---
fragment_peers:
a-collaborative-business-contributions-before-the-client: um-negocio-colaborativo-contribuicoes-antes-do-cliente
a-shared-infrastructure-and-its-independent-uses: uma-infraestrutura-compartilhada-e-seus-usos-independentes
deliver-a-part-and-decide-whether-to-continue: entregar-uma-parte-e-decidir-se-continua
meetings-arrive-with-the-path-already-documented: reunioes-chegar-a-conversa-com-o-caminho-ja-documentado
rd-preserve-an-observation-before-funding-the-test: pd-preservar-uma-observacao-antes-de-financiar-o-teste
reading-the-examples-and-conditions-of-use: leitura-dos-exemplos-e-condicoes-de-uso
recognize-the-sources-that-supported-the-work-too: reconhecer-tambem-as-fontes-que-sustentaram-o-trabalho
usage-examples: exemplos-de-uso
lang: en
peer: pt/examples/
shared_fragments: false
title: Usage examples
---
# Usage examples
The five cases below follow people using Legible to preserve contributions
and decide how to continue their work. They are fictional stories, with people,
situations and results invented to explain how it works. They describe neither
actual deployments nor measured benefits.
> **Initial description.** This is a brief, initial description of possible uses.
> Experience with the protocol, real cases that may be documented and improvements
> to tools and infrastructure may clarify, extend or correct the paths presented.
> These examples remain fictional; they are not accounts of demonstrated results.
The cases use formal records: **Appoint** to declare a formulation, **Trace**
to declare a relationship with other work and **Nod** to recognize a
consequence received.
The same people could begin with private, unsigned drafts. The
[draft examples](first-draft.md) show that path.
The [specification](specification.md) defines formats and requirements.
The [economic coordination guide](economic-coordination.md) explains
access to results, percentage recognition chosen after the consequence and
infrastructure continuity.
## Deliver a part and decide whether to continue
Ana runs a corporate information-security training service. At the companies
she serves, she encounters a difficulty: the contract records the purchase of
training, but what changed afterward is not always clear. The client knows
they had access to the classes; deciding whether another stage is worthwhile
requires reconstructing what the team managed to apply.
In an Appoint, Ana declares that problem. In another, she restates the problem
and proposes an experiment: deliver the work in small parts, present the evidence
for each stage and wait for the client to declare the consequence they received.
After each delivery, she decides whether to offer the next part. In the origin
Traces, she identifies the guides and work on which she based this formulation.
Ana knows forms of remuneration that depend on results. She is not suggesting
that Legible invented that possibility. She wants to try a relationship in
which the client's recognition, given after receiving part of the work, helps
inform continuity. The protocol allows that recognition and its references
to be recorded; it defines neither a price list nor a payment order.
Bruno, who is responsible for the area at the client company, reads the proposal.
His objection is practical: in an earlier experience, measuring and discussing
results consumed much of the effort he hoped to save. Ana proposes starting
with a small pilot. They clarify what will be delivered, which evidence they
can examine and who can access it. Bruno is authorized to report, on behalf
of the company, the consequences received in this pilot.
Ana prepares the training design and applies it with a small team. In this
story, she decides to conduct that first stage without charging in advance.
This takes time for discussion, preparation and execution. She does not know
whether she will receive recognition or money, and the record does not
eliminate that risk.
After delivery, Ana waits for Bruno's Nod. He examines the pilot and declares
that the design enabled the team to identify situations they had previously
failed to recognize. He signs a reputational Nod referencing Ana's contribution
and the test evidence. There is no monetary transfer in this first cycle.
Ana reads the declaration. The client described a concrete consequence, and
she considers it worthwhile to invest in another stage. She decides to offer
application of the training in a real project. Bruno agrees to participate.
At the end of that stage, he recognizes the observed application and chooses
to transfer an amount in recognition. The transfer takes place through the
external means chosen for it. The new monetary Nod states the amount Bruno
declares already transferred and identifies the contribution in that second
stage.
The two declarations give Ana different information: the first describes a
consequence without payment; the second describes another consequence and a
transfer. She considers what she received, the effort required and the work
still ahead before deciding whether to offer a third cycle. Issuing a Nod
does not automatically contract that new stage.
The circuit also allows another outcome. If the first Nod did not arrive,
Ana could talk to Bruno, continue anyway or decide not to offer further work.
The protocol would impose no automatic transition. Ana would know only that
she had not received the recognition she expected; the lack of a visible
record would not let her conclude that no benefit occurred or that Bruno
never recorded anything privately.
Delivering in parts limits the work Ana chooses to offer before assessing the
return. This does not guarantee that the service can sustain itself. She has
already spent resources on the first cycle and needs to consider the risk of
continuing without receiving money. Separate agreements can exist; this
experiment examines the possibility of delivering, waiting for recognition
and choosing the next step. Any commitments actually undertaken remain
relevant to that choice.
If Bruno authorizes sharing the Nods, another provider can examine what he
recognized, under which circumstances and with what evidence. That can inform
a new working relationship. The reader still needs to assess the content:
three Nods are not a reliability score, and a signature does not prove that
the declared consequences happened.
Ana wants to observe two things: whether accessible history makes starting
a relationship easier to decide, and whether recognition by stage helps guide
continuation. To assess the experience, she also needs to count time spent
preparing records, examining evidence and discussing recognition. The story
shows the circuit; it does not establish that it is cheaper.
## R&D: preserve an observation before funding the test
An equipment company maintains a research and development laboratory with ten
researchers. The team already writes reports, records experiments and conducts
performance reviews. Even so, when returning to older projects, it encounters
a problem: people know a route was abandoned, but cannot always establish who
identified the difficulty, what analysis they relied on or why that conclusion
seemed sufficient at the time.
Helena, the R&D director, proposes an internal pilot. In an Appoint, she
describes this loss of memory. In another, she restates the problem and proposes
preserving observations, formulations and dependencies before deciding which
tests will receive resources. In the Traces she identifies the materials used
to design the pilot. Investment decisions remain with the people authorized
by the company.
Rafael works on a prototype with intermittent failures. Before a new experiment
has been approved, he records an Appoint: “In the available tests, the prototype
fails above 40 °C. The routine tests, conducted at 22 °C, do not reproduce that
condition.” He references the reports and describes which results he examined.
The observation is preserved even if the additional test is not approved.
Marina reads the record and relates it to a problem in her materials analysis.
In her own Appoint, she formulates the hypothesis that temperature explains
a polymer behavior she has not yet managed to reproduce. She declares a Trace
between her analysis and Rafael's observation, explaining how she relied on it.
The record attributes that relationship to Marina; it does not present it
as a conclusion Rafael signed.
Helena finds the two works while examining proposals for the next cycle.
In her CH, a private document that guides her reading, she had written that
she was looking for signs of failures
not covered by routine tests and questions that could be investigated with
the available resources. This context guides her reading. She can ask an AI
authorized to process the internal materials for help, but remains responsible
for assessing the hypothesis and deciding what to take to the team.
Helena approves a thermal-chamber test. In the fictional scenario, the test
reproduces the failure and supplies information for revising the prototype's
material. Authorized to report consequences received by the company, Helena
issues two operational reputational Nods: one references Rafael's observation;
the other, Marina's analysis. In each declaration she explains what that
contribution helped them understand and references the relevant evidence.
Neither record executes a payment or determines a promotion.
Months later, Rafael leaves the company and Marina changes projects. Diego
takes over the investigation and finds the files the company preserved in
the internal space: the initial observation, hypothesis, declared dependency,
test reports and recognitions. He can reconstruct part of the path without
relying only on the memory of those who participated.
Diego can examine the evidence and reach another conclusion. If new tests
indicate another cause, he preserves his analysis and declares which works
he relied on or which conclusions he disputes. Earlier declarations remain
attributed to their declarants; Helena's Nod does not make the initial
explanation a definitive truth.
Helena wants to assess whether the team can preserve and reconsider
contributions before selecting them for execution. The records help Diego
only because someone maintained the files, references and access to the
material. The protocol does not guarantee that continuity alone. The relevant
comparison is with the reports and experiment records the team could already
maintain, including the additional effort required by the pilot.
The pilot concerns research memory. If the company wants to use these data
for performance reviews too, it needs to define and communicate that other
purpose, its criteria and applicable conditions. A contribution may matter
even without a visible Nod; the collection is not a complete register of
the researchers' merit.
## Meetings: arrive with the path already documented
A software company has three teams distributed across two time zones. It uses
Git, issues, documents and chat. In weekly meetings, however, much of the time
goes to questions about the path of the work: why a solution was proposed,
which information changed a priority and what led to abandoning an alternative.
The answers are scattered and do not always identify who adopted each analysis.
Paula, the engineering director, proposes a pilot with one team. She records
the problem in an Appoint and, in another, proposes preserving formulations
and dependencies at moments when a question or decision changes. The hypothesis
is that reading these records before a meeting will reduce the time needed
to reconstruct context. The team does not need to turn every progress update
into a Legible record.
Tiago examines the new-user onboarding process. In this case's fictional data,
he identifies a concentration of dropouts at email confirmation. In an Appoint,
he formulates the question: “We are trying to simplify registration, but the
largest observed dropout comes afterward. What prevents email confirmation?”
He references the period analyzed, the funnel and support accounts, kept in
authorized internal storage.
Lívia reads the observation and prepares a proposal to revise confirmation.
She preserves her formulation in an Appoint and declares its dependency on
Tiago's work. The proposal explains what she suggests changing and what still
needs testing. Another reader can therefore distinguish the problem formulated
by Tiago from the solution proposed by Lívia.
Before the next meeting, participants read these materials and note their
questions. The discussion begins with what still needs a decision: is this
test worth prioritizing now? Authorized people decide resources, deadlines
and execution through company processes. The decision and its rationale can
be referenced afterward; the Appoint assigns no task to anyone.
After the meeting, Paula reports, on behalf of the company and with authorization
to do so, a consequence already received: Tiago's observation helped identify
the problem the team needed to discuss; Lívia's proposal helped delimit a
testable alternative. She issues a reputational Nod for each contribution.
These recognitions concern preparation of the decision, not a product
improvement that has yet to be observed.
After testing the new flow, the results may support another declaration,
with its own content and references. This distinguishes “this analysis helped
us decide” from “this change produced the result we observed”. The Nods do
not replace minutes or other records the company needs to maintain.
When Caio joins the team, he finds the problem formulation, proposal, declared
dependency, decision and available results. He can understand why the test was
chosen without calling another meeting just to hear the whole story. If the
bottleneck has changed, he can formulate a new question; preserving an earlier
decision does not require continuing to follow it.
When assessing the pilot, Paula compares meeting time with the earlier period
and examines the experience of another team that did not change its process.
She also counts time spent writing, finding and reading records, questions
that persisted and information that was missing. Differences in projects,
participants and workload may affect the comparison. A shorter meeting alone
demonstrates neither saved effort nor that Legible caused the change.
Paula is looking for a concrete outcome: can people arrive at the discussion
knowing what was formulated, what it relied on and what still needs deciding?
The test may show advantages, excessive effort or no gain over well-maintained
documentation. All three outcomes help decide whether to continue.
## A collaborative business: contributions before the client
A group wants to develop a service to improve support at small companies.
Joana preserves an Appoint about a problem she observed: teams record tickets
but lose the reasons certain cases require rework. André formulates a way to
relate tickets and corrections. Luiza proposes starting by reviewing a small
sample, because integrating every system at once may cost more than the service
can offer.
The three works stay in the group's authorized repository. Each participant
adopts their formulation and can keep investigating other possibilities.
At that moment there is no common client or decision to execute everything.
Other people add sales proposals, questions and objections.
Later, Miguel finds an interested company. He will lead delivery and undertake
the commitments of his service. With the relevant authorization, he describes
the demand in an Appoint: the client wants to understand rework causes without
moving support data outside the authorized environment and prefers to begin
with a small stage.
Joana reads the demand and formulates a solution proposal. In that new Appoint's
origin Traces, she declares how she used the initial problem, André's proposal
and the condition Luiza suggested. Someone else presents an alternative based
on broader integration. The proposals can coexist.
Miguel asks an AI authorized to read the materials for help. It compares the
two alternatives with the client's conditions, identifies documents examined
and raises a question: does the available sample allow investigation of the
relevant cases? Participants discuss it. Miguel chooses Joana's proposal for
the initial stage, considering the available evidence and the commitment he
can undertake. The AI neither creates that commitment nor invalidates the
other proposal.
Before the work, Miguel and Joana agree on how to examine the service results.
They define documents, calculation criteria and who will have access, respecting
the client's authorized boundaries. That agreement fixes no recognition
percentage for Joana or every antecedent of the solution. The terms of the
client service are handled separately.
In the fictional scenario, the stage is executed. The analysis separates rework
causes that had been mixed together, and Miguel delivers the service with less
manual reconstruction than expected. After learning the results and examining
the documents, he chooses to propose recognition to Joana corresponding to
3% of that service's calculated result, under the specific terms he presents.
The percentage was chosen after the consequence; it was not remuneration
previously promised for that contribution.
Miguel prepares a `non-monetary` Nod referencing Joana's solution Appoint by
its record identifier (`RecordID`). In the `statement`, he explains the consequence, the 3% proposal
and its base. `agreement-hash-reference` identifies the exact terms detailing
calculation, amounts, data access and proposal conditions. The Nod records the
proposed arrangement; it does not declare money already transferred.
Joana reads the terms and available documents and accepts through the procedure
chosen by the parties. She also issues an `agreement-decision` `.response`
with signal `accepted` about that Nod. Joana's key declaration and the external
acts of the relationship must remain distinguishable. If terms change, the
earlier acceptance does not silently apply to the new proposal.
Miguel and Joana authorize disclosure of the declaration and percentage while
amounts and documents remain restricted to authorized people. A reader of the
public Nod can learn what Miguel recognized and proposed. Without contract
and data access, they cannot check the entire calculation or conclude that
a transfer happened.
If a monetary Nod is later issued, it will state the amount declared already
transferred and the currency, with the disclosure chosen for that new record.
The proposal and transfer are not two payments. The Traces do not automatically
distribute the 3% among earlier authors either. Joana can examine consequences
she received from André's, Luiza's and other sources' contributions and make
her own recognitions.
In another opportunity, a participant can examine accessible history before
offering work to Miguel. They will find situated declarations, not a guarantee
of receiving the same terms. The group can observe whether reading helped
consider previously overlooked contributions and whether returns let authors
continue participating. Those are different questions from merely managing
to keep files in a repository.
## A shared infrastructure and its independent uses
Teresa participates in a community laboratory maintaining equipment, a testing
workbench and a materials dataset. The laboratory existed before its users
learned about Legible. Maintenance depends on work, space, calibration, parts
replacement and result storage. Usage fees and partner support cover some of
those expenses.
Beatriz develops a component for a client. She uses the workbench to test two
alternatives and consults the test dataset to interpret a difference she found.
She preserves her formulation and declares dependency on those resources,
referencing external materials and reports she can legitimately reference.
She need not invent a laboratory Appoint or attribute protocol adoption to it.
Davi uses the same infrastructure in another project. A dataset result helps
discard a material before ordering a prototype. His work takes another direction
and has not generated a sale. He issues a reputational Nod referencing the
external contribution and describing the consequence he received.
After completing her service, Beatriz recognizes that workbench and test access
allowed investigation of a difficulty she could not examine with her workshop's
resources. In addition to the previously agreed usage fee, she chooses an
external transfer in recognition of that contribution. Her monetary Nod declares
the amount already transferred and references the laboratory's work. The earlier
fee and additional recognition have their own documents; the protocol neither
calculates them nor determines their legal or tax treatment.
Beatriz's and Davi's Nods supply different information. One describes a
consequence without a transfer; the other also declares an amount transferred.
Neither establishes a universal share of results belonging to infrastructure.
The laboratory gains no authority over users' work by appearing in its genealogy.
With necessary authorizations, Teresa examines the available accounts alongside
income, expenses and maintenance needs. They help describe uses not captured
solely by counting workbench hours. The collection remains incomplete: some
users may keep private records or never record experiences, and a reference
does not make their reports accessible.
In the fictional case, resources received still do not cover an equipment
replacement. Teresa can present authorized information to potential supporters,
revise the scope offered or seek other funding sources, respecting existing
commitments. The laboratory's relevance to users and its financial condition
need separate examination.
Computing infrastructure, a software library or a connectivity network could
participate in similar relationships. Maintaining Legible is another possible
contribution in this set. What deserves testing is whether knowing distributed
consequences improves support and continuity decisions, considering the cost
of recording, examining and maintaining that information.
## Recognize the sources that supported the work too
Ana, Helena or Paula can recognize a consequence received from the specification,
guides or tools they used. Ana, for example, can declare that the materials
helped organize deliveries and recognitions by cycle. Her Traces and the
pilot's files can support the explanation of actual use.
That Nod references the recognized contribution. It can point to an existing
Appoint or to an external document or repository allowed by the format; there
is no need to invent a record by the source's author. Separate recognition
of distinct contributions uses distinct Nods.
Reading the materials or using the software requires neither a Nod nor payment;
use follows the applicable licenses. A formal Appoint adopts the NRC identified
in it. The convention concerns recognition when an adopter realizes economic
value in an exchange transaction from a contribution declared under it; other
consequences can also be recognized. One person's declaration does not oblige
all other users to do the same.
## Reading the examples and conditions of use
Each signature attributes the declaration to a key. The reader examines its
content, evidence and the authority of whoever declares on behalf of another
person or company. Each cycle's Nods identify the contributions recognized;
they need not form a chain between themselves. `corrects` is used to correct
an earlier Nod, not to mark the next stage of work.
Records can remain private. Sharing files, disclosing people's data and
authorizing AI processing are separate decisions. Internal evidence remains
subject to its access conditions. Preservation depends on the files and
the care of those maintaining them.
Payment, contracting, employment relationships and tax documents follow the
applicable acts, agreements and rules. The format neither replaces them nor
determines their effects alone. A monetary Nod declares a transfer already
made; it does not execute it. A reputational Nod can record a consequence
without money. No record by itself requires offering the next stage of work.