--- name: synthesis-explore description: Synthesis EXPLORE stage for the Diffmode growth-tactics pipeline (fuses the blind-combination draw + emergent-mechanism derivation — formerly two separate synthesis steps — into ONE structural-check-only stage). Reads the per-run growth-factors.json (LIGHT vector DB) + synthesis-constraints.json + founder-input + audience-jtbd + the 3 think-tank reports; draws vector combinations BLIND (IDs only, before any analysis), runs the Stripped Core Action Test + prohibited-combination + must_include checks, then derives the NOVEL MECHANISM that EMERGES from each (Reframing Test, structural-advantage classification, 3-step prototype, verb-group dedup). Outputs synthesis-explore.md — 15-20 blind combinations + 12-18 validated mechanisms, NO tactic names. Feeds synthesis-build. metadata: version: "1.0.0" --- # Synthesis — Explore (Phase 1 Blind Combinations → Phase 2 Emergent Mechanisms) This is the FIRST synthesis stage. It fuses two jobs that MUST stay ordered: **Phase 1** draws vector combinations BLIND (vector-first, before any tactic exists), and **Phase 2** derives the NOVEL MECHANISM that emerges from each combination. Vector-first thinking is the novelty engine: you commit to combinations BEFORE knowing what tactic they might produce, which is how you escape conventional playbooks. **Output: 15-20 raw vector combinations + 12-18 validated mechanisms. NO TACTIC NAMES. NO EXECUTION STEPS.** (Tactic design is synthesis-build's job.) Vectors and their definitions come from the per-run `growth-factors.json` (the LIGHT DB). Do NOT read `tactics_DB/` (clean-room — moat-critical). The category structure and `{prefix}-NNN-slug` ID format are shared conventions; the specific IDs are whatever this run mined. ## The two phases are WALLED — do them strictly in order **You MUST complete Phase 1 (blind draw + combinations) in FULL before starting Phase 2 (mechanisms).** The output must physically PROVE this ordering: the section `## Blind Draw (IDs only)` must precede `## Vector Combinations`, which must precede `## Validated Mechanisms`. If you catch yourself deriving a mechanism (Phase 2) before the blind draw and combinations (Phase 1) are written, STOP — you have broken the wall; go back. ## Inputs & Output The invoker provides (do not hardcode absolute paths): - `WS/01-diagnostics/founder-input.md` - `WS/03-think-tanks/demand-generation/growth-factors.json` (LIGHT vector DB — vector IDs, categories, mechanisms, transferability, saturation_risk) - `WS/03-think-tanks/demand-generation/synthesis-constraints.json` (mandatory pools, white space, prohibited combinations, category diversity) - `WS/02-enrichment/audience-jtbd.md` (trigger events + emotions) - Think-tank context (use if present): `WS/03-think-tanks/demand-generation/cross-industry.md` (transferable mechanisms worth combining), `competitor-gaps.md` (open channels/segments), `platform-arbitrage.md` (emerging-platform timing windows) - **OUTPUT**: `WS/03-think-tanks/demand-generation/synthesis-explore.md` ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ # PHASE 1 — BLIND VECTOR COMBINATIONS (no tactics, no execution) ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ Force exploration of vector combinations WITHOUT thinking about tactics yet. **Output of this phase: 15-20 raw vector combinations with synergy rationale. NO TACTIC NAMES. NO EXECUTION STEPS.** ## Critical Rules **YOU MUST NOT:** name tactics · describe execution · pick channels · think "what marketing to do" · generate combinations that produce CONVENTIONAL outcomes. **YOU MUST ONLY:** explore vector synergies · explain WHY vectors combine · identify white space · document founder leverage · **REJECT combinations that produce conventional marketing.** If you find yourself writing a tactic name or execution step, STOP and delete it. ## Conventional Outcome Detection (BLOCKING) Some combinations ALWAYS produce conventional outcomes regardless of framing. REJECT them before they reach Phase 2. **The Mechanism Preview Test** — before accepting a combination, ask: > "If I combine these vectors, what mechanism results, in plain English?" > If it sounds like standard marketing advice, REJECT. **Apply `synthesis-constraints.json` → `prohibited_combinations`.** Those are theme-level rules (e.g. customer-research + content-flywheel = "talk to customers, write content"; build-demo + share = "build demos and share them"; community-join + audience-borrowing = "join communities and participate"; content-flywheel + any SEO vector = "write content to rank"; behavioral-cohort + content-funnel = "segment and optimize"). Any pair whose mined vectors match a prohibited theme is REJECTED. **What makes a combination UNCONVENTIONAL** — its mechanism (1) a marketer would advise AGAINST ("that's risky/unusual"), (2) competitors structurally CAN'T copy (not just won't), (3) exploits a timing window (first-mover in an emerging space), or (4) requires a specific founder constraint (solo founder can do what enterprise can't). **The Replacement Rule** — don't skip a conventional pair, REPLACE it: keep ONE vector, swap the other for a partner (ideally an `unconventional_anchor` from the constraints file) that produces an unconventional mechanism; re-run the Mechanism Preview Test. ## Blind Vector Selection (BEFORE ANY ANALYSIS) Complete this BEFORE reading enrichment deeply or thinking about tactics — commit to combinations blind. Draw from the three mandatory pools in `synthesis-constraints.json`, listing ONLY vector IDs (no descriptions/previews yet), into the output's `## Blind Draw (IDs only)` section: - **Pool A — White Space (5):** from `diverse_white_space` / `mandatory_combinations` pool `A_white_space`. - **Pool B — Cross-Category Synergy (5):** from `mandatory_combinations` pool `B_synergy` (one per high-synergy category pair). - **Pool C — Founder Leverage (5):** from pool `C_founder_leverage` — both vectors transferability "High", at least one "Emerging", each exploiting a specific unfair advantage the founder possesses. **Checkpoint:** 15 combinations drawn blind. If any pool is short (the LIGHT DB is smaller than the paid DB), fill from the nearest cross-category Emerging/High-transferability pairs in `growth-factors.json` and note the substitution. **Only AFTER this may you analyze** what the combinations might produce. ## Process 1. **Load founder context** — Industry, Budget, Team, Skills, Stage (brief). 2. **Select 2-3 category clusters that fit** — from the categories present in `growth-factors.json` (Structural Arbitrage, Leverage, Resource Optimization, Psychological, Positioning, Conversion), pick the 2-3 best-fit for this founder and say why (e.g. low budget + high technical skill → Structural/Resource lean). 3. **Identify synergistic pairs** — cross-category pairs from Pool B; explain which fit. 4. **Find white space** — 5-8 uncommon pairs (Pool A + others); for each: why unexplored? brilliant or foolish? fits constraints? 5. **Extract buyer psychology** — from `audience-jtbd.md`: Trigger Event (what happens 24-48h before they search) + Primary Emotion; note which vectors align. ## Stripped Core Action Test (BLOCKING — run for EVERY combination) **Part 1 — Raw Action (≤5 words, NO adjectives, no vector IDs).** Describe what the combination produces using only verbs + nouns. ("Publish raw failure data" ✓; "Create compelling contrarian content" ✗ — has adjectives.) **Part 2 — The Marketer Test.** Would a generic B2B marketer recommend this EXACT raw action? "Obviously do that" → REJECT. "That's risky / unusual / why would you?" → ACCEPT. **Part 2b — Structural Rescue (on REJECT only).** If the Marketer Test says REJECT but the competitor analysis (`competitor-gaps.md` Tier 1) shows a genuine structural barrier preventing competitors from executing this exact action, OVERRIDE the reject → ACCEPT with note `[STRUCTURAL RESCUE: ]`. The action looks conventional but competitors structurally can't do it. Max 2 rescues per run. **Part 3 — Emergence Proof (accepted only).** Can Vector A ALONE produce the action? Can Vector B ALONE? If BOTH can independently → REJECT (no emergence). If EITHER alone CANNOT → ACCEPT (true synthesis). ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ # PHASE 2 — EMERGENT MECHANISMS (what NEW thing emerges) ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ Transform the Phase-1 vector combinations into the NOVEL MECHANISM that emerges from each. **Output of this phase: 12-18 validated mechanisms with structural-advantage analysis. No tactic names yet.** **The test:** if you can't explain what EMERGES from the combination that neither vector provides alone, the combination is weak — skip it. Vector definitions come from the per-run `growth-factors.json` (each vector's `mechanism` field — copy it into the "Vector Mechanisms" block for traceability). Do NOT read `tactics_DB/`. ## Critical Rules **MUST NOT:** name tactics · name channels/platforms · write execution steps · jump to "how to do this marketing." **MUST:** describe the emergent MECHANISM · explain what's NOVEL · identify the STRUCTURAL ADVANTAGE type · skip weak combinations. ## Conventional Detection Gate (BLOCKING) For EVERY mechanism, ask: "If I stripped the vector IDs and described this to a traditional B2B marketer, would they say 'Yes, obviously do that'?" YES → REJECT (derive a DIFFERENT emergent capability). NO / "that's unusual" → continue. **Anti-gaming — same thing, different words (ALL REJECTED).** Reframing a conventional tactic with fancy language does not make it unconventional. Run the **Reframing Test:** remove the adjectives (compelling, authentic, contrarian, compounding) — what's the CORE ACTION? If the core action is conventional, REJECT regardless of wording. Examples of core actions that stay conventional however they're dressed up: "talk to customers and write content," "segment users and optimize," "share your work publicly," "build demos and share them," "join communities and participate," "write content to rank in search." **The Unconventional Element Rule:** the mechanism description must CONTAIN what makes it non-obvious (e.g. "released as open datasets," "competitors avoid," "before the platform saturates"), not merely imply it. ## Structural Advantage Types (classify each mechanism) - **Platform Arbitrage (12-24 mo):** new platform/algorithm competitors don't grok yet. - **Competitor Lockout (Permanent):** brand/structural constraints stop competitors copying. - **Network Effect (Compounding):** value grows with scale; late entrants can't catch up. - **Counterintuitive (Variable):** traditional marketers advise against it. - **Execution Lead (3-6 mo):** "we'll do it better" — NOT a real structural advantage (flag). ## Execution Prototype (REQUIRED before validation — plain English, no jargon) For EACH mechanism write a 3-step prototype: 1. Day 1 — what does the founder PHYSICALLY DO? 2. Day 7 — what happens next? 3. Day 30 — measurable outcome? Then the prototype gates: **Q1** Is Step 1 something any marketer would recommend? YES → CONVENTIONAL. **Q2** Would executing Step 1 feel weird/risky to a traditional marketer? NO → CONVENTIONAL; YES (give the reason) → continue. **Q3** Could a competitor copy Steps 1-3 within 30 days with no structural barrier? YES → downgrade to "Execution Lead"; NO (name the barrier) → true structural advantage. ## Guerrilla Lens (tag each mechanism — positive novelty, not a gate) After the prototype gates, tag each mechanism with 1-3 guerrilla principles it exploits. This is a POSITIVE lens — it pushes toward mechanisms that work *because* of structural asymmetries between small and large players, complementing the negative anti-conventional tests above. A mechanism does NOT need all six; 1-2 strong tags is fine. | Principle | Why it works for a small player | Why a funded competitor can't copy it | |-----------|--------------------------------|---------------------------------------| | **Surprise** | Unexpected format, timing, or channel gets disproportionate attention | Big players plan campaigns months ahead; can't be spontaneous | | **Intimacy** | Personal, 1:1, hand-crafted outreach converts at 10× mass marketing | Can't scale intimacy; delegating it makes it fake | | **Judo** | Uses a competitor's size, brand, or compliance burden against them | Their size IS the vulnerability; they can't shrink | | **Counter-cyclical** | Going against the grain (timing, pricing, positioning) buys cheap attention | Big players follow industry norms; deviating is career risk | | **Transparency / Absurdity** | Doing something "unprofessional" works because it's honest or weird | Corporate brands get fired for this; founders get celebrated | | **Compounding** | Many small consistent actions build an asset nobody can buy | Big players buy results; they don't build them patiently | Write the tags as `Guerrilla: Surprise + Judo` (etc.) in each mechanism block. If a mechanism has zero applicable tags, note `Guerrilla: none — execution lead` as a warning (it may still pass the structural-advantage test, but it lacks the asymmetry multiplier). ## Mid-Generation Diversity Check (after mechanisms #5, #10, #15) List each mechanism's core action in 3-5 words; group by similarity. If 3+ share the same core action → crutch detected: keep the 2 with the best structural advantage, kill the rest, and for remaining combinations deliberately seek a DIFFERENT core action. Targets: ≥4 distinct core actions by #5, ≥7 by #10, ≥10 by #15. ## Action Deduplication (verb-group — OUTPUT INVALID IF FAILED) Extract the FIRST VERB of each mechanism's Day-1 action and group semantically: | Group | Verbs | |-------|-------| | WRITE | Write, Publish, Create, Produce, Document, Blog, Author, Draft | | BUILD | Build, Develop, Make, Code, Ship, Implement, Construct, Design | | SHARE | Share, Post, Distribute, Spread, Release, Broadcast, Announce | | JOIN | Join, Participate, Engage, Connect, Network, Comment, Reply | | EXPORT | Export, Extract, Open-source, Expose, Dump, Upload, Provide | | OPTIMIZE | Optimize, Target, Position, Format, Structure, Configure | | PRE-SELL | Pre-sell, Validate, Test, Demo, Launch, Pitch, Sell | | ANALYZE | Analyze, Research, Study, Survey, Investigate, Audit | **Hard gates:** max 2 mechanisms per verb group; ≥7 distinct verb groups across 12-18 mechanisms. If violated → keep the 1-2 best per group, regenerate the rest from their combination with a DIFFERENT first verb (favor underrepresented groups: EXPORT, PRE-SELL, OPTIMIZE). ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ # Output Format (one file — Phase 1 sections, THEN Phase 2 sections) ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ Save to `WS/03-think-tanks/demand-generation/synthesis-explore.md`. The section ORDER is the structural proof that Phase 1 preceded Phase 2 — keep it exactly: ```markdown # Synthesis Explore — Blind Combinations & Emergent Mechanisms ## Founder Context Summary - Industry / Budget / Team / Key Skills / Stage ## Blind Draw (IDs only) > Drawn BEFORE any analysis (Phase 1, step 1). IDs only — no descriptions, no tactics. - Pool A — White Space (5 pairs): `id`+`id` · `id`+`id` · … (Pool A entries are PAIRS, same as B and C) - Pool B — Cross-Category Synergy (5): `id`+`id` · … (one per high-synergy pair) - Pool C — Founder Leverage (5): `id`+`id` · … - Substitutions (if the LIGHT DB was short): → ## Selected Category Clusters 1. Primary: — why; key vectors (5-7 IDs from growth-factors.json) 2. Secondary: — why; key vectors 3. Tertiary (optional) ## Buyer Psychology Alignment - Trigger Event / Primary Emotion / vectors that intercept the trigger / address the emotion ## Stripped Core Action Test | Combination | Raw Action (≤5 words) | Marketer Test | Emergence Proof | |-------------|----------------------|---------------|-----------------| | A1 | ... | ACCEPT/REJECT | PASS/FAIL | ## Vector Combinations (15-20) > **Length budget — this file has a hard ceiling.** Keep each combination to roughly 10 lines; > if the file passes ~600 lines, stop adding combinations and move to Phase 2. This is a working > paper the build stage reads for signal, not an essay. A one-shot write of an oversized version > of this file has exceeded the response output limit and killed the worker outright, producing > no file at all. ### Combination #N - **Vectors:** `id-1` + `id-2` [+ `id-3`] (2-3 vectors max, never 4+) - **Pool Source:** A / B / C - **Synergy Type:** - **White Space Status:** - **Raw Action (≤5 words):** ... - **Marketer Test:** ACCEPT · **Emergence Proof:** PASS - **Why These Combine:** what each vector contributes (1 sentence each) + Together (2-3 sentences) - **Why Unconventional:** reference the Raw Action - **Founder Leverage:** 2 sentences — what unfair advantage does this exploit? - **Buyer Psychology Fit:** intercepts trigger? addresses emotion? ## White Space Combinations | # | Combination | Why Unexplored? | Brilliant or Foolish? | ## Validated Mechanisms ### Mechanism #N (from Combination #X) **Vectors:** `id-1` + `id-2` **Vector Mechanisms (from growth-factors.json):** - `id-1`: - `id-2`: **Emergent Mechanism:** 2-4 sentences — what NEW thing emerges (impossible with either alone) **Why Novel:** 2-3 sentences **Structural Advantage:** Type / Duration / Why competitors can't copy (specific barrier) **Execution Prototype:** 1. Day 1 … 2. Day 7 … 3. Day 30 … **Guerrilla Lens:** <1-3 principles: Surprise / Intimacy / Judo / Counter-cyclical / Transparency-Absurdity / Compounding — or "none — execution lead"> **Novelty Test:** Conventional Detection PASS (marketer would NOT recommend) · Emergence Yes · Specificity Yes (unconventional element explicit) ## Skipped Combinations (Weak) ### Skipped: Combination #X — vectors — why no novel mechanism emerged ## Mechanism Classification Summary | Type | Count | Mechanisms | (target: ≥50% Platform Arbitrage / Competitor Lockout / Network Effect) ## Unconventional Ratio | UNCONVENTIONAL | CONVENTIONAL | (target ≥60% unconventional) ## Action Deduplication Result | Distinct verb groups (≥7) | Max per group (≤2) | ## Summary Statistics | Total combos | Validated mechanisms | White space | Synergistic pairs | Unique vectors | | 15-20 | 12-18 | 5-8 | 10+ | 25+ (or as many as the LIGHT DB allows) | ``` ## Validation Checkpoint (before synthesis-build) **Phase 1 (combinations):** - [ ] `## Blind Draw (IDs only)` physically precedes `## Vector Combinations` (the wall held). - [ ] Pools A/B/C each contributed (5 each, or noted substitutions for a small LIGHT DB). - [ ] **Every `must_include` pair (pools A + B in `synthesis-constraints.json`) is validly used OR validly substituted.** Validly used = **both** of the pair's vector IDs appear together **inside one `### Combination #N` block** (not merely somewhere in the file — block-level co-occurrence). Validly substituted = an explicit one-line note that names the pair AND names a replacement vector **that exists in `growth-factors.json`** (use the Replacement Rule). A silently dropped pair, or a "substitution" whose replacement isn't in `growth-factors.json`, is a FAIL. - [ ] 15-20 combinations, each with 2-3 vectors (not 4+), each explaining WHY they synergize. - [ ] Stripped Core Action Test done for every combination: Raw Action ≤5 words no adjectives, Marketer Test ACCEPT, Emergence Proof PASS. - [ ] ZERO combinations matching any `prohibited_combinations` theme. - [ ] NO tactic names, NO execution steps anywhere. **Phase 2 (mechanisms):** - [ ] 12-18 validated mechanisms; each has a real emergent explanation (not vector restatement). - [ ] Each copies its vectors' `mechanism` fields from `growth-factors.json` (traceability). - [ ] Each has a structural-advantage type + duration; ≥50% are Arbitrage/Lockout/Network. - [ ] ≥60% UNCONVENTIONAL (Reframing Test applied — adjectives stripped, conventional core REJECTED). - [ ] Each has a 3-step Execution Prototype passing Q1/Q2/Q3. - [ ] Each has a Guerrilla Lens tag (1-3 principles); mechanisms tagged "none — execution lead" are flagged but allowed (they still need a structural-advantage type). - [ ] **Verb groups ≥7 and ≤2 mechanisms per group** (else OUTPUT INVALID — regenerate). - [ ] Weak combinations documented; NO tactic names. - [ ] Every vector ID used exists in `growth-factors.json`. This feeds **synthesis-build** (white-space ideation → founder-fit adaptation → final synthesis.md). Do not proceed until both phases' validation passes.