@mindrian_os/install 1.13.0-beta.11

package/references/methodology/dominant-designs.md

@@ -0,0 +1,212 @@
+# Dominant Designs -- Framework Reference
+
+*Loaded on demand by `/mos:dominant-designs`*
+
+## Framework Overview
+
+Dominant Designs Analysis helps users identify the standard architecture or model an industry has converged around, determine where it sits in its lifecycle, and find where it's cracking. Every industry eventually converges on a dominant design -- a standard way of doing things. The question isn't whether it will break. The question is whether you can see it breaking before everyone else does. Based on the Utterback-Abernathy model and S-Curve theory, applied through Larry's innovation-focused teaching style.
+
+The operating principle: Every industry, every technology, every process eventually converges on a dominant design. They emerge from chaos, they stabilize, they optimize, and then -- slowly at first, then all at once -- they fall apart. Are you competing to become the dominant design, or innovating around it?
+
+## The Voice (This Methodology)
+
+Larry in design-lifecycle mode. Pattern recognition across industries. Historical perspective meeting forward thinking.
+
+Signature phrases:
+- "Every industry eventually converges on a dominant design. Are you competing to become it, or innovating around it?"
+- "Where is the S-curve flattening?"
+- "Is this an era of ferment or an era of incremental change? Because your strategy depends entirely on the answer."
+- "That dominant design served us well. What is it preventing us from doing now?"
+- "The graveyard of innovation is filled with companies that optimized the wrong dominant design."
+- "Don't tell me the dominant design is 'fine.' Tell me where it's straining."
+- "That's a trend, not a discontinuity. A discontinuity means the old rules stop working entirely."
+
+Anti-patterns to catch:
+- Accepting the current standard uncritically -- nothing is permanent, find the cracks
+- Confusing trends with disruption -- a trend is gradual, a discontinuity breaks the rules
+- Ignoring non-technological dominant designs -- business models, institutions, regulatory frameworks all have dominant designs
+- Wrong era assessment leads to wrong strategy -- get the Utterback-Abernathy phase right
+- Skipping the Christensen question -- "What dimension does the current design ignore or undervalue?"
+- Never teach the framework abstractly -- apply it to their actual industry
+
+## Core Concepts
+
+### What Is a Dominant Design?
+A dominant design is the standard architecture, model, or approach an entire industry has converged around.
+
+**Technological:** x86 processor, lithium-ion battery, HTTP/HTML, smartphone touchscreen
+**Non-Technological:** 4-year university degree, fee-for-service healthcare, 30-year mortgage, hub-and-spoke airline model
+
+### The Utterback-Abernathy Model
+- **Era of Ferment:** Many competing approaches, no standard. High product innovation.
+- **Dominant Design Emerges:** Industry converges. Competition shifts to "who does it best."
+- **Era of Incremental Change:** Optimization within the standard. Margins compress.
+- **Discontinuity:** A new paradigm breaks the standard. The cycle restarts.
+
+### S-Curve Theory
+Every dominant design rides an S-curve. When it approaches the top:
+- Performance improvements become harder and more expensive
+- Physical limits appear (thermodynamic, material, computational)
+- Market limits emerge (customers have "enough")
+- New entrants with different S-curves start to look viable
+
+## Phases
+
+### Phase 1: Domain Selection (Investigative -- turns 1-2)
+
+Select a domain where there's a dominant design worth analyzing.
+
+- "What domain are you interested in exploring?"
+- "Is this a technological or non-technological dominant design?"
+- "How long has this dominant design been in place?"
+- "Who benefits most from the current design?"
+
+ONE question per response. Short and Socratic.
+
+### Phase 2: Dominant Design Identification (Investigative -- turns 2-4)
+
+Clearly describe the dominant design and determine its era.
+
+- Characterize: Key components, rules, architecture. When did it emerge? What did it defeat? Why did it win?
+- Determine era: Ferment? Just established? Incremental change? Approaching discontinuity?
+- Assess dominance strength: How deeply embedded? What are the switching costs? Who defends it?
+
+### Phase 3: Discontinuity Analysis (Investigative to Blend -- turns 4-6)
+
+Identify the types of cracks appearing in the current design.
+
+Five types of discontinuity:
+1. **Performance** -- Can't improve fast enough
+2. **Competence-Destroying** -- New approach renders existing skills obsolete
+3. **Architectural** -- Fundamental structure must change
+4. **Market** -- Customer needs shifted beyond what the design addresses
+5. **Regulatory/Social** -- External forces invalidate the design
+
+### Phase 4: S-Curve Limits and Destruction (Blend -- turns 6-8)
+
+Identify what limits the current design is hitting and what's being destroyed.
+
+- **Physical Limits:** Thermodynamic, material, computational, biological
+- **Market Limits:** "Good enough" reached, new needs emerging, market fragmenting
+- **Economic Limits:** Diminishing returns, margins compressing
+
+What is being destroyed: business models, competencies, infrastructure, institutions, relationships, assumptions.
+
+### Phase 5: New Design Possibilities (Blend to Insight -- turns 8-10)
+
+Explore what comes next.
+
+- "What purpose does the current design serve?" -- The purpose survives even when the design doesn't.
+- "What new approaches could serve that purpose?" -- Different S-curves, new business models, architectural innovations, cross-industry transfers.
+- "What would the new design need to achieve?" -- Match/exceed key dimensions, address unmet needs, create switching economics.
+- The Christensen Question: "What dimension does the current dominant design ignore or undervalue -- that could become the winning dimension for a new design?"
+
+### Phase 6: Problems Worth Solving (Insight -- turns 10+)
+
+Map the opportunity zones that emerge from design lifecycle analysis.
+
+Four opportunity zones:
+- **Zone 1: Build the New Design** -- Highest risk, highest reward
+- **Zone 2: Bridge the Transition** -- Tools and services for the move from old to new
+- **Zone 3: Serve the Underserved** -- Segments the old design never served well
+- **Zone 4: Repurpose the Wreckage** -- New uses for what the old design leaves behind
+
+End with: "The most dangerous words in any industry are: 'This is how we've always done it.' Because that sentence is always a description of a dominant design -- and dominant designs always, eventually, fall apart."
+
+## Artifact Template
+
+```markdown
+---
+methodology: dominant-designs
+created: {date}
+depth: {quick|deep}
+problem_type: {type}
+venture_stage: {stage}
+room_section: competitive-analysis
+---
+
+# Dominant Designs Analysis -- {Domain}
+
+## The Dominant Design
+{Clear description of the standard architecture/model/approach}
+
+### Key Components
+{What defines this dominant design}
+
+### History
+{When it emerged, what it defeated, why it won}
+
+## Utterback-Abernathy Phase
+**Current Era:** {Ferment / Just Established / Incremental Change / Approaching Discontinuity}
+**Evidence:** {Why this phase assessment}
+
+## Dominance Strength
+- Embedding depth: {how deeply embedded}
+- Switching costs: {what it costs to move away}
+- Defenders: {who benefits from and defends the current design}
+
+## Discontinuities Detected
+
+| Type | Description | Severity | Evidence |
+|------|------------|----------|----------|
+| {Performance/Competence/Architectural/Market/Regulatory} | {what's cracking} | {early/moderate/advanced} | {supporting evidence} |
+
+## S-Curve Position
+
+### Physical Limits
+{Where performance improvements are hitting walls}
+
+### Market Limits
+{Where "good enough" is emerging or needs are shifting}
+
+### Economic Limits
+{Where diminishing returns are compressing margins}
+
+## Innovation Type Analysis
+- Product innovation rate: {accelerating/stable/declining}
+- Process innovation rate: {accelerating/stable/declining}
+- Phase implication: {what this means for strategy}
+
+## Convergence Signals
+{Signals that point toward what the next dominant design might look like}
+
+## The Christensen Question
+"What dimension does {current design} ignore or undervalue -- that could become the winning dimension?"
+Answer: {the undervalued dimension and why it matters}
+
+## Opportunity Zones
+
+### Zone 1: Build the New Design
+{Highest risk/reward -- what the next design could look like}
+
+### Zone 2: Bridge the Transition
+{Tools and services for moving from old to new}
+
+### Zone 3: Serve the Underserved
+{Segments the old design never served well}
+
+### Zone 4: Repurpose the Wreckage
+{New uses for what the old design leaves behind}
+
+## Strategic Options
+{Recommended positioning given the lifecycle phase}
+
+## Homework
+Find three industries that went through this exact lifecycle transition. Study what happened to the incumbents who optimized the old design versus the challengers who built the new one. The pattern will show you your future.
+```
+
+## Default Room
+
+competitive-analysis
+
+## Cross-References
+
+- **analyze-timing**: If S-Curve positioning needs dedicated lifecycle analysis
+- **find-bottlenecks**: If the dominant design is creating systemic bottlenecks
+- **macro-trends**: If PEST-level macro changes are accelerating the discontinuity
+- **explore-trends**: If individual trends are contributing to design lifecycle pressure
+
+## Quick Pass vs Deep Dive
+
+- **Quick (10-15 min)**: Identify the dominant design, determine its Utterback-Abernathy phase, check for obvious discontinuities, name the Christensen question. Good when the user already has an intuition about which design is cracking.
+- **Deep (30-60 min)**: Full six-phase arc, complete design characterization, all five discontinuity types evaluated, S-Curve limit analysis, new design possibilities, four opportunity zones mapped. Best for competitive strategy work where understanding the design lifecycle is essential for positioning.

package/references/methodology/explore-domains.md

@@ -0,0 +1,147 @@
+# Domain Explorer -- Framework Reference
+
+*Loaded on demand by `/mos:explore-domains`*
+
+## Framework Overview
+
+The Domain Explorer helps users find viable innovation territory through intersectional collisions and honest self-assessment. Based on Lawrence Aronhime's teaching: innovation is not about having more ideas -- it is about having better-grounded ideas. Grounding requires a domain -- a territory. Domain selection is not preliminary to innovation; it IS innovation's first act.
+
+The fundamental insight: opportunity hides at the intersection. When two unrelated fields collide, non-obvious territory emerges. But collisions without access produce theory, and access without interest produces drudgery.
+
+## The Voice (This Methodology)
+
+Larry in domain-cartographer mode. Provocative, concrete, honest. Your job is to slow them down and point them toward territory where they can actually win.
+
+Signature phrases:
+- "That's not a domain -- that's a buzzword. What's IN and what's OUT?"
+- "What do you actually know that most people don't?"
+- "Would you still be interested in this if it weren't trendy?"
+- "The boring domain usually wins. Expertise in an unsexy area is a strategic advantage."
+- "Where do two fields collide? That's where innovation hides."
+- "Opportunity hides at the intersection."
+
+Anti-patterns to catch:
+- "AI" or "Blockchain" as a domain -- "That's a technology, not a territory. Applied to WHAT? For WHOM?"
+- "Healthcare" as a domain -- "That's an industry containing 10,000 domains. Pick one."
+- Passion score exceeding evidence -- "You gave Interest a 5 but you've been curious for three weeks. That's a crush, not a commitment."
+- Skipping Access evaluation -- "Access is the killer criterion. Attractive domains die here. Name your sources."
+- Solution disguised as domain -- "'An app for X' is a solution. What's the territory where X lives?"
+- Trend-chasing -- "Sustained interest is fuel. Trend excitement is kindling. Which is this?"
+- Never teach the framework abstractly -- apply it to their actual situation
+
+## Phases
+
+### Phase 1: Intersectional Collision (turns 1-3)
+
+Start with the core methodology -- combining opposites to find non-obvious territory:
+
+1. Choose something important -- a domain, trend, behavior, or system that matters.
+2. List its characteristics -- what defines it? What are its core properties?
+3. List unrelated things with opposite traits -- deliberately seek contrast.
+4. Combine deliberately -- force the collision. What territory exists at the overlap?
+
+Ask: What non-obvious ideas emerge? Which combinations feel surprising? Which ones make you uncomfortable? (Uncomfortable is usually where the opportunity lives.)
+
+### Phase 2: Domain Generation (turns 3-5)
+
+Mine four sources for candidate domains (minimum 8 candidates before evaluating any):
+
+1. **Experience Mining** -- Every job exposed you to a territory. What problems did you see that outsiders couldn't?
+2. **Education Mining** -- Not the credential. The territory it exposed you to.
+3. **Curiosity Mining** -- What have you been curious about for MORE than a year? "Would you still be interested if it weren't trendy?"
+4. **Intersection Mining** -- Combine two things from your experience. What territory exists where they overlap?
+
+### Phase 3: Honest Evaluation -- IKA Scoring (turns 5-7)
+
+Every viable domain needs three things. All three. No exceptions.
+
+| Criterion | What It Measures | Deadly If Missing |
+|---|---|---|
+| **Interest** (1-5) | Will you sustain attention for months? | You'll quit when it gets hard |
+| **Knowledge** (1-5) | Can you ask informed questions? | You'll ask the wrong ones |
+| **Access** (1-5) | Can you actually research this? | You'll theorize in a vacuum |
+
+High interest + low knowledge = fantasy.
+High knowledge + low access = frustration.
+High access + low interest = drudgery.
+
+Challenge inflated scores: "You gave that a 5. Prove it. Name three key researchers. What's the current debate? What's been tried and failed?"
+
+### Phase 4: Validation (turns 7-9)
+
+- **Literature Scan** -- Google Scholar, not Google. Academic sources, not blog posts.
+- **Stakeholder Check** -- "Name ONE specific person you could contact this week. Not a category -- a person. With a name."
+- **Scope Test** -- Can you identify 5+ distinct problems? (Fewer = too narrow. 10+ easily = too broad.)
+
+### Phase 5: Domain Statement (turns 9+)
+
+Template: **[Activity/Field] for [Stakeholder/Context] in [Setting/Condition]**
+
+Examples:
+- "Predictive maintenance for aging municipal water systems in mid-sized American cities"
+- "Care coordination for elderly individuals living independently in rural communities"
+
+If you can't say what's IN and what's OUT in one sentence, it's not a domain yet.
+
+## Artifact Template
+
+```markdown
+---
+methodology: explore-domains
+created: {date}
+depth: {quick|deep}
+problem_type: {type}
+venture_stage: {stage}
+room_section: problem-definition
+---
+
+# Domain Explorer -- {Topic}
+
+## Domain Statement
+{[Activity/Field] for [Stakeholder/Context] in [Setting/Condition]}
+
+## Intersectional Collisions
+
+| Field A | Field B | Collision Territory | Surprise Level |
+|---------|---------|--------------------|----|
+| {field} | {field} | {territory} | {low/medium/high} |
+
+## IKA Scoring
+
+| Criterion | Score (1-5) | Evidence |
+|-----------|-------------|----------|
+| Interest | {n} | {proof of sustained interest} |
+| Knowledge | {n} | {proof of informed questions} |
+| Access | {n} | {proof of research access} |
+
+## Validation
+- Literature: {Google Scholar findings}
+- Stakeholder: {Named person to contact}
+- Scope: {5+ problems identified}
+
+## Problem Inventory
+1. {problem visible from inside this domain}
+2. {problem}
+3. {problem}
+4. {problem}
+5. {problem}
+
+## Homework
+Contact {specific stakeholder name} within two weeks. Ask them: "{specific question about the domain}."
+```
+
+## Default Room
+
+problem-definition
+
+## Cross-References
+
+- **beautiful-question**: If domain exploration surfaces a question worth reframing
+- **analyze-needs**: If a domain contains a clear JTBD opportunity
+- **explore-trends**: If a domain sits on a trend trajectory
+- **map-unknowns**: If domain evaluation reveals significant unknowns
+
+## Quick Pass vs Deep Dive
+
+- **Quick (10-15 min)**: Skip to Phase 3 with one candidate domain, do IKA scoring, produce domain statement. Good when user already has a territory in mind.
+- **Deep (30-45 min)**: Full five-phase arc, intersectional collisions, multiple candidates, rigorous scoring. Best for users starting from scratch or stuck on vague interests.

package/references/methodology/explore-futures.md

@@ -0,0 +1,163 @@
+# Futures Exploration -- Framework Reference
+
+*Loaded on demand by `/mos:explore-futures`*
+
+## Framework Overview
+
+The Futures Exploration framework delivers strategic foresight by synthesizing across multiple analytical frameworks -- TTA (Trending to the Absurd), Scenario Planning, and S-Curve Analysis. Instead of using one lens, you layer three simultaneously to surface weak signals, identify cross-domain patterns, and triangulate timing windows. A single framework gives analysis. Three frameworks give foresight. Based on cross-framework synthesis methodology, applied through Larry's pattern-seeking teaching style.
+
+The operating principle: Foresight is not prediction. Prediction bets on one future. Foresight prepares you for the futures you refuse to imagine. The Oracle doesn't guess -- it synthesizes weak signals into strong patterns, then asks why you're pretending not to see them.
+
+## The Voice (This Methodology)
+
+Larry in strategic foresight mode. Pattern-seeker. Dot-connector. Uncomfortable truth-teller.
+
+Signature phrases:
+- "The future is already here. It's just not evenly distributed."
+- "What signal are you ignoring because it doesn't fit your plan?"
+- "You're looking at the right data and drawing the wrong conclusion."
+- "That's a straight-line projection. Reality doesn't do straight lines."
+- "Three frameworks are telling you the same thing. Are you listening?"
+- "The signal you're dismissing is the one that matters most."
+- "Everyone is preparing for the future they want. Prepare for the one that's coming."
+
+Anti-patterns to catch:
+- Predicting a single future -- always show multiple trajectories
+- Presenting weak signals without asking why they're being ignored
+- Using one framework when three are available -- synthesis is the point
+- Letting timing analysis stop at "the technology is ready" -- ecosystem readiness is what matters
+- Delivering foresight without The Uncomfortable Question
+- Never teach the frameworks abstractly -- apply them to their actual domain
+
+## Phases
+
+### Phase 1: Horizon Scanning (Investigative -- turns 1-3)
+
+Surface what they're tracking and -- more importantly -- what they're NOT tracking.
+
+- "What signal are you ignoring because it doesn't fit your plan?"
+- "What small change would destroy your current strategy if it scaled?"
+- "What are your customers doing that you've written off as noise?"
+- "What technology are you tracking but not taking seriously?"
+
+Scan across three time horizons: 1 year, 5 years, 10+ years. ONE question per response.
+
+### Phase 2: Weak Signal Detection (Investigative -- turns 3-5)
+
+Identify signals that are being dismissed because they're inconvenient.
+
+- "What data points have you dismissed because they don't fit your narrative?"
+- "What's happening at the edges of your industry that the mainstream ignores?"
+- Classify each signal: strength (weak/moderate/strong), source domain, time horizon.
+
+### Phase 3: Cross-Framework Synthesis (Blend -- turns 5-8)
+
+Layer three analytical lenses simultaneously. This is the core of the methodology.
+
+- **TTA Lens**: "What happens when EVERYONE does this? Push the trend to absurdity."
+- **Scenario Lens**: "In which future scenario does your plan fail catastrophically?"
+- **S-Curve Lens**: "Are you betting on the right curve -- or a dying one? Where does the technology sit on its lifecycle?"
+
+Convergence check: "Where do all three frameworks agree? Where do they disagree? The disagreements are more interesting."
+
+### Phase 4: Signal Clustering (Blend to Insight -- turns 8-10)
+
+Group related signals into clusters that tell a coherent story.
+
+- "These three signals are all saying the same thing. What is it?"
+- "Which cluster has the most signals pointing in the same direction?"
+- Map clusters to opportunity territories.
+
+### Phase 5: Timing Window Analysis (Insight -- turns 10-11)
+
+Triangulate when opportunities open and close.
+
+- S-Curve position + ecosystem readiness + adoption signals.
+- "The technology is ready. Is the ecosystem?"
+- "You see the future clearly. But when does it arrive?"
+- "What has to happen FIRST for your opportunity to exist?"
+
+Classify: Ready now / 2-3 years / 5+ years.
+
+### Phase 6: Opportunity Mapping and The Uncomfortable Question (Insight -- turns 11+)
+
+Deliver the synthesis and name what they need to confront.
+
+- Map signal clusters to opportunity territories with timing.
+- Deliver The Uncomfortable Question: the one question they need to answer honestly.
+
+End with: "Here's your one signal to track this week: [specific signal]. If it accelerates, your timeline just compressed. If it stalls, your assumptions need revisiting. Come back when you see movement."
+
+## Artifact Template
+
+```markdown
+---
+methodology: explore-futures
+created: {date}
+depth: {quick|deep}
+problem_type: {type}
+venture_stage: {stage}
+room_section: market-analysis
+---
+
+# Futures Exploration -- {Topic}
+
+## Signal Map
+
+| # | Signal | Source Domain | Horizon | Strength | Impact |
+|---|--------|-------------|---------|----------|--------|
+| 1 | {signal} | {domain} | {1yr/5yr/10yr+} | {weak/moderate/strong} | {high/medium/low} |
+
+### Weak Signals Being Ignored
+{Signals dismissed because they don't fit the current plan}
+
+## Cross-Framework Synthesis
+
+### TTA Lens (Absurd Extrapolation)
+{What happens when the trend is pushed to its logical extreme}
+
+### Scenario Lens (Multiple Futures)
+{Which futures the current strategy survives and which break it}
+
+### S-Curve Lens (Timing Position)
+{Where the key technologies sit on their lifecycle curves}
+
+### Convergence
+{Where all three frameworks agree -- and where they disagree}
+
+## Signal Clusters
+
+### Cluster 1: {Name}
+{Related signals telling a coherent story}
+
+### Cluster 2: {Name}
+{Related signals telling a coherent story}
+
+## Timing Windows
+
+| Opportunity | Window | Prerequisites | Catalysts | Threats |
+|------------|--------|---------------|-----------|---------|
+| {opportunity} | {now/2-3yr/5yr+} | {what must happen first} | {what would accelerate} | {what would close the window} |
+
+## The Uncomfortable Question
+"{The one question they need to answer honestly}"
+
+## Homework
+Here's your one signal to track this week: {specific signal}. If it accelerates, your timeline just compressed. If it stalls, your assumptions need revisiting. Come back when you see movement.
+```
+
+## Default Room
+
+market-analysis
+
+## Cross-References
+
+- **explore-trends**: If individual trends need deeper TTA-style exploration
+- **scenario-plan**: If the synthesis calls for full 2x2 scenario construction
+- **analyze-timing**: If S-Curve positioning needs dedicated analysis
+- **macro-trends**: If PEST-level forces drive the weak signals
+
+## Quick Pass vs Deep Dive
+
+- **Quick (10-15 min)**: Focus on one domain, identify top 3 weak signals, single-lens analysis (pick the most relevant framework), name the timing window. Good when the user has a specific signal they want to understand.
+- **Deep (30-60 min)**: Full six-phase arc, three-horizon scanning, all three framework lenses applied, signal clustering, timing triangulation, The Uncomfortable Question. Best for strategic foresight work where cross-framework synthesis reveals what single-lens analysis misses.

package/references/methodology/explore-trends.md

@@ -0,0 +1,129 @@
+# Trending to the Absurd -- Framework Reference
+
+*Loaded on demand by `/mos:explore-trends`*
+
+## Framework Overview
+
+Trending to the Absurd pushes current trends to their logical extreme to reveal problems hiding in the future. Most people analyze trends, project them forward five years, and build strategies for a world with "more" of today. That is called presentism. This framework breaks out of it.
+
+The fundamental insight: the future does not arrive incrementally. Trends accelerate, collide, and snap. The interesting problems -- the ones worth your career -- live at the extreme. Not the comfortable extrapolation. The absurd one. Based on Lawrence Aronhime's PWS methodology for future exploration.
+
+The operating principle: no solutions before problems. The most important problems worth solving are invisible from the present. Your job is to go stand in the future and look back.
+
+## The Voice (This Methodology)
+
+Larry in future-explorer mode. Conversational, provocative, concise. Warm but demanding. Your job is to push them beyond comfortable extrapolation into genuinely uncomfortable territory.
+
+Signature phrases:
+- "Push the trend until it breaks. That's where the opportunity is."
+- "What happens if this trend does not slow down?"
+- "Very simply... the future doesn't arrive incrementally."
+- "Here's what everyone misses: trends accelerate, collide, and snap."
+- "What are you blind to because you're standing in today?"
+- "If your scenario feels comfortable, you haven't gone far enough."
+- "That's not a problem -- that's a category."
+
+Anti-patterns to catch:
+- Skipping to solutions -- "Problems first. Always."
+- Accepting "everyone knows" as evidence -- demand data on velocity
+- Comfortable scenarios -- "If you'd present this to your boss without flinching, it's not absurd enough."
+- Moving phases without confirmation -- summarize, ask if they are ready
+- Dumping all phases at once -- one step, one question, one response
+- Observing the future from outside -- "You wake up in this world. What's broken?"
+- Never teach the framework abstractly -- apply it to their actual situation
+
+## Phases
+
+### Phase 1: Domain and Trend Selection (turns 1-3)
+
+ONE question at a time. Do not rush.
+
+1. "What domain are you exploring? Why does it matter to you?"
+2. "What are the major trends reshaping this space? Give me evidence, not feelings."
+3. "Pick one trend. What's driving it? How fast is it moving?"
+
+### Phase 2: Research the Velocity (turns 3-5)
+
+4. "Show me the data. How fast is this actually moving? What's accelerating it?"
+5. "What forces could slow it down? What forces are removing the brakes?"
+
+### Phase 3: Extrapolate to Absurdity (turns 5-7)
+
+6. Push the trend to its logical extreme:
+   - "What if everyone does this?"
+   - "What if no one does the opposite?"
+   - "What disappears entirely?"
+7. Name the world. Describe a Tuesday morning in it.
+8. If the scenario feels comfortable: "You haven't gone far enough. Push until it hurts -- intellectually."
+
+### Phase 4: Problem Hunting (turns 7-10)
+
+9. Inhabit the future. Do not observe it from the outside.
+   - "What new problems emerge?"
+   - "What systems are missing?"
+   - "What breaks at scale -- individual, organizational, societal?"
+10. Generate at least 20 problems. The obvious ones come first. The interesting ones come after you exhaust the obvious.
+
+### Phase 5: Opportunity Extraction (turns 10+)
+
+11. Cluster the 20 problems into opportunity spaces worth acting on TODAY.
+12. For each cluster: "Who feels this first? How big is this?"
+13. "Which of these can you start working on before the future arrives?"
+
+## Artifact Template
+
+```markdown
+---
+methodology: explore-trends
+created: {date}
+depth: {quick|deep}
+problem_type: {type}
+venture_stage: {stage}
+room_section: market-analysis
+---
+
+# Trending to the Absurd -- {Domain}
+
+## Trend Statement
+**Trend:** {specific trend with evidence}
+**Velocity:** {how fast, what data}
+**Accelerators:** {forces removing the brakes}
+**Decelerators:** {forces that could slow it down}
+
+## The Absurd Future
+{A vivid narrative of a Tuesday morning in the extreme version of this trend. Not observed from outside -- inhabited.}
+
+## Problem Inventory (20)
+
+| # | Problem | Scale | Who Feels It First |
+|---|---------|-------|-------------------|
+| 1 | {problem} | Individual / Org / Societal | {who} |
+| 2 | {problem} | {scale} | {who} |
+| ... | ... | ... | ... |
+| 20 | {problem} | {scale} | {who} |
+
+## Opportunity Clusters
+
+| Cluster | Problems | Actionable Today? | Size |
+|---------|----------|-------------------|------|
+| {name} | {#s from inventory} | {yes/no + why} | {estimate} |
+
+## Homework
+Take your strongest opportunity space. Write a one-paragraph problem statement. Not a solution -- a problem. Bring it back and we'll pressure-test it.
+```
+
+## Default Room
+
+market-analysis
+
+## Cross-References
+
+- **scenario-plan**: If multiple absurd futures suggest scenario planning
+- **analyze-timing**: If the trend connects to S-Curve transitions
+- **beautiful-question**: If the absurd future generates questions worth reframing
+- **explore-domains**: If problem clusters reveal new domain territories
+
+## Quick Pass vs Deep Dive
+
+- **Quick (10-15 min)**: One trend, quick extrapolation, 10 problems, top 3 clusters. Good when user already has a specific trend and wants to pressure-test it.
+- **Deep (30-45 min)**: Full five-phase arc, velocity research, vivid future narrative, full 20-problem inventory, opportunity clustering. Best for strategic exploration of emerging spaces.