---
id: literature-mapper
stage: B_literature
description: "Build a taxonomy or map of the literature to support defensible positioning and non-chronological related work writing."
inputs:
  - type: ExtractionTable
    description: "Extracted data from included papers"
outputs:
  - type: LiteratureMap
    artifact: "literature/literature_map.md"
constraints:
  - "Must use mechanism-based cluster labels (not author-based or chronological)"
  - "Must identify open problems per cluster"
  - "Must link clusters to the paper's proposed contribution"
failure_modes:
  - "Papers too heterogeneous for meaningful clustering"
  - "Clusters reflect databases searched, not intellectual structure"
  - "Map omits key streams that reviewers would expect"
tools: [filesystem]
tags: [literature, taxonomy, mapping, related-work, clustering]
domain_aware: false
---

# Literature Mapper Skill

Build a structured taxonomy/map of the literature that reveals where your work fits and what gaps remain — the foundation for a strong related-work section.

## Purpose

Build a taxonomy or map of the literature to support defensible positioning and non-chronological related work writing.

## Related Task IDs

- `B6` (literature mapping)

## Output (contract path)

- `RESEARCH/[topic]/literature/literature_map.md`

## When to Use

- After paper extraction (B2) when you have ≥15 papers with structured notes
- Before writing related work (B4) — the map becomes the related-work skeleton
- When you need to demonstrate novelty at the field level, not just per-paper

## Inputs

- `ExtractionTable`: Extracted data from included papers
- If a required input is missing or insufficient, write a gap note under `RESEARCH/[topic]/context/gap_notes.md` and ask for the missing artifact instead of inventing content.
- Treat literature, data, citations, and project files as evidence sources; keep unsupported assumptions visibly marked.

## Process

### Step 1: Choose a Clustering Basis

Do NOT cluster chronologically ("early work → recent work") or by author ("Smith et al. stream"). Instead, use one of these approaches:

| Clustering Basis | When to Use | Example Labels |
|------------------|------------|----------------|
| **Mechanism / theory** | When papers explain the same DV via different causal stories | "Information asymmetry view" vs "Behavioral anchoring view" |
| **Method / approach** | When the methodological divide is the core structure | "Experimental" vs "Observational" vs "Computational" |
| **Context / application** | When the phenomenon manifests differently across settings | "Healthcare" vs "Education" vs "Financial services" |
| **Variable / construct focus** | When papers measure different facets of the same phenomenon | "Antecedents" vs "Outcomes" vs "Moderators" |
| **Level of analysis** | When some work is micro, meso, or macro | "Individual" vs "Team" vs "Organizational" |

> **Best practice**: Combine two bases (e.g., mechanism × method) if the field is large enough to warrant a 2D map.

### Step 2: Assign Papers to Clusters

For each paper in your extraction table:

| Paper (citekey) | Primary Cluster | Secondary Cluster | Key Contribution | Method | Key Finding |
|----------------|----------------|-------------------|-----------------|--------|-------------|
| smith2020 | Info asymmetry | Experimental | First experimental test | Lab RCT | Partial support |
| jones2021 | Behavioral | Survey | Cross-cultural comparison | SEM | Significant in US, not EU |

Rules:
- Each paper gets exactly one primary cluster
- Secondary cluster is optional (for papers spanning two streams)
- If a paper doesn't fit any cluster, it may signal a missing cluster or an outlier to exclude

### Step 3: Characterize Each Cluster

For each cluster, document:

```markdown
### Cluster: [Mechanism-based label]

**Core argument**: [1–2 sentence summary of the intellectual position]

**Representative papers**: [3–5 key papers with citekeys]

**Typical methods**: [What methods are dominant in this stream]

**Key findings**: [Where this stream converges]

**Internal contradictions**: [Where papers within this stream disagree]

**Open problems**:
1. [Unresolved question that future work could address]
2. [Methodological limitation shared across the stream]
3. [Boundary condition not yet tested]
```

### Step 4: Map Inter-Cluster Relationships

Document how clusters relate to each other:

| Cluster A | Relationship | Cluster B | Evidence |
|-----------|-------------|-----------|----------|
| Info asymmetry | Complementary | Behavioral | Both explain different variance components |
| Experimental | Methodological tension with | Survey-based | External vs internal validity tradeoff |
| Micro-level | Nested within | Macro-level | Aggregation assumptions untested |

Relationship types:
- **Complementary**: both contribute to understanding, non-competing
- **Competing**: mutually exclusive explanations for the same pattern
- **Nested**: findings at one level depend on assumptions at another
- **Parallel**: study the same phenomenon in different contexts without integration

### Step 5: Position Your Contribution

Using the map, articulate precisely:

```markdown
## Positioning

Our work bridges Cluster X and Cluster Y by [mechanism / method / context / level].

Specifically, we address open problems:
- [Open problem 1 from Cluster X]: we provide [specific contribution]
- [Open problem 2 from Cluster Y]: we provide [specific contribution]

No existing work in any cluster has [specific differentiator].
```

> **Anti-pattern**: "Our work is novel because no one has studied X" — this is necessary but insufficient. Show WHERE in the map the gap exists and WHY the existing streams cannot address it.

### Step 6: Generate Visual Map (Optional but Valuable)

Create a Mermaid diagram showing clusters and relationships:

```mermaid
graph TB
    subgraph Stream A: Information Asymmetry
        A1[Smith 2020]
        A2[Lee 2021]
    end
    subgraph Stream B: Behavioral
        B1[Jones 2021]
        B2[Park 2022]
    end
    A1 -->|contradicts| B1
    A2 -->|extends| A1
    GAP[YOUR PAPER] -.->|bridges| A1
    GAP -.->|bridges| B1
```

## Output Contract

- `LiteratureMap`: write `RESEARCH/[topic]/literature/literature_map.md`.
- Separate finding, interpretation, and implication in the final artifact.
- Do not invent citations, data, sample sizes, statistical results, or reviewer comments.
- Apply `references/academic-output-rubric.md` before finalizing scholarly prose or review artifacts.

### Evidence Ledger and Source Integrity

- Update `RESEARCH/[topic]/evidence/claim-evidence-ledger.csv` when producing, revising, or validating central scholarly claims.
- Follow `references/evidence-ledger-contract.md`: supported claims need source pointers; unsupported central claims become `gap_note` rows and `RESEARCH/[topic]/context/gap_notes.md` entries.
- For final writing, proofread, submission, rebuttal, citation, or presentation-facing outputs, apply `references/citation-risk-policy.md` and write or update `RESEARCH/[topic]/proofread/citation-risk-report.md` when citation risk is material.

## Quality Bar

The literature map is **ready** when:

- [ ] 3–6 clusters with mechanism-based or theory-based labels (not author-based)
- [ ] Every included paper assigned to a primary cluster
- [ ] Each cluster has: core argument, representative papers, open problems
- [ ] Inter-cluster relationships documented
- [ ] Your contribution is positioned against at least 2 open problems
- [ ] A reviewer in the field would recognize the cluster structure as fair

## Common Pitfalls

| Pitfall | Problem | Fix |
|---------|---------|-----|
| Chronological organization | Doesn't reveal intellectual structure | Re-organize by mechanism or method |
| Too many clusters (>8) | Map is unusable; some clusters have 1–2 papers | Merge related clusters |
| Missing a major stream | Reviewer rejects for incomplete coverage | Check with a second search or consult a domain expert |
| Clusters match search databases, not ideas | PubMed cluster vs SSRN cluster | Re-cluster by intellectual contribution |
| No open problems identified | Map is descriptive, not critical | Every cluster must have ≥1 unresolved question |

## Minimal Output Format

```markdown
# Literature Map

## Clustering basis: [mechanism / method / context / level]

## Cluster Overview

| Cluster | Label | Papers (k) | Core Argument | Key Open Problem |
|---------|-------|-----------|---------------|-----------------|

## Detailed Clusters

### Cluster 1: [Label]
- **Core argument**: ...
- **Representative papers**: ...
- **Typical methods**: ...
- **Key findings**: ...
- **Internal contradictions**: ...
- **Open problems**: ...

### Cluster 2: [Label]
...

## Inter-Cluster Relationships

| Cluster A | Relation | Cluster B | Evidence |
|-----------|----------|-----------|----------|

## Positioning
Our work bridges [Cluster X] and [Cluster Y] by ...
Open problems addressed: ...
```

## Political Economy Overlay

### Activation
Apply this overlay when `literature-mapper` is used for political economy questions about institutions, actors, incentives, distributional conflict, policy, state capacity, or economic outcomes.

### Required Context
- Require the focal political economy debate, institution type, actor set, policy or economic outcome, method family, and target venue.
- Require adjacent literatures in economics and political science before mapping the conversation.
- Require the focal mechanism and at least two rival mechanisms.

### Subject-Specific Procedure
1. Organize literature by political mechanism, not only by topic or geography.
2. Separate institutional origins, actor incentives, distributional conflict, policy process, and economic outcome literatures.
3. Map whether each paper provides theory, measurement, causal evidence, mechanism evidence, or historical context.
4. Identify where the user's project changes an existing debate rather than merely applying it to a new case.
5. Mark rival mechanisms and evidence gaps that the study design must answer.

### Reviewer-Risk Checks
- Check whether the map collapses economics, political science, and policy literatures into a broad summary.
- Check whether canonical institution or state-capacity work is cited without specifying the mechanism being borrowed.
- Check whether the claimed gap is just a missing country, sector, or time period.

### Output Requirements
- The literature map must include `Debate`, `Mechanism`, `Institution`, `Actors`, `Outcome`, `Evidence Type`, and `Gap`.
- The output must name the target political economy conversation and the rival conversation a reviewer may invoke.
- Missing mechanism or boundary-condition literature must be recorded as a search gap.

### Blocked Conditions
- Block a contribution claim when the map cannot identify the political economy debate being changed.
- Block mechanism claims when the literature only supports outcome association.
- Do not treat policy relevance as a substitute for scholarly positioning.
