# Advanced Roleplay → Debate → Synthesis Methodology

## Workflow

Copy this checklist for advanced techniques:

```
Advanced Facilitation Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Map stakeholder landscape and power dynamics
- [ ] Step 2: Design multi-round debate structure
- [ ] Step 3: Facilitate with anti-pattern awareness
- [ ] Step 4: Synthesize under uncertainty and constraints
- [ ] Step 5: Adapt communication for different audiences
```

**Step 1: Map stakeholder landscape**
Identify all stakeholders, map influence and interest, understand power dynamics and coalitions, determine who must be represented in the debate. See [1. Stakeholder Mapping](#1-stakeholder-mapping) for power-interest matrix and role selection strategy.

**Step 2: Design multi-round structure**
Plan debate rounds (diverge, converge, iterate), allocate time appropriately, choose debate formats for each round, set decision criteria upfront. See [2. Multi-Round Debate Structure](#2-multi-round-debate-structure) for three-round framework and time management.

**Step 3: Facilitate with anti-pattern awareness**
Recognize when debates go wrong (premature consensus, dominance, false dichotomies), intervene with techniques to surface genuine tensions, ensure all perspectives get authentic hearing. See [3. Facilitation Anti-Patterns](#3-facilitation-anti-patterns) for common failures and interventions.

**Step 4: Synthesize under uncertainty**
Handle incomplete information, conflicting evidence, and irreducible disagreement. Use conditional strategies and monitoring plans. See [4. Synthesis Under Uncertainty](#4-synthesis-under-uncertainty) for approaches when evidence is incomplete.

**Step 5: Adapt communication**
Tailor synthesis narrative for technical, executive, and operational audiences. Emphasize different aspects for different stakeholders. See [5. Audience-Perspective Adaptation](#5-audience-perspective-adaptation) for stakeholder-specific messaging.

---

## 1. Stakeholder Mapping

### Power-Interest Matrix

**High Power, High Interest** → **Manage Closely**
- Must be represented in debate
- Concerns must be addressed
- Examples: Executive sponsor, Product owner, Key customer

**High Power, Low Interest** → **Keep Satisfied**
- Consult but may not need full representation
- Examples: CFO (if not budget owner), Adjacent VP, Legal

**Low Power, High Interest** → **Keep Informed**
- Valuable input, may aggregate into broader role
- Examples: End users, Support team, Implementation team

**Low Power, Low Interest** → **Monitor**
- Don't need direct representation

### Role Selection Strategy

**Must include:**
- Primary decision-maker or proxy
- Implementation owner
- Resource controller (budget, people, time)
- Risk owner

**Should include:**
- Key affected stakeholders (customer, user)
- Domain expert
- Devil's advocate

**Aggregation when >5 stakeholders:**
- Combine similar perspectives into archetype roles
- Rotate roles across debate rounds
- Focus on distinct viewpoints, not individuals

### Coalition Identification

**Common coalitions:**
- **Revenue**: Sales, Marketing, Growth → prioritize growth
- **Quality**: Engineering, Support, Brand → prioritize quality
- **Efficiency**: Finance, Operations → prioritize cost
- **Innovation**: R&D, Product, Strategy → prioritize new capabilities

**Why matters**: Coalitions amplify perspectives. Synthesis must address coalition concerns, not just individual roles.

---

## 2. Multi-Round Debate Structure

### Three-Round Framework

**Round 1: Diverge (30-45 min)**
- **Goal**: Surface all perspectives
- **Format**: Sequential roleplay (no interruption)
- **Outcome**: Clear understanding of each position

**Round 2: Engage (45-60 min)**
- **Goal**: Surface tensions, challenge assumptions, identify cruxes
- **Format**: Point-counterpoint or constructive confrontation
- **Facilitation**: Direct traffic, push for specifics, surface cruxes, note agreements

**Round 3: Converge (30-45 min)**
- **Goal**: Build unified recommendation
- **Format**: Collaborative synthesis
- **Facilitation**: Propose patterns, test against roles, refine, check coherence

### Adaptive Structures

**Two-round** (simpler decisions): Roleplay+Debate → Synthesis

**Four-round** (complex decisions): Positions → Challenge → Refine → Synthesize

**Iterative**: Initial synthesis → Test → Refine → Repeat

---

## 3. Facilitation Anti-Patterns

### Premature Consensus
**Symptoms**: Roles agree quickly without genuine debate
**Fix**: Play devil's advocate, test with edge cases, give permission to disagree

### Dominant Voice
**Symptoms**: One role speaks 70%+ of time, others defer
**Fix**: Explicit turn-taking, direct questions to quieter roles, affirm contributions

### Talking Past Each Other
**Symptoms**: Roles make points but don't engage
**Fix**: Make dimensions explicit, force direct engagement, summarize and redirect

### False Dichotomies
**Symptoms**: "Either X or we fail"
**Fix**: Challenge dichotomy, explore spectrum, introduce alternatives, reframe

### Appeal to Authority
**Symptoms**: "CEO wants X, so we do X"
**Fix**: Ask for underlying reasoning, question applicability, examine evidence

### Strawman Arguments
**Symptoms**: Weak versions of opposing views
**Fix**: Steelman request, direct to role for their articulation, empathy prompt

### Analysis Paralysis
**Symptoms**: "Need more data" endlessly
**Fix**: Set decision deadline, clarify decision criteria, good-enough threshold

---

## 4. Synthesis Under Uncertainty

### When Evidence is Incomplete

**Conditional strategy with learning triggers:**
- "Start with X. Monitor [metric]. If [threshold] not met by [date], switch to Y."

**Reversible vs. irreversible:**
- Choose reversible option first
- Example: "Buy SaaS (reversible). Only build custom if SaaS proves inadequate after 6 months."

**Small bets and experiments:**
- Run pilots before full commitment
- Example: "Test feature with 10% users. Rollout to 100% only if retention improves >5%."

**Information value calculation:**
- Is value of additional information worth the delay?

### When Roles Fundamentally Disagree

**Disagree and commit:**
- Make decision, all commit to making it work
- Document disagreement for learning

**Escalate to decision-maker:**
- Present both perspectives clearly
- Let higher authority break tie

**Parallel paths** (if resources allow):
- Pursue both approaches simultaneously
- Let data decide which to scale

**Defer decision:**
- Explicitly choose to wait
- Set conditions for revisiting

### When Constraints Shift Mid-Debate

**Revisit assumptions:**
- Which roles' positions change given new constraint?

**Re-prioritize:**
- Given new constraint, what's binding now?

**Scope reduction:**
- What can we cut to stay within constraints?

**Challenge the constraint:**
- Is the new constraint real or negotiable?

---

## 5. Audience-Perspective Adaptation

### For Executives
**Focus**: Strategic impact, ROI, risk, competitive positioning
- Bottom-line recommendation (1 sentence)
- Strategic rationale (2-3 bullets)
- Financial impact (costs, benefits, ROI)
- Risk summary (top 2 risks + mitigations)
- Competitive implications

**Format**: 1-page executive summary

### For Technical Teams
**Focus**: Implementation feasibility, technical tradeoffs, timeline, resources
- Technical approach (how)
- Architecture decisions and rationale
- Resource requirements (people, time, tools)
- Technical risks and mitigation
- Success metrics (technical KPIs)

**Format**: 2-3 page technical brief

### For Operational Teams
**Focus**: Customer impact, ease of execution, support burden, messaging
- Customer value proposition
- Operational changes (what changes for them)
- Training and enablement needs
- Support implications
- Timeline and rollout plan

**Format**: Operational guide

---

## 6. Advanced Debate Formats

### Socratic Dialogue
**Purpose**: Deep exploration through questioning
**Method**: One role (Socrates) asks probing questions, other responds
**Questions**: "What do you mean by [term]?", "Why is that important?", "What if opposite were true?"

### Steelman Debate
**Purpose**: Understand deeply before challenging
**Method**: Role B steelmans Role A's argument (stronger than A did), then challenges
**Why works**: Forces genuine understanding, surfaces real strengths

### Pre-Mortem Debate
**Purpose**: Surface risks and failure modes
**Method**: Assume decision X failed. Each role explains why from their perspective
**Repeat for each alternative**

### Fishbowl Debate
**Purpose**: Represent multiple layers (decision-makers + affected parties)
**Format**: Inner circle debates, outer circle observes, pause periodically for outer circle input

### Delphi Method
**Purpose**: Aggregate expert opinions without groupthink
**Format**: Round 1 (anonymous positions) → Share → Round 2 (revise) → Repeat until convergence

---

## 7. Complex Synthesis Patterns

### Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)

**When**: Multiple competing criteria, can't integrate narratively

**Method**:
1. Identify criteria (from role perspectives): Cost, Speed, Quality, Risk, Customer Impact
2. Weight criteria (based on priorities): Sum to 100%
3. Score alternatives (1-5 scale per criterion)
4. Calculate weighted scores
5. Sensitivity analysis on weights

### Pareto Frontier Analysis

**When**: Two competing objectives with tradeoff curve

**Method**:
1. Plot alternatives on two dimensions (e.g., Cost vs Quality)
2. Identify Pareto frontier (non-dominated alternatives)
3. Choose based on priorities

### Real Options Analysis

**When**: Decision can be staged with learning opportunities

**Method**:
1. Identify decision points (Now: invest $X, Later: decide based on results)
2. Map scenarios and outcomes
3. Calculate option value (flexibility value - upfront commitment value)

---

## 8. Facilitation Best Practices

### Reading the Room

**Verbal cues:**
- Hesitation: "Well, I guess..." (not convinced)
- Qualifiers: "Maybe", "Possibly" (hedging)
- Repetition: Saying same point multiple times (not feeling heard)

**Facilitation responses:**
- Check in: "I sense hesitation. Can you say more?"
- Affirm: "I hear X is important. Let's address that."
- Give space: "Let's pause and hear from [quieter person]."

### Managing Conflict

**Productive** (encourage):
- Disagreement on ideas (not people)
- Specificity, evidence-based, openness to changing mind

**Unproductive** (intervene):
- Personal attacks, generalizations, dismissiveness, stonewalling

**Interventions**: Reframe (focus on idea), ground in evidence, seek understanding, take break

### Building Toward Synthesis

**Incremental agreement**: Note areas of agreement as they emerge

**Trial balloons**: Float potential synthesis ideas early, gauge reactions

**Role-checking**: Test synthesis against each role iteratively

### Closing the Debate

**Signals**: Positions clear, tensions explored, cruxes identified, repetition, time pressure

**Transition**: "We've heard all perspectives. Now let's build unified recommendation."

**Final check**: "Can everyone live with this?" "What would make this 10% better for each of you?"

---

## 9. Case Studies

For detailed worked examples showing stakeholder mapping, multi-round debates, and complex synthesis:

- [Monolith vs Microservices](examples/methodology/case-study-monolith-microservices.md) - Engineering team debate
- [Market Entry Decision](examples/methodology/case-study-market-entry.md) - Executive team with 5 stakeholders
- [Pricing Model Debate](examples/methodology/case-study-pricing-model.md) - Customer segmentation synthesis

---

## Summary

**Key principles:**

1. **Map the landscape**: Understand stakeholders, power dynamics, coalitions before designing debate

2. **Structure for depth**: Multiple rounds allow positions to evolve as understanding deepens

3. **Recognize anti-patterns**: Premature consensus, dominant voice, talking past, false dichotomies, appeal to authority, strawmen, analysis paralysis

4. **Synthesize under uncertainty**: Conditional strategies, reversible decisions, small bets, monitoring plans

5. **Adapt communication**: Tailor for executives (strategic), technical teams (implementation), operational teams (execution)

6. **Master advanced formats**: Socratic dialogue, steelman, pre-mortem, fishbowl, Delphi for different contexts

7. **Facilitate skillfully**: Read the room, manage conflict productively, build incremental agreement, know when to close

**The best synthesis** integrates insights from all perspectives, addresses real concerns, makes tradeoffs explicit, and results in a decision better than any single viewpoint alone.
