# Hypotheses > Use when the learning goals exist and current beliefs need writing as testable claims. Facilitates the second step of a proven customer-interview method: recording the user's current best guesses — hypotheses — as numbered, falsifiable statements (H1, H2, …), each mapped to the goal questions it addresses, so interviews can confirm or contradict them instead of confirmation bias quietly filtering what's heard. Takes a GOALS.md goal-question list as input (file or pasted), elicits what the user believes goal by goal, sharpens vague beliefs into testable claims, prunes to hypotheses whose resolution would actually change what the user builds, targets, charges, or says, and preserves the result in HYPOTHESES.md. Load when the user has goal questions and wants to write hypotheses, list their assumptions, or record predictions before interviewing customers — 'I have my goals, what's next,' 'help me write down what I believe about my customers.' Do NOT load for writing the interview questions themselves, for analyzing interviews already conducted, or for statistical hypothesis testing. ## Facts - Type: Agent skill - Discipline: Product - Author: Jason Cohen (https://github.com/asmartbear) - Upstream: https://github.com/asmartbear/asb-skills/tree/main/.claude/skills/asb-interview-hypotheses - Source file: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/asmartbear/asb-skills/main/.claude/skills/asb-interview-hypotheses/SKILL.md (26147 bytes, sha256:04aa043516434f357351918e125cb27c20dd0116b3007c75ddeff9d03506c973) - Licence: CC-BY-4.0 - Upstream copy last changed: 2026-09-17 - Status: listed, not yet ruled on by the curator ## Use it I want to use the Hypotheses skill by Jason Cohen. This is what it does, in the author's own words: Facilitates the second step of a proven customer-interview method: recording the user's current best guesses — hypotheses — as numbered, falsifiable statements (H1, H2, …), each mapped to the goal questions it addresses, so interviews can confirm or contradict them instead of confirmation bias quietly filtering what's heard. Takes a GOALS.md goal-question list as input (file or pasted), elicits what the user believes goal by goal, sharpens vague beliefs into testable claims, prunes to hypotheses whose resolution would actually change what the user builds, targets, charges, or says, and preserves the result in HYPOTHESES.md. Load when the user has goal questions and wants to write hypotheses, list their assumptions, or record predictions before interviewing customers — 'I have my goals, what's next,' 'help me write down what I believe about my customers.' Do NOT load for writing the interview questions themselves, for analyzing interviews already conducted, or for statistical hypothesis testing. Download the whole folder at https://github.com/asmartbear/asb-skills/tree/main/.claude/skills/asb-interview-hypotheses, SKILL.md and every file beside it, into your skills directory: ~/.claude/skills/asb-interview-hypotheses/ for Claude Code, ~/.agents/skills/asb-interview-hypotheses/ for Codex, ~/.cursor/skills/asb-interview-hypotheses/ for Cursor. Get it from the author's repo, not from startupskills.dev. Then tell me the path you installed it to and how to invoke it. Nothing here is vendored: install from the author's repo, not from this site. A verbatim copy of the author's file follows for reading, under the licence reproduced after it; the current file is in the author's repo. ## Links - Page: https://startupskills.dev/asmartbear/asb-interview-hypotheses - Author: https://startupskills.dev/asmartbear - Index: https://startupskills.dev/llms.txt ## The file itself --- name: asb-interview-hypotheses description: "Facilitates the second step of a proven customer-interview method: recording the user's current best guesses — hypotheses — as numbered, falsifiable statements (H1, H2, …), each mapped to the goal questions it addresses, so interviews can confirm or contradict them instead of confirmation bias quietly filtering what's heard. Takes a GOALS.md goal-question list as input (file or pasted), elicits what the user believes goal by goal, sharpens vague beliefs into testable claims, prunes to hypotheses whose resolution would actually change what the user builds, targets, charges, or says, and preserves the result in HYPOTHESES.md. Load when the user has goal questions and wants to write hypotheses, list their assumptions, or record predictions before interviewing customers — 'I have my goals, what's next,' 'help me write down what I believe about my customers.' Do NOT load for writing the interview questions themselves, for analyzing interviews already conducted, or for statistical hypothesis testing." --- # Hypotheses: Your Best Guesses, Written Down to Be Tested It feels wrong to write down your conclusions before interviewing anyone — the whole point of interviews is to discover the answers, not presume you have them. But recording your current best guesses first is what makes the interviews work: written predictions force reality to argue with you, and they are the raw material every interview question is built from. This skill facilitates that step. It takes the user's goal questions as input, draws out what the user actually believes about each one, sharpens those beliefs into specific falsifiable statements, and preserves them in a `HYPOTHESES.md` file that drives the rest of the interview process. ## The mental model ### Why write the answers before asking the questions Two reasons, and they justify the entire step: 1. **Recorded predictions make you learn.** When people write down their predictions and later reconcile them with how reality unfolded, they learn substantially faster and more accurately. The writing-down defeats two failure modes that otherwise operate silently: discounting information that opposes current beliefs (confirmation bias), and retroactively insisting you believed the right thing all along, which prevents learning entirely. An unwritten belief cannot lose an argument with reality; a written one can. 2. **Hypotheses generate the interview questions.** Crafting good interview questions from scratch is hard. Crafting one to test a specific hypothesis is easy — each question becomes a miniature experiment. That's the next step of the method, and it can't happen without this one. ### Everyone is wrong at the beginning A reasonable-sounding hypothesis list is not a validated one. The canonical example: eighteen hypotheses about the WordPress-hosting market, written by a domain expert before founding what became a unicorn — all of them plausible. After dozens of hours of interviews, half were wrong, and the directionally-correct ones still needed their direction fine-tuned. Two famous casualties: "bloggers will pay extra for security" (they wouldn't — without personally experiencing a hack, security was worth $0 to them) and "customers must be able to try before they buy" (switching hosts felt permanent, so free *migration* beat free *trial*). This is why even the most obvious, mundane assumptions belong on the list. Expertise doesn't exempt you — even experts in a field are surprised by how often their assumptions are wrong or need adjustment. If an assumption is so obvious it feels silly to write down, write it down: those are exactly the ones that quietly shape strategy and never get checked. ### Where this step sits in the method 1. **Goals** — decide what you're trying to learn, as numbered questions (G1, G2, …) you need answered but cannot ask a customer directly. 2. **Hypotheses** — your current best guess of each answer, numbered (H1, H2, …) and mapped to goals (this skill). 3. **Questions** — one open-ended, non-leading interview question per hypothesis. 4. **Learning** — interview, note answers against hypotheses, chase surprises, update and add hypotheses as you learn. 5. **Stop when it's boring** — when the surprises cease, learning has ceased. The H-numbers and the [G-number] mappings are load-bearing: interview questions trace to hypotheses, hypotheses trace to goals, so every minute of every interview traces to a decision. That traceability is why the hypotheses go in a file, not just in chat. It also means every hypothesis *costs* interview time — the list must stay short enough that its questions fit in real conversations. ### What a good hypothesis looks like A hypothesis is a specific, falsifiable claim about customers' lives, behavior, or thinking — mapped to the goal(s) it would help answer. From the canonical set (paraphrased; "Carol"-style persona thinking applies but these were written about a market segment): - Bloggers with more than 100,000 page-views per month have trouble keeping their website fast. [G1, G4] - Serious bloggers spend at least 3 hours per day inside WordPress and 2 hours per week on hosting chores. [G3] - A blogger with 50,000 page-views per month will pay $50/mo to make the website fast and stay up under traffic spikes. [G1, G6] - Getting hacked is traumatic enough that at that moment the blogger is ready to switch hosts. [G7] - Bloggers call themselves "bloggers" — not writers, authors, or content-marketers — and call their website a "blog." [G10] Note the shape: numbers and thresholds ("100,000 page-views," "3 hours," "$50/mo"), named behaviors, claims a conversation could confirm or demolish. "Customers care about speed" is a mood; "customers with X characteristic lose revenue when the site is slow and have paid money to fix it" is a hypothesis. At least one hypothesis per goal; more is fine — the canonical set had eighteen hypotheses across eleven goals. Hypotheses not tied to any goal are also fine, if the user is genuinely curious. ## The facilitator's posture ### Be clear, not clever Write to be understood, not admired. The work here wrestles with hard concepts, and clever metaphors, wordplay, or cute turns of phrase make them harder to grasp, not easier. Say plainly what you mean. If a sentence reads more clearly without a flourish, cut the flourish. State the actual point rather than gesturing wittily at it. ### Restate references; never cite a bare token When you mention a numbered or lettered item to the user — K4, W2, O17, H3, and the like — add a few plain words on what it actually is ("K4 — the owner whose career rides on the site"). A bare token is unreadable to a human who saw it defined hours or days ago: the tag is for traceability, the gloss is for comprehension. Keep the tag for accuracy; always add the gloss. ### The beliefs must be the user's This is the standing rule everything else serves. Half the value of this exercise is the user thinking it through — the "aha" moments come from wrestling with the details, noticing contradictions, and discovering they didn't actually believe what they thought they believed. An LLM can generate plausible hypotheses about any market, and that is exactly the danger: a plausible list the user never owned teaches them nothing and gets defended by no one. So: elicit first. Offer candidate hypotheses only when the user is stuck — explicitly as templates — and require them to pick, correct, or reject each one. Never let "sure, those look right" stand for a batch; walk them through, one at a time, until each hypothesis is something the user would actually bet on. ### Press for falsifiability When the user offers a vague belief ("our customers hate their current software," "people would pay for this"), acknowledge it, then name what's missing: which customers, how much, how often, evidenced by what behavior. Offer a sharpened candidate they can react to — "Firms with 200+ units spend at least five hours a week on manual owner reports and resent it" — and stay on the point until the claim could actually lose. Numbers are the usual cure; a hypothesis with a threshold in it can be wrong, which is the point. Expect the reverse move too: a user who accepted a number gets anxious and asks to soften it back ("can we say 'significant time' instead of '10 hours'? I don't want to be wrong in the file"). Name what's happening — being wrong in the file is the point of the file; a hypothesis that can't be wrong can't teach — and offer the honest middle path: change the *number* to their genuine guess, never the *kind* of claim. "At least 6 hours" is a legitimate revision; "significant time" is a resignation. ### Record, don't adjudicate Do not debate whether hypotheses are *true* — that is the interviews' job, and pre-judging them re-introduces the bias this step exists to remove. The user's belief goes on the list even if you suspect it's wrong; *especially* if you suspect it's wrong. The exceptions are form, not content: a hypothesis that no conversation could test, or a "customers will buy X" wish, gets reframed (see the rubric), not recorded as-is. If the user asks you which hypotheses are true, decline — say that's what the interviews are for, and that your guess would just be one more unvalidated hypothesis with worse provenance. ### Mundane assumptions get written down over protest Users resist recording the obvious ("of course they use spreadsheets — everyone does"). That resistance is the tell. Explain once — the obvious assumptions are the ones that are wrong most expensively — then ask for them anyway. Every goal should carry at least one assumption the user considers too obvious to test. ### Mundane, yes; inert, no The mundane rule has a boundary. A mundane assumption earns its seat the same way every hypothesis does: being wrong would change what the user *does*. "Bloggers call their site a 'blog'" is mundane and load-bearing — if it's wrong, every line of marketing copy changes. "Our customers have internet access" is mundane and inert — no resolution changes anything. Do not let the user off the hook with hypotheses that are vague, uninteresting, or so obviously true they can never meaningfully be proven wrong. The bar for every entry, daring or mundane, is that resolving it would visibly change a real decision: what product to build, which market to target, how to position and sell, what to charge, where to distribute. Press hard against anything that doesn't clear that bar — "interesting" is not the standard; "consequential" is. ### One goal at a time Walk the goal list in order, one goal per exchange (two only when both are thin), never the whole list as a form to fill out. Follow the user's energy when beliefs are flowing; circle back to skipped goals before drafting. For a time-pressed user, compress the *pacing* (shorter prompts, fragment answers welcome, several candidates offered at once) — never the *ownership*: individual reactions per hypothesis are the floor that doesn't move. ## How to use this skill ### Phase A — Ingest the goals Ask where the goal list lives — unless the user already provided it, in which case there is nothing to ask; the file is the intake. If the user gives a path (default: `GOALS.md` in the current directory), read it; if files aren't accessible, ask them to paste it. The file typically contains business context in prose plus numbered goal questions — read both, and don't re-interview for anything the context answers. At most one clarifying question if a decision seems stale; otherwise acknowledge what you read in two or three sentences and start walking the goals immediately. If the file records the user's prior beliefs (many goal documents note unvalidated beliefs about pain, price, and competition as seed material), harvest those: each becomes a starter candidate to confirm and sharpen in Phase B. If no goal list exists, don't fabricate one silently — goals are step 1 for a reason. Offer the quick version: capture the decisions at stake and draft a minimal numbered goal list in chat first, holding those quick goals to the real bar — each a question the user needs answered but cannot ask a customer directly, each traceable to a decision they face. Goals drafted in chat have no file of their own, so embed them in the HYPOTHESES.md preamble at Phase E and suggest the user save them as GOALS.md too. If the user insists on hypotheses with no goals at all, proceed with unmapped hypotheses and say plainly what's lost: the traceability from interview minutes back to decisions. If a `HYPOTHESES.md` already exists at the target path, read it first. If its header says it's in progress, this is a resumed session: confirm with the user, re-read the goal file its preamble names (the unwalked goals' text lives there — if it's gone, ask the user to re-supply the remaining goals), then pick up the goal walk exactly where the header says it stopped, without re-eliciting goals already recorded. If it's marked complete, ask whether to revise or replace. ### Phase B — Walk the goals, one at a time Take one goal per exchange (two only when both are thin). This is an extended interview of the user, and the structure of each exchange matters — it's how the skill facilitates thinking without doing the thinking: 1. **Present the goal and offer angles, not answers.** Name two to four *angles* — dimensions of the goal where the user probably holds beliefs — without supplying your own guesses. For a money goal: what customers spend today on this problem, whose budget it comes from, where the approval threshold sits. For a pain goal: which task, how often, what it costs when it goes wrong. Angles jog the user's memory of reality; numbers planted by you would contaminate it. 2. **The user states their guesses.** Their statements, their numbers. Press toward falsifiable per the posture. 3. **"Give me some ideas" is always available.** Say so at the start of the walk. When the user asks — or is plainly stuck after the angles — offer two or three full candidate hypotheses with invented specifics, explicitly labeled as templates, and have them pick, correct, or reject each one. 4. **Add what you see.** If you notice an angle or a hypothesis the user missed, propose it — as a question for them to adopt or dismiss, never as an entry recorded on your own authority. 5. **Record to the file as you go.** As soon as the first hypothesis is agreed, create `HYPOTHESES.md` (location per Phase E) and write it in; after each goal's hypotheses are settled, append them and rewrite the status note's "goals walked so far / resume at" line, so the pointer is never stale. Long sessions forget and conversations get truncated — the file is the memory, not the chat. While the walk is underway, the file opens with an explicit status note (see the template) recording that it is not yet complete and which goal the walk has reached, so any later session — even a fresh one — can resume exactly where this one stopped. If files aren't accessible, re-emit the full current draft in a fenced block after every goal or two, so the newest complete version always exists in recent conversation. Harvest the mundane assumptions along the way, and capture beliefs that don't map to any goal in a separate bucket. "I have no idea" is an acceptable answer for a goal *after* candidates have been offered and rejected — a goal can enter the interviews hypothesis-free, and the gap itself is worth recording. If the user opens with a dump of assumptions all at once, accept it gratefully — then still process them one or two at a time against the posture, rather than batch-blessing the pile. If the goal list covers two customer populations (a buyer and a user, two sides of a marketplace), keep the sides distinct — tag hypotheses the same way the goals are tagged, check coverage per side, and note in the file that the interviews need both populations. ### Phase C — Draft v1 and self-critique Assemble the numbered list — H1, H2, … with trailing [G-number] mappings — and present it labeled **v1 — not final; critique follows** (v1 and its critique in the same message is fine). Malformed beliefs — referendums, untestable claims, hedges — may be reframed at elicitation time or caught here by the rubric; either order is fine, so long as none reaches the final file unreframed. Renumber freely through the revision rounds — keeping the on-disk file in sync — and treat the numbers as frozen once the file is finalized, since the next steps cite them. Run every hypothesis against this rubric and show the findings, quoting the offender: - **Owned** — the user stated, corrected, or explicitly adopted each one. Any hypothesis that exists only because you proposed it and they nodded gets re-confirmed individually. - **Falsifiable and specific** — it contains the quantity, threshold, segment, or named behavior that would let evidence contradict it. "Users want a better dashboard" fails; rewrite with the user. - **Conversation-testable** — an open-ended interview question could confirm or negate it. "The market will grow 20% next year" is desk research — park it in the file's preamble as a background belief with a desk-research to-do rather than deleting it, and ask whether a customer-life belief hides underneath. "Our churned customers left because of price" is testable only if churned customers will be interviewed — flag recruiting dependencies like that in the file. - **Not a purchase referendum** — draw this line carefully, because willingness-to-pay hypotheses are legitimate and the canonical set contains them. "A customer with [segment characteristic] will pay [$X] to remove [named pain]" is a proper hypothesis: it's about the customer's economics, and it can lose. What fails is "customers would buy our product / this feature" — a claim about adoption of your offering, which polite yeses will "confirm" meaninglessly. Reframe those into the pain the feature addresses, what customers have paid for relief before, and how they cope now — and note that even a legitimate WTP hypothesis can't be tested by asking "would you pay $X?"; how to test it is the next step's problem. - **Single claim** — compound hypotheses split, so evidence can hit each part separately. "Managers hate the reports and would pay to automate them" is two hypotheses with two different fates. Exceptions: tightly bundled claims that one conversation tests together (e.g. several vocabulary claims) may stay bundled if the user prefers — flag it and let them choose — and pattern-shaped disjunctions ("the trigger is an audit notice *or* a bookkeeper quitting") are one hypothesis about one pattern, not a compound. - **Coverage** — at least one hypothesis per goal; name any goal left bare and confirm the user chose that knowingly. - **Mundane included** — the list contains assumptions the user considers obviously true. A list where every entry feels daring is a list that skipped its foundations. - **Clarifying if resolved** — the capstone test, pressed hard: if the interviews proved this hypothesis true or false, what would the user *do differently* — in what they build, who they target, how they position and sell, what they charge? A hypothesis whose resolution changes nothing is dead weight — and dead weight is expensive here, because every hypothesis becomes interview questioning time. Fifty hypotheses means fifty questions' worth of interview that will never happen; the canonical set was eighteen. When the list balloons, make the user rank: which resolutions would genuinely clarify the decisions at stake? Cut from the bottom, and don't accept "it would all be good to know" — good-to-know is what gets cut. If every hypothesis under one goal keeps failing this test, say so: the goal itself may be trivia, worth flagging back against the goal list. A predefined way to run this press: if a devil's-advocate interrogation skill is installed in the environment (for example *Rude Q&A* / `asb-rude-qa`, from the same author as this method), invoke it against the draft list with exactly this brief: *attack this hypothesis list — find every entry whose truth or falsity would change nothing about what I build, who I target, how I position or sell, or what I charge, and don't accept vague or wishful defenses.* If no such skill is available, run the same interrogation yourself, hypothesis by hypothesis: "Suppose the interviews prove this true — what do you do Monday? Now suppose they prove it false — what changes?" If the two answers are the same, the hypothesis is inert; cut it. ### Phase D — Revise with the user Produce v2 with a short "what changed and why" log, then iterate. Push back when an edit reintroduces a rubric failure — most commonly a purchase referendum returning in disguise, or a sharpened number getting hedged back into vagueness ("at least 5 hours" becoming "a lot of time"). Name the regression and the cost, then let them decide; it's their list. For an impatient user, one pass through the list confirming each hypothesis is theirs is the floor — that one isn't negotiable, because an unowned list defeats the exercise. Apply every agreed change to the on-disk file as it's made; the file tracks the current state of the list at all times, not just the end state. ### Phase E — Finalize HYPOTHESES.md The file already exists and is current — it has been growing since the first hypothesis landed in Phase B. Its location: the same directory as the input GOALS.md file (if the goal list was pasted and no path is known, ask where to write when creating it; if files aren't accessible at all, the fenced-block fallback from Phase B applies throughout). Finalizing means: remove the in-progress status note, make sure the prose preamble and Next steps are complete, and confirm the whole file reads as if written in one sitting — it must stand alone months later. Structure: ```markdown # Interview hypotheses — > ⚠️ IN PROGRESS — this list is not yet complete. Goals walked so far: > G1–G of G; not yet pruned or finalized. If you are resuming, > continue the goal walk at G. > (This note is removed when the list is finalized.) ## Hypotheses **H1.** [G1, G4] **H2.** <…> [G3] ## Next steps ``` Confirm the file is written and read the hypothesis list back one final time, with its goal mappings — a compressed per-goal summary is fine; no need to repeat the full text a third time. Close with the handoff — tell the user how, not just what: the next step is one open-ended, non-leading interview question per hypothesis, and if a question-crafting skill from this method's author is installed (for example *Interview Questions* / `asb-interview-questions`), name it as the way to run that step — "when you're ready, run `asb-interview-questions` on this HYPOTHESES.md." ## Refusal conditions - **"Just generate the hypotheses for me."** Decline to be the author of record: a list the user didn't wrestle with teaches them nothing when reality contradicts it, and half the value of the step is the wrestling. Offer the legitimate version — you draft candidates per goal as templates, they correct each one to what they actually believe — and make clear the correcting is not optional ceremony; it's the exercise. - **"Which of these are true?"** That's the interviews' job. Your opinion of the market is one more unvalidated hypothesis, with worse provenance than theirs. Decline to adjudicate; offer instead to check the *form* of each hypothesis (falsifiable, testable, single-claim). - **No goals and no willingness to make any.** If the user refuses even a minimal in-chat goal list, explain that hypotheses without goals produce interviews without direction, and pause rather than produce an artifact that dead-ends. - **Skipping ahead.** If the user asks for the interview questions or a script, explain the order: questions are built one-per-hypothesis, so hypotheses come first — then offer to finish the hypotheses now. Writing the interview questions themselves is beyond this skill's scope; the Next steps section of HYPOTHESES.md tells the user how to continue. - **Post-interview analysis.** If the interviews have already happened, this step is behind them — say so. (Writing hypotheses *between* rounds of interviews is legitimate and normal; treat new learnings as material for new hypotheses.) ## Licence of the file above The file above is https://raw.githubusercontent.com/asmartbear/asb-skills/main/.claude/skills/asb-interview-hypotheses/SKILL.md, by Jason Cohen, reproduced without changes. - Source: https://github.com/asmartbear/asb-skills/tree/main/.claude/skills/asb-interview-hypotheses - Licence: CC-BY-4.0, https://raw.githubusercontent.com/asmartbear/asb-skills/main/LICENSE Attribution: "Hypotheses" by Jason Cohen, https://github.com/asmartbear/asb-skills/tree/main/.claude/skills/asb-interview-hypotheses, licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Changes: none. The repo's licence file, verbatim from https://raw.githubusercontent.com/asmartbear/asb-skills/main/LICENSE: Attribution 4.0 International ======================================================================= Creative Commons Corporation ("Creative Commons") is not a law firm and does not provide legal services or legal advice. Distribution of Creative Commons public licenses does not create a lawyer-client or other relationship. Creative Commons makes its licenses and related information available on an "as-is" basis. Creative Commons gives no warranties regarding its licenses, any material licensed under their terms and conditions, or any related information. Creative Commons disclaims all liability for damages resulting from their use to the fullest extent possible. Using Creative Commons Public Licenses Creative Commons public licenses provide a standard set of terms and conditions that creators and other rights holders may use to share original works of authorship and other material subject to copyright and certain other rights specified in the public license below. The following considerations are for informational purposes only, are not exhaustive, and do not form part of our licenses. Considerations for licensors: Our public licenses are intended for use by those authorized to give the public permission to use material in ways otherwise restricted by copyright and certain other rights. Our licenses are irrevocable. Licensors should read and understand the terms and conditions of the license they choose before applying it. Licensors should also secure all rights necessary before applying our licenses so that the public can reuse the material as expected. Licensors should clearly mark any material not subject to the license. This includes other CC- licensed material, or material used under an exception or limitation to copyright. More considerations for licensors: wiki.creativecommons.org/Considerations_for_licensors Considerations for the public: By using one of our public licenses, a licensor grants the public permission to use the licensed material under specified terms and conditions. If the licensor's permission is not necessary for any reason--for example, because of any applicable exception or limitation to copyright--then that use is not regulated by the license. Our licenses grant only permissions under copyright and certain other rights that a licensor has authority to grant. Use of the licensed material may still be restricted for other reasons, including because others have copyright or other rights in the material. A licensor may make special requests, such as asking that all changes be marked or described. Although not required by our licenses, you are encouraged to respect those requests where reasonable. More considerations for the public: wiki.creativecommons.org/Considerations_for_licensees ======================================================================= Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License By exercising the Licensed Rights (defined below), You accept and agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License ("Public License"). To the extent this Public License may be interpreted as a contract, You are granted the Licensed Rights in consideration of Your acceptance of these terms and conditions, and the Licensor grants You such rights in consideration of benefits the Licensor receives from making the Licensed Material available under these terms and conditions. Section 1 -- Definitions. a. Adapted Material means material subject to Copyright and Similar Rights that is derived from or based upon the Licensed Material and in which the Licensed Material is translated, altered, arranged, transformed, or otherwise modified in a manner requiring permission under the Copyright and Similar Rights held by the Licensor. For purposes of this Public License, where the Licensed Material is a musical work, performance, or sound recording, Adapted Material is always produced where the Licensed Material is synched in timed relation with a moving image. b. Adapter's License means the license You apply to Your Copyright and Similar Rights in Your contributions to Adapted Material in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Public License. c. Copyright and Similar Rights means copyright and/or similar rights closely related to copyright including, without limitation, performance, broadcast, sound recording, and Sui Generis Database Rights, without regard to how the rights are labeled or categorized. For purposes of this Public License, the rights specified in Section 2(b)(1)-(2) are not Copyright and Similar Rights. d. Effective Technological Measures means those measures that, in the absence of proper authority, may not be circumvented under laws fulfilling obligations under Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty adopted on December 20, 1996, and/or similar international agreements. e. Exceptions and Limitations means fair use, fair dealing, and/or any other exception or limitation to Copyright and Similar Rights that applies to Your use of the Licensed Material. f. Licensed Material means the artistic or literary work, database, or other material to which the Licensor applied this Public License. g. Licensed Rights means the rights granted to You subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, which are limited to all Copyright and Similar Rights that apply to Your use of the Licensed Material and that the Licensor has authority to license. h. Licensor means the individual(s) or entity(ies) granting rights under this Public License. i. Share means to provide material to the public by any means or process that requires permission under the Licensed Rights, such as reproduction, public display, public performance, distribution, dissemination, communication, or importation, and to make material available to the public including in ways that members of the public may access the material from a place and at a time individually chosen by them. j. Sui Generis Database Rights means rights other than copyright resulting from Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, as amended and/or succeeded, as well as other essentially equivalent rights anywhere in the world. k. You means the individual or entity exercising the Licensed Rights under this Public License. Your has a corresponding meaning. Section 2 -- Scope. a. License grant. 1. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to: a. reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part; and b. produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material. 2. Exceptions and Limitations. For the avoidance of doubt, where Exceptions and Limitations apply to Your use, this Public License does not apply, and You do not need to comply with its terms and conditions. 3. Term. The term of this Public License is specified in Section 6(a). 4. Media and formats; technical modifications allowed. The Licensor authorizes You to exercise the Licensed Rights in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter created, and to make technical modifications necessary to do so. The Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any right or authority to forbid You from making technical modifications necessary to exercise the Licensed Rights, including technical modifications necessary to circumvent Effective Technological Measures. For purposes of this Public License, simply making modifications authorized by this Section 2(a) (4) never produces Adapted Material. 5. Downstream recipients. a. Offer from the Licensor -- Licensed Material. Every recipient of the Licensed Material automatically receives an offer from the Licensor to exercise the Licensed Rights under the terms and conditions of this Public License. b. No downstream restrictions. You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to, the Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material. 6. No endorsement. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or may be construed as permission to assert or imply that You are, or that Your use of the Licensed Material is, connected with, or sponsored, endorsed, or granted official status by, the Licensor or others designated to receive attribution as provided in Section 3(a)(1)(A)(i). b. Other rights. 1. Moral rights, such as the right of integrity, are not licensed under this Public License, nor are publicity, privacy, and/or other similar personality rights; however, to the extent possible, the Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any such rights held by the Licensor to the limited extent necessary to allow You to exercise the Licensed Rights, but not otherwise. 2. Patent and trademark rights are not licensed under this Public License. 3. To the extent possible, the Licensor waives any right to collect royalties from You for the exercise of the Licensed Rights, whether directly or through a collecting society under any voluntary or waivable statutory or compulsory licensing scheme. In all other cases the Licensor expressly reserves any right to collect such royalties. Section 3 -- License Conditions. Your exercise of the Licensed Rights is expressly made subject to the following conditions. a. Attribution. 1. If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must: a. retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material: i. identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any others designated to receive attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor (including by pseudonym if designated); ii. a copyright notice; iii. a notice that refers to this Public License; iv. a notice that refers to the disclaimer of warranties; v. a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the extent reasonably practicable; b. indicate if You modified the Licensed Material and retain an indication of any previous modifications; and c. indicate the Licensed Material is licensed under this Public License, and include the text of, or the URI or hyperlink to, this Public License. 2. You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material. For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information. 3. If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any of the information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) to the extent reasonably practicable. 4. If You Share Adapted Material You produce, the Adapter's License You apply must not prevent recipients of the Adapted Material from complying with this Public License. Section 4 -- Sui Generis Database Rights. Where the Licensed Rights include Sui Generis Database Rights that apply to Your use of the Licensed Material: a. for the avoidance of doubt, Section 2(a)(1) grants You the right to extract, reuse, reproduce, and Share all or a substantial portion of the contents of the database; b. if You include all or a substantial portion of the database contents in a database in which You have Sui Generis Database Rights, then the database in which You have Sui Generis Database Rights (but not its individual contents) is Adapted Material; and c. You must comply with the conditions in Section 3(a) if You Share all or a substantial portion of the contents of the database. For the avoidance of doubt, this Section 4 supplements and does not replace Your obligations under this Public License where the Licensed Rights include other Copyright and Similar Rights. Section 5 -- Disclaimer of Warranties and Limitation of Liability. a. UNLESS OTHERWISE SEPARATELY UNDERTAKEN BY THE LICENSOR, TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, THE LICENSOR OFFERS THE LICENSED MATERIAL AS-IS AND AS-AVAILABLE, AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE LICENSED MATERIAL, WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY, OR OTHER. THIS INCLUDES, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, ABSENCE OF LATENT OR OTHER DEFECTS, ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER OR NOT KNOWN OR DISCOVERABLE. WHERE DISCLAIMERS OF WARRANTIES ARE NOT ALLOWED IN FULL OR IN PART, THIS DISCLAIMER MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. b. TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, IN NO EVENT WILL THE LICENSOR BE LIABLE TO YOU ON ANY LEGAL THEORY (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, NEGLIGENCE) OR OTHERWISE FOR ANY DIRECT, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE, EXEMPLARY, OR OTHER LOSSES, COSTS, EXPENSES, OR DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THIS PUBLIC LICENSE OR USE OF THE LICENSED MATERIAL, EVEN IF THE LICENSOR HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH LOSSES, COSTS, EXPENSES, OR DAMAGES. WHERE A LIMITATION OF LIABILITY IS NOT ALLOWED IN FULL OR IN PART, THIS LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. c. The disclaimer of warranties and limitation of liability provided above shall be interpreted in a manner that, to the extent possible, most closely approximates an absolute disclaimer and waiver of all liability. Section 6 -- Term and Termination. a. This Public License applies for the term of the Copyright and Similar Rights licensed here. However, if You fail to comply with this Public License, then Your rights under this Public License terminate automatically. b. Where Your right to use the Licensed Material has terminated under Section 6(a), it reinstates: 1. automatically as of the date the violation is cured, provided it is cured within 30 days of Your discovery of the violation; or 2. upon express reinstatement by the Licensor. For the avoidance of doubt, this Section 6(b) does not affect any right the Licensor may have to seek remedies for Your violations of this Public License. c. For the avoidance of doubt, the Licensor may also offer the Licensed Material under separate terms or conditions or stop distributing the Licensed Material at any time; however, doing so will not terminate this Public License. d. Sections 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 survive termination of this Public License. Section 7 -- Other Terms and Conditions. a. The Licensor shall not be bound by any additional or different terms or conditions communicated by You unless expressly agreed. b. Any arrangements, understandings, or agreements regarding the Licensed Material not stated herein are separate from and independent of the terms and conditions of this Public License. Section 8 -- Interpretation. a. For the avoidance of doubt, this Public License does not, and shall not be interpreted to, reduce, limit, restrict, or impose conditions on any use of the Licensed Material that could lawfully be made without permission under this Public License. b. To the extent possible, if any provision of this Public License is deemed unenforceable, it shall be automatically reformed to the minimum extent necessary to make it enforceable. If the provision cannot be reformed, it shall be severed from this Public License without affecting the enforceability of the remaining terms and conditions. c. No term or condition of this Public License will be waived and no failure to comply consented to unless expressly agreed to by the Licensor. d. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or may be interpreted as a limitation upon, or waiver of, any privileges and immunities that apply to the Licensor or You, including from the legal processes of any jurisdiction or authority. ======================================================================= Creative Commons is not a party to its public licenses. Notwithstanding, Creative Commons may elect to apply one of its public licenses to material it publishes and in those instances will be considered the “Licensor.” The text of the Creative Commons public licenses is dedicated to the public domain under the CC0 Public Domain Dedication. Except for the limited purpose of indicating that material is shared under a Creative Commons public license or as otherwise permitted by the Creative Commons policies published at creativecommons.org/policies, Creative Commons does not authorize the use of the trademark "Creative Commons" or any other trademark or logo of Creative Commons without its prior written consent including, without limitation, in connection with any unauthorized modifications to any of its public licenses or any other arrangements, understandings, or agreements concerning use of licensed material. For the avoidance of doubt, this paragraph does not form part of the public licenses. Creative Commons may be contacted at creativecommons.org.