@unclick/mcp-server 0.1.0

package/dist/csuite-tool.js

@@ -0,0 +1,791 @@
+// ─── C-Suite Analysis Tool ────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+// Runs a business scenario through multiple executive perspectives simultaneously.
+// Pure local computation - no API calls, no external deps.
+// ─── Role metadata ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+const ROLE_META = {
+    CEO: { title: "Chief Executive Officer", lens: "strategy, vision, competitive positioning, risk appetite" },
+    COO: { title: "Chief Operating Officer", lens: "operational feasibility, resource allocation, process impact, scalability" },
+    CTO: { title: "Chief Technology Officer", lens: "technical complexity, tech debt, architecture, build vs buy" },
+    CFO: { title: "Chief Financial Officer", lens: "financial impact, ROI, cash flow, budget, runway" },
+    CMO: { title: "Chief Marketing Officer", lens: "market positioning, brand impact, customer perception, growth" },
+    CIO: { title: "Chief Information Officer", lens: "information systems, data strategy, digital transformation, integration" },
+    CHRO: { title: "Chief Human Resources Officer", lens: "people impact, hiring, culture fit, organizational change" },
+    CDO: { title: "Chief Data Officer", lens: "data governance, analytics opportunity, compliance, data ethics" },
+    CPO: { title: "Chief Product Officer", lens: "product-market fit, UX, feature prioritization, roadmap impact" },
+    CSO: { title: "Chief Security Officer", lens: "security implications, threat vectors, compliance, risk mitigation" },
+    CCO: { title: "Chief Customer Officer", lens: "customer impact, support burden, satisfaction, retention" },
+    CAIO: { title: "Chief AI Officer", lens: "AI/automation opportunity, model feasibility, AI ethics, competitive AI landscape" },
+};
+// ─── Keyword signal extraction ──────────────────────────────────────────────────
+function extractSignals(text) {
+    const t = text.toLowerCase();
+    const signals = new Set();
+    // Cost/financial signals
+    if (/\b(cost|price|budget|spend|invest|fund|revenue|profit|margin|burn|runway|roi|payback|expense|savings|capital)\b/.test(t))
+        signals.add("financial");
+    // Growth/scale signals
+    if (/\b(scale|grow|expand|launch|enter|market|acquire|onboard|users?|customers?|revenue|sales)\b/.test(t))
+        signals.add("growth");
+    // Technical/build signals
+    if (/\b(build|develop|engineer|code|system|platform|api|infrastructure|stack|migrate|legacy|refactor|deploy|architecture)\b/.test(t))
+        signals.add("technical");
+    // People/org signals
+    if (/\b(hire|team|headcount|culture|layoff|restructure|remote|office|morale|talent|staff|employees?|org|department|manager)\b/.test(t))
+        signals.add("people");
+    // Security/compliance signals
+    if (/\b(security|compliance|privacy|gdpr|hipaa|audit|breach|vulnerability|access|permissions?|regulation|legal|risk|liability)\b/.test(t))
+        signals.add("security");
+    // Data/AI signals
+    if (/\b(data|analytics?|model|ai|machine learning|ml|llm|automat|predict|insight|dashboard|report|metric)\b/.test(t))
+        signals.add("data_ai");
+    // Customer signals
+    if (/\b(customer|user|client|churn|nps|support|satisfaction|onboard|experience|retention|feedback|complaint)\b/.test(t))
+        signals.add("customer");
+    // Product signals
+    if (/\b(feature|product|roadmap|release|launch|mvp|iteration|sprint|backlog|priorit|ux|design|interface)\b/.test(t))
+        signals.add("product");
+    // Speed/urgency signals
+    if (/\b(urgent|deadline|asap|fast|quick|immediately|now|today|timeline|delay|behind|schedule)\b/.test(t))
+        signals.add("urgency");
+    // Third-party/vendor signals
+    if (/\b(vendor|partner|outsource|contract|saas|tool|integrate|buy|procure|third.party)\b/.test(t))
+        signals.add("vendor");
+    // Risk signals
+    if (/\b(risk|uncertain|unknown|complex|difficult|challenge|problem|issue|blocker|concern|danger)\b/.test(t))
+        signals.add("risk");
+    // Revenue impact signals
+    if (/\b(revenue|monetize|pricing|subscription|tier|freemium|enterprise|deal|contract|upsell|conversion)\b/.test(t))
+        signals.add("revenue");
+    return signals;
+}
+// ─── Depth helpers ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+function pick(depth, quick, standard, deep) {
+    if (depth === "quick")
+        return quick;
+    if (depth === "standard")
+        return standard;
+    return deep;
+}
+// ─── Per-role analysis generators ─────────────────────────────────────────────
+function analyzeCEO(scenario, context, depth, signals, focus) {
+    const hasGrowth = signals.has("growth");
+    const hasRisk = signals.has("risk");
+    const hasFinancial = signals.has("financial");
+    const hasTech = signals.has("technical");
+    const risks = pick(depth, ["Strategic misalignment with core mission", "Competitor response or market preemption"], [
+        "Potential drift from core strategic thesis",
+        "Competitor response or first-mover counter",
+        "Stakeholder confidence impact if execution stumbles",
+        hasFinancial ? "Capital allocation trade-off vs other strategic priorities" : "Opportunity cost against existing roadmap commitments",
+    ], [
+        "Strategic coherence risk - does this reinforce or dilute our positioning?",
+        "Competitor preemption or copycat erosion of any advantage",
+        "Stakeholder confidence and board alignment",
+        "Second-order effects on adjacent business lines",
+        hasRisk ? "Downside scenario: what does failure cost strategically, not just financially?" : "Reversibility: can we unwind this if the thesis proves wrong?",
+        hasTech ? "Platform dependency risk if this creates a technical moat owned by one vendor or team" : "Execution dependency risk on key people or single points of failure",
+    ]);
+    const opportunities = pick(depth, ["Competitive differentiation", "New market or revenue vector"], [
+        hasGrowth ? "Accelerate market share capture in an underserved segment" : "Extend leadership position in current market",
+        "Create a defensible moat or switching cost",
+        hasTech ? "Technical lead that compounds over time" : "Operational efficiency that widens margin advantage",
+        "Narrative and positioning lift for investors, talent, and press",
+    ], [
+        hasGrowth ? "Land-and-expand into adjacent markets with lower CAC" : "Deepen penetration in the core market with a new wedge",
+        "Build compounding strategic advantage that is hard to copy",
+        "Reframe the competitive conversation on our terms",
+        "Create an ecosystem lock-in effect or network value",
+        "Unlock a new partnership or M&A leverage point",
+        hasFinancial ? "Demonstrate capital efficiency to improve valuation story" : "Attract top-tier talent through visible innovation leadership",
+    ]);
+    const confidence = (hasGrowth && !hasRisk) ? "high" : hasRisk ? "medium" : "high";
+    return {
+        role: "CEO",
+        title: ROLE_META.CEO.title,
+        assessment: `From a strategic standpoint, this decision needs to pass three tests: (1) does it strengthen competitive position, (2) does it align with the long-term vision, and (3) does the risk/reward ratio justify the resource commitment? ${hasTech ? "The technical dimension here is a strategic asset or liability depending on execution." : ""} ${hasFinancial ? "The financial profile of this move will shape stakeholder confidence either way." : ""} The CEO lens asks not just whether this is viable, but whether it is the *right* move at the *right* time given everything else in motion.${focus === "growth" ? " Growth framing should be validated against unit economics, not just topline." : focus === "risk" ? " Risk appetite for this should be benchmarked against what the company can absorb without destabilizing core operations." : ""}`,
+        risks,
+        opportunities,
+        recommendation: hasRisk
+            ? "Proceed with a staged commitment: validate key assumptions with a time-boxed pilot before full resource allocation."
+            : "Move forward with clear ownership, a defined success metric, and a 90-day review checkpoint.",
+        confidence,
+        priority_flags: [
+            ...(hasRisk ? ["Define the kill switch criteria before starting"] : []),
+            ...(hasGrowth ? ["Validate ICP fit before scaling spend"] : []),
+            "Align leadership team on the strategic rationale before any external announcement",
+        ],
+    };
+}
+function analyzeCOO(scenario, context, depth, signals, focus) {
+    const hasUrgency = signals.has("urgency");
+    const hasPeople = signals.has("people");
+    const hasTech = signals.has("technical");
+    const hasVendor = signals.has("vendor");
+    const risks = pick(depth, ["Operational capacity strain", "Process gaps under increased load"], [
+        "Team bandwidth overextension if this runs in parallel with existing commitments",
+        "Process gaps exposed when volume or complexity increases",
+        hasVendor ? "Vendor dependency introducing SLA risk into the critical path" : "Coordination overhead between teams slowing delivery",
+        hasPeople ? "Change fatigue if the org has absorbed too many shifts recently" : "Undocumented processes that break under scrutiny",
+    ], [
+        "Capacity ceiling: do we have the operational bandwidth to absorb this without degrading core delivery?",
+        "Handoff and coordination failures in cross-functional execution",
+        hasVendor ? "Vendor SLA vs internal SLA mismatch creating accountability gaps" : "Process documentation debt that compounds as we scale",
+        hasPeople ? "Attrition risk among key ops staff who bear the execution burden" : "Knowledge concentration in one team or individual",
+        "Quality drift when teams are stretched across multiple priorities",
+        hasUrgency ? "Rushed implementation creating technical or process debt paid later" : "Scope creep after kickoff if the brief is not locked",
+    ]);
+    const opportunities = pick(depth, ["Force process standardization and documentation", "Identify automation potential"], [
+        "Force standardization and documentation of currently ad-hoc processes",
+        "Identify bottlenecks that limit throughput - and fix them under this initiative",
+        hasVendor ? "Evaluate whether vendor can absorb capacity spikes better than internal build" : "Build repeatable playbooks that scale without proportional headcount growth",
+        "Improve cross-team coordination structures that benefit all future projects",
+    ], [
+        "Use this as a forcing function to clean up operational tech debt",
+        "Build scalable process infrastructure: runbooks, SLAs, escalation paths",
+        hasVendor ? "Negotiate favorable terms now while vendor needs our business" : "Create a center-of-excellence model that multiplies output without linear cost",
+        "Establish metrics and dashboards that give leadership real-time operational visibility",
+        "Cross-train teams to reduce single-person dependencies",
+        "Identify and eliminate the top 3 friction points in the current operating model",
+    ]);
+    return {
+        role: "COO",
+        title: ROLE_META.COO.title,
+        assessment: `The operational lens here focuses on execution realism. Before committing, three questions: (1) What gets de-prioritized to make room for this? (2) What breaks first if load doubles? (3) Who owns this end-to-end with no ambiguity? ${hasUrgency ? "The urgency signal in this scenario creates execution pressure - rushed implementation creates operational debt that is painful to unwind." : ""} ${hasPeople ? "People are the constraint here - plan for capacity before announcing timelines." : "Process is the constraint - the system needs to be ready before the traffic arrives."}${focus === "cost" ? " COO perspective: the true cost includes the operational drag on teams already running at capacity." : ""}`,
+        risks,
+        opportunities,
+        recommendation: hasPeople
+            ? "Assign a dedicated operational lead with clear authority before any work begins. Do not let this float across teams."
+            : "Map the operational dependencies first, then work backwards from the required outcome to set a realistic timeline.",
+        confidence: hasUrgency ? "medium" : "high",
+        priority_flags: [
+            "Assign a single DRI (directly responsible individual) before kickoff",
+            ...(hasPeople ? ["Audit team capacity before committing to a timeline"] : []),
+            ...(hasVendor ? ["Validate vendor SLA against your operational requirements"] : []),
+        ],
+    };
+}
+function analyzeCTO(scenario, context, depth, signals, focus) {
+    const hasTech = signals.has("technical");
+    const hasVendor = signals.has("vendor");
+    const hasDataAI = signals.has("data_ai");
+    const hasSecurity = signals.has("security");
+    const risks = pick(depth, ["Technical debt accumulation", "Integration complexity underestimated"], [
+        "Architectural coupling that limits future optionality",
+        hasTech ? "Underestimating integration complexity - especially with legacy systems" : "Technology choice that becomes a liability as requirements evolve",
+        "Engineering capacity cannibalization affecting existing roadmap",
+        hasVendor ? "Vendor lock-in reducing negotiating power and increasing switching cost" : "Build path underestimating long-term maintenance burden",
+    ], [
+        "Architectural decisions made under time pressure that constrain future direction",
+        hasTech ? "Hidden integration complexity: legacy system impedance, API contracts, data format mismatches" : "Technology selection driven by familiarity rather than fit-for-purpose analysis",
+        "Engineering team context-switching cost - the real cost is invisible in velocity metrics",
+        hasVendor ? "Vendor lock-in: once embedded, switching cost often exceeds original build cost" : "Internal build underestimating operational surface area (monitoring, alerting, scaling, on-call)",
+        "Tech debt accrual during fast-build phases that blocks future features",
+        hasSecurity ? "Security surface area expansion that security team hasn't scoped yet" : "Observability gaps that make production incidents hard to diagnose",
+    ]);
+    const opportunities = pick(depth, ["Modernize architecture on the back of this investment", "Build reusable infrastructure"], [
+        "Use this initiative to pay down architectural debt in the affected surface",
+        hasVendor ? "Evaluate buy vs build with a clear 3-year TCO model before defaulting to build" : "Build shared platform capabilities that benefit multiple future features",
+        hasDataAI ? "Instrument the system for data capture that unlocks future AI/ML capability" : "Introduce abstraction layers that increase future flexibility",
+        "Raise the engineering team's capability through exposure to new problem domains",
+    ], [
+        "Rebuild the affected system components on a cleaner architecture using this as justification",
+        hasVendor ? "Negotiate a build-vs-buy inflection point: buy now, build later when the volume justifies it" : "Build internal platform capabilities that create compounding leverage across teams",
+        hasDataAI ? "Design for data observability from day one - instrument everything, aggregate later" : "Establish clear API contracts and service boundaries that prevent future coupling",
+        "Create internal tooling that improves developer experience and reduces toil",
+        "Use this as a reference implementation for future architectural standards",
+        "Invest in testing infrastructure so this can ship fast without quality regression",
+    ]);
+    return {
+        role: "CTO",
+        title: ROLE_META.CTO.title,
+        assessment: `Technical assessment requires separating the build complexity from the integration complexity - they are different problems. ${hasVendor ? "The build-vs-buy question deserves a disciplined 3-year TCO analysis including migration cost, vendor risk, and the opportunity cost of not building in-house." : "The in-house build path needs honest capacity accounting - not just initial dev time but ongoing ops burden."} ${hasTech ? "The technical surface area here is non-trivial. Architecture decisions made now will constrain options 18-24 months out." : "The technology dimension is secondary to the data and integration challenges."} ${hasDataAI ? "AI/ML features require data infrastructure that is often more work than the model itself." : ""}${focus === "risk" ? " From a technical risk standpoint, the biggest danger is unknown unknowns in system integration - budget for discovery time." : ""}`,
+        risks,
+        opportunities,
+        recommendation: hasVendor
+            ? "Run a build-vs-buy evaluation with a strict 30-day timeframe. Include 3-year TCO, vendor stability, and data portability in the criteria."
+            : "Prototype the highest-uncertainty component first. De-risk the architectural unknowns before committing the full team.",
+        confidence: hasTech ? "medium" : "high",
+        priority_flags: [
+            ...(hasTech ? ["Schedule a technical spike to validate the highest-uncertainty assumption"] : []),
+            ...(hasVendor ? ["Run buy-vs-build analysis before any engineering starts"] : []),
+            ...(hasSecurity ? ["Loop in security team before architecture is finalized"] : []),
+            "Define the performance and scale requirements before any implementation begins",
+        ],
+    };
+}
+function analyzeCFO(scenario, context, depth, signals, focus) {
+    const hasFinancial = signals.has("financial");
+    const hasGrowth = signals.has("growth");
+    const hasRevenue = signals.has("revenue");
+    const risks = pick(depth, ["ROI timeline longer than projected", "Budget overrun from scope creep"], [
+        "ROI timeline extending beyond planning horizon, creating a funding gap",
+        hasGrowth ? "Customer acquisition cost (CAC) rising as the channel scales" : "Costs front-loaded before revenue materializes",
+        "Budget overrun from scope expansion during execution",
+        "Cash flow impact if upfront investment is larger than projected",
+    ], [
+        "Payback period extending: initial ROI models are almost always optimistic, budget for a 30% overrun",
+        hasGrowth ? "CAC inflation as early-channel efficiency doesn't hold at scale" : "Revenue recognition timing mismatch with cost outflow",
+        "Hidden costs: integration, training, change management, and ongoing ops are routinely underestimated",
+        "Opportunity cost: capital and people deployed here are unavailable for alternatives with potentially better returns",
+        hasRevenue ? "Revenue leakage through pricing model weaknesses exposed at scale" : "Margin compression if this creates ongoing variable costs without matching revenue",
+        "Foreign exchange or contractual risk if vendors or customers are in multiple currencies",
+    ]);
+    const opportunities = pick(depth, ["New revenue stream or cost reduction", "Improved unit economics at scale"], [
+        hasRevenue ? "New revenue stream with incremental margins above current blended average" : "Cost reduction through process automation or vendor consolidation",
+        "Improved unit economics as fixed costs amortize across larger volume",
+        "Valuation multiple expansion if this moves the company into a higher-value category",
+        "Financial data and instrumentation gaps closed, improving forecasting accuracy",
+    ], [
+        hasRevenue ? "Land a new revenue stream with expansion potential and favorable margin profile" : "Structural cost reduction that persists and compounds over time",
+        "Unit economics improvement: lower CAC, higher LTV, or both",
+        "Reduce revenue concentration risk by diversifying customer base or revenue streams",
+        "Financial leverage: use this initiative to renegotiate terms with existing vendors",
+        "Demonstrate capital efficiency that improves investor confidence and valuation story",
+        "Create financial visibility into a previously opaque cost or revenue area",
+    ]);
+    const confidence = hasFinancial ? "high" : "medium";
+    return {
+        role: "CFO",
+        title: ROLE_META.CFO.title,
+        assessment: `The financial framing is straightforward: what is the IRR, what is the payback period, and how does it compare to alternative uses of capital? ${hasFinancial ? "The financial signals in this scenario suggest costs and revenues are both in play - the model needs to be stress-tested under pessimistic assumptions, not just base case." : "Financial impact needs to be modeled explicitly - vague revenue potential is not a financial case."} ${hasGrowth ? "Growth initiatives have a habit of consuming more capital than forecast once CAC at scale is properly modeled." : ""} The CFO view is not just about saying no - it is about making sure the financial case is honest and the downside is bounded.${focus === "cost" ? " Cost focus: map all cost components including hidden ops and integration overhead before approving any budget." : focus === "growth" ? " Growth investment should be tied to specific unit economics targets, not just topline." : ""}`,
+        risks,
+        opportunities,
+        recommendation: "Build a financial model with three scenarios (optimistic, base, pessimistic) before approving budget. Tie any go-ahead to specific financial milestones that trigger continued investment.",
+        confidence,
+        priority_flags: [
+            "Model the downside scenario, not just base case",
+            ...(hasGrowth ? ["Validate unit economics (CAC, LTV, payback) before scaling spend"] : []),
+            "Define financial success metrics and review cadence upfront",
+            ...(hasRevenue ? ["Confirm revenue recognition timing with accounting before committing"] : []),
+        ],
+    };
+}
+function analyzeCMO(scenario, context, depth, signals, focus) {
+    const hasGrowth = signals.has("growth");
+    const hasCustomer = signals.has("customer");
+    const hasRevenue = signals.has("revenue");
+    const risks = pick(depth, ["Brand dilution or mixed message in market", "Misaligned customer expectations"], [
+        "Brand message dilution if this creates mixed signals about who we are and who we serve",
+        hasCustomer ? "Customer expectation mismatch leading to dissatisfaction at launch" : "Market confusion about the positioning of the new offering vs existing",
+        "Competitive response copying the idea faster or cheaper",
+        hasRevenue ? "Pricing strategy conflict between new and existing revenue streams" : "Demand generation gap - feature exists but no one knows about it",
+    ], [
+        "Brand coherence risk: each new initiative either reinforces or fragments the brand narrative",
+        hasCustomer ? "Customer journey disruption if this changes how people discover, try, or buy" : "Market positioning ambiguity - is this for existing customers, new segments, or both?",
+        "Channel conflict if this competes with or undercuts existing revenue paths",
+        "Competitive response: incumbents with more resources can clone quickly if the differentiation is shallow",
+        "Launch narrative problem: if we can't explain it simply, market adoption will be slow",
+        hasRevenue ? "Revenue attribution confusion across marketing and sales as new streams complicate the funnel" : "Content and campaign strategy build time often underestimated in launch plans",
+    ]);
+    const opportunities = pick(depth, ["New growth channel or audience segment", "Brand positioning lift"], [
+        hasGrowth ? "Reach a new audience segment currently outside the funnel" : "Deepen engagement and value perception with existing customers",
+        "Sharpen the brand story with a concrete, demonstrable proof point",
+        "Create content and PR moments that generate organic reach",
+        hasRevenue ? "Expand revenue per customer through a new pricing tier or add-on" : "Increase conversion by addressing a specific objection or barrier to purchase",
+    ], [
+        hasGrowth ? "Open a new acquisition channel with better economics than existing ones" : "Create a flywheel: customers become advocates, reducing paid acquisition dependency",
+        "Establish category leadership by defining the terms of the conversation",
+        "Generate high-quality content marketing assets from the initiative itself",
+        "Build community around the new capability, creating ongoing engagement and retention",
+        hasRevenue ? "Launch a premium tier or upsell path that monetizes existing engaged users" : "Use launch as a re-engagement moment for lapsed or dormant customers",
+        "Create a competitive moat through brand association with the problem being solved",
+    ]);
+    return {
+        role: "CMO",
+        title: ROLE_META.CMO.title,
+        assessment: `Marketing perspective: positioning and timing are as important as the product decision itself. ${hasGrowth ? "Growth requires both reaching new people and converting them - both halves need a plan." : "Deepening existing customer value is often more capital-efficient than acquiring new ones."} ${hasCustomer ? "The customer experience around this needs to be mapped end-to-end - acquisition is only the first step." : ""} The CMO lens is not just about campaigns - it is about making sure the market story is coherent, the launch has a hook, and the narrative reinforces strategic positioning rather than muddying it.${focus === "growth" ? " Growth lens: every marketing dollar should be tied to a measurable acquisition or retention outcome." : ""}`,
+        risks,
+        opportunities,
+        recommendation: hasGrowth
+            ? "Run a positioning workshop before launch. Define the ICP, the one-line value prop, and the differentiation proof point before building any campaigns."
+            : "Develop the customer narrative first, then work backwards to the feature messaging. Customers buy outcomes, not features.",
+        confidence: hasCustomer ? "high" : "medium",
+        priority_flags: [
+            "Define the target audience and messaging hierarchy before building any assets",
+            ...(hasGrowth ? ["Map the full funnel: awareness, consideration, conversion, and retention"] : []),
+            "Align sales and marketing on qualification criteria and handoff process",
+        ],
+    };
+}
+function analyzeCIO(scenario, context, depth, signals, focus) {
+    const hasTech = signals.has("technical");
+    const hasDataAI = signals.has("data_ai");
+    const hasVendor = signals.has("vendor");
+    const hasSecurity = signals.has("security");
+    const risks = pick(depth, ["Integration complexity with existing systems", "Data silos created"], [
+        "Integration debt: new systems rarely integrate cleanly with existing ones on first attempt",
+        hasDataAI ? "Data fragmentation creating inconsistent reporting and analytics" : "Shadow IT emerging if official systems don't serve user needs",
+        hasVendor ? "Vendor interoperability gaps discovered post-contract" : "Legacy system compatibility constraints limiting what is actually buildable",
+        "Digital transformation initiative fatigue if users have been through too many system changes",
+    ], [
+        "Systems integration complexity: every new system touches multiple existing ones in non-obvious ways",
+        hasDataAI ? "Data governance breakdown if new data flows are not mapped and managed from day one" : "Information architecture inconsistency creating long-term analytical confusion",
+        "User adoption failure: technically correct systems that no one uses create zombie infrastructure",
+        hasVendor ? "Vendor ecosystem fragmentation increasing total maintenance burden" : "Internal build creating a long-lived system that becomes next year's legacy problem",
+        "API contract brittleness: undocumented or informal integrations break silently",
+        hasSecurity ? "Access control complexity when new systems add new permission surfaces" : "Disaster recovery and business continuity gaps in new system design",
+    ]);
+    const opportunities = pick(depth, ["Modernize information architecture", "Consolidate tools and reduce platform sprawl"], [
+        "Consolidate fragmented tools into a more coherent information architecture",
+        hasDataAI ? "Create a unified data layer that serves analytics, AI, and operations from one source" : "Standardize APIs and integration patterns that benefit all future system work",
+        "Reduce IT support burden through better tooling and automation",
+        hasVendor ? "Renegotiate the vendor landscape for better pricing and fewer contracts" : "Build internal capability that reduces external dependency over time",
+    ], [
+        "Use this as a catalyst to modernize the information architecture across the affected domain",
+        hasDataAI ? "Implement a data mesh or data fabric approach that enables real-time analytics at scale" : "Establish an enterprise integration layer that standardizes how systems communicate",
+        "Reduce platform sprawl by consolidating overlapping tools during the transition",
+        "Build an internal developer platform that improves velocity for all future digital initiatives",
+        "Create a knowledge management layer on top of systems so institutional knowledge survives turnover",
+        "Establish clear data ownership and stewardship roles as a structural improvement",
+    ]);
+    return {
+        role: "CIO",
+        title: ROLE_META.CIO.title,
+        assessment: `The information systems lens asks: how does this fit in the existing architecture, what integration work is needed, and what are the data governance implications? ${hasTech ? "Technical implementation here carries significant integration risk - the real complexity is almost always in the connections between systems, not the systems themselves." : ""} ${hasDataAI ? "Data strategy needs to be designed before implementation begins, not retrofitted after." : ""} ${hasVendor ? "New vendor additions increase the total ecosystem complexity - evaluate whether this adds net capability or just net maintenance cost." : ""} The CIO perspective is about long-term information coherence, not just whether the immediate system works.${focus === "risk" ? " Information risk: unmanaged data flows and undocumented integrations are the most common source of operational incidents." : ""}`,
+        risks,
+        opportunities,
+        recommendation: hasTech
+            ? "Conduct an integration mapping exercise before procurement or build begins. Identify every touchpoint with existing systems and quantify the integration cost."
+            : "Define the information architecture requirements before selecting a solution. The solution must fit the architecture, not the other way around.",
+        confidence: "medium",
+        priority_flags: [
+            "Map all integration touchpoints before committing to any solution",
+            ...(hasDataAI ? ["Define data ownership and governance model on day one"] : []),
+            ...(hasSecurity ? ["Include information security in the architecture review"] : []),
+        ],
+    };
+}
+function analyzeCHRO(scenario, context, depth, signals, focus) {
+    const hasPeople = signals.has("people");
+    const hasGrowth = signals.has("growth");
+    const hasUrgency = signals.has("urgency");
+    const risks = pick(depth, ["Key person dependency and talent gap", "Culture disruption"], [
+        hasPeople ? "Key person dependency risk if this relies on one or two critical hires or existing staff" : "Skills gap: required capabilities may not exist internally",
+        "Culture mismatch if this requires ways of working that conflict with current norms",
+        hasGrowth ? "Hiring market competition driving up cost and time-to-fill for key roles" : "Change fatigue if the organization is already absorbing significant transformation",
+        "Manager bandwidth: leaders who own delivery are often not equipped to manage the change simultaneously",
+    ], [
+        hasPeople ? "Single points of failure: if this depends on two or three people and one leaves, the initiative stalls" : "Capability gap requiring hiring that takes 3-6 months minimum to close",
+        "Organizational change resistance - the social dynamics of this change need active management",
+        hasGrowth ? "Hiring plan is almost always on the critical path but treated as an afterthought in planning" : "Span of control problems as managers are asked to absorb new scope",
+        "Compensation equity issues if new hires come in at rates that create internal resentment",
+        "Culture dilution risk if growth outpaces culture transmission",
+        hasUrgency ? "Rushed hiring decisions create performance and culture problems that take years to resolve" : "Promotion and succession planning gaps exposed when initiative creates new leadership roles",
+    ]);
+    const opportunities = pick(depth, ["Talent development and capability building", "Culture reinforcement through shared initiative"], [
+        "Use this initiative to develop internal talent and reduce external hiring dependency over time",
+        "Strengthen culture by creating shared purpose and visible wins for the team",
+        hasGrowth ? "Build a talent brand that attracts future hires aligned with the growth trajectory" : "Identify high-potential employees by seeing who thrives in the new context",
+        "Create new career paths that improve retention of ambitious employees",
+    ], [
+        "Build internal capability that compounds: every person who grows through this becomes a force multiplier",
+        "Use this as a culture-building moment: how we handle this shapes the org's identity",
+        hasGrowth ? "Establish the hiring infrastructure (sourcing, screening, onboarding) that scales with the company" : "Design org structure proactively rather than reactively as scope expands",
+        "Identify and invest in the high-performers who will own the next wave of growth",
+        "Create psychological safety structures that allow honest escalation when things are not working",
+        "Implement feedback loops so people issues surface early rather than becoming retention problems",
+    ]);
+    return {
+        role: "CHRO",
+        title: ROLE_META.CHRO.title,
+        assessment: `The people dimension is often the longest-lead-time constraint in any initiative. ${hasPeople ? "This scenario has direct people implications - org design, hiring, and change management need to be planned at the same time as the business decision, not after." : "Even initiatives that don't seem people-intensive require someone to own them and teams to execute."} ${hasGrowth ? "Growth without a hiring and development plan is a trajectory toward burnout and churn." : ""} ${hasUrgency ? "Urgency pressure creates bad hiring decisions - the cost of a wrong hire is always higher than the cost of a delay." : ""} The CHRO lens is about ensuring the human system can support the business decision.${focus === "growth" ? " People are the rate-limiting factor in growth - hiring and development plans need to be on the critical path." : ""}`,
+        risks,
+        opportunities,
+        recommendation: hasPeople
+            ? "Build the org design and hiring plan before locking the delivery timeline. The people plan IS the timeline."
+            : "Identify the people dependencies for this initiative and stress-test whether existing staff can absorb the new scope without impacting other commitments.",
+        confidence: hasUrgency ? "low" : "medium",
+        priority_flags: [
+            ...(hasPeople ? ["Build hiring plan in parallel with the business case - not after"] : []),
+            "Identify the DRI and their capacity before kickoff",
+            "Plan the change management communications from the start",
+        ],
+    };
+}
+function analyzeCDO(scenario, context, depth, signals, focus) {
+    const hasDataAI = signals.has("data_ai");
+    const hasSecurity = signals.has("security");
+    const hasTech = signals.has("technical");
+    const risks = pick(depth, ["Data quality and governance gaps", "Compliance and privacy exposure"], [
+        "Data quality degradation if new sources are added without governance controls",
+        hasSecurity ? "Privacy and regulatory compliance exposure if personal data is involved" : "Data lineage gaps creating audit and debugging problems",
+        "Analytical blind spots from inconsistent data definitions across teams",
+        hasDataAI ? "Model training data bias or leakage if data pipelines are not properly isolated" : "Reporting inconsistency if multiple teams query the same data differently",
+    ], [
+        "Data governance breakdown: ungoverned data creates liability faster than it creates value",
+        hasSecurity ? "GDPR/CCPA/HIPAA exposure if PII flows are not mapped and consented correctly" : "Data quality erosion from untested pipelines creating silent analytical errors",
+        "Data silos forming as teams instrument independently without coordination",
+        "Metadata and lineage gaps making it impossible to audit data origin for compliance",
+        hasDataAI ? "AI training data contamination: using production data in models without proper anonymization" : "Analytical model drift as underlying data distributions change without detection",
+        "Access control sprawl: every new data source expands the permission management surface",
+    ]);
+    const opportunities = pick(depth, ["New analytical insights from new data source", "Improve data infrastructure maturity"], [
+        hasDataAI ? "Create a new training dataset or behavioral signal that improves model performance" : "Instrument a previously unobserved business process and surface new insights",
+        "Improve data infrastructure maturity as a by-product of the initiative",
+        "Establish data contracts and quality standards that benefit all downstream consumers",
+        "Build a competitive advantage from proprietary data that compounds with scale",
+    ], [
+        hasDataAI ? "Create a proprietary data asset that provides a durable AI competitive advantage" : "Build a 360-degree view of a key business entity (customer, product, operation) currently fragmented",
+        "Implement a modern data stack component (event streaming, feature store, semantic layer) that benefits all data use cases",
+        "Establish data literacy and self-service analytics capabilities that reduce bottlenecks",
+        "Create a data product that becomes a revenue or cost-saving asset in its own right",
+        "Close the feedback loop between operational data and strategic decision-making",
+        "Build ethical AI and data governance frameworks that become a trust differentiator",
+    ]);
+    return {
+        role: "CDO",
+        title: ROLE_META.CDO.title,
+        assessment: `Data governance is not optional at any scale - it is either planned or it is chaos. ${hasDataAI ? "AI and analytics opportunities here are real, but they require clean, governed, and well-documented data to be reliable." : "The data implications of this decision need to be mapped before implementation begins, not discovered in production."} ${hasSecurity ? "Any initiative involving personal or sensitive data needs a privacy impact assessment as a prerequisite, not an afterthought." : ""} The CDO view is that data is an asset with both value and liability dimensions - both must be managed explicitly.${focus === "risk" ? " Data risk: ungoverned data is both a regulatory liability and a source of silent analytical errors that corrupt decisions." : ""}`,
+        risks,
+        opportunities,
+        recommendation: hasSecurity
+            ? "Conduct a data privacy impact assessment before any implementation. Map all PII flows, storage locations, and access controls."
+            : "Define the data schema, ownership, and quality standards before building any data pipelines. Retrofitting governance is 5x the cost of building it in.",
+        confidence: hasDataAI ? "high" : "medium",
+        priority_flags: [
+            ...(hasSecurity ? ["Conduct privacy impact assessment before implementation"] : []),
+            "Define data ownership and stewardship before pipelines are built",
+            ...(hasDataAI ? ["Document training data lineage and validation approach upfront"] : []),
+        ],
+    };
+}
+function analyzeCPO(scenario, context, depth, signals, focus) {
+    const hasProduct = signals.has("product");
+    const hasCustomer = signals.has("customer");
+    const hasGrowth = signals.has("growth");
+    const risks = pick(depth, ["Product-market fit uncertainty", "Roadmap disruption"], [
+        "Product-market fit uncertainty: building without validated demand is the most common product failure mode",
+        "Roadmap disruption: adding scope here has a cascade effect on committed deliverables",
+        hasCustomer ? "User experience regression if this adds complexity without proportional value" : "Feature complexity that increases cognitive load and reduces product clarity",
+        hasGrowth ? "Premature scaling before the core user loop is proven" : "Scope creep under the guise of completeness",
+    ], [
+        "Product-market fit risk: every unvalidated assumption is a potential wasted build",
+        "Opportunity cost: this replaces something else on the roadmap - what is not getting built?",
+        hasCustomer ? "User experience degradation: adding features without removing complexity is a slow product death" : "Product strategy dilution if this pulls the product in a direction that serves edge cases over core users",
+        "Technical product debt: decisions made for speed create constraints that limit future product options",
+        hasGrowth ? "Metrics gaming: optimizing for growth metrics that don't represent genuine user value" : "Retention impact: new features often degrade retention of existing users through disruption",
+        "Competitive positioning confusion if this blurs what the product is for",
+    ]);
+    const opportunities = pick(depth, ["Deepen user value and engagement", "Expand addressable market"], [
+        hasCustomer ? "Deepen the core user value loop in a way that measurably improves retention" : "Address a high-value user job-to-be-done that is currently unserved",
+        hasGrowth ? "Expand addressable market by serving an adjacent user segment with similar needs" : "Create a compelling new product surface that increases engagement frequency",
+        "Generate a product differentiator that is hard for competitors to copy quickly",
+        "Create a platform foundation that unlocks multiple future product capabilities",
+    ], [
+        hasCustomer ? "Close a critical user pain point that is measurably reducing NPS or increasing churn" : "Build toward a product vision that makes the core use case dramatically better",
+        hasGrowth ? "Design a growth loop native to the product rather than dependent on paid acquisition" : "Create a 'wow moment' that improves activation and reduces time-to-value for new users",
+        "Establish a product moat through accumulated user data, behavior patterns, or network effects",
+        "Use this as an opportunity to reduce product complexity while adding net capability",
+        "Build the feedback infrastructure to make this iterative rather than a one-shot bet",
+        "Create a testable hypothesis framework: define what success looks like before building",
+    ]);
+    return {
+        role: "CPO",
+        title: ROLE_META.CPO.title,
+        assessment: `Product thinking starts with the user problem, not the solution. ${hasCustomer ? "Customer signals are present in this scenario - have those been translated into specific user stories with validated demand?" : "Before building, the product team needs to validate that users actually want this, not just that internal stakeholders think they will."} ${hasGrowth ? "Growth-oriented product work requires a clear theory of how user behavior changes, not just a feature shipping date." : ""} ${hasProduct ? "Roadmap impact needs to be assessed honestly - every addition displaces something else." : ""} The CPO lens is about ruthless prioritization and validated demand.${focus === "growth" ? " Product-led growth requires designing the growth loop into the product itself, not bolting acquisition on afterwards." : ""}`,
+        risks,
+        opportunities,
+        recommendation: hasCustomer
+            ? "Define the specific user problem and validation method before any design or engineering work begins. Talk to 5 users first."
+            : "Write a one-page product brief: problem statement, target user, success metrics, and explicit non-goals. Align the team before building.",
+        confidence: hasProduct ? "high" : "medium",
+        priority_flags: [
+            "Validate user demand with research before committing engineering time",
+            "Define the success metric and measurement plan before kickoff",
+            ...(hasGrowth ? ["Map the full user journey and identify where the growth lever actually sits"] : []),
+        ],
+    };
+}
+function analyzeCSO(scenario, context, depth, signals, focus) {
+    const hasSecurity = signals.has("security");
+    const hasTech = signals.has("technical");
+    const hasDataAI = signals.has("data_ai");
+    const hasVendor = signals.has("vendor");
+    const risks = pick(depth, ["Expanded attack surface", "Compliance gap"], [
+        "Attack surface expansion from new systems, integrations, or data flows",
+        hasSecurity ? "Existing compliance obligations may extend to the new scope in non-obvious ways" : "Security review bypassed under time pressure creating latent vulnerabilities",
+        hasVendor ? "Third-party vendor security posture not validated before integration" : "Internal development skipping security review to hit deadlines",
+        "Incident response complexity increased if new systems are added without documentation",
+    ], [
+        "Attack surface expansion: every new system, integration point, and data store is a new entry vector",
+        hasSecurity ? "Regulatory compliance extension: GDPR, SOC2, ISO27001, and sector-specific rules may apply to new scope" : "Security debt accumulation from features shipped without security review",
+        hasVendor ? "Third-party risk: vendor breaches can expose your data and customers without your fault" : "Secrets management and credential rotation scope expanding without corresponding controls",
+        "Identity and access management complexity: every new system adds new permission surfaces",
+        "Supply chain risk if new dependencies (open source or commercial) have undisclosed vulnerabilities",
+        hasDataAI ? "AI-specific risks: prompt injection, model poisoning, output manipulation" : "Social engineering surface expansion as more people are onboarded to new systems",
+    ]);
+    const opportunities = pick(depth, ["Security architecture modernization", "Compliance posture improvement"], [
+        "Use this initiative to modernize security architecture in the affected domain",
+        "Implement zero-trust principles that improve security posture across the board",
+        hasSecurity ? "Achieve a compliance certification that unlocks enterprise sales opportunities" : "Build security tooling that reduces toil and improves detection speed",
+        "Create a security-by-design culture that prevents vulnerabilities rather than finding them post-deployment",
+    ], [
+        "Security-by-design: building security controls into the architecture from the start costs 10x less than retrofitting",
+        hasSecurity ? "Use this to achieve SOC2/ISO27001 certification that removes security as a sales blocker" : "Establish threat modeling as a standard practice for all future initiatives",
+        "Implement automated security scanning in CI/CD that catches vulnerabilities before they ship",
+        "Build a security observability layer that enables faster incident detection and response",
+        "Create clear security policies and training that reduce the human factor risk",
+        hasDataAI ? "Establish AI safety guardrails that protect against new threat vectors before they are exploited" : "Consolidate identity management to reduce the permission surface across the organization",
+    ]);
+    return {
+        role: "CSO",
+        title: ROLE_META.CSO.title,
+        assessment: `Security is not a gate to pass at the end - it is a property to design in from the beginning. ${hasSecurity ? "The security signals in this scenario are significant. This needs a formal threat model and risk assessment before implementation." : "Even initiatives without obvious security implications need to be assessed - the ones that seem low-risk are often where the gaps are found."} ${hasVendor ? "Third-party vendor security posture needs validation before any integration - a breach in their system becomes your liability." : ""} ${hasDataAI ? "AI systems introduce novel threat vectors (prompt injection, data extraction, model manipulation) that require specific mitigations." : ""} The CSO lens is about making sure security enables the business rather than blocking it - but that requires honest risk assessment upfront.${focus === "risk" ? " Security risk: the most dangerous vulnerabilities are the ones introduced under time pressure and never reviewed." : ""}`,
+        risks,
+        opportunities,
+        recommendation: hasSecurity
+            ? "Require a formal threat model and security architecture review before development begins. Define security acceptance criteria alongside functional requirements."
+            : "Include security in the design review process. Add a security checkpoint to the delivery workflow - it is much cheaper than a post-launch incident.",
+        confidence: hasSecurity ? "high" : "medium",
+        priority_flags: [
+            "Include security in architecture design before implementation starts",
+            ...(hasVendor ? ["Complete vendor security assessment before contract signing"] : []),
+            ...(hasDataAI ? ["Define AI-specific security controls for this use case"] : []),
+            ...(hasSecurity ? ["Identify applicable compliance frameworks and map requirements to deliverables"] : []),
+        ],
+    };
+}
+function analyzeCCO(scenario, context, depth, signals, focus) {
+    const hasCustomer = signals.has("customer");
+    const hasGrowth = signals.has("growth");
+    const hasProduct = signals.has("product");
+    const risks = pick(depth, ["Support burden spike", "Customer churn from experience disruption"], [
+        hasCustomer ? "Customer churn if the change creates friction in an already-used workflow" : "Support ticket volume spike from customers who don't understand the change",
+        "NPS and satisfaction score degradation during transition periods",
+        hasGrowth ? "New customer onboarding complexity increasing time-to-value" : "Existing customer confusion if this changes the product they bought",
+        "Customer success team capacity strain absorbing increased support demand",
+    ], [
+        "Churn risk: customers who have built their workflows around the current product will resist disruption",
+        "Support surge: even positive changes generate support volume as customers adapt",
+        hasCustomer ? "Trust erosion if customers feel this was done to them rather than for them" : "Onboarding complexity increase that raises the barrier for new customers",
+        hasGrowth ? "Customer success capacity mismatch if growth outpaces support team scaling" : "Account health degradation as CSMs are distracted by reactive support instead of proactive engagement",
+        "Contract renewal risk for enterprise accounts if the change affects their use case",
+        "Community and forum sentiment risk if early adopters react negatively and amplify criticism",
+    ]);
+    const opportunities = pick(depth, ["Deepen customer relationships", "Reduce churn and expand retention"], [
+        hasCustomer ? "Use the change as a proactive outreach moment to deepen customer relationships" : "Identify and solve a customer pain point that has been reducing retention",
+        "Create customer advocacy moments among early adopters who benefit most",
+        hasGrowth ? "Design an onboarding experience that accelerates time-to-value for new customers" : "Build customer feedback infrastructure that continuously surfaces issues before they become churn",
+        "Strengthen customer success playbooks with new tools or workflows",
+    ], [
+        "Proactive customer communication can convert a potential disruption into a trust-building moment",
+        "Use this as an opportunity to identify and invest in the customer segments with highest lifetime value",
+        hasCustomer ? "Build a customer advisory board around this change to get early input and create advocates" : "Instrument customer health scoring to identify at-risk accounts before they churn",
+        hasGrowth ? "Design onboarding for scale: self-serve flows that reduce CSM load per customer" : "Create a structured success planning process that ties customer goals to product usage",
+        "Surface upsell and expansion opportunities uncovered by the change",
+        "Build a community platform that lets customers help each other and reduces support cost",
+    ]);
+    return {
+        role: "CCO",
+        title: ROLE_META.CCO.title,
+        assessment: `Customer experience is the leading indicator that financial metrics lag. ${hasCustomer ? "Customer signals here need to be taken seriously - they are telling you something about current satisfaction and risk tolerance for change." : "Even if customers are not directly mentioned, every business decision eventually reaches the customer."} ${hasGrowth ? "Growth means new customers - and new customers need a clear, fast path to value or they churn before they see the product's full capability." : ""} The CCO view is that every internal decision is also a customer decision - the question is whether it is made consciously.${focus === "growth" ? " CCO growth lens: retention is a growth lever. Reducing churn by 5% can have more impact than 20% more acquisition spend." : ""}`,
+        risks,
+        opportunities,
+        recommendation: hasCustomer
+            ? "Develop a customer communication plan before launch. Proactive communication about changes reduces support volume and churn risk by 40-60%."
+            : "Map the customer touchpoints affected by this decision and define the experience for each. Assign customer impact as a first-class success criterion.",
+        confidence: hasCustomer ? "high" : "medium",
+        priority_flags: [
+            "Define the customer communication plan before launch date",
+            ...(hasCustomer ? ["Identify at-risk accounts and assign proactive outreach owners"] : []),
+            "Set support team capacity to absorb expected inquiry spike",
+        ],
+    };
+}
+function analyzeCAIO(scenario, context, depth, signals, focus) {
+    const hasDataAI = signals.has("data_ai");
+    const hasTech = signals.has("technical");
+    const hasSecurity = signals.has("security");
+    const hasGrowth = signals.has("growth");
+    const risks = pick(depth, ["AI ethics and bias concerns", "Model reliability and hallucination risk"], [
+        hasDataAI ? "Model reliability issues (hallucination, inconsistency) in production creating trust erosion" : "AI automation displacing workflows without adequate human oversight",
+        "AI ethics and bias concerns if the model reflects or amplifies inequities in training data",
+        "Regulatory uncertainty: AI regulation is evolving rapidly and compliance requirements may change mid-implementation",
+        hasSecurity ? "AI-specific security vectors: prompt injection, data extraction, model inversion" : "Over-reliance on AI output without sufficient human-in-the-loop controls",
+    ], [
+        hasDataAI ? "Model reliability in production: LLMs and ML models behave differently under edge cases than in test conditions" : "Automation fragility: AI systems that work well in demo conditions often degrade on real-world data distributions",
+        "AI ethics surface: bias, fairness, transparency, and explainability requirements vary by use case and jurisdiction",
+        "Regulatory exposure: EU AI Act, sector-specific AI rules, and evolving litigation risk create compliance uncertainty",
+        "AI dependency risk: if AI capability is core to the product and the model is third-party, the supply chain is fragile",
+        hasSecurity ? "Adversarial attack surface: prompt injection, jailbreaking, and data extraction are real and growing threats" : "Human oversight gap: automated systems without escalation paths create accountability voids",
+        "Competitive displacement: AI capability is not a static moat - the landscape shifts every 6 months",
+    ]);
+    const opportunities = pick(depth, ["Automate high-volume manual processes", "Build AI-native competitive advantage"], [
+        hasDataAI ? "Use AI to automate the high-volume, low-judgment parts of this workflow at 10-100x the throughput" : "Apply AI to a currently manual decision process to improve speed and consistency",
+        "Build a proprietary AI capability that creates a competitive moat",
+        hasGrowth ? "Use AI to reduce CAC through better targeting and personalization" : "Use AI to reduce operational cost while maintaining or improving quality",
+        "Create an AI feedback loop that improves with use and compounds over time",
+    ], [
+        hasDataAI ? "Build a specialized AI capability on top of proprietary data that general models cannot replicate" : "Apply AI to a problem domain where the cost-quality tradeoff vs humans is clearly favorable",
+        "Automate the high-volume, routine decisions in this domain to free human judgment for the cases that need it",
+        "Create an AI-native product experience that redefines user expectations in the category",
+        hasGrowth ? "Personalization and recommendation AI that improves conversion and retention metrics simultaneously" : "Operational AI that identifies inefficiencies and optimizations that humans miss in complex systems",
+        "Build an AI evaluation and red-teaming practice that maintains quality as models evolve",
+        "Develop AI governance frameworks that become a trust differentiator with enterprise customers",
+    ]);
+    return {
+        role: "CAIO",
+        title: ROLE_META.CAIO.title,
+        assessment: `The AI lens asks two questions: where does AI create disproportionate value here, and where does it create disproportionate risk? ${hasDataAI ? "AI opportunity is real but requires clean data, clear evaluation criteria, and human oversight design - not just a model call." : "AI can likely play a role in this scenario even if it is not obviously an AI problem - the question is where automation creates leverage."} ${hasSecurity ? "AI security is a distinct discipline from traditional security - prompt injection and data extraction attacks require specific mitigations." : ""} The CAIO perspective is that AI capability is moving faster than most organizations can safely absorb - the competitive advantage goes to whoever gets the human-AI collaboration model right, not whoever deploys AI fastest.${focus === "growth" ? " AI growth lever: personalization and automation can compound growth in ways that human-only approaches cannot match at scale." : ""}`,
+        risks,
+        opportunities,
+        recommendation: hasDataAI
+            ? "Define the evaluation criteria and acceptable error rate before building. For AI features, you need to know what 'good enough' looks like before you can ship responsibly."
+            : "Map the decision points in this scenario where AI could provide leverage, then prioritize by value vs risk vs implementation complexity. Start with the highest-confidence, lowest-risk application.",
+        confidence: hasDataAI ? "high" : "medium",
+        priority_flags: [
+            ...(hasDataAI ? ["Define model evaluation criteria and acceptable error rates before building"] : []),
+            "Design human-in-the-loop escalation paths for AI-driven decisions",
+            ...(hasSecurity ? ["Conduct AI-specific threat model for prompt injection and data extraction"] : []),
+            "Establish AI governance and monitoring from day one, not after launch",
+        ],
+    };
+}
+// ─── Consensus synthesis ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+function synthesizeConsensus(perspectives, scenario, depth) {
+    // Tally recommendations by action type
+    const recommendations = perspectives.map((p) => p.recommendation.toLowerCase());
+    const highConfidence = perspectives.filter((p) => p.confidence === "high").length;
+    const lowConfidence = perspectives.filter((p) => p.confidence === "low").length;
+    const totalConfidence = perspectives.length;
+    const cautionSignals = recommendations.filter((r) => /staged|validate|pilot|assess|review|evaluate|first|before|risk|model|test/i.test(r)).length;
+    const proceedSignals = recommendations.filter((r) => /proceed|move|forward|build|launch|implement|execute/i.test(r)).length;
+    const overallConfidence = lowConfidence >= 2 ? "low" :
+        highConfidence >= Math.ceil(totalConfidence * 0.6) ? "high" :
+            "medium";
+    // Find common priority flags
+    const allFlags = perspectives.flatMap((p) => p.priority_flags);
+    const flagCounts = {};
+    for (const f of allFlags) {
+        const key = f.toLowerCase().replace(/[^a-z ]/g, "").trim().split(" ").slice(0, 4).join(" ");
+        flagCounts[key] = (flagCounts[key] ?? 0) + 1;
+    }
+    // Common agreement points (themes appearing across multiple perspectives)
+    const agreementPoints = [];
+    const disagreementPoints = [];
+    // Check for common risk themes
+    const allRisks = perspectives.flatMap((p) => p.risks);
+    if (perspectives.some((p) => p.priority_flags.some((f) => /single.*responsible|dri|owner/i.test(f)))) {
+        agreementPoints.push("Ownership clarity is a prerequisite - multiple perspectives flag the absence of a clear DRI as a risk.");
+    }
+    if (cautionSignals >= Math.ceil(totalConfidence * 0.5)) {
+        agreementPoints.push("Majority of perspectives recommend validation or staged commitment before full resource deployment.");
+    }
+    if (allRisks.some((r) => /integrat/i.test(r)) && allRisks.filter((r) => /integrat/i.test(r)).length >= 2) {
+        agreementPoints.push("Integration complexity is flagged by multiple perspectives as an underestimated risk.");
+    }
+    if (perspectives.filter((p) => p.confidence === "high").length >= Math.ceil(totalConfidence * 0.5)) {
+        agreementPoints.push("More than half of perspectives express high confidence, indicating broad alignment that this is a viable initiative.");
+    }
+    // Tension points
+    if (proceedSignals > 0 && cautionSignals > 0) {
+        const proceedRoles = perspectives
+            .filter((p) => /proceed|move|forward|build|launch|implement|execute/i.test(p.recommendation))
+            .map((p) => p.role)
+            .join(", ");
+        const cautionRoles = perspectives
+            .filter((p) => /staged|validate|pilot|assess|review|evaluate|first|before|risk|model|test/i.test(p.recommendation))
+            .map((p) => p.role)
+            .join(", ");
+        if (proceedRoles && cautionRoles) {
+            disagreementPoints.push(`Speed vs rigor tension: ${proceedRoles} lean toward action while ${cautionRoles} recommend validation first.`);
+        }
+    }
+    // Check build vs buy tension
+    const buildSignals = perspectives.filter((p) => /internal|build|in.house/i.test(p.recommendation)).length;
+    const buySignals = perspectives.filter((p) => /vendor|buy|procure|outsource/i.test(p.recommendation)).length;
+    if (buildSignals > 0 && buySignals > 0) {
+        disagreementPoints.push("Build vs buy tension present: some perspectives favor internal development while others recommend evaluating vendor solutions.");
+    }
+    // Overall recommendation
+    let overallRec;
+    if (cautionSignals >= Math.ceil(totalConfidence * 0.6)) {
+        overallRec = "Run a time-boxed validation sprint (2-4 weeks) to de-risk the top 3 assumptions before committing full resources. Define explicit go/no-go criteria at the end of the sprint.";
+    }
+    else if (proceedSignals >= Math.ceil(totalConfidence * 0.6)) {
+        overallRec = "Proceed with full commitment. Assign a DRI, set a 90-day milestone, define success metrics, and establish a regular review cadence to catch issues early.";
+    }
+    else {
+        overallRec = "Proceed with a structured first phase: assign ownership, validate the two highest-uncertainty assumptions, and lock the business case before entering full execution mode.";
+    }
+    // Critical path
+    const criticalPath = (() => {
+        const hasPeopleFlag = perspectives.some((p) => p.priority_flags.some((f) => /hire|people|team|capacity/i.test(f)));
+        const hasSecurityFlag = perspectives.some((p) => p.priority_flags.some((f) => /security|compliance|privacy/i.test(f)));
+        const hasTechFlag = perspectives.some((p) => p.priority_flags.some((f) => /architect|spike|integrat|technical/i.test(f)));
+        const hasFinancialFlag = perspectives.some((p) => p.priority_flags.some((f) => /financial|budget|model|cost|roi/i.test(f)));
+        if (hasPeopleFlag)
+            return "People and organizational readiness - team capacity and hiring timeline is the most commonly flagged rate-limiting factor.";
+        if (hasSecurityFlag)
+            return "Security and compliance review - flagged as a blocker that cannot be parallelized with implementation.";
+        if (hasTechFlag)
+            return "Technical architecture validation - resolve the highest-uncertainty technical assumptions before committing the full team.";
+        if (hasFinancialFlag)
+            return "Financial model validation - the business case needs to be stress-tested before resources are committed.";
+        return "Decision alignment - ensure all stakeholders share the same understanding of the problem, success criteria, and constraints before execution begins.";
+    })();
+    // Watch list
+    const watchList = [
+        ...new Set(perspectives
+            .flatMap((p) => p.priority_flags)
+            .filter((f) => /before|first|validate|assess|define|map|require/i.test(f))
+            .slice(0, depth === "quick" ? 3 : depth === "standard" ? 4 : 6)),
+    ].slice(0, depth === "quick" ? 3 : depth === "standard" ? 4 : 6);
+    return {
+        overall_recommendation: overallRec,
+        confidence: overallConfidence,
+        agreement_points: agreementPoints.length > 0 ? agreementPoints : ["No strong consensus signals detected - perspectives are divergent. Treat this as a decision requiring careful deliberation."],
+        disagreement_points: disagreementPoints.length > 0 ? disagreementPoints : ["No significant tension points detected across perspectives."],
+        critical_path: criticalPath,
+        watch_list: watchList,
+    };
+}
+const ROLE_ANALYZERS = {
+    CEO: analyzeCEO,
+    COO: analyzeCOO,
+    CTO: analyzeCTO,
+    CFO: analyzeCFO,
+    CMO: analyzeCMO,
+    CIO: analyzeCIO,
+    CHRO: analyzeCHRO,
+    CDO: analyzeCDO,
+    CPO: analyzeCPO,
+    CSO: analyzeCSO,
+    CCO: analyzeCCO,
+    CAIO: analyzeCAIO,
+};
+const ALL_ROLES = ["CEO", "COO", "CTO", "CFO", "CMO", "CIO", "CHRO", "CDO", "CPO", "CSO", "CCO", "CAIO"];
+const VALID_ROLES = new Set(ALL_ROLES);
+// ─── Main export ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+export function csuitAnalyze(scenario, options = {}) {
+    const depth = options.depth ?? "standard";
+    const context = options.context ?? "";
+    const focus = options.focus;
+    // Resolve requested roles
+    let roles;
+    if (!options.perspectives || options.perspectives.length === 0) {
+        roles = ALL_ROLES;
+    }
+    else {
+        const invalid = options.perspectives.filter((r) => !VALID_ROLES.has(r.toUpperCase()));
+        if (invalid.length > 0) {
+            throw new Error(`Invalid perspective(s): ${invalid.join(", ")}. Valid options: ${ALL_ROLES.join(", ")}`);
+        }
+        roles = options.perspectives.map((r) => r.toUpperCase());
+    }
+    // Extract signals from scenario + context
+    const signals = extractSignals(scenario + " " + context);
+    // Run each role analyzer
+    const perspectives = roles.map((role) => ROLE_ANALYZERS[role](scenario, context, depth, signals, focus));
+    // Synthesize consensus
+    const consensus = synthesizeConsensus(perspectives, scenario, depth);
+    return {
+        scenario,
+        context: context || undefined,
+        depth,
+        perspectives_analyzed: perspectives.length,
+        perspectives,
+        consensus,
+    };
+}
+//# sourceMappingURL=csuite-tool.js.map