# Decision Record: Hearts vs Hourglasses — Merge or Separate? **Date:** 2026-06-25 **Status:** Proposed (pending cohort feedback) **Deciders:** tenchi + ghojualamanchu cortex **Context:** v2 design session, point 4 of feedback --- ## The Question The v1 Cascade had **3 currencies**: Hearts (direct overlap), Stars (category congruence), and Hourglasses (quarterly values quiz). The v2 Cascade has **5 currencies**: Hearts, Stars, **Moons** (complementarity), **Hourglasses** (energy ledger), and **Balloons** (passive presence). The canonical spec from `cascade-hexgrid.pdf` confirms 5 currencies. The merge-vs-separate question is: **should Hearts and Hourglasses be merged**, or kept as separate currencies? This decision applies symmetrically to a related question: **should any of the 5 currencies be merged** — e.g., Moons into Stars, or Balloons into Hearts. --- ## What Each Currency Currently Tracks | Currency | What it tracks | When it changes | Observable behavior | |---|---|---|---| | **Hearts (❤)** | Direct overlap — explicit resonance events | On a message, meeting, or shared moment | High-A, high-φ event | | **Stars (★)** | Category match — relational category congruence | On a category change or context match | Phase alignment via shared context | | **Moons (☾)** | Complement — what fills the gap in the operator | Slow, relational | Differential damping; lowers effective ζ | | **Hourglasses (⧖)** | Energy ledger — energy spent vs. energy received | On each interaction or capacity check | The budget currency | | **Balloons (🎈)** | Presence — passive ambient awareness | On a passive signal ("I know they're there") | Low-A, low-ω, but not zero | The case for merging Hearts and Hourglasses: every time a Heart event happens, energy is spent and (sometimes) received. They are *causally coupled*. The Heart is the *event*; the Hourglass is the *cost*. Why track them separately if they always move together? --- ## Option A — Merge (Hearts absorbs Hourglasses, becomes a single currency with sub-fields) ### What this looks like - One currency, **Hearts (❤)**, with two sub-fields: - `hearts.count` — number of resonance events - `hearts.energy` — running net energy ledger - Stars, Moons, Balloons remain separate - Total currencies: **4** (Hearts-with-sub-fields, Stars, Moons, Balloons) ### Pros - **Simpler UI.** One less number on the map. Cohort members only have to think about one currency that holds "the relationship's resonance + energy state." - **Reduces double-counting.** The merged currency forces consistent semantics — every Heart event updates energy in the same record. - **Closer to intuitive language.** "Hearts" already implies "how much do I care / how much does this cost" in folk psychology. Splitting them adds vocabulary that doesn't map to lived experience. - **Less database complexity.** One fewer event type to log; one fewer aggregation per hex. ### Cons - **Loses the causal-direction signal.** A Heart event can be *spent* (energy out, no reciprocation), *received* (energy in, no output), or *exchanged* (energy flows both ways). As separate currencies, the operator can see whether a relationship is asymmetric in energy flow. Merged, this asymmetry is harder to read at a glance. - **Conflates quality and cost.** A relationship can be high-quality (lots of Hearts) but cheap (low Hourglasses net cost), or high-cost but few Hearts. The 5-currency split lets the operator see this. Merged, the operator only sees one number — which collapses two distinct signals. - **Conflicts with the Oscillator Model's separation.** The model explicitly distinguishes *state* (Coherence, Resonance) from *cost* (Dissipation, energy). Hearts tracks Resonance; Hourglasses tracks cost. Merging them re-couples two things the model says should be separable. - **Re-opens the v1 ceiling question.** v1 had Hourglasses as a quarterly quiz, which collapsed into Hearts in some early drafts. The v2 design specifically unbundled them. Re-merging partially undoes that work. ### Net **Functional compression up, theoretical honesty down.** Easier to use, easier to lose signal. --- ## Option B — Separate (Keep Hearts, Stars, Moons, Hourglasses, Balloons as 5 currencies) ### What this looks like - The 5 currencies from the canonical spec remain - Each currency is a separate event type with separate aggregation - The map shows 5 readouts per hex ### Pros - **Matches the canonical spec.** The PDF specifies 5 currencies; aligning v2 to the source document is honest. - **Aligns with the Oscillator Model.** State vs. cost is the model's structural distinction. Splitting Hearts and Hourglasses makes the model legible at the UI level. - **Catches asymmetries.** A relationship with lots of Hearts but negative Hourglasses (high cost, no reciprocation) is a *one-sided* relationship — and Gottman shows that's the strongest predictor of failure. Asymmetric energy flow is visible if the two are separate. - **Catches Granovetter dimensions indirectly.** Hearts tracks direct overlap (more like *bonding*); Stars tracks category match (more like *bridging potential*). Keeping them separate lets the operator see whether their network is bonding-heavy or bridging-heavy. - **Cleanly extensible.** If we add a 6th currency later (e.g., "Trust" or "Rupture-history"), we have the pattern to follow. ### Cons - **UI complexity.** 5 numbers per hex is a lot to scan. Cohort members may default to looking at one or two. - **Double-entry bookkeeping required.** Every Heart event must also update Hourglasses. This is implementable but requires care. - **More vocabulary to teach.** Cohort members must learn what each currency means and when it changes. - **Risk of gaming.** Cohort members can "spend" Hourglasses without spending Hearts (low-energy investment) or vice versa (high-energy but untracked). The protocol must guard against this. ### Net **Theoretical honesty up, functional compression down.** More accurate, harder to use. --- ## Option C — Split the Difference: 5 currencies with one composite readout ### What this looks like - 5 currencies tracked internally (Option B's structure) - One **composite readout** shown by default on the map: a 0–100 score that integrates Hearts (resonance), Hourglasses (energy balance), and Balloons (presence) - Stars and Moons shown separately because they track orthogonal dimensions (category, complementarity) - The composite score is what the warmth band (Blazing/Hot/Warm/Cool/Cold) is derived from ### Pros - **Best of both worlds.** Cohort members see one number on the map (functional compression); drill-down reveals the underlying currencies (theoretical honesty). - **The warmth band already does this kind of compression.** Band → composite is a natural extension. - **Matches how humans already process relational data.** Folk psychology reads relationships as gestalts, not as 5-axis vectors. A composite readout honors that. ### Cons - **Composite formula is itself a model.** Whatever weight we give Hearts vs. Hourglasses vs. Balloons in the composite is a theoretical commitment. If we get the formula wrong, the gestalt is misleading. - **Two modes of reading.** Cohort members must learn when to read the composite vs. when to drill down. This adds cognitive load. - **Doesn't fully resolve the merge question.** The composite *is* a kind of merge — it just makes the underlying currencies easier to inspect. ### Net **A reasonable middle path.** Honest enough for theory, compressed enough for daily use. Risks: composite formula miscalibration; dual-mode cognitive load. --- ## Recommendation **Default to Option B (separate), with Option C as a UI-layer concession if the cohort feedback is that 5 readouts per hex is too much.** Rationale: 1. The Oscillator Model is structurally committed to the state/cost distinction. Merging Hearts and Hourglasses re-couples what the model says should be separable. 2. Asymmetric energy flow (one-sided relationships) is the strongest predictor of failure in the underlying research. Splitting Hearts and Hourglasses makes this asymmetry visible. 3. The canonical spec (PDF) specifies 5 currencies. Aligning to the source is honest. 4. The UI burden is real but manageable. Cohort members can default to reading warmth band + 2 currencies (Hearts + Stars) and ignore the rest until they need to drill down. Option A (merge) is rejected as a primary option but kept as a fallback if Option B proves unusable in Cohort Zero pilot. Option C (composite readout) is recommended as a **v2.1 enhancement**, not a v2 core decision. Implement after the 5-currency structure is validated. --- ## What This Means for the Sub-Question (Moons into Stars, or Balloons into Hearts) | Sub-question | Recommendation | |---|---| | Moons into Stars? | **No.** Moons tracks complementarity (the relationship that fills a gap), Stars tracks category match (same tribe). These are orthogonal dimensions. Merging erases the differential-ζ signal. | | Balloons into Hearts? | **No.** Balloons is passive ambient awareness (low-A, low-ω, near-zero energy cost). Hearts is explicit resonance event (high-A, often high-cost). Collapsing them hides the difference between "I know they're there" and "we had a meaningful interaction." | --- ## Decision Pending This decision is **proposed**, not finalized. Cohort feedback is needed on: 1. Is 5 currencies per hex too much to scan? 2. Does the Heart/Hourglass separation feel meaningful, or like bookkeeping? 3. Does the composite-readout (Option C) feel necessary, or does the warmth band already serve that role? **Action:** Bring this to Cohort Zero. Their actual use of the map is the only ground truth we have on whether 5 currencies is too many. --- ## What This Records - **Decision context:** v2 design, point 4 of 2026-06-25 feedback - **Options considered:** 3 (merge, separate, composite-with-drill-down) - **Decision recommended:** Option B (separate), with Option C as a v2.1 enhancement - **Rejected:** Option A (merge) as primary - **Pending:** Cohort Zero pilot data - **Recorded by:** ghojualamanchu cortex - **Witnessed by:** hippocampus (encoded as memory `mem-20260626014800`)