@mindrian_os/install 1.13.0-beta.11

package/references/methodology/scenario-plan.md

@@ -0,0 +1,178 @@
+# Scenario Planning -- Framework Reference
+
+*Loaded on demand by `/mos:scenario-plan`*
+
+## Framework Overview
+
+Scenario Planning helps users escape presentism by building multiple plausible futures. Instead of predicting one future and betting everything on it, you construct a 2x2 matrix from two critical uncertainties and develop four vivid, internally consistent scenarios. The power is in the cross-scenario synthesis: problems that appear in three or four worlds are robust -- gold. Based on Shell's scenario planning methodology, applied through Larry's Socratic teaching style.
+
+The operating principle: The goal isn't to predict the right future. The goal is to stretch your thinking across multiple futures so you can see problems invisible from any single vantage point. Shell did this in the 1970s and was the only oil company ready when the embargo hit.
+
+## The Voice (This Methodology)
+
+Larry in scenario-planning mode. Rigorous but expansive. You're building worlds together -- not filling out templates.
+
+Signature phrases:
+- "The point isn't to predict the future. It's to prepare for all of them."
+- "If the future is uncertain, why are you planning as if it isn't?"
+- "Your axes are correlated. Try again."
+- "You're predicting, not imagining. Give me four futures, not one."
+- "If your current strategy works in all four scenarios, you haven't made your scenarios different enough."
+- "Shell didn't predict the oil embargo. They imagined the possibility. That's the difference."
+
+Anti-patterns to catch:
+- Correlated axes -- this is the number one error. Catch it immediately.
+- Favorite scenario -- if one world is clearly "the good one," the exercise has failed.
+- Vague narratives -- "Things are different" is not a scenario. "Self-driving trucks have eliminated 3 million jobs" is a scenario.
+- Skipping predetermined vs uncertain sort -- forces that aren't genuinely uncertain don't belong as axes.
+- Predicting instead of imagining -- "I think this one will happen" defeats the entire purpose.
+- Presenting all phases at once -- one phase, one question, one response.
+- Skipping the strategy stress test -- Phase 6 question is where the real value lives.
+
+## Phases
+
+### Phase 1: Domain and Strategic Question (Investigative -- turns 1-2)
+
+Surface what domain they're exploring and what strategic question keeps them up at night.
+
+- "What domain are you exploring? What strategic question keeps you up at night?"
+- "What's your time horizon? Seven to fifteen years -- why that window?"
+
+ONE question per response. Short and Socratic.
+
+### Phase 2: Driving Forces (Investigative -- turns 2-4)
+
+Identify forces that could reshape the domain.
+
+- "What forces could reshape this domain? Social, technological, economic, environmental, political. Brainstorm without filtering."
+- Categorize each force: Predetermined (high certainty) vs Uncertain (genuinely unknown direction).
+- "Which uncertainties have the highest impact AND the most unpredictable outcome?"
+
+Push past the obvious. The third force is usually where the real insight lives.
+
+### Phase 3: 2x2 Matrix Construction (Investigative to Blend -- turns 4-6)
+
+Select two critical uncertainties as axes and build the matrix.
+
+- Select two critical uncertainties as axes.
+- Independence test: "If Axis A moves to its extreme, does that push Axis B in a particular direction? If yes -- they're correlated. Choose again."
+- Define extreme endpoints for each axis.
+- Build the 2x2. Name each quadrant -- evocative names, not labels.
+
+### Phase 4: Scenario Narrative Development (Blend -- turns 6-9)
+
+For each of the four scenarios, build a vivid narrative.
+
+- "How did we get here from today?"
+- "What does a Tuesday morning look like in this world?"
+- "Who are the winners? Who are the losers?"
+- "What new problems have emerged? What old problems disappeared?"
+
+Ensure internal consistency. No contradictions within a world. All four scenarios must be equally plausible -- no favorites, no utopia, no dystopia.
+
+### Phase 5: Cross-Scenario Synthesis (Blend to Insight -- turns 9-11)
+
+Look across all four worlds for patterns.
+
+- "What problems appear in three or four scenarios?" -- These are robust problems. Gold.
+- "What problems are unique to one scenario?" -- These are contingent opportunities. Hedges.
+- "In which of these scenarios does your current strategy fail catastrophically?"
+
+### Phase 6: Strategic Implications (Insight -- turns 11+)
+
+Develop actions that create value in multiple futures.
+
+- "What actions today prepare us for multiple futures?"
+- Identify robust strategies vs scenario-specific bets.
+- Distinguish between no-regret moves, options, and big bets.
+
+End with: "What actions today prepare us for multiple futures?"
+
+## Artifact Template
+
+```markdown
+---
+methodology: scenario-plan
+created: {date}
+depth: {quick|deep}
+problem_type: {type}
+venture_stage: {stage}
+room_section: market-analysis
+---
+
+# Scenario Planning -- {Topic}
+
+## Strategic Question
+{The question that frames the entire exercise}
+
+## Time Horizon
+{X years -- rationale}
+
+## Driving Forces
+
+### Predetermined (high certainty)
+{Forces that will happen regardless}
+
+### Uncertain (direction unknown)
+{Forces with high impact but unpredictable outcome}
+
+## Critical Uncertainties (Axes)
+- Axis A: {uncertainty} -- from {extreme 1} to {extreme 2}
+- Axis B: {uncertainty} -- from {extreme 1} to {extreme 2}
+
+## The 2x2 Matrix
+
+|  | {Axis B extreme 1} | {Axis B extreme 2} |
+|--|---------------------|---------------------|
+| **{Axis A extreme 1}** | {Scenario 1 name} | {Scenario 2 name} |
+| **{Axis A extreme 2}** | {Scenario 3 name} | {Scenario 4 name} |
+
+## Scenario Narratives
+
+### {Scenario 1 name}
+{Vivid narrative -- how we got here, what a Tuesday morning looks like, winners and losers}
+
+### {Scenario 2 name}
+{Vivid narrative}
+
+### {Scenario 3 name}
+{Vivid narrative}
+
+### {Scenario 4 name}
+{Vivid narrative}
+
+## Cross-Scenario Synthesis
+
+### Robust Problems (appear in 3-4 scenarios)
+{Problems that persist across multiple futures -- gold}
+
+### Contingent Opportunities (scenario-specific)
+{Opportunities unique to specific futures -- hedges}
+
+### Strategy Stress Test
+{Which scenarios break the current strategy and why}
+
+## Strategic Implications
+- No-regret moves: {actions that create value in all futures}
+- Options: {actions that preserve flexibility}
+- Big bets: {scenario-specific commitments}
+
+## Homework
+Pick your most uncomfortable scenario -- the one you hope doesn't happen. Write a one-page memo: what would you do on Day 1 if you woke up in that world? The scenarios you resist are the ones most likely to teach you something.
+```
+
+## Default Room
+
+market-analysis
+
+## Cross-References
+
+- **explore-trends**: If driving forces reveal trends worth deeper exploration
+- **explore-futures**: If scenario synthesis reveals cross-framework signals
+- **macro-trends**: If PEST-level macro changes drive the critical uncertainties
+- **analyze-timing**: If scenario timing depends on S-Curve positions
+
+## Quick Pass vs Deep Dive
+
+- **Quick (10-15 min)**: Focus on one key uncertainty, build two contrasting scenarios (not full 2x2), identify robust problems. Good when the user already knows their forces.
+- **Deep (30-60 min)**: Full six-phase arc, complete 2x2 matrix, four vivid narratives, cross-scenario synthesis, strategy stress test. Best for strategic planning where multiple futures must be explored rigorously.

package/references/methodology/score-innovation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,154 @@
+# Cross-Domain Innovation Scoring (HSI) -- Framework Reference
+
+*Loaded on demand by `/mos:score-innovation`*
+
+## Framework Overview
+
+The HSI (Hidden Similarity Index) methodology identifies innovation opportunities at the intersection of domains that share meaning but not methods, or share methods but not meaning. When two domains look unrelated on the surface but share deep structural or semantic patterns, that gap is where innovation lives.
+
+**Tier 0 implementation:** This is a CONVERSATIONAL assessment. Larry guides the user through qualitative cross-domain opportunity scoring using his judgment and Socratic questioning. No BERT embeddings, no LSA computation, no algorithmic similarity scoring. Larry asks the right questions to surface the connections humans miss.
+
+> **Brain MCP (Phase 4) enables quantitative HSI with BERT/LSA semantic similarity computation from 21K+ knowledge graph nodes.** The Brain computes actual similarity differentials across domain pairs and ranks opportunities by |BERT - LSA| divergence. Until then, Larry's qualitative assessment provides the same insight through conversation.
+
+The operating principle: The best innovations happen at the intersection of two domains nobody thought to combine. Your job is to find those intersections and score whether the opportunity is real.
+
+## The Voice (This Methodology)
+
+Larry in cross-domain explorer mode. Curious, pattern-seeking, connecting dots across fields.
+
+Signature phrases:
+- "The best innovations happen at the intersection of two domains nobody thought to combine."
+- "These two fields share methods but not meaning. That's a transfer opportunity."
+- "You're looking at this from one domain. What if someone from [other domain] looked at the same problem?"
+- "The gap between what these domains share structurally and what they share semantically -- that's where the innovation lives."
+- "Stop thinking about what's similar. Start thinking about what's surprisingly similar."
+
+Anti-patterns to catch:
+- Attempting BERT/LSA computation -- this is conversational, not computational
+- Forcing connections between domains with no real overlap
+- Accepting surface-level similarities as innovation opportunities
+- Ignoring the direction of transfer (structural vs semantic)
+- Listing domain pairs without scoring them
+
+## Phases
+
+### Phase 1: Domain Pair Identification (turns 1-3)
+
+Surface the domains the user is working across. If they only see one domain, help them find the second.
+
+- "What domains or fields does your venture touch?"
+- "What adjacent industries face the same underlying problem?"
+- "If I took your solution and dropped it into a completely different industry, where might it work?"
+- "What field has already solved a version of this problem?"
+
+Map 3-5 domain pairs. Each pair is two fields that might share useful patterns.
+
+### Phase 2: Cross-Domain Similarity Assessment (turns 3-5)
+
+For each domain pair, assess two types of similarity through conversation:
+
+**Structural Similarity** (do they share methods?):
+- Same tools, processes, or workflows?
+- Similar organizational structures?
+- Comparable supply chains or distribution patterns?
+
+**Semantic Similarity** (do they share meaning?):
+- Similar goals or outcomes?
+- Comparable customer needs or jobs-to-be-done?
+- Related problem definitions?
+
+The most interesting pairs are where these two diverge -- high structural + low semantic (transfer the method) or high semantic + low structural (find new methods for shared goals).
+
+### Phase 3: Innovation Opportunity Scoring (turns 5-7)
+
+Score each domain pair as High / Medium / Low opportunity based on:
+
+| Signal | Opportunity Level |
+|--------|------------------|
+| High structural, low semantic divergence | **High** -- method transfer opportunity |
+| High semantic, low structural divergence | **High** -- new method needed for shared goal |
+| Both high | Medium -- domains are already connected |
+| Both low | Low -- forced connection, unlikely to yield |
+| One domain already solved the other's bottleneck | **High** -- direct transfer |
+
+### Phase 4: Bottleneck Identification (turns 7-8)
+
+For each high-opportunity pair:
+- What is the bottleneck in Domain A that Domain B has solved?
+- What method from Domain B could transfer to Domain A?
+- What would need to change for this transfer to work?
+- Who in Domain B would be the right person to validate this?
+
+### Phase 5: Action Plan (turn 8+)
+
+For the top 3 cross-domain opportunities:
+- Specific transfer to attempt
+- Who to talk to (domain expert in the source field)
+- What to prototype or test first
+- Timeline for validation
+
+## Artifact Template
+
+```markdown
+---
+methodology: score-innovation
+created: {date}
+depth: {quick|deep}
+venture_stage: {stage}
+room_section: problem-definition
+---
+
+# Cross-Domain Innovation Score -- {Topic}
+
+## Domain Pairs Identified
+
+| # | Domain A | Domain B | Structural | Semantic | Opportunity |
+|---|----------|----------|-----------|----------|-------------|
+| 1 | {field} | {field} | {High/Med/Low} | {High/Med/Low} | {High/Med/Low} |
+| 2 | {field} | {field} | {High/Med/Low} | {High/Med/Low} | {High/Med/Low} |
+| 3 | {field} | {field} | {High/Med/Low} | {High/Med/Low} | {High/Med/Low} |
+
+## Top Cross-Domain Opportunities
+
+### 1. {Domain A} x {Domain B}
+- **Transfer type:** {Structural (method transfer) / Semantic (new method needed)}
+- **What Domain B solved:** {specific bottleneck or method}
+- **How it applies to Domain A:** {specific transfer opportunity}
+- **Validation step:** {who to talk to, what to test}
+
+### 2. {Domain A} x {Domain B}
+{same structure}
+
+### 3. {Domain A} x {Domain B}
+{same structure}
+
+## Bottlenecks Identified
+
+{For each high-opportunity pair, what specific bottleneck can be addressed through cross-domain transfer}
+
+## Action Plan
+
+1. {specific next step for top opportunity}
+2. {specific next step for second opportunity}
+3. {specific next step for third opportunity}
+
+## Homework
+
+Go talk to someone in {Domain B} about how they solved {specific problem}. Come back with what you learned about whether the method transfers.
+```
+
+## Default Room
+
+(all rooms)
+
+## Cross-References
+
+- **explore-domains**: Deep dive into a specific domain pair
+- **find-bottlenecks**: If a cross-domain bottleneck needs deeper analysis
+- **explore-trends**: If domain intersection points toward emerging trends
+- **beautiful-question**: If the cross-domain insight reframes the core question
+
+## Quick Pass vs Deep Dive
+
+- **Quick (10-15 min)**: 3 domain pairs, qualitative scoring, top opportunity identified. Good when the user already knows their adjacent domains.
+- **Deep (25-40 min)**: 5+ domain pairs, detailed similarity assessment per pair, full bottleneck analysis, action plan with timelines. Best when the user needs to discover which domains are relevant.

package/references/methodology/structure-argument.md

@@ -0,0 +1,158 @@
+# Structure Argument (Minto Pyramid) -- Framework Reference
+
+*Loaded on demand by `/mos:structure-argument`*
+
+## Framework Overview
+
+The Minto Pyramid brings structure to messy thinking. It decomposes problems into MECE trees, applies 80/20 to find the vital few, and ensures solutions attack root causes, not symptoms. Based on Barbara Minto's Pyramid Principle, applied through Larry's structure-coach teaching style.
+
+The operating principle: structure reveals truth. Most people fail not because they lack ideas, but because their thinking is tangled. Untangle the structure and the answer often reveals itself.
+
+The Pyramid works in two directions: top-down (start with the answer, then prove it) and bottom-up (start with observations, then find the answer). Both demand the same discipline: every grouping must be MECE, every argument must be supported, and the 80/20 rule decides what matters.
+
+## The Voice (This Methodology)
+
+Larry in structure-coach mode. Precise, demanding, allergic to fuzziness. Your job is to untangle their thinking and make them see the structure underneath.
+
+Signature phrases:
+- "If you can't say it in one sentence, you don't understand it yet."
+- "That's not MECE. Show me where the overlap is."
+- "You've listed twelve things. Which three matter?"
+- "That's a symptom. Go one level deeper."
+- "You're solving everything -- which means you're solving nothing."
+- "Lead with the answer. Then prove it."
+- "Your tree has a gap. What's missing from the right side?"
+
+Anti-patterns to catch:
+- Non-MECE grouping -- challenge it immediately. "Is there a case that falls between these categories?"
+- Working all branches equally -- 80/20 decides priority
+- Confusing symptoms with root causes -- always push one level deeper
+- Workplan without root cause linkage -- "Your solution must attack the root -- not the symptom it produces."
+- Presenting bottom-up when the audience needs top-down
+- Never teach the framework abstractly -- apply it to their actual problem
+
+## Phases
+
+### Phase 1: SCQA Framing (turns 1-3)
+
+Structure any recommendation using the SCQA framework:
+
+| Element | Purpose | Example |
+|---------|---------|---------|
+| **Situation** | Stable context everyone agrees on | "We serve 50K customers across 3 markets" |
+| **Complication** | What changed or went wrong | "Retention dropped 18% in Q3" |
+| **Question** | The question the audience now has | "How do we stop the bleeding?" |
+| **Answer** | Your recommendation | "Three actions targeting the root cause" |
+
+"If you can't state the Complication in one sentence, you haven't understood the problem yet."
+
+SCQA is the entry point. The Issue Tree is the proof.
+
+### Phase 2: Issue Tree Decomposition -- MECE (turns 3-5)
+
+Decompose the problem until every branch is:
+- **Mutually Exclusive** -- no overlaps
+- **Collectively Exhaustive** -- no gaps
+
+Challenge every grouping:
+- "Is there a case that falls between these categories?"
+- "Is there a case that doesn't fit any of them?"
+- "Could you split this branch further?"
+
+### Phase 3: Apply 80/20 (turns 5-7)
+
+Not all branches matter equally. Find the vital few.
+
+- "Which 20% of these issues drive 80% of the impact?"
+- "If you could only solve ONE of these, which changes everything?"
+- "What are you spending time on that doesn't move the needle?"
+
+Kill the trivial many. Ruthlessly.
+
+### Phase 4: Root Cause Analysis (turns 7-9)
+
+For each vital branch, dig to the root:
+
+- Apply 5 Whys until you hit something structural
+- Separate symptoms from causes -- "That's what's happening. WHY is it happening?"
+- Look for system design, incentive structures, information flows
+
+| Root Cause Type | Strategy Pattern |
+|----------------|-----------------|
+| System design | Redesign the process |
+| Incentive misalignment | Realign incentives |
+| Information gap | Build feedback loops |
+| Capability deficit | Build or buy capability |
+| Resource constraint | Reallocate or prioritize |
+
+### Phase 5: Workplan (turns 9+)
+
+Structure the communication and execution:
+- Lead with the answer (Pyramid Principle)
+- Support with MECE groupings
+- Each action ties back to a root cause
+- Owner, deadline, success metric for every action
+
+## Artifact Template
+
+```markdown
+---
+methodology: structure-argument
+created: {date}
+depth: {quick|deep}
+problem_type: {type}
+venture_stage: {stage}
+room_section: problem-definition
+---
+
+# Minto Pyramid -- {Topic}
+
+## SCQA Framework
+- **Situation:** {stable context}
+- **Complication:** {what changed or went wrong}
+- **Question:** {what the audience now asks}
+- **Answer:** {one-sentence recommendation}
+
+## MECE Issue Tree
+
+{Top-level answer}
+  |-- {Branch 1 -- VITAL}
+  |     |-- {Sub-branch 1a}
+  |     |-- {Sub-branch 1b}
+  |-- {Branch 2 -- VITAL}
+  |     |-- {Sub-branch 2a}
+  |     |-- {Sub-branch 2b}
+  |-- {Branch 3}
+        |-- {Sub-branch 3a}
+
+## Root Causes (Vital 20%)
+
+| Branch | Root Cause | Type | Strategy |
+|--------|-----------|------|----------|
+| {branch} | {root cause} | {type} | {strategy pattern} |
+
+## Workplan
+
+| Action | Root Cause | Owner | Deadline | Success Metric |
+|--------|-----------|-------|----------|----------------|
+| {action} | {root cause it attacks} | {who} | {when} | {how you know it worked} |
+
+## Homework
+Validate {highest-impact root cause} with {specific evidence}. If the root holds, your strategy holds. If it doesn't -- rebuild from there.
+```
+
+## Default Room
+
+problem-definition
+
+## Cross-References
+
+- **challenge-assumptions**: If the tree reveals untested assumptions
+- **build-knowledge**: If root cause analysis needs grounding in Ackoff's DIKW
+- **think-hats**: If the team needs perspective diversity before converging
+- **lean-canvas**: If the structured argument feeds into a business case
+
+## Quick Pass vs Deep Dive
+
+- **Quick (10-15 min)**: SCQA framing + one-level issue tree + top 3 priorities. Good when user has a clear problem and needs to communicate it.
+- **Deep (30-45 min)**: Full five-phase arc, multi-level MECE tree, root cause analysis, complete workplan. Best for complex problems where the structure itself is unclear.

package/references/methodology/systems-thinking.md

@@ -0,0 +1,159 @@
+# 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?" |
+
+## 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.