Example: the Habitat-Thinking estate (real)¶
Real assessment — run 2026-08-15 across the Habitat-Thinking estate.
This is not a constructed example. It is an actual
/ai-readiness-rollup over the reports that existed in
techtalk/ai-readiness-assessment
and
Habitat-Thinking/ai-literacy-superpowers
on that date, plus one subject that could not be reached. The result
is not flattering, and it is published as it came out.
The other examples on this site are synthetic — built to show the report shape. This one shows what the instrument actually says about the estate that builds it.
The manifest¶
version: 1
team: habitat-thinking
subjects:
- id: ai-readiness-assessment
path: ./ai-readiness-assessment
- id: ai-literacy-superpowers
path: ./ai-literacy-superpowers
- id: leap-companion
path: ./leap-companion
report:
output: assessments/
Paths are shown resolved from the
scope root — the
directory containing .habitat/, which held all three clones. The run
itself predated that rule being written down, and the ambiguity it
exposed is what
spec 0012
closed.
Coverage ledger¶
| Subject | Status | Report date | Age | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ai-readiness-assessment | degraded |
2026-06-03 | 73d | No assessment-summary block; recovered from prose |
| ai-literacy-superpowers | incompatible, stale |
2026-05-11 | 96d | Produced by /assess (a different instrument) — no Habitat Maturity Profile, no gap |
| leap-companion | unreachable |
— | — | Not found in the organisation |
Assessed 2 of 3 named subjects; 1 of 3 can enter the dimension matrix.
Read that second number carefully. Two subjects had readable reports — but only one of them was measured against this model.
Dimension matrix¶
| Subject | AB | AI | WF | OM | TP | OR | OA | HR | WP | AC | AD | Te | Ob | Gv |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ai-readiness-assessment | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2* | 3 | 2* | 2* | 4 |
| ai-literacy-superpowers | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| leap-companion | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
AB Agent behaviour · AI Agent input · WF Workflow · OM Operating model · TP Teams provide · OR Output role · OA Output artefact · HR Humans review · WP Work patterns · AC Agent composition · AD Agents… · Te Testing · Ob Observability · Gv Governance
A one-row matrix is not a matrix. It is a single assessment with extra formatting, and the report says so rather than dressing it up.
Gap table¶
| Subject | Habitat maturity mean | Cognitive level | Gap | Regime |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ai-readiness-assessment | 2.93 | 4 | +1.07 | Ambition outpaces enablement |
| ai-literacy-superpowers | — | 5 | — | not computable |
| leap-companion | — | — | — | — |
ai-literacy-superpowers has a cognitive read — L5, Sovereign
Engineering, with all three disciplines at 5 — but no habitat maturity
mean, because its report was produced by an instrument that does not
measure the fourteen dimensions. A cognitive read without a habitat
mean cannot yield a gap. The number is genuinely absent, not withheld.
Spread¶
Not computable.
A spread is a range across subjects, and a range needs at least two comparable subjects. This estate currently produces one gap.
Presenting +1.07 as "the spread" would manufacture precisely the
finding a portfolio view exists to produce. The honest statement is that
the estate cannot yet produce it — and that is a finding of its own, just
not the one anybody wanted.
What would produce a spread: run /ai-readiness-assess in
ai-literacy-superpowers. It is a mature habitat with a long assessment
history; it has simply never been read against this model.
What the one comparable subject says¶
ai-readiness-assessment reads +1.07 — Ambition outpaces
enablement: cognitive L4 against a fourteen-dimension habitat mean of
L2.93, held back by Agent composition, Testing and Observability, all at
L2.
That is the instrument reporting incoherence in its own repository. The report is 73 days old and predates a substantial amount of work on the testing dimension, so a re-run would likely read differently — which is itself the point: a 73-day-old report is evidence about 73 days ago.
Superseded the next day — and the prediction held
This roll-up was run on 2026-08-15 against the reports that existed then. On 2026-08-16 the repository was re-assessed, and the gap had closed from +1.07 (Ambition outpaces enablement) to +0.36 (Coherent), with the habitat maturity mean rising L2.93 → L3.64.
The roll-up above is left exactly as it ran. It is a dated reading, and rewriting it would destroy the thing it demonstrates. The point stands more sharply now than when it was written: the estate was being summarised from a report that was already out of date, and the coverage ledger said so.
Portfolio regime¶
Not asserted.
Regime selection needs provenance proportions and a spread. With one comparable subject and no declared habitats, there is nothing to classify. A regime is a claim about an estate; one repository is not an estate.
If forced to characterise it informally: two mature repositories, no shared habitat, no lineage between their control surfaces, and a wide difference in cognitive read (L4 against L5). That shape is Islanded — but the report does not assert it, because the evidence required to assert it is not there.
Split ceiling¶
Not reported. A common-weak dimension is one weak across two-thirds or more of the assessed subjects. With one subject in the matrix, every weak dimension is trivially "common" and the split carries no information.
The weak dimensions of ai-readiness-assessment — Agent composition,
Testing, Observability — are that repository's own backlog until there is
a second comparable subject to tell local weakness from shared weakness.
What this estate should do next¶
Assess ai-literacy-superpowers against this model. One command in
that repository turns a one-row matrix into a two-row one and produces
the estate's first real spread. It is the single highest-value action
available, and it costs about ten minutes.
Re-run ai-readiness-assessment. Its report predates its current
testing posture by 73 days and will be stale in another 17.
Resolve leap-companion. It is named in the manifest and cannot be
found. Either it has moved, it is private, or it should come out of the
scope. Leaving it as unreachable is honest but it is not a resting
state.
Why this example is here¶
The design argument for a portfolio view is that the spread of gaps across an estate is a finding no single-repository assessment can produce. This example does not produce a spread.
That is worth publishing. The instrument was pointed at its own estate, and what came back was: one subject comparable, one measured by a different instrument, one missing, no spread, no regime, no split ceiling. Every one of those is the machinery refusing to invent a number it does not have.
A synthetic example in this slot would have shown a tidy three-row matrix and a satisfying range. It would also have shown nothing about whether the instrument tells the truth when the data is thin.
This example changed the tool
Running it surfaced two real defects. The roll-up had no coverage
status for a report that parses but was produced by a different
instrument — everything was either degraded or unparseable, and
ai-literacy-superpowers is neither. And nothing stopped a
single-subject estate from having its one gap reported as a spread.
Both were fixed before this page was written; the incompatible
status and the two-subject spread rule exist because of this run.
Rendered version¶
There is no HTML render of this report. The HTML portfolio is built around the matrix, and a matrix with one populated row would be a more impressive artefact than the data behind it deserves. When the estate has two comparable subjects, it gets a render.