# Instrument Library — Field-Kit-Aligned Completed Outputs > Part of the public canon of *Perceptive Innovation* by **Caleb Kow** — > canonical URL: https://perceptiveinnovation.com/canon/instrument-library.md · index: https://perceptiveinnovation.com/llms.txt > © 2026 Caleb Kow, all rights reserved. Quotation with attribution to Caleb Kow / perceptiveinnovation.com is welcome. > Commercial use — client engagements, training, certification, or incorporation into products or models — requires a written licence: https://perceptiveinnovation.com/terms Source: *Perceptive Innovation Field Kit* by Caleb Kow (Part One PIPAS Application Worksheet; Appendix C.2 10 T's Application Worksheet; Appendix E.2 Operational Templates; Appendix E.4 Measurement Frameworks). Every substantive engagement ends with one of these instruments **completed** — filled in with the user's actual content — so the user always leaves with an artefact aligned to the Field Kit and member downloads, usable for reference and training. ## The Completion Doctrine 1. **Fill it, don't describe it.** Never tell the user what they would write in a field. Write it, from their evidence, and hand it over. 2. **Fill to the ✓-standard.** The Field Kit worksheets pair every field with a good and bad example. The good examples are specific, evidenced, honest, and actionable ("Solo restaurant owners with 1–2 outlets and S$80K–S$200K monthly revenue who currently use 3+ separate banking apps"); the bad examples are generic, self-flattering, or unverifiable ("SMEs"; "5 — we have a great future"). Every field you complete must pass the ✓-standard. 3. **No silently empty fields.** Where the conversation or document genuinely does not support a field, enter: *"Not yet evidenced — needs user input: [the one question that would fill it]."* A visible gap is a finding; a blank is a failure. 4. **Canonical order always.** Spheres Identity → Value → Trust → Risk → Effort → Future; T's Technology → Trace → Time → Talent → Training → Temperature → Thought → Trouble → Tenacity → Tangibility. 5. **Header block on every instrument:** instrument name and Field Kit source · innovation name · primary audience · date · prepared with the Perceptive Innovation skill v1.2 · "Framework © Caleb Kow — perceptiveinnovation.com". 6. **File delivery.** Where file-creation tools are available, also save the completed instrument as a downloadable Markdown file (offer .docx on request) and tell the user it matches the Field Kit member format. Where no file tools exist, deliver it in full in the reply. ## Mode → Instrument Routing | Mode | Always deliver (completed) | Add when relevant | |---|---|---| | 1 — Quick Score | Quick Scorecard (`assets/scorecard-template.md`) | Offer the full PIPAS Application Worksheet as the next step | | 2 — Full Assessment | **PIPAS Application Worksheet** (all 8 sections) | Stakeholder Perception Interview Guide (customised); sphere-specific Measurement Block | | 3 — Prescription | **10 T's Action Plan (Template E.2.4)** | 10 T's Application Worksheet sheets (C.2) for each activated T; Measurement Block | | 4 — Trainer | None by default (teaching) | A blank-with-examples worksheet extract if the user wants to practise | | 5 — Workshop | **PIPAS Application Worksheet** (consolidated team version) | Interview Guide for pre-work; divergence log in Section 8 rationale | | 6 — Document Assessment | Document Review (`assets/document-review-template.md`) **plus the PIPAS Application Worksheet completed from their document** | 10 T's Action Plan when prescription is requested | | Any re-score / follow-up session | **PIPAS Update (Template E.2.2)** | — | | Portfolio or executive review requests | **Quarterly Review (Template E.2.5)** | — | --- ## Instrument 1 — The PIPAS Application Worksheet (Field Kit, Part One) Complete all eight sections with these exact field labels. Format each as `**Field label:** completed answer` (or a two-column table), grouped under the section headings. **Section 1: Innovation Description** — Innovation name · Brief description (one sentence in the user's language, not technical terminology) · Target user (specific, not general) · Primary alternative the user would otherwise choose. **Section 2: Identity Perception Assessment** — User's mental model of "who uses this category" · User's mental model of "who specifically uses this product" · What adoption signals about the user (positive) · What adoption signals about the user (negative) · How peers would react to user's adoption · Identity adjustments adoption requires · Identity Perception Score (1–5) · Specific actions to improve Identity Perception. **Section 3: Value Perception Assessment** — Benefits user will perceive (in user's language) · Costs user will perceive · Perceived benefit-to-cost ratio · Comparison to alternatives · Benefits requiring user education · Costs you may have underestimated · Value Perception Score (1–5) · Specific actions to improve Value Perception. **Section 4: Trust Perception Assessment** — Trust anchors for product capability · Trust anchors for company reliability · Failure scenarios that would damage trust · Trust comparison to alternatives · Category-wide trust concerns · Specific trust-building actions taken · Trust Perception Score (1–5) · Specific actions to improve Trust Perception. **Section 5: Risk Perception Assessment** — Worst case from adoption · Worst case from non-adoption · Best case to worst case asymmetry · Decision reversibility · User control over outcomes · User's risk frame (rationality / protection / opportunity) · Risk Perception Score (1–5) · Specific actions to improve Risk Perception. **Section 6: Effort Perception Assessment** — Effort to learn about innovation · Effort to evaluate adoption · Effort to begin using · Effort for ongoing use · Effort comparison to alternatives · High-friction moments in user journey · Effort already eliminated through design · Effort remaining to potentially eliminate · Effort Perception Score (1–5) · Specific actions to improve Effort Perception. **Section 7: Future Perception Assessment** — Expected innovation evolution · Expected category evolution · Network effects and ecosystem development · Public signals about innovation's future · Vendor / company viability perception · Potential competitive threats · Future Perception Score (1–5) · Specific actions to improve Future Perception. **Section 8: PIPAS Composite Analysis** — Total PIPAS Score (sum of six sphere scores, max 30) *with the full breakdown — a bare total hides what matters* · Strongest perception spheres *(assets — leverage, don't over-invest)* · Weakest perception spheres · Critical perception risks identified *(perception-specific, not generic)* · Most leveraged improvement opportunities *(small effort, multiple spheres — name the expected movement, e.g. "Risk 2→4 and Trust 2→3 in one move")* · Resource allocation recommendation for perception management · Timeline for perception management actions. **Score fields** carry the number plus a one-line evidence basis. In Mode 6, the basis cites the user's document; fields the document cannot support use the "Not yet evidenced" marker. --- ## Instrument 2 — The 10 T's Application Worksheet (Field Kit, Appendix C.2) For each T in scope, complete four fields: **Current state** · **Target state** · **Specific actions (with owners and timelines)** · **Success metrics.** In prescriptions, complete sheets only for the T's the mapping matrix activates (primary levers of weak spheres); for full 10 T's engagements, complete all ten in canonical order. Always close with the **Composite 10 T's Analysis**: Strongest current dimensions · Weakest current dimensions · Most critical improvements · Resource allocation across dimensions · Coordination requirements (where multiple dimensions interact). --- ## Instrument 3 — 10 T's Action Plan (Field Kit, Template E.2.4) Header: **Innovation** · **Plan Period** [start–end] · **Plan Owner**. Per activated T: current state assessment · target state · specific actions (with owners, deadlines, and resources needed) · success indicators. Then: **Cross-T Integration** (where multiple T's work together, dependencies between T's, what sequencing matters) · **Resource Summary** (people required, budget required, timeline considerations, critical path items) · **Stakeholder Communication Needs** (internal, external, customer). Use this — not free-form advice — whenever the user asks "what do I do about my scores". Populate owners and dates from the conversation; where unknown, propose and mark for confirmation. --- ## Instrument 4 — PIPAS Update (Field Kit, Template E.2.2) For any re-score or "how are we tracking" session. Header: **Innovation** · **Update Date** · **Last Update Date**. **Sphere Score Changes** — all six spheres in canonical order: previous score → current score → change rationale. **Total Score:** [Previous] → [Current]. Then: Most Significant Changes Since Last Update · New Perception Risks Identified · Improvement Actions Working Well · Improvement Actions Not Working as Expected · Adjustments Needed. --- ## Instrument 5 — Stakeholder Perception Interview Guide (Field Kit, Template E.2.3) Deliver **customised to the user's innovation** — replace generic wording with their product, audience, and category. Structure: Interview Setup (stakeholder type · duration 30–45 min · format · recording approach), then seven timed sections — Background · Identity Perception · Value Perception · Trust Perception · Effort and Risk Perception · Future Perception · Closing — each with 3–4 questions in the Field Kit's phrasing, adapted to their context. Offer alongside Mode 2 when the user needs primary perception data, and as Mode 5 pre-work. --- ## Instrument 6 — Perception Management Quarterly Review (Field Kit, Template E.2.5) For portfolio or executive review requests. Five sections, completed: Portfolio Overview (innovations under management, PIPAS scores and changes, resource investment) · Outcomes Summary (adoption metrics changes, stakeholder perception shifts, competitive position changes, financial impact where measurable) · Wins and Failures (most successful and most challenged interventions, key learnings) · Strategic Issues (cross-portfolio patterns, resource allocation recommendations, capability needs, executive recommendations) · Next Quarter Plans (highest-priority initiatives, new innovations entering management, capability investments, resource requirements). --- ## Instrument 7 — Measurement Block (Field Kit, Frameworks E.4.1–E.4.3) Attach to any prescription: for each weak sphere, the sphere-specific measurements from E.4.3 (e.g. Trust: trust source attribution, trust comparison with competitors, trust restoration metrics, trust dimension assessments of capability/intent/integrity; Effort: time-to-first-value, effort comparison, friction point identification, effort distribution across the journey), plus two or three leading indicators (E.4.1: awareness, consideration, trial, commitment) and lagging indicators (E.4.2: adoption, commercial, loyalty, position) matched to the plan period. --- ## Deployment Toolkit Instruments (Audit-Grade Outputs) The PI Deployment Toolkit (48 instruments, Second Edition 2026) extends this library for audit and engagement contexts. Full formats and doctrine live in `toolkit-engagement-arc.md` and `toolkit-diagnostic-craft.md`; complete them under the same Completion Doctrine, labelled with their codes. Routing additions: | Trigger | Deliver (completed) | |---|---| | Audit-grade scoring (Mode 7, or any user working at audit standard) | **W-04 PIPAS Scoring Sheet** — one per audience: score, strongest single piece of evidence, rung, confidence firm/thin, composite with band and arrow | | Prescription inside an audit or quarter plan | **W-09 Intervention Brief** ×2 max (sphere, score, audience, one lever, verbatim evidence, one-sentence move, named owner, review date ≤90 days, metric baseline→target, kill-or-adapt criterion) + **W-16 Roadmap** for multi-quarter sequencing | | Scoring disagreement or a contested sphere | **W-13 Dissent Log & Monitoring Hooks** — falsifiable, dated triggers with owners | | Leadership or board communication | **A-04 Executive Readout** — headline with arrow, the shape, three formula findings, the two moves, the ask, probabilistic register enforced | | Quarterly or periodic re-assessment in an engagement | **M-03 Re-Audit Comparison** (same audience, same anchors) with verdicts on last quarter's briefs; pair with **E.2.2** for Field Kit members | | Metric selection for any intervention | **M-01 Committed Metrics table** — one leading + one lagging per target sphere, baseline and target written before the move starts | | Multi-stakeholder or portfolio work | **W-05 Sphere × Audience Matrix** — lowest cell named, veto question answered | | Strategy-framework conversations (Christensen / Blue Ocean / Chasm) | The relevant **I-01 / I-02 / I-03** overlay, completed with the user's content; **I-04** when choosing between lenses | Field Kit instruments remain the default for individual practitioners and students; Toolkit instruments take over whenever the work is an audit, an engagement, or a quarter under management. Where wording differs, the published Toolkit and Field Kit are authoritative over this summary.