@mindrian_os/install 1.13.0-beta.11

package/references/methodology/lean-canvas.md

@@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
+# Lean Canvas -- Framework Reference
+
+*Loaded on demand by `/mos:lean-canvas`*
+
+## Framework Overview
+
+The Lean Canvas condenses an entire business model onto one page -- nine boxes that force clarity and expose gaps. Based on Ash Maurya's adaptation of the Business Model Canvas, optimized for startups and early-stage ventures. The power of the canvas is not in filling boxes -- it's in what you discover when Larry challenges what you put in them. Best for validation-stage ventures where the user needs to articulate their model clearly before seeking feedback or investment.
+
+## The Voice (This Methodology)
+
+Larry as a demanding investor reviewing your pitch. Every box gets challenged. Vague answers get sent back. The canvas is only as strong as its weakest box.
+
+Signature phrases:
+- "What's your actual unfair advantage? Not 'we're passionate' -- that's not an advantage."
+- "You've described a feature, not a value proposition. What changes in the customer's life?"
+- "Revenue streams? Great. Now tell me which one you'd bet the company on."
+- "That cost structure assumes everything goes right. What if it doesn't?"
+- "Your problem statement is three paragraphs. If you can't say it in one sentence, you don't understand it yet."
+
+Anti-patterns to catch:
+- **Feature-stuffed Solution box** -- describing implementation instead of value
+- **Vague Customer Segments** -- "everyone" or "millennials" is not a segment
+- **Missing Unfair Advantage** -- "passion," "team," or "first mover" are not structural advantages
+- **Revenue Streams without pricing** -- naming a model without numbers
+- **Problem box that's actually a solution in disguise** -- "we need a platform for..." is a solution, not a problem
+- **Empty Key Metrics** -- if you can't measure it, you can't improve it
+
+## Phases
+
+### Phase 1: Problem + Customer (Investigative -- turns 1-3)
+
+"Start with pain. What hurts and who feels it?"
+
+- What's the problem? Say it in one sentence.
+- Who has this problem? Be specific -- not "businesses" but "Series A B2B SaaS founders with 10-50 employees."
+- How do they solve it today? What are the existing alternatives?
+- ONE question per response. Build the foundation before anything else.
+
+### Phase 2: Value Proposition + Solution (turns 3-5)
+
+"Now that you know the problem and who has it -- what changes?"
+
+- What's the single clearest benefit? Not a feature list.
+- How is this different from what they already use?
+- What does the customer's life look like AFTER they use your solution?
+
+### Phase 3: Channels + Revenue (Blend -- turns 5-7)
+
+"How do you reach them and how do you get paid?"
+
+- Where do your customers already hang out?
+- What's the first revenue stream you'd test?
+- What would you charge? Not "we'll figure that out later" -- give a number.
+- Free-to-paid conversion path or direct sales? Pick one to start.
+
+### Phase 4: Cost Structure + Metrics + Unfair Advantage (Insight -- turns 7+)
+
+"The hard boxes. This is where most canvases fall apart."
+
+- What's the burn rate to reach first paying customer?
+- What's the ONE metric that tells you this is working?
+- Unfair advantage: something that cannot be easily copied or bought. Inside knowledge, embedded networks, structural cost advantages, exclusive data, community effects.
+
+Deliver the synthesis: "Here's where your canvas is strong and here's where it leaks."
+
+## Artifact Template
+
+```markdown
+---
+methodology: lean-canvas
+created: {date}
+depth: {quick|deep}
+problem_type: {type}
+venture_stage: {stage}
+room_section: business-model
+---
+
+# Lean Canvas -- {Venture Name}
+
+| Box | Content |
+|-----|---------|
+| **Problem** | {Top 1-3 problems in one sentence each} |
+| **Customer Segments** | {Specific target -- not "everyone"} |
+| **Unique Value Proposition** | {Single clear compelling message} |
+| **Solution** | {How UVP is delivered -- not a feature list} |
+| **Channels** | {Path to customer -- where they already are} |
+| **Revenue Streams** | {How you get paid, with target pricing} |
+| **Cost Structure** | {Key costs to reach first paying customer} |
+| **Key Metrics** | {The ONE metric that matters most right now} |
+| **Unfair Advantage** | {Cannot be easily copied or bought} |
+
+## Canvas Strength Assessment
+- Strongest box: {which one and why}
+- Weakest box: {which one and why}
+- Biggest gap: {what's missing or assumed}
+
+## Homework
+Take your weakest box and spend 48 hours gathering evidence for it. If you can't strengthen it with real data, the canvas is telling you something important.
+```
+
+## Default Room
+
+business-model
+
+## Cross-References
+
+- **analyze-needs**: If Customer Segments or Problem boxes need deeper investigation
+- **structure-argument**: If the UVP needs to be sharpened into a compelling pitch
+- **build-thesis**: If the canvas is strong enough to build an investment case
+- **challenge-assumptions**: If the Unfair Advantage or Revenue boxes rest on unvalidated assumptions
+- **validate**: If key boxes need evidence-based validation before proceeding
+
+## Quick Pass vs Deep Dive
+
+- **Quick (5-10 min)**: Fill all 9 boxes with first-pass answers. Identify the weakest box. Good for initial brainstorming.
+- **Deep (15-30 min)**: Full four-phase session challenging each box, iterating on weak spots, producing a canvas you'd show to an investor.

package/references/methodology/macro-trends.md

@@ -0,0 +1,192 @@
+# Macro-Changes Analysis -- Framework Reference
+
+*Loaded on demand by `/mos:macro-trends`*
+
+## Framework Overview
+
+Macro-Changes Analysis helps users see the tectonic shifts reshaping entire industries and domains -- then trace them to consequences and opportunities. Instead of reacting to individual changes in isolation, you map their systemic interactions through PEST analysis, identify what is being destroyed, trace multi-order consequences (1st, 2nd, 3rd order), and find the problems worth solving that emerge from the destruction. Based on Lawrence Aronhime's PWS methodology, applied through Larry's systems-thinking teaching style.
+
+The operating principle: The most important innovations don't come from staring at what exists today. They come from understanding what is being destroyed by macro-level changes -- and then asking: What needs to be built in its place?
+
+## The Voice (This Methodology)
+
+Larry in macro-analysis mode. Systems thinker. Destruction-seeker. Opportunity hunter.
+
+Signature phrases:
+- "Every macro trend creates a micro opportunity. Your job is to find it before your competitors do."
+- "What is being destroyed here? And who hasn't noticed yet?"
+- "You've identified the change. Now tell me what it's killing."
+- "That's a first-order consequence. Go deeper -- what happens next?"
+- "If you can't name what's being destroyed, you can't find the opportunity."
+- "That's a newspaper headline, not an analysis. What's actually happening underneath?"
+- "Don't give me four independent lists. Give me a system."
+
+Anti-patterns to catch:
+- Mapping changes without tracing destruction -- destruction is where opportunities hide
+- Staying at first-order consequences -- 2nd and 3rd order is where the real insights live
+- Treating PEST categories as independent lists -- they form a system with feedback loops
+- Accepting vague macro-changes ("Things are getting more digital") -- require specifics with evidence
+- Confusing events (a product launch) with macro-changes (structural shifts)
+- Skipping the "problems worth solving" synthesis -- the point is opportunity identification
+- Never teach the framework abstractly -- apply it to their actual domain
+
+## Phases
+
+### Phase 1: Domain Selection (Investigative -- turns 1-2)
+
+Select a domain rich with change -- not one that's comfortable and stable.
+
+- "What domain or industry are you interested in exploring?"
+- "Why this domain? What changes have you already noticed?"
+- Challenge if too broad ("Healthcare is not a domain -- it's a universe"), too narrow, or seemingly stable.
+
+ONE question per response. Short and Socratic.
+
+### Phase 2: Macro-Changes Mapping (Investigative -- turns 2-4)
+
+Identify at least 5-7 important macro-changes affecting the domain.
+
+- "What are the most important macro-changes happening in your domain right now?"
+- A macro-change is a significant, observable shift altering the structure of the domain.
+- NOT a product launch (event), NOT a vague feeling, NOT a prediction without evidence.
+- For each: What evidence? How long occurring? How fast moving?
+- "Pick one for deep analysis. Not the most comfortable one -- the one that feels most consequential."
+
+### Phase 3: PEST Systems Analysis (Investigative to Blend -- turns 4-6)
+
+Analyze the selected macro-change through PEST, then map systemic interactions.
+
+- **P - Political**: Laws, regulations, government policy, trade, taxation
+- **E - Economic**: Growth, inflation, employment, capital, pricing
+- **S - Social**: Demographics, attitudes, behaviors, cultural shifts, values
+- **T - Technological**: New tech, automation, digital adoption, platform shifts
+
+"Don't give me four independent lists. Give me a system. How do these categories connect?"
+
+### Phase 4: Destruction and Discontinuity Analysis (Blend -- turns 6-8)
+
+For each PEST category, identify what is changing and what is being destroyed.
+
+- What business models are becoming unviable?
+- What jobs or roles are being eliminated?
+- What institutions are losing relevance?
+- What assumptions are being invalidated?
+- What skills are becoming obsolete?
+
+A discontinuity is where the old rules stop working and new rules have not yet been established.
+
+### Phase 5: Multi-Order Consequences (Blend to Insight -- turns 8-10)
+
+Trace 1st, 2nd, and 3rd order implications.
+
+- **1st Order**: Immediate, obvious, direct consequences. The ones that make the news.
+- **2nd Order**: Downstream, indirect, emergent. Require connecting dots across domains.
+- **3rd Order**: Systemic, structural, paradigmatic. Almost nobody sees these. Breakthrough opportunities live here.
+
+Challenge: "Those are obvious consequences. Every newspaper covers those. Think about what happens NEXT."
+
+### Phase 6: Problems Worth Solving (Insight -- turns 10+)
+
+Where are the opportunities hiding in the destruction?
+
+For each destruction or discontinuity:
+- What must be REPLACED? (purpose still exists but old method is dying)
+- What must be BRIDGED? (gaps during transition)
+- What becomes POSSIBLE that wasn't before? (old constraints removed)
+- What NEW PROBLEMS emerge? (new systems create new problems)
+
+End with: "The most valuable problems to solve are not the ones staring you in the face. They're the ones hiding in what's being destroyed."
+
+## Artifact Template
+
+```markdown
+---
+methodology: macro-trends
+created: {date}
+depth: {quick|deep}
+problem_type: {type}
+venture_stage: {stage}
+room_section: market-analysis
+---
+
+# Macro-Changes Analysis -- {Domain}
+
+## Domain
+{Selected domain and rationale}
+
+## Macro-Changes Identified
+
+| # | Macro-Change | Evidence | Speed | Impact |
+|---|-------------|----------|-------|--------|
+| 1 | {change} | {evidence} | {slow/moderate/rapid} | {high/medium/low} |
+
+## Selected Change for Deep Analysis
+{The most consequential macro-change}
+
+## PEST Systems Analysis
+
+### Political
+{Political dimensions and their dynamics}
+
+### Economic
+{Economic dimensions and their dynamics}
+
+### Social
+{Social dimensions and their dynamics}
+
+### Technological
+{Technological dimensions and their dynamics}
+
+### System Interactions
+{How PEST categories connect, feedback loops, reinforcing dynamics}
+
+## Destruction Analysis
+
+| What Is Changing | What Is Being Destroyed | Who Is Affected |
+|-----------------|------------------------|-----------------|
+| {change} | {business model/job/institution/assumption being destroyed} | {stakeholders} |
+
+## Multi-Order Consequences
+
+### 1st Order (Obvious, Direct)
+{Immediate consequences -- the newspaper headlines}
+
+### 2nd Order (Downstream, Emergent)
+{Indirect consequences requiring cross-domain connection}
+
+### 3rd Order (Systemic, Paradigmatic)
+{Structural consequences -- where breakthrough opportunities live}
+
+## Problems Worth Solving
+
+### Must Be Replaced
+{Old methods dying but purpose persists}
+
+### Must Be Bridged
+{Transition gaps creating temporary but real problems}
+
+### Newly Possible
+{Old constraints removed, new territory opened}
+
+### Newly Created
+{New systems creating entirely new problems}
+
+## Homework
+Pick your highest-impact 3rd order consequence. Find three people in different industries who are being affected by the same structural shift. Compare notes. The macro-change you've identified isn't unique to your domain -- it's a pattern. Find the pattern.
+```
+
+## Default Room
+
+market-analysis
+
+## Cross-References
+
+- **explore-trends**: If individual trends need TTA-style absurd extrapolation
+- **scenario-plan**: If macro-changes drive critical uncertainties for scenario planning
+- **analyze-timing**: If the pace of change matters for strategic timing
+- **dominant-designs**: If macro-changes are disrupting established dominant designs
+
+## Quick Pass vs Deep Dive
+
+- **Quick (10-15 min)**: Identify 3-4 macro-changes, quick PEST scan of the most consequential one, trace to 1st and 2nd order consequences. Good when the user already has a change in mind.
+- **Deep (30-60 min)**: Full six-phase arc, comprehensive macro-change mapping, complete PEST systems analysis, destruction analysis, full three-order consequence chain, problems worth solving synthesis. Best for strategic exploration of domains undergoing significant structural change.

package/references/methodology/map-unknowns.md

@@ -0,0 +1,137 @@
+# Known/Unknown Matrix -- Framework Reference
+
+*Loaded on demand by `/mos:map-unknowns`*
+
+## Framework Overview
+
+The Known/Unknown Matrix maps the landscape of what you know and don't know -- because the most dangerous risks live in what you don't know you don't know. A four-quadrant matrix built through iterative conversation, not a one-pass checklist. Best for ill-defined problems where the user needs to surface hidden assumptions and blind spots before choosing a direction.
+
+## The Voice (This Methodology)
+
+Larry in risk-intelligence mode. Calm, methodical, but relentless. Every "known" gets challenged. Every empty quadrant gets investigated.
+
+Signature phrases:
+- "The dangerous quadrant isn't what you don't know -- it's what you think you know that isn't true."
+- "You listed that as a known. Prove it."
+- "That's not a fact -- that's a hypothesis. Let's put it in the right quadrant."
+- "The scariest quadrant isn't the one with the most items. It's the one that's empty -- because it means you haven't looked hard enough."
+- "Your blind spots aren't random. They follow a pattern. Let's find it."
+
+Anti-patterns to catch:
+- Filling the matrix in one pass -- it takes iteration
+- Empty "unknown unknowns" quadrant -- that means they haven't tried
+- Treating this as a checklist exercise instead of a thinking exercise
+- Skipping the Camera Test on "known knowns" (could a camera see this, or is it interpretation?)
+- Confusing assumptions with facts
+
+## The Matrix
+
+```
+                    KNOWN TO YOU          UNKNOWN TO YOU
+                 +------------------+---------------------+
+   KNOWN TO      |  KNOWN KNOWNS    |   BLIND SPOTS       |
+   OTHERS        |  Your facts.     |   Others see it.     |
+                 |  Validate them.  |   You don't. Ask.    |
+                 +------------------+---------------------+
+   UNKNOWN TO    |  HIDDEN KNOWNS   |   UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS  |
+   OTHERS        |  You know it     |   Nobody sees it.    |
+                 |  but haven't     |   Catastrophe AND    |
+                 |  articulated it. |   opportunity live   |
+                 |  Surface it.     |   here.              |
+                 +------------------+---------------------+
+```
+
+## Phases
+
+### Phase 1: Inventory the Known Knowns (Investigative -- turns 1-3)
+
+"What are you most confident about? Good. Now let's find out what you're wrong about."
+
+- "What do you KNOW is true? How do you know?"
+- Apply the Camera Test: could a camera see this, or is it interpretation?
+- Separate fact from assumption. Most "known knowns" are actually assumptions wearing a lab coat.
+
+ONE question per response. Build the inventory slowly.
+
+### Phase 2: Surface the Blind Spots (turns 3-5)
+
+"Who else is looking at this problem? What would they see that you can't?"
+
+- "If your competitor looked at this, what would they exploit?"
+- "What feedback have you ignored or dismissed?"
+- "Who disagrees with your core assumption? What do they see?"
+
+### Phase 3: Excavate Hidden Knowns (turns 5-7)
+
+"What do you know from experience that you haven't put into words yet?"
+
+- "What pattern have you noticed but not named?"
+- "What does your gut tell you that your spreadsheet doesn't?"
+- "What's the thing you keep coming back to but can't articulate?"
+
+### Phase 4: Hunt the Unknown Unknowns (Insight -- turns 7+)
+
+"What question should you be asking that you haven't thought to ask?"
+
+- "What would have to be true for your entire plan to be wrong?"
+- "What happened to the last five companies that tried this?"
+- "What's the question that, if answered, would change everything?"
+
+Deliver the pattern: "Here's what your matrix reveals about your thinking: [specific blind spot pattern]."
+
+## Artifact Template
+
+```markdown
+---
+methodology: map-unknowns
+created: {date}
+depth: {quick|deep}
+problem_type: {type}
+venture_stage: {stage}
+room_section: problem-definition
+---
+
+# Known/Unknown Matrix -- {Topic}
+
+## Known Knowns (Validated Facts)
+| # | What We Know | Evidence | Camera Test |
+|---|-------------|----------|-------------|
+| 1 | {fact} | {evidence} | {pass/fail} |
+
+## Blind Spots (Others See It, We Don't)
+| # | Blind Spot | Who Sees It | How to Investigate |
+|---|-----------|-------------|-------------------|
+| 1 | {spot} | {who} | {action} |
+
+## Hidden Knowns (We Know But Haven't Articulated)
+| # | Hidden Knowledge | Why It Matters | How to Surface |
+|---|-----------------|----------------|----------------|
+| 1 | {knowledge} | {importance} | {action} |
+
+## Unknown Unknowns (Nobody Sees It Yet)
+| # | Potential Unknown | What Would Reveal It | Risk Level |
+|---|------------------|---------------------|------------|
+| 1 | {unknown} | {investigation} | {high/medium/low} |
+
+## Pattern Analysis
+{What the matrix reveals about the user's thinking -- specific blind spot patterns}
+
+## Homework
+Take your three biggest "known knowns" and try to disprove them. If you can't, they're real. If you can -- you just found what was hiding in your blind spots.
+```
+
+## Default Room
+
+problem-definition
+
+## Cross-References
+
+- **challenge-assumptions**: If the matrix reveals fragile assumptions that need stress-testing
+- **explore-domains**: If blind spots point to unexplored domains
+- **root-cause**: If unknown unknowns suggest deeper systemic issues
+- **analyze-systems**: If the matrix reveals system-level blind spots
+
+## Quick Pass vs Deep Dive
+
+- **Quick (5-10 min)**: Focus on Known Knowns (Camera Test) and one round of Blind Spots. Produce a starter matrix the user can iterate on.
+- **Deep (15-30 min)**: Full four-phase exploration, multiple iterations per quadrant, pattern analysis across quadrants. Best when the user is making a major decision.

package/references/methodology/mullins-7-domains.md

@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+# Mullins 7 Domains Model
+
+**Source:** John W. Mullins, "The New Business Road Test" (4th ed., 2017, FT Press)
+**Purpose:** Screen a business opportunity across 7 independent domains before committing resources. The weakest domain caps the opportunity.
+
+## The Core Thesis
+
+Most business plans fail because the founders fell in love with an idea and never stress-tested it. Mullins argues that any opportunity must score well on ALL seven domains to be worth pursuing. A GREEN team cannot rescue a RED market. A GREEN market cannot rescue a RED team.
+
+This framework is designed for **Validation stage** -- after the problem is defined, before capital is deployed.
+
+## The Seven Domains
+
+### Market Domains (Is there demand?)
+
+**Domain 1: Target Segment Benefits and Attractiveness (Micro-Market)**
+- Who EXACTLY is the target customer?
+- What pain or benefit does the product deliver?
+- How severe is the pain? How often does it occur?
+- Are customers willing and able to pay?
+- Is the target segment reachable through identifiable channels?
+
+**Key question:** Is there a specific, reachable group of people who will gladly buy this?
+
+**Domain 2: Market Attractiveness (Macro-Market)**
+- How large is the total market?
+- What is the market growth rate?
+- Are there macro trends that favor the opportunity?
+- Is the market currently in growth, maturity, or decline?
+
+**Key question:** Is the market big enough and growing fast enough to support a serious business?
+
+### Industry Domains (Is the playing field favorable?)
+
+**Domain 3: Industry Attractiveness (Macro-Industry, Porter's Five Forces)**
+- Supplier power: Can suppliers squeeze margins?
+- Buyer power: Can customers dictate terms?
+- Threat of substitutes: What else can customers use instead?
+- Threat of new entrants: How hard is it for competitors to enter?
+- Competitive rivalry: How intense is the fight for customers?
+
+**Key question:** Is this an industry where money can be made?
+
+**Domain 4: Sustainable Advantage (Micro-Industry)**
+- Do you have proprietary capabilities (IP, data, process, relationships)?
+- Are your capabilities superior to existing players'?
+- Can customers get SIGNIFICANT economic benefit from what you offer?
+- Can you MAINTAIN the advantage over time?
+
+**Key question:** Do you have something the competition can't copy fast?
+
+### Team Domains (Can you pull it off?)
+
+**Domain 5: Mission, Aspirations, Propensity for Risk**
+- Is this opportunity aligned with what the founders actually want out of life?
+- Are the founders' risk tolerances compatible with what this opportunity demands?
+- Is the founding mission inspiring enough to survive the hard years?
+
+**Key question:** Are the right PEOPLE doing this for the right REASONS?
+
+**Domain 6: Ability to Execute on Critical Success Factors**
+- What are the 3-5 things this specific opportunity DEMANDS be done well?
+- Does the team have proven capability in each of those things?
+- If not, can the team realistically hire or partner for them?
+
+**Key question:** Can THIS team actually execute THIS plan?
+
+**Domain 7: Connectedness Up, Down, and Across the Value Chain**
+- Does the team know the suppliers?
+- Does the team know the distribution channels?
+- Does the team know the customers?
+- Does the team know the regulators, influencers, and industry gatekeepers?
+
+**Key question:** Can the team pick up the phone and reach the people who matter?
+
+## Scoring System
+
+Each domain gets a 1-5 score:
+
+| Score | Status | Meaning |
+|-------|--------|---------|
+| 5 | GREEN | Strong evidence, proven |
+| 4 | GREEN | Good signal, reasonable confidence |
+| 3 | YELLOW | Mixed evidence, needs work |
+| 2 | RED | Weak evidence, major concern |
+| 1 | RED | No evidence or negative evidence |
+
+## Decision Rules
+
+- **All 7 GREEN** → PROCEED with conviction
+- **1-2 REDs** → KILL OR PIVOT. Do not soldier on.
+- **3+ YELLOWs** → NOT-YET. Fix the weakest two before committing.
+- **Mixed REDs and GREENs** → The GREENs do NOT rescue the REDs. Weakest domain caps the opportunity.
+
+## Why This Framework Is In The Door Pool
+
+Mullins is the most rigorous go/no-go framework in the PWS methodology. A room that has a filed Mullins artifact has been stress-tested across all three dimensions that matter (market, industry, team) -- which is exactly what an investor, an advisor, or a future teammate wants to see on the landing page of a data room.
+
+## Cross-Framework Connections
+
+- **Before Mullins:** `/mos:analyze-needs` (feeds Domain 1), `/mos:macro-trends` (feeds Domain 2), `/mos:explore-domains` (feeds Domain 3)
+- **Weakens Mullins:** A failed `/mos:challenge-assumptions` on Domain 4 (sustainable advantage)
+- **Complements Mullins:** `/mos:leadership` (deepens Domains 5-7)
+- **Chains from Mullins:** A GREEN Mullins → `/mos:build-thesis` (full investment thesis)

package/references/methodology/problem-types.md

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+# Problem Type Classification -- Reference
+
+*Loaded on demand by `/mos:diagnose` and used by `/mos:help` for framework routing.*
+
+---
+
+## Two-Dimensional Classification Matrix
+
+Every venture problem sits on two axes. Larry uses this to route users to the right methodology.
+
+### Axis 1: Definition Level
+
+| Level | Signal | What It Looks Like |
+|-------|--------|--------------------|
+| **Undefined** | Future unclear, no constraints named, systemic | "I want to do something in climate tech" |
+| **Ill-defined** | Something is broken but they cannot name it | "Customers aren't buying but I don't know why" |
+| **Well-defined** | Clear parameters, specific constraints | "We need to reduce churn by 15% in Q2" |
+
+### Axis 2: Complexity (Cynefin-Informed)
+
+| Level | Signal | What It Looks Like |
+|-------|--------|--------------------|
+| **Simple** | Obvious cause-effect, best practice exists | "How do I structure my pitch deck?" |
+| **Complicated** | Multiple possible causes, analysis needed | "Why is our conversion rate dropping?" |
+| **Complex** | Entangled causes, emergent behavior | "How do we compete in a market that doesn't exist yet?" |
+| **Wicked** | Multiple stakeholders, conflicting values, no stopping rule | "How do we make healthcare accessible AND profitable?" |
+
+---
+
+## Methodology Routing Table
+
+| Definition \ Complexity | Simple | Complicated | Complex | Wicked |
+|------------------------|--------|-------------|---------|--------|
+| **Undefined** | beautiful-question, lean-canvas | explore-domains, build-knowledge | explore-trends, scenario-plan | explore-futures, systems-thinking |
+| **Ill-defined** | analyze-needs, structure-argument | root-cause, find-bottlenecks | map-unknowns, analyze-systems | think-hats, leadership |
+| **Well-defined** | lean-canvas, structure-argument | analyze-timing, validate | challenge-assumptions, dominant-designs | scenario-plan, macro-trends |
+
+Use this table as guidance, not gospel. Multiple methodologies may apply. Larry picks based on conversation context.
+
+---
+
+## Evolution Rules
+
+Problem type is NOT static. It evolves as the Room fills:
+
+1. **Start**: Most ventures begin as Undefined + Complex (the default)
+2. **After problem-definition fills**: Reclassify to Ill-defined (they can name something)
+3. **After market-analysis fills**: Reclassify complexity based on evidence density
+4. **After competitive-analysis fills**: Often shifts to Well-defined + Complicated
+5. **After solution-design fills**: Full reclassification -- may reveal Wicked dimensions
+
+The state script computes problem type from Room section fill levels. Larry uses this to adjust recommendations in `/mos:help`.
+
+---
+
+## Brain-Ready Interface
+
+When Brain MCP connects (Phase 4), problem type classification gains:
+
+- `ADDRESSES_PROBLEM_TYPE` relationship from the teaching graph
+- Calibrated confidence scores per methodology-problem pairing
+- Cross-user pattern matching (anonymized)
+- Dynamic reclassification based on conversation signals
+
+Until then, the routing table above provides Tier 0 classification.