onto-mcp 0.3.0

package/.onto/domains/market-intelligence/domain_scope.md

@@ -0,0 +1,231 @@
+---
+version: 2
+last_updated: "2026-04-16"
+source: manual
+status: established
+---
+
+# Market Intelligence Domain — Domain Scope Definition
+
+This is the reference document used by coverage to identify "what should exist but is missing" in market intelligence systems.
+This domain applies when **reviewing** market intelligence systems — data collection, analysis, strategy derivation, and risk assessment for strategic decision-making.
+
+> **Boundary with business domain**: The business domain covers business model design, value proposition, organizational strategy. This domain covers the intelligence inputs that inform business strategy — market data, competitor analysis, risk assessment. Strategy formulation is business; strategy candidate generation from market analysis is here.
+
+> **Boundary with finance domain**: The finance domain covers financial reporting and analytical metrics derived from financial statements. This domain covers market-side analysis — competitor financial position as competitive intelligence, market sizing using public data. Internal financial analysis belongs to finance; competitive intelligence using public financial data belongs here.
+
+## Domain Definition
+
+Market Intelligence is a system that supports strategic decision-making through the collection, analysis, and interpretation of market data.
+This domain consists of the following four **independent areas**.
+
+| Area | Definition | Basis for Independence |
+|------|-----------|----------------------|
+| Collection | Acquisition of market data, source management, credibility classification | Collection quality determines the upper bound for subsequent analysis |
+| Analysis | Pattern identification, quantitative and qualitative interpretation of collected data | Analysis methodologies evolve independently of collection |
+| Strategy Derivation | Conversion of analysis results into strategy options | Strategy is a separate judgment domain, not a derivative of analysis |
+| Risk Assessment | Identification, quantification, and response design for market risks | **An independent area, not an appendage of strategy design** |
+
+### Independence of Risk Assessment
+
+Risk assessment is performed in parallel with strategy derivation and is not subordinate to strategy. Risk assessment results can modify strategy, but risk assessment remains independently valid even without a strategy.
+
+This independence is enforced by:
+- Separate organizational ownership (risk team vs strategy team)
+- Separate input sources (risk has its own collection paths)
+- Veto authority (risk assessment can block strategy execution)
+- Independent reporting line (risk reports to board, not strategy)
+
+## Classification Axes
+
+| Axis | Values | Description |
+|---|---|---|
+| Source type | Primary / Secondary / Tertiary | Data origin classification |
+| Collection method | Manual / Automated / Crawled / API | How data is acquired |
+| Analysis type | Quantitative / Qualitative / Mixed | Analysis methodology |
+| Strategic horizon | Short-term (<1Y) / Medium-term (1-3Y) / Long-term (>3Y) | Strategy time scope |
+| Risk type | Market / Operational / Strategic / Compliance / Reputational | Risk category |
+
+## Key Sub-Areas
+
+Classification axis: **Market intelligence concern** — Classified by the concern that the intelligence system must address.
+
+Applicability markers:
+- **(required)**: Must be addressed in any market intelligence system review
+- **(when applicable)**: Address when the system's scope includes the relevant pattern
+- **(scale-dependent)**: Becomes required beyond a scale threshold
+
+### Data Collection
+- **Source classification** (required): Credibility rating system, source registration, classification criteria
+- **Collection policy** (required): Frequency, targets, methods declaration
+- **Data freshness** (required): Time-to-live (TTL) per source, expiration handling
+- **Raw data normalization** (required): Format unification, schema mapping, deduplication
+- **Real-time monitoring** (when applicable): Streaming data ingestion, event-driven triggers
+- **OSINT collection** (when applicable): Open-source intelligence methodology, ethical and legal boundaries
+
+### Analysis
+- **Competitive landscape analysis** (required): Competitors identification, capability assessment, strategic positioning
+- **Market size estimation** (required): TAM (Total Addressable Market), SAM (Serviceable Addressable Market), SOM (Serviceable Obtainable Market)
+- **Customer segmentation** (required): Segment definition, classification criteria (MECE), segment characterization
+- **Trend identification** (required): Time-series analysis, signal vs noise distinction, leading indicators
+- **Industry framework analysis** (when applicable): Porter's Five Forces, PESTEL, SWOT, value chain analysis
+- **Quantitative modeling** (when applicable): Statistical models, ML-based prediction, simulation
+- **Sentiment analysis** (when applicable): Social media sentiment, news sentiment, brand perception
+
+### Strategy Derivation
+- **Strategy option generation** (required): Option creation from analysis, divergent thinking phase
+- **Option evaluation matrix** (required): Multi-criteria evaluation (impact, feasibility, cost, time)
+- **Priority determination** (required): Quantitative scoring, ranking logic
+- **Decision gate criteria** (required): Pass conditions for execution approval
+- **Scenario planning** (when applicable): Multiple future scenarios, contingency strategies
+- **Option portfolio management** (when applicable): Strategy portfolio balance (core/adjacent/transformational)
+
+### Risk Assessment
+- **Risk identification** (required): Risk inventory, taxonomy, source identification
+- **Risk quantification** (required): Impact × Likelihood scoring, risk score calculation
+- **Risk response strategy** (required): Avoidance, mitigation, acceptance, transfer (per ISO 31000)
+- **Risk monitoring** (required): Frequency definition, threshold alerts, escalation paths
+- **Risk appetite definition** (when applicable): Organizational risk tolerance levels per category
+- **Stress testing** (when applicable): Extreme scenario simulation, sensitivity analysis
+
+## Normative System Classification
+
+Standards governing market intelligence operate at three tiers (no hard regulatory tier — this is judgment-driven).
+
+| Tier | Name | Enforcement Mechanism | Change Velocity | Examples |
+|------|------|----------------------|-----------------|---------|
+| Tier-1 | Methodology Frameworks | Industry adoption, professional convention | Slow (years) | ISO 31000 Risk Management, Porter's Five Forces, SWOT/TOWS |
+| Tier-2 | Organizational Standards | Internal review, audit | Medium (annual) | Internal credibility rating system, internal decision gate criteria, risk appetite statement |
+| Tier-3 | Project Practices | Per-project decision | Fast (per project) | Specific competitor list, segment definitions for current quarter, ad-hoc analysis approach |
+
+**Ordering principle**: Tier-1 > Tier-2 > Tier-3. Methodology frameworks override organizational standards; organizational standards override project practices.
+
+Tier classification decision tree:
+1. **Tier-1**: Is this rule from an industry methodology (ISO 31000, Porter, PESTEL, SWOT)? Would deviation require explicit justification?
+2. **Tier-2**: If not Tier-1, is this rule from organizational policy (risk appetite, internal credibility rating system)?
+3. **Tier-3**: If neither, is this a project-level decision (competitor list, segment criteria for the current analysis)?
+
+## Cross-Cutting Concerns
+
+### Source Credibility Propagation
+
+Spans Data Collection, Analysis, Strategy Derivation, Risk Assessment. Credibility is established at collection and propagates through the entire chain.
+
+- Credibility rating system: logic_rules.md §Data Source Credibility Rating Consistency Rules
+- Propagation principle (weakest link): logic_rules.md §Credibility Propagation Rules
+- Cross-area consistency: logic_rules.md §ST01-ST03 multi-point matching
+
+### Declaration-Implementation Link
+
+Spans Strategy Derivation and Decision Gates. Every declared rule must have implemented verification logic.
+
+- Decision gate rule: logic_rules.md §Decision Gate Declaration-Implementation Link Rules
+- Verification logic mandatory: PG01-PG03
+- Audit trail for declarations and implementations
+
+### Multi-Domain Coexistence
+
+The market intelligence domain can be applied in parallel with other domains (e.g., technology, healthcare, finance) within the same project.
+
+- Namespace prefixes: `{domain}::{concept}` notation
+- Homonym resolution: concepts.md §Cross-Domain Homonyms
+- Independent decision gates per domain
+
+## Required Concept Categories
+
+| Category | Description | Risk if Missing | Example of Failure |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Source credibility rating | Classification system for data source reliability | Untrusted data treated as authoritative | Blog post used as basis for strategic decision |
+| Collection policy | Declaration of frequency, targets, methods | Uncoordinated collection, gaps and duplicates | Same source crawled by 3 teams; missing critical sources |
+| Data freshness | Time-validity of collected data | Stale data used as current | 2-year-old market sizing used for current strategy |
+| Competitive landscape | Structured competitor analysis | Strategic blind spots | Major competitor missed; strategy attacks weak target |
+| Market size estimation | TAM/SAM/SOM quantification | Unrealistic strategy scope | SaaS company plans for 10x revenue without TAM check |
+| Customer segmentation | MECE customer grouping | Mass-market approach to differentiated needs | Single product strategy fails segments with different requirements |
+| Trend signal | Directional pattern in time series | Reactive instead of proactive strategy | Industry shift detected after revenue decline begins |
+| Strategy option | Actionable strategy candidate | No alternatives, single-track risk | Single strategic bet without backup plans |
+| Decision gate | Verification point for strategy approval | Strategies execute without governance | Risky strategy executed without risk review |
+| Risk factor | Identified market/operational/strategic risk | Unmanaged risk exposure | Foreign exchange risk realizes; no hedging strategy in place |
+| Risk score | Quantified risk impact × likelihood | Subjective risk prioritization | High-impact rare risks ignored due to low frequency |
+| Risk response | Strategy for handling identified risk | Risk identified but not addressed | Risk register exists but no mitigation plans |
+
+## Reference Standards/Frameworks
+
+This file is the **single source of truth for external standard version information** within the market-intelligence domain.
+
+| Standard | Version | Application Area | Core Content |
+|----------|---------|-----------------|--------------|
+| ISO 31000 | 2018 | Risk Assessment | Risk management framework: identification, analysis, evaluation, treatment, monitoring |
+| Porter's Five Forces | 1979 (Porter) | Analysis (industry structure) | 5 competitive forces: rivalry, supplier power, buyer power, substitute threat, new entrant threat |
+| PESTEL | — | Analysis, Risk Assessment (macro environment) | 6 macro factors: Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental, Legal |
+| SWOT / TOWS | — | Strategy Derivation | Internal (Strengths/Weaknesses) × External (Opportunities/Threats) matrix |
+| OSINT Framework | Open-Source Intelligence framework | Data Collection | Open-source intelligence collection methodology and tools taxonomy |
+| Value Chain (Porter) | 1985 (Porter) | Analysis (internal) | Primary activities + support activities decomposition for competitive advantage |
+| Blue Ocean Strategy | 2005 (Kim & Mauborgne) | Strategy Derivation | Uncontested market space creation framework |
+| BCG Matrix | 1970 (Henderson) | Strategy Derivation (portfolio) | Market growth × Market share matrix (Star/Cash Cow/Question Mark/Dog) |
+| Scenario Planning | — | Strategy Derivation | Multiple future scenarios for contingency planning |
+| TAM/SAM/SOM | — | Market Size Estimation | Total/Serviceable Addressable/Serviceable Obtainable Market |
+
+## Bias Detection Criteria
+
+### Coverage Distribution
+
+- If 2 or more of the 4 areas are not represented at all → **insufficient coverage**
+- If specific area accounts for >70% of total findings → **area bias**
+- If risk assessment is treated as subordinate to strategy → **independence violation**
+
+### Source Quality
+
+- If collection policy is undefined or undocumented → **collection rigor absence**
+- If credibility rating is not assigned to all sources → **credibility gap**
+- If only one source type (e.g., only secondary) is used → **source diversity gap**
+
+### Analysis Completeness
+
+- If competitive landscape addresses only direct competitors (no substitutes, new entrants) → **narrow competitive view**
+- If market size uses only TAM without SAM/SOM → **unrealistic sizing**
+- If only quantitative or only qualitative analysis is used → **methodology imbalance**
+
+### Strategy and Risk
+
+- If strategy options have no traceability to analysis → **strategy without basis**
+- If decision gate conditions are declared without verification logic → **declaration-implementation gap**
+- If risk identification covers only one risk type (e.g., only market risk) → **risk type narrow**
+- If risk responses are not defined for all identified risks → **response gap**
+
+## Inter-Document Contract
+
+### Rule Ownership
+
+| Cross-cutting Topic | Owner File | Other Files |
+|---|---|---|
+| Data source credibility rating consistency | logic_rules.md §Data Source Credibility Rating Consistency Rules | structure_spec.md (references) |
+| Decision gate declaration-implementation link | logic_rules.md §Decision Gate Declaration-Implementation Link Rules | dependency_rules.md (references) |
+| Risk independence | logic_rules.md §Risk Assessment Rules | dependency_rules.md §Inter-Area Dependency Structure |
+| Concept definitions and homonyms | concepts.md | All other files reference, do not redefine |
+| Source of Truth priority | dependency_rules.md §Source Credibility Propagation | logic_rules.md (references) |
+| Structural requirements | structure_spec.md §Entity Type Definitions, §Trait Definitions | Other files reference |
+| Conciseness criteria | conciseness_rules.md | Other files reference |
+| Competency questions | competency_qs.md | Other files provide inference path targets |
+
+### Sub-area to CQ Section Mapping
+
+| Sub-area | CQ Sections | Coverage |
+|---|---|---|
+| Data Collection | CQ-DC | Full |
+| Analysis | CQ-AN | Full |
+| Strategy Derivation | CQ-SD | Full |
+| Risk Assessment | CQ-RA | Full |
+
+Cross-cutting CQ sections:
+- CQ-CR (Credibility Propagation) — spans all 4 areas
+- CQ-DI (Declaration-Implementation Link) — spans Strategy Derivation
+- CQ-MD (Multi-Domain Coexistence) — spans all 4 areas
+
+## Related Documents
+- concepts.md — Term definitions and interpretation principles
+- competency_qs.md — System verification questions
+- logic_rules.md — Logic rules and data credibility consistency
+- structure_spec.md — Structural requirements and classification axes
+- dependency_rules.md — Inter-element dependency relationships
+- extension_cases.md — Extension scenarios
+- conciseness_rules.md — Allowed/prohibited redundancy patterns

package/.onto/domains/market-intelligence/extension_cases.md

@@ -0,0 +1,425 @@
+---
+version: 2
+last_updated: "2026-04-16"
+source: manual
+status: established
+---
+
+# Market Intelligence Domain — Extension Scenarios
+
+Classification axis: **Change trigger** — cases classified by the type of change that triggers system evolution. Cases cover growth triggers (Cases 1–8) and shrinkage/simplification triggers (Cases 9–10).
+
+The evolution agent simulates each scenario to verify whether the existing market intelligence system breaks.
+
+---
+
+## Case 1: Adding a New Data Source Type
+
+### Situation
+
+A new data source type not covered by the existing credibility rating system emerges. Examples: AI-generated reports, social media real-time sentiment data, blockchain on-chain analytics, satellite imagery, IoT sensor data.
+
+### Case Study: AI-Generated Report Integration
+
+A market intelligence team began incorporating AI-generated industry reports (e.g., from large language models analyzing public data). Existing credibility rating system has Primary/Secondary/Tertiary, but AI-generated content fits none cleanly:
+- Not Primary (not direct observation)
+- Not Secondary (not human-authored intermediary processing)
+- Not Tertiary (not summary of secondary)
+
+Team added a new rating "AI-Generated" with credibility downgrade applied. Required updates across collection policy, decision gates, analysis pipeline.
+
+### Impact Analysis
+
+| Principle | Impact |
+|---|---|
+| Credibility rating set | New value added to allowed set |
+| Multi-point matching (ST01-ST02) | Must update at all 3 reference points simultaneously |
+| Credibility propagation (TP01) | New rating's relative position determined |
+| Pipeline ingestion | New source type recognition |
+
+### Verification Checklist
+
+- [ ] Has new value been added to credibility rating allowed set? → logic_rules.md §2.1
+- [ ] Following multi-point matching rule, has it been **simultaneously** updated at collection/policy/analysis? → logic_rules.md §ST01-ST02
+- [ ] Are credibility propagation rules defined for the new rating? → dependency_rules.md §4.2
+- [ ] Has competency_qs.md CQ-DC-01 been re-executed to verify consistency? → competency_qs.md
+- [ ] Is the new value validly handled in all entity types declared as application targets? → structure_spec.md §3.1
+
+### Affected Files
+
+| File | Impact | Section |
+|---|---|---|
+| logic_rules.md | Modify | §2 Allowed Set Definition |
+| dependency_rules.md | Verify | §Credibility Propagation Rules |
+| structure_spec.md | Verify | §Trait Definitions (Source Credibility Rating) |
+| concepts.md | Modify | §Source Classification Terms |
+
+---
+
+## Case 2: Adding Decision Gate Conditions
+
+### Situation
+
+New pass conditions added to decision gate due to new regulations, compliance requirements, internal policies, or risk events.
+
+### Case Study: ESG Compliance Gate Addition
+
+After ESG regulations affecting strategic decisions, the team added "ESG impact assessment" as a pass condition for all major strategy options. Required:
+- New condition declaration at decision gate
+- Implementation of ESG assessment verification logic
+- Review of all in-progress strategy options
+
+### Impact Analysis
+
+| Principle | Impact |
+|---|---|
+| Pass condition count | Increased |
+| Verification logic | Must be created simultaneously |
+| Existing strategies | May need re-validation |
+| Declaration-implementation gap | Must avoid creating new gap |
+
+### Verification Checklist
+
+- [ ] Has new condition been added to decision gate's pass condition list? → structure_spec.md §2.3 Pass Condition
+- [ ] Following declaration-implementation link rule, has corresponding verification logic been **immediately** created? → logic_rules.md §PG02
+- [ ] Have existing strategy options whose gate status changes been identified? → dependency_rules.md §3 AC02
+- [ ] Have existing passed strategies been re-evaluated against new condition? → competency_qs.md CQ-SD-04
+
+### Affected Files
+
+| File | Impact | Section |
+|---|---|---|
+| logic_rules.md | Verify | §3 Decision Gate Declaration-Implementation Link Rules |
+| structure_spec.md | Modify | §2.3 Pass Condition entity instances |
+| competency_qs.md | Verify | CQ-SD section, CQ-DI section |
+
+---
+
+## Case 3: Risk Assessment Framework Replacement
+
+### Situation
+
+Switching from current framework to a different framework (e.g., from ISO 31000 to COSO ERM, or to NIST RMF for cybersecurity-heavy contexts).
+
+### Case Study: ISO 31000 → NIST CSF Transition
+
+A company expanding into critical infrastructure adopted NIST Cybersecurity Framework alongside ISO 31000. Required:
+- Risk score calculation formula reconciliation
+- Risk taxonomy mapping
+- Risk Independence preservation across both frameworks
+
+### Impact Analysis
+
+| Principle | Impact |
+|---|---|
+| Risk score formula | May change (e.g., qualitative ratings vs numeric) |
+| Risk type taxonomy | Reclassification needed |
+| Risk independence | Must be preserved regardless of framework |
+| Existing risk register | Migration needed |
+
+### Verification Checklist
+
+- [ ] Is risk score calculation formula updated in logic_rules.md? → logic_rules.md §RA01
+- [ ] Have risk level trait allowed values been updated? → structure_spec.md §3 Trait Definitions
+- [ ] Is risk assessment **independence** maintained regardless of framework change? → logic_rules.md §RA03, §5.2
+- [ ] Have existing risk factor scores been recalculated using new formula? → concepts.md §Risk Quantification Terms
+- [ ] Are framework references updated in domain_scope.md? → domain_scope.md §Reference Standards/Frameworks
+
+### Affected Files
+
+| File | Impact | Section |
+|---|---|---|
+| logic_rules.md | Modify | §5 Risk Assessment Rules |
+| structure_spec.md | Modify | §3 Risk-related traits |
+| domain_scope.md | Modify | §Reference Standards |
+| concepts.md | Modify | §Risk Identification/Quantification/Response Terms |
+
+---
+
+## Case 4: Multi-Domain Simultaneous Analysis
+
+### Situation
+
+Applying market intelligence domain alongside another domain in a single project (e.g., market intelligence + technology trend analysis + regulatory compliance domain).
+
+### Case Study: MI + Technology + Compliance
+
+A pharmaceutical company set up an integrated intelligence system combining:
+- Market intelligence (commercial market analysis)
+- Technology intelligence (R&D and patent landscape)
+- Compliance intelligence (regulatory environment)
+
+Naming conflicts: "Risk", "Trend", "Segment" — different meanings per domain.
+
+### Impact Analysis
+
+| Principle | Impact |
+|---|---|
+| Namespace prefixes | Required across all entities and traits |
+| Homonym registration | All conflicting terms documented |
+| Cross-domain references | `{domain}::{concept}` format mandatory |
+| Decision gates | Each domain operates independent gates |
+
+### Verification Checklist
+
+- [ ] Have domain namespace prefixes been applied to all entities and traits? → structure_spec.md §5.4
+- [ ] Have conflicting terms been registered in concepts.md homonym table? → concepts.md §5
+- [ ] Are cross-domain references using `{domain}::{concept}` format? → domain_scope.md §Multi-Domain Coexistence
+- [ ] If inter-domain dependencies arise, are multi-domain rules from dependency_rules.md applied? → dependency_rules.md §6
+- [ ] Do decision gates for each domain operate independently? → dependency_rules.md §MD03
+
+### Affected Files
+
+| File | Impact | Section |
+|---|---|---|
+| concepts.md | Modify | §5 Cross-Domain Homonyms |
+| dependency_rules.md | Verify | §6 Multi-Domain Dependency Rules |
+| structure_spec.md | Verify | §5.4 Multi-Domain Namespace |
+
+---
+
+## Case 5: Adding Real-Time Monitoring
+
+### Situation
+
+Extending from batch analysis to real-time monitoring (live market data, social sentiment streams, automated alerts on threshold breach).
+
+### Case Study: Social Sentiment Real-Time Pipeline
+
+Existing batch analysis updated daily. New real-time stream integration:
+- Twitter/X API + Reddit firehose
+- Detection latency < 5 minutes
+- Auto-alert on negative sentiment spikes
+- Risk threshold-triggered alerts
+
+### Impact Analysis
+
+| Principle | Impact |
+|---|---|
+| Collection method trait | New value: "streaming" |
+| Freshness criteria | Stricter TTL for real-time |
+| Trend signal detection | Latency attribute added |
+| Risk alert path | Threshold-triggered automation |
+| Multi-point credibility matching | Applies in real-time too |
+
+### Verification Checklist
+
+- [ ] Has collection method trait been added to raw data (batch/streaming/event-driven)? → structure_spec.md §3 Trait Definitions
+- [ ] Have freshness rating criteria been adjusted for real-time data? → logic_rules.md §6 Data Freshness Rules
+- [ ] Has detection latency attribute been added to trend signals? → structure_spec.md §2.2 Trend Signal
+- [ ] Has alert path that **immediately** triggers when risk thresholds exceeded been designed? → logic_rules.md §RA02
+- [ ] Do multi-point credibility rating matching rules apply equally in real-time environment? → logic_rules.md §ST01-ST02
+
+### Affected Files
+
+| File | Impact | Section |
+|---|---|---|
+| structure_spec.md | Modify | §3 Traits, §2.1 Collection entity attributes |
+| logic_rules.md | Modify | §6 Data Freshness Rules, §RA02 |
+| concepts.md | Modify | §Collection Method Terms (Streaming Ingestion) |
+
+---
+
+## Case 6: Classification Axis Refinement
+
+### Situation
+
+Adding a third classification axis to existing 2-axis (entity type, trait) system. Example: "Analysis perspective" — analyzing the same market entity from technical, financial, regulatory perspectives.
+
+### Impact Analysis
+
+| Principle | Impact |
+|---|---|
+| Classification dimensionality | 2 → 3 axes |
+| Orthogonality | New axis must be orthogonal to existing two |
+| Axis mixing prohibition | Applies to new axis as well |
+| Backward compatibility | Existing entities may need new axis assignment |
+
+### Verification Checklist
+
+- [ ] Is new classification axis explicitly declared in structure_spec.md? → structure_spec.md §3
+- [ ] Is new axis orthogonal to existing entity type axis and trait axis? → concepts.md §6.1
+- [ ] Does axis mixing prohibition principle apply to new axis as well? → concepts.md §6.1
+- [ ] Has classification axis separation principle been updated in concepts.md? → concepts.md §6.1
+- [ ] Is new axis value needed for all existing entities? → structure_spec.md §6.1
+
+### Affected Files
+
+| File | Impact | Section |
+|---|---|---|
+| structure_spec.md | Modify | §3 (add new axis), §6 Classification Criteria Design |
+| concepts.md | Modify | §6.1 Classification Axis Separation |
+
+---
+
+## Case 7: Quantitative Analysis Model Integration
+
+### Situation
+
+Integrating quantitative models (statistics, ML, forecasting) for market size estimation, competitive simulation, sentiment analysis, etc.
+
+### Case Study: Forecasting Model Integration
+
+Team integrated time-series forecasting model (ARIMA + LSTM) for market size projection. Required:
+- New entity type: Analysis Model
+- Model output credibility rating logic
+- Model preconditions documentation
+- Decision gate integration
+
+### Impact Analysis
+
+| Principle | Impact |
+|---|---|
+| New entity type | Analysis Model entity added |
+| New relationship | Model Application: model → market/competitor/segment |
+| Model output credibility | Determined by input data + model verification status |
+| Decision gate integration | Model output as verification logic |
+
+### Verification Checklist
+
+- [ ] Has new entity type "Analysis Model" been added (model name, preconditions, input/output definitions)? → structure_spec.md §2.2
+- [ ] Has new relationship type "Model Application" been added (analysis model → market/competitor/segment)? → structure_spec.md §4.1
+- [ ] Is model output credibility determined by input data credibility AND model verification status? → logic_rules.md §7 Credibility Propagation Rules
+- [ ] If model is used as verification logic at decision gate, does it comply with declaration-implementation link rule? → logic_rules.md §PG01
+
+### Affected Files
+
+| File | Impact | Section |
+|---|---|---|
+| structure_spec.md | Modify | §2.2 (add Analysis Model entity), §4.1 (add Model Application relationship) |
+| logic_rules.md | Modify | §7 Credibility Propagation Rules |
+| concepts.md | Modify | §Methodology Terms (Quantitative modeling) |
+
+---
+
+## Case 8: Geographic Scope Expansion
+
+### Situation
+
+Expanding analysis from single-country/region to multi-country/global scope.
+
+### Case Study: APAC Expansion
+
+Team expanded from Korea-only market intelligence to APAC (Korea, Japan, China, SEA). Required:
+- Geographic dimension added
+- Source credibility variations by jurisdiction
+- Risk taxonomy expanded for cross-border risks
+- Cultural/regulatory framework differences
+
+### Impact Analysis
+
+| Principle | Impact |
+|---|---|
+| Market entity scope | Geographic attribute added |
+| Source credibility | May vary by jurisdiction (e.g., government statistics quality varies) |
+| Risk taxonomy | Foreign exchange, geopolitical risks added |
+| Compliance | Multi-jurisdictional regulatory analysis |
+
+### Verification Checklist
+
+- [ ] Has geographic dimension been added to market and competitor entities? → structure_spec.md §2.2
+- [ ] Are source credibility ratings adjusted per jurisdiction? → concepts.md §Source Classification Terms
+- [ ] Has risk taxonomy been expanded for cross-border risks? → concepts.md §Risk Identification Terms
+- [ ] Are jurisdiction-specific regulatory frameworks incorporated? → domain_scope.md §Reference Standards
+
+### Affected Files
+
+| File | Impact | Section |
+|---|---|---|
+| structure_spec.md | Modify | §2.2 Market entity attributes |
+| concepts.md | Modify | §Risk Identification Terms |
+| domain_scope.md | Modify | §Reference Standards |
+
+---
+
+## Case 9: Source Decommissioning
+
+### Situation (Shrinkage)
+
+A previously trusted data source is decommissioned (vendor stops publishing, source becomes paywalled beyond budget, source becomes unreliable).
+
+### Impact Analysis
+
+| Principle | Impact |
+|---|---|
+| Source registry | Decommission with effective date |
+| Historical data | Preserved but marked as no-longer-updating |
+| Analysis dependencies | Identify analyses dependent on decommissioned source |
+| Replacement | Identify alternative sources or accept analytical gap |
+
+### Verification Checklist
+
+- [ ] Is source decommission documented with effective date? → structure_spec.md §2.1
+- [ ] Are dependent analyses identified and re-validated? → dependency_rules.md §7.2
+- [ ] Are alternative sources identified or analytical gaps documented? → concepts.md §Source Classification Terms
+- [ ] Are dependent strategy options re-evaluated for credibility? → logic_rules.md §TP03
+
+---
+
+## Case 10: Methodology Deprecation
+
+### Situation (Shrinkage)
+
+A methodology is deprecated (e.g., a framework is shown to have systematic biases; a model is invalidated by new evidence).
+
+### Impact Analysis
+
+| Principle | Impact |
+|---|---|
+| Methodology registry | Mark as deprecated |
+| Analysis outputs | Mark outputs from deprecated methodology |
+| Re-analysis | Determine if affected analyses need re-execution |
+| Documentation | Document deprecation reason for institutional memory |
+
+### Verification Checklist
+
+- [ ] Is methodology marked as deprecated? → concepts.md §Methodology Terms
+- [ ] Are analysis outputs from deprecated methodology marked? → structure_spec.md §2.2 Analysis Output
+- [ ] Have affected analyses been re-evaluated? → competency_qs.md CQ-AN-04
+- [ ] Has deprecation reason been documented? → extension_cases.md (this file, future cases)
+
+---
+
+## Common Checklist for All Extensions
+
+Confirm the following items in all extension scenarios:
+
+- [ ] Is multi-point credibility rating matching maintained? (logic_rules.md §ST01-ST05)
+- [ ] Has no declaration-implementation gap occurred at decision gates? (logic_rules.md §PG01-PG05)
+- [ ] Are entity type and trait classification axes not mixed? (concepts.md §6.1)
+- [ ] Does the cross-verification of trait application targets and value sets pass? (structure_spec.md §3.1)
+- [ ] Is the independence of risk assessment maintained? (domain_scope.md §Independence of Risk Assessment, logic_rules.md §RA03)
+- [ ] Are there no multi-domain namespace collisions? (structure_spec.md §5.4)
+- [ ] Has no circular dependency occurred? (dependency_rules.md §3)
+- [ ] Do the relevant questions in competency_qs.md pass when re-executed?
+
+---
+
+## Scenario Interconnections
+
+| Scenario | Triggers / Interacts With | Reason |
+|---|---|---|
+| Case 1 (New Source Type) | → Case 5 (Real-Time Monitoring) | New source types often involve real-time data |
+| Case 2 (Decision Gate Condition) | → Case 7 (Quantitative Model) | New conditions often need automated verification via models |
+| Case 3 (Risk Framework) | → Case 8 (Geographic Expansion) | International expansion may require different risk frameworks |
+| Case 4 (Multi-Domain) | → Case 6 (Classification Axis) | Multi-domain may reveal need for additional classification dimensions |
+| Case 5 (Real-Time) | → Case 7 (Quantitative Model) | Real-time data often paired with ML models |
+| Case 6 (Classification Axis) | → Case 4 (Multi-Domain) | Refined classification supports multi-domain coexistence |
+| Case 7 (Quantitative Model) | → Case 2 (Decision Gate) | Models become verification logic for gates |
+| Case 8 (Geographic Expansion) | → Case 1 (New Source Type) | New geographies require new source types |
+| Case 9 (Source Decommissioning) | → Case 1 (New Source Type) | Often triggers search for replacement |
+| Case 10 (Methodology Deprecation) | → Case 7 (Quantitative Model) | Replacement methodology may be a new model |
+
+---
+
+## Related Documents
+
+| Document | Reference Reason |
+|----------|-----------------|
+| [domain_scope.md](domain_scope.md) | Domain definition, independence principles, multi-domain principles |
+| [concepts.md](concepts.md) | Terms, homonyms, classification axis principles |
+| [competency_qs.md](competency_qs.md) | Post-extension verification questions |
+| [logic_rules.md](logic_rules.md) | Credibility rating consistency, decision gate rules |
+| [structure_spec.md](structure_spec.md) | Entity/trait/relationship structure |
+| [dependency_rules.md](dependency_rules.md) | Dependency and impact relationship rules |
+| [conciseness_rules.md](conciseness_rules.md) | Allowed/prohibited redundancy patterns |