# Asset needs — sfpl --- ## Images ### 1. Parallel tracks photo (Chapter 01) - **What it is:** Ambassador and MTeam sessions running side by side, or both groups working in adjacent rooms. - **Where it likely exists:** `raw-case-material/sfpl/` — `mteam-ambs-sessions.jpg`, `mteam-ambs.jpg`, or `All Staff.jpg`. - **Why the rewrite needs it:** Chapter 01 describes the two parallel tracks. A photo of both groups working simultaneously is the simplest visual evidence that the mechanism had real scope. - **Fallback:** The MTeam future-vision board photo (`medical-mteam-future-vision.jpg` in the site repo, if this is actually an SFPL asset and the filename is wrong — confirm). Or the Wishing Tree photo (`sfpl-wishing-tree.jpg`) as an establishing shot of staff engagement at branch level. ### 2. SFPL Collaboration Board — values redraft with traceability (Chapter 04) - **What it is:** The values-redraft section of the Collaboration Board showing the lineage from worksheets to mapped values to strategic priority, with margin notes. - **Where it likely exists:** `raw-case-material/sfpl/` — "SFPL Collaboration Board - Values redraft (with traceability).jpg" or "Consolidated poster mapping across all teams.jpg". Also `sfpl-values-collaboration-board.jpg` in the site repo. - **Why the rewrite needs it:** Chapter 04 argues that traceability is what separates organizational design from facilitation alone. The visual has to show the lineage explicitly — values on the left, reasoning in the margins, new values on the right. - **Fallback:** `sfpl-values-traceability.jpg` in the site repo — the consolidated mapping diagram with original SFPL values on the left and proposed new values on the right. This is a clean fallback that directly illustrates the traceability claim. --- ## Pull quotes ### Ambassador mid-series feedback (Chapter 03) - **Quote:** "I really appreciate seeing that the feedback from the last session was taken into account. Thank you!" - **Attribution:** "Staff ambassador, Workshop 3 feedback" — already in the live MDX. Confirm this is from the actual session feedback form and the anonymized attribution is sufficient. ### Michael Lambert quote (Scaling) - **Quote:** The City Librarian quote about "strategic framework tailored to community needs while aligning with organizational values" is in the live MDX. In the rewrite this quote does useful work but is relatively generic. If there's a more specific quote from the Vision 2030 Midyear Progress Report naming the Ambassador mechanism, it should replace this one. - **Source to check:** `ITEM-3.1-Vision-2030-Midyear-Progress-Report-LC.pdf` in `raw-case-material/sfpl/`. --- ## What Whitney needs to confirm — publishing blockers ### 1. One concrete scene from inside a session (CRITICAL) The trust section (Chapter 02–03) is the case's thesis but has no scene that earns it. The Placeholder in Chapter 02 marks where this belongs. Whitney needs to name one concrete moment: a minute of tension, surprise, recognition, or pushback from inside one of the five ambassador sessions. Recommended path: run the case-interviewer agent. The moment is almost certainly in the session notes, the Gensler meeting record, or Whitney's own recollection of the June 2 session. Possible candidates to explore: - The June 2 session itself — what specifically changed between the April plan and the June 2 execution? - A moment when a skeptical ambassador's language shifted - A pushback that got visibly metabolized in the next session's materials - An MTeam-vs-ambassador moment where one track shifted the other ### 2. Two specific design moves Whitney owned (IMPORTANT) A hiring manager reading this case will ask: what did Whitney specifically design? The Gensler meeting record names "Harmonic/Whitney" against deliverables, which establishes her continuity role. But two named design moves are still needed. Candidates: - The moment cards activity — did Whitney design this? - The SFPL Collaboration Board structure — did Whitney set this up? - The Ambassador Team Purpose Statement — did Whitney draft this from the affinity map? - The feedback Google Form — was this Whitney's? - Which of the five workshop sessions did she design end-to-end vs. co-design with Patrick? ### 3. Vision 2030 Midyear Progress Report quote Mine `ITEM-3.1-Vision-2030-Midyear-Progress-Report-LC.pdf` in `raw-case-material/sfpl/` for one direct quote about Staff Ambassador Engagement from the March 2026 report. The closer this is to the Chief of Public Services' own words, the stronger the scaling section's closing beat.