Designing Obedience · Thematic evidence
Reading across STAC
These cells map the kinds of accounts available. They do not imply four equally sized or equivalent perspectives. The C group contains one campus intermediary; absence of direct evidence is retained rather than filled by inference.
| Category | S · Students (7) | T · Tutors (6) | A · Executives / Administrators (7) | C · Campus Intermediary (1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Correction | Explanation, deletion, harsh feedback and supportive revision. | Patient scaffolding, direct revision and responsibility to deliver. | Reviews, escalation, boundaries and argued alternatives. | Limited knowledge of teaching; no direct classroom judgement established. |
| Repetition | Repeated making, recurring themes, portfolio sequences and closure routines. | Foundation modules, project plans, reports and critique. | SOPs, staff induction, service coordination and continuity. | Repeated promotional work, referrals and events. |
| Approval | Offers, grades, praise, conditional credibility and independent applications. | Refund accountability, learner feedback and admission outcomes. | Review gates, bonuses, targets, package promises and reassurance. | Brand, results and reputation guide recommendations. |
| Professionalism | Credentials versus perceived teaching fit, care and responsibility. | Expertise, service identity, workload and continuing learning. | Teaching, administration, sales and business stewardship overlap. | Campus access and promotion distinguished from subject expertise. |
| Imitation | References, tutor styles, similar topics and successful predecessors. | Learning from artists, layout templates, idea banks and AI boundaries. | Precedents, school preferences and organisational transmission. | Teaching similarity is an impression, not observed curriculum evidence. |
| Constrained authorship | Control differs across topic, making, writing and applications; resistance occurs. | Help can become taking over; students may keep final choice. | Package support, parental rewriting and workshop-output negotiations. | Limited direct evidence about students’ creative ownership. |
| Risk aversion | Application safety, financial and exit risks alongside refusal and delay. | Deadlines, job security, client demands and uncertain outcomes. | Guarantees, price competition, safety and sustainable provision. | Reliability checks, competition and opportunity costs in promotion. |
Do not pair a student’s allegation with an administrator’s self-description as though they refer to the same institution unless the source explicitly establishes that connection.