8.2 KiB
8.2 KiB
Roleplay → Debate → Synthesis Template
Workflow
Copy this checklist and track your progress:
Roleplay → Debate → Synthesis Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Frame decision and select 2-5 roles
- [ ] Step 2: Roleplay each perspective authentically
- [ ] Step 3: Facilitate structured debate
- [ ] Step 4: Synthesize unified recommendation
- [ ] Step 5: Self-assess with rubric
Step 1: Frame decision and select roles Define the decision question clearly, identify 2-5 stakeholder perspectives with competing interests, and determine what successful synthesis looks like. Use Quick Template structure below.
Step 2: Roleplay each perspective For each role, articulate their position, priorities, concerns, evidence, and vulnerabilities without strawmanning. See Section 2 of template structure.
Step 3: Facilitate structured debate Use debate format (point-counterpoint, devil's advocate, crux-finding) to surface tensions and challenge assumptions. See Section 3 of template structure.
Step 4: Synthesize unified recommendation Integrate insights using synthesis patterns (weighted, sequencing, conditional, hybrid, reframing, or constraint elevation). See Section 4 of template structure and Synthesis Patterns.
Step 5: Self-assess with rubric Validate using rubric: perspective authenticity, debate quality, synthesis coherence, and actionability. Use Quality Checklist before finalizing.
Quick Template
Copy this structure to create your analysis:
# Decision: [Question]
**Date**: [Today's date]
**Decision-maker**: [Who decides]
**Stakes**: [High/Medium/Low - impact and reversibility]
---
## 1. Decision Context
**What we're deciding:**
[Clear statement of the choice - "Should we X?" or "What's the right balance between X and Y?"]
**Why this matters:**
[Business impact, urgency, strategic importance]
**Success criteria for synthesis:**
[What makes this synthesis successful]
**Constraints:**
- [Budget, timeline, requirements, non-negotiables]
**Audience:** [Who needs to approve or act on this decision]
---
## 2. Roles & Perspectives
### Role 1: [Name - e.g., "Engineering Lead" or "Growth Advocate"]
**Position**: [What they believe should be done]
**Priorities**: [What values or goals drive this position]
- [Priority 1]
- [Priority 2]
- [Priority 3]
**Concerns about alternatives**: [What risks or downsides they see]
- [Concern 1]
- [Concern 2]
**Evidence**: [What data, experience, or reasoning supports this view]
- [Evidence 1]
- [Evidence 2]
**Vulnerabilities**: [What uncertainties or limitations they acknowledge]
- [What they're unsure about]
- [What could prove them wrong]
**Success metrics**: [How this role measures success]
---
### Role 2: [Name]
[Same structure as Role 1]
---
### Role 3: [Name] (if applicable)
[Same structure as Role 1]
---
## 3. Debate
### Key Points of Disagreement
**Dimension 1: [e.g., "Timeline - Fast vs. Thorough"]**
- **[Role A]**: [Their position on this dimension]
- **[Role B]**: [Their position on this dimension]
- **Tension**: [Where the conflict lies]
**Dimension 2: [e.g., "Risk Tolerance"]**
- **[Role A]**: [Position]
- **[Role B]**: [Position]
- **Tension**: [Conflict]
### Debate Transcript (Point-Counterpoint)
**[Role A] Opening Case:**
[Their argument for their position - 2-3 paragraphs]
**[Role B] Response:**
[Objections and counterarguments - 2-3 paragraphs]
**[Role A] Rebuttal:**
[Addresses objections - 1-2 paragraphs]
**Cross-examination:**
- **[Role A] to [Role B]**: [Probing question]
- **[Role B]**: [Response]
### Cruxes (What Would Change Minds)
**[Role A] would shift if:**
- [Condition or evidence that would change their position]
**[Role B] would shift if:**
- [Condition or evidence]
### Areas of Agreement
Despite disagreements, roles agree on:
- [Common ground 1]
- [Common ground 2]
---
## 4. Synthesis
### Integration Approach
**Pattern used**: [Weighted Synthesis / Sequencing / Conditional / Hybrid / Reframing / Constraint Elevation]
**Synthesis statement:**
[1-2 paragraphs explaining the unified recommendation that integrates insights from all perspectives]
### What We're Prioritizing
**Primary focus**: [What's being prioritized and why]
- From [Role X]: [What we're adopting from this perspective]
- From [Role Y]: [What we're adopting]
**Secondary considerations**: [How we're addressing other concerns]
- [Role X]'s concern about [issue]: Mitigated by [approach]
### Tradeoffs Accepted
**We're accepting:**
- [Tradeoff 1]
- **Rationale**: [Why this makes sense]
**We're NOT accepting:**
- [What we explicitly decided against]
- **Reason**: [Why rejected]
---
## 5. Recommendation
**Recommended Action:**
[Clear, specific recommendation in 1-2 sentences]
**Rationale:**
[2-3 paragraphs explaining why this synthesis is the best path forward]
**Key factors driving this decision:**
1. [Factor 1 - from which role's perspective]
2. [Factor 2]
3. [Factor 3]
---
## 6. Implementation
**Immediate next steps:**
1. [Action 1] - [Owner] by [Date]
2. [Action 2] - [Owner] by [Date]
3. [Action 3] - [Owner] by [Date]
**Phased approach:** (if using sequencing)
- **Phase 1** ([Timeline]): [What happens first]
- **Phase 2** ([Timeline]): [What happens next]
**Conditional triggers:** (if using conditional strategy)
- **If [condition A]**: [Then do X]
- **If [condition B]**: [Then do Y]
**Success metrics:**
- [Metric 1 - from Role X's perspective]: Target [value] by [date]
- [Metric 2 - from Role Y's perspective]: Target [value] by [date]
**Monitoring plan:**
- **Weekly**: [What we track frequently]
- **Monthly**: [What we review periodically]
---
## 7. Stakeholder Communication
**For [Stakeholder Group A - e.g., Executive Team]:**
- Key message: [1-sentence summary]
- Focus on: [What matters most to them]
**For [Stakeholder Group B - e.g., Engineering Team]:**
- Key message: [1-sentence summary]
- Focus on: [What matters most to them]
---
## 8. Appendix: Assumptions & Uncertainties
**Key assumptions:**
1. [Assumption 1]
- **Confidence**: High / Medium / Low
- **Impact if wrong**: [What happens]
**Unresolved uncertainties:**
- [Uncertainty 1]: [How we'll handle this]
**What would change our mind:**
- [Condition or evidence that would trigger reconsideration]
Synthesis Patterns
1. Weighted Synthesis
"Prioritize X, while incorporating safeguards for Y"
- Example: "Ship fast (PM), with feature flags and monitoring (Engineer)"
2. Sequencing
"First X, then Y"
- Example: "Launch MVP (Growth), then invest in quality (Engineering) if PMF proven"
3. Conditional Strategy
"If A, do X; if B, do Y"
- Example: "If >10K users in Q1, scale; otherwise pivot"
4. Hybrid Approach
"Combine elements of multiple perspectives"
- Example: "Build core in-house (control) but buy peripherals (speed)"
5. Reframing
"Debate reveals real question is Z, not X vs Y"
- Example: "Pricing debate reveals we need to segment customers first"
6. Constraint Elevation
"Identify binding constraint all perspectives agree on"
- Example: "Both agree eng capacity is bottleneck; hire first"
Quality Checklist
Before finalizing, verify:
Roleplay quality:
- Each role has clear position, priorities, concerns, evidence
- Perspectives feel authentic (not strawmen)
- Vulnerabilities acknowledged
- Success metrics defined for each role
Debate quality:
- Key disagreements surfaced on 3-5 dimensions
- Perspectives directly engage (not talking past each other)
- Cruxes identified (what would change minds)
- Areas of agreement noted
Synthesis quality:
- Clear integration approach (weighted/sequencing/conditional/hybrid/reframe/constraint)
- All roles' concerns addressed (not dismissed)
- Tradeoffs explicit (what we're accepting and why)
- Recommendation is unified and coherent
- Actionable next steps with owners and dates
Communication quality:
- Tailored for different stakeholders
- Key messages clear (1-sentence summaries)
- Emphasis appropriate for audience
Integrity:
- Assumptions stated explicitly
- Uncertainties acknowledged
- "What would change our mind" conditions specified
- No perspective dismissed without engagement