much as cause it, so the card claims no more than that reading. His actual grabs belong to the scene. Set it small in settled orders and larger in despotic ones. While places are being contested, set the increment to zero, since a high place then draws challenges instead of shielding her.

Ideas aired, ideas taken up: DivsExp to Prestige (Reinforce, E)

provisional

Increment: When I feel safe to let a half-formed idea show, I put forward how we might do the work better in front of the others, and I feel I have shown them something worth turning to me for: my sense that they turn to me for what I bring rises.

Decrement: When I brace and keep my ideas masked, what I could bring stays in my head, and I feel the others have seen nothing of mine to turn to me for: my sense that they turn to me for what I bring falls.

Felt psychological safety is taken as a precondition for letting half-formed ideas show, since an untested idea risks a slip or a disagreement shown, which is Safety's ground; the link from safety to voice is carried by Safety's evidence and is not rechecked here. The card now carries only her own felt sense of having shown, or withheld, something worth turning to her for, which rests on common sense; play it small. The evidence on status conferred for speaking up measures the others' response and belongs to the scene: speaking up raises the status colleagues confer, partly because those who speak are seen as more agentic (Weiss and Morrison 2019); promotive voice raised peer-rated status and later leader emergence, while prohibitive voice did not, and men gained from promotive voice and women did not (McClean et al. 2018); members high in trait dominance are rated more competent by peers (Anderson and Kilduff 2009). The card covers promotive voice only, ideas offered to improve the shared work; voicing alarm or criticism is not covered. Where she expects a status penalty for speaking up, as McClean et al. found for women, the felt gain is smaller or absent. The gain tracks visible contribution more than its quality (Anderson and Kilduff 2009), so the card reads that she has shown something, whatever its worth. Deck E: the card reads Esteem's egalitarian face, deference freely given on the matter in hand with no right to command. It forms a Reinforce loop with E:Prestige->DivsExp; the brake is a visible failure of what she puts forward (Esteem evidence).

No passengers: OutResp to Levelling (Reinforce, E)

provisional

Increment: When every member carries through what they take on, the credit and reward each draws is earned by a part they have done, so no one gets more than our reckoning gives by coasting: my sense that no one here takes more than their due and keeps it holds or rises a little.

Decrement: When some members coast yet still draw the full share of credit and reward that our reckoning gives only to those who do their part, and no one makes them give it up, I see them taking more than their due and keeping it: my sense that no one here takes more than their due and keeps it falls.

A coaster who draws the full share where the group's reckoning ties shares to doing one's part takes more than that reckoning gives, which is what Parity's second limb reads; the reading falls only when no one stops him and the grab sticks. The step is a proposal resting on common sense, and the literature does not support it strongly. In public goods games cooperators punish free riders even where punishing cannot narrow the payoff gap, so their motive reads as retaliation for unfair conduct rather than inequity (Falk, Fehr and Fischbacher 2005); that anger is Rule-Keeping's ground, since pulling your weight is one of the levelling ways it guards, and X:OutResp->NormExp carries only the sensitising it leaves. Unearned pay gaps do lower output and attendance (Breza, Kaur and Shamdasani 2018), but those gaps were set by an employer, which is Parity's H face, not a coasting peer. So the card holds only where the group's reckoning plainly ties shares to parts, and does not fire where the band answers the coasting with ribbing and complaint as a breach of its ways, since then the grab has not stuck; one coasting scene is counted once. Members also cut their own effort rather than carry a partner who free rides (the sucker effect: Kerr 1983), which does not move here. Where the group's reckoning gives equal shares whatever each puts in, the coaster gets what the reckoning gives and Parity is untouched; where reward tracks each member's own output, shirking costs only the shirker. High reliability removes coasting as one route to an unearned share; it says nothing of grabbing or coercion by other means. Small; forms a Reinforce loop with E:Levelling->OutResp.

Credit to spend: Prestige to DivsExp (Reinforce, E)

provisional

Increment: When the others turn to me for what I bring and take my advice, I feel a slip, a doubt or a disagreement of mine would be shrugged off as a bad day rather than met with a put-down or a laugh: my felt safety to show myself rises.

Decrement: When no one turns to me for anything I bring, I feel I have nothing to set against a slip, and that a doubt or a disagreement of mine would sooner draw a put-down: my felt safety to show myself falls a little.

Higher professional status goes with greater felt psychological safety (Nembhard and Edmondson 2006), and power releases approach and expression, while low power primes attention to threat and inhibition (Keltner, Gruenfeld and Anderson 2003). Both bear on settled place and power, which X:Status->DivsExp carries. The step to live deference is a proposal resting on common sense: a member the others turn to has something to set against a slip. Hollander's idiosyncrasy credit says members who have earned standing are allowed more latitude, but direct tests are few and weak, so it is not relied on. Work on deviance credit (Abrams et al. 2018) is a candidate neighbour once its full text confirms what it measures. The pratfall effect points the same way for a slip off the skill: a blunder made a highly competent person more liked (Aronson, Willerman and Floyd 1966), though later studies found it depends on the observer's self-esteem and sex (Helmreich, Aronson and LeFan 1970; Deaux 1972) and it measured liking, not felt safety, so it is not relied on. Standing can also raise the stakes of a slip: people react more strongly to the prospect of losing standing than to gaining it (Pettit, Yong and Spataro 2010, unchecked until located), and a loss of status hurts performance more when it comes from a high position than from a lower one (Marr and Thau 2014). Deference that fades with what she brings is a thinner cushion than a settled place, so this card should be the weaker of the two. Boundary, resting on common sense with adjacent support from the status-loss work, none of it replicated: where a slip would show up the very skill the others look to her for, high standing raises the cost of the slip and the card does not fire.

Good season, open hands: GrpProsp to Reciprocity (Discretionary, E)

provisional

Whether the venture's prospects open hands around me depends on where the trouble is seen to come from. Circumstance one (the default), the trouble is inside the group or has no named source. HIGH: with the venture well within our reach I am buoyed, I help whoever asks without counting and expect the same around me, so my reading that help here comes back rises. LOW: with the venture looking beyond us, I expect everyone to hunch over their own part and help asked for to be slow to come, so my reading that help here comes back falls a little. Circumstance two, the trouble comes from outside (a rival group, lost funding, a forced change of ground), it threatens the group as a whole, and a fight still looks worth making. LOW here means the venture is threatened and not yet hopeless: I expect the others to pool what they have and help to flow to whoever needs it, so my reading that help here comes back rises. HIGH: the threat looks easily met and I expect giving to slip back to its ordinary level, so my reading eases back by no more than the threat raised it. Good mood raises helping (Carlson, Charlin and Miller 1988). Mood spreads through a group by contagion, and in one lab study groups exposed to pleasant contagion showed more cooperation and less conflict than those exposed to unpleasant contagion (Barsade 2002). That Team Confidence carries such a mood is common sense, untested by these studies. The mood evidence backs the circumstance-one increment only: a bad mood does not reliably lower helping and sometimes raises it (Carlson and Miller 1987, to be checked). The circumstance-one decrement, each member guarding her own part when the venture looks beyond the group, rests on common sense: people who doubt the shared outcome turn to securing their own. Keep it weaker than the increment, since a bad mood does not reliably lower helping. Exposure to war violence raises local cooperation, and may strengthen in-group norms in particular (Bauer et al. 2016, review, checked). In the laboratory, competition between groups raised contributions within them and sharpened anger at free riders and guilt at free riding (Puurtinen and Mappes 2009), which grounds circumstance two in rivalry between groups and not only in war; carrying either finding to an everyday outside threat such as lost funding is the model's step, so play it modest. Circumstance two needs the threat to fall on the group as a whole: where members feel singled out one by one, threat can lower cooperation within the group (Weisel and Zultan, unverified, single study; likely their 2016 European Economic Review paper on the perceived target of threat, year to be checked), so run circumstance one. Where the venture looks hopeless, run circumstance one. The step from the group's mood to her felt expectation of return rests on common sense too. Matches the rally case in E:GrpProsp->Belonging. Modest; forms a loop with E:Reciprocity->GrpProsp.

Backs to each other: Belonging to GrpProsp (Reinforce, E)

provisional

Increment: When the others draw me in as one of their own, I see us talk the work through, pass on what we know and pull the same way, and the venture looks within the reach of a side like ours: my confidence that the group, as it stands, can pull it off rises.

Decrement: When I am left at the edge, I see the work run in knots that do not talk it through or pass things on, and what I could bring left out of it, and the venture looks beyond the group as it stands: my confidence that the group can pull it off falls.

Cohesion is related to group performance, and all three of its components count, most for behaviour and efficiency and where work flows intensively between members (Beal et al. 2003). The card runs mainly through task cohesion, work talked through and knowledge passed on, which is why the lines speak of how the work flows; social acceptance on its own carries less. Of the model's perceptions, Warmth, her liking for the members, sits nearest the social component, interpersonal attraction; Belonging, the others' acceptance of her, is further off, so the evidence for this card is indirect. Her Belonging reads the others' acceptance of her, not how close-knit the group is, so the step from her own inclusion to the group's cohesion is a proposal: a member left at the edge sees the group as split, and sees what she brings go unused. Where she is shut out by a group that plainly works well together, the decrement is weak or nil. The link between cohesion and performance runs at least partly in reverse, from performance to cohesion (Mullen and Copper 1994, full text to be checked), so keep this card small. E:GrpProsp->Belonging is Discretionary and carries that direction only in some circumstances. It is distinct from E:Reciprocity->GrpProsp (help that comes back) and E:OutResp->GrpProsp (reliability).

Rising tide: GrpProsp to OwnProsp (Reinforce, H)

provisional

Increment: When I feel those at the top can steer us through what we have taken on, I see what I came for riding on a venture in safe hands: a well-led side that wins has places, credit and shares to hand down, and my sense that staying will bring me what I came for rises.

Decrement: When I feel those at the top cannot steer us through what we have taken on, I see what I came for going down with a venture in the wrong hands: a badly led side has little to hand down and no name to lend me, and my sense that staying will bring me what I came for falls.

Deck H; the source is Team Confidence's hierarchical face. The mechanism is kept: where members' outcomes ride on the group's, the venture's prospects are part of each member's own. Reward interdependence acts on members' effort (Wageman 1995), though that effect is itself inconsistent, and loafing falls when members value the group outcome and expect their effort to matter to it (Karau and Williams 1993). In a ranked group those prospects are read through the top, as Team Confidence's hierarchical face defines. Leadership climate predicts collective efficacy (Chen and Bliese 2002), adjacent support. Work on authority ranking (Fiske 1992) and leadership as a predictor of team performance (Dirks 2000; Dirks and Ferrin 2002) points the same way but is pending a check and is not relied on here. How fairly the top will share out what the venture yields is Parity's or Reciprocity's ground, not this card's; the card reads only how much a well- or badly-led venture will have to hand out. No study here measures a member's forecast of her own yield, so the felt step is a proposal resting on common sense: nobody expects to get ahead under leaders who are running the side aground. Where she is at the top herself, her confidence in her own steering feeds her forecast through the venture; what her rung itself brings her is H:Status->OwnProsp. Outcome interdependence is the condition: set the card small or nil where her aims do not ride on the venture (a member there for the company, or paid by her own output alone). A run of results can inflate or sink the face beyond the leaders' real grip, a step resting on common sense; the romance of leadership is not relied on for it, since replications failed or were mixed (Hammond et al. 2021; Schyns et al. 2025). The brake is Team Confidence evidence on the venture itself.

Nothing left for me: Levelling to OwnProsp (Reinforce, X)

provisional

Increment: When no member here can make me act or hold back through fear, none takes more than his due of the shares, the credit or the say and keeps it, and none tilts a share-out or the settling of a quarrel towards his own, what I came for is mine to work towards, and my sense that staying will bring it to me rises a little.

Decrement: When a member can make me comply through fear, takes more than his due of the shares, the credit or the say and keeps it, or tilts a share-out or the settling of a quarrel towards his own, I see what I came for going his way or hanging on his whim, and my sense that staying will bring me what I came for falls.

Narrowed to Parity's egalitarian face: coercion, grabbing and tilting by a member among equals. The evidence on those in authority (injustice from authorities, Colquitt et al. 2001; abusive supervision and organisational justice) moves to the notes of H:Levelling->OwnProsp on Parity's hierarchical face and is not relied on here. The coercion, grabbing and tilting limbs left here are untested proposals with no checked source, resting on common sense: where one member can take or block what the group would give, staying looks less likely to pay. Peer conduct moves Payoff less than the same conduct from an authority: in work on workplace mistreatment, coworker effects run smaller than supervisor effects, and prospective studies of bullying find only a small effect over time (from the checker's search, sources unchecked). Set the increment small, since freedom from a coercer opens no way by itself. Play the decrement moderately, for grabbing and where Parity is low because a peer tilts a share-out or the settling of a quarrel towards his own. Deck X: the card runs from Parity's egalitarian face to Payoff, which is hierarchical. Distinct from Built-in Advantage (H:Status->OwnProsp), which runs through her own place in the order.

Following a lead I believe in: Engagement to GrpProsp (Reinforce, H)

provisional

Increment: When I am putting much of myself into this group, I follow those at the top willingly, and what they steer us to reads as a sign of what they can do: my confidence that they can bring the venture off rises.

Decrement: When I am pulling out of this group, I follow half-heartedly, and each misstep from the top reads as the limit of what they can do: my confidence that they can bring the venture off falls.

Hierarchical-face twin of E:Engagement->GrpProsp, on the same grounds: investment carries enthusiasm or flatness that colours judgements built from ambiguous cues (Forgas 1995), and engagement and efficacy beliefs feed each other over time (Salanova, Llorens and Schaufeli 2011), though those were members' beliefs in their own efficacy, so carrying the finding to confidence in the group's leaders is an extension. Trust in leadership is reported to run both ways with team performance (Dirks 2000), but that source is pending a check, as on H:GrpProsp->OwnProsp, and its trust takes in the leader's integrity and care, which lie nearer Parity, so it is not relied on here. Where she is among those at the top herself, her investment colours her reading of her own and her fellows' steering in the same way. The step from her own investment to confidence in those at the top rests on common sense with adjacent support only. Gap: no cross-lagged or preregistered test of follower engagement predicting rated leader competence was found. The colouring works on steering that could be read either way, so it weakens when the leaders' performance is plain: Team Confidence evidence cards (a leader's visible failure) act as the brake. Keep the size small and the time to impact short.

Backers at my shoulder: Reciprocity to Status (Reinforce, H)

provisional

Increment: When the partners I help pay me back and the one above me covers me, I count on them at my side if anyone questions my turn or share, so I take it as of right: my felt rung in the order rises a little.

Decrement: When my partners take and do not return and the one above me no longer covers me, I know no one would stand at my side if my turn or share were questioned, so I hang back and let others go ahead of me: my felt rung in the order falls.

The card reads Reciprocity's hierarchical face: return from particular partners, and favour and protection passed down from the one above in return for loyalty, as in patron and client ties (Scott 1972, to be checked; a framework, not a test). In primates grooming given is repaid in agonistic support (36 studies, 14 species, small effect: Schino 2007), and allied and kin support decides how macaque females acquire and hold rank (Chapais 1992). The half from backing to her felt rung rests on common sense, as does the decrement running larger than the increment. H:Belonging->Status hands partner support to Reciprocity but no card carried it; this one does. Support from particular partners and a patron, not the whole room's assent (Backed into my place). The effect per exchange is small and runs both ways, since higher status also draws support (Redhead and von Rueden 2021, from the checker's search, unchecked), so the step is modest, and the increment is smaller than the decrement: backing firms up a contested turn more than it lifts her above her place. The card needs backing she can see; where she reads the backing as dependence bought for the backer's own ends, it may lift her rung less or lower it (Yu and Shea 2024, unverified). It forms a Reinforce loop with H:Status->Reciprocity (Repaid in order of rank); keep both small, and the brake is a partner or patron who plainly fails to return, scored by play.

Skill shared, drawn in: Prestige to Belonging (Discretionary, E)

provisional

Whether being looked to for what I bring draws me in among the others turns on how I carry it. Circumstance one (the default), I carry it modestly: I share what I know freely and laugh along when my work is ribbed. HIGH: the others watch how I do things, bring me their problems and seek my company, and I feel a place kept for me wherever they gather, so my sense that they want me among them rises. LOW: no one watches or seeks me for anything I bring, I am the one who has to seek them out, and I read the quiet as being wanted a little less, so my sense that they want me among them falls a little. Circumstance two, I let my success show as a claim: I wait for thanks, direct others unasked or boast. HIGH: I sense the room cooling at my claim and expect them to leave a gap beside me, so my sense that they want me among them falls. LOW: I have nothing to claim, and the card adds nothing. Prestige-based influence comes with being liked, dominance-based influence does not (Cheng et al. 2013, from a secondary summary; liking falls short of belonging). Learners defer to the models they learn from to gain access to what they know (Henrich and Gil-White 2001), and skilled Agta storytellers are preferred campmates (Smith et al. 2017); that she feels sought for her company is a common-sense step from access. These ground the circumstance-one rise. The step runs through being liked and sought, which follows modest carriage, not through output or standing alone: being looked to and being included are separable, so the effect is small and conditional on how she carries it. The circumstance-one decrement and circumstance two rest on common sense with no direct source: in circumstance two she senses the cooling her claim invites. The forager levelling of a provider who presses his success (Lee 1969; Wiessner 1996) is the others' response and belongs to the scene, or to the Reputation route. Under the E face, acceptance does not rest on output, so the circumstance-one rise runs through the liking and contact that come with being sought out, and through what she shares freely, which counts as pulling with the group; skill as output adds nothing by itself. The circumstance-one decrement is small and lies in her reading, not in the group's acceptance, which still counts her one of their own: being sought less is easily felt as being wanted less, a common-sense step until a source on relational value (Leary and Baumeister 2000, unchecked) is read. A member who brings little but pulls as far as she is able stays one of their own in good standing, and the card must never edge her out on that ground alone. With the Reputation pack on, circumstance two runs through Insulting the meat (X:Prestige->Repute) and Repute's own card into Belonging (E:Repute->Belonging); set circumstance two nil here then, so one boast is not counted twice.

Eyes on skill, not on the bully: Levelling to Prestige (Reinforce, E)

provisional

Increment: When no one here can make us do anything by force or fear, or hand things out to their own, and nothing presses on the group from outside, I see nothing standing between what I bring and the others' notice, and where I do the work well in their sight I expect them to watch and come to me for it: my sense that they turn to me for what I bring rises a little.

Decrement: When a member makes us comply through fear or hands things out to his own, I sense the others' eyes on him and on what he will allow, not on how I do things, and what I could bring waits on his say: my sense that they turn to me for what I bring falls.

Dominant and prestigious members both draw more visual attention than others (Cheng et al. 2013, eye tracking). That a dominant's hold on attention leaves less for skilled members is a common-sense step, since attention in a small group is limited; the study did not test it. Cooperation in chimpanzees depends on tolerance between partners (Melis et al. 2006a), and chimpanzees recruit the more effective of two collaborators (Melis et al. 2006b). The step to her own felt deference is a proposal: keep it modest and scale it to what she brings. The increment is weaker than the decrement and needs her skill to be visible and the group to be under no threat: under outside conflict, members lean towards dominant leaders (Laustsen and Petersen 2015, not checked here). Even without coercion, assertive members can capture attention and deference by signalling competence (Anderson and Kilduff 2009, not yet read here), and in a preregistered study prestige was unrelated to task-specific knowledge (Brand and Mesoudi 2019, from the checker's search, unchecked), so freedom from a bully does not by itself turn the others' eyes to her. The lines carry her felt reading only; the actual shift in where the others look is staged by I:Levelling->Prestige, and where both fire, play this card small.

Putting in, looked to: Engagement to Prestige (Reinforce, E)

provisional

Increment: When I am putting much of myself into this group, I bring what I can to each venture and share it freely, and I read the others' glances and questions as turning to me for it: my sense that they look to me for what I bring rises.

Decrement: When I am pulling out of this group, I bring little and keep what I know to myself, and I read their turning to others as what I bring no longer counting: my sense that they look to me for what I bring falls.

Egalitarian-face twin of H:Engagement->Prestige, needed because every Pillar must have an Engagement card for the reflective beat. Members who contribute to the group earn status and influence (Willer 2009, laboratory public-goods studies), and in an egalitarian society men with more exchange partners carry more influence (von Rueden et al. 2014; correlational, and kin and size also predict it there), so investment and visible contribution go together with being looked to. That investment also colours her reading of ambiguous glances and questions rests on common sense; keep the step modest. The rise needs what she brings to be visible to the others; where it goes unseen, the card adds nothing. In egalitarian settings overt status seeking can draw levelling instead of deference, and work among Hadza foragers disputes sharing as a prestige signal (from the checker's search, unchecked); where she presses her contribution as a claim, the card does not run, and the others' levelling belongs to the scene (see E:Prestige->Belonging, circumstance two).

Steering on trial: GrpProsp to Status (Reinforce, H)

provisional

Increment: When I am among those at the top and feel sure we can steer the group through what it has taken on, my calls come out sure and I sense the others wait for my call and leave the first turn to me without question: my felt rung in the order rises a little.

Decrement: When I am among those at the top and feel we cannot steer it through, my calls come out hesitant and I sense the first turn is no longer mine without question, so I am readier to give ground: my felt rung in the order falls.

In a small-scale egalitarian society, leaders hold influence over collective action without formal office (von Rueden et al. 2014); the abstract ties that influence to strength, kin and exchange partners. That is egalitarian ground and influence, not settled precedence in a ranked group. Garfield, von Rueden and Hagen (2019) review political leadership from evolutionary anthropology, but the check did not read it, so it is not relied on here. Nearer the mechanism, members who display confidence in task groups are granted higher status (Anderson et al. 2012, a status-enhancement account of overconfidence; unchecked, not relied on). No source, as checked, shows that a leader's standing tracks the group's prospects. That link, and the step from live influence (which lies nearer Esteem) to settled precedence, are proposals resting on common sense: the mechanism runs through the confidence or hesitancy she displays. A member at the top who doubts the group can be steered through hears the doubt in her own calls, feels her claim to the first turn loosen and is readier to give ground; a fall needs the doubt to show in her calls, and doubt she keeps to herself need not cost her standing. Where she is prototypical of the group, or the goal was a maximal one, a shortfall is judged less harshly (Giessner and van Knippenberg 2008, searched, not verified), so play the decrement weaker there. Any challenge from another member belongs to the scene. Nil where she is not at the top. Keep the fall modest and slower than Esteem's.

Heard, so kept: Levelling to Belonging (Reinforce, H)

provisional

Increment: When those above me hear me out before deciding what touches me, hold me to the same rules as anyone at my rung and hand out turns and shares with no favourite served first, I take it that I count among them and that the place they keep for me is secure: my sense of being kept among them rises.

Decrement: When a decision that touches me is made over my head, or the one who hands out or settles things serves his own first and waves my objection aside, I take it that I am kept here on sufferance and could be dropped without a second thought: my sense of being kept among them falls.

Relational model of authority: people read procedural justice as an index of their standing with the authority, through neutrality, trust in benevolence and status recognition (Tyler and Lind 1992, as summarised by Lind, Tyler and Huo 1997). In the integrative model of respect, treatment from the group conveys two separate components, status and inclusion (Huo, Binning and Molina 2010); this card carries the inclusion route only. Justice dimensions are related but each adds its own variance (Colquitt et al. 2001), and voice raises felt fairness beyond control (Lind, Kanfer and Earley 1990). Under Belonging's H face what moves is the felt threat of being dropped. Distinct from H:Belonging->Status (the room backing her turn) and H:Reciprocity->Belonging (partners who repay). Decrement larger than increment: a fair hearing is expected, and its absence is the stronger cue.

Wanted, so fond: Belonging to Warmth (Reinforce, E)

provisional

Increment: When the others draw me in as one of their own, I read it as goodwill towards me and warm to them in turn, glad of their company: my fondness for them rises.

Decrement: When gatherings form without me, I feel the sting of it and turn cold towards those who left me out, though I may still look for company elsewhere: my fondness for them falls.

Reciprocity of liking: being liked is read as benevolent intent and returned (Montoya and Insko 2008). Exclusion raises hostility, though not towards those who treat the excluded person warmly (Twenge et al. 2001), and the excluded seek reconnection with new partners but not with those who excluded them (Maner et al. 2007). In a small group the excluders are her fellow members, so the decrement holds and is aimed at those who left her out, not at members who treat her warmly; where one clique shut her out, scale it to that clique. Time course, from the temporal need-threat model of ostracism (Williams 2009): the sting is immediate and large, with an average effect above d = 1.4 across 120 Cyberball studies (Hartgerink et al. 2015); that figure concerns need threat and mood, not liking. Play that sting as her felt reaction in the scene, and size the move in Warmth to what lasts. The meta-analysis gave weak support to the temporal need-threat model, so the time course used here is the facilitator's judgement. In the reflective stage that follows, a member who sees a way back in often works to win it before she cools, so set the decrement small for a single exclusion by a group that has long counted her one of its own, and full where exclusion repeats or settles. Chronic exclusion ends in resignation and withdrawal, which reaches Engagement through the Pillar levels, not through this card.

Help that binds: Reciprocity to Warmth (Reinforce, E)

provisional

Increment: When what I give comes back from the group and my needs are met without a tally, I feel grateful to them and drawn to their company: my fondness for them rises.

Decrement: When what I give goes into a hole and my needs go unmet, I feel used by them and keep my distance: my fondness for them falls.

Generalised, indirect exchange builds more solidarity than direct reciprocal or negotiated exchange (Molm, Collett and Schaefer 2007), which fits the E face's return from the group. Gratitude predicts later relationship quality with the benefactor (Algoe, Haidt and Gable 2008); that study tracked one benefactor, so carrying the gratitude to the members at large is the model's step. The decrement, fondness cooling in one who feels used, rests on common sense. This carries the exchange-affect and gratitude routes that E:Reciprocity->Belonging sets aside. Moderate. It forms a loop with E:Warmth->Reciprocity; the brake is help that plainly fails to come back.

Benefit of the doubt from above: Engagement to Levelling (Reinforce, H)

provisional

Increment: When I am putting much of myself into this group, a call from above that goes against me and could be read either way reads as made by the order's own rules and in good faith: my sense that those above deal evenly with me rises.

Decrement: When I am pulling out of this group, the same kind of call, one that could be read either way, reads as one more case of favourites served first, and a decision I may have had no need to be asked about reads as a sign I was never going to be heard: my sense that those above deal evenly with me falls.

Reflective beat for Parity's H face. Ambiguous cues are read in line with what the reader expects (Downey and Feldman 1996, for expected rejection, used here by analogy; contested for this use). In the group engagement model fair procedure builds identification, which drives engagement (Tyler and Blader 2003; that forward path is itself contested); that path runs the other way, so this card is the return limb of a loop and rests on common sense: one who is invested gives the order the benefit of the doubt, one who is leaving finds grievances. The card acts only on calls that could be read either way. Treatment that is plainly unfair cuts the other way: members with high prior commitment show the steepest fall in commitment after unfair treatment, in employees who survived layoffs and in citizens dealing with legal authorities (Brockner, Tyler and Cooper-Schneider 1992). That fall is carried by the Engagement update rule (the drop of 4 at Committed or above), not by this card, and play scores the unfair treatment on Parity directly. A proposal; modest.

Easy company: Engagement to Warmth (Reinforce, E)

provisional

Increment: When I am putting much of myself into this group, the members' quirks read as endearing and their company as a pleasure: my fondness for them rises.

Decrement: When I am pulling out of this group, their habits grate and their company feels like a duty: my fondness for them falls.

Reflective beat. Attachment to the group and attachment to its members are distinct, and travel together to different degrees by group type (Prentice et al. 1994). Self-categorisation work holds that identifying with a group breeds liking for its members as members (social attraction: Hogg and Hardie 1991; Hogg 1992; not checked here); the card carries that from identification to investment by analogy, so the increment is a proposal with indirect support. The decrement, a stake draining away until company becomes a chore, rests on common sense. Modest, since Engagement can run high in a group whose members are merely tolerated.

Favourites first: Levelling to OwnProsp (Reinforce, H)

provisional

Increment: When those above hand out shares, turns and chances by the same rules for me as for anyone at my rung, and hear me before deciding, what I came for is mine to work towards: my sense that staying will bring it to me rises.

Decrement: When those above hand chances to their favourites past me or decide what touches me without hearing me, what I came for hangs on their favour: my sense that staying will bring it to me falls.

Distributive and procedural justice each predict outcome satisfaction and commitment (Colquitt et al. 2001); that evidence concerns those in authority, which is the H face's ground, so no extension is needed. Commitment is Engagement's ground and outcome satisfaction a tally that only feeds Payoff; the step to the forecast rests on the instrumental account, in which fair process signals fair outcomes over the long run (Thibaut and Walker 1975; reviewed by Lind and Tyler 1988). Takes over the partial-dealing limb of X:Levelling->OwnProsp. Distinct from H:Status->OwnProsp (her own place). Moderate.

Among friends: Warmth to DivsExp (Reinforce, E)

provisional

Increment: When I am fond of them, I sit near the ones I like best, and with a friend at my side a slip, a mood or a need of mine feels as if it would be met with ease, with no put-down or laugh: my felt safety to show myself rises.

Decrement: When their company is a duty, I have no one I want beside me, and among them without a friend near I keep my guard up and my reactions masked: my felt safety to show myself falls a little.

Social buffering: the presence of, or contact with, a bond partner lowered urinary glucocorticoids in wild chimpanzees across stressful events and in everyday affiliation, not only in crises (Wittig et al. 2016). Self-directed behaviour, a measure of anxiety, varies with how secure the relationship with a nearby animal is (Castles, Whiten and Aureli 1999). Her fondness takes her to sit by friends, and their presence eases her bracing. Human studies point the same way: high-quality relationships predicted later psychological safety (Carmeli, Brueller and Dutton 2009), and rewarding co-worker relations went with felt safety (May, Gilson and Harter 2004); those measure relationship quality, which includes the others' care, while Warmth is her own fondness. Assumed reciprocity of liking, the belief that those she likes like her back (Kenny and DePaulo 1993; Kenny 1994), stays as a secondary route. Keep moderate, and the decrement smaller: a member who cares little for the others may still expect no put-down from them. Distinct from E:Belonging->DivsExp (comfort after a knock from those who accept her) and E:Reciprocity->DivsExp (support received). Loops to watch for drift: E:DivsExp->Reciprocity with E:Reciprocity->Warmth; E:Warmth->OutResp with E:OutResp->Warmth; E:Warmth->Reciprocity with E:Reciprocity->Warmth.

Counted on, cared for: OutResp to Warmth (Reinforce, E)

provisional

Increment: When I can leave the work in their hands and they come through, I take it as goodwill towards me, stop watching them, spend easier time in their company and come to care how they fare: my fondness for them rises.

Decrement: When I keep having to chase and redo what they took on, I read it as little thought for me, their company turns into watching them, and I care less how they fare: my fondness for them falls.

Cognition-based trust, grounded in beliefs about others' reliability, and affect-based trust, grounded in reciprocated care, are distinct, and in managers' and professionals' ratings of peers at work the first predicted the second (McAllister 1995). In 191 teams cognition-based trust in the leader likewise fed affect-based trust (Schaubroeck, Lam and Peng 2011). The step runs largely through the goodwill that dependable work signals: benevolence is the main driver of affect-based trust (Tomlinson et al. 2020, not yet read here), and reliability and goodwill are hard to separate in how people judge others (Colquitt, Scott and LePine 2007). Where she reads reliability as mere competence, with no regard for her in it, fondness moves little. Affect-based trust is mutual care, nearer Warmth than any other perception, but not the same as her one-way fondness, so keep the step modest. The decrement, resentment of those she must chase, rests on common sense. Distinct from E:Reciprocity->Warmth (gratitude for help returned) and E:Belonging->Warmth (liking returned for acceptance). It forms a Reinforce loop with E:Warmth->Dependability; the brake is parts plainly dropped, scored by play.

Heard, so counted: Levelling to Prestige (Reinforce, H)

provisional

Increment: When those above hear me out and weigh what I put forward by the same rules as anyone's, what I bring gets a fair showing, and I come to expect, a little more, that the next problem will come to me: my sense that they turn to me for what I bring rises a little.

Decrement: When my say is waved aside and credit goes first to their favourites, what I bring never gets a fair showing, and I come to expect, a little more, that the next problem will go past me to someone they favour: my sense that they turn to me for what I bring falls a little.

In the group engagement model, fair procedure from authorities shapes members' sense of respect, their standing within the group, which with pride carries identification and cooperation (Tyler and Blader 2003). The integrative model of respect splits respect conveyed by treatment into status and liking, or inclusion, and finds perceived status the stronger predictor of social engagement (Huo, Binning and Molina 2010). H:Parity->Belonging (Heard, so kept) carries the inclusion pathway but not the status pathway; that pathway maps on Esteem, deference for what she brings. Respect in those works is a felt evaluation conveyed by treatment, close to Esteem but not identical (it does not need her to be copied or sought out). The gain in felt worth reaches her expectation of being sought out only by inference, a common-sense step, so keep the card small. Boundary: the group engagement model routes these effects through identification, so the card is weaker where she values a hearing only for what it gets her, or where the group matters little to who she is. Distinct from H:Rank->Esteem (her rung colouring how others judge what she brings).

Heard before the call: Levelling to DivsExp (Reinforce, X)

provisional

Increment: When those above me hear me out before a call that touches me and weigh an objection of mine instead of waving it off, I expect a slip, a doubt or a disagreement shown in front of them to draw no put-down or rebuff, and I let it show: my felt safety to show myself rises.

Decrement: When calls that touch me are made over my head and an objection gets me waved off or met with a threat from above, I expect anything I let show in front of them to draw a put-down or a rebuff, so I swallow my doubts, hide my slips and keep my face set: my felt safety to show myself falls.

Leader inclusiveness, words and acts of those in charge that invite and value others' contributions, predicts psychological safety and weakens the inhibiting effect of status differences (Nembhard and Edmondson 2006, 23 neonatal units). Managerial openness was more consistently tied to improvement-oriented voice than transformational leadership, with psychological safety carrying the link (Detert and Burris 2007). Supportive supervisor relations go with higher felt safety (May, Gilson and Harter 2004), and positive leader relations are among the meta-analytic antecedents of safety (Frazier et al. 2017). The card reads Parity's hierarchical face, the hearing and even dealing of those above. Distinct from X:Status->DivsExp (her own rung) and E:Levelling->DivsExp (fear of a coercer among equals). Where this card and the rung card fire on one scene, play the rung card smaller: inclusiveness moderates the status gap. Mostly cross-sectional evidence; keep the step moderate. A cross card: Safety is an egalitarian Pillar that keeps running in a ranked group, and this card carries the hearing of those above into it.

Ribbing the big shot: NormExp to Levelling (Reinforce, X)

provisional

Increment: When a member's grab, boast or bossing jars me as plainly wrong, I rib him for it and say so, and knowing that ribbing here tends to bring a big shot back to size, I feel no one here can set himself over us without an answer: my sense that no one here can lord it over me rises a little.

Decrement: When a big-shot move leaves me unmoved, I let it pass with a shrug, and with no answer from me I expect him to keep the extra and give the next direction unchecked: my sense that no one here can lord it over me falls a little.

The everyday levelling tools of foragers are third-party ribbing, criticism and complaint, which escalate only rarely (Wiessner 2005), and the rank and file check would-be dominants together (Boehm 1993); the !Kung mock a boastful provider's meat to keep him modest (Lee 1969). These make her expectation that ribbing checks a big shot a fair one; collective uptake and his backing off belong to the scene. The step from her own ribbing to her felt sense that no one can lord it over her rests on common sense. All 15 societies tested showed some willingness to pay to punish unequal behaviour, with its strength varying widely and tracking altruism (Henrich et al. 2006, checked), but costly third-party punishment is weaker in small societies (Marlowe et al. 2008, not checked here), so in small groups the card runs on talk and coolness, not fines or blows. Disapproval that costs the target nothing raises cooperation, though less lastingly than fines (Masclet et al. 2003, not checked here). Boundary: the effect of costless disapproval is small and fades without repeated contact or some backing (Masclet et al. 2003; Sparks, Burleigh and Barclay 2024, cited by the checker, neither checked here), so keep both lines small and stronger in a group whose members keep meeting. Both lines need a member pushing, grabbing or bossing; where no one is, set both nil. Whether they would back her is E:Belonging->Parity. Where this card and E:Safety->Parity fire on one scene, play E:Safety->Parity small. Forms a brake loop through E:Parity->Reciprocity and X:Reciprocity->Rule-Keeping: watch for drift.

Rope for friends: Warmth to OutResp (Reinforce, E)

provisional

Increment: When I am fond of them, I leave work in their hands and turn my back on it as I would with a friend, sure it will be carried through: my confidence that they will do their part rises.

Decrement: When their company is a duty, I keep the work in my own hands and check what I hand over: my confidence that they will do their part falls.

Chimpanzees chose to trust friends far more often than non-friends in a trust game, yet friends were no more likely to return food once trusted (Engelmann and Herrmann 2016, not checked here). So fondness raises her readiness to rely on them, and the card carries that felt confidence, not their reliability. The decrement rests on common sense: with little fondness she holds back that readiness. What she later sees carried through, and the sampling gain from entrusting more (Denrell 2005 is cited by Model B, not checked here), belong to the scene. Boundary: friends are trusted more without proving more trustworthy, so the card never stands in for their actual reliability; confidence built on affect predicts outcomes less well than confidence built on evidence, and its measures overlap with expectations of reliability (cited by the checker, not checked here). Keep the card modest. Takes over the chimpanzee evidence from E:Belonging->Dependability; where both fire, play that card small. It forms a Reinforce loop with E:Dependability->Warmth; the brake is parts plainly dropped, scored by play.

Friends don't keep count: Warmth to Reciprocity (Reinforce, E)

provisional

Increment: When I am fond of them, I give without marking it, and a return that came late, in another kind or from another member would still count with me as help come back: my sense that help here comes back to me rises.

Decrement: When I care little for them, I mark every favour I give, and each one not yet returned stands out as help that has not come back: my sense that help here comes back to me falls.

Primates reciprocate over long time frames, and the proposed mechanism is emotional bookkeeping: accumulated feeling towards partners, not a tally of who gave what (Schino and Aureli 2009). Reciprocity in food sharing may run through preferring friends (Jaeggi and Gurven 2013). People in communal relationships keep less track of inputs than people in exchange relationships (Clark 1984; Clark, Mills and Corcoran 1989; neither checked here), track the other's needs more (Clark, Mills and Powell 1986, not checked here), and like a partner less when a benefit is promptly repaid (Clark and Mills 1979). These studies concern particular partners; carrying the loose bookkeeping to the members at large, so that a return from another member counts, is the model's own step and untested. Warmth therefore slows the fall in her reading when returns lag, and lets a return from anyone count. Boundaries: the loose accounting holds with partners she feels as friends and is weaker with members she barely knows, so scale the card to how many of the members she counts as friends. Humans reciprocate more in kind than other primates do (Jaeggi and Gurven 2013, not checked here), so a return in another kind may count for less. The card moves her reading, not the return itself; help that plainly fails to come back still lowers Reciprocity through scenes. It forms a loop with E:Reciprocity->Warmth; keep both moderate. Distinct from E:Belonging->Reciprocity (their acceptance of her).

Told, and closer: DivsExp to Warmth (Reinforce, E)

provisional

Increment: When I feel safe to show myself, I tell them how things are with me, the good news as well as the knocks, and in the telling I find myself drawn to the ones I have told: my fondness for them rises.

Decrement: When I brace and mask myself, I keep my news and my troubles to myself and sit through their talk at arm's length, and I feel no nearer to any of them for the time spent: my fondness for them falls a little.

People tell others about most of their emotional episodes, and sharing builds bonds between teller and listener (Rimé 2009, review); the card takes from this that the telling itself draws the teller closer. Disclosers come to like those they have disclosed to (Collins and Miller 1994, meta-analysis, not checked here). Suppressing expression, as a habit and in a new setting, predicted less closeness to others and less social support in students entering college, across self, weekly and peer reports (Srivastava et al. 2009), and suppression lowers rapport within a single conversation (Butler et al. 2003). How the others take up her news (Gable, Reis, Impett and Asher 2004, on responsive uptake in couples) belongs to the scene; a disclosure met badly brakes her fondness there. This card carries her own fondness, raised by having told; E:Safety->Belonging carries her sense of their acceptance. Where one disclosure fires both, play both small. Keep the decrement smaller: masking keeps her from growing closer more than it pushes her away. The rise comes over the minutes of the telling. Forms a loop with E:Warmth->Safety.

Passed over for her: Prestige to Warmth (Reinforce, E)

provisional

Increment: When the others turn to me whenever my kind of skill counts, there is no one here for me to envy, and I warm to those who look to me: my fondness for them rises a little.

Decrement: When they turn past me to another member for my kind of skill, I feel the sting; where she plainly earned it, my fondness barely moves, and where she seems not to have earned it the sting turns sour and I resent her and those who turn to her: my fondness for them falls.

Envy comes in two forms with different experiences and aims: benign envy moves the envier to rise, malicious envy to pull the other down (van de Ven, Zeelenberg and Pieters 2009, three countries); the two are separate dispositions, with hope for success feeding the benign form and fear of failure the malicious (Lange and Crusius 2015). Whether the other's advantage seems deserved is the appraisal that separates them (van de Ven, Zeelenberg and Pieters 2012). The two-type split is itself contested (Cohen-Charash and Larson 2017, not checked here), so lean on the deservingness appraisal more than on the labels. Size the decrement by that appraisal. Where she plainly does it better, the envy is benign: I watch how she does it and want to match her, and my fondness falls only a little or not at all. Where she seems not to have earned it (favour, show, or luck the others mistake for skill), the envy is malicious and the fall is larger, aimed at her and those who turn to her. The increment is small: being looked to leaves no one to envy and warms me a little to those who look to me, which rests on common sense. A close other's success threatens most when it lies in one's own domain (Tesser 1988), so scale the card to how near she is and how much the skill is the member's own. Warmth is fondness for the members at large, so scale the fall to how much of the group the rival and those who turn to her make up. In a small band where a would-be star is levelled by ribbing, the unearned case also feeds the talk carried by X:Esteem->Repute when the pack is on; this card moves only her fondness. The card's era rests on prestige-biased copying, deference to those whose skill is worth learning from (Henrich and Gil-White 2001, not checked here); capuchin inequity aversion is contested and does not carry it. Envy is felt within seconds of being passed over; its cooling settles over the gathering.

Going well, glad of them: GrpProsp to Warmth (Reinforce, E)

provisional

Increment: When I feel surer we can pull the venture off, the work runs light, I laugh more easily with them and am glad to be in their company: my fondness for them rises a little.

Decrement: When the venture starts to look beyond us, the gatherings turn tense and flat and their company weighs on me: my fondness for them falls a little.

Members of successful groups tend to like one another more than members of unsuccessful ones (Lott and Lott 1965, a review of group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction), so a lift in the venture's prospects warms her to the members and a sag cools her. That evidence concerns outcomes received; the step from her felt confidence in the venture is by analogy. Affect tracks the rate of progress towards a goal against what was expected (Carver and Scheier 1990, searched). In one lab study, groups exposed to pleasant mood contagion showed more cooperation and less conflict than those exposed to unpleasant contagion (Barsade 2002), a supporting route through shared mood. Performance and cohesion are linked both ways; Mullen and Copper (1994, cited by Model B, not checked here) find commitment to the task the main part, while Beal et al. (2003, not checked here) find interpersonal attraction related to performance too, so the share carried by liking is not settled. Ratings of cohesion after performance feedback may be partly halo. Keep the card small. Boundary: the same review finds that shared failure can also raise liking, especially where it is imposed arbitrarily from outside (Lott and Lott 1965); where the venture sags under an outside blow they all bear, set the decrement nil, and fondness may hold or rise in play. Warmth here reads the members as a whole. Fire it on a change in Team Confidence, not on a steady level: a venture long known to be in reach lifts no one. Distinct from E:Team Confidence->Belonging, which carries the others' ease with her.

Pulled up, back in line: NormExp to OutResp (Reinforce, X)

provisional

Increment: When a dodged part jars me as plainly wrong and I am ready to pull the member up on the spot, I know a part let drop here will not slip by, by me at least, and I leave work in their hands with less checking: my confidence that they will do their part rises a little.

Decrement: When a dodged part leaves me unmoved and I would let it pass, I know nothing I do holds anyone to their part, so a part left with them rests more on their goodwill and I start keeping an eye on it: my confidence that they will do their part falls a little.

The chance to sanction raises and holds contributions (Fehr and Gächter 2000), disapproval that costs the target nothing works too, though less than fines (Masclet et al. 2003), and across 187 effect sizes punishment raised cooperation by about d = 0.7, more in groups that stay together (Balliet, Mulder and Van Lange 2011). Dependability may rest on knowing that a part let drop gets pulled up by the group or its rules. The card carries her own side of that: where a breach jars her and she stands ready to pull it up, she counts on a dropped part not slipping by; where it leaves her unmoved, her reliance rests more on the others' goodwill. The evidence above makes that expectation a fair one; the step from her own readiness to pull a member up to her confidence in others rests on common sense. Whether the others then carry their parts belongs to the scene (rulebook 8.5) and moves Dependability through its own plays, so keep both lines small. Boundaries. Sanctions do more in high-trust settings (Balliet and Van Lange 2013, not checked here): scale the increment to how far she already trusts the members. Lab punishment effects may not carry over to small egalitarian field groups (Guala 2012, not checked here), which keeps the card small. Where antisocial punishment or counter-punishment is common, pulling up draws retaliation and less cooperation (Herrmann, Thöni and Gächter 2008; Nikiforakis 2008), and she knows her bristle promises little: set the increment small. Where she cannot see who dropped what, her bristle may land on the wrong member and cooperation can fall (Grechenig, Nicklisch and Thöni 2010): set both lines small. Punishment pays on long horizons and can cost on short ones (Gächter, Renner and Sefton 2008, searched): larger in a standing group, small for a one-off task. A standing sanction can lower trust that others act from their own will, and reliance then drops further once the check is gone (Mulder, van Dijk, De Cremer and Wilke 2006); this crowding-out is contested, with a 2023 preregistered replication reported to find no effect (cited by the checker, not checked here), so where she reads the others as carrying parts only because they are watched, set the increment small, and treat the boundary as provisional. Where the others think the breach harmless (H:Rule-Keeping->Belonging, circumstance two), set both small. A lone rebuke she expects no one to take up bites less, so scale the increment to whether she expects others to join. Distinct from E:Parity->Dependability: compliance under one coercer's eye is not this card. With X:Dependability->Rule-Keeping it forms a Reinforce loop: parts carried keep a dodge conspicuous and her bristle keen, and a keen bristle keeps her counting on parts being carried. The loop runs down as readily as up, so keep both small and watch for runs from play to play. Deck X: Rule-Keeping is hierarchical, Dependability egalitarian.

Rules we had a say in: Levelling to OutResp (Reinforce, X)

provisional

Increment: When those above hear us out before setting how the work is shared, hold everyone at our rung to the same rules and keep to them themselves, I see the others take the rules as their own and carry their parts without being chased: my confidence that they will do their part rises.

Decrement: When the rules for the work are set over our heads and bent for favourites, I see the others do the least the rules demand and let parts slide once no one is looking: my confidence that they will do their part falls.

A rule to promote cooperation raised cooperation more when subjects voted for it than when it was imposed, with selection controlled (Dal Bó, Foster and Putterman 2010); Ugandan farmers cooperated more under an elected monitor than a randomly chosen one (Baldassarri and Grossman 2011). Leaders who contribute first shape followers' early beliefs (Gächter and Renner 2018), which bears directly on the clause that those above keep to the rules themselves. Ostrom's principles that members help make the rules and that monitors answer to them are well supported in 91 field studies (Cox, Arnold and Villamayor-Tomás 2010). Apart from the leader clause, the step from the others' behaviour in those findings to her own confidence in them is inferred, resting on what she sees them do and on common sense; keep it moderate. Boundaries: a say in the rules helps only where members adopt them and are bound by them, and choosing institutions is not reliably better than having them imposed (Dannenberg and Gallier 2020, not checked here). The favouritism clause has only small, unreplicated lab support, so play the decrement's bent-rules case small. Reads Parity's hierarchical face; E:Parity->Dependability reads coercion among equals, so play only the card for the face in play. Deck X: Parity's H face to an egalitarian Pillar.

Paid apart: Levelling to Warmth (Reinforce, X)

provisional

Increment: When those above hand out pay, credit and chances to us by the same rules, and any gap goes plainly to whoever did more, nothing comes between me and the others at my rung, and I am easy in their company: my fondness for them rises a little.

Decrement: When those above hand one of us more pay, credit or chances with nothing I can see to earn it, I feel it come between us; I am short with the one favoured and cooler towards the rest: my fondness for them falls.

In a month-long field experiment, paying co-workers unequally by rank cut output, attendance and their ability to cooperate for their own benefit, and the effects vanished where the better paid were plainly more productive (Breza, Kaur and Shamdasani 2018). Their cohesion measure is closer to Warmth than to any other Pillar but is not her one-way fondness, so keep the card moderate. The fall comes from members left behind by a gap that is unjustified or opaque; the favoured member is not expected to warm. The earned case leaves the reading untouched, as Parity's definition already says. The increment is the weakest limb and rests on common sense: the evidence shows equal rules avoiding the harm, not raising fondness, so keep it small. Envy of a peer turned to for skill is E:Esteem->Warmth; where one favoured peer fires both, play only one, this card where the gap was handed out from above. Deck X: Parity's H face to Warmth.