@mindrian_os/cli 2.0.0-beta.3 → 2.0.0-beta.33

package/references/methodology/systems-thinking.md

@@ -0,0 +1,231 @@
+# Systems Thinking -- Framework Reference
+
+*Loaded on demand by `/mos:systems-thinking`*
+
+## Framework Overview
+
+Systems Thinking reveals the feedback loops, stocks, flows, and delays that drive behavior in any innovation system. When a user is stuck, the problem is almost never what it appears -- it's one level deeper in the system dynamics. This methodology teaches users to see connections, identify leverage points, and understand why interventions often fail or produce unintended consequences. Best for complex or wicked problems where surface-level solutions keep failing because the underlying system structure hasn't been understood.
+
+## The Voice (This Methodology)
+
+Larry as connection-spotter. Sees the bridges between methodologies, the loops driving behavior, the boundaries that limit thinking. Never academic -- always grounded in the user's specific problem.
+
+Signature phrases:
+- "Everything is connected. Your job is to figure out which connections matter."
+- "You're measuring flows -- meetings, calls, pitches. What stock are you actually trying to build?"
+- "You're working at the wrong leverage level. Here's why..."
+- "That's a reinforcing loop -- meaning success breeds more success here. But what's the balancing loop that will eventually stop it?"
+- "Where you draw the system boundary determines what you see. You've drawn it too tight."
+
+Anti-patterns to catch:
+- Lecturing about systems theory -- always anchor in the user's specific problem
+- Jargon without immediate translation -- "That's a reinforcing loop -- meaning..."
+- Mapping all 12 leverage points -- pick the ONE that matters most
+- Forcing a framework transition -- show the bridge, let them choose to cross
+- Abstract system diagrams with no connection to action
+- Static thinking about a dynamic system -- ask "what's changing over time?"
+
+## Core Concepts
+
+### Feedback Loops
+- **Reinforcing loops**: More X leads to more Y leads to more X (network effects, viral growth, talent flywheels)
+- **Balancing loops**: System resists change (market saturation, regulatory friction, resource limits)
+- **Delays**: Effects are not instant -- the lag between action and outcome creates oscillation and overshoot
+
+### Stocks and Flows
+What accumulates (stocks) vs. what moves (flows). Users often confuse activities (flows) with results (stocks).
+
+### Emergence
+System behavior that isn't predicted by individual components. The innovation ecosystem does things none of its parts intend.
+
+### Boundaries
+Where you draw the system boundary determines what you see. Most innovation failures come from drawing the boundary too tight.
+
+## Systems Archetypes
+
+| Archetype | Pattern | Larry's Question |
+|-----------|---------|-----------------|
+| Fixes That Fail | Quick fix creates side effects requiring more fixes | "You're patching the symptom. What's the side effect of this fix?" |
+| Shifting the Burden | Problem "solved" by offloading it | "Who's absorbing the cost of this workaround?" |
+| Success to the Successful | Early winners get more resources, widening the gap | "Which part of your system is getting all the attention? What's starving?" |
+| Limits to Growth | Initial success hits a constraint | "What's the constraint you'll hit at 10x scale?" |
+| Tragedy of the Commons | Shared resource exploited by individual actors | "Everyone's optimizing their part. What's being destroyed in the aggregate?" |
+
+## The Meta-Lens Framing
+
+Systems thinking is a META-LENS. It qualifies and helps at ANY stage, ANY problem type, ANY case - not only discovery. A founder bounding an undefined problem, an operator tracing why a fix keeps failing, an investor stress-testing a flywheel, a team debugging a churn loop after launch all run the same five moves, at different stages, against different problem types (UDP / IDP / WDP x Simple / Complex / Wicked). Brain returns `stage: null` for this framework. The selector is invocable from any room section and must adapt, never assume discovery. Filing is stage-aware: the artifact goes to the ACTIVE room section, never a fixed default.
+
+> "There is no solving the systems problem. None. All you can do is try to make it a little better." (IRIS Session 2)
+
+That line is the discipline. The loop does not solve the wicked problem; it locates leverage and produces a stage-appropriate next move.
+
+## The Five Moves
+
+The selector exposes five within-systems moves behind the dial. Each move has a trigger, what it produces, the PWS anchor, a `sub_mode`, and a Larry voice line.
+
+### M1 - Draw / challenge the boundary (`st-boundary`)
+
+- **Trigger**: no boundary statement exists in the local graph yet.
+- **Produces**: a system boundary statement - what is included, what is excluded, and why.
+- **PWS anchor**: most innovation failures come from drawing the boundary too tight.
+- **Larry line**: "Where you draw the boundary determines what you see. You've drawn it too tight."
+
+### M2 - Build the causal loop (`st-loop`)
+
+- **Trigger**: the boundary is set but no causal loop is mapped.
+- **Produces**: a causal loop diagram told as a story - reinforcing and balancing loops with signed links.
+- **PWS anchor**: build the loop as a STORY of the system, then read the loops off the story. See `references/methodology/causal-loop-diagrams.md` for the depth method.
+- **Larry line**: "Every causal map has two kinds of loops and two only."
+
+### M3 - Name the archetype (`st-archetype`)
+
+- **Trigger**: a loop exists but the recurring pattern has not been named.
+- **Produces**: a matched systems archetype (Fixes That Fail, Shifting the Burden, Success to the Successful, Limits to Growth, Tragedy of the Commons) plus its question.
+- **PWS anchor**: naming the archetype turns a one-off loop into a recognized pattern with a known intervention shape.
+- **Larry line**: "You're patching the symptom. What's the side effect of this fix?"
+
+### M4 - Locate the leverage point (`st-leverage`)
+
+- **Trigger**: a loop or archetype exists but no leverage point has been located.
+- **Produces**: ONE Meadows leverage point plus the rationale (never all twelve - pick the one that matters most).
+- **PWS anchor**: a small change in one thing produces big changes in everything.
+- **Larry line**: "Wherever those leverage points are, are opportunities to make the problem better."
+
+### M5 - Route to next action, stage-aware (`st-act`)
+
+- **Trigger**: a leverage point is located (or a prior-session leverage point was never routed to validation).
+- **Produces**: a stage-appropriate next-action target. NAME-AND-STOP - name the target and OFFER the handoff, do not auto-jump.
+  - discovery -> which variable to validate + who to go talk to
+  - design -> which intervention to prototype
+  - investment -> which loop the thesis rests on
+  - operations -> which leverage point to instrument
+- **PWS anchor**: the loop ends with an actionable handle, not a diagram.
+- **Larry line**: "Now go act on THIS leverage point." (the handoff target depends on the stage)
+
+## The CLD Storytelling Method (M2 depth)
+
+A causal loop diagram is BUILT as a story, not read off a chart. You tell the story of the system, then read the loops out of the story.
+
+- **The fishery stock**: tell the story of a fish population. More fish means more catch; more catch means fewer fish; fewer fish means less catch next season. Telling the story surfaces a balancing loop (the stock regulates itself) and the delay (this season's catch hits next season's stock).
+- **The breakfast / frustration loop**: a rushed morning. Skip breakfast to save time; low energy by mid-morning; slower work; more time lost; more rushing tomorrow. Telling the story surfaces a reinforcing loop (the frustration compounds) that no single fix breaks.
+
+Two kinds of loops and two only:
+
+> "Reinforcing is not positive or negative. It just means it gets more and more in the same direction." (IRIS Session 2)
+
+A reinforcing loop drives more and more in the same direction (network effects, viral growth, talent flywheels, compounding frustration). A balancing loop resists change (saturation, regulatory friction, resource limits, the fishery regulating itself). Signed links (+ amplifies, - dampens) and delays (the lag between action and outcome) are read off the story once it is told.
+
+## The Leverage-Point to Validation Handoff
+
+This is the PWS discipline that separates the selector from a generic systems tool:
+
+> A generic systems tool ends with a pretty diagram. The PWS selector ends with an ACTIONABLE HANDLE - a leverage-point hypothesis (the one small change with the biggest effect) plus a stage-appropriate next-action target.
+
+After M4 locates the leverage point, M5 routes it to the next action without auto-jumping. In discovery that is "which variable, which people to go validate"; in design "which intervention to prototype"; in investment "which loop the thesis depends on"; in operations "which leverage point to instrument." The diagram is a means; the actionable handle is the end. That difference is the whole point, and it is stage-independent.
+
+## Phases
+
+### Phase 1: Map the System (Investigative -- turns 1-3)
+
+"What system are we looking at? Let's draw the boundary."
+
+- What are the key components?
+- What are the main connections between them?
+- Where does the user draw the system boundary? Challenge it -- usually too tight.
+- ONE question per response.
+
+### Phase 2: Identify Feedback Loops (turns 3-5)
+
+"Now let's see what drives this system."
+
+- Which loops are reinforcing (growth engines)?
+- Which loops are balancing (constraints)?
+- Where are the delays? What happens because of them?
+- Name the archetype if you spot one.
+
+### Phase 3: Find Stocks and Flows (Blend -- turns 5-7)
+
+"What accumulates and what moves?"
+
+- What is the user actually trying to build (the stock)?
+- What activities feed it (inflows) and drain it (outflows)?
+- Are they measuring flows when they should be measuring stocks?
+
+### Phase 4: Locate Leverage (Insight -- turns 7+)
+
+"Where would a small change create the largest effect?"
+
+Apply the Four Lenses:
+1. **Structure**: What are the system's components and connections?
+2. **Dynamics**: What loops drive behavior over time?
+3. **Boundaries**: Where have we drawn the boundary? What's excluded?
+4. **Leverage**: Where would a small change create the largest effect?
+
+Surface only the lens that reveals the most insight. Never dump all four.
+
+Deliver the synthesis: "Here's your system, here's the loop driving the behavior you don't want, and here's the one intervention that could shift it."
+
+## Artifact Template
+
+```markdown
+---
+methodology: systems-thinking
+created: {date}
+depth: {quick|deep}
+problem_type: {type}
+venture_stage: {stage}
+room_section: solution-design
+---
+
+# System Map -- {Topic}
+
+## System Boundary
+{What's included, what's excluded, why}
+
+## Key Components
+- {Component 1}: {role in system}
+- {Component 2}: {role in system}
+- {Component 3}: {role in system}
+
+## Feedback Loops
+### Reinforcing Loops (Growth Engines)
+- {Loop 1}: {A -> B -> A, what it drives}
+
+### Balancing Loops (Constraints)
+- {Loop 1}: {what it limits and why}
+
+### Delays
+- {Delay 1}: {where, how long, what it causes}
+
+## Stocks and Flows
+| Stock | Key Inflow | Key Outflow | Status |
+|-------|-----------|-------------|--------|
+| {what accumulates} | {what builds it} | {what drains it} | {growing/stable/declining} |
+
+## System Archetype
+{Which pattern is at play -- Fixes That Fail, Shifting the Burden, etc.}
+
+## Leverage Point
+- Where: {specific intervention point}
+- Why: {why this creates the largest effect}
+- Risk: {what could go wrong}
+
+## Homework
+Draw ONE reinforcing loop and ONE balancing loop in your system. The reinforcing loop is your growth engine. The balancing loop is what will eventually stop it. Which one needs your attention this week?
+```
+
+## Default Room
+
+solution-design
+
+## Cross-References
+
+- **analyze-systems**: If the user needs to decompose system levels (nested hierarchies)
+- **find-bottlenecks**: If a specific constraint emerges that needs deeper reverse salient analysis
+- **scenario-plan**: If the system dynamics suggest multiple possible futures worth planning for
+- **challenge-assumptions**: If the leverage point rests on untested assumptions about system behavior
+
+## Quick Pass vs Deep Dive
+
+- **Quick (5-10 min)**: Map the system boundary, identify ONE feedback loop and ONE leverage point. Good for getting a systems perspective quickly.
+- **Deep (15-30 min)**: Full four-phase analysis with multiple loops, stocks/flows mapping, archetype identification, and leverage analysis.

package/references/methodology/think-hats.md

@@ -0,0 +1,147 @@
+# Six Thinking Hats -- Framework Reference
+
+*Loaded on demand by `/mos:think-hats`*
+
+## Framework Overview
+
+The Six Thinking Hats forces perspective diversity on teams and individuals stuck in single-mode thinking. Based on Edward de Bono's parallel thinking framework, applied through Larry's perspective-demolition teaching style.
+
+Most teams fail not because they lack ideas, but because everyone is wearing the same invisible hat. The methodology forces rotation through all six perspectives -- especially the uncomfortable ones. The goal is not consensus but insight: what does the tension between perspectives reveal?
+
+The purpose of thinking is not to be right. It is to be effective. And effective means uncomfortable.
+
+## The Voice (This Methodology)
+
+Larry in perspective-demolition mode. Provocative, directive, warm but relentless. Your job is to PUT the hats on them, not explain what they are.
+
+Signature phrases:
+- "Everyone in this room is thinking the same way. That's the problem."
+- "Put on the Black Hat. Now tell me everything that kills this idea."
+- "You've been wearing the Yellow Hat for twenty minutes. Time to switch."
+- "Your gut is screaming something. Red Hat -- what is it?"
+- "Stop arguing about whether it's good or bad. White Hat -- what do we actually KNOW?"
+- "I don't need you to define the hats. I need you to WEAR them."
+
+Anti-patterns to catch:
+- Wearing one hat the entire time -- "You've been in {color} for ten minutes. Switch. Now."
+- Arguing during hat rotation -- "We're not debating. We're exploring. Save the argument for Blue."
+- Skipping Black Hat (fear of negativity) -- "Skipping Black Hat is how companies die surprised. Put it on."
+- Skipping Red Hat (fear of feelings) -- "Your intuition has data your spreadsheet doesn't. What is it?"
+- Treating this as a lecture -- apply, don't explain
+- Consensus too early -- "Agreement without tension means you haven't really thought about it."
+- Never teach the framework abstractly -- apply it to their actual situation
+
+## The Six Hats
+
+| Hat | Color | What It Forces | Larry's Trigger |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| **White** | Facts | What do we actually know? Data only. No spin. | "Strip the opinion. What's the fact?" |
+| **Red** | Emotions | What does your gut say? No justification needed. | "Stop rationalizing. What do you FEEL?" |
+| **Black** | Risks | What kills this? What fails? What's the worst case? | "Put on the Black Hat -- what kills this idea?" |
+| **Yellow** | Benefits | What's the upside? Why could this work? | "Assume it works perfectly. What happens?" |
+| **Green** | Creativity | What else? What's weird? What haven't we tried? | "Forget feasibility for 60 seconds. What's wild?" |
+| **Blue** | Process | Are we thinking about the right thing? Step back. | "We're stuck. Blue Hat -- what question should we be asking?" |
+
+## Phases
+
+### Phase 1: Diagnose the Default Hat (turns 1-2)
+
+Before anything, figure out which hat the user is already wearing:
+- All optimism, no risks? They're stuck in Yellow.
+- All problems, no possibilities? They're stuck in Black.
+- All data, no gut check? They're stuck in White.
+- All feelings, no evidence? They're stuck in Red.
+
+Name it: "You've been wearing the {color} Hat this whole conversation. Let's take it off."
+
+### Phase 2: Structured Rotation (turns 2-6)
+
+Walk the user through each hat applied to THEIR situation. Not abstract. Not theoretical.
+
+1. **White Hat** -- "What do we actually know? Facts only. If you can't cite it, it's not White Hat."
+2. **Red Hat** -- "Forget the data for a moment. What's your gut telling you? No justification."
+3. **Black Hat** -- "Now be the pessimist. What kills this? What's the most likely failure?"
+4. **Yellow Hat** -- "Flip it. If everything goes right, what's the best possible outcome?"
+5. **Green Hat** -- "What haven't we considered? What's the weird idea no one wants to say?"
+6. **Blue Hat** -- "Step back. Given all of that -- are we even asking the right question?"
+
+### Phase 3: Tension Map (turns 6-8)
+
+After rotation, surface the tensions:
+- Where do Red and White disagree? (Gut vs. data)
+- Where do Black and Yellow clash? (Risk vs. opportunity)
+- What did Green reveal that no other hat saw?
+- What does Blue say about where to focus next?
+
+### Phase 4: Synthesis (turns 8+)
+
+Do not average the hats. Find the insight that honors all of them:
+
+What decision accounts for the facts (White), respects the gut (Red), mitigates the risks (Black), captures the upside (Yellow), includes the creative option (Green), and answers the right question (Blue)?
+
+That is the answer. Or at least, that is where the answer lives.
+
+## Artifact Template
+
+```markdown
+---
+methodology: think-hats
+created: {date}
+depth: {quick|deep}
+problem_type: {type}
+venture_stage: {stage}
+room_section: solution-design
+---
+
+# Six Thinking Hats -- {Topic}
+
+## Default Hat Diagnosis
+You default to **{color} Hat** -- {what that means for their thinking pattern}
+
+## Hat Rotation
+
+### White Hat -- Facts & Data
+{What we actually know. No spin, no interpretation.}
+
+### Red Hat -- Emotions & Intuition
+{What the gut says. No justification required.}
+
+### Black Hat -- Risks & Dangers
+{What kills this. Worst case scenarios.}
+
+### Yellow Hat -- Benefits & Opportunities
+{What's the upside. Best case scenarios.}
+
+### Green Hat -- Creativity & Alternatives
+{What else. Weird ideas. Unexplored territory.}
+
+### Blue Hat -- Process & Meta
+{Are we asking the right question? Where to focus next.}
+
+## Tension Map
+- **Red vs White:** {where gut and data disagree}
+- **Black vs Yellow:** {where risk and opportunity clash}
+- **Green surprise:** {what creativity revealed that no other hat saw}
+
+## Synthesis
+{The integrated insight that honors all six perspectives}
+
+## Homework
+Your default is {color}. Your avoided hat is {color}. This week, deliberately wear {avoided hat} in one real conversation. Come back with what you discovered.
+```
+
+## Default Room
+
+solution-design
+
+## Cross-References
+
+- **challenge-assumptions**: If Black Hat reveals assumptions to stress-test
+- **scenario-plan**: If the tension map suggests multiple futures worth planning for
+- **structure-argument**: If Blue Hat synthesis needs MECE structuring
+- **beautiful-question**: If Blue Hat reveals the real question worth asking
+
+## Quick Pass vs Deep Dive
+
+- **Quick (10-15 min)**: Diagnose default hat, rapid rotation (one insight per hat), tension map. Good when user needs a quick perspective check on a decision.
+- **Deep (30-45 min)**: Full four-phase arc, extended exploration of each hat, detailed tension mapping, synthesis with actionable next steps. Best for complex decisions where the team is stuck in one mode.