This register documents the evidence available for specific statements. «Usable» means only: usable for the explicitly named statement. It means neither a complete reading nor independent data replication or empirical confirmation of the model. Earlier source analyses are not a new examination of the originals.
Status key: T = the required original passage directly examined, not automatically the entire work read. A = original abstract directly examined. B = bibliographical data or publisher description checked. P = documented earlier project source assessment. I = explicitly indirect evidence. O = additional examination of the original outstanding. R = reproduction on a third-party platform. Combinations are possible. An O prevents only the unsupported further claim, not automatically the entire conceptual specialist work.
C.1 Sources and their permissible use
Q01 | Argyris (1977) | T/B. Examined: reproduction of the original text, sections «How Organizations Learn», «Changing the Learning System» and «The Dilemmas of Power»; publisher metadata separately. HTML reproduction on Academia.edu, no verified print pagination. Section locators are therefore used instead of new page references. The reference follows the official online magazine version of September 1977, without an unverified print page range. No independent assessment of effectiveness. https://www.academia.edu/29054106/Double_Loop_Learning_in_Organizations ; https://hbr.org/1977/09/double-loop-learning-in-organizations
Q02 | Bartunek and Moch (1987) | A. Publisher's abstract read directly, distinguishing changes within shared schemata, changes to them and changes in the capacity to change them. Reference: chapters B2 and B4 and P2/P3. The complete model and its empirical quality were not re-examined. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/002188638702300404
Q03 | Burke and Litwin (1992) | A. Publisher's abstract read directly; the model formulates hypothetical relationships. No claim that all causal pathways have been confirmed. Reference: chapters B2 and B4 and P4. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/014920639201800306
Q04 | Greenwood and Hinings (1996) | B/P/O. The title and bibliographical research tradition are mentioned to distinguish concepts. Attempts to access the full text were unsuccessful. No detailed mechanisms or additional evidence of effects are deduced from it; P4 does not rely on it. Decision on use: retain the bibliographical context, do not claim detailed analysis.
Q05 | Nystrom and Starbuck (1984) | B/P/I/O. The original paper remains listed bibliographically. The large NYU scan could not be analysed during the source review in October 2026; the later SSRN record replaces neither the original text nor verification of the edition. Decision on use: retain the research reference, do not base any detailed claim on it. Chapter B4.2 defines our own use of unlearning; P2 instead names the learning approach actually examined. https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~wstarbuc/Unlearn.pdf
Q06 | Schein (1984) | T; Schein and Schein (2017) | B/O. Directly and visually examined: printed pp. 3-4, including Fig. 1 in the scan of the original paper. Title and context compared with the MIT publisher page. The required distinction between levels is substantiated; the 2017 book chapters remain unread. https://becomingaleaderblog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/coming-to-a-new-awareness-of-organizational-culture-schein-1984.pdf
Q07 | Taylor (2004) | T/B. Directly examined: introduction, printed pp. 1-2, and the title and copyright pages of the book preview. Both show 2004. The differing sales date of December 2003 remains separate. Neither the entire book nor the second chapter, which only begins on p. 23, was read. https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9780822385806_A35715070/preview-9780822385806_A35715070.pdf
Q08 | Gagné and Deci (2005) | T. Original PDF, printed pp. 334-336, including visual examination of the figure and the note that this is not a stage theory. Reference: chapter B5 and P1. No complete reanalysis of all the studies referred to in the paper. https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/SDT/documents/2005_GagneDeci_JOB_SDTtheory.pdf
Q09 | Weiner (2009) | T. Open original text, specifically the sections «What is organizational readiness for change?», «What outcomes result from organizational readiness for change?» and «Some thoughts on testing this theory». A theoretical contribution, not a test of our overall model. The distinction between implementation and benefit limits our own claim to novelty. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-67
Q10 | Shea et al. (2014) | T. Original text, «Conceptual framework», study overview and limitations. The group-level focus, multiple respondents and assessment of agreement before aggregation offer methodological connections. The 2014 studies report psychometric findings and identify a need for further validation. No statement about all subsequently published ORIC research is deduced from this. No replication of the tables. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-9-7
Q11 | Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) | I/P/O. Cited in the text exclusively through Weiner (2009). The original was not reread during the source review in October 2026. Bibliographical search reference, not an additional source read: Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 474-487; https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.474. No claim about predictive power is deduced from it.
Q12 | Locke and Latham (2002) | T. Read directly: original text, printed pp. 707-709, particularly goal type, participation and moderators. Location: Rotman School, University of Toronto. The PDF's screen rendering was technically unavailable; the text was readable. No recalculation of the primary studies or general guarantee of effects for SMEs. https://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/facbios/file/09%20-%20Locke%20%26%20Latham%202002%20AP.pdf
Q13 | Creasey / Prosci (2026) | T/B. Public original article, definition and distinction between the human and technical sides of change. The page gives 7 August 2026 as its update date. Provider definition, not an independent effectiveness study. https://www.prosci.com/blog/definition-of-change-management
Q14 | Rafferty: separate source assessments | T/P/B/O. The undated 59-page draft remains a separate primary source. Tables 1 and 4 on pp. 20 and 38 have been cross-checked directly and visually; their reconciliation remains unresolved. The published 2021 contribution was read directly for the definitions used in chapter B3.2. The 2025 handbook is identified through the publisher's table of contents, not analysed in full. Decision on use: cite sources separately; do not use disputed draft figures or general tipping-point claims as evidence of effectiveness. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL4239
Q15 | Leverage Experts: public SRC definition | T/P. The public definition used is to be understood as a provider's definition, not independent evidence of effectiveness. A quality code can describe an intended standard; its existence does not prove a lived culture. No shared position with a partner organisation is claimed.
Q16 | Bartunek (1984) | P/A/O. Earlier analysis of the author/publisher abstract; no new full-text reading. No claim to a complete causal reconstruction. The reorientation process remains a case-specific theoretical connection.
Q17 | Bartunek and Franzak (1988) | A. Publisher's abstract and metadata read directly. It reports changes in cooperation and frames of reference during an internal merger. Detailed data were not recalculated. Decision on use: report only this abstract finding; do not claim independent replication. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/014920638801400408
Q18 | Bartunek and Ringuest (1989) | P/A/O. Earlier abstract analysis in the project; renewed access to the original was unsuccessful. Decision on use: mention as a research connection, do not count as an additional analysed case, causal proof or independent replication. In this respect, the overview in chapter B8.6 relies on Q17. Possible overlaps in the case bases of Q16 to Q18 remain a question for a later in-depth investigation.
Q19 | Newhouse and Chapman (1996) | A/B. Original abstract and publisher metadata read directly. The two differently reported trajectories can be used; full text, measurement of success and complete case conditions remain unexamined. Decision on use: retain the limited comparison, no success rate or general application to SMEs. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/001872679604900706
Q20 | Hornung (2014) | A. Publisher's abstract and metadata read directly. Reference to historical migration, technology and productivity; no analysis of all identification assumptions, coefficients or original data. The study does not isolate a conversion effect. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.104.1.84
Q21 | UNESCO, Ministero della Cultura, Canton of Bern | P. Previously examined descriptions of cultural heritage and sites support institutional factual findings about Herrnhut, the Waldensian school and the Anabaptists. No archival process analysis is available here. The remembrance of 1727 is not treated as isolated causal evidence. Contemporary community ordinances and independent case historiography remain outstanding.
Q22 | Liddell, Scott and Jones: metanoia | P/O. Preliminary lexical examination in the project. An access attempt during the source review in October 2026 produced no entry suitable for analysis. Therefore, no new comprehensive reading of ancient evidence, edition-specific word history or equation of etymology with Christian doctrine is claimed.
Q23 | Zille (2020) | T. Original article on the publisher's website, abstract and relevant introduction on Walden's reception. The reference in chapter B7 concerns the historical translation debate, not a general linguistic consensus. Walden's book itself was not reread. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/707717
Q24 | Senge | T/R/B/O. Visual reading of printed pages 13-14 of the scan is documented; title page Currency Doubleday, no unambiguous publication details. The official publisher record separately confirms the revised 2006 edition but does not conclusively identify the scan. Decision on use: cite only as an undated extract, do not equate it with a particular print edition. An edition-specific book citation would require further verification; the publication uses no such evidence. The passage supports no claim of effectiveness or philological uniqueness.
Q25 | William Bridges Associates | T. Its own presentation of the approach read directly: distinction between external change and internal transition, three named phases. Decision on use: attribute the phase assumption to the practical approach; do not claim independent confirmation of its universality or a guarantee of effects. https://wmbridges.com/about/what-is-transition/
Q26 | Bible, Lutherbibel revised 2017 | T/P. Read directly: Mk 1,14-15; Lk 3,8-14; Röm 12,1-3; Apg 20,17-21 within the chapter text. Röm 6,3-6 follows the earlier documented project comparison; no new comprehensive Greek exegesis. The online edition bears the revision name 2017 and the copyright notice 2016, which are not equated. Primary access points: https://www.die-bibel.de/bibel/LU17/MRK.1 ; https://www.die-bibel.de/bibel/LU17/LUK.3 ; https://www.die-bibel.de/bibel/LU17/ROM.12 ; https://www.die-bibel.de/bibel/LU17/ACT.20
Q27 | White: Steps to Christ and Education | T. Chapter passages read directly: SC 57.2-58.1 and Ed 17.2, including their religious context. Occasional behaviour, lived orientation and personal judgement are not presented as White's empirical business indicators. No overall assessment of her works.
Q28 | White: Gospel Workers / Testimonies Volume 3 | T/B/P. GW 133.4-135.1 read directly, including the source reference to 3T 496-498. The year 1885 for the collected Volume 3 is documented in the official bibliography; it is not confused with the year each individual testimony was written. Direct detailed access to Volume 3 was partially blocked during the source review in October 2026. Reprint and original writing are not independent studies. https://text.egwwritings.org/bibliography
Q29 | White: Christian Leadership | T/B. Section ChL 50.5-51.1 read directly. The official book record confirms compilation, publisher Ellen G. White Estate and the year 1985. Letter 340 of 1907 is the source stated there, but is not a letter read in full. https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/12/info
Q30 | Author's position | P. Personal observations, research questions and editorially developed authorial prose. No new biographical research and no study of the effects of client engagements. The first person does not claim to be a verbatim quotation from a conversation.
C.2 Limitations of the evidence used
Limitations on the use of evidence: Missing detailed readings are not replaced by conjecture. Q04 and Q05 serve only to establish bibliographical context; Q18 is an unanalysed research connection. Q16, Q17 and Q19 are used only within the specified scope of the abstract or project assessment. Senge is cited as the undated extract actually read. The disputed draft financial figures are excluded as evidence of effects. These decisions allow assessment of the present conceptual argument without retrospectively declaring all earmarked works to be full-text evidence.
Distinct from this is the empirical research limitation: the additional explanatory power of our integration model has not yet been investigated. Better reference formatting cannot resolve this. It remains possible, however, to assess the model as an explicitly conceptual proposal without selling it as a validated instrument.
C.3 Editorial protection of cases
The management examples are explicitly fictional constructions or general analytical questions. No protected real client cases are presented as anonymous merely by changing names. Private religious affiliation, convictions and intimate motives are not fields of inquiry in the proposed assessment framework. Indirect identifiability must also be avoided in abstracted examples.
C.4 Additional sources and approaches to thinking
Q31 | Hosang (2023) | T/P. Supplied published article, printed pp. 38-51. Reference to purpose, personal adoption, roles, renewal and the explicit limit of the church-business analogy. The documented source analysis supports the bibliographical attribution of the year. Primary source for the author's position, not an independent model test. The supplied author's copy is the textual basis used.
Q32 | Laloux (2016) | T/P. Supplied illustrated edition, specifically pp. 11, 62-73, 131, 134-146 and note 19, printed p. 164. Contents contextualised using the supplied texts and earlier source analysis. Printed pages and PDF pages are distinguished. Historical company figures were not independently verified. No general superiority of Teal is claimed.
Q33 | de Shazer (n.d.) | T. All four PDF pages of the short text available from the rights administrator SFBTA read visually. Precise finding: distinguish a statement of a goal from a description of a solution; the author explicitly describes SFBT as solution-focused rather than goal-focused. No assessment of clinical effectiveness and no validated application to companies.
Q34 | Berg (n.d.) | T. Original handout, PDF p. 1, read directly and visually. Exceptions, progress, small steps. No independently analysed therapy or management study.
Q35 | Covey (1997/2023) and FranklinCovey | T/B/P. The official description of the work remains the basis for family discussions, promises and the alignment of individual and shared needs. Direct textual comparison of the GABAL sample, 9th, abridged and revised edition 2023, ISBN 978-3-96739-149-7, is documented. Flight metaphor: printed p. 11, PDF p. 12; title and copyright pages: PDF pp. 4-5. A textual examination is documented; successful visual examination of the publisher's pages is not claimed. The source substantiates the origin of the metaphor, not a management effect or the percentage figure as an empirical finding. No complete reading of the book; no transfer of the page number to other editions.
Q36 | VEEK guiding principles | T. Official original text read directly. A present-day normative position of an association on consideration, responsibility and reliability, not general historical or empirical evidence of success. The essay's moral conclusions remain recognisable as its own position.
Q37 | Public Go-to-Market steering model | T. The public presentation was examined on 25.10.2026. It names five maturity levels, 0 Hypotheses, 1 Initial signals, 2 Repeatable, 3 Measurable and 4 Scalable, and explicitly limits them to individual process phases. This public source supports the relevant distinction in A8 and B10.6. No general organisational or moral maturity, no independent validation of effects. https://hosang-consulting.com/go-to-market-steuerungsmodell
Q38 | New Bible passages / Mounce | T. Read directly: LU17 Ex 20,1-17; Mt 22,34-40; 1 Tim 1,5 and Mounce's entry hamartia. Used for an explicitly identified theological analogy and distinction, not for a business metric. No complete new philological comparison.
Q39 | Experiential basis and normative authorial position | P. Many years of observations in private, business and church settings, including internationally, form the essay's starting point. This is the author's account of experience, not a sample systematically collected after the event. Family time away and SWOT are reflections, not interventions claimed to have been evaluated. The thought experiments remain constructed.
C.5 Word origins and use of concepts
Q40 | Dudenredaktion | T. Online entries on Compliance, Governance, intrinsisch, Organisation, radikal, Religion, Resilienz, Sünde and Telos read directly. Word meaning, stated origin and explicitly named uncertainty are used. No comprehensive historical linguistic study. In particular, the origin of religio remains unclear; Sünde is not derived from hamartia.
Q41 | Cicero / Lactantius | T. English text reproductions read directly: De natura deorum II.72 and Divine institutes IV.28. They substantiate different historical interpretations of religio. A dispute over linguistic history is not resolved by the essay's endorsement of an analogy. Neither work was read in full, and no critical edition was produced.
Q42 | Mounce: hamartanō, hamartia, metanoia | T. Dictionary entries read directly. Missing the mark as a meaning of the verb is distinguished from the broader meanings of the noun and its biblical use. German word history and organisational application are other levels. For Telos, the Duden entry actually read is used.
Q43 | ISO 37000 / ISO 37301 | T. Freely accessible official descriptions of the standards read directly for the limited distinction between governance and compliance. No purchase of standards, no full-text examination, no certification or legal opinion. The organisational definitions in the glossary are paraphrased working definitions.
Q44 | Self-determination theory | T/P. The official theory page of the Center for Self-Determination Theory supplements the existing Gagné and Deci reference (Q08) on the distinction between intrinsic motivation and internalisation. No new meta-analysis, no proof that personally sustained commitment alone causes organisational resilience. The relationship described in B5.8 and B10.9 remains a transparent working framework of the author.
Appendix E. Authorial position and personal responsibility
The author's position rests on the observations and clarifications of Andreas Hosang. In this essay, Radical Change denotes his ethically defined concern for a responsible, qualitative reorientation of business leadership. The account is authorial prose for which he takes personal responsibility, not a verbatim quotation from a conversation.
The author connects many years of his own observations and experiences from private, business and church contexts, including international encounters and organisational settings. This practical basis is not reduced to reading literature. His published 2023 article documents an earlier development of the comparative perspective. The observations are taken seriously as experiential knowledge and an occasion for interpretation, without claiming a retrospectively invented systematic sample, particular countries or measured effects.
His Christian background remains visible. The Bible and Ellen G. White are cited for named theological or normative ideas; their religious authority is not required as a prerequisite for the business argument. Naming individual authors does not mean endorsing every part of their entire work. Scientific, historical and normative statements retain their respective obligations of justification.
Personal authorship: Andreas Hosang is responsible for these arguments. They are not a joint statement by his business partners. Company and product names establish neither co-authorship nor agreement on worldview. Necessary source references are nevertheless retained. No real client cases and no private information about the family are authorised for public use.
Appendix F. Limitations of the SRC numerical evidence
Examination of the supplied, unpublished SRC manuscript revealed an unresolved reconciliation between individual numerical overviews (Rafferty, n.d., pp. 20 and 38). The figures concerned are therefore not used as proof of a universally valid crisis threshold or a promise of effectiveness. No replication of the original data was carried out.
This limitation concerns the numerical evidence in question. It does not wholesale refute the conceptual question of the relationship between transformation demands and organisational adaptive capacity. Different delineations or a presentation error remain possible explanations; no cause or intention is asserted.
The detailed tables from the unpublished manuscript are not reproduced here. The published 2021 contribution, the public SRC definition and the unpublished draft remain separate bibliographically and in their evidential functions. The manuscript itself is not provided as a download.