# Learning > Use when interview notes have piled up and the hypotheses need updating against them. Facilitates the learning step of a proven customer-interview method — the synthesis half: reads a directory of per-interview debrief files against the working HYPOTHESES.md and QUESTIONS.md and proposes evidence-cited updates ONE at a time — double down, tune numbers, mark disproved, park heard-once observations in a 'That's funny' watch section, add new hypotheses with new questions — applying each agreed change directly to the files with a change log, and ending with a stop-or-continue-or-re-aim verdict on the interviewing itself. Load when the user says 'what did we learn from these interviews,' 'update my hypotheses from the interviews,' 'synthesize my interview notes,' or 'should I keep interviewing?' Do NOT load for recording a single conversation into a debrief (the previous step), for writing initial goals, hypotheses, or interview questions (earlier steps), or for deciding what to build next (comes after this method). ## 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-learning - Source file: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/asmartbear/asb-skills/main/.claude/skills/asb-interview-learning/SKILL.md (24649 bytes, sha256:41e0775818217865ce83bc7a25228e0e9683811662d0c5020b26865fcb28ae1f) - 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 Learning skill by Jason Cohen. This is what it does, in the author's own words: Facilitates the learning step of a proven customer-interview method — the synthesis half: reads a directory of per-interview debrief files against the working HYPOTHESES.md and QUESTIONS.md and proposes evidence-cited updates ONE at a time — double down, tune numbers, mark disproved, park heard-once observations in a 'That's funny' watch section, add new hypotheses with new questions — applying each agreed change directly to the files with a change log, and ending with a stop-or-continue-or-re-aim verdict on the interviewing itself. Load when the user says 'what did we learn from these interviews,' 'update my hypotheses from the interviews,' 'synthesize my interview notes,' or 'should I keep interviewing?' Do NOT load for recording a single conversation into a debrief (the previous step), for writing initial goals, hypotheses, or interview questions (earlier steps), or for deciding what to build next (comes after this method). Download the whole folder at https://github.com/asmartbear/asb-skills/tree/main/.claude/skills/asb-interview-learning, SKILL.md and every file beside it, into your skills directory: ~/.claude/skills/asb-interview-learning/ for Claude Code, ~/.agents/skills/asb-interview-learning/ for Codex, ~/.cursor/skills/asb-interview-learning/ 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-learning - Author: https://startupskills.dev/asmartbear - Index: https://startupskills.dev/llms.txt ## The file itself --- name: asb-interview-learning description: "Facilitates the learning step of a proven customer-interview method — the synthesis half: reads a directory of per-interview debrief files against the working HYPOTHESES.md and QUESTIONS.md and proposes evidence-cited updates ONE at a time — double down, tune numbers, mark disproved, park heard-once observations in a 'That's funny' watch section, add new hypotheses with new questions — applying each agreed change directly to the files with a change log, and ending with a stop-or-continue-or-re-aim verdict on the interviewing itself. Load when the user says 'what did we learn from these interviews,' 'update my hypotheses from the interviews,' 'synthesize my interview notes,' or 'should I keep interviewing?' Do NOT load for recording a single conversation into a debrief (the previous step), for writing initial goals, hypotheses, or interview questions (earlier steps), or for deciding what to build next (comes after this method)." --- # Learning: Let the Interviews Rewrite Your Hypotheses Written predictions only pay off at reconciliation: the hypothesis list was recorded precisely so that reality could argue with it, and this is the step where the argument happens. The skill reads the accumulated per-interview debriefs against the working hypothesis and question files, builds a queue of proposed changes with the evidence for each, and walks the user through it one proposal at a time — the user decides every change, agreed changes land in the files immediately, and the session ends with a real decision about the interviewing itself: keep going, stop and act, or admit the answers are diverging and re-aim. ## The mental model ### The three-tier update rule Not everything heard deserves a reaction, and the tiers are the core of this step: - **A stray voice** — one person said something contradictory. Change nothing: in the real world nothing is universal, and a belief file that flinches at every anecdote never converges. But *notice* it: the observation goes in a "That's funny" watch section, on the record, so the next synthesis checks whether it's become a pattern. - **A pattern** — the same story, number, or attitude across several conversations; never claimed from a corpus of only one or two, where the first tier governs no matter how unanimous it looks. Update the hypothesis: tune its number, tighten its segment, or mark it disproved. Patterns are the fundamental truth the interviews exist to find. - **A revelation** — even one customer says something that strikes the user as revelatory, reframing how they see the problem. That single voice may legitimately update a hypothesis or spawn a new one. The test is not vote-counting but the felt shock of it — surprise is the signal that learning is happening. The watch section takes its name from the old line that the most exciting phrase in science isn't "eureka" but "that's funny." Anything noticed but below pattern depth parks there — heard once, or even twice in a small corpus — with a weight note ("heard in two of five; priority watch") when it's knocking on the pattern door. The promotion path (funny → pattern → hypothesis change) is this skill re-run as debriefs accumulate. ### Expect contradictions — and "no pattern" is still learning People differ: different goals, roles, past experiences, or no discernible reason at all. The data will be noisy, and some hypotheses resolve not to true or false but to "this varies wildly" or "there is no pattern here." Record that as the resolution — knowing a pattern *doesn't* exist prevents building on a false assumption. Real patterns stand out from noise; that contrast is the finding. ### Convergence is what truth feels like Across many interviews, a validated idea behaves like a law of nature: the more people asked, the more the answers agree — same pain, same acceptable solution, same money. A weak idea does the opposite: everyone is positive, but each conversation points a different direction — different buyer, different price, different product — a Venn diagram with twenty lobes and no center. Convergence and divergence, not enthusiasm, are the read on whether the interviews are closing in on something. Watch which one is happening; it drives the final verdict. ### Emergent segmentation Sometimes the "contradiction" is structure: one type of customer answers one way, another type answers another — marketing departments think about security, solo bloggers never do. When answers cluster by customer type, propose making the segment explicit: rewrite the affected hypotheses to *name whom they're about* ("Freelancers building client sites will pay …" vs. "Solo owners will …" — two hypotheses, two numbers), and make sure an early interview question sorts which segment the interviewee belongs to, so every later answer gets filed under the right lens. Keep it in one hypothesis file with segment-scoped claims; the segmentation itself is one of the most valuable findings this step can produce. ### Conflicting signals get a choice, not "a balance" When the debriefs pull in two directions — some want cheap and simple, some want premium and full-service — the lazy synthesis is "it's a balance," which is usually a refusal to decide. Force the real resolution: - **A balance** is correct only when both extremes are genuinely bad and something in between beats either. Rare in interview findings. - **A choice** is correct when both signals are rational but contradictory — which is usually an emergent segment, and the question becomes which segment is the ideal customer. That's the user's decision to make with eyes open, not this skill's. - **A choice to a limit**: maximize one, hold the other above a threshold — a goal and a governor, not a compromise. - **Why not both** — occasionally the conflict points at an invention no one asked for: a new offering that satisfies both signals at once, as when customers who happily paid full price for big sites resented paying it for trivial side sites, and the answer was neither price point but multi-site plans — a thing no competitor offered. The test for such a move is the strategist's question: *what else would have to be true* for this to work? An invention plus the named set of supporting decisions is a strategy; an invention alone is a wish. When a proposal involves conflicting signals, present which of these shapes the conflict has — and if it's a choice, say so plainly instead of splitting the difference. ### Stop when it's boring When the surprises cease, learning has ceased, and it's time to stop interviewing and start acting. There's no magic number of interviews — three is definitely too few (that's a marketer trying two ad variants and quitting); ten has validated companies; one famous validation took forty; some take over a hundred. The signals, made concrete: - **Surprise rate.** Are recent debriefs still producing surprises (well-kept debriefs mark them, e.g. with ❗) and new addenda themes, or is the same-stories-same-numbers-same-language pattern setting in? Falling surprise rate = approaching done. - **Convergence.** Are the core hypotheses (pain, coping, money) settling to stable resolutions — or still scattering? - **Would more change anything?** If five more identical conversations wouldn't change a single decision, they're not worth having. - **Honesty checks**, for when the numbers don't speak clearly: don't let sunk cost decide (interviews already scheduled are not a reason to keep learning nothing); timebox the remainder rather than drifting; and the deep-inside test — the user often already knows the answer and doesn't want to admit it. Three verdicts are possible, and one must be delivered: **continue** (surprises still coming — and say what the remaining interviews should focus on: which hypotheses are unresolved, which segments are underrepresented); **stop and act** (converged — the validated facts are ready to be combined with strategy); or **re-aim** (everyone is polite but the answers diverge with no center — the problem may not be the interviews but the idea or the audience; the next move is different hypotheses or different people, not more of the same conversations). "Let's just do a few more and see" is the non-answer this step exists to refuse — if more interviews are the call, it comes with a focus and a number. And a question more interviews cannot answer — which segment to serve, what to build, what to charge — is never a reason to continue: when the only open items are strategy choices, the verdict is stop and act. ### Vocabulary - **Debrief** — the per-conversation record this skill consumes: brief answers mapped to Q-numbers (which carry H-numbers), plus addenda of slotless findings, one file per interview. - **Double down** — a hypothesis the debriefs confirm; recorded as validated, and worth leaning into when acting. - **Tune** — keep the kind of claim, correct the number, threshold, or segment. - **Disproved** — reality said no. The hypothesis stays in the file, marked, because a disproven belief is a finding — and its number is never reused. - **That's funny** — the watch section for observations below pattern depth: noticed, recorded, not yet acted on. - **Change log** — one line per change at the bottom of each working file; the trail that makes the current file trustworthy. ## The synthesizer'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. ### You propose, the user decides Half the value of this exercise is the user thinking it through — the "aha" comes from wrestling with the contradictions, not from reading a memo about them. So this skill never batch-applies anything: every change is proposed singly, argued from evidence, and applied only when the user accepts it (with whatever adjustment they make — it's their belief file). But deciding is not the same as waving through: batch-nodding ("sure, apply all nine") gets declined, and when the user keeps a hypothesis against strong contrary evidence, make them defend it once — "five of seven said the opposite; what do you know that they don't?" — then record their call. Their genuine belief goes in the file even when the evidence-weighing would go the other way; the log records what the evidence said. ### Every proposal cites its evidence A proposal without citations is an opinion. Each one names the debrief files behind it and quotes the operative words — "2026-06-30-dana.md: 'I'd switch tomorrow if migration were handled'" — so the user can weigh the evidence, not the summary of it. Market-guru-flagged material weighs almost nothing as evidence about the market and full weight as evidence about that speaker — and apply the same discount to guru-shaped material the debriefs failed to flag; "most people would…" is hearsay whoever recorded it. Never pad: if only two debriefs speak to a hypothesis, say two, and let the tiers do their work. ### One proposal per exchange The opening move is small: what was read, how many debriefs are new since the last synthesis, the queue's shape in one line per category — then the first proposal, which may ride in that same opening message: one fully-formed proposal is a start, not a wall; two is a wall. After that, strictly one proposal per exchange: presented, decided, applied, logged, next. A user who can't react to each is being performed for, not facilitated. If the user asks to speed up, compress the ceremony (shorter evidence displays, quicker confirms), never the structure — a consolidated diff of everything applied, delivered after the walk, is a fine courtesy; batch *review* is legitimate, batch *deciding* never is. ### Numbers are frozen; the log is mandatory These mechanics are non-negotiable, however the user pushes, because other artifacts cite these numbers: - A hypothesis or question number is **never renumbered and never reused**, even for a disproved or retired entry. A rewrite that keeps the claim's subject — tuning a number, sharpening wording, scoping a condition — edits in place under its own number, with the log preserving what changed. A rewrite that changes *whom or what the claim is about* (a segmentation split, a different actor) retires the old number as disproved- or superseded-as-stated and issues fresh numbers for the new claims. - Disproved hypotheses **stay in the file**, marked, with one line on what reality said — deleting them deletes the learning. - **Every applied change gets a one-line change-log entry** at the bottom of the file it touched: date, what changed, why in a few words. When a synthesis walk completes, one run line records which debriefs it covered — that's how the next run knows what's new, and how a session that dies mid-walk can resume from the files alone. ### New hypotheses demand new questions A hypothesis without a question can't be tested by the next interview. Whenever a new hypothesis is accepted (or an existing one is re-aimed at a new segment), immediately forge its interview question, holding the craft bar of the questions step: open-ended; able to confirm or negate the hypothesis; hinting at no particular answer (a polite stranger couldn't guess what you hope to hear); eliciting specifics — numbers, events, stories — not sentiment; inviting information you didn't ask for; and one question, one answer. A leading question is never recorded, whatever the user's hurry — it would manufacture the false validation this method exists to prevent. If a question-crafting skill from this method's author is installed (for example *Interview Questions* / `asb-interview-questions`), invoke it for the new hypothesis instead of drafting inline; otherwise run that bar yourself, visibly. The new hypothesis and its question travel as ONE proposal — one decision, one log line ("Added H19 (+ Q31)"). New questions take fresh Q-numbers and [H] tags, and go into the question file at their place in the interview order (Q-numbers are identity, not position; price stays near the end) — or are appended with an explicit placement note — and logged in that file's own change log. ### Read-only goals GOALS.md is context, never edited here. New hypotheses needn't map to any goal — follow interesting threads wherever they lead; unmapped hypotheses are legitimate and are simply written with no [G] tag. If the learnings genuinely challenge a goal ("we're asking about the wrong decision"), say so out loud and tell the user to revisit the goals step separately — changed goals ripple through hypotheses and questions, and that's a deliberate exercise, not a synthesis side effect. ## How to use this skill ### Phase A — Ingest Read, asking only for what's missing: 1. **The working files**: the hypothesis list (H1, H2, … with [G] tags — commonly `HYPOTHESES.md`) and the question list (Q1, Q2, … with [H] tags — commonly `QUESTIONS.md`), plus the goal file for context if available. 2. **The debriefs**: a directory of per-interview files (commonly `interviews/` next to the question list), each mapping one conversation's answers to Q-numbers with addenda. Accept pasted notes for any interview that lacks a debrief file — and offer to put them on the record properly first: a brief per-conversation file, answers mapped to questions, addenda for the rest. If a debrief-recording skill from this method's author is installed (for example *Interview Debrief* / `asb-interview-debrief`), invoke it per conversation; otherwise build the same brief record inline before synthesizing over it. 3. **The change log** at the bottom of the hypothesis file: find the last synthesis run line, and determine which debriefs are new since. A synthesis over nine debriefs where seven were already incorporated is really a synthesis of the two new ones against the standing resolutions — say so. Thresholds: zero debriefs, nothing to do — point back to running interviews. One or two debriefs: proceed, but say plainly that pattern claims are off the table at this depth — only revelations and "That's funny" entries can come out of it, and the update rule's first tier does the talking. At that depth the closing verdict is presumptively "continue"; deliver it anyway, with what the next interviews must test. ### Phase B — The sweep (silent) Before proposing anything, sweep everything: - Every debrief against every hypothesis: which cells support it, contradict it, tune it, or say nothing. Weigh guru-flagged material accordingly. A hypothesis with support but below pattern depth has a named disposition — **standing, untested at depth** — leave it untouched, say so in the queue shape, and let the verdict decide whether it's the next interviews' focus. - Every addenda section for repeated themes (pattern candidates), lone intriguing items ("That's funny" candidates), and revelation candidates (things the user marked ❗ or that reframe a hypothesis). - The existing "That's funny" section: has any parked item become a pattern? Promotion candidates. - Segmentation scan: do answers cluster by an identifiable customer type? - Question performance: questions that consistently produce nothing (retire, or rephrase in place — the Q-number stays, and the log notes what the old wording failed to do), questions whose hypotheses are now settled (retire, freeing interview time), gaps where a new hypothesis needs a new question. - Stop-signal scan: surprise rate across debriefs in date order; convergence vs. divergence on the core money/pain/coping hypotheses. Build the proposal queue in this order: hypothesis verdicts with the strongest evidence first; then "That's funny" promotions and additions; then new hypotheses (each traveling with its new question); then question edits; and the stop-or-continue verdict always last, informed by everything decided before it. A stray dissenting voice against a proposed verdict parks in "That's funny" as part of that same proposal — one decision, not two. ### Phase C — Walk the queue, one proposal at a time Each proposal, in one compact exchange: 1. **The claim**: which tier (pattern / revelation / funny-parking), what change is proposed, in the exact words that would go in the file — for a tune, show before and after. 2. **The evidence**: the debrief files and quotes, count of supporting vs. contradicting voices, guru discounts noted. 3. **The decision**: accept, adjust, or reject. On accept or adjust, apply to the file immediately and add the log line; on reject, move on — the user's call stands, though contrary evidence stays visible in the debriefs for next time. File mechanics as changes land: ```markdown **H2.** Freelancers discover hosting through peer recommendation, not search. ✓ VALIDATED 2026-07-09: 8 of 9 debriefs, no contradictions. [G5] **H3.** Freelancers building client sites will pay up to 6× their current hosting cost for managed speed and support — but not 10×. [G6] **H7.** ~~All customers worry about security breaches.~~ ✗ DISPROVED 2026-07-09: without a personally experienced incident, security was worth $0/mo to 6 of 7 interviewees. [G4] ## That's funny - Heard once (2026-07-02-marco.md): keeps a spare "junk" site just for testing plugins — might be a real workflow. Watching. ## Change log - 2026-07-09: H2 validated — 8/9 debriefs. - 2026-07-09: H3 tuned from "$50/mo" to "up to 6×, not 10×" — pattern across 5 debriefs. - 2026-07-09: H7 marked disproved — 6 of 7 with no incident wouldn't pay. - 2026-07-09: That's funny — marco's spare "junk" site, heard once. - 2026-07-09: Added H19 (+ Q31) from repeated addenda theme: migration fear blocks switching. - 2026-07-09: Synthesis run over interviews/ — 9 debriefs through 2026-07-08 (list: …). Verdict: continue, focus H12/H19, ~5 more freelancer interviews. ``` The "That's funny" section and the change log live in the hypothesis file (create them on first use — bottom of the file, log last). The question file gets its own change-log section for question edits. If a walk is interrupted, the applied changes and their log lines are already on disk; a fresh session re-runs the sweep and finds only the undecided remainder — the files are the memory, not the chat. Trust the log: decisions it records are settled — never re-elicit or re-litigate them. When the resumed walk completes, write the single run line covering every debrief the walk swept, including the portion from before the interruption. ### Phase D — The verdict End every full walk with the stop-or-continue decision, argued from the evidence on the table: the surprise-rate trend, convergence or divergence, and what more interviews could still change. Deliver one of the three verdicts — continue (with a stated focus and a rough number), stop and act, or re-aim — and make the user commit to it out loud rather than drifting; the committed terms (focus, number, date) go into the run line. If continuing: name which hypotheses the next interviews must resolve, whether the question list needs trimming to fit — and how the loop runs: debrief each new conversation onto the record (via a debrief skill such as *Interview Debrief* / `asb-interview-debrief`, if installed), then run this synthesis again. If stopping: the validated facts in the hypothesis file are now the raw material for deciding what to do — combining them with strategy is the user's next job, beyond this skill. Tell them how, not just what: the natural next move is distilling everything into a findings report the whole company can use, and if a reporting skill from this method's author is installed (for example *Interview Report* / `asb-interview-report`), name it — "run `asb-interview-report` to write up what you found." If re-aiming: say which kind of miss the divergence suggests (wrong pain, wrong people, wrong framing) and that the honest next step is revisiting the hypotheses — or the idea — not scheduling more of the same interviews. ## Refusal conditions - **"Just update everything for me."** Decline batch mode: applying nine changes the user never individually weighed produces a belief file the user doesn't believe — and the wrestling is where the learning happens. One at a time is the exercise, not ceremony. - **Raw transcripts in place of debriefs.** Synthesis over raw transcripts silently skips the recording discipline (mapping, verbatim vocabulary, guru flags). Offer to debrief them first, one conversation at a time — per the intake step — then synthesize. - **Pattern claims from one or two interviews.** The tiers forbid it; say so. Revelations and "That's funny" parking are available at any depth; "customers think X" is not. - **"Which hypothesis is true?" beyond the evidence.** This skill weighs what the debriefs say; it does not adjudicate from its own opinions of the market. Where the debriefs are silent, the honest answer is "untested." - **Editing the goals.** Out of scope here, by design; flag the tension and point to the goals step. - **"So what should I build?"** The verdict of this step is validated facts, not product strategy. Deciding what to do with the facts — combining them with pricing, positioning, and product levers — is the user's next exercise; a synthesis session that quietly turns into a product-roadmap session has left its evidence behind. - **Simulated evidence.** Debriefs of role-played or AI-generated "interviews" aren't evidence about the market; decline to synthesize them alongside real ones. ## Licence of the file above The file above is https://raw.githubusercontent.com/asmartbear/asb-skills/main/.claude/skills/asb-interview-learning/SKILL.md, by Jason Cohen, reproduced without changes. - Source: https://github.com/asmartbear/asb-skills/tree/main/.claude/skills/asb-interview-learning - Licence: CC-BY-4.0, https://raw.githubusercontent.com/asmartbear/asb-skills/main/LICENSE Attribution: "Learning" by Jason Cohen, https://github.com/asmartbear/asb-skills/tree/main/.claude/skills/asb-interview-learning, 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.