I like this a lot. I think it’s very helpful. Definitely fits in with some of your other ideas, like Holacracy habits that are supportive in using the system, even if they’re not entirely explicit in the system. (Good caveat on this up front too.) This is like a taxonomy of language habits for effective Holacracy practice.
Brings up a few things for me—
(1) I wonder how much of this is attributable to broader culture? Here’s what I mean. At the very least, some of these turns of phrase, like the ones you underlined in Tags & Examples, sound Anglophonic, even US-centric. But I also wonder if perhaps these 14 categories might chunk differently for other cultures or language communities. For example, perhaps for Dutch practitioners, it would make more sense to chunk into 12 or 15?
(2) I think it’s likely that there’s an “unhealthy” or “invalid” version for each of them, but perhaps where you omitted it this might be very obvious. For example, your roles are not able to make an “official decision” about a particular thing.
(3) I like how you tagged “Constitutionally required” or “required by policy”. I imagine it would be useful to indicate this more visually. Maybe there’s some subset of the 14 that are the Constitutional ones. Or perhaps it’s an attribute, like a column, showing up potentially in multiple categories. I just like the idea of this perhaps being indicated visually. Say (a) Constitutionally required (g) Typically required by due governance (c) A recommended conversational norm.
(4) There’s a way that I translate all of this into the discourse norms of Authentic Relating. Our go-to template for almost all of these things is Setting Context, which can be used as a kind of container envelope for any of these. All 14 of your communications are themselves calls to different contexts. Setting Context is like a checklist of best practices for how create any context you’d like.