@sparkleideas/claude-flow 2.7.51 → 2.7.52

package/docs/reasoningbank/models/problem-solving/train-problem.js

@@ -1,1319 +0,0 @@
-#!/usr/bin/env node
-/**
- * Problem Solving ReasoningBank Training Script
- * Generates 2000 optimized reasoning patterns across 5 cognitive dimensions
- *
- * Cognitive Pattern Distribution:
- * - Convergent thinking: 400 patterns (logical deduction, root cause analysis)
- * - Divergent thinking: 400 patterns (brainstorming, alternatives)
- * - Lateral thinking: 400 patterns (unconventional, pattern breaking)
- * - Systems thinking: 400 patterns (holistic, feedback loops)
- * - Critical thinking: 400 patterns (validation, bias detection)
- */
-
-import Database from 'better-sqlite3';
-import { fileURLToPath } from 'url';
-import { dirname, join } from 'path';
-
-const __filename = fileURLToPath(import.meta.url);
-const __dirname = dirname(__filename);
-const DB_PATH = join(__dirname, 'memory.db');
-
-// Initialize database with ReasoningBank schema
-function initializeDatabase(db) {
-  console.log('🔧 Initializing ReasoningBank schema...');
-
-  db.exec(`
-    -- Core patterns table
-    CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS patterns (
-      id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT,
-      memory_id TEXT UNIQUE NOT NULL,
-      content TEXT NOT NULL,
-      reasoning_steps TEXT,
-      outcome TEXT,
-      success_rate REAL DEFAULT 0.5,
-      cognitive_type TEXT,
-      domain TEXT,
-      tags TEXT,
-      created_at INTEGER DEFAULT (strftime('%s', 'now')),
-      updated_at INTEGER DEFAULT (strftime('%s', 'now'))
-    );
-
-    -- Vector embeddings for semantic search
-    CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS pattern_embeddings (
-      id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT,
-      pattern_id INTEGER NOT NULL,
-      embedding BLOB NOT NULL,
-      embedding_model TEXT DEFAULT 'simulated',
-      FOREIGN KEY (pattern_id) REFERENCES patterns(id) ON DELETE CASCADE
-    );
-
-    -- Pattern relationships
-    CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS pattern_links (
-      id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT,
-      source_id INTEGER NOT NULL,
-      target_id INTEGER NOT NULL,
-      link_type TEXT NOT NULL,
-      strength REAL DEFAULT 1.0,
-      FOREIGN KEY (source_id) REFERENCES patterns(id) ON DELETE CASCADE,
-      FOREIGN KEY (target_id) REFERENCES patterns(id) ON DELETE CASCADE
-    );
-
-    -- Multi-step reasoning trajectories
-    CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS task_trajectories (
-      id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT,
-      memory_id TEXT NOT NULL,
-      step_sequence TEXT NOT NULL,
-      total_steps INTEGER,
-      success_rate REAL,
-      created_at INTEGER DEFAULT (strftime('%s', 'now'))
-    );
-
-    -- Performance-optimized indexes
-    CREATE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS idx_patterns_cognitive_type ON patterns(cognitive_type);
-    CREATE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS idx_patterns_domain ON patterns(domain);
-    CREATE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS idx_patterns_success ON patterns(success_rate DESC);
-    CREATE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS idx_patterns_tags ON patterns(tags);
-    CREATE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS idx_embeddings_pattern ON pattern_embeddings(pattern_id);
-    CREATE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS idx_links_source ON pattern_links(source_id, link_type);
-    CREATE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS idx_links_target ON pattern_links(target_id);
-    CREATE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS idx_trajectories_memory ON task_trajectories(memory_id);
-    CREATE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS idx_patterns_created ON patterns(created_at DESC);
-
-    -- Performance optimization
-    PRAGMA journal_mode=WAL;
-    PRAGMA synchronous=NORMAL;
-    PRAGMA cache_size=10000;
-    PRAGMA temp_store=MEMORY;
-    PRAGMA mmap_size=268435456;
-  `);
-
-  console.log('✅ Schema initialized with optimized indexes');
-}
-
-// Generate simulated embedding (384-dimensional for efficiency)
-function generateEmbedding(text, cognitiveType) {
-  const dim = 384;
-  const embedding = new Float32Array(dim);
-
-  // Seed based on text and cognitive type for consistency
-  let seed = 0;
-  for (let i = 0; i < text.length; i++) {
-    seed = (seed * 31 + text.charCodeAt(i)) % 1000000;
-  }
-  seed += cognitiveType.length * 1000;
-
-  // Generate deterministic pseudo-random embedding
-  for (let i = 0; i < dim; i++) {
-    seed = (seed * 1103515245 + 12345) % 2147483648;
-    embedding[i] = (seed / 2147483648) * 2 - 1;
-  }
-
-  // Normalize
-  const magnitude = Math.sqrt(embedding.reduce((sum, val) => sum + val * val, 0));
-  for (let i = 0; i < dim; i++) {
-    embedding[i] /= magnitude;
-  }
-
-  return Buffer.from(embedding.buffer);
-}
-
-// Convergent Thinking Patterns (400 patterns)
-const convergentPatterns = [
-  // Root Cause Analysis (80 patterns)
-  {
-    problem: "Production database experiencing intermittent slowdowns",
-    cognitiveType: "convergent",
-    domain: "technical",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Identify symptom: Query latency spikes every 15 minutes",
-      "Gather metrics: CPU, memory, disk I/O, network usage",
-      "Analyze correlation: Disk I/O spikes align with latency",
-      "Investigate disk activity: Background checkpoint process",
-      "Trace configuration: checkpoint_timeout set to 15 minutes",
-      "Validate hypothesis: Checkpoint causes write amplification",
-      "Root cause: Aggressive checkpoint frequency without tuning"
-    ],
-    solution: "Increase checkpoint_timeout to 30 minutes, enable asynchronous checkpointing, add write-ahead logging optimization",
-    outcome: "Latency spikes eliminated, 40% query performance improvement",
-    successRate: 0.92,
-    tags: "root-cause-analysis,database,performance,systematic-debugging"
-  },
-  {
-    problem: "Mobile app crashes on specific Android devices",
-    cognitiveType: "convergent",
-    domain: "technical",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Collect crash reports: Pattern shows specific device models",
-      "Analyze device characteristics: All have ARM64 architecture",
-      "Review recent changes: Native library update in last release",
-      "Test hypothesis: Native library incompatibility",
-      "Investigate library: Missing ABI-specific builds",
-      "Validate: Crash only occurs with generic ARM build",
-      "Root cause: Missing arm64-v8a specific native library"
-    ],
-    solution: "Build and package arm64-v8a specific native libraries, add ABI detection in build pipeline",
-    outcome: "Crashes eliminated on affected devices, 99.7% crash-free rate achieved",
-    successRate: 0.89,
-    tags: "root-cause-analysis,mobile,native-code,debugging"
-  },
-  {
-    problem: "E-commerce checkout process has 35% abandonment rate",
-    cognitiveType: "convergent",
-    domain: "business",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Analyze funnel: Highest drop-off at payment information step",
-      "Review session recordings: Users hesitate at credit card form",
-      "Examine form design: 14 required fields, no progress indicator",
-      "Compare industry benchmarks: Standard is 6-8 fields",
-      "Test hypothesis: Form complexity causes abandonment",
-      "A/B test: Simplified form with 8 fields",
-      "Root cause: Over-collection of unnecessary payment data"
-    ],
-    solution: "Reduce payment form to 8 essential fields, add progress indicator, implement autofill support",
-    outcome: "Abandonment rate reduced to 18%, 21% increase in conversions",
-    successRate: 0.87,
-    tags: "root-cause-analysis,business,ux,conversion-optimization"
-  },
-  {
-    problem: "Manufacturing line producing defective products at 8% rate",
-    cognitiveType: "convergent",
-    domain: "analytical",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Map production stages: 7 sequential processes identified",
-      "Analyze defect distribution: 65% occur in heat treatment stage",
-      "Measure process parameters: Temperature variance exceeds spec",
-      "Investigate equipment: Calibration sensor drift detected",
-      "Review maintenance logs: Last calibration 18 months ago",
-      "Test hypothesis: Sensor drift causes temperature instability",
-      "Root cause: Inadequate sensor maintenance schedule"
-    ],
-    solution: "Implement quarterly sensor calibration, add real-time temperature monitoring with alerts",
-    outcome: "Defect rate reduced to 1.2%, $2.3M annual savings",
-    successRate: 0.94,
-    tags: "root-cause-analysis,manufacturing,quality-control,systematic"
-  },
-  {
-    problem: "Marketing campaign underperforming with 0.8% CTR vs 2.5% expected",
-    cognitiveType: "convergent",
-    domain: "business",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Segment performance data: Mobile CTR 0.3%, desktop CTR 1.8%",
-      "Analyze mobile experience: Landing page load time 8.5 seconds",
-      "Identify bottleneck: Unoptimized hero image 4.2MB",
-      "Review asset pipeline: Missing image compression step",
-      "Test hypothesis: Load time impacts mobile engagement",
-      "Deploy optimized images: Load time reduced to 2.1 seconds",
-      "Root cause: Lack of mobile-specific image optimization"
-    ],
-    solution: "Implement responsive image serving, WebP format with fallbacks, lazy loading for below-fold content",
-    outcome: "Mobile CTR increased to 2.7%, overall campaign CTR 2.4%",
-    successRate: 0.88,
-    tags: "root-cause-analysis,marketing,performance,mobile-optimization"
-  },
-
-  // Logical Deduction (80 patterns)
-  {
-    problem: "API returning inconsistent data for same request",
-    cognitiveType: "convergent",
-    domain: "technical",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Premise: Same request yields different responses",
-      "Observation: Inconsistency occurs only during peak hours",
-      "Deduction: Multiple backend servers may have different data",
-      "Investigation: Load balancer distributes to 5 servers",
-      "Analysis: Cache invalidation events not synchronized",
-      "Logical conclusion: Cache coherency issue across servers",
-      "Validation: Cache timestamps differ between servers"
-    ],
-    solution: "Implement distributed cache with Redis, add cache invalidation pub/sub",
-    outcome: "Data consistency achieved, 99.99% cache hit coherency",
-    successRate: 0.91,
-    tags: "logical-deduction,distributed-systems,caching,consistency"
-  },
-  {
-    problem: "Security breach despite firewall and authentication",
-    cognitiveType: "convergent",
-    domain: "technical",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Premise: All external access points secured",
-      "Observation: Unauthorized data access from internal IP",
-      "Deduction: Breach originated from inside network",
-      "Investigation: Review access logs for internal IPs",
-      "Finding: Service account with excessive privileges",
-      "Logical chain: Compromised service account bypassed controls",
-      "Validation: Service account used for lateral movement"
-    ],
-    solution: "Implement principle of least privilege, rotate service account credentials, add service account monitoring",
-    outcome: "Breach contained, zero-trust security model implemented",
-    successRate: 0.93,
-    tags: "logical-deduction,security,access-control,incident-response"
-  },
-  {
-    problem: "Product returns spiked 300% after packaging change",
-    cognitiveType: "convergent",
-    domain: "business",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Premise: Returns increased immediately after packaging change",
-      "Observation: Return reason consistently 'damaged in transit'",
-      "Deduction: New packaging inadequate for shipping conditions",
-      "Investigation: Compare old vs new packaging materials",
-      "Finding: New packaging 30% thinner, no corner reinforcement",
-      "Logical conclusion: Cost-cutting compromised product protection",
-      "Validation: Drop tests show new packaging fails at 2ft vs 6ft"
-    ],
-    solution: "Restore original packaging spec with corner reinforcement, implement drop testing in QA process",
-    outcome: "Returns decreased to baseline, customer satisfaction restored",
-    successRate: 0.90,
-    tags: "logical-deduction,business,quality,supply-chain"
-  },
-  {
-    problem: "Team productivity declined 25% after office relocation",
-    cognitiveType: "convergent",
-    domain: "business",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Premise: Productivity correlated with location change",
-      "Observation: Employee surveys report concentration issues",
-      "Deduction: New environment has detrimental factors",
-      "Investigation: Noise level measurements in new office",
-      "Finding: Open floor plan with 72dB average noise",
-      "Logical chain: Noise disrupts focus-intensive work",
-      "Validation: Productivity highest in morning (quieter period)"
-    ],
-    solution: "Create quiet zones, provide noise-cancelling headphones, implement designated focus hours",
-    outcome: "Productivity recovered to 95% of baseline, employee satisfaction improved",
-    successRate: 0.86,
-    tags: "logical-deduction,business,workplace,productivity"
-  },
-  {
-    problem: "Machine learning model accuracy degraded from 94% to 78%",
-    cognitiveType: "convergent",
-    domain: "technical",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Premise: Model performance was stable, then degraded",
-      "Observation: Degradation coincides with new data pipeline",
-      "Deduction: Data distribution or quality issue",
-      "Investigation: Compare input data statistics before/after",
-      "Finding: Feature normalization removed in pipeline refactor",
-      "Logical conclusion: Model trained on normalized data, inference on raw",
-      "Validation: Re-adding normalization restores accuracy"
-    ],
-    solution: "Add feature normalization to inference pipeline, implement data quality monitoring",
-    outcome: "Model accuracy restored to 93%, automated data validation added",
-    successRate: 0.92,
-    tags: "logical-deduction,machine-learning,data-pipeline,debugging"
-  },
-
-  // Systematic Debugging (80 patterns)
-  {
-    problem: "Microservice randomly returning 500 errors",
-    cognitiveType: "convergent",
-    domain: "technical",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Step 1: Reproduce error - Intermittent, occurs every ~100 requests",
-      "Step 2: Check logs - Exception: 'Connection pool exhausted'",
-      "Step 3: Monitor connections - Pool size 10, peak usage 12",
-      "Step 4: Analyze traffic - Concurrent requests exceed pool capacity",
-      "Step 5: Review configuration - Default pool size not scaled",
-      "Step 6: Test hypothesis - Increase pool to 50, errors disappear",
-      "Step 7: Identify root - Connection pool sizing inadequate for load"
-    ],
-    solution: "Increase connection pool to 100, implement dynamic pool sizing, add connection pool monitoring",
-    outcome: "500 errors eliminated, p99 latency reduced by 200ms",
-    successRate: 0.95,
-    tags: "systematic-debugging,microservices,connection-pooling,performance"
-  },
-  {
-    problem: "React application causing browser memory leaks",
-    cognitiveType: "convergent",
-    domain: "technical",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Step 1: Profile memory - Heap grows indefinitely during navigation",
-      "Step 2: Identify suspects - Event listeners not cleaned up",
-      "Step 3: Isolate components - UserProfile component retains listeners",
-      "Step 4: Review lifecycle - useEffect missing cleanup function",
-      "Step 5: Test fix - Add return cleanup in useEffect",
-      "Step 6: Verify - Memory stabilizes, no continuous growth",
-      "Step 7: Root cause - Missing cleanup in effect hook"
-    ],
-    solution: "Add cleanup functions to all useEffect hooks with subscriptions, implement memory leak detection in CI",
-    outcome: "Memory leaks eliminated, stable memory usage over 24hr sessions",
-    successRate: 0.90,
-    tags: "systematic-debugging,react,memory-leak,frontend"
-  },
-  {
-    problem: "Payment processing failing for European customers",
-    cognitiveType: "convergent",
-    domain: "technical",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Step 1: Identify scope - Only EU customers affected, US working",
-      "Step 2: Check payment gateway - 3D Secure authentication failures",
-      "Step 3: Review implementation - SCA (Strong Customer Auth) not implemented",
-      "Step 4: Analyze regulations - PSD2 requires SCA for EU",
-      "Step 5: Test solution - Integrate 3D Secure 2.0 flow",
-      "Step 6: Validate - EU payments succeed with authentication",
-      "Step 7: Root cause - Missing regulatory compliance for EU payments"
-    ],
-    solution: "Implement 3D Secure 2.0 with fallback, add region-specific payment flows, document compliance requirements",
-    outcome: "EU payment success rate increased from 12% to 94%",
-    successRate: 0.93,
-    tags: "systematic-debugging,payments,compliance,international"
-  },
-  {
-    problem: "Data pipeline processing time increased from 2h to 8h",
-    cognitiveType: "convergent",
-    domain: "technical",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Step 1: Profile pipeline - Bottleneck in data transformation stage",
-      "Step 2: Analyze queries - Full table scans on 500M row table",
-      "Step 3: Check indexes - Missing index on join column",
-      "Step 4: Review query plan - Nested loop join instead of hash join",
-      "Step 5: Add index - Processing time reduced to 3h",
-      "Step 6: Optimize query - Partition pruning, reduced to 1.5h",
-      "Step 7: Root cause - Data growth exposed missing optimization"
-    ],
-    solution: "Add composite indexes, implement partition pruning, parallelize transformations",
-    outcome: "Pipeline processing time 1.5h, 81% improvement, scales to 1B rows",
-    successRate: 0.94,
-    tags: "systematic-debugging,data-pipeline,performance,optimization"
-  },
-  {
-    problem: "CI/CD pipeline failing intermittently on test stage",
-    cognitiveType: "convergent",
-    domain: "technical",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Step 1: Review failure patterns - Fails 30% of time, different tests",
-      "Step 2: Check test isolation - Tests share database state",
-      "Step 3: Identify race conditions - Parallel test execution conflicts",
-      "Step 4: Analyze test setup - No transaction rollback between tests",
-      "Step 5: Implement isolation - Each test gets fresh DB snapshot",
-      "Step 6: Verify stability - 50 consecutive successful runs",
-      "Step 7: Root cause - Lack of test isolation in parallel execution"
-    ],
-    solution: "Implement test database isolation, add transaction rollback hooks, parallelize safely with test.concurrent",
-    outcome: "Test stability 99.8%, CI/CD pipeline reliability restored",
-    successRate: 0.91,
-    tags: "systematic-debugging,testing,ci-cd,isolation"
-  },
-
-  // Hypothesis Testing (80 patterns)
-  {
-    problem: "User engagement dropped 15% after feature launch",
-    cognitiveType: "convergent",
-    domain: "business",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Hypothesis: New feature increased friction in user flow",
-      "Experiment design: A/B test feature-enabled vs feature-disabled",
-      "Sample size: 10,000 users per variant, 95% confidence",
-      "Metrics: Session duration, feature usage, retention",
-      "Results: Feature-enabled group shows 18% lower session duration",
-      "Analysis: Feature adds 2 extra steps, no clear value proposition",
-      "Conclusion: Feature creates friction without sufficient benefit"
-    ],
-    solution: "Simplify feature to 1-step interaction, add clear benefit messaging, make feature optional",
-    outcome: "Engagement recovered to baseline +5%, feature adoption 40%",
-    successRate: 0.88,
-    tags: "hypothesis-testing,product,ab-testing,engagement"
-  },
-  {
-    problem: "Email campaign open rates declining over 6 months",
-    cognitiveType: "convergent",
-    domain: "business",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Hypothesis: Subject line patterns becoming less effective",
-      "Experiment: Test 4 subject line strategies across segments",
-      "Variables: Personalization, urgency, curiosity, directness",
-      "Sample: 25,000 per strategy, controlled send times",
-      "Results: Personalization 24% open rate vs 15% control",
-      "Statistical significance: p < 0.001, highly significant",
-      "Conclusion: Lack of personalization primary factor"
-    ],
-    solution: "Implement dynamic subject line personalization, use first name + behavior context, A/B test continuously",
-    outcome: "Open rates increased to 26%, click-through up 12%",
-    successRate: 0.89,
-    tags: "hypothesis-testing,marketing,email,personalization"
-  },
-  {
-    problem: "Server infrastructure costs growing faster than user growth",
-    cognitiveType: "convergent",
-    domain: "technical",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Hypothesis: Inefficient resource allocation causing waste",
-      "Data collection: CPU, memory, disk usage across 200 servers",
-      "Analysis: Average CPU utilization 15%, memory 30%",
-      "Experiment: Consolidate workloads on 50 servers",
-      "Monitoring: Track performance, error rates, latency",
-      "Results: Same performance, 75% cost reduction",
-      "Conclusion: Severe over-provisioning due to lack of optimization"
-    ],
-    solution: "Implement auto-scaling, rightsize instances, use spot instances for batch jobs",
-    outcome: "Infrastructure costs reduced 70%, performance maintained",
-    successRate: 0.92,
-    tags: "hypothesis-testing,infrastructure,cost-optimization,cloud"
-  },
-  {
-    problem: "Customer support tickets increased 40% without user growth",
-    cognitiveType: "convergent",
-    domain: "business",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Hypothesis: Recent product changes introduced confusion",
-      "Data mining: Categorize tickets by topic and timeframe",
-      "Finding: 65% tickets about new navigation menu",
-      "Experiment: Create in-app tutorial for navigation",
-      "Sample: 5,000 users with tutorial vs 5,000 without",
-      "Results: Tutorial group 55% fewer navigation-related tickets",
-      "Conclusion: Navigation redesign lacked adequate onboarding"
-    ],
-    solution: "Deploy interactive tutorial, add contextual help tooltips, improve navigation labels",
-    outcome: "Support tickets decreased 35%, user satisfaction +12%",
-    successRate: 0.87,
-    tags: "hypothesis-testing,customer-support,ux,onboarding"
-  },
-  {
-    problem: "Sales conversions lower for paid traffic vs organic",
-    cognitiveType: "convergent",
-    domain: "business",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Hypothesis: Paid traffic landing pages misaligned with ad messaging",
-      "Analysis: Review ad copy vs landing page content",
-      "Finding: Ads promise feature not visible on landing page",
-      "Experiment: Create aligned landing pages per campaign",
-      "Measurement: Conversion rate, bounce rate, time on page",
-      "Results: Aligned pages 2.3x conversion rate",
-      "Conclusion: Message match critical for paid traffic conversion"
-    ],
-    solution: "Create campaign-specific landing pages, ensure ad-to-page message continuity, test message match score",
-    outcome: "Paid traffic conversion increased from 1.2% to 2.8%",
-    successRate: 0.90,
-    tags: "hypothesis-testing,marketing,conversion,landing-pages"
-  },
-
-  // Decision Tree Analysis (80 patterns)
-  {
-    problem: "Choose between monolith vs microservices architecture",
-    cognitiveType: "convergent",
-    domain: "technical",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Decision point 1: Team size > 50 engineers? Yes → Proceed, No → Monolith",
-      "Decision point 2: Need independent deployment? Yes → Proceed, No → Monolith",
-      "Decision point 3: Have DevOps expertise? Yes → Proceed, No → Monolith",
-      "Decision point 4: Budget for infrastructure? Yes → Proceed, No → Monolith",
-      "Decision point 5: Need service-level scaling? Yes → Microservices, No → Monolith",
-      "Evaluation: Team=60, Independent deploy=critical, DevOps=expert, Budget=adequate, Scaling=required",
-      "Conclusion: Microservices architecture appropriate"
-    ],
-    solution: "Design microservices architecture with API gateway, service mesh, centralized logging, implement gradually",
-    outcome: "Scalable architecture supporting 10x growth, 95% deployment success rate",
-    successRate: 0.91,
-    tags: "decision-tree,architecture,microservices,technical-decision"
-  }
-];
-
-// Generate additional convergent patterns (remaining to reach 400)
-const convergentNeeded = 400 - convergentPatterns.length;
-for (let i = 0; i < convergentNeeded; i++) {
-  const templates = [
-    {
-      problem: `System experiencing ${['performance degradation', 'reliability issues', 'scalability problems', 'integration failures'][i % 4]}`,
-      domain: ['technical', 'analytical'][i % 2],
-      tags: `convergent,systematic,${['performance', 'reliability', 'scalability', 'integration'][i % 4]}`
-    },
-    {
-      problem: `Business process showing ${['inefficiency', 'high error rate', 'low throughput', 'quality issues'][i % 4]}`,
-      domain: 'business',
-      tags: `convergent,process-analysis,${['efficiency', 'quality', 'throughput', 'error-handling'][i % 4]}`
-    },
-    {
-      problem: `Customer metric ${['declining', 'stagnating', 'volatile', 'underperforming'][i % 4]} compared to target`,
-      domain: 'business',
-      tags: `convergent,metrics,${['decline-analysis', 'performance', 'volatility', 'optimization'][i % 4]}`
-    }
-  ];
-
-  const template = templates[i % templates.length];
-  convergentPatterns.push({
-    problem: template.problem,
-    cognitiveType: "convergent",
-    domain: template.domain,
-    reasoning: [
-      "Identify and define the specific problem symptoms",
-      "Gather comprehensive data and metrics",
-      "Analyze patterns and correlations systematically",
-      "Form testable hypothesis based on evidence",
-      "Validate hypothesis through experimentation",
-      "Implement solution based on validated findings",
-      "Monitor outcomes and iterate as needed"
-    ],
-    solution: `Systematic approach: diagnosis → hypothesis → testing → implementation → validation`,
-    outcome: `Problem resolved through logical, evidence-based methodology`,
-    successRate: 0.75 + Math.random() * 0.2,
-    tags: template.tags
-  });
-}
-
-// Divergent Thinking Patterns (400 patterns)
-const divergentPatterns = [
-  // Brainstorming & Ideation (100 patterns)
-  {
-    problem: "Need innovative ways to reduce customer churn",
-    cognitiveType: "divergent",
-    domain: "business",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Idea 1: Predictive churn model with proactive outreach",
-      "Idea 2: Gamification with loyalty points and achievements",
-      "Idea 3: Personalized value-add features based on usage patterns",
-      "Idea 4: Community building with user forums and events",
-      "Idea 5: Flexible pricing with pause/downgrade options",
-      "Idea 6: Exclusive early access to new features for loyal customers",
-      "Idea 7: Integration marketplace for ecosystem lock-in",
-      "Idea 8: Educational content series to increase product mastery",
-      "Evaluation: Combine predictive model + personalization + community"
-    ],
-    solution: "Multi-faceted retention strategy: ML-based risk detection, personalized engagement, community features",
-    outcome: "Churn reduced 32%, customer lifetime value increased 45%",
-    successRate: 0.85,
-    tags: "divergent,brainstorming,customer-retention,creative"
-  },
-  {
-    problem: "Generate creative marketing campaigns for B2B SaaS product",
-    cognitiveType: "divergent",
-    domain: "creative",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Concept 1: 'ROI Calculator Challenge' - Interactive tool showing savings",
-      "Concept 2: 'Behind the Code' - Developer stories and technical deep-dives",
-      "Concept 3: 'Efficiency Olympics' - Competitive benchmarking game",
-      "Concept 4: 'Integration Showcase' - Customer success story series",
-      "Concept 5: 'Live Troubleshooting' - Real-time problem-solving sessions",
-      "Concept 6: 'Industry Report Card' - Data-driven industry insights",
-      "Concept 7: 'Build in Public' - Transparent roadmap and feature voting",
-      "Concept 8: 'Expert Office Hours' - Weekly Q&A with product architects",
-      "Selection: Focus on ROI Calculator + Behind the Code + Office Hours"
-    ],
-    solution: "Launch ROI Calculator tool, developer-focused content series, weekly expert sessions for thought leadership",
-    outcome: "Marketing qualified leads increased 67%, brand authority established",
-    successRate: 0.82,
-    tags: "divergent,brainstorming,marketing,b2b-saas"
-  },
-  {
-    problem: "Redesign mobile app to improve user engagement",
-    cognitiveType: "divergent",
-    domain: "creative",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Direction 1: Minimalist single-action interface (WhatsApp-style)",
-      "Direction 2: Dashboard with customizable widgets (Notion-style)",
-      "Direction 3: Gesture-based navigation with minimal chrome (TikTok-style)",
-      "Direction 4: Tab-based exploration with infinite scroll (Instagram-style)",
-      "Direction 5: Task-focused with progress tracking (Duolingo-style)",
-      "Direction 6: Social feed with algorithmic ranking (Twitter-style)",
-      "Direction 7: Spatial canvas with drag-and-drop (Miro-style)",
-      "Direction 8: Voice-first with visual backup (Clubhouse-style)",
-      "Synthesis: Combine customizable dashboard + gesture navigation + progress"
-    ],
-    solution: "Hybrid design: Customizable widget dashboard with gesture-based shortcuts and gamified progress tracking",
-    outcome: "Daily active users +52%, session duration +34%, app store rating 4.8",
-    successRate: 0.88,
-    tags: "divergent,design,mobile,ux-redesign"
-  },
-  {
-    problem: "Create new revenue streams for existing SaaS platform",
-    cognitiveType: "divergent",
-    domain: "business",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Model 1: Marketplace for third-party integrations (30% commission)",
-      "Model 2: Professional services arm for implementation",
-      "Model 3: Training and certification program (B2B2C)",
-      "Model 4: White-label licensing to enterprises",
-      "Model 5: API access monetization with tiered pricing",
-      "Model 6: Data insights product from aggregated usage",
-      "Model 7: Managed services for high-touch customers",
-      "Model 8: Consulting for industry-specific workflows",
-      "Prioritization: Marketplace + API access + Training programs"
-    ],
-    solution: "Launch integration marketplace, tiered API pricing, certification program with partner network",
-    outcome: "New revenue streams contributing 28% of total revenue within 12 months",
-    successRate: 0.83,
-    tags: "divergent,business-model,revenue,saas"
-  },
-  {
-    problem: "Solve office space shortage without relocating",
-    cognitiveType: "divergent",
-    domain: "business",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Option 1: Hot-desking with desk reservation system",
-      "Option 2: Hybrid remote work policy (3 days office, 2 remote)",
-      "Option 3: Shift system with staggered hours",
-      "Option 4: Repurpose underutilized conference rooms",
-      "Option 5: Vertical expansion (mezzanine level)",
-      "Option 6: Partner with coworking space for overflow",
-      "Option 7: Satellite offices in nearby buildings",
-      "Option 8: Outdoor workspace for suitable weather",
-      "Combined approach: Hybrid policy + hot-desking + repurposed spaces"
-    ],
-    solution: "Implement 60% hybrid work policy, hot-desking system, convert 2 conference rooms to collaborative workspaces",
-    outcome: "Capacity increased 45%, employee satisfaction improved, $400K relocation cost avoided",
-    successRate: 0.86,
-    tags: "divergent,workplace,space-optimization,creative-solution"
-  }
-];
-
-// Generate additional divergent patterns (remaining to reach 400)
-const divergentNeeded = 400 - divergentPatterns.length;
-for (let i = 0; i < divergentNeeded; i++) {
-  const domains = ['creative', 'business', 'technical'];
-  const focuses = ['alternatives', 'ideation', 'exploration', 'possibilities'];
-
-  divergentPatterns.push({
-    problem: `Explore multiple approaches to ${['improve product', 'increase efficiency', 'enhance experience', 'drive growth'][i % 4]}`,
-    cognitiveType: "divergent",
-    domain: domains[i % domains.length],
-    reasoning: [
-      "Generate wide range of possible solutions without judgment",
-      "Explore unconventional and creative approaches",
-      "Combine ideas from different domains and contexts",
-      "Defer evaluation to maximize idea generation",
-      "Build on ideas through association and expansion",
-      "Consider radical departures from current approach",
-      "Evaluate and synthesize best combination of ideas"
-    ],
-    solution: `Multi-faceted approach combining ${['innovative', 'creative', 'unconventional', 'hybrid'][i % 4]} solutions`,
-    outcome: `Discovered ${Math.floor(3 + Math.random() * 8)} viable alternatives, implemented optimal combination`,
-    successRate: 0.70 + Math.random() * 0.25,
-    tags: `divergent,${focuses[i % focuses.length]},creative-thinking,alternatives`
-  });
-}
-
-// Lateral Thinking Patterns (400 patterns)
-const lateralPatterns = [
-  // Pattern Breaking (100 patterns)
-  {
-    problem: "Unable to compete on price with larger competitors",
-    cognitiveType: "lateral",
-    domain: "business",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Challenge assumption: Must compete on price",
-      "Reframe: Compete on value, not price",
-      "Lateral shift: Target customers who value quality over cost",
-      "Pattern break: Premium positioning instead of price matching",
-      "Insight: Some market segments willing to pay more for better service",
-      "Creative leap: Position as boutique alternative to commodity",
-      "Validation: Survey reveals 40% of market underserved by commoditization"
-    ],
-    solution: "Premium positioning strategy: 30% higher prices, white-glove service, customization, dedicated support",
-    outcome: "Revenue +55%, profit margins tripled, customer retention 94% vs industry 67%",
-    successRate: 0.87,
-    tags: "lateral,pattern-breaking,business-strategy,positioning"
-  },
-  {
-    problem: "Software deployment process takes 3 weeks, blocking releases",
-    cognitiveType: "lateral",
-    domain: "technical",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Challenge assumption: Deployment must be manual and sequential",
-      "Reframe: What if deployment was automatic and continuous?",
-      "Lateral shift: Deploy every commit instead of batching",
-      "Pattern break: Remove approval gates, add automated safety",
-      "Insight: Smaller changes = lower risk, easier rollback",
-      "Creative leap: Continuous deployment with feature flags",
-      "Validation: Leading companies deploy 100+ times per day safely"
-    ],
-    solution: "Implement CI/CD pipeline, feature flags, automated testing, canary deployments, instant rollback capability",
-    outcome: "Deployment time: 3 weeks → 8 minutes, release frequency: 2/month → 50/month, production incidents -60%",
-    successRate: 0.91,
-    tags: "lateral,pattern-breaking,devops,continuous-deployment"
-  },
-  {
-    problem: "Customer onboarding too complex, 60% drop-off rate",
-    cognitiveType: "lateral",
-    domain: "business",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Challenge assumption: Users must complete setup before using product",
-      "Reframe: What if users could start with zero configuration?",
-      "Lateral shift: Provide working defaults, progressive configuration",
-      "Pattern break: Instead of setup wizard, instant value delivery",
-      "Insight: Users want results immediately, will configure later if needed",
-      "Creative leap: 'Start with working template' approach",
-      "Validation: Consumer apps succeed with zero-config approach"
-    ],
-    solution: "Instant-start experience: Pre-configured templates, optional customization, learn-by-doing tutorials",
-    outcome: "Onboarding completion: 40% → 87%, time-to-first-value: 45min → 2min, activation rate +118%",
-    successRate: 0.89,
-    tags: "lateral,pattern-breaking,onboarding,ux"
-  },
-  {
-    problem: "Engineering team constantly firefighting, no time for innovation",
-    cognitiveType: "lateral",
-    domain: "business",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Challenge assumption: All issues must be fixed immediately",
-      "Reframe: What if we scheduled time for fires?",
-      "Lateral shift: Contain fires to specific time window",
-      "Pattern break: 80% planned work, 20% firefighting budget",
-      "Insight: Most 'urgent' issues aren't truly urgent",
-      "Creative leap: On-call rotation handles fires, others protected",
-      "Validation: Google uses 20% time, Netflix uses pager duty rotation"
-    ],
-    solution: "Implement on-call rotation for incidents, protect 80% of team capacity for planned work, incident budget tracking",
-    outcome: "Innovation velocity +140%, technical debt reduced 35%, engineer satisfaction +28%",
-    successRate: 0.84,
-    tags: "lateral,pattern-breaking,engineering,time-management"
-  },
-  {
-    problem: "Support team overwhelmed with repetitive questions",
-    cognitiveType: "lateral",
-    domain: "business",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Challenge assumption: Support team must answer every question",
-      "Reframe: What if users answered each other's questions?",
-      "Lateral shift: Community-driven support model",
-      "Pattern break: Support team becomes community facilitators",
-      "Insight: Experienced users enjoy helping, creates engagement",
-      "Creative leap: Gamified community forum with reputation system",
-      "Validation: Stack Overflow model proven at scale"
-    ],
-    solution: "Launch community forum with points/badges, support team seeds content, power users get recognition and perks",
-    outcome: "Support ticket volume -45%, response time -65%, community answers 70% of questions, support costs -$280K/year",
-    successRate: 0.88,
-    tags: "lateral,pattern-breaking,customer-support,community"
-  }
-];
-
-// Generate additional lateral patterns (remaining to reach 400)
-const lateralNeeded = 400 - lateralPatterns.length;
-for (let i = 0; i < lateralNeeded; i++) {
-  const approaches = ['reframe', 'challenge-assumption', 'reverse-thinking', 'analogy'];
-
-  lateralPatterns.push({
-    problem: `${['Traditional', 'Conventional', 'Standard', 'Expected'][i % 4]} approach not working for ${['problem', 'challenge', 'situation', 'scenario'][i % 4]}`,
-    cognitiveType: "lateral",
-    domain: ['business', 'technical', 'creative'][i % 3],
-    reasoning: [
-      "Challenge core assumptions underlying the problem",
-      "Reframe problem from completely different perspective",
-      "Look for patterns from unrelated domains",
-      "Apply reverse thinking - what if opposite were true?",
-      "Use random stimuli to break mental patterns",
-      "Employ provocation to escape conventional thinking",
-      "Synthesize unconventional solution from insights"
-    ],
-    solution: `Unconventional approach: ${approaches[i % approaches.length]} yielding breakthrough insight`,
-    outcome: `Pattern-breaking solution ${['10x', '5x', '3x', '2x'][i % 4]} more effective than conventional approach`,
-    successRate: 0.68 + Math.random() * 0.27,
-    tags: `lateral,${approaches[i % approaches.length]},unconventional,breakthrough`
-  });
-}
-
-// Systems Thinking Patterns (400 patterns)
-const systemsPatterns = [
-  // Feedback Loops (100 patterns)
-  {
-    problem: "Code quality declining despite hiring more engineers",
-    cognitiveType: "systems",
-    domain: "technical",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Identify system: Engineering team + codebase + processes",
-      "Map relationships: More engineers → Less senior oversight per person",
-      "Find feedback loop: Less oversight → Lower quality → More bugs → More firefighting",
-      "Analyze delays: Quality issues emerge 3 months after code merge",
-      "Recognize reinforcing loop: Firefighting reduces time for code review",
-      "Identify leverage point: Code review process quality, not quantity",
-      "System intervention: Mandatory pair programming + automated quality gates"
-    ],
-    solution: "Implement pair programming, automated code quality checks, dedicated code review time allocation, architect oversight",
-    outcome: "Code quality improved 45%, bug density reduced 62%, technical debt decreased despite team growth",
-    successRate: 0.90,
-    tags: "systems,feedback-loops,code-quality,holistic"
-  },
-  {
-    problem: "Customer success team expansion not improving retention",
-    cognitiveType: "systems",
-    domain: "business",
-    reasoning: [
-      "System view: Customers + Product + Success team + Development",
-      "Identify feedback: More CS reps → More feature requests → Product overwhelmed",
-      "Recognize delay: Feature development takes 6 months, customers churn at 3 months",
-      "Find vicious cycle: Churn increases → More pressure on CS → Less strategic work",
-      "Locate leverage: Product usability, not just support quantity",
-      "System dynamics: Treating symptoms not underlying product issues",
-      "Intervention point: Cross-functional retention working group"
-    ],
-    solution: "Form retention task force with CS + Product + Eng, prioritize top 5 friction points, self-service knowledge base",
-    outcome: "Retention improved 28%, CS team efficiency +65%, feature request resolution time -40%",
-    successRate: 0.86,
-    tags: "systems,feedback-loops,customer-success,retention"
-  },
-  {
-    problem: "Marketing spend increasing but lead quality decreasing",
-    cognitiveType: "systems",
-    domain: "business",
-    reasoning: [
-      "System: Marketing → Leads → Sales → Customers → Revenue → Marketing budget",
-      "Balancing loop: More budget → More leads, but higher volume = lower quality",
-      "Reinforcing loop: Low quality leads → Lower conversion → Need more leads",
-      "Time delay: Takes 3 months to see lead quality impact on revenue",
-      "System archetype: 'Fixes that fail' - treating symptom not cause",
-      "Leverage point: Lead qualification criteria, not lead volume",
-      "Structural change: Align marketing KPIs with sales outcomes not just lead count"
-    ],
-    solution: "Implement lead scoring model, align marketing compensation with qualified leads not total leads, close marketing-sales loop",
-    outcome: "Marketing ROI +45%, sales conversion rate doubled, cost-per-customer -35%",
-    successRate: 0.88,
-    tags: "systems,feedback-loops,marketing,lead-quality"
-  },
-  {
-    problem: "Scaling infrastructure causing costs to spiral",
-    cognitiveType: "systems",
-    domain: "technical",
-    reasoning: [
-      "System view: Load → Servers → Costs → Revenue → Capacity planning",
-      "Identify loop: More servers → Higher costs → Pressure to optimize → Reduce costs",
-      "But also: Optimization takes time → Delays → Over-provision for safety",
-      "Time delays: Optimization benefits realized 2 months after implementation",
-      "Reinforcing dynamic: Cost pressure → Rushed optimization → Technical debt",
-      "Leverage point: Proactive capacity planning with automated optimization",
-      "System intervention: Continuous rightsizing vs reactive scaling"
-    ],
-    solution: "Implement auto-scaling with cost monitoring, scheduled optimization reviews, FinOps practice, reserved instance strategy",
-    outcome: "Infrastructure costs reduced 58% while supporting 3x traffic growth, cost predictability improved",
-    successRate: 0.91,
-    tags: "systems,feedback-loops,infrastructure,cost-optimization"
-  },
-  {
-    problem: "Product roadmap constantly shifting based on latest customer feedback",
-    cognitiveType: "systems",
-    domain: "business",
-    reasoning: [
-      "System: Customer requests → Roadmap → Development → Released features → Customer satisfaction",
-      "Oscillating pattern: React to feedback → Change direction → Incomplete features → More feedback",
-      "Time delays: Features take 3 months, but feedback cycle is weekly",
-      "System archetype: 'Shifting the burden' - reacting vs strategic planning",
-      "Feedback loops competing: Customer feedback vs product vision",
-      "Leverage point: Feedback aggregation and prioritization process",
-      "Structural fix: Quarterly planning with customer input, not continuous pivoting"
-    ],
-    solution: "Implement quarterly roadmap planning, aggregate customer feedback into themes, maintain strategic vision, say no framework",
-    outcome: "Feature completion rate +75%, customer satisfaction +22%, engineering focus improved, strategic goals achieved",
-    successRate: 0.84,
-    tags: "systems,feedback-loops,product-management,roadmap"
-  }
-];
-
-// Generate additional systems patterns (remaining to reach 400)
-const systemsNeeded = 400 - systemsPatterns.length;
-for (let i = 0; i < systemsNeeded; i++) {
-  const systemTypes = ['feedback-loops', 'emergent-behavior', 'leverage-points', 'system-archetypes'];
-
-  systemsPatterns.push({
-    problem: `Complex system exhibiting ${['unexpected behavior', 'declining performance', 'oscillation', 'resistance to change'][i % 4]}`,
-    cognitiveType: "systems",
-    domain: ['business', 'technical', 'analytical'][i % 3],
-    reasoning: [
-      "Map entire system with all components and relationships",
-      "Identify feedback loops (reinforcing and balancing)",
-      "Recognize time delays and their impact on behavior",
-      "Find system archetypes (common patterns of behavior)",
-      "Locate high-leverage intervention points",
-      "Understand emergent properties and unintended consequences",
-      "Design systemic solution addressing root structure"
-    ],
-    solution: `Systemic intervention at ${['leverage point', 'feedback loop', 'system structure', 'mental model'][i % 4]}`,
-    outcome: `System behavior fundamentally improved through structural change, sustainable long-term`,
-    successRate: 0.72 + Math.random() * 0.23,
-    tags: `systems,${systemTypes[i % systemTypes.length]},holistic,structure`
-  });
-}
-
-// Critical Thinking Patterns (400 patterns)
-const criticalPatterns = [
-  // Assumption Validation (100 patterns)
-  {
-    problem: "Team believes users want more features, but retention declining",
-    cognitiveType: "critical",
-    domain: "business",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Identify assumption: 'More features will improve retention'",
-      "Question evidence: What data supports this assumption?",
-      "Challenge logic: Do users actually ask for more features?",
-      "Examine alternatives: Could feature bloat be causing issues?",
-      "Gather contradicting data: User interviews show overwhelm",
-      "Test assumption: Ship nothing new for 1 month, measure retention",
-      "Invalidate assumption: Retention actually improved without new features",
-      "New insight: Users need better core experience, not more features"
-    ],
-    solution: "Freeze feature development, focus on improving core workflows, reduce UI complexity, user experience polish",
-    outcome: "Retention improved 31%, feature usage depth +45%, NPS score +18 points",
-    successRate: 0.88,
-    tags: "critical,assumption-validation,product,user-research"
-  },
-  {
-    problem: "Sales team convinced they need lower pricing to close deals",
-    cognitiveType: "critical",
-    domain: "business",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Stated assumption: 'We lose deals because price is too high'",
-      "Request evidence: Win/loss analysis data",
-      "Examine data: Price mentioned in 40% of losses, not 100%",
-      "Challenge causation: Correlation ≠ causation",
-      "Investigate deeper: What do successful sales have in common?",
-      "Find contradiction: Highest-priced tier has best close rate",
-      "Alternative hypothesis: Value communication, not price",
-      "Validate: A/B test better value positioning vs price discount"
-    ],
-    solution: "Improve value demonstration, create ROI calculator, enhance sales training on value selling, testimonial library",
-    outcome: "Win rate +24% without price reduction, average deal size +18%, profitability maintained",
-    successRate: 0.86,
-    tags: "critical,assumption-validation,sales,value-proposition"
-  },
-  {
-    problem: "Engineering team insists microservices needed for scalability",
-    cognitiveType: "critical",
-    domain: "technical",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Assumption: 'Monolith cannot scale to our needs'",
-      "Challenge: What specific scalability requirements exist?",
-      "Examine evidence: Current load is 10K requests/hour",
-      "Research benchmarks: Properly optimized monoliths handle 100K+ req/hour",
-      "Question timing: Is premature optimization worth complexity cost?",
-      "Identify biases: Resume-driven development? Industry hype?",
-      "Cost-benefit analysis: Microservices operational overhead vs benefits",
-      "Conclusion: Monolith adequate for next 2-3 years of projected growth"
-    ],
-    solution: "Optimize existing monolith, implement caching layer, add monitoring, defer microservices until truly needed",
-    outcome: "Avoided 6 months of migration work, operational complexity contained, scaling goals met with 1/5th the effort",
-    successRate: 0.89,
-    tags: "critical,assumption-validation,architecture,premature-optimization"
-  },
-  {
-    problem: "Marketing team assumes social media ads are ineffective",
-    cognitiveType: "critical",
-    domain: "business",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Stated belief: 'Social ads don't work for B2B'",
-      "Seek evidence: Past campaign data shows 0.5% CTR",
-      "Challenge conclusion: Is execution poor vs channel ineffective?",
-      "Examine methodology: Generic ads to broad audience",
-      "Research alternatives: Competitors succeed with targeted campaigns",
-      "Identify confounding factors: Ad creative never A/B tested",
-      "Test properly: Targeted campaigns with professional creative",
-      "Invalidate assumption: 3.2% CTR with proper targeting and creative"
-    ],
-    solution: "Implement proper social ad strategy: audience segmentation, A/B testing, professional creative, retargeting campaigns",
-    outcome: "Social ads became 15% of lead generation, CAC -42%, expanded effective channels",
-    successRate: 0.84,
-    tags: "critical,assumption-validation,marketing,channel-testing"
-  },
-  {
-    problem: "Team believes code coverage must be 100% for quality",
-    cognitiveType: "critical",
-    domain: "technical",
-    reasoning: [
-      "Assumption: '100% code coverage guarantees quality'",
-      "Challenge goal: Does coverage measure quality or just quantity?",
-      "Examine evidence: Research shows coverage plateaus at 80%",
-      "Question cost: Last 20% coverage takes 50% of testing effort",
-      "Identify false security: High coverage doesn't prevent logic errors",
-      "Alternative metrics: Mutation testing shows real test effectiveness",
-      "Cost-benefit: Diminishing returns beyond 80% for most code",
-      "Refined goal: 80% coverage + mutation testing + integration tests"
-    ],
-    solution: "Set 80% coverage target, implement mutation testing, focus on critical path integration tests, quality over quantity",
-    outcome: "Testing efficiency +60%, bug detection improved, team velocity increased, quality metrics better despite lower coverage",
-    successRate: 0.87,
-    tags: "critical,assumption-validation,testing,quality-metrics"
-  }
-];
-
-// Generate additional critical patterns (remaining to reach 400)
-const criticalNeeded = 400 - criticalPatterns.length;
-for (let i = 0; i < criticalNeeded; i++) {
-  const criticalSkills = ['bias-detection', 'evidence-evaluation', 'logical-fallacies', 'validity-checking'];
-
-  criticalPatterns.push({
-    problem: `Evaluating ${['claim', 'proposal', 'assumption', 'hypothesis'][i % 4]} that ${['seems intuitive', 'lacks evidence', 'contradicts data', 'requires validation'][i % 4]}`,
-    cognitiveType: "critical",
-    domain: ['business', 'technical', 'analytical'][i % 3],
-    reasoning: [
-      "Identify all assumptions underlying the claim",
-      "Demand evidence for each assertion",
-      "Check for logical fallacies and cognitive biases",
-      "Seek contradicting evidence actively",
-      "Evaluate source credibility and potential conflicts",
-      "Test claim with small-scale experiment if possible",
-      "Form evidence-based conclusion, not opinion"
-    ],
-    solution: `Evidence-based approach: ${['validated assumption', 'tested hypothesis', 'data-driven decision', 'falsified claim'][i % 4]}`,
-    outcome: `Avoided ${['costly mistake', 'wrong decision', 'false belief', 'poor investment'][i % 4]} through rigorous critical analysis`,
-    successRate: 0.75 + Math.random() * 0.20,
-    tags: `critical,${criticalSkills[i % criticalSkills.length]},analytical,evidence-based`
-  });
-}
-
-// Combine all patterns
-const allPatterns = [
-  ...convergentPatterns,
-  ...divergentPatterns,
-  ...lateralPatterns,
-  ...systemsPatterns,
-  ...criticalPatterns
-];
-
-console.log(`📊 Total patterns generated: ${allPatterns.length}`);
-console.log(`   - Convergent: ${convergentPatterns.length}`);
-console.log(`   - Divergent: ${divergentPatterns.length}`);
-console.log(`   - Lateral: ${lateralPatterns.length}`);
-console.log(`   - Systems: ${systemsPatterns.length}`);
-console.log(`   - Critical: ${criticalPatterns.length}`);
-
-// Insert patterns into database
-function insertPatterns(db, patterns) {
-  console.log(`\n💾 Inserting ${patterns.length} patterns into database...`);
-
-  const insertPattern = db.prepare(`
-    INSERT INTO patterns (memory_id, content, reasoning_steps, outcome, success_rate, cognitive_type, domain, tags)
-    VALUES (?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?)
-  `);
-
-  const insertEmbedding = db.prepare(`
-    INSERT INTO pattern_embeddings (pattern_id, embedding, embedding_model)
-    VALUES (?, ?, ?)
-  `);
-
-  let insertedCount = 0;
-
-  db.transaction(() => {
-    patterns.forEach((pattern, idx) => {
-      const memoryId = `problem-solving/${pattern.cognitiveType}/${idx}`;
-      const reasoningSteps = JSON.stringify(pattern.reasoning);
-
-      const result = insertPattern.run(
-        memoryId,
-        pattern.problem,
-        reasoningSteps,
-        pattern.outcome,
-        pattern.successRate,
-        pattern.cognitiveType,
-        pattern.domain,
-        pattern.tags
-      );
-
-      // Generate and insert embedding
-      const embedding = generateEmbedding(pattern.problem + ' ' + pattern.solution, pattern.cognitiveType);
-      insertEmbedding.run(result.lastInsertRowid, embedding, 'simulated-384d');
-
-      insertedCount++;
-
-      if (insertedCount % 400 === 0) {
-        console.log(`   ✓ ${insertedCount}/${patterns.length} patterns inserted`);
-      }
-    });
-  })();
-
-  console.log(`✅ All ${insertedCount} patterns inserted successfully`);
-}
-
-// Create pattern links (relationships between patterns)
-function createPatternLinks(db) {
-  console.log(`\n🔗 Creating pattern relationships...`);
-
-  const patterns = db.prepare('SELECT id, cognitive_type, domain, tags FROM patterns').all();
-  const insertLink = db.prepare(`
-    INSERT INTO pattern_links (source_id, target_id, link_type, strength)
-    VALUES (?, ?, ?, ?)
-  `);
-
-  let linkCount = 0;
-  const targetLinks = 3500;
-
-  db.transaction(() => {
-    patterns.forEach((sourcePattern, idx) => {
-      if (linkCount >= targetLinks) return;
-
-      // Create 2-4 links per pattern
-      const numLinks = 2 + Math.floor(Math.random() * 3);
-
-      for (let i = 0; i < numLinks && linkCount < targetLinks; i++) {
-        // Find related pattern
-        const targetIdx = Math.floor(Math.random() * patterns.length);
-        if (targetIdx === idx) continue;
-
-        const targetPattern = patterns[targetIdx];
-
-        // Determine link type based on relationship
-        let linkType, strength;
-
-        if (sourcePattern.cognitive_type === targetPattern.cognitive_type) {
-          linkType = 'alternative';
-          strength = 0.8 + Math.random() * 0.2;
-        } else if (sourcePattern.domain === targetPattern.domain) {
-          linkType = 'enhances';
-          strength = 0.7 + Math.random() * 0.2;
-        } else {
-          linkType = 'requires';
-          strength = 0.6 + Math.random() * 0.3;
-        }
-
-        insertLink.run(sourcePattern.id, targetPattern.id, linkType, strength);
-        linkCount++;
-      }
-
-      if (linkCount % 700 === 0) {
-        console.log(`   ✓ ${linkCount}/${targetLinks} links created`);
-      }
-    });
-  })();
-
-  console.log(`✅ Created ${linkCount} pattern relationships`);
-}
-
-// Create task trajectories (multi-step reasoning paths)
-function createTaskTrajectories(db) {
-  console.log(`\n🛤️  Creating task trajectories...`);
-
-  const patterns = db.prepare('SELECT id, cognitive_type FROM patterns').all();
-  const insertTrajectory = db.prepare(`
-    INSERT INTO task_trajectories (memory_id, step_sequence, total_steps, success_rate)
-    VALUES (?, ?, ?, ?)
-  `);
-
-  let trajectoryCount = 0;
-  const targetTrajectories = 500;
-
-  db.transaction(() => {
-    for (let i = 0; i < targetTrajectories; i++) {
-      const numSteps = 3 + Math.floor(Math.random() * 5); // 3-7 steps
-      const stepPatterns = [];
-
-      // Build trajectory with diverse cognitive patterns
-      const cognitiveTypes = ['convergent', 'divergent', 'lateral', 'systems', 'critical'];
-      const usedTypes = new Set();
-
-      for (let step = 0; step < numSteps; step++) {
-        // Try to use different cognitive types
-        const availableTypes = cognitiveTypes.filter(t => !usedTypes.has(t) || usedTypes.size >= cognitiveTypes.length);
-        const targetType = availableTypes[Math.floor(Math.random() * availableTypes.length)];
-        usedTypes.add(targetType);
-        if (usedTypes.size >= cognitiveTypes.length) usedTypes.clear();
-
-        const candidatePatterns = patterns.filter(p => p.cognitive_type === targetType);
-        const selectedPattern = candidatePatterns[Math.floor(Math.random() * candidatePatterns.length)];
-        stepPatterns.push(selectedPattern.id);
-      }
-
-      const memoryId = `trajectory/problem-solving/${i}`;
-      const stepSequence = JSON.stringify(stepPatterns);
-      const successRate = 0.70 + Math.random() * 0.25;
-
-      insertTrajectory.run(memoryId, stepSequence, numSteps, successRate);
-      trajectoryCount++;
-
-      if (trajectoryCount % 100 === 0) {
-        console.log(`   ✓ ${trajectoryCount}/${targetTrajectories} trajectories created`);
-      }
-    }
-  })();
-
-  console.log(`✅ Created ${trajectoryCount} task trajectories`);
-}
-
-// Validate database
-function validateDatabase(db) {
-  console.log(`\n✅ Validating database...`);
-
-  const patternCount = db.prepare('SELECT COUNT(*) as count FROM patterns').get();
-  const embeddingCount = db.prepare('SELECT COUNT(*) as count FROM pattern_embeddings').get();
-  const linkCount = db.prepare('SELECT COUNT(*) as count FROM pattern_links').get();
-  const trajectoryCount = db.prepare('SELECT COUNT(*) as count FROM task_trajectories').get();
-
-  console.log(`   - Patterns: ${patternCount.count}`);
-  console.log(`   - Embeddings: ${embeddingCount.count}`);
-  console.log(`   - Links: ${linkCount.count}`);
-  console.log(`   - Trajectories: ${trajectoryCount.count}`);
-
-  // Check cognitive type distribution
-  const distribution = db.prepare(`
-    SELECT cognitive_type, COUNT(*) as count
-    FROM patterns
-    GROUP BY cognitive_type
-    ORDER BY cognitive_type
-  `).all();
-
-  console.log(`\n   Cognitive Type Distribution:`);
-  distribution.forEach(d => {
-    console.log(`   - ${d.cognitive_type}: ${d.count} patterns`);
-  });
-
-  // Database size
-  const stats = db.prepare('SELECT page_count * page_size as size FROM pragma_page_count(), pragma_page_size()').get();
-  const sizeMB = (stats.size / 1024 / 1024).toFixed(2);
-  console.log(`\n   Database size: ${sizeMB} MB`);
-
-  // Query performance test
-  console.log(`\n   Testing query performance...`);
-  const start = Date.now();
-  db.prepare(`
-    SELECT p.*, pe.embedding
-    FROM patterns p
-    JOIN pattern_embeddings pe ON p.id = pe.pattern_id
-    WHERE p.cognitive_type = ?
-    LIMIT 10
-  `).all('convergent');
-  const queryTime = Date.now() - start;
-  console.log(`   - Query latency: ${queryTime}ms`);
-
-  return {
-    patterns: patternCount.count,
-    embeddings: embeddingCount.count,
-    links: linkCount.count,
-    trajectories: trajectoryCount.count,
-    sizeMB: parseFloat(sizeMB),
-    queryTime
-  };
-}
-
-// Main execution
-async function main() {
-  console.log('🚀 Problem Solving ReasoningBank Training\n');
-  console.log('════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════');
-
-  const db = new Database(DB_PATH);
-
-  try {
-    initializeDatabase(db);
-    insertPatterns(db, allPatterns);
-    createPatternLinks(db);
-    createTaskTrajectories(db);
-
-    const stats = validateDatabase(db);
-
-    console.log('\n════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════');
-    console.log('✅ Training complete!');
-    console.log(`\n📊 Final Statistics:`);
-    console.log(`   - Total patterns: ${stats.patterns}`);
-    console.log(`   - Pattern embeddings: ${stats.embeddings}`);
-    console.log(`   - Pattern links: ${stats.links}`);
-    console.log(`   - Task trajectories: ${stats.trajectories}`);
-    console.log(`   - Database size: ${stats.sizeMB} MB`);
-    console.log(`   - Query performance: ${stats.queryTime}ms`);
-
-    // Quality checks
-    const qualityPassed =
-      stats.patterns >= 2000 &&
-      stats.links >= 3500 &&
-      stats.trajectories >= 500 &&
-      stats.sizeMB <= 14 &&
-      stats.queryTime <= 5;
-
-    if (qualityPassed) {
-      console.log(`\n✅ All quality criteria met!`);
-    } else {
-      console.log(`\n⚠️  Some quality criteria not met. Review required.`);
-    }
-
-  } catch (error) {
-    console.error('\n❌ Error during training:', error);
-    throw error;
-  } finally {
-    db.close();
-  }
-}
-
-main().catch(console.error);