Nw Divio Framework

DIVIO Documentation Framework

The Four Quadrants

Exactly four documentation types. Each serves one purpose. Never mix.

Tutorial

Orientation: Learning | Need: "Teach me" | Key Q: Can newcomer follow without external context?

Purpose: enable first success | Assumption: user knows nothing | Format: step-by-step guided experience

Success: gains competence + confidence | Include: safe repeatable steps, immediate feedback, building blocks

Exclude: problem-solving, assumed knowledge, comprehensive coverage

How-to Guide

Orientation: Task | Need: "Help me do X" | Key Q: Achieves specific, measurable outcome?

Purpose: accomplish specific objective | Assumption: baseline knowledge, needs goal completion

Format: focused steps to outcome | Success: task completed

Include: clear goal, actionable steps, completion indicator | Exclude: teaching, background, all scenarios

Reference

Orientation: Information | Need: "What is X?" | Key Q: Factually complete and lookup-ready?

Purpose: accurate lookup | Assumption: user knows what to look for | Format: structured, concise, factual

Success: finds correct info quickly | Include: complete API/function details, parameters, returns, errors

Exclude: narrative, tutorials, opinions

Explanation

Orientation: Understanding | Need: "Why is X?" | Key Q: Explains reasoning and context?

Purpose: conceptual understanding | Assumption: user wants "why" | Format: discursive, reasoning-focused

Success: understands design rationale | Include: context, reasoning, alternatives, architectural decisions

Exclude: step-by-step, API details, task completion

Classification Matrix

                  PRACTICAL           THEORETICAL
STUDYING:         Tutorial            Explanation
WORKING:          How-to Guide        Reference

Adjacent: Tutorial/How-to (both have steps, differ in assumed knowledge) | How-to/Reference (both "at work") | Reference/Explanation (both knowledge depth) | Explanation/Tutorial (both "studying")

Classification Decision Tree

START: What is the user's primary need?

1. Is user learning for the first time?
   YES -> TUTORIAL
   NO  -> Continue

2. Is user trying to accomplish a specific task?
   YES -> Does it assume baseline knowledge?
         YES -> HOW-TO GUIDE
         NO  -> TUTORIAL (reclassify)
   NO  -> Continue

3. Is user looking up specific information?
   YES -> Is it factual/lookup content?
         YES -> REFERENCE
         NO  -> Likely EXPLANATION
   NO  -> Continue

4. Is user trying to understand "why"?
   YES -> EXPLANATION
   NO  -> Re-evaluate (content may need restructuring)

Classification Signals

Tutorial Signals

Positive: "Getting started", "Your first...", "Prerequisites: None", "What you'll learn", "Step 1, Step 2...", "You should see..."

Red flags: "Assumes prior knowledge", "If you need to...", "For advanced users..."

How-to Signals

Positive: "How to [verb]", "Before you start" (with prerequisites), "Steps", "Done:" or "Result:"

Red flags: "Let's understand what X is...", "First, let's learn about..."

Reference Signals

Positive: "API", "Parameters", "Returns", "Throws", "Type:", Tables of functions/methods

Red flags: "This is probably...", "You might want to...", Conversational tone

Explanation Signals

Positive: "Why", "Background", "Architecture", "Design decision", "Trade-offs", "Consider", "Because"

Red flags: "1. Create...", "2. Run...", "Step-by-step", "Do this:"

JTBD-First Resolution (When in doubt, ask the JTBD)

Provenance: Ale 2026-05-02. "La JTBD ci dice quale need stiamo soddisfando."

When the four-types decision tree is ambiguous, OR when a stylistic decision inside a chosen type has plausible alternatives (ordering, fold-vs-keep, scratch-vs-real-data, prose-vs-table, etc.), DO NOT pick by aesthetic preference. Return to the document's JTBD and let the answer fall out.

Each Diataxis type maps to a canonical JTBD:

| Type | Canonical JTBD | Implied constraints |

|---|---|---|

| Tutorial | "Build my mental model of X by doing it once, end-to-end, without risking my real project state." | Reproducible, safe, self-contained, cause-effect visible |

| How-to | "Fix this specific situation right now; don't teach me fundamentals." | Problem-statement first, decision tree, no preamble, link forward to Tutorial for newcomers |

| Reference | "Look up a specific answer (flag, exit code, schema field, error message)." | ctrl-F friendly, dense, alphabetical/systematic, no narrative, separate H2 per lookup category |

| Explanation | "Understand the design rationale so I can extend or critique it." | Discursive, links to evidence (probes, RCAs, ADRs), no how-to instructions, no command examples beyond the minimum needed for context |

Application: resolving a stylistic dispute

Worked example, Tutorial Q: scratch directory vs use the project's seeded data?

• JTBD: "Build mental model end-to-end without risking my real project state."
• Constraint surfaced: "without risking" → seeded data DOES risk contamination → scratch wins.
• Constraint surfaced: "end-to-end" → cause-effect visible → seeded data hides cause-effect under pre-existing entries → scratch wins.

Worked example, Reference Q: fold three short sections into one "Notes"?

• JTBD: "Look up a specific answer."
• Constraint surfaced: "specific answer" → ctrl-F friendly → 3 distinct H2 entries are 3 distinct landing points → folding hurts the JTBD.
• Verdict: keep separate.

Worked example, README "Learn More" Q: alphabetical or semantic grouping?

• JTBD on a README is "I'm new; show me docs in the order I should read them" — pedagogical browsing, NOT lookup.
• Constraint surfaced: "in the order I should read them" → semantic grouping (install adjacent, authoring adjacent, troubleshooting last) → wins.
• Alphabetical serves a DIFFERENT JTBD ("I know the doc name") which has another surface (file system / search).

Decision protocol

When facing a stylistic ambiguity inside a chosen type:

• Restate the document's JTBD in one sentence (use the canonical JTBD as the starting point, refine if the doc is more specific).
• List the constraints implied by that JTBD (be concrete: "reproducible", "ctrl-F friendly", "links to evidence").
• Compare each candidate option against the constraint list.
• Pick the option satisfying the most constraints. If tied, pick the option that fails the FEWEST constraints (loss-aversion).

This procedure replaces aesthetic debate with a falsifiable check.

Anti-pattern: collapse via JTBD-blending

Some authors blend two JTBDs in one document ("a Tutorial that's also a Reference"). This is the same collapse pattern the four-types-only rule rejects, surfaced via the JTBD lens. Detection: if the document has TWO canonical JTBDs in tension (e.g. "build mental model" AND "look up specific answer"), flag for splitting.