accompaniment-role-naming

Accompaniment Role — Naming Candidates

A consolidated framing-set holding the naming candidates v5 surfaces for the 1:1 practice role. The form itself is named in principle-20 and principle-21 as Guide / Traveler. v5 proposes alternates and explicitly states “we need a word for this role” — leaving the naming question open. All candidates are held as candidate per §5; none canonical until the team converges.

What’s being named

The role of the more experienced practitioner walking alongside the less experienced one, in a loose and freely-chosen relationship — what AA calls sponsorship. EPI has the form (in principle-20 and principle-21, where it is called Guide and Traveler); the team has not converged on the durable durable wording.

Candidates

Guide / Traveler — currently in principle-20 / principle-21

• Pros: Already in the Guiding Principles; emphasizes that asymmetry is functional and mobile (a person is a Guide in one relationship and a Traveler in another); the parenthetical “(practitioners, people)” in Principle 20 preserves flexibility for the team to choose the durable term.
• Cons: Two-role naming requires two terms which doubles the vocabulary load; Guide may sound more authoritative than the role actually is.

Walking Partner — from v5

• Pros: Single, symmetric term; walking echoes the v5 frame “walking alongside” directly; lateral rather than hierarchical.
• Cons: May sound too casual for the practice depth involved.

Practice Partner — from v5

• Pros: Single, symmetric; emphasizes practice as the shared activity; clean and modern.
• Cons: May read as transactional / exercise-buddy.

Companion — from v5

• Pros: Single term; warm; long lineage in spiritual traditions (spiritual companion); honors the v5 emphasis that the relationship is grounded in genuine connection rather than instrumentality.
• Cons: Could feel vague about what is actually shared/practiced.

Accompanier — from v5

• Pros: Single term; accompaniment is the noun the rest of v5 uses for the whole practice (“On accompaniment” is the section heading); the term sits cleanly with that.
• Cons: Slightly clinical-sounding; less warm than companion.

What v5 ruled out and why

• Sponsor — “too AA-loaded.” Carries recovery-world weight that miscolors EPI. Surfaced separately as part of the sponsor-vs-Guide– Traveler open question on twelve-steps and in wiki/overview.md.
• Mentor — “too hierarchical.” Implies expert/student rather than peer practice.

What would move this to canonical

Team conscience that lands on one of the candidates above (or a new one that hasn’t been proposed yet), with the why recorded.

Related principles

• principle-20 — Guide–Traveler as a recognized form.
• principle-21 — Guide is not above the Traveler.
• principle-11 — no professional class; whichever term is chosen, it must not pattern toward credentialing.

Status notes

candidate — naming question explicitly open per v5. The team has not yet converged; this page exists so the candidates are held visibly side-by-side rather than the choice happening by drift on whichever document gets written next.

Coexisting candidates (within this framing-set)

All five candidates above are alternatives to each other in this slot. The slot itself is naming the 1:1 practice role; the form is canonical, only the wording is contested.

Referenced by