@opendash-ai/cli 0.1.0-beta.1

package/src/intelligence/ENTERPRISE-CAPABILITIES.md

@@ -0,0 +1,317 @@
+# 4 Missing Enterprise Capabilities - Complete
+
+## Missing #1: Verification Layer ✅
+
+**What it does**: Mark hypotheses as Verified/Rejected/Inconclusive before recommendations.
+
+**Before**:
+```
+Hypothesis
+    ↓
+Python
+    ↓
+Result
+    ↓
+Report
+```
+
+**After**:
+```
+Hypothesis
+    ↓
+Statistical Test
+    ↓
+Verification (Verified/Rejected/Inconclusive)
+    ↓
+Move to next hypothesis or proceed
+    ↓
+Recommendations (only after verification)
+```
+
+**Example Output**:
+```
+### H1: Marketing spend reduction caused the decline
+**Status:** ✓ Verified
+**Conclusion:** Statistically significant (p=0.03)
+**p-value:** 0.03
+**Confidence Interval:** [0.15, 0.85]
+**Test Used:** Multiple regression
+**Next Action:** Accept hypothesis and proceed to recommendations
+
+### H2: Seasonal factors contributed
+**Status:** ? Inconclusive
+**Conclusion:** Marginally significant (p=0.08)
+**Next Action:** Collect more data or consider alternative explanations
+
+### H3: Competitive pressure affected market share
+**Status:** ✗ Rejected
+**Conclusion:** Not statistically significant (p=0.42)
+**Next Action:** Reject hypothesis and move to next
+```
+
+---
+
+## Missing #2: Evidence Graph ✅
+
+**What it does**: Build traceable evidence chain from data to recommendations.
+
+**Before**:
+```
+Conclusion
+    ↓
+Evidence
+```
+
+**After**:
+```
+Data Point A → Analysis B → Observation C → Conclusion D → Recommendation E
+
+Click on Recommendation E and see:
+- Supported by: Column A, Column B
+- Analysis: Regression, Correlation
+- Observation: Trend detected
+- Data: Sales transactions
+```
+
+**Example Output**:
+```
+## Evidence Graph
+
+### Data Points
+- Sales transactions
+- Marketing spend
+- Customer segments
+
+### Analyses Performed
+- Regression analysis
+- Time series decomposition
+- Correlation analysis
+
+### Key Observations
+- Marketing spend correlates with revenue
+- Seasonal patterns detected
+
+### Insights & Conclusions
+- Multiple factors contributed to decline
+- Marketing is primary driver
+
+### Evidence Flow
+Data → Analysis → Observation → Conclusion → Recommendation
+
+### Traceability
+Recommendation 1 is supported by:
+  [data] Sales transactions
+  [analysis] Regression analysis
+  [observation] Marketing spend correlates with revenue
+  [insight] Marketing is primary driver
+```
+
+---
+
+## Missing #3: Business Decision Tree ✅
+
+**What it does**: Internal decision routing like McKinsey consultants.
+
+**Before**:
+```
+It reasons.
+Good.
+```
+
+**After**:
+```
+Revenue down
+    ↓
+Traffic down?
+    ↓ YES
+Marketing reduced?
+    ↓ YES
+Restore marketing
+    ↓ NO
+Marketing efficiency?
+    ...
+```
+
+**Example Output**:
+```
+## Revenue Decline Decision Tree
+
+### Decision Path
+Is revenue declining?
+Is traffic declining?
+Is marketing spend reduced?
+Conclusion: Marketing reduction is primary cause
+Action: Restore marketing budget
+
+### Full Tree
+revenue_check: Is revenue declining?
+  YES → traffic_check
+  NO → growth_analysis
+traffic_check: Is traffic declining?
+  YES → marketing_check
+  NO → conversion_check
+marketing_check: Is marketing spend reduced?
+  YES → restore_marketing
+  NO → marketing_efficiency
+restore_marketing: Marketing reduction is primary cause
+```
+
+---
+
+## Missing #4: Executive Narrative (SCQA/Pyramid Principle) ✅
+
+**What it does**: Produce CEO, Director, Analyst, and Technical versions from same analysis.
+
+**Before**:
+```
+Analytical report
+```
+
+**After**:
+```
+CEO Version (1 page):
+  Situation → Complication → Question → Answer → Recommendation → Impact → Risk → Decision
+
+Director Version (3-5 pages):
+  Business Context → Key Metrics → Root Cause → Actions → Timeline
+
+Analyst Version (10-20 pages):
+  Methodology → Data Sources → Findings → Statistical Results → Recommendations
+
+Technical Appendix:
+  Methodology → Assumptions → Limitations → Code
+```
+
+**CEO Version**:
+```
+## Executive Summary
+
+**Situation:** The business is experiencing revenue decline of 18%
+
+**Complication:** This requires immediate attention to prevent further impact
+
+**Key Question:** What is causing this and what should we do?
+
+**Answer:** Multiple factors contributed, marketing is primary driver
+
+**Recommendations:**
+- Restore marketing budget
+- Analyze seasonal patterns
+- Monitor competitive landscape
+
+**Expected Impact:** Revenue recovery of 8-12% within 2 quarters
+
+**Risks:** Seasonal factors may affect timing
+
+**Decision Needed:** Restore marketing budget
+```
+
+**Director Version**:
+```
+## Director Report
+
+### Business Context
+Revenue decline of 18%
+
+### Key Metrics
+- Revenue: -18%
+- Marketing Spend: -30%
+- Conversion Rate: -5%
+- AOV: -15%
+
+### Root Cause
+Marketing reduction is primary driver
+
+### Actions Required
+- Restore marketing budget
+- Analyze seasonal patterns
+- Monitor competitive landscape
+
+### Timeline & Resources
+Revenue recovery of 8-12% within 2 quarters
+```
+
+**Analyst Version**:
+```
+## Analyst Report
+
+### Methodology
+Multiple regression with time series decomposition
+
+### Data Sources
+- Sales database
+- Marketing platform
+- Customer data
+
+### Findings
+Multiple factors contributed to decline
+
+### Statistical Results
+[Detailed statistical results]
+
+### Recommendations
+- Restore marketing budget
+- Analyze seasonal patterns
+- Monitor competitive landscape
+```
+
+**Technical Appendix**:
+```
+## Technical Appendix
+
+### Methodology
+Multiple linear regression with seasonal adjustment
+
+### Assumptions
+- Linear relationship between marketing and revenue
+- No structural breaks
+- Stationary time series
+
+### Limitations
+- Small sample size
+- Potential confounders
+- Limited competitive data
+
+### Code & Reproducibility
+# Analysis code would go here
+```
+
+---
+
+## All 13 Capabilities Now Complete
+
+| # | Capability | Status |
+|---|------------|--------|
+| 1 | Force reasoning before tool execution | ✅ |
+| 2 | Surface reasoning to the user | ✅ |
+| 3 | Remove fabricated business values | ✅ |
+| 4 | Confidence must be evidence-based | ✅ |
+| 5 | Recommendations must include decision scoring | ✅ |
+| 6 | Use KPI equations | ✅ |
+| 7 | Use counterfactual reasoning | ✅ |
+| 8 | Explain every major conclusion | ✅ |
+| 9 | Make reasoning engine the visible narrator | ✅ |
+| 10 | Verification Layer | ✅ |
+| 11 | Evidence Graph | ✅ |
+| 12 | Business Decision Tree | ✅ |
+| 13 | Executive Narrative (SCQA) | ✅ |
+
+---
+
+## The Shift
+
+**Before**: Analytical output
+**After**: Enterprise analytics operating system
+
+**Before**: One report format
+**After**: CEO, Director, Analyst, Technical versions
+
+**Before**: Hypothesis → Report
+**After**: Hypothesis → Verify → Evidence Graph → Decision Tree → Executive Narrative
+
+---
+
+## Version
+
+- Data OS: 5.5.0
+- Status: 13/13 Enterprise Capabilities Complete

package/src/intelligence/ENTERPRISE-REVIEW.md

@@ -0,0 +1,284 @@
+# Enterprise Review Implementation - Complete
+
+## 9 Requirements Implemented
+
+### 1. Force Reasoning Before Tool Execution ✅
+**What changed**: The system now completes all 11 reasoning steps before writing ANY code.
+
+**Before**: User asks → Python executes
+**After**: User asks → 11-step reasoning → THEN Python
+
+**Visible Order**:
+1. Business Objective
+2. Problem Decomposition
+3. Workflow Selection
+4. KPI Identification
+5. Hypotheses with Evidence
+6. Required Data
+7. Analysis Plan
+8. Confidence Assessment
+9. Recommendations with Decision Scoring
+10. Counterfactual Analysis
+11. Conclusions with Evidence Chain
+
+---
+
+### 2. Surface Reasoning to the User ✅
+**What changed**: The reasoning engine is now the VISIBLE NARRATOR.
+
+**Before**: Internal metadata, hidden from user
+**After**: User sees everything the system is thinking
+
+**User Now Sees**:
+- Workflow selected and why
+- Hypotheses with supporting/against evidence
+- Unknown information
+- Confidence reasoning
+- Assumptions
+- Counterfactual analysis
+
+---
+
+### 3. Remove Fabricated Business Values ✅
+**What changed**: Never generate ROI, savings, or projections unless calculated from data.
+
+**Before**: "ROI is 2.5x"
+**After**: "Cannot estimate from available data"
+
+**Rules**:
+- If data supports calculation → Show calculation
+- If data doesn't support → Say "Cannot estimate from available data"
+- Never fabricate numbers
+
+---
+
+### 4. Confidence Must Be Evidence-Based ✅
+**What changed**: Confidence comes from measurable inputs, not arbitrary numbers.
+
+**Before**: "Confidence: 72%"
+**After**: Evidence-based assessment
+
+**Confidence Formula**:
+```
+Confidence = Σ(Factor_Value × Factor_Weight) / Σ(Weights)
+
+Factors:
+- Data Completeness (weight: 0.3)
+- Sample Size (weight: 0.2)
+- Statistical Significance (weight: 0.3)
+- Validation Checks (weight: 0.2)
+```
+
+**Example Output**:
+```
+Overall: Cannot determine without data analysis
+
+Factors:
+| Factor | Value | Weight | Contribution |
+|--------|-------|--------|--------------|
+| Data Completeness | Unknown | 0.3 | Requires assessment |
+| Sample Size | Unknown | 0.2 | Requires count |
+| Statistical Significance | Unknown | 0.3 | Requires testing |
+| Validation Checks | Unknown | 0.2 | Requires validation |
+```
+
+---
+
+### 5. Recommendations Must Include Decision Scoring ✅
+**What changed**: Every recommendation has Impact, Effort, Risk, Confidence, Priority Score.
+
+**Before**: "Priority 1"
+**After**: Full decision scoring
+
+**Example Output**:
+```
+### R1: Investigate marketing spend impact
+| Factor | Assessment |
+|--------|------------|
+| Impact | High - Marketing often drives 30-50% of revenue |
+| Effort | Medium - Requires marketing data analysis |
+| Risk | Low - Reversible decision |
+| Confidence | Medium - Depends on data availability |
+| Priority Score | 8.5/10 |
+
+Supporting Evidence: Historical correlation between marketing spend and revenue
+```
+
+---
+
+### 6. Use KPI Equations ✅
+**What changed**: Always expose mathematical relationships.
+
+**Before**: "Revenue is the metric"
+**After**: "Revenue = Traffic × Conversion × AOV"
+
+**Equations Always Shown**:
+- Revenue = Price × Quantity
+- AOV = Revenue / Orders
+- CLV = ARPU / Churn
+- Conversion = Orders / Sessions
+- Churn Rate = Customers Lost / Customers at Start
+
+---
+
+### 7. Use Counterfactual Reasoning ✅
+**What changed**: When recommending actions, show "What happens if..."
+
+**Before**: "Restore marketing spend"
+**After**: "If we restore marketing spend, what happens?"
+
+**Example Output**:
+```
+### What if marketing spend had remained constant?
+**Assumption:** Marketing has a causal effect on revenue
+**Expected Outcome:** Revenue would have declined less
+**Calculation:** Cannot estimate from available data
+**Supported by Data:** No
+```
+
+**Rules**:
+- Show the scenario
+- State the assumption
+- Show expected outcome
+- Show calculation (if available)
+- State if supported by data
+
+---
+
+### 8. Explain Every Major Conclusion ✅
+**What changed**: Every conclusion has Evidence → Analysis → Business Action.
+
+**Before**: "Marketing is the cause"
+**After**: Full evidence chain
+
+**Example Output**:
+```
+**Conclusion:** Multiple factors likely contributed to the revenue decline
+**Evidence:** Historical patterns, marketing changes, competitive dynamics
+**Analysis:** Requires comprehensive data analysis to isolate primary drivers
+**Business Action:** Conduct detailed analysis before making strategic changes
+```
+
+---
+
+### 9. Make Reasoning Engine the Visible Narrator ✅
+**What changed**: The system reads like a senior consultant thinking aloud.
+
+**Before**: Silent metadata generation
+**After**: User reads the thinking process
+
+**The system now**:
+1. States the business objective
+2. Decomposes the problem
+3. Selects workflow with reasoning
+4. Identifies KPIs with equations
+5. Generates hypotheses with evidence
+6. Lists required data
+7. Creates analysis plan
+8. Assesses confidence (evidence-based)
+9. Provides recommendations with scoring
+10. Shows counterfactual analysis
+11. Explains conclusions with evidence
+
+---
+
+## Enterprise Prompt System
+
+**File**: `reasoning/enterprise-prompt.ts`
+
+Forces the system to follow the 11-step reasoning sequence before any code execution.
+
+**Key Rules**:
+1. NEVER execute Python before completing reasoning
+2. ALWAYS show the user what you're thinking
+3. NEVER fabricate business values
+4. ALWAYS use evidence-based confidence
+5. ALWAYS include decision scoring
+6. ALWAYS use KPI equations
+7. ALWAYS show counterfactuals
+8. ALWAYS explain conclusions
+9. ALWAYS let reasoning drive the conversation
+
+---
+
+## Example Output
+
+Given: "Sales dropped by 18%"
+
+```
+## Business Objective
+Identify why sales declined and recommend actions to address the 18% drop.
+
+## Problem Decomposition
+This is a diagnostic problem: something happened (sales dropped) and we need to understand why.
+
+## Workflow Selection
+Selected: Root Cause Analysis
+Reasoning: Problem is diagnostic - investigating why something happened
+Alternatives considered: EDA (too broad), Forecasting (not predictive)
+
+## KPI Identification
+Primary Metric: Revenue
+Equation: Revenue = Traffic × Conversion Rate × Average Order Value
+
+## Hypotheses
+
+### H1: Marketing spend reduction caused the decline
+**Supporting Evidence:**
+- Historical data shows marketing-revenue correlation
+- Marketing budget was reduced in the period
+
+**Against Evidence:**
+- Organic traffic remained stable
+- Brand search volume unchanged
+
+**Unknown Information:**
+- Competitor marketing spend
+- Market-wide advertising trends
+
+**Test Method:** Regression analysis with marketing spend as predictor
+**Confidence:** Medium - requires marketing spend data to verify
+
+## Required Data
+### Essential Data
+- Sales transactions: Why needed - to calculate revenue components
+- Marketing spend: Why needed - to test H1
+
+## Confidence Assessment
+**Overall:** Cannot determine without data analysis
+**Formula:** Confidence = Σ(Factor_Value × Factor_Weight) / Σ(Weights)
+
+## Recommendations
+
+### R1: Investigate marketing spend impact
+| Factor | Assessment |
+|--------|------------|
+| Impact | High - Marketing often drives 30-50% of revenue |
+| Effort | Medium - Requires marketing data analysis |
+| Risk | Low - Reversible decision |
+| Confidence | Medium - Depends on data availability |
+| Priority Score | 8.5/10 |
+
+## Counterfactual Analysis
+
+### What if marketing spend had remained constant?
+**Assumption:** Marketing has a causal effect on revenue
+**Expected Outcome:** Revenue would have declined less
+**Calculation:** Cannot estimate from available data
+**Supported by Data:** No
+
+## Conclusions
+
+**Conclusion:** Multiple factors likely contributed to the revenue decline
+**Evidence:** Historical patterns, marketing changes, competitive dynamics
+**Analysis:** Requires comprehensive data analysis to isolate primary drivers
+**Business Action:** Conduct detailed analysis before making strategic changes
+```
+
+---
+
+## Version
+
+- Data OS: 5.4.0
+- Phase: Enterprise Review Implementation
+- Status: Complete