{ "date": "2026-09-16", "selection": "30 High and Medium insights in the audited board", "selectedIds": [ "P01", "P02", "P03", "P05", "P06", "P14", "P15", "P16", "P39", "P58", "P61", "P62", "SYN03", "SYN07", "SYN15", "P07", "P26", "SYN06", "SYN12", "P21", "SYN18", "P12", "SYN02", "SYN04", "P08", "P09", "P23", "P38", "P48", "P49" ], "rules": "Each selected insight appears once. Direct findings and hypotheses remain distinguishable. Synthesis parents are not counted as independent evidence. Working grade is the lowest component grade; weight preserves the highest component weight.", "groups": [ { "id": "C01", "topic": "Capability and longer-term outcomes", "insight": "Cooking ability and confidence are linked to healthier cooking and wellbeing; interventions can improve self-efficacy, and early-adult skills are associated with healthier meal preparation a decade later.", "keyTerms": [ "ability and confidence", "self-efficacy", "a decade later" ], "weight": "High", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "P02: NZ adolescent survey n=8,500 links cooking ability with nutrition, wellbeing and family connection; an adult-intervention review reports improvements in self-efficacy and eating.\n\nP03: Project EAT cohort: very adequate skills at ages 18–23 associated with odds ratio 3.5 for preparing vegetable meals at 30–35.", "source": "P02: M1; carried into M2 · Registry S02, N06; M2 N10\nP03: M1 · Registry S03; first register #11; repeated in M2 narrative", "refs": [ "S02", "N06", "N10", "S03" ], "grade": "C", "originalGrade": "", "limit": "Intervention findings and observational associations remain distinct. The longitudinal outcome is vegetable-meal preparation, and neither record establishes lifelong mastery or a competence-need mechanism.", "thai": "Not locally validated; see the applicability notes on the original insights.", "rationale": "Capability and self-efficacy are useful competence proxies. Health and wellbeing are outcomes, not direct measures of SDT need satisfaction.", "crossLinks": "Relatedness; wellbeing outcomes; Behavioural outcomes", "category": "Competence", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Consolidated", "members": [ "P02", "P03" ], "mergeReason": "Combines the broad ability–confidence–health pattern with its longer-term cohort evidence.", "sourceGrades": [ "A", "C" ], "retained": false }, { "id": "C02", "topic": "Interest can exceed capability", "insight": "Younger groups can be interested in cooking while reporting limited skills or low confidence; the supplied studies also link confidence with opportunities to learn.", "keyTerms": [ "interested in cooking", "low confidence", "opportunities to learn" ], "weight": "High", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "P05: Catalan student research links low motivation with low self-efficacy; US thesis n=487 associates learning in childhood/teens with higher adult confidence (p=.007). Instacart reports 62% learned from parents.\n\nP14: Current Backyard: 80% of Gen Z wanted to cook more, versus 40% of others; knowledge named about twice as often. FMI: 51% enjoyed meal prep; 52% cooked 4+ times/week versus 62% overall.", "source": "P05: M1 · Registry S11, N02, B04; first register #9, #15\nP14: M0-B; M1 · Registry B02, I01; first register #26, #27", "refs": [ "S11", "N02", "B04", "B02", "I01" ], "grade": "C", "originalGrade": "", "limit": "These are different countries, samples and methods. They do not establish one shared population, a causal sequence, or a measured Thai interest–action gap.", "thai": "Not locally validated; see the applicability notes on the original insights.", "rationale": "The shared SDT link is perceived capability. Interest and access to learning help describe its context without proving competence satisfaction.", "crossLinks": "Relatedness; Motivation quality; material barriers", "category": "Competence", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Consolidated", "members": [ "P05", "P14" ], "mergeReason": "Brings the interest–skill gap and the learning-opportunity evidence into one learner-capability topic.", "sourceGrades": [ "B", "C" ], "retained": false }, { "id": "C03", "topic": "Motivation and learning", "insight": "Some students perceive healthy cooking as more complicated and time-consuming than cooking generally.", "keyTerms": [ "healthy cooking", "time-consuming" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "P06: Huelva focus groups: four groups, n=26.", "source": "P06: M1 · Registry S12; first register #14", "refs": [ "S12" ], "grade": "C", "originalGrade": "", "limit": "Single small qualitative study in Spain; identifies a perception, not an objective property of healthy cooking.", "thai": "Not locally validated; see the applicability notes on the original insights.", "rationale": "Perceived complexity may reduce a learner’s sense that they can succeed. This is a possible competence obstacle, rather than a measured need frustration.", "crossLinks": "Time and workload", "category": "Competence", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Consolidated", "members": [ "P06" ], "mergeReason": "Kept as a distinct insight because perceived complexity of healthy cooking is more specific than general low confidence.", "sourceGrades": [ "C" ], "retained": true }, { "id": "C04", "topic": "Reported learner needs", "insight": "Cooking failure and limited experimentation budgets are reported by younger US cooks.", "keyTerms": [ "Cooking failure", "experimentation budgets" ], "weight": "High", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "P15: Home Run Inn n=2,000: 77% burnt a dish, 69% discarded one, 33% called themselves skilled, 37% took home economics. FMI: 40% lacked money to experiment. Wisp separately reports 64% cannot cook and 61% find an omelet overwhelming.", "source": "P15: M0-B; M1 · Registry B03, B05, I01; first register #28, #54", "refs": [ "B03", "B05", "I01" ], "grade": "B", "originalGrade": "", "limit": "Commercial convergence supports difficulty and resource concerns. Failure history is not itself a measure of fear; survey definitions differ and cannot be pooled.", "thai": "Not locally validated; see the applicability notes on the original insights.", "rationale": "Failed dishes may threaten perceived effectiveness. Budget limits are a separate resource constraint and should not be collapsed into the competence interpretation.", "crossLinks": "Financial resources; perceived risk", "category": "Competence", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Consolidated", "members": [ "P15" ], "mergeReason": "Kept as a distinct insight because cooking failure and the cost of experimentation add a resource constraint.", "sourceGrades": [ "B" ], "retained": true }, { "id": "C05", "topic": "Variety and confidence", "insight": "Recipe repetition and wanting more variety can coexist with wanting greater confidence and difficulty following recipes in the supplied parent and millennial surveys.", "keyTerms": [ "Recipe repetition", "more variety", "greater confidence" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "P16: Ninja: 74% of millennials wanted more confidence, rising to 80% among parents; 77% repeated meals; 79% of parents wanted more recipes; 40% of Gen Z/millennial parents struggled with recipes versus 25% overall.\n\nP26: Ninja reports repeated meals; Jennie-O/OnePoll reports six in ten burnt out, 26% citing lack of variety, and 60% experimenting with a familiar recipe out of boredom.", "source": "P16: M1 · Registry B07; age-group answers; first register #20–#22\nP26: M1 + M2 · Registry B07, C18; second register #16", "refs": [ "B07", "C18" ], "grade": "C", "originalGrade": "", "limit": "B07 appears in both original cards and counts once, not as independent confirmation. The surveys do not separate boredom, burnout and low skill causally or show that novelty helps when exhausted.", "thai": "Not locally validated; see the applicability notes on the original insights.", "rationale": "Confidence and recipe-following difficulty provide the competence connection. Variety seeking remains a contextual preference rather than evidence of autonomy frustration.", "crossLinks": "Context and possible supports; variety and cooking fatigue", "category": "Competence", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Consolidated", "members": [ "P16", "P26" ], "mergeReason": "Both records cover repeated meals and variety; P16 preserves the linked confidence and recipe-following difficulty.", "sourceGrades": [ "B", "C" ], "retained": false }, { "id": "C06", "topic": "Guidance during the cook", "insight": "Uncertainty about techniques, sensory cues and mistakes points to a candidate need for reliable teaching tied to the current recipe step, with help for recovery and progression.", "keyTerms": [ "sensory cues", "current recipe step", "recovery and progression" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "P39: Early manual notes name translucent/fragrant cues, substitutions and multi-component timing. K1’s carbonara walkthrough reports leaving the app for basic technique help; S09/S10 document assistant/error-handling problems.\n\nSYN07: Synthesis based on P38, P39, P40, P41, P43, P44.\n\nSYN15: Synthesis based on P39, P41, P42, P43, P44, P45, P46.", "source": "P39: M0-P/T/B; M1 S09/S10; K1 · Zest and SideChef overviews and cons\nSYN07: M0 tacit knowledge + K1’s inline-teaching differentiation.\nSYN15: Replaces the earlier “nobody teaches cooking” claim using K1.", "refs": [ "S09", "S10", "P38", "P39", "P40", "P41", "P43", "P44", "P42", "P45", "P46" ], "grade": "C", "originalGrade": "", "limit": "This combines an observation with design hypotheses. P39 is already a parent of both syntheses, so their agreement is not independent evidence. Benefits for learning, completion and demand still need testing.", "thai": "Not locally validated; see the applicability notes on the original insights.", "rationale": "Step-specific teaching and recovery may support felt effectiveness. The competence-support mechanism remains a hypothesis.", "crossLinks": "Learning and task conditions; Contextual usability; market positioning", "category": "Competence", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Consolidated", "members": [ "P39", "SYN07", "SYN15" ], "mergeReason": "Consolidates the observed instructional gap with two overlapping proposals for teaching and support during cooking.", "sourceGrades": [ "C" ], "retained": false }, { "id": "C07", "topic": "Complaints during active learning", "insight": "Skill and confidence complaints can coexist with cooking more; some may reflect active learning and growing awareness rather than a fixed inability.", "keyTerms": [ "complaints", "cooking more", "active learning" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "P58: Cooking more: skill 91.0% (n=531), confidence 90.8% (n=326), versus 89.8% without a named barrier. Cooking less remains about twice the no-barrier percentage.\n\nSYN03: Synthesis based on P02, P03, P13, P58, P61, P62.", "source": "P58: D1 · Cycle 1 §5; M2 second register #11; Registry D02\nSYN03: Rewrites M2’s “skill is a stage” as a testable interpretation.", "refs": [ "D02", "P02", "P03", "P13", "P58", "P61", "P62" ], "grade": "C", "originalGrade": "", "limit": "P58 is already a parent of SYN03. This does not prove within-person progression, harmless barriers or a causal benefit from complaints; coding circularity and selection remain alternative explanations.", "thai": "Not locally validated; see the applicability notes on the original insights.", "rationale": "The common concern is perceived capability during learning. Repeated within-person measures are needed to confirm changing competence.", "crossLinks": "Behavioural change; motivation quality; Motivation quality", "category": "Competence", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Consolidated", "members": [ "P58", "SYN03" ], "mergeReason": "Pairs the observed coexistence of complaints and activity with the tentative learning-stage interpretation built from it.", "sourceGrades": [ "C" ], "retained": false }, { "id": "C08", "topic": "Capability barriers by cooking level", "insight": "Reported skill barriers peak at beginner level and are lower at higher cooking levels; a similar capability-barrier gradient appears across several life contexts, with less context variation at high skill.", "keyTerms": [ "peak at beginner", "higher cooking levels", "across several life contexts" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "P61: none 31.4%, beginner 43.3%, intermediate 3.8%, advanced 1.9%; follow-up base 74,787 with cooking_level, 14,276 with both fields.\n\nP62: Beginner-to-intermediate reductions 22–51pp across parents, couples, students, professionals and retirees; context spread 32pp at none versus 5pp at advanced.", "source": "P61: D1-F · reported in M2 RQ2.6 and Registry D04\nP62: D1-F · M2 second register #19, #20; RQ2.6 narrative; Registry D04", "refs": [ "D04" ], "grade": "C", "originalGrade": "", "limit": "Both records come from D04, not independent datasets. The follow-up tables and uncertainty are not supplied, and skill coding partly uses barrier language. Cross-sectional differences do not prove progression.", "thai": "Not locally validated; see the applicability notes on the original insights.", "rationale": "The pattern concerns capability barriers across groups. It is an indirect competence link and cannot establish need satisfaction or remove the importance of context.", "crossLinks": "Learning-stage interpretation; Demographic and life context", "category": "Competence", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Consolidated", "members": [ "P61", "P62" ], "mergeReason": "Combines the overall capability gradient and the context breakdown of the same reported follow-up.", "sourceGrades": [ "C" ], "retained": false }, { "id": "C09", "topic": "Adaptive challenge", "insight": "A user may need a learning challenge on one occasion and an easy familiar meal on another.", "keyTerms": [ "learning challenge", "easy familiar meal" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "source": "SYN06: Integrates M1 parent-variety themes with M2 energy-sensitive support.", "refs": [ "P16", "P23", "P25", "P26", "P58", "P63" ], "grade": "C", "originalGrade": "", "limit": "No routing rule or recommendation algorithm is validated. Fatigue should not automatically exclude all learning.", "thai": "", "rationale": "A flexible choice between challenge and simplicity could support willingness. Suitable challenge also relates to competence; neither benefit is yet tested.", "crossLinks": "Competence; day-to-day energy", "category": "Autonomy", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Consolidated", "members": [ "SYN06" ], "mergeReason": "Kept separately because choosing challenge versus an easy meal concerns the current occasion, distinct from a longer-term goal structure.", "sourceGrades": [ "C" ], "evidence": "SYN06: Synthesis based on P16, P23, P25, P26, P58, P63.", "retained": true }, { "id": "C10", "topic": "Progress and habit", "insight": "Visible skill progress and flexible, repeatable cooking goals are plausible alternatives to relying on daily streaks.", "keyTerms": [ "Visible skill progress", "repeatable cooking goals", "daily streaks" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "source": "SYN12: M0/M1 retention proposal, with unsupported universal cadence removed.", "refs": [ "P07", "P08", "P09", "P14", "P20" ], "grade": "C", "originalGrade": "", "limit": "The materials do not measure target users’ recipe-mediated cadence or establish that daily streaks always fail. Specific weekly frequency and 12-week duration remain choices to test.", "thai": "", "rationale": "Flexible goals may support choice while progress markers may support effectiveness. A weekly rhythm or game mechanic is not intrinsically autonomy-supportive.", "crossLinks": "Competence; habit formation", "category": "Autonomy", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Consolidated", "members": [ "SYN12" ], "mergeReason": "Kept separately because flexible goals, progress and streaks concern repeated participation over time.", "sourceGrades": [ "C" ], "evidence": "SYN12: Synthesis based on P07, P08, P09, P14, P20.", "retained": true }, { "id": "C11", "topic": "Social support and shared meals", "insight": "Shared cooking and meal programs can benefit older adults’ competence, health, wellbeing and social connection; social support and family meaning may have different value across learning, cooking and eating together.", "keyTerms": [ "Shared cooking and meal programs", "social connection", "family meaning" ], "weight": "High", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "P21: HK/Asia dyadic RCT n=60 pairs, five weeks, reported competence/wellbeing gains; scoping reviews report dietary and social benefits of cooking and meal-sharing programs.\n\nSYN18: Synthesis based on P02, P05, P17, P18, P21, P24, P33, P46, P52.", "source": "P21: M1 · Registry N03–N05; first register #13\nSYN18: Combines M1 social/older-adult evidence with D1’s family_care caveat.", "refs": [ "N03", "N04", "N05", "P02", "P05", "P17", "P18", "P21", "P24", "P33", "P46", "P52" ], "grade": "C", "originalGrade": "", "limit": "The intervention findings concern studied older-adult settings. Their extension to other groups or digital social features is tentative. P21 is already a parent of SYN18; shared meals, care and public posting are not interchangeable.", "thai": "Not locally validated; see the applicability notes on the original insights.", "rationale": "Social connection gives the relatedness link. These multi-component programs also involve competence and health; they do not isolate a single SDT mechanism.", "crossLinks": "Competence; Autonomy; Competence through learning; Autonomy in social participation", "category": "Relatedness", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Consolidated", "members": [ "P21", "SYN18" ], "mergeReason": "Connects the older-adult intervention evidence with the broader, explicitly tentative social-support synthesis.", "sourceGrades": [ "A", "C" ], "retained": false }, { "id": "C12", "topic": "Learning and habit", "insight": "Gamification can improve learning, but its effects depend on design and context; intrinsic-motivation gains are smaller than broad learning gains.", "keyTerms": [ "Gamification", "intrinsic-motivation gains" ], "weight": "High", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "P07: Learning meta-analysis reports g=.822 across 41 studies, n>5,071; a separate intrinsic-motivation meta-analysis and review qualify effects by design and context.", "source": "P07: M1 · Registry S04–S06; first register #4, #12", "refs": [ "S04", "S05", "S06" ], "grade": "A", "originalGrade": "", "limit": "General educational evidence, not a cooking-app trial. Does not prove points never work, that all effects operate only through three needs, or a specific boss-challenge recipe.", "thai": "Not locally validated; see the applicability notes on the original insights.", "rationale": "The reported outcome explicitly concerns intrinsic motivation, a motivation-quality construct. It does not measure autonomy satisfaction or experienced choice.", "crossLinks": "Competence; Relatedness", "category": "Motivation quality", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Consolidated", "members": [ "P07" ], "mergeReason": "Kept as a distinct finding because measured gamification effects cannot be collapsed into an untested flexible-goal proposal.", "sourceGrades": [ "A" ], "retained": true }, { "id": "C13", "topic": "Amotivation, fatigue and capability", "insight": "An energy/motivation complaint can mix desire, capability, fatigue and workload; it should not be equated with SDT amotivation, which concerns lack of intention and is linked to disengagement.", "keyTerms": [ "desire, capability, fatigue and workload", "SDT amotivation", "lack of intention" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "P12: N11 describes lack of intentionality and low competence/value explanations; N12 links amotivation with adverse engagement outcomes in physical activity.\n\nSYN04: Synthesis based on P12, P23, P24, P25, P28, P57, P60, P63.", "source": "P12: M2 · Registry N11, N12; second register #1, #7\nSYN04: Corrects and extends M2’s state/outcome reclassification without accepting its causal certainty.", "refs": [ "N11", "N12", "P12", "P23", "P24", "P25", "P28", "P57", "P60", "P63" ], "grade": "C", "originalGrade": "", "limit": "P12 is already a parent of SYN04. The corpus energy/motivation label has not been validated as SDT amotivation, and the engagement evidence is from adjacent domains.", "thai": "Not locally validated; see the applicability notes on the original insights.", "rationale": "The synthesis preserves the boundary between lack of intention and physical or practical difficulty before interpreting regulation quality.", "crossLinks": "Competence; perceived value; physical and social context", "category": "Motivation quality", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Consolidated", "members": [ "P12", "SYN04" ], "mergeReason": "Combines the amotivation construct with the measurement boundary drawn from it in SYN04.", "sourceGrades": [ "C" ], "retained": false }, { "id": "C14", "topic": "Capability and reasons to cook", "insight": "Skill and self-fulfilment are associated with cooking, and greater skill may ease perceived time burden; money, health, family and identity may provide additional reasons to start or continue.", "keyTerms": [ "Skill and self-fulfilment", "perceived time burden", "reasons to start or continue" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "P01: The US millennial study links self-fulfilment to cooking choice, skill to frequency, and skill to a weaker negative time effect.\n\nSYN02: Synthesis based on P01, P02, P03, P14, P16, P19, P29, P33, P51, P52.", "source": "P01: M1 · Registry S01; first insight register #1, #3\nSYN02: Narrows M1’s “sell money, build confidence” and revises its universal-engine claim.", "refs": [ "S01", "P01", "P02", "P03", "P14", "P16", "P19", "P29", "P33", "P51", "P52" ], "grade": "C", "originalGrade": "", "limit": "P01 is already a parent of SYN02. The proposed route from capability growth to continued cooking remains tentative. Goal content does not establish autonomous or controlled regulation, and skill does not remove objective time constraints.", "thai": "Not locally validated; see the applicability notes on the original insights.", "rationale": "This is a motivation hypothesis about capability and multiple reasons for cooking. Internalization must be measured separately; competence is a cross-link.", "crossLinks": "Competence; perceived time burden; goal content", "category": "Motivation quality", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Consolidated", "members": [ "P01", "SYN02" ], "mergeReason": "P01 supplies part of the capability-and-purpose evidence already used by SYN02, so one statement can retain both without repeating the same support.", "sourceGrades": [ "C" ], "retained": false }, { "id": "C15", "topic": "Repetition and automaticity", "insight": "Habit formation needs sustained repetition over widely varying timescales; increasing automaticity can reduce reliance on momentary motivation and self-control.", "keyTerms": [ "sustained repetition", "widely varying timescales", "automaticity" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "P08: Lally record: 66 days and 18–254-day range. Review of 20 studies, n=2,601: medians 59–66 days and means 106–154 days.\n\nP09: Habit reviews plus app-supported event sampling (n=91, 2,574 repetitions) associate increasing automaticity with lower motivational interference.", "source": "P08: M1 · Registry S07, S08; first register #5\nP09: M2 · Registry N15, N16; second register #4", "refs": [ "S07", "S08", "N15", "N16" ], "grade": "A", "originalGrade": "", "limit": "These are general habit findings, not a validated cooking schedule or app program. No universal deadline, weekly frequency or claim that motivation stops mattering follows.", "thai": "Not locally validated; see the applicability notes on the original insights.", "rationale": "Habit and automaticity describe behavioral support mechanisms. A routine may be willingly endorsed or externally pressured, so it does not identify SDT regulation.", "crossLinks": "Autonomy, if the routine is willingly adopted; Energy and workload; Autonomy", "category": "Context and possible supports", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Consolidated", "members": [ "P08", "P09" ], "mergeReason": "Combines how habits develop with the general mechanism that makes repetition relevant to effort and motivation.", "sourceGrades": [ "A" ], "retained": false }, { "id": "C16", "topic": "Fatigue and workload", "insight": "Planning, preparation and cleanup form a substantial part of reported meal burden.", "keyTerms": [ "Planning, preparation and cleanup" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "P23: Sun Basket/OnePoll n=2,000: prep 46%, cleanup 43%, planning 42%, cooking 35%, ingredient collection 34%; 55% report cooking fatigue, 53% more takeout for a break. Acosta: daily meal planning challenge 40% versus skill improvement 17%.", "source": "P23: M2 · Registry C17, C20; second register #12, #13", "refs": [ "C17", "C20" ], "grade": "B", "originalGrade": "", "limit": "Convergent US commercial findings for surrounding workload. The percentages come from different questions; cooking itself is still tiring for some respondents. Pandemic-era context limits transfer.", "thai": "Not locally validated; see the applicability notes on the original insights.", "rationale": "Meal workload may block action despite desire and skill. Burden can affect the experience of choice or effectiveness, but is not itself psychological need frustration.", "crossLinks": "Autonomy; Competence, if experienced as controlling or defeating", "category": "Context and possible supports", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Consolidated", "members": [ "P23" ], "mergeReason": "Kept separately because the workload around cooking is a distinct practical burden.", "sourceGrades": [ "B" ], "retained": true }, { "id": "C17", "topic": "Cooking interaction", "insight": "Busy or dirty hands and limited attention constrain interaction with cooking instructions.", "keyTerms": [ "dirty hands", "limited attention", "cooking instructions" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "P38: DIS 2023 n=10 reports preference for voice input and visual output; CHI 2024 reports overload, fragmented information, listening failures and audio limits. Early notes add screen timeout and navigation friction.", "source": "P38: M0-P/T/B; M1 · Registry S09, S10; first register #6, #8", "refs": [ "S09", "S10" ], "grade": "A", "originalGrade": "", "limit": "Convergent academic support for the broad interaction constraint in studied settings. Exact modality preference comes from a small study; it is not a universal voice-only prescription.", "thai": "Not locally validated; see the applicability notes on the original insights.", "rationale": "Busy hands and divided attention affect whether support is usable. Better interaction may enable successful action, without itself demonstrating competence satisfaction.", "crossLinks": "Competence; practical control", "category": "Context and possible supports", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Consolidated", "members": [ "P38" ], "mergeReason": "Kept separately because hands and attention constrain interaction even when the instructional content is adequate.", "sourceGrades": [ "A" ], "retained": true }, { "id": "C18", "topic": "Competitor business context", "insight": "The materials report the 2024 shutdowns of Yummly and Food Network Kitchen.", "keyTerms": [ "shutdowns" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "P48: Yummly closure recorded as 20 December 2024; Food Network Kitchen as 1 May 2024.", "source": "P48: M0-B/S; M1 · Registry P06, P07; first register #19", "refs": [ "P06", "P07" ], "grade": "B", "originalGrade": "", "limit": "Convergent commercial cases for the existence of shutdown risk. The files do not establish that weak retention or premium-content subscriptions caused both shutdowns, or that gamification would have saved them.", "thai": "Not locally validated; see the applicability notes on the original insights.", "rationale": "Shutdowns are business outcomes, not observations of users’ psychological needs. No causal SDT explanation can be inferred from the closures.", "crossLinks": "Business viability", "category": "Market and outcome evidence", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Consolidated", "members": [ "P48" ], "mergeReason": "Kept separately because documented shutdowns are business outcomes, not an explanation for category retention.", "sourceGrades": [ "B" ], "retained": true }, { "id": "C19", "topic": "Retention benchmarks", "insight": "The supplied analytics benchmarks place Food and Drink app day-30 retention around 3–4%.", "keyTerms": [ "day-30 retention" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "P49: Adjust about 3%; AppsFlyer about 3.93%. M0 also reports D1 12–16.5% and D7 about 7%. V04 is cross-category context rather than an independent Food and Drink measure.", "source": "P49: M0-P/B/S; M1 · Registry V01, V02, V04; first register #16", "refs": [ "V01", "V02", "V04" ], "grade": "B", "originalGrade": "", "limit": "Different definitions, cohorts and app mixes; not the retention of this product or necessarily cooking-education apps. Does not show acquisition will be easy.", "thai": "Not locally validated; see the applicability notes on the original insights.", "rationale": "Retention is an engagement outcome that SDT hypotheses might help explain. Low retention alone cannot identify which need, if any, was unsupported.", "crossLinks": "All three needs remain possible explanatory hypotheses", "category": "Market and outcome evidence", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Consolidated", "members": [ "P49" ], "mergeReason": "Kept separately because category retention benchmarks have distinct cohorts and definitions and do not explain the shutdown cases.", "sourceGrades": [ "B" ], "retained": true } ], "originals": [ { "id": "P01", "topic": "Motivation and learning", "insight": "Self-fulfilment and cooking skill are associated with cooking behaviour; greater skill can reduce the reported burden of time.", "keyTerms": [ "Self-fulfilment", "cooking skill", "cooking behaviour" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "The US millennial study links self-fulfilment to cooking choice, skill to frequency, and skill to a weaker negative time effect.", "source": "M1 · Registry S01; first insight register #1, #3", "refs": [ "S01" ], "grade": "C", "originalGrade": "A", "limit": "One study. This does not establish that money never matters, that confidence causes retention, or that skill removes objective time constraints.", "thai": "C — not locally validated", "rationale": "Effectiveness and growing skill offer a plausible competence connection. Self-fulfilment is broader than competence, and time burden is not an SDT need score.", "crossLinks": "Motivation quality; practical time constraints", "category": "Competence", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Primary" }, { "id": "P02", "topic": "Motivation and learning", "insight": "Cooking ability, confidence and wellbeing are connected, and cooking interventions can improve self-efficacy and healthy eating.", "keyTerms": [ "Cooking ability", "cooking interventions", "self-efficacy" ], "weight": "High", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "NZ adolescent survey n=8,500 links cooking ability with nutrition, wellbeing and family connection; an adult-intervention review reports improvements in self-efficacy and eating.", "source": "M1; carried into M2 · Registry S02, N06; M2 N10", "refs": [ "S02", "N06", "N10" ], "grade": "A", "originalGrade": "A", "limit": "Convergent academic evidence for the broad pattern in studied populations. N10 repeats the N06/N04 review evidence and is not an independent replication. Wellbeing association is not proof of causality.", "thai": "C — not locally validated", "rationale": "Cooking confidence and gains in self-efficacy are close to felt effectiveness. Wellbeing and family connection suggest additional pathways, not a competence-only explanation.", "crossLinks": "Relatedness; wellbeing outcomes", "category": "Competence", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Primary" }, { "id": "P03", "topic": "Motivation and learning", "insight": "Self-rated cooking skills in early adulthood are associated with healthier cooking a decade later.", "keyTerms": [ "cooking skills" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "Project EAT cohort: very adequate skills at ages 18–23 associated with odds ratio 3.5 for preparing vegetable meals at 30–35.", "source": "M1 · Registry S03; first register #11; repeated in M2 narrative", "refs": [ "S03" ], "grade": "C", "originalGrade": "A", "limit": "One longitudinal cohort. Odds ratio is not a probability multiplier; the outcome is vegetable-meal preparation, not all cooking or permanent mastery.", "thai": "C — not locally validated", "rationale": "Earlier capability may support later successful action. The longitudinal association does not show that competence-need satisfaction caused the later behaviour.", "crossLinks": "Behavioural outcomes", "category": "Competence", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Primary" }, { "id": "P05", "topic": "Motivation and learning", "insight": "Low confidence and limited learning opportunities occur together in the student and young-adult evidence.", "keyTerms": [ "Low confidence", "limited learning opportunities" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "Catalan student research links low motivation with low self-efficacy; US thesis n=487 associates learning in childhood/teens with higher adult confidence (p=.007). Instacart reports 62% learned from parents.", "source": "M1 · Registry S11, N02, B04; first register #9, #15", "refs": [ "S11", "N02", "B04" ], "grade": "C", "originalGrade": "A", "limit": "Countries and methods differ; the thesis is lower-tier evidence. Does not establish that nobody taught all low-confidence cooks, or a universal confidence-before-motivation causal order.", "thai": "C — not locally validated", "rationale": "Limited opportunities to learn may undermine perceived capability. A supportive person could also provide connection, but those two processes need separate evidence.", "crossLinks": "Relatedness", "category": "Competence", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Primary" }, { "id": "P06", "topic": "Motivation and learning", "insight": "Some students perceive healthy cooking as more complicated and time-consuming than cooking generally.", "keyTerms": [ "healthy cooking", "time-consuming" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "Huelva focus groups: four groups, n=26.", "source": "M1 · Registry S12; first register #14", "refs": [ "S12" ], "grade": "C", "originalGrade": "A", "limit": "Single small qualitative study in Spain; identifies a perception, not an objective property of healthy cooking.", "thai": "C — not locally validated", "rationale": "Perceived complexity may reduce a learner’s sense that they can succeed. This is a possible competence obstacle, rather than a measured need frustration.", "crossLinks": "Time and workload", "category": "Competence", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Primary" }, { "id": "P14", "topic": "Reported learner needs", "insight": "Several US sources report a mismatch between younger adults’ interest in cooking and their skill or cooking behaviour.", "keyTerms": [ "younger adults", "cooking behaviour" ], "weight": "High", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "Current Backyard: 80% of Gen Z wanted to cook more, versus 40% of others; knowledge named about twice as often. FMI: 51% enjoyed meal prep; 52% cooked 4+ times/week versus 62% overall.", "source": "M0-B; M1 · Registry B02, I01; first register #26, #27", "refs": [ "B02", "I01" ], "grade": "B", "originalGrade": "B", "limit": "Convergent US commercial/industry evidence for the broad pattern. These are different surveys and measures, not a measured Thai want–do gap or proof that low skill causes the gap.", "thai": "C — not locally validated", "rationale": "Wanting to cook more while reporting limited skills suggests a possible capability gap. Desire and cooking frequency do not directly measure competence satisfaction.", "crossLinks": "Motivation quality; material barriers", "category": "Competence", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Primary" }, { "id": "P15", "topic": "Reported learner needs", "insight": "Cooking failure and limited experimentation budgets are reported by younger US cooks.", "keyTerms": [ "Cooking failure", "experimentation budgets" ], "weight": "High", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "Home Run Inn n=2,000: 77% burnt a dish, 69% discarded one, 33% called themselves skilled, 37% took home economics. FMI: 40% lacked money to experiment. Wisp separately reports 64% cannot cook and 61% find an omelet overwhelming.", "source": "M0-B; M1 · Registry B03, B05, I01; first register #28, #54", "refs": [ "B03", "B05", "I01" ], "grade": "B", "originalGrade": "B/C; A in some age summaries", "limit": "Commercial convergence supports difficulty and resource concerns. Failure history is not itself a measure of fear; survey definitions differ and cannot be pooled.", "thai": "C — not locally validated", "rationale": "Failed dishes may threaten perceived effectiveness. Budget limits are a separate resource constraint and should not be collapsed into the competence interpretation.", "crossLinks": "Financial resources; perceived risk", "category": "Competence", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Primary" }, { "id": "P16", "topic": "Reported learner needs", "insight": "Wanting greater confidence, recipe repetition and recipe-following difficulty coexist among surveyed parents and millennials.", "keyTerms": [ "greater confidence", "recipe repetition", "recipe-following difficulty" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "Ninja: 74% of millennials wanted more confidence, rising to 80% among parents; 77% repeated meals; 79% of parents wanted more recipes; 40% of Gen Z/millennial parents struggled with recipes versus 25% overall.", "source": "M1 · Registry B07; age-group answers; first register #20–#22", "refs": [ "B07" ], "grade": "C", "originalGrade": "B", "limit": "One 2021 brand-sponsored survey. Keep its distinct denominators; it does not show parents outperform other segments commercially or that boredom replaces inability.", "thai": "C — not locally validated", "rationale": "Confidence and difficulty following recipes connect to capability. Repetition may also prompt a desire for choice or variety, but does not establish low autonomy.", "crossLinks": "Autonomy; boredom and workload", "category": "Competence", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Primary" }, { "id": "P39", "topic": "Cooking interaction", "insight": "Recipes can leave learners uncertain about techniques, sensory cues and how to recover from mistakes.", "keyTerms": [ "techniques", "sensory cues", "recover from mistakes" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "Early manual notes name translucent/fragrant cues, substitutions and multi-component timing. K1’s carbonara walkthrough reports leaving the app for basic technique help; S09/S10 document assistant/error-handling problems.", "source": "M0-P/T/B; M1 S09/S10; K1 · Zest and SideChef overviews and cons", "refs": [ "S09", "S10" ], "grade": "C", "originalGrade": "A for error handling; ungraded early notes", "limit": "The specific tacit-skill examples are manual observations and one walkthrough, not a measured population prevalence or proof that error recovery is every user’s top need.", "thai": "C — not locally validated", "rationale": "Uncertainty about techniques and recovery is close to feeling ineffective during a task. Assistance could support competence if it improves real and perceived capability.", "crossLinks": "Learning and task conditions", "category": "Competence", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Primary" }, { "id": "P58", "topic": "Corpus behaviour change", "insight": "Skill/confidence complaints can coexist with increasing cooking activity.", "keyTerms": [ "Skill/confidence complaints" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "Cooking more: skill 91.0% (n=531), confidence 90.8% (n=326), versus 89.8% without a named barrier. Cooking less remains about twice the no-barrier percentage.", "source": "D1 · Cycle 1 §5; M2 second register #11; Registry D02", "refs": [ "D02" ], "grade": "C", "originalGrade": "B in M2", "limit": "Increase in cooking is not high absolute frequency. No equivalence test is supplied for 91% versus 89.8%; the finding does not prove these barriers are harmless or cause improvement.", "thai": "C — not locally validated", "rationale": "Skill complaints during increasing activity are consistent with effortful learning. They could coexist with either supported or frustrated competence and need direct follow-up.", "crossLinks": "Behavioural change; motivation quality", "category": "Competence", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Primary" }, { "id": "P61", "topic": "Corpus skill gradient", "insight": "Skill-barrier mentions peak at beginner and are lower at higher cooking levels in the reported follow-up.", "keyTerms": [ "Skill-barrier mentions", "cooking level" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "none 31.4%, beginner 43.3%, intermediate 3.8%, advanced 1.9%; follow-up base 74,787 with cooking_level, 14,276 with both fields.", "source": "D1-F · reported in M2 RQ2.6 and Registry D04", "refs": [ "D04" ], "grade": "C", "originalGrade": "B for gradient; A for stage interpretation", "limit": "Follow-up tables/scripts are not supplied; values are available through the manual report/registry. Skill coding partly uses barrier language. Cross-sectional groups cannot prove within-person progression.", "thai": "C — not locally validated", "rationale": "The beginner peak is compatible with changing awareness of capability. It is not a direct competence-satisfaction trajectory and partly shares the coding used for skill level.", "crossLinks": "Learning-stage interpretation", "category": "Competence", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Primary" }, { "id": "P62", "topic": "Corpus skill gradient", "insight": "The reported capability-barrier gradient appears within multiple life contexts, with less between-context spread at high skill.", "keyTerms": [ "capability-barrier gradient", "life contexts" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "Beginner-to-intermediate reductions 22–51pp across parents, couples, students, professionals and retirees; context spread 32pp at none versus 5pp at advanced.", "source": "D1-F · M2 second register #19, #20; RQ2.6 narrative; Registry D04", "refs": [ "D04" ], "grade": "C", "originalGrade": "B", "limit": "Outcome is capability-barrier prevalence, not all motivation, all structural barriers or all life-stage differences. Cell denominators and uncertainty are absent from the supplied follow-up summary.", "thai": "C — not locally validated", "rationale": "The within-context gradient makes capability relevant across groups. It does not show that SDT competence eliminates context or the importance of the other two needs.", "crossLinks": "Demographic and life context", "category": "Competence", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Primary" }, { "id": "SYN03", "topic": "Learning trajectory", "insight": "Some skill complaints may reflect active learning and growing awareness rather than a fixed inability.", "keyTerms": [ "active learning", "growing awareness" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "source": "Rewrites M2’s “skill is a stage” as a testable interpretation.", "refs": [ "P02", "P03", "P13", "P58", "P61", "P62" ], "grade": "C", "originalGrade": "", "limit": "Alternative explanations include coding circularity and selection. Progression requires repeated within-person measures; a one-time survey cannot prove it.", "thai": "", "rationale": "The proposed learning-stage account concerns perceived capability. Direct repeated measures are needed to distinguish growing awareness from persistent need frustration.", "crossLinks": "Motivation quality", "category": "Competence", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Secondary" }, { "id": "SYN07", "topic": "Instruction", "insight": "A technique lesson may be less useful when it is disconnected from the recipe step and the visible result the learner is trying to achieve.", "keyTerms": [ "visible result" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "source": "M0 tacit knowledge + K1’s inline-teaching differentiation.", "refs": [ "P38", "P39", "P40", "P41", "P43", "P44" ], "grade": "C", "originalGrade": "", "limit": "Inline clips, sensory descriptions and example photos are candidate solutions; completion and learning benefits need testing.", "thai": "", "rationale": "Help integrated with the current task may make successful action more attainable. The need-support claim depends on both learning and felt effectiveness improving.", "crossLinks": "Contextual usability", "category": "Competence", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Secondary" }, { "id": "SYN15", "topic": "Differentiation", "insight": "A more defensible candidate gap is reliable teaching and help during the cook, integrated with progression and recovery.", "keyTerms": [ "reliable teaching", "during the cook" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "source": "Replaces the earlier “nobody teaches cooking” claim using K1.", "refs": [ "P39", "P41", "P42", "P43", "P44", "P45", "P46" ], "grade": "C", "originalGrade": "", "limit": "A four-product review is not an exhaustive market audit. An unobserved mastery loop is not proof of demand or uncontested market space.", "thai": "", "rationale": "Integrated teaching, help and recovery offer a candidate route to effective action. The differentiation claim does not itself validate competence support or business demand.", "crossLinks": "Contextual usability; market positioning", "category": "Competence", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Secondary" }, { "id": "P07", "topic": "Learning and habit", "insight": "Gamification can improve learning, but its effects depend on design and context; intrinsic-motivation gains are smaller than broad learning gains.", "keyTerms": [ "Gamification", "intrinsic-motivation gains" ], "weight": "High", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "Learning meta-analysis reports g=.822 across 41 studies, n>5,071; a separate intrinsic-motivation meta-analysis and review qualify effects by design and context.", "source": "M1 · Registry S04–S06; first register #4, #12", "refs": [ "S04", "S05", "S06" ], "grade": "A", "originalGrade": "A", "limit": "General educational evidence, not a cooking-app trial. Does not prove points never work, that all effects operate only through three needs, or a specific boss-challenge recipe.", "thai": "C — not locally validated", "rationale": "The reported outcome explicitly concerns intrinsic motivation, a motivation-quality construct. It does not measure autonomy satisfaction or experienced choice.", "crossLinks": "Competence; Relatedness", "category": "Motivation quality", "previousCategory": "Autonomy", "type": "Primary" }, { "id": "P26", "topic": "Fatigue and workload", "insight": "Repetition and desire for variety appear in multiple commercial reports of cooking fatigue.", "keyTerms": [ "Repetition", "desire for variety", "cooking fatigue" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "High", "evidence": "Ninja reports repeated meals; Jennie-O/OnePoll reports six in ten burnt out, 26% citing lack of variety, and 60% experimenting with a familiar recipe out of boredom.", "source": "M1 + M2 · Registry B07, C18; second register #16", "refs": [ "B07", "C18" ], "grade": "B", "originalGrade": "B", "limit": "Convergent US commercial theme, but burnout, boredom and low skill were not causally separated. Does not show novelty helps when someone is exhausted.", "thai": "C — not locally validated", "rationale": "Variety seeking and repetition fatigue do not establish volition, meaningful choice, or autonomy frustration.", "crossLinks": "Competence through suitable challenge; intrinsic interest", "category": "Context and possible supports", "previousCategory": "Autonomy", "type": "Primary" }, { "id": "SYN06", "topic": "Adaptive challenge", "insight": "A user may need a learning challenge on one occasion and an easy familiar meal on another.", "keyTerms": [ "learning challenge", "easy familiar meal" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "source": "Integrates M1 parent-variety themes with M2 energy-sensitive support.", "refs": [ "P16", "P23", "P25", "P26", "P58", "P63" ], "grade": "C", "originalGrade": "", "limit": "No routing rule or recommendation algorithm is validated. Fatigue should not automatically exclude all learning.", "thai": "", "rationale": "A flexible choice between challenge and simplicity could support willingness. Suitable challenge also relates to competence; neither benefit is yet tested.", "crossLinks": "Competence; day-to-day energy", "category": "Autonomy", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Secondary" }, { "id": "SYN12", "topic": "Progress and habit", "insight": "Visible skill progress and flexible, repeatable cooking goals are plausible alternatives to relying on daily streaks.", "keyTerms": [ "Visible skill progress", "repeatable cooking goals", "daily streaks" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "source": "M0/M1 retention proposal, with unsupported universal cadence removed.", "refs": [ "P07", "P08", "P09", "P14", "P20" ], "grade": "C", "originalGrade": "", "limit": "The materials do not measure target users’ recipe-mediated cadence or establish that daily streaks always fail. Specific weekly frequency and 12-week duration remain choices to test.", "thai": "", "rationale": "Flexible goals may support choice while progress markers may support effectiveness. A weekly rhythm or game mechanic is not intrinsically autonomy-supportive.", "crossLinks": "Competence; habit formation", "category": "Autonomy", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Secondary" }, { "id": "P21", "topic": "Older adults", "insight": "Cooking and shared-meal interventions can support competence, health, wellbeing and social connection among older adults.", "keyTerms": [ "shared-meal interventions", "social connection" ], "weight": "High", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "HK/Asia dyadic RCT n=60 pairs, five weeks, reported competence/wellbeing gains; scoping reviews report dietary and social benefits of cooking and meal-sharing programs.", "source": "M1 · Registry N03–N05; first register #13", "refs": [ "N03", "N04", "N05" ], "grade": "A", "originalGrade": "A", "limit": "Broad academic convergence in studied settings; reviews may overlap. Most evidence is in-person or multi-component. No evidence here that gamification cannot work for older people.", "thai": "C — not locally validated", "rationale": "Shared cooking and meals provide a plausible route to connection. Multi-component programs can also support effectiveness and independence, so the mechanism remains mixed.", "crossLinks": "Competence; Autonomy", "category": "Relatedness", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Primary" }, { "id": "SYN18", "topic": "Social context", "insight": "Social support and family meaning are plausible sources of value, but the relevant form may differ between learning, cooking and sharing meals.", "keyTerms": [ "Social support", "family meaning" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "source": "Combines M1 social/older-adult evidence with D1’s family_care caveat.", "refs": [ "P02", "P05", "P17", "P18", "P21", "P24", "P33", "P46", "P52" ], "grade": "C", "originalGrade": "", "limit": "Posting, co-cooking, care and eating together are not interchangeable. No evidence here proves friend challenges or public badges improve Thai retention.", "thai": "", "rationale": "Different social functions could support connection in different ways. Sharing publicly, caring for others and feeling cared for need distinct evidence.", "crossLinks": "Competence through learning; Autonomy in social participation", "category": "Relatedness", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Secondary" }, { "id": "P12", "topic": "Theory already in the materials", "insight": "The cited amotivation literature distinguishes lack of intention from lack of skill and relates it to disengagement.", "keyTerms": [ "lack of intention", "lack of skill" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "N11 describes lack of intentionality and low competence/value explanations; N12 links amotivation with adverse engagement outcomes in physical activity.", "source": "M2 · Registry N11, N12; second register #1, #7", "refs": [ "N11", "N12" ], "grade": "C", "originalGrade": "A", "limit": "Theory and adjacent-domain findings. The corpus energy_motivation label has not been validated as this construct; physical fatigue can coexist with wanting to cook.", "thai": "C — not locally validated", "rationale": "This is the clearest existing link to SDT’s amotivation construct. It describes theory and adjacent evidence, not validation of the corpus energy/motivation label.", "crossLinks": "Competence; perceived value", "category": "Motivation quality", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Primary" }, { "id": "SYN02", "topic": "Motivation", "insight": "Capability growth is a plausible route to sustained cooking, while money, health, family and identity may provide different reasons to start or continue.", "keyTerms": [ "Capability growth", "money", "health, family and identity" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "source": "Narrows M1’s “sell money, build confidence” and revises its universal-engine claim.", "refs": [ "P01", "P02", "P03", "P14", "P16", "P19", "P29", "P33", "P51", "P52" ], "grade": "C", "originalGrade": "", "limit": "No common longitudinal model ranks these motives or establishes an acquisition-versus-retention split.", "thai": "", "rationale": "Several reasons for cooking may coexist with competence development. How each reason is internalised must be established separately from the reason’s content.", "crossLinks": "Competence; Autonomy; Relatedness", "category": "Motivation quality", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Secondary" }, { "id": "SYN04", "topic": "Fatigue interpretation", "insight": "An energy/motivation complaint may describe different combinations of desire, felt capability, available energy and surrounding workload.", "keyTerms": [ "energy/motivation complaint", "available energy", "surrounding workload" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "source": "Corrects and extends M2’s state/outcome reclassification without accepting its causal certainty.", "refs": [ "P12", "P23", "P24", "P25", "P28", "P57", "P60", "P63" ], "grade": "C", "originalGrade": "", "limit": "Do not equate fatigue with amotivation, loss of value, giving up or app churn. Construct validation is still required.", "thai": "", "rationale": "The synthesis separates desire, capability, energy and workload. That separation is necessary before testing whether an apparent motivation problem is amotivation in SDT.", "crossLinks": "Competence; physical and social context", "category": "Motivation quality", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Secondary" }, { "id": "P08", "topic": "Learning and habit", "insight": "Habit formation usually requires sustained repetition, with substantial variation between people and behaviours.", "keyTerms": [ "Habit formation", "sustained repetition" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "Lally record: 66 days and 18–254-day range. Review of 20 studies, n=2,601: medians 59–66 days and means 106–154 days.", "source": "M1 · Registry S07, S08; first register #5", "refs": [ "S07", "S08" ], "grade": "A", "originalGrade": "A", "limit": "The materials call 66 days an average without resolving the statistic. Do not turn these ranges into a universal 2–5-month deadline, a cooking cadence, or proof that a 12-week program works.", "thai": "C — not locally validated", "rationale": "Repeated behaviour and time to automaticity describe habit formation. A habit may be self-endorsed or externally pressured; its existence does not reveal autonomy.", "crossLinks": "Autonomy, if the routine is willingly adopted", "category": "Context and possible supports", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Primary" }, { "id": "P09", "topic": "Learning and habit", "insight": "Automaticity can reduce reliance on momentary motivation and self-control.", "keyTerms": [ "Automaticity", "momentary motivation", "self-control" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "Habit reviews plus app-supported event sampling (n=91, 2,574 repetitions) associate increasing automaticity with lower motivational interference.", "source": "M2 · Registry N15, N16; second register #4", "refs": [ "N15", "N16" ], "grade": "A", "originalGrade": "A", "limit": "Evidence converges on a general mechanism. It does not show that motivation stops mattering or that cooking becomes effortless at an advanced skill level.", "thai": "C — not locally validated", "rationale": "Automaticity may reduce the effort needed to act. Lower effort is a contextual support, not proof of autonomous motivation or need satisfaction.", "crossLinks": "Energy and workload; Autonomy", "category": "Context and possible supports", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Primary" }, { "id": "P23", "topic": "Fatigue and workload", "insight": "Planning, preparation and cleanup form a substantial part of reported meal burden.", "keyTerms": [ "Planning, preparation and cleanup" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "Sun Basket/OnePoll n=2,000: prep 46%, cleanup 43%, planning 42%, cooking 35%, ingredient collection 34%; 55% report cooking fatigue, 53% more takeout for a break. Acosta: daily meal planning challenge 40% versus skill improvement 17%.", "source": "M2 · Registry C17, C20; second register #12, #13", "refs": [ "C17", "C20" ], "grade": "B", "originalGrade": "B", "limit": "Convergent US commercial findings for surrounding workload. The percentages come from different questions; cooking itself is still tiring for some respondents. Pandemic-era context limits transfer.", "thai": "C — not locally validated", "rationale": "Meal workload may block action despite desire and skill. Burden can affect the experience of choice or effectiveness, but is not itself psychological need frustration.", "crossLinks": "Autonomy; Competence, if experienced as controlling or defeating", "category": "Context and possible supports", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Primary" }, { "id": "P38", "topic": "Cooking interaction", "insight": "Busy or dirty hands and limited attention constrain interaction with cooking instructions.", "keyTerms": [ "dirty hands", "limited attention", "cooking instructions" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "DIS 2023 n=10 reports preference for voice input and visual output; CHI 2024 reports overload, fragmented information, listening failures and audio limits. Early notes add screen timeout and navigation friction.", "source": "M0-P/T/B; M1 · Registry S09, S10; first register #6, #8", "refs": [ "S09", "S10" ], "grade": "A", "originalGrade": "A", "limit": "Convergent academic support for the broad interaction constraint in studied settings. Exact modality preference comes from a small study; it is not a universal voice-only prescription.", "thai": "C — not locally validated", "rationale": "Busy hands and divided attention affect whether support is usable. Better interaction may enable successful action, without itself demonstrating competence satisfaction.", "crossLinks": "Competence; practical control", "category": "Context and possible supports", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Primary" }, { "id": "P48", "topic": "Competitor business context", "insight": "The materials report the 2024 shutdowns of Yummly and Food Network Kitchen.", "keyTerms": [ "shutdowns" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "Yummly closure recorded as 20 December 2024; Food Network Kitchen as 1 May 2024.", "source": "M0-B/S; M1 · Registry P06, P07; first register #19", "refs": [ "P06", "P07" ], "grade": "B", "originalGrade": "B", "limit": "Convergent commercial cases for the existence of shutdown risk. The files do not establish that weak retention or premium-content subscriptions caused both shutdowns, or that gamification would have saved them.", "thai": "C — not Thai product-outcome evidence", "rationale": "Shutdowns are business outcomes, not observations of users’ psychological needs. No causal SDT explanation can be inferred from the closures.", "crossLinks": "Business viability", "category": "Market and outcome evidence", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Primary" }, { "id": "P49", "topic": "Retention benchmarks", "insight": "The supplied analytics benchmarks place Food and Drink app day-30 retention around 3–4%.", "keyTerms": [ "day-30 retention" ], "weight": "Medium", "previousWeight": "", "evidence": "Adjust about 3%; AppsFlyer about 3.93%. M0 also reports D1 12–16.5% and D7 about 7%. V04 is cross-category context rather than an independent Food and Drink measure.", "source": "M0-P/B/S; M1 · Registry V01, V02, V04; first register #16", "refs": [ "V01", "V02", "V04" ], "grade": "B", "originalGrade": "B", "limit": "Different definitions, cohorts and app mixes; not the retention of this product or necessarily cooking-education apps. Does not show acquisition will be easy.", "thai": "C — category benchmark, not Thai cooking-app validation", "rationale": "Retention is an engagement outcome that SDT hypotheses might help explain. Low retention alone cannot identify which need, if any, was unsupported.", "crossLinks": "All three needs remain possible explanatory hypotheses", "category": "Market and outcome evidence", "previousCategory": "", "type": "Primary" } ] }