Hot Cache

Rolling ~500-word summary of what Joshua is currently working on. Updated by Claude at the end of each session so future sessions can read it for instant context without recapping.

ADMN 233 — Assignments Batch Ingest (2026-05-10)

Sources: Assignment 1 instructions HTML, Assignment 2 instructions HTML, Assignment 3 instructions HTML (LMS nav only — no body), Assignment Marking Guide HTML, Nolet_ADMN233_Assignment1.pdf (submitted work).

Result: All content was already fully captured in the wiki from prior ingests. No new pages created. Updates:

• wiki/summaries/Writing/ADMN233-Assignments.md — sources frontmatter corrected (removed non-existent PDF references, added correct A3 HTML path); last_updated bumped to 2026-05-10
• .raw/.manifest.json — all 5 files recorded as ingested with hashes

No gaps found. The Assignments summary, WritingRubric, and BusinessProposal pages already cover A1/A2/A3 instructions and the rubric in full detail. The submitted A1 email is quoted verbatim in the Assignments summary.

---

PHIL 252 — Unit 10 Ingest (2026-05-10)

Sources: LMS screenshots (6 images) + Dayton & Rodier Chs. 20 & 21 + Bergstrom & West Calling Bullshit Chs. 10 (Spotting) & 11 key concepts from LMS + Dayton & Rodier Ch. 11 (Categorical Equivalence). This is the final unit of PHIL 252 — a capstone synthesis unit.

New pages created (4):

• wiki/concepts/Philosophy/MaterialInferences.md — four types of defeasible real-world inference: motivational (infer motive), feature (infer from typical property), resultative (infer consequence), functional (infer purpose); all are defeasible/fallible; chart of fallacy risks per type
• wiki/concepts/Philosophy/ArgumentAnalysisProcedure.md — 3-step analysis: (1) Identify/Clarify/Distinguish → (2) Dialectical Acceptability → (3) Logical Connection; all 3 cogency conditions; Walton’s 5 conditions for fallacies; St. Albert Gazette applied example showing 5 fallacies; “taking cognitive ownership”
• wiki/summaries/Philosophy/PHIL252-Unit10.md — full unit summary: material inferences, 3-step procedure, complete fallacy round-up table (all 6 categories × all fallacies), 6 spotting bullshit tools, 3 refuting tools, categorical equivalence review, key distinctions table, mindmap
• wiki/tutor/PHIL252-Unit10.md — 30-concept tracker (5 material inference types + 6 analysis steps/conditions + 6 spotting tools + 3 refuting tools + 8 categorical equivalence relations)

Existing pages updated (2):

• wiki/concepts/Philosophy/Bullshit.md — added: Bergstrom & West 6 spotting tools (question source / unfair comparisons / too good to be true / Fermi estimation / confirmation bias / multiple hypotheses); illusory truth effect; online bullshit checklist; 3 refuting tools (calling bullshit / reductio ad absurdum / null model)
• wiki/concepts/Philosophy/ImmediateInference.md — added: distribution table (which terms A/E/I/O distribute); explanation of why distribution determines which operations are valid

Key exam content from this unit:

• Material inferences are defeasible — additional info can defeat them; 4 types; ineliminable from human reasoning
• 3-step analysis: Step 1 = standard form; Step 2 = premises test (dialectical acceptability); Step 3 = connection test (fallacy patterns)
• Cogency conditions: (1) premises rationally acceptable, (2) premises make a grounded connection to conclusion, (3) premises provide sufficient grounds
• Walton’s 5: argument + falls short + dialogue context + semblance of correctness + poses problem to dialogue goal
• Ch. 21 round-up: 6 categories total — Ambiguity (6), Emotional Bias (8), Expertise (6), Distorting Facts (8), Presumption (3), Evading Facts (5) — all with “why it’s wrong / what to do instead”
• Bergstrom & West 6 tools: question source → unfair comparisons → too good to be true (dig to source) → Fermi estimation → confirmation bias → multiple hypotheses
• Refuting: calling bullshit = performative utterance; reductio ad absurdum = derive absurdity from extension; null model = test alternate explanations
• Distribution: A (subject only) · E (both) · I (neither) · O (neither in modern logic)

PHIL 252 course status: All 10 units ingested. Course complete from a content coverage standpoint.

PHIL 252 — Unit 9 Re-Ingest (Comprehensive Pass 2) (2026-05-09)

Sources: Unit 9 LMS screenshots + Chs. 15, 18, 19 PDFs (Dayton & Rodier 2024, pp. 178–269). Second comprehensive pass — expanded concept pages, correct file locations, tutor tracker, 3 connection pages, and 2 existing-page updates.

New pages created (7):

• wiki/concepts/Philosophy/FairCharacterization.md — the cross-cutting Unit 9 principle; Principle of Charity; maps to cognitive empathy (ADMN233); diagnostic questions; ADMN233 connection
• wiki/summaries/Philosophy/PHIL252-Unit9.md — full unit summary (correct location); 15-fallacy table with Walton conditions; key distinction tables; mindmap
• wiki/tutor/PHIL252-Unit9.md — 20-concept tracker (15 fallacies + pooh-pooh + reductio ad Hitlerum + contraries/contradictories + fair characterization + principle of charity)
• wiki/connections/AdHominem-ProfessionalCommunication.md — PHIL252 Ch.15 ad hominem ↔ ADMN233 CQualities (Courteous/Credible/Consistent)
• wiki/connections/FairCharacterization-EmpathyInCommunication.md — PHIL252 Principle of Charity/straw person ↔ ADMN233 cognitive empathy + audience analysis
• wiki/connections/SpecialPleading-ProfessionalEthics.md — PHIL252 Ch.19 special pleading ↔ ADMN233 Consistent C-Quality + Potter Process
• (Deleted wiki/summaries/PHIL252-Unit9.md — was at wrong location, replaced by Philosophy subfolder version)

Existing concept pages expanded (3):

• wiki/concepts/Philosophy/FallaciesOfEmotionalBias.md — added: reductio ad Hitlerum; conflict-of-interest vs. poisoning-the-well nuance; Walton-condition table for all 7 fallacies; 6 worked exercise examples
• wiki/concepts/Philosophy/FallaciesOfPresumption.md — added: false consensus effect; conjunction problem (Linda / Tversky & Kahneman); why alternatives must be genuine (exclusive AND exhaustive)
• wiki/concepts/Philosophy/FallaciesOfEvadingTheFacts.md — added: pooh-pooh/hand-waving fallacy; 3 forms of begging the question fully worked with examples; circularity ≠ invalidity (Rome example); 5 rules of interrogative inquiry; question-begging signal words; overlap map (epithets ↔ abuse ↔ poisoning the well)

Existing pages updated (4):

• wiki/concepts/Philosophy/Bias.md — new “Bias in Argumentation (Unit 9)” section: psychological bias → argumentative fallacy; cross-link to FallaciesOfEmotionalBias
• wiki/concepts/Philosophy/Cogency.md — new table: each Unit 9 fallacy family → which cogency condition it violates (emotional bias → relevance; presumption → acceptability; evading facts → sufficiency)
• wiki/connections/RhetoricalAppeals-ArgumentStructure.md — expanded PHIL252 section: now names the specific Unit 9 fallacies as the fallacious forms of pathos (mob appeal, pity, force, two wrongs) and ethos (ad hominem)
• wiki/courses/PHIL252.md — summary path corrected to summaries/Philosophy/PHIL252-Unit9

Key content for next quiz session:

• Ch.15 — 7 emotional bias fallacies: Ad hominem = against the person (not argument). Subtypes: Abuse (name-calling, no improving it), Poisoning the Well (attacks motivation), Tu Quoque (past behaviour). Mob appeal (ad populum) = flattery/group identity ≠ reason. Pity (ad misericordiam) = sympathy as pseudo-reason. Force (ad baculum) = threats rationally disconnected from cogency. Two wrongs = “you’d do the same” is irrelevant. Reductio ad Hitlerum = guilt by association (a form of abuse).
• Ch.18 — 3 presumption fallacies: Sweeping = rule → case blocked by special circumstance. Hasty = special case → general rule (unrepresentative sample; “just because” test). Bifurcation = contraries treated as contradictories (false either-or). Linda problem: P-and-Q can’t be more probable than P — check that alternatives are genuinely exclusive AND exhaustive.
• Ch.19 — 5+ evading fallacies: Straw person = distorts opponent’s view (antidote: Principle of Charity; ask “would they endorse this?”). Pooh-pooh = dismisses without engaging. Begging the question = circular (3 forms; valid+sound ≠ dialectically acceptable). Question-begging epithets: signal words “obviously,” “patently clear.” Complex question: trick question — 5 rules of interrogative inquiry, violates rule 4. Special pleading = double standard (Russell: “I am firm; you are stubborn; he is pig-headed”).
• Unifying principle: Fair Characterization — evaluate arguments not people (Ch.15); acknowledge boundary conditions (Ch.18); represent the opponent’s actual view (Ch.19). Principle of Charity = cognitive empathy applied to argument.

PHIL 252 — Unit 8 Ingest: Science and Worldviews (2026-05-09)

Source: Unit 8 LMS screenshots + /raw/PHIL252/Reading/Chapter 16 (Fallacies of Expertise).pdf (Dayton & Rodier 2024, pp. 214–15+) + Behind the Curve documentary references + Indigenous Science vs. Western Science comparison table.

New pages created (5):

• wiki/concepts/Philosophy/AppealToAuthority.md — 5 criteria for genuine appeal, 9 for fallacious, testimonial knowledge, Mermaid expertise decision tree
• wiki/concepts/Philosophy/FallaciesOfExpertise.md — five fallacy types: Snob Appeal, Appeal to Tradition, Appeal to Nature, Appeal to Anonymous Authority, Appeal to Ignorance (with four strength levels)
• wiki/concepts/Philosophy/ScientificWorldview.md — Western science as worldview: falsifiability, scepticism vs. denialism, what makes a domain capable of consensus
• wiki/comparisons/IndigenousScience-WesternScience.md — “worlds of objects” vs. “community of beings”; six-dimension comparison table (first page in the new comparisons/ directory)
• wiki/summaries/Philosophy/PHIL252-Unit8.md — full unit summary with mindmap and all four learning outcomes

Updated pages (3):

• wiki/concepts/Philosophy/Bias.md — new section: Biases That Distort Expertise Evaluation (Imposter Syndrome, Dunning-Kruger Effect, Confirmation Bias from Behind the Curve)
• wiki/courses/PHIL252.md — Unit 8 added to modules table; sources_ingested incremented
• wiki/index.md — Unit 8 section added; total page count updated to 266

Tutor tracker created: wiki/tutor/PHIL252-Unit8.md — 13 concepts, all at ⬜ (untested)

Key content for next quiz session:

• All five genuine-authority criteria must be met; one failure = fallacy. Taint = paid to assert a specific claim (≠ paid for expertise)
• Falsifiability is the line between science and non-science (not true/false) — this is why appeal to ignorance fails
• Scepticism is evidence-responsive; denialism starts from a conclusion and works backward
• Snob appeal = social superiority ≠ truth; tradition alone can justify preferences, not moral claims
• Appeal to ignorance: you cannot disprove X ≠ X is true; burden of proof sits with the claimant
• Anonymous authority: “they say…” with no named source — demand a name and credentials
• Indigenous science: “community of beings” ontology, living Knowledge Keepers, collective knowledge, lived ecosystem experience vs. Western “worlds of objects,” texts, individual authorship

Active Focus

• ADMN 201 — COMPLETE as of 2026-04-29. Exam written and done.
• Active courses: PHIL 252 (Critical Thinking) · ADMN 233 (Writing in Organizations)
• Self-study: Thinking in C++ Vol. 1 (Bruce Eckel) — Ch.1–2 ingested 2026-04-30 · Python Crash Course cheat sheet ingested 2026-05-08
• Archived/reference courses: ACC 926 (Intermediate Financial Accounting, passed 2024) · ACC 818 (Economics, passed 2023)

Python Crash Course — Cheat Sheet Ingest (2026-05-08)

Source: Beginner’s Python Cheat Sheet from Python Crash Course, 3rd Ed. by Eric Matthes — 10-page PDF covering all core Python beginner topics.

Pages created (10):

• wiki/courses/PythonCrashCourse.md — book/reference overview; sheets ingested table
• wiki/sources/PythonCrashCourse-CheatSheet.md — source record
• wiki/concepts/Programming/PythonVariablesStringsInput.md — variables, f-strings, input(), int/float conversion
• wiki/concepts/Programming/PythonLists.md — lists, range(), slicing, comprehensions, sorting, tuples, PEP 8
• wiki/concepts/Programming/PythonDictionaries.md — key-value pairs, .items()/.keys()/.values(), nesting, dict comprehensions
• wiki/concepts/Programming/PythonControlFlow.md — if/elif/else, and/or, booleans, while, break/continue/flags
• wiki/concepts/Programming/PythonFunctions.md — def, positional/keyword/default/*args/**kwargs, return, modules
• wiki/concepts/Programming/PythonOOP.md — class, init, self, inheritance, super(), duck typing; C++ comparison table
• wiki/concepts/Programming/PythonFileIOExceptions.md — pathlib read/write, try/except/else, ValueError
• wiki/connections/PythonOOP-CppOOP.md — Python vs. C++ OOP side-by-side; duck typing vs. virtual; GC vs. manual memory

Pages updated (2):

• wiki/concepts/Programming/OOPFoundations.md — added “See Also — Python Implementation” with links to PythonOOP and connection page
• wiki/index.md — added Python Reference Layer subsection under Programming; added PythonCrashCourse to Course Overviews

ADMN 233 — Completion Sprint Plan (2026-05-02)

User has 7.5 weeks to complete ADMN233 and write the exam. Current state: A1 complete with mark range 80-89%, Ametros 2/5 complete with mostly Strong/Mastery ratings, no linear readings completed. Realistic protected time: 8-10 focused hours/week. Official AU Rev. 14 weights: Writing Assessment 5%, Experiential Tasks & Exercises 40%, Report 15%, Proposal 15%, Final Exam 25%; final exam also requires at least 50%.

Pages created: wiki/ADMN233-dashboard.md and wiki/exam-sheets/ADMN233-exam.md.

Pages updated: wiki/study-plan.md, wiki/weekly-plan.md, wiki/courses/ADMN233.md, wiki/index.md, wiki/hot.md.

Execution plan: target Week 7 exam window of June 13-19, 2026, leaving June 20-23 as buffer. Grade strategy: recover A1 buffer by targeting Ametros 93%+, A2 92%+, A3 92%+, final exam 88-90%+. Week 1 priority is exam booking plus next Ametros task; Week 3 is A2 submission; Week 5 is A3 submission; Week 6 is timed exam-writing drills.

ADMN 233 — Assignment 3 + Marking Guide Ingest (2026-05-02)

Sources: Assignment 3 instructions PDF + assignment marking guide PDF.

Pages created (1):

• wiki/concepts/Writing/BusinessProposal.md — formal proposal structure, exec summary vs. intro distinction, proposal vs. report contrast, ethics section, formatting requirements, persuasion techniques, diagram

Pages updated (3):

• wiki/summaries/Writing/ADMN233-Assignments.md — added full A3 section (structure table, key distinctions from A2, formatting specs)
• wiki/courses/ADMN233.md — added BusinessProposal to key concepts, updated A1+A2 → A1+A2+A3, source count 14→16
• wiki/index.md — added BusinessProposal concept entry, updated Assignments summary line

Assignment 3 key facts: Brief formal proposal, 800–1100 words (excl. title page/refs, incl. personal reflection), 15% of final mark. Scenario: gender diversity and inclusion at Monarchy Technology’s development team. Propose at least one solution for hiring more women and/or creating a more inclusive environment. Sections: Title Page → Executive Summary (3–5 sentences, action-oriented) → Introduction (2–3 paragraphs of 3–4 sentences) → Proposed Solution (bulk; subheadings) → Ethics (1 paragraph, 2–3 sentences on human/environmental impacts) → Conclusion (2–4 sentences, positive) → References (optional) → Personal Reflection (4–6 sentences). Professional Word/Google Docs template; 1.5 line spacing; 2.5 cm margins; 10–12pt font.

Key distinction from A2: Proposals are persuasive (advocate for a solution); reports are analytical (inform, no recommendations). The Ethics section is unique to A3.

Marking guide covers all 3 assignments: 5 categories — Content, Organization, Mechanics & Grammar, Writing Style, Presentation & Formatting. Rubric already in wiki at WritingRubric.

Thinking in C++ — Preface + Ch.1 + Ch.2 Ingest (2026-04-30)

Source: Thinking in C++, Vol. 1, 2nd Ed. by Bruce Eckel — PDF, Preface + book pp. 1–120.

New subject area: wiki/concepts/Programming/ (new folder; new entry in CLAUDE.md Subject Folders table + Courses table)

Pages created (8):

• wiki/courses/ThinkingInCPP.md — book overview, chapters, methodology, why C++ succeeds
• wiki/summaries/CPlusPlus/TIC-Ch1-IntroToObjects.md — Preface + Ch.1 full summary
• wiki/summaries/CPlusPlus/TIC-Ch2-MakingAndUsingObjects.md — Ch.2 full summary
• wiki/concepts/Programming/OOPFoundations.md — Alan Kay’s 5 characteristics; problem/solution space; encapsulation, composition, inheritance, polymorphism (virtual/vtable/upcasting), stack vs. heap, exception handling
• wiki/concepts/Programming/CppBuildProcess.md — interpreter vs. compiler; full pipeline (preprocessor → parse → codegen → linker); static type checking; separate compilation; ODR; library search mechanics
• wiki/concepts/Programming/CppProgramStructure.md — declaration vs. definition; function prototypes; ODR + extern; header files (#include angle vs. quotes); standard C++ format (no .h); namespace + using namespace std; main(); free-form syntax; // and /* */ comments
• wiki/concepts/Programming/CppIOStreams.md — cout/cin; << send-to and >> read-from (operator overloading); endl; dec/oct/hex manipulators; char arrays + escape sequences; char array concatenation; fstream (ifstream/ofstream); getline idiom; system()
• wiki/concepts/Programming/CppStringAndVector.md — std::string (=, +, +=, auto-resize); std::vector template; push_back, [], size(); while loop; for loop (init; test; i++); word-by-word reading; STL vs Standard C++ Library history

Updated: wiki/index.md (total 214→222, new Programming Reference Layer section, new course entry), wiki/hot.md, .raw/.manifest.json, CLAUDE.md (Subject Folders + Courses tables)

Core Ch.1 content: OOP = narrowing gap between problem space and solution space. Alan Kay’s 5 OOP characteristics (Smalltalk): everything is an object, objects send messages, objects composed of objects, every object has a type, all objects of a type receive the same messages. Encapsulation via access specifiers (public/private/protected). Composition (“has-a”) preferred over inheritance (“is-a”). Polymorphism = virtual functions + vtable + late binding; upcasting is safe. Stack = automatic lifetime, heap = new/delete, no GC. Exception handling = thrown object + catch block. 6-phase methodology; CRC cards; XP (tests first, pair programming).

Core Ch.2 content: Interpreters vs. compilers. Full pipeline: preprocessor → parser (static type checking) → code generator → linker (adds startup module, searches libs by index). Declaration = introduces name; definition = allocates storage; ODR = one definition only; extern for declaration-only variables. Header files: <iostream> (no .h = templatized); C headers become <cstdio> etc. Namespaces: using namespace std; in .cpp, never in header. First program: cout << "Hello" << endl;. string: =, +, +=, auto-resize. vector: push_back, [], size(), for loop with i++.

ADMN 233 — Persuasive Communication Ingest (2026-04-29)

Source: “Persuasive Communication” by Dr. Glen Farrelly and Rhiannon Rutherford, 8 pages.

Pages created (4):

• wiki/summaries/Writing/ADMN233-PersuasiveCommunication.md — full reading summary
• wiki/concepts/Writing/RhetoricalAppeals.md — ethos/pathos/logos + rhetorical triangle; tagged ADMN233 + PHIL252
• wiki/concepts/Writing/PersuasiveMessages.md — 5-component structure, benefits framing, 6 tips
• wiki/connections/RhetoricalAppeals-ArgumentStructure.md — new ADMN 233 ↔ PHIL 252 connection page

Updated: wiki/courses/ADMN233.md (source 8→9, new module row, new concept links, new connection link), wiki/index.md

Core content: Rhetoric = art of persuasion (not manipulation). Three rhetorical appeals: Pathos (emotion — fastest attention-getter; negative emotion effective but risky), Logos (logic — facts/stats/evidence), Ethos (credibility — conveyed directly AND indirectly through presentation quality). Balance all three. 5-component persuasive message structure: Hook → Introduction → Explanation → Evidence → Call to Action. Benefits must be framed from audience’s perspective. 6 tips: start with greatest benefit, lead with emotion then reason, be transparent, be fair, take baby steps, project confidence.

Key cross-course insight: The same Aristotelian appeals ADMN 233 teaches you to use are what PHIL 252 teaches you to evaluate — an appeal to emotion/authority is legitimate persuasion when it supplements evidence, and a fallacy when it substitutes for it. See RhetoricalAppeals-ArgumentStructure.

ADMN 233 — Business Reports Ingest (2026-04-29)

Source: “How to Write Business Reports” by Dr. Glen Farrelly, 9 pages.

Pages created (3):

• wiki/summaries/Writing/ADMN233-BusinessReports.md — full reading summary with all 7 sections
• wiki/concepts/Writing/BusinessReports.md — types, structure, preparation, 4Cs, titles, 15-point checklist
• wiki/concepts/Writing/ExecutiveSummary.md — standalone concept page on the most exam-tested element

Updated: wiki/courses/ADMN233.md (source count 7→8, new module row, new concept links), wiki/index.md

Core content: Reports serve operational/strategic/legal purposes. Types: informational (facts only) vs. analytical (facts + analysis + recommendations). 13 specific report types. 14 common structural elements. Preparation requires answering 6 question categories (Purpose/Content/Audience/Status/Length/Style). 4 Cs for reports: Concrete, Clear, Credible, Complete (subset of the 8 Cs). Executive Summary ≠ Introduction — it’s a standalone digest, written last, max 1 page, 5–10% of report length, must include recommendations + evidence. 15-point effectiveness checklist.

Key exam distinction: Executive Summary is the most commonly misunderstood element — it is analogous to an academic abstract or elevator pitch, NOT an introduction. Written last; states recommendations directly.

ADMN 233 — Document Design Ingest (2026-04-29)

Source: “Effective Document Design” by Dr. Glen Farrelly, 12 pages.

Pages created (1):

• wiki/concepts/Writing/DocumentDesign.md — 8 design elements concept page with diagram

Summary already existed: wiki/summaries/Writing/ADMN233-EffectiveDocumentDesign.md

Core 8 elements: Titles (2–7 words, Title Case, bold, no underline) · Headings (bold/flush left, decimal numbering for 3+, no orphaned headings) · Font (12pt standard, 30–35pt slides, 2 types max, serif vs sans-serif, black default) · Line Spacing (single standard, one space between sentences, no widows) · Margins & Alignment (2.5cm/1in, left alignment standard, no justification, block format) · Lists (numbered=ranked/procedural, bulleted=unordered/equal, parallelism required) · Whitespace (use judiciously — too little and too much are both problems) · Visual Aids (72dpi screen / 300dpi print, no credit = plagiarism, caption on same page)

Key exam details: Title Case rule: capitalize major words, NOT conjunctions/articles/prepositions under 4 chars · Underline = web links ONLY, not emphasis · ALL CAPS = rude in body text · Justified alignment = avoid in professional writing · Parallelism = every list item same grammatical structure · Visual aid legal check: no credit = plagiarism

ADMN 233 — Style and Tone Ingest (2026-04-29)

Source: “Professional Communication Style And Tone” by Dr. Glen Farrelly, 14 pages.

Pages created (2):

• wiki/summaries/Writing/ADMN233-StyleAndTone.md — full reading summary with tables and mindmap
• wiki/concepts/Writing/CQualities.md — 8 C Qualities concept page with diagram

Updated: wiki/concepts/Writing/Wordiness.md (cross-ref to CQualities), wiki/courses/ADMN233.md (source count + module table)

Core framework: 8 C Qualities — Compelling (active voice + “the ask” + audience focus) · Clear (define terms, no double negatives) · Correct (grammar + facts, cite sources) · Concise (no repetition, no tangents, short sentences, cut lead-ins) · Concrete (specific numbers, not vague) · Consistent (tense, perspective, spelling, naming) · Courteous (common words, right reading level, inclusive language/EDI) · Credible (formal register, positive tone, evidence)

Bonus Cs: Complete, Coherent, Confident, Context, Conclusion

Key exam distinctions: “The ask” = explicit action item; active voice preferred (passive ok for sensitive news); audience focus = “you” framing not “we” framing; inclusive language = EDI (they/them, neutral disability language, avoid idioms); register = level of formality (default to more formal); 8 Cs expand the 4 Cs of editing (the 4 Cs editing Cs are a subset)

ADMN 233 — Simulation Ingest (2026-04-29)

Source: Ametros Learning simulation — Communication for Business I, II, III (3 .md notes + 2 performance reports)

New pages created (9):

• wiki/summaries/ADMN233-Simulation.md — unified simulation summary (all 3 modules)
• wiki/concepts/Writing/PASFramework.md — PAS email framework + PSA Triad + Scope
• wiki/concepts/Writing/Wordiness.md — 4 types: Redundancy, Intensifiers, Stretching Phrases, Thick Words
• wiki/concepts/Writing/ProfessionalEthics.md — Potter Process (define problem → values → Aristotle/Kant/Mill → loyalties)
• wiki/concepts/Writing/Empathy.md — emotional empathy (feeling with) vs. cognitive empathy (perspective-taking)
• wiki/concepts/Writing/PresentationSkills.md — slide design + online presenting (sound > lighting > video)
• wiki/connections/ProfessionalEthics-CriticalThinking.md — ADMN 233 ↔ PHIL 252

Updated: concepts/Writing/AudienceAnalysis.md (added human vs. algorithmic, tone calibration by role), courses/ADMN233.md

Key simulation content for exam: PAS (Purpose→Action→Structure) · PSA Triad (Purpose+Scope+Audience) · 4 types of wordiness · Potter Process 4 steps · Emotional vs. cognitive empathy · Most important online presentation element = sound quality · 8 parts of speech + 3 conjunction types (see simulation summary)

ADMN 233 — First Ingest (2026-04-29)

Source: “The Writing Process” by Dr. Glen Farrelly (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), 10 pages.

Pages created (7):

• wiki/courses/ADMN233.md — course overview
• wiki/summaries/ADMN233-WritingProcess.md — full reading summary with tables and diagram
• wiki/concepts/Writing/WritingProcess.md — 5-step framework concept page
• wiki/concepts/Writing/AudienceAnalysis.md — audience analysis (demographics/psychographics/“you” focus)
• wiki/concepts/Writing/CommunicationGoals.md — 5 goals: Inform, Persuade, Train, Engage, Promote Goodwill
• wiki/connections/AudienceAnalysis-Argumentation.md — ADMN 233 ↔ PHIL 252 cross-course
• wiki/connections/Communication-ManagementPersuasion.md — ADMN 233 ↔ ADMN 201 cross-course

Core framework: 5 steps — Preparing (scope + audience + goal + ideas) → Organizing (categorize, order, outline) → Writing (intro/conclusion, signposts, skim design, plagiarism) → Polishing (appearance, accessibility) → Revising (editing = 4 Cs: Complete/Concise/Coherent/Clear; proofreading = mechanics)

Key distinctions to remember for exam: Editing ≠ Proofreading · “you focus” vs. “me focus” · 5 communication goals (with examples) · one goal per message (max two)

ADMN 201 — Final State (archived 2026-04-29)

• Wiki built out to 88 concept pages across 15 chapters
• Two pre-exam audit passes completed 2026-04-26: 7 gap pages added
• Known last-minute gaps drilled: Ch5 ComparativeAdvantage (opportunity cost), Ch14 OpenMarketOperations
• Full raw source corpus remains in raw/ADMN201/ and raw/ExamReview/

ACC 926 Ingest Summary (2026-04-25)

13 concept pages in concepts/Accounting/, 7 connection pages in connections/, 1 course overview, plus deeper-reference cross-links added to 7 existing ADMN 201 pages (Accounting, AccountingEquation-FinancialStatements, FinancialRatios, SecuritiesMarkets, InvestmentVehicles, LongTermFinancing, ShortTermFinancing). CLAUDE.md updated: ACC 926 added to Courses table (status: archived), concepts/Accounting/ added to Subject Folders. Source not modified; corpus stays in raw/ACC926/.

Final Pre-Exam Audit (2026-04-26 — Two Pass)

Pass 1: Read all of raw/ADMN201/*.md (textbook extracts) against 85 existing concept pages. Surfaced 4 gaps.

Pass 2 (triple-check): Extracted all 15 Exam Review/ChX_Study_Notes.docx files via textutil and re-audited against existing pages + the 4 new ones. Surfaced 3 additional Ch6/Ch9 gaps that the textbook .md extracts hadn’t framed as crisply as the instructor-prepared review docs.

Total wiki now: 88 ADMN 201 concept pages.

Pass 1 — Textbook .md gaps (4 pages):

1. CustomerRelationshipManagement — Ch12 LO1: CRM was previously a brief paragraph inside MarketingConcept. Now its own page with data warehousing, data mining, crowdsourcing, Fairmont/Savoy example, privacy edge. Addresses the “CRM 1-attempt error” flagged in study plan.

2. DiversificationAndROI — Ch15 LO7: investment risk-management mechanics were scattered. Now consolidated: diversification, asset allocation (younger 70/20/10 vs. older), Current Dividend Yield formula, Total Return % formula, Compound Growth, Time Value of Money intuition.

3. CreditTermsAndCashFlow — Ch15 LO2: cash-management details. Credit policy (“2/10 net 30” decoding), Factoring vs. Pledging AR (sale vs. collateral — common exam trap), three inventory categories (Raw Materials → WIP → Finished Goods).

4. BondPricingAndYields — Ch15 LO4: focused exam reference. Rate ↑ → Price ↓ inverse rule (resolved 2026-04-25 but fragile), premium/discount logic, bond quote interpretation (85 = $850), Bond Yield = Annual Interest ÷ Current Market Price, Moody’s & S&P rating scales.

Pass 2 — Exam Review docx gaps (3 pages):

5. CorporateStrategyOptions — Ch6 LO6.4: the StrategicManagement page covers SMART/SWOT/levels but not the menu of strategy options. New page covers all 5 corporate-level options with examples: Concentration, Growth (Market Penetration / Geographic Expansion / Product Development), Integration (Horizontal / Vertical), Diversification (Related / Conglomerate), Investment Reduction (Retrenchment / Divestment). Target’s 2015 Canadian exit = canonical divestment.

6. CompetitiveStrategies — Ch6 LO6.4: Porter’s three generic business-level strategies. Cost Leadership (Walmart, No Frills, Gildan) · Differentiation (Volvo safety, Apple UX, Caterpillar durability) · Focus (lululemon, Maserati). Includes “stuck in the middle” warning and the functional-strategy alignment table.

7. IndividualDifferences — Ch9 LO9.2: the EmployeeBehaviour page mentions “personality, attitudes, EQ” only in passing. The instructor exam review explicitly lists 6 personality traits as exam-targetable. New page details all 6 — Locus of Control (internal vs external), Self-Efficacy, Authoritarianism, Machiavellianism, Self-Esteem, Risk Propensity — plus EQ’s 5 components and the 34% hiring-manager statistic. Notes that EQ is trainable (unlike fixed personality) and how each trait moderates which motivation theory applies.

All 7 pages added to Priority 3 of study-plan for drill across Apr 26–28. Index and ADMN201 course page updated with direct links to both passes.

Recently Modified Files

LIST "Last modified: " + file.mtime
FROM "wiki"
WHERE file.name != this.file.name
SORT file.mtime DESC
LIMIT 10