docs: explain CauseStarter role-based adoption

docs/end-user/causestarter/index.md

@@ -29,11 +29,17 @@ More of the same shape — short answers to the next objections — is in **[Que
 We’ve tried very hard to split the work so you can do the part you’re inclined to do, and not do anything else:
 
 - **Pledge money** without having to pick projects. Put up $X/month (or a one-shot amount) and [delegate the picking](../shared/key-ideas/delegation.md) to a person you already trust. Revoke anytime.
-- **Direct money** — yours, or other people’s if they have delegated to you — without having to identify winners in advance. Directing can be *initial* funding so the work can happen, or *reimbursement* of people who already paid for work that delivered. Directing well is a real contribution even if your own check is small.
+- **Scout promising work** by directing initial funding — yours, or other people’s if they have delegated to you. Directing well is a real contribution even if your own check is small.
+- **Recognize proven work** without having to predict winners. Find projects that delivered, vouch for their success, or reimburse their early contributors at cost so that giving capacity can fund the next attempt.
 - **Start a project** if you have useful skills and a piece of work that advances one of these claims. You do not need a grant officer. Publish it, get an alignment vouch from someone a hop better-connected, and it can appear on every cause board that includes that statement.
 - **Vouch** that a project is aligned with a statement (or that it actually delivered). People who trust you will then see it. That is how work gets onto the list without a platform verdict.
 - **Sign a statement** you actually mean. Optional. Cheap. Useful: it feeds your home board and shows that more than one person cares about that exact claim.
 
+Money, judgment, trust, distribution, and skilled work do not have to arrive in one
+all-purpose organization. Different people can supply them separately. If you have an
+unusually large amount of *one* of those things, that is enough to be unusually useful;
+you do not also need the other four.
+
 The catalog of “I’d be happy to X, but ugh Y” is **[Do the part you’d do anyway](./the-jobs.md)**. Organizers who want a different mix: **[Start a cause board](./start-a-cause.md)**.
 
 ## If “support a cause” still makes you roll your eyes

docs/end-user/causestarter/start-a-cause.md

@@ -17,11 +17,30 @@ You are not recruiting people into an organization. You are publishing a place w
 
 - Signers who like *some* of the statements
 - Donors who will pledge and maybe delegate
+- Scouts who spot promising projects or direct initial funding
+- Evaluators who vouch for work that actually delivered
+- Later donors who reimburse the people who funded successful work early
 - Doers who publish projects and get an alignment vouch
+- Trusted connectors whose vouches put work in front of their network
 - Mediators who write bridges when wording does not line up
 
 If someone hates your combination of statements, they should start their own cause and reuse the overlapping planks. That is success, not a fork to suppress.
 
+## Bootstrap one role at a time
+
+Use whatever places your cause already gathers to find participants. CauseStarter does
+not build that audience for you. What it changes is the ask: a potential contributor
+does not need to join an organization or take responsibility for every part of it.
+
+Start with whichever capacity is available. Visible pledges attract builders. Visible
+projects give donors something concrete to fund. A trusted delegate makes hands-off
+giving credible. Successful work gives cautious donors something they can inspect
+before contributing. Each partial success makes the missing roles easier to recruit.
+
+The practical rule is: map the people who already have money, prospective judgment,
+retrospective judgment, execution ability, trust, or an audience; then make each one an
+ask that uses that capacity without demanding the others.
+
 ## Bridges
 
 If another camp’s published cause is close but not implying yours, create a bridge from the cause board. You publish the cluster under *your* key. CauseStarter does not message the other organizer; the citation is public on their board if they look.

docs/end-user/causestarter/the-jobs.md

@@ -4,6 +4,12 @@ The core vision is simple: **people who agree should be able to cooperate on tha
 
 What used to block that was never a shortage of people who *cared*. It was a pile of extra jobs. “I’d be happy to do X, but ugh, Y.” CauseStarter and the rest of this substrate are mostly that ugh-removal kit. If you remember one thing, remember: **you only contribute the part you would contribute anyway.**
 
+Ordinarily a cause needs one organization capable of raising money, judging work
+ahead of time and after the fact, executing it, remaining trusted, and reaching an
+audience. Here those capacities can come from different people. Choosing a mission is
+what publishing statements already does; it is not another person-job. You do not have
+to become that organization; you only have to supply the part you have.
+
 ## Money
 
 **I’d be happy to contribute $X/month (as long as enough others do too), but…**
@@ -14,15 +20,29 @@ What used to block that was never a shortage of people who *cared*. It was a pil
 
 In CauseStarter this lives on a cause’s **Pledges** page and on **Delegation**.
 
-## Attention and judgment
+## Spot promising work
 
 **I’d be happy to watch for worthwhile projects, but…**
 
 - **…I don’t even know what projects are out there.** Sign the statements you mean. Your CauseStarter home is then a **fundable-projects board** of work vouched as advancing those claims — not a club you joined. You can also follow (or start) a cause board whose mix you want to watch. You do not need a special introduction.
-- **…I can’t tell whether this creator is a scammer or incompetent.** Be a delegate who mostly [funds proven work](../lazyGiving/retroactive-funding.md). You reimburse early contributors at cost after results, instead of betting on a pitch.
 - **…I can’t put that much of my *own* money on it.** Be an early funder who asks for reimbursement. If later donors close the loop, that giving budget can go to the next attempt. Your receipt is a track record, not a payout.
 
-The cause board’s **Fundable Projects** list (the fundable-projects board) is the watch surface on a circulated mix. After you sign, the same kind of list on **home** is your everyday watch surface. Trust settings (the gear) control whose vouches you see.
+The cause board’s **Fundable Projects** list (the fundable-projects board) is the watch surface on a circulated mix. After you sign, the same kind of list on **home** is your everyday watch surface. Trust settings (the gear) control whose vouches you see. Direct your own money, or become a delegate so other people can entrust funds to your judgment.
+
+## Recognize work that delivered
+
+**I’d be happy to help good completed work get recognized, but…**
+
+- **…I don't want to predict winners or detect scams from a pitch.** Don't. Follow the
+  **Not yet reimbursed** list and inspect results that already exist.
+- **…I don't have much money to contribute.** Vouch that a project actually delivered.
+  That helps people whose trust networks reach you discover it.
+- **…I can contribute money but still want evidence first.** Reimburse early
+  contributors at cost. You support a proven result and free their giving budget to
+  scout the next attempt.
+
+Prospective scouting, success evaluation, and reimbursement are separate jobs. You
+may do all three, but the system does not require it.
 
 ## Work
 
@@ -56,6 +76,11 @@ Cause boards have a **Bridges** section. Suggesters you opt into appear on Home.
 
 Project-doers can get money for worthwhile work. Donors can help financially without becoming grant officers or trusting a black-box charity. People with time or expertise can contribute those without writing a check. All of that information and money can move **without everyone agreeing on every idea or electing leaders.**
 
+It also means one exceptional contribution is enough. Someone with substantial money
+does not need to assemble a foundation; someone with exceptional judgment does not
+need to be wealthy; someone exceptionally good at execution does not need to become a
+fundraiser. CauseStarter connects those separate strengths around concrete work.
+
 That is why “there are *so* many of us — why can’t we get anything done?” was never a law of nature. It was coordination tax. This ecosystem is the claim that the tax was optional.
 
 The spoken pitch (bulletin board, two twists, separable jobs) is **[CauseStarter](./index.md)**. The eye-roll objections are **[Why this isn’t lame](./why-this-isnt-lame.md)**. For the longer argument (late aggregation, organic coalitions, why it is hard to stop), see [Why Commonality?](../commonality/vision-and-strategy/README.md). Role-by-role one-liners also live in [pitches](../commonality/vision-and-strategy/pitches.md).

docs/end-user/causestarter/why-this-isnt-lame.md

@@ -14,6 +14,12 @@ Most “support a cause” products ask you to join something, trust a black box
 
 **Judgment is a first-class job, not a hobby bolted onto writing a check.** If you follow a field and can tell what helped, others can route money through you. You build a transparent track record. You do not incorporate a nonprofit. If you can’t put much of your *own* money on it, you can still be the person who spots the work and asks to be reimbursed later.
 
+**One exceptional strength is enough.** The usual alternative is an organization that
+somehow combines money, mission, trusted judgment, an audience, and people who can
+execute. Here those can be different people. A major donor need not invent a
+foundation. A domain expert need not be rich. A capable builder need not become a
+professional fundraiser. Each can bring the leverage they actually have.
+
 **Wording fights don’t have to kill the funding.** If someone else’s sentence is close but not quite yours, write your own. Implication and [bridges](../tally/suggestions-and-nudges.md) can still connect the two, so signers and projects are not stranded on a blank petition. You are cooperating on agreement, not recruiting members.
 
 That is the whole trick: money, work, and attention meet on the overlap. Nobody has to elect leaders. The extra jobs that used to make “there are so many of us — why can’t we get anything done?” feel like a law of nature were optional.

docs/end-user/commonality/index.md

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ Commonality is one of several connected sites:
 
 This site is for the funding side: pledging, delegating, getting projects funded, and the broader case for why a new approach is needed.
 
-**CauseStarter** is the organizer-facing front door: publish a cause (a set of signable statements) and let people attach only the jobs they would actually take. Start with [Do the part you’d do anyway](../causestarter/the-jobs.md).
+**CauseStarter** is the organizer-facing front door: publish a cause (a set of signable statements) and let people attach only the jobs they would actually take. Money, judgment, trust, distribution, and execution can come from different people instead of one all-purpose organization. Start with [Do the part you’d do anyway](../causestarter/the-jobs.md); organizers can [start a cause](../causestarter/start-a-cause.md) one role at a time.
 
 
 ## See it in action

docs/end-user/commonality/vision-and-strategy/README.md

@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ In the past we've needed government or big private charity orgs to do this kind
 
 **"Okay, but why bother? We already have government and private charities for funding public goods."**
 
-Because [it's better](./why-its-better/README.md) in various important ways: better signal (doing what people actually want), preserves real commonality rather than polarizing, more effective (retroactive funding, crowdsourced project surfacing/evaluation), less need for coordination, no need to approach centralized gatekeepers, plus all the onchain benefits like transparency and trustlessness and censorship-resistance.
+Because [it's better](./why-its-better/README.md) in various important ways: better signal (doing what people actually want), preserves real commonality rather than polarizing, more effective (retroactive funding, crowdsourced project surfacing/evaluation), less need for coordination, no need to approach centralized gatekeepers, plus all the onchain benefits like transparency and trustlessness and censorship-resistance. In particular, it **[unbundles the organization](./why-its-better/unbundled-organization.md)**: money, judgment, trust, distribution, and skilled work can come from different people instead of needing to coincide in one institution.
 
 **"Even if it's better, getting people to switch is hard."**
 

docs/end-user/commonality/vision-and-strategy/getting-people-to-switch.md

@@ -2,9 +2,22 @@
 
 "Getting people to switch - even to something [better](./why-its-better/) - is hard."
 
-Yes. But:
+Yes, for a generic platform. CauseStarter’s claim is narrower. It does not try to
+create motivation for a generic system. Motivation is already abundant around
+particular causes, and their communities already gather in their own social
+networks, institutions, and media. Distribution remains the organizer’s job. Once
+reached, a motivated person can make one useful contribution without joining a new
+organization or accepting all of its other jobs. And even then:
   - First, [traditional collective action is frustrating](./legacy-frustrations/README.md) in ways that Commonality specifically fixes. So we might draw in people who are fed up with the legacy system, or abstaining from it.
   - Second, switching is [remarkably easy](./ease-of-adoption/README.md). We can eliminate a lot of the friction.
   - And third, switching [generates value right away](./immediate-value/README.md) (or at least *almost* right away, in the case of a pledge to an assurance contract, which is at least costless if it fails).
 
 And once you've switched, you've also built the infrastructure for [credible threats](./hard-to-stop/credible-threat.md) — the ability to visibly demonstrate independent funding capacity, which shifts negotiating power even if you never spend a dollar. The [walkthrough](/docs/end-user/shared/use-case-walkthroughs/defunding.md) shows how a community naturally moves from "getting on the rails" to "credible independence."
+
+For founders, this turns adoption into a staged bootstrapping problem rather than an
+all-at-once institution-building problem. Visible money attracts projects; visible
+projects attract money; trusted judgment makes both easier to use. See [Unbundle the
+organization](./why-its-better/unbundled-organization.md) and [Start a
+cause](../../causestarter/start-a-cause.md). The operator playbook after you reach
+people is [Activate a cause one role at a
+time](/docs/founder/activating-a-cause.md).

docs/end-user/commonality/vision-and-strategy/pitches.md

@@ -18,6 +18,14 @@ Of course a cause still does need to actually gather users — get donors to ple
 
 "Know your field well enough to spot good projects? Become a delegate. People who trust your judgment route funds through you, you direct them toward the best projects, your track record is transparent onchain. Start small — direct a few small delegatable notes — and let your track record speak for itself. No need to incorporate a nonprofit."
 
+## Success evaluators (people who recognize results)
+
+"Don't want to predict winners? Follow completed work instead. When something
+demonstrably delivered, vouch for its success so people whose trust networks reach you
+can find it. Later donors can reimburse its early contributors at cost. Careful
+retrospective judgment is useful even if you never select a proposal or write a large
+check."
+
 ## Alignment attesters (people with opinions)
 
 "Want to help aligned projects gain visibility? Just vouch for a few people you trust — not even in any major way, just 'if he says project P is aligned, it's probably aligned.' Or attest directly that a project aligns with a cause. Whoever trusts you sees it. Your influence grows linearly with followers."
@@ -26,6 +34,15 @@ Of course a cause still does need to actually gather users — get donors to ple
 
 "Use Commonality as your operational backend. Keep doing what you're good at — evaluating projects — but shed the overhead. Accept donations via delegatable notes, direct funds toward aligned projects, and let the blockchain handle the transparency and accounting. Start as the sole trusted attester (identical to your current process), then gradually open up to external suggestions if you want." See [for-established-orgs.md](./ease-of-adoption/for-established-orgs.md).
 
+## Cause organizers (people with a network)
+
+"You do not have to assemble money, prospective and retrospective judgment,
+execution, trust, and distribution in one new organization. Find the people who
+already care, then invite each to contribute the one capacity they have. Money
+attracts projects; projects attract money; trusted judgment makes both easier to
+use. Recruit one role at a time." See [Start a
+cause](../../causestarter/start-a-cause.md).
+
 ## Scouts (people with foresight)
 
 "Good at spotting promising projects early? Fund them before anyone else does. If the project delivers, later donors can reimburse your contribution at cost so your giving budget can fund another attempt. Your public track record can also attract larger delegated budgets. You're a scout for public goods: the projects you spot get early funding, and good judgment earns trust and responsibility."
@@ -34,4 +51,9 @@ Of course a cause still does need to actually gather users — get donors to ple
 
 Every pitch is about something individually useful. Nobody needs to be told "join our movement" or "here's our plan to persuade half the country." It's "here's this one small thing you can do, it's useful to you right now, and it doesn't depend on what anybody else does."
 
+This applies to unusually large contributors too. A person with exceptional capital,
+judgment, execution ability, trust, or distribution can contribute that one thing
+without assembling the other four. The strategic explanation is [Unbundle the
+organization](./why-its-better/unbundled-organization.md).
+
 The same idea, written as the “I’d be happy to X, but ugh Y” obstacles the substrate removes: **[Do the part you’d do anyway](../../causestarter/the-jobs.md)** ([strategy note](./the-jobs.md)).

docs/end-user/commonality/vision-and-strategy/the-jobs.md

@@ -4,6 +4,14 @@ The simple vision: people who already agree should be able to pool money and ski
 
 The invention is not a new kind of organization. It is **splitting the work into jobs people would already take**, and removing the extra job each role used to demand (pick every project, trust a big org, elect a board, know a grant officer, swallow someone else’s wording, wait for critical mass).
 
+A conventional organization bundles money, prospective and retrospective judgment,
+trust, distribution, and execution. That makes collective action depend on finding
+leaders who can assemble the whole bundle. Commonality lets different people supply
+those capacities separately. A major donor need not start a foundation; a domain
+expert need not be wealthy; a great builder need not know a grant committee.
+**[Unbundle the organization](./why-its-better/unbundled-organization.md)** is the
+full strategic argument.
+
 Late aggregation is *how* that is allowed: you do not have to agree on a leader or a manifesto first. Organic coalitions are a *bonus* of not forcing a bundle. Neither is the headline. The headline is: **do the part you’d do anyway.**
 
 The user-facing catalog — money, attention, work, wording, “my own cause page” — lives in CauseStarter’s **[Do the part you’d do anyway](../../causestarter/the-jobs.md)**. Role-by-role one-liners: [pitches](./pitches.md).