I like this idea.

Now, building a bit more on Frederic’s comment, maybe, in the case of stories, we can move the “triggers” section just below (or above) the “summary” section, and then, rephrase its description a little bit in order to really get why this story matters to the author(s) and what motivations sprung it in the first place.

The current description of the “triggers” section says:

What were the issues or events that triggered this innovation? What real world problems or opportunities prompted this initiative or experiment?

Although this description works great to me, I have a sense that maybe it invites the writer to produce a rather rational, professional, and cold response to this section.

Hence, if a more juicy response about motivations is what we want, the rewording could be something like:

What’s the story behind this… story? Please share with us how this eureka moment touched you in the first place. Was it ignited by an embarrassing failure or by a bureaucratic procedure you always hated and dreamed to change?

Now, in the case of hacks, we can also add a “triggers” section as well to catch a bit more the underlying motivations of why such hack matters to the author(s) and why should matters to us (as readers)

great idea, Deb! Maybe this could be a prominent sidebar bio on a stroy/hack page. Or maybe we could have prominent links to the authors own LinkedIn, FB, Twitter, and blog pages from their post, so it'd be easy to learn more about them.

I agree that the motivation of the Mixer is a missing input for Hacks.
Stories are easier to guess.
The "Me in 3" profile item is giving some clues about authors but a more specific statement would open doors for co-development or useful constructive comments.